He gives us children . . . to dream

Fabulous idea to end the school year with a Play. The kids loved it. I had to have a few boys play Mama each week and it was a blast, my favorite part.

The story line is pretty good. I'm shocked at how many versions there are. How many times producers changed her work, how many times she changed her work. I just can't really see that being productive to something you (and the world) considers such a masterpiece. I guess the world of performance is a different one.

Poor Walter, I really feel for him. Donovan played the most convincing Walter -- cruel, animal like, pathetic, and decent. When watching the 1963 movie you really see how crucial Ruth is to the plot line. I like her role. And Mama, how can you not love Mama while all the while wishing she'd just stop meddlin with everyone else. She is so well intentioned, but you can't help but notice that if she'd butt out and let her children lead their own lives every problem would just go away. New ones would arrive of course, probably worse ones. But at least they'd be problems the characters created on their own.

Asagai is adorable, but what I want is the sequel that talks about how shocked and disappointed she was with her move to Africa. At least, that is my understanding of that whole movement to return to the homeland during the 60s. That novel truly would be interesting.

The Night is darker, and brighter, each time.

I love teaching this novel. It's been a few months since I read it. I'm glad I read it with the other two parts of his trilogy. It is definitely the best of the three. So much emotion packed into so few words.

If you have not read this, you must. It is hands down the BEST holocaust work you will ever come across. I don't get why Anne Frank is so popular, this is the real thing. All that fiction coming out now . . . bleh . . . this is the real thing.

His writing is so fascinating. It's at it's best in this novel. His struggle with God, his father, the physical need to survive . . . all are so amazing. The themes in this novel only get better with each read. This last one made read #4 for me (plus the fact that I've read it 5 times -- for each class -- on read #4 and 3 times -- for each class -- for read #3. Pretty much, I love it. Love reading it; love teaching it.

A true classic

Ummm, such a good one. I seriously love it more and more each time I read it. I don't even think this book ever has to compete to make it onto top 50 lists. Romantically timeless, wonderfully witty writing: Jane Austen was brilliant. Anyone who hasn't read this is seriously missing out. There is a reason hundreds of movies and books have been written based on this story.

Darcy really is such a dream. Elizabeth gets a little more annoying with each read, but she'll never reach the pains of Emma. Ughhhh, I think I need to try Sense and Sensibility or Mansfield Park. I don't doubt Austen deserves two slots on my final list, but Emma will not be the one to do it.

Anyway, I should say more about this one, but I really can't. It's perfect. In all ways it is perfect. That's all that can be said. It only took me about three sittings in less than a week to get through this. Such a perfect little pleasure.

Life is a farm

I love love love teaching this. All my students got into this. Even the ones with the lowest reading level. It isn't my personal favorite, but as far as teaching goes, I think I would dub it fav.

This book brings up the richest discussion topics. Students become so invested in the characters I think they forget they are animals. Which, is part of the brilliant point. I can really say with confidence, that I think Orwell is one of the greatest writers of all time. I hate to say he, Dickens, and Tolstoy are the top three (all white, all male, pretty lame), but that's truly how I feel.

The most striking part, when Pilkington congratulates Napoleon for having his lowest animals work the hardest and receive the least amount of food. Sweet Miko pointed out that this political theory is how the good ol USofA was built. We are a nation built on that exact same concept.

Pigs.

Sensing a theme

So I must read things in pairs. Of my last 7 books, two were from the Great Depression Era, two about slavery in the early Americas, and three fictions from WWII aftermath.










I've been wanting to read these two for like 12 years now. I love love love Night. I think it is one of the greatest novels ever, and since the three are a series I figured these two would also be memoirs. Turns out they are not, which is kind of weird. But the author's note on Dawn mentions he always wondered if he had left the camps and went to Palestine instead of France, this would have happened. Which is why the books are fascinating. I always read stuff about the Holocaust but you never really get to look into how the survivors lives after the Holocaust were affected.

The philosophy he explores is pretty fascinating. I don't think I fully understood it, as I'm sure it's impossible for anyone to fully understand what a Holocaust survivor who feels responsible for letting his father die just two days before freedom can feel.

Apparently many of the details in Day are factual. Which I love because it makes me think he and his wife had such a fantastic relationship and after you spend so much time not being able to love yourself, you deserve someone who loves you like she did. Her recent translation of Night is my personal favorite. Partly, just because I think it is endearing that she bothered to translate it at all. What's strange to me is that he never translated them (or, why he'd write them in French anyway . . . he speaks fine English).

Anyway, I'm not really discussing the books much here, cause as I said I didn't really get them. Plus I read them almost two weeks ago and they are so short I just whizzed through them. They are worth reading. I just don't really see how they are a series though.

Beauty in the darkness of the past

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is such a wonderful book. It is such a shame more people haven't read it. This is one I think I could teach every year for the rest of my life and never tire of it. Sadly, I know if I tried I'd eventually run into opposition from parents. I heard of a teacher being fired over teaching this.

Such a shame. How can people turn their backs to the events Angelou speaks of. Sure the sexual abuse is heartbreaking, but it's real. It's a true story, and it happens to so many women. Plus, I felt the way she tells the story is so fascinating. She tells it just as a 7-year-old would have experienced it. Especially an 7-year-old who had never been hugged. Who had faced years of abandonment from her parents. The guilt Maya feels after word was so frustrating for some of my students, but again her descriptions are so marvelous. You see right into the mind of a confused victim.

As she grows older her descriptions and her vocabulary matures. I doubt she even noticed the voice change. I also doubt she planned it. Such a testament to the wonderful writer she is. The sexual identity chapter is the only one I feel parents really have the right to question. But isn't it so much better that their children experience their introduction to these things through the power of words rather than the glorification of Hollywood and the media. I feel like if anything, this opens up the need for good communication skills between parents and children.

Maya's story needs to be told. Her experiences need to be talked about. Of course, the book should be read with caution, but if you are so close-minded you can't find beauty in her life and in her prose you are sheltered passed the point of damage control.

I found this jewel at the Gettysburg gift shop. I'd never heard of it. But it's the nature of the beast, I'm drawn to tragedy. The amazing part is that she admits to keeping some of the most heinous abuses towards her out. I can't even imagine.

We as humans really are a disappointing species. How sick was Ms Bellmont? How could she reason with any of her treatments of Harriet? And those Bellmont men, to allow such to happen in their home. They really are just as guilty. It is sickening.

Nothing I've read so far beats Fredrick Douglass' slave narrative. But I'm still so grateful books like this are republished after years of being lost.

Technically . . .

I didn't read these ones per say, but I did/am teaching them so here are my thoughts.

I'm not really surprised I hated/didn't get this in high school, but I am surprised that even when I tried to re-read it this summer I still couldn't get through it. After picking up the story through discussion with my students I have realized what a masterpiece it really is. Plus, I rented to movie and then I really saw the beauty.

We had some great discussions on whether or not George did the right thing, how times were different back then wha da wha da wha da. I wish I loved reading the story as much as I love the actual story, but I just don't. So if you're like me and you can't get through the book, go check out the 1995? version of the movie. 90 something anyway. It is excellente!
Now this one, I love. I could read Sharon Draper all day and all night. She is such a page turner, even for adults. And as a teacher I really love how character rich her stories are. You can tell she use to be a teacher, she totally writes books that are perfect for teaching (especially Urban kids). Anyway, it's a 300 pager so I actually read it on tape. First time I've ever done that. It was kind of nice. I'm sure it took thrice as long to get through, but at least it was while I was in the car, multitasking!

I'm still in the process of teaching this one. We've just barely left Africa with Amari. My students are totally depressed by it, but I know Draper did her research and the account of slave trading really is accurate. Unfortunately for my students, it is just going to get more depressing. At least half of them have already finished it. Little Anna told me she was reading it by flashlight when her mom thought she was already asleep. She shouted out in anger and her mom came rushing in to see what her nightmare was about. Ah, to be a teen again.

Seriously, go check this one out of your local library. NOW!

The Bell Jar Life

How to begin? First, I can't believe I went SOOO long without reading a book. That last one must have been really bad, to put me off to reading for so long. Shame. But this, this one was a perfect way to get back into the groove.

I feel reviewing this book will open up too many of my own thoughts, and reveal too much of my own personal life. As much as I want to write my own Bell Jar, I'm not quite ready and I'm unsure what will come out in this post. But here goes . . .

I guess I'll start with how disappointed I was by some of the reviews on Goodreads.com. As I read the book I was floored by the time periods medical professionals' ideas about mental illnesses and treatments used for certain disorders. How on earth are shocks of electricity that knock you out cold going to suddenly cheer up your spirits when you regain consciousness? As I read this novel, I realized how wonderfully advanced modern medicine has turly become. As I read reviews on goodreads I was saddened by how little people's understanding of mental illnesses have progressed.

As I read this novel, I saw it all. I saw the happiness Esther felt. The pride she had in her bold, somewhat cynical and witty personality. A strong independent woman, a likely heroine of many great novels. I saw her mind become discombobulated. I saw her sadness control her in the most uncontrolable ways. I felt her desire to slap herself out of that slump, only to wind up desperate on the bathroom floor, and later awakened in the asylum. It was all too easy to understand and empathize.

That's the tricky thing about mental illness. So many have suffered from bouts of depression, I dare say . . . everyone who has ever lived knows what it is like to lift themselves out of the dumps. So I can see why it is so easy for those billions of people to wonder why those of us who suffer from depression can't pick ourselves up out of those slumps.

The other day my co-workers were talking about the pain of a charlie horse. I mentioned I thought I'd had one a time or two before. Emily and Amanda both assured me that if I couldn't pin point the exact when, what, and where, of a former charlie horse, if I simply thought I'd had one but didn't know for sure I'd experienced it . . . I had never had a charlie horse. They were very convincing. I've decided I suffered serious muscle cramps, but never a charlie horse.

Same for depression. We can all think of times we were in pain, the kind of pain we didn't want to get out of bed for. But unless you can really pinpoint a time you were beyond help, a time there was truly nothing you could do to stop yourself from your own suffering, than you have not suffered from the powers of depression. That's why all those reviews on goodreads, and all the ones flooding the papers shortly after Plath's novel debut are so devastating.

If you have ever wondered what life trapped behind a bell jar might be like. Read this book. If you finish, and feel that Plath was just a whiny, priviliged girl . . . you have learned nothing and can never understand the suffering we go through.

Anna Karenina (again)

It happened, I waited too long after I'd finished the book to write my thoughts on Anna and Levin. It's only been about 5 days but I still feel like I can't capture all the emotions and thoughts they stirred up in my soul. I feel like I've parted from dear friends, ones who's impression has been left so profoundly on my soul, but who's memory will eventually fade. And sadly, I can't call them up on the phone and reminisce or reignite. But nevertheless I will try my best to recall my memories of them. I've been listening to a podcast on the book, I even read an essay from Oprah's book club. And I'll re-read what I wrote prior to this. I remember purposely writing about many events of the book in the previous post, so that when I got to Anna and Levin I could just analyze them and not what roles they play in everyone else's lives.

Levin
As I said previously, at the beginning of the book he is so socially awkward. And you pity his inability to discuss things close to his heart with those around him. Politically he has very differing views from most the other players in the novel and as a reader you love to hear what he has to say in regards to education and equal rights but he just always comes off wrong to everyone in the room. And then of course your heart breaks for him when Kitty turns him down. So you begin with this real sympathy for him.

Then we have this scene which all readers either loathe or love. Levin goes back to his farm and dives right into the work. Rather than just being the master of what takes place on his farm he actually puts on the dirty clothes and works hand in hand with the muzhik peasantry. Part Three of the novel is filled with pages and pages of Levin taking the scythe and mowing his massive grounds. It's comical as we realize a very old man can work harder and faster than Levin. Not because Levin is weak, but rather because the peasants are raised for this kind of labor and Levin was not. Levin spends two full days with the peasants. He even sleeps in the sheds with them. Even so he cannot tell you whether he loves or doesn't love them. So he remains conflicted in his political ideals of giving the peasants equal opportunities. Which is an interesting contrast with Vronksy, who we never see really working with the lower class, rather we just see him giving them great lip service and pleading for their equality -- perhaps knowing he won't have to deal with the effects of their education. As where I believe Levin really loves the lower class, especially the ruler of his house Agafya, but Levin understands the difficulty that will come as the peasants are educated. He recognizes the fact that this change will cause a revolution and totally remap Russian politics. Which we all know it did -- Communism.

So where many people complain about Levin's obsession with the country, even his own brother Sergei who is staying with him the days Levin abandons the house and picks up the scythe, and others see Levin as hard hearted for not seeking to educate his hired help. I prefer Levin's approach to the poor even more than I do Vronsky's. I don't believe Levin would ever try to stop the education of his laborers. I wouldn't even be surprised to see him offer them books and help them read, I think he is just weary of the consequences which will come when this minority (which is actually the majority) begins to want a better life, which will be the inevitable result of education. I don't think Levin cares about his status in society -- he even wishes it could be more natural for a man such as himself to work in the fields. So it's not that he likes these social barriers, I think he is just uncertain of how hard the will fall when the collapse. Something Vronsky doesn't concern himself with. Educate whoever would like so long as I can stay rich and live my upper class life seems to be his motto.


Though I start to fall in love with Levin while he is working the farm (country girl in me can't help it). I really get a sense of who he is during his short courting of Kitty. He continually gives her ways out. Fearing she doesn't really love him and not wanting to trap her into a second choice marriage he often tells her to call the whole thing off and leave. Though I do describe him as "pity" at the beginning of the novel. These moments are not at all a pity party he is throwing for himself. He is truly convinced he is not worthy of Kitty and he thinks her a fool for settling for him. I love that about him. That is how all men should feel about their brides. Kitty of course reassures him she loves him (after a little panicking herself) and with a little delay the two are married.

By this time in the novel I'm beginning to wonder if Levin isn't Toltstoy. Levin is so opinionated, those ideals must be rooted in the author? And though he is insecure he is so strong and likable, which I believe is the way many of us would try to present ourselves. So with a little research I learn, yes Levin is Tolstoy. The wedding day delay (not packing his proper shirt) the death of his brother, all these things are parallels to Tolstoy's life. Hmmmm....fascinating. I'm beginning to fall in love with Tolstoy.

I've already told you of my favorite Levin moment in Kitty's passages. So I shall skip a head to that pivotal moment when Levin, Kitty, and everyone else who has bombarded them at the country estate move to Moscow so Kitty can give birth with a Doctor and hospital cares near by. Levin is so at a loss in the city. He is not like Stiva and Vronsky. He doesn't go drinking or reveal in socializing. He loves his ideals and loves to share them but whenever he presents what he believes men seem to laugh at him. He really struggles in the city. There is also that desire to avoid Vronsky at all costs, which is so difficult considering they share a brother-in-law and inevitably share the same social scene. So after Kitty finally has her run in with Vronsky, and she admits there was a rush to the head at the beginning, she also confesses there are no feelings left for him -- now Levin doesn't have to avoid Vronsky so much. He can go out for drinks and political candor without so great a hesitation. Even though he doesn't like these things he does as all men should and goes to some sort of voting thing for the county in which his country estate belongs.

Here he avoids his own peers as Vronsky seems to be at their table, but eventually is sucked in by his brother and his in-laws. He is pleased that association with Vronsky isn't that difficult. He's just as awkward with Vronsky as he is with most men. But the two are both polite to one an other. And eventually, after several drinks, Stiva even convinces Levin to go visit Anna before he heads home. Levin agrees and I'm just shouting "You fool." What a terrible idea. Kitty is going to be so hurt and upset. But Levin almost feels as though he is doing his new friend Vronsky and his brother-in-law Stiva a favor by accompanying Stiva to see Anna.

I really should re-read this scene because it is SOOOO profound. Essentially Anna charms even Levin with her beautiful appearance. But it isn't even her looks that really captivates him. Rather he desires desperately to understand her feelings and emotions. She is so sweet and kind but he knows the battle within her our fierce. She is an outcast in a society she once thrived on. She's abandoned a happy life for her one true love. And Levin fears that even Vronsky doesn't understand her and satisfy her inner soul. Anna of course knows she has this way with men. At one point in the novel we are told she tries to make every man she meets fall in love with her. And though I've heard some argue Levin does fall in love with her I don't buy it. Had she asked him to take her to her room Levin would have turned her down. Maybe years from now when I re-read the novel I will look at this scene differently. But I read Levin's impressions of Anna as so natural. She's like the workers he wishes he could be. He wants to understand her and be her friend but he recognizes his place in society prohibits him from getting too close to her.

As he arrives home he is bombarded with a couple of notes, one from his sister asking for money to bail her out of her financial griefs and one about the selling of his hay. He takes care of his business and then attends to his wife. Right away she sees that he has been "bewitched" by something. He tries to hide his excitement and act casually as he tells her about his meeting with Anna but Kitty knows without a doubt that she charmed him. And the best part is Levin doesn't deny it. His heart did race as he gazed into her gorgeous eyes and luxurious smile, but in the end he only felt pity for her for being trapped in such a horrible situation. His desire to understand her did come as a result of her good looks, but also out of curiosity about the whole affair. He pleas for Kitty's forgiveness and both recognize the city has had a bad impact on their marriage. Kitty just wants to have her baby and return to their farm house.

And at 5:00 the next morning she begins to have their baby. This whole scene is told to us through Levin and I love that. It's not at all like the movies, but you do get an idea of what a man goes through when his wife is in labor pains. He really believe she's dying cause he's never heard her scream like that. And then when he sees his son he has as great a spiritual moment as when his brother died. He even recalls the events of his brothers death (worth noting that, that is when Kitty got pregnant, while they were attending to his dying brother). And now Levin who has no faith in God recognizes there has to be something . . .

And I believe we don't see Levin again until he is back in the country and his son is several months old. He is still fighting this conversion that is stirring in his soul. But before I tell you about his struggle and his solution I must go onto Anna.

Anna
My favorite line in the novel is when Vronsky realizes Anna is a flower. One of the most beautiful creatures he has ever seen. So mesmerizing he had to bend down and pick her. And as a result she is dying. I often thought that is all I will have to say to analyze Anna. It is so profound!

At the beginning of the novel, when Vronsky meets her, she is gorgeous and strong, the definite hero of the novel. Even the days after he picks her, her beauty remains. She's taken from the soil of an unhappy marriage and safe guarded by a cup of water. But eventually Vronsky's cup runs low and there is nothing he can do to save his lovely Anna. It surprised even myself that I began to loathe Anna in the middle of the novel. I wanted her to be the hero, and not that a hero couldn't have a struggle or a rough patch. But I just didn't want her to find happiness. And I hated that about myself. Who was I to say a woman shouldn't be happy when she leaves her husband for her true love. I thought I'd admired her decision to fight society and follow her heart. What I hated about her is that she couldn't accept the consequences of her decision. I realize she was so in love and it must have all happened so fast that she hadn't taken into consideration all the changes her affair with Vronsky would bring. But she was so willing to live her son and honeymoon with Vronsky in France and Italy, by nature I believed that running away did forfeit her right to have custody of her son. But suddenly she is so torn she can't even love Vronsky cause he took her from her son? No sweety, you left your son behind for a few months of vacation and sex. And the child you had to bring -- you never even watched over or cared for. You just carted her, the nanny, and the wet nurse around out of obligation. I can approve of changing your life for love. But if by the time this change comes you already have two children, you don't get to have the honeymoon a young single girl in love (such as Kitty) gets to have. Face the facts. And then once that honeymoon is over you don't get to hate your former husband from keeping your son from you. You left your husband and son without so much as an explanation. Of course they don't have to jump at your beckon call.

Like I said, I hated her for her selfishness. And I hated her for making me feel so ill toward her.

But Anna is the beautiful girl who always gets what she wants. Even when her desires continue to make her more unhappy. She sees her son on his birthday, just destroying his confusion about why she left and further damaging his reasoning about what has happened between her and his father. She goes out in society with a friend and is humiliated in a theatre box. She's then mad at Vronsky for this humiliation even though he begged her not to go. Knowing full well that she would be shunned and ridiculed. She wanted to prove some sort of point by going out without him. And she of course had to chat with the young man in the box next to hers. As a result his wife told Anna what she thinks of her. To which Anna just sobs and yells at Vronsky, who's just rushed to the theatre to save her, it's all his fault -- he let society shame her like that. Brother woman, get real.

After this humiliation she and Vronsky make for the country. Where Dolly visits and through Dolly's visit we come to believe Anna may finally be happy. She doesn't love her daughter, that is more than obvious. And that just fuels the fire that makes me dislike Anna. But through Dolly's eyes you really pity Anna and once again feel guilty for never having liked her. You see that Anna is just like any other woman. Anna wanted the love of her soul mate, Vronsky. So she ran away after it. Anna wants the comfort of a good female friend like Dolly. She's ecstatic this sister-in-law has arrived. But Dolly can't take the grandeur of their country house for more than one day. We see that Anna and Vronsky have thrown around money to try to replace their status in high society. They have all the nicest things in all of Europe. And though this fascinates Dolly she is quick to leave it all behind and return to her comfort zone with Kitty and Levin.

Oh, the best part about Dolly's trip to Anna is that the character Levin threw out of his house is now staying with Vronsky and Anna. And just as he did in the Levin household, he hits on the lady of the house here as well. And Vronsky of course is flattered by it and Anna reveals in it. Yuck. But perfect resemblance of their differences.

I guess it is here in the country that I really begin to be frustrated with Anna. I can't hate her anymore cause those feelings cost myself too much grief. So now I become frustrated with her. Dolly has extended the hand of friendship, something Anna recognizes she needs so badly. But Anna does very little to keep it. Sure she avoids talking about herself too much. But she never returns the favor of visiting Dolly when they all end up in Moscow together. Rather when they go to Moscow Anna just locks herself up in her house and becomes so angry with Vronsky. He can go out on nights like the voting and gamble and drink with his friends. You can tell she hates him for taking her away from her son (a choice she so clearly made all on her own). She hates him for getting long well in the society that has rejected her. She doesn't even bother to see all the Vronsky has sacrificed for their love. He essentially has no heir. Any child she bears with him belongs to Karenin. And yes, he too suffers the effects of society. His own mother practically despises him. Men like Levin avoid him. He suffers all the things Anna does. But rather than stay at home and mope about it he goes out and lives life. He's given up his career in the army and settled in the country, something he would have never done if it wasn't something Anna had asked of him. He stops courting women, but because he maintains friendships with his bachelor friends Anna is obsessed with the idea that he is cheating on her.

She does nothing healthy. She just sits at home and brews over all the things she and Vronsky can fight over. She constantly brings up the things she despises in him to try and get him to prove how much he loves her. She, like Levin once was, is convinced her partner has settled and is unhappy. She offers him ways out, but unlike Levin it's not sincere, it's a trap. If he takes the out she'll kill herself (she doesn't tell him that but I'm sure he knows). And even he doesn't take the out she'll just continue to make his life miserable by constantly fighting with him.

It's so frustrating. I just want to shake her, give her some meds, make her love her daughter, make her leave her house and visit Dolly. All these remedies (except for the meds) are all around her and she doesn't seek after any of them. Instead she turns to drugs (opium and something else I can't recall). Oh, she is so frustrating. I no longer hate her, I pity her. Something all the major characters in the book feel for her. And I don't want to join them, I want to help her, but I can't. All I can do is pity her and watch her throw her life away.

Which she does. Vronsky stops trying to prove his love to her. He's learned that when she yells and screams yelling back does no good. He's learned chasing after her and making love to her as a means of forgiveness also does no good. So finally, he tries ignoring her. A natural progression on his part. And as s result she goes hysterical. Not in front of him of course. He's left the house now and off to run his errands. Now, finally, she runs to Dolly. A good move on her part. But on finding Kitty at Dolly's house she automatically gets all evil and evil. Rather than pour her heart out to Dolly which would have served her well she gets mad at Dolly for tending to her own little sister as Kitty is ill. And then she has the gall to get mad at Kitty for not coming and greeting her. Well, excuse me Anna, Kitty can hardly stand . . . and yes, you did steal her boyfriend once upon a time. She's over it now cause her life has been much happier as a result, and yours is obviously destroyed . . . but you can't really blame Kitty for not jumping at the joy of your presence. And then when Kitty finally does come to greet you. How do you behave. You actually think to yourself, "I could have stole her husband from her too." What a wicked wicked woman! I wish she had tried, right then and there. I dare you Anna, go to the farm and woo Levin. See how far that gets you.

That's thing about women like Anna. They don't even recognize the poison that destroys them. Her desire to make every man fall in love with her is what got her into this whole mess. Her lack of female friendships is what is leaving her empty and alone on days like today. Don't seek to destroy Kitty . . . you already have once. Give Dolly the half hour she needs to prepare for your visit and then crash in her arms. Sobbing over all your griefs. I promise, it will do you well.

But no, she just gets back on her carriage and decides to chase after Vronsky. Sure to find him in an affair. The carriage ride is so comical. Everywhere Anna looks she sees people that just disgust her. She can find no beauty anywhere. The flower who once thrived on the glory of the forest is now suffocating so grotesquely that everything around her is vile. I guess because it lives. While she is dying she can't stand to see things go on and live. Doesn't the world revolve around me? I think what Anna really saw in all those people as she rode home and then to the train station was the ugliness she was finally seeing in herself. She curses Vronsky's mother for not being able to be happy for her sons happiness. What kind of mother distances herself from a son merely because he's found happiness in a way unfit for her. Well Anna, you. You're that mother! I've often believed that the things we dislike in others are commonly the things we can't see in ourselves. Anna's moment of judgement and rath toward every human she sees is exactly that.

So she arrives at the train station. She's given the second note from Vronsky, which pretty much says, sorry . . . but I really can't run home. I want to but I'm already in the middle of these errands, I'll be there as soon as I can.

And that's it. That's the straw. She throws herself down on the tracks. And dies just as that man did on the first day she met Vronsky. She does it all to try and prove to him how much he loves her. How much he'll miss her. I don't even acknowledge the fact that she crossed herself and asked Gods forgiveness as the train ran her over. I know it's significant, but I guess I'm just too close-minded to suicide to even care.

Anna's last act was the most selfish one she made throughout the whole novel.

And I love that the next chapter takes us ahead 2 months, and is spoken by Levin's brother Sergei, a character of little to no importance and of no relation to Anna. Perfect, just perfect. As Countess Vronsky tells Sergei, "No, whatever you say, she was a bad woman. Well, what are these desperate passions! It's all to prove something special. So she proved it. Ruined herself and two fine men." (Part 8 chp 4). She ruined even more than that. Two beautiful children. And her impact stretches to all the people who will now come close to those two fine men and two beautiful children. She did prove it. She got what she wanted. Vronsky wept over her body, and she wasn't even there to see it. Stiva and his family are of course affected. Anna you selfish brat, your proved your point and destroyed the hearts of many while you were at it.

Fortunately, I don't agree that she was a bad woman. And of course I don't hate anyone and everyone who thinks about or even commits suicide. I sympathize with them and what they are giong through. I didn't dismiss Anna's behavior near the end as her "going mad" as so many readers. Instead I recognized in Anna a bit of myself. That self that is thrown so far into the pits of depression I can't find my way out or think clearly. And I do think many people get to that point where they can't climb their own way out. But that's why there are good women and friends in the world like Dolly. And compassionate spouses like Kitty and Vronsky. And lovely servants like Annushka. Anna had people to turn to for help. Anna had other options. Anna chose her fate and though God may forgive her and I too must. I cannot, cannot think what she did was heroic.

That's right, in my reading and studying of this novel I've heard many people confirm her a hero. Or rather an anti-hero. Which I guess is a real literary term/device. And they refer to Levin as the whimp. As we learn in part 8 Levin and Anna were perhaps kindred spirits. In his search for God he ponders suicide and her go at suicide she finds God. One reader said Anna had the courage to face death while Levin did not. Oh contrair. Levin had the courage to face life and his responsibilities wrought on by his own choices and actions. Anna wasn't nearly so brave. Levin, like Anna, hated the impact society had on him. He didn't enjoy the company of his million visitors and he was strained by his sister's plea for money and burdened by the Oblonsky's waste of their own. But rather than kill himself and say do what you want with my money he stuck it out. He rescued his sister and Stiva's whole family. He loved his wife and son and saught answers to the thoughts that plagued him.

Anna was the coward. She couldn't even begin to try to make the best out of the situation she brought upon herself. She couldn't even decide to love Vronsky unconditionally as Levin did Kitty. Instead she sought to torture and destroy him. And she did. She succeeded. His daughter went to her first husband. His estate I'm sure was surrendered to his mother. And he gave his life and body to the war, he headed off to his own sure death, because when Anna died she took all he loved with her. Not just Anna herself, but their daughter and his new career. She ruined him. He'd sacrificed everything and even that wasn't enough for her. She had to make him as unhappy as she was.

Oh Anna. If only she could have accepted and loved herself, then maybe she could have loved others as Varenka, Dolly and Kitty did.

Anna Karenina

How do I even begin to review the best book ever written? I kept thinking, as I was reading, I should blog about this, I should blog about that. But I just didn't want to put any of my thoughts together until I understood the book as a whole. And now I just wished I could remember EXACTLY how I felt about each of the characters at the beginning. Oh well,

WARNING: This will be very long and will contain spoilers.

To start, let me just say Tolstoy is brilliant. A book about just Anna and Vronsky would still be read today, a book about just Levin and Kitty would have been famous forever, and even a book about Dolly and Stiva would have been fabulous, but that he wrote a book about all of them, with 16 other important characters, is just BRILLIANT! Which makes me believe some of the discussions I've read on line about this book, that it's not a story about characters, but rather about technique, or Russia some may argue, or love, death, and society. And it all just leaves me so boggled. What is it that makes it so great, is it the psycho-analysis of the 7 major characters? Is it the bold uncovering of such huge literary themes? Is it the overall comment on life and how real it all is? Is it the sweat, tears, and style he poured into the novel? What is it? And still I can't decide. So to help me analyze the novel I am going to delve into the heart and soul of each of the 7 major characters. Though I like the themes presented in the novel more than the characters themselves (with the exception of Levin), I feel like the characters are the gateway to those themes. So by analyzing them I may further understand those ideals . . . may? Well, you are welcome to come with me on this journey.

I'll start with Karenin. Oh Alexei, he is probably the character we see into the least, he or Stiva. The only really intimate chapters with Karenin are those on his wife's death bed. Where, though he was just thinking about how much he despises and hates her, he grants her forgiveness. He seems to have this truly Christian moment where he understands and empathizes the pains of another. If only we had seen more of that. Rather at the beginning of the novel we see him as a distant, unloving husband and father. So involved with society and it's ills.

The moments after his heart is touched by something unfathomable even to him, this forgiveness, he even loves and cares for the child his wife has delivered via another man's sperm. He, not Vronsky or Anna, is the one that sees to the child's needs and health. He is the one to hold her when she cries. And because of this I shouldn't resent the fact that in the end, he is the steward over the child. But for some reason I just think that he took Annie out of spite. Spiteful revenge for Vronsky. The forgiving Karenin would have given the girl and his own son to their mother, offered the divorce, and wished her well in her new marriage.

So what made him revert back to the cold hearted Karenin, perhaps an even worse version of his previous self. Ugh, Countess Lydia Ivanova. The woman, who because her marriage is a ruin, takes joy in the ruin of others. The woman who excites in the conversion of Karenin only to offer him her interpretations of Christianity and make him more evil than the non-believer. Ugh. The part where these two characters and that crazy French guy have Stiva over for dinner, to discuss whether or not the divorce can be granted just disgusts me. Ugh.

Karenin, you could have been such a magnanimous character (I use the word my translators continually used) but instead you are just as cruel and worthless as . . . uh . . . well . . . maybe not as bad as Stiva . . . maybe not as good as Vronsky, but you could have been better than Vronsky, and you blew it!

Ugh.

So who is this Stiva character I detest so much? Hmm, will I analyze him or his wife first. Let me come back to you on that one.

Darya Oblonskaya, there were moments I thought you were such a blubbering fool. And then moments I just pitied you. And then still, moments I loved you and saw bits of my self in you. Darya, or Dolly rather, plays a more minor role in the novel, but she is the character that has a connection with all the other characters. And the book does in fact start with her and her husband Stiva. We meet this couple during a very rough patch in their marriage. After being together for, I don't like, 10 years and rearing 5 children (I hesitate to say together, cause really Dolly did it all on her own), the couple finds themselves at a crossroad. The fault is all Stiva's and the outcome is all up to Dolly. Will she leave him for his amorous affair with their governess? Though she thinks she should, the idea burdens her. What of the children? And her financial state? And her name in society? Oh, what oh what to do?

Well, this is where we meet Anna, Stiva's sister, who comforts Dolly in this awful time and convinces her to stay with Stiva. Anna believes he is terribly sorry and it can't possibly happen again.

So when it does, happen again that is, you want to be like 'come on Dolly, leave the bum.' But she doesn't. Instead, she realizes, after having one more of his children, that it's just to unfeasible. She's going to stay the course and make the best of it. Oh, foolish woman. You see such a contrast between her and Anna. Dolly, who just sticks with society and what it expects of her, and Anna, who laughs in societies face and follows her heart. And sadly in the end, which has more happiness. . . . Dolly. It really shouldn't be that way. But it is.

So I've explained to you the fool, the pity. What of the moments I see even some of myself in this seemingly idiotic/fake woman. Well, on her carriage ride to Anna's and during her stay at Anna's Dolly becomes so real to the reader. As she drives to Anna's she thinks of how she should be more like Anna and start her own elicit affair with some young, single man. She even thinks of a few who she knows would have her. She complains of her chores as a mother and worries over the poor finances her husband keeps. Don't we all have moments like that, where we think the grass is always greener. But during her one day stay with Anna she misses her children terribly and realizes being their mother and provider is the greatest task she could have. She becomes grateful that she chose to breast feed her children rather than have wet nurses and nannies as Anna does. She even begins to realize that an affair would only cause more problems in her marriage. Though it might be a great way to get even with her husband, she sees that it would ruin her children and therefor her own happiness. She begins to seem more level headed and good hearted. She comes to Anna in her time of need, cause Anna was there for her during hers. And though she realizes her life isn't nearly as great as she would have liked (or as great as her younger sister Kitty's is) it really isn't half bad. And she just has to play with the cards dealt her without cheating anyone at the table.

So though I mostly credit her as a fool for staying with such a disgusting man, I also admire her. I once thought she fakes her happy life, but I think even she started to realize that maybe her life had some of its own happiness in it after all.

Now, before I move on to the disgusting man, her husband, I would like to compare, maybe contrast really, her and Karenin. The unfortunate spouses of the Arkadiv sibblings. Both had spouses cheat on them, and though immediately they both had different reactions, they eventually came to the same conclusion. But those conclusions were acted out in very different ways by the Arkadiv spouses. Let me explain, at first Dolly wanted a divorce, Karenin wanted to pretend like he didn't know about it and brush it under the rug. Eventually both realize their spouses are adultorurs that can't be stopped and both agree to go on as if they are in a perfectly happy marriage. Whereas Dolly seems to succeed in making society (even the closest of her relations) believe she has a happy marriage. Karenin can't even get his wife to agree to only sleep with her lover at his house, and never under Karenin's roof. Dolly probably figures everyone in society knows her husband sleeps around and she doesn't let it bother her. While Karenin does everything he can to make society believe nothing is going on between his wife and Vronsky, and once he realizes everyone knows it racks all corners of his soul. And eventually ruins him, not just in society, but even in the confines of his own home. The man gets to the point where he can't even make a decision by himself. But I've already analyzed him, back to Dolly. The fact is, she just doesn't let her husbands loose lips affect her soul and spirituality. She goes on finding pleasures in her children and her sister's and parent's life. Not that I admire her for staying in a bad relationship, but there is much to be said about making the best out of it. Though, if she had any brains she'd have stopped baring him children. Maybe they didn't know about STD's back then.

So onto the carrier of STD's. Stepan Arkadyich Oblonsky, known to all as Stiva. And truly, known by all. That's what just kills me about this character, everyone likes him. Even his wife, who he practically steals from and does cheat on (numerous times) admits to loving him. Even Karenin, who tries to end ties to this brother-in-law when his sister leaves him, still dines at his house and helps him seek higher career goals. Which -- he is by no means worthy of. But that's just the thing, don't we all know Stiva's? Men who you just pity the fool who married him. Men who do no work but are paid a high salary. There are so many of these men, all around us. And rather than love and bond with his poor wife, you find yourself chatting up a storm with him over some costly drinks. Rather than try and get him removed from his post you help him with the work he is too incompetent to do himself. Just cause, he's Stiva. And everyone loves Stiva.

Even I, who have ranted and raved about how grotesque he is, cannot find fault in him at the end of the novel. I wanted to be able to blame everything on him (for meddling in others business), but I couldn't. Not even his wife's sufferings are wholly his fault. And his children seem to find happiness and success even with out him. Nothing seems the worse for him having existed. But oh how I wanted to spite him, and couldn't.

That's really all I have to say about him. It's not worth my time to digest his soul and inner mind. I'd rather move onto the novels most important and intriguing characters. But I may have to wait until tomorrow for that. It's already taken me four different sittings to get this far. I have a house to clean and lessons to plan. So I will continue to brew over the lives of Vronsky and Anna and Kitty and Levin and report to you at some later time.

*Hits the 'save now' button*

Well I regretted all night and most of this morning that I didn't just finish my analysis while I had everything stirring in my head. But I guess I'm glad I read a few more discussions on goodreads.com before I've began to reminisce about Kitty and Vronsky.

I'll start with Vronsky, who strangely enough is also given Alexei as a first time. But he's rarely referred to as that, but rather Count Vronsky or just Vronsky. We first meet him as he is a suitor to Kitty. And really, when I think about it, though he is a pivatal character in the book I can't recall a single chapter where Tolstoy let's us into his thoughts. We do get a glimpse of his thoughts here and there at the beginning and towards the end. But I don't know that an entire chapter is just him, as it is so for many others. As I was thinking about him last night I thought I could describe him here today as flat. But he is definitely not that.

As I said, at the beginning we meet him as a very able and dersired bachelor. Stiva infroms Levin that Vronsky is his only competition. But still, Stiva assures Levin that he is the one for Kitty, her sister, Dolly, even feels it. So Levin goes to the Shcherbatsky house with the most confidence we probably ever see in him (which is still very little) and proposes to Kitty. Who tells him "it cannot be." And right then and there he knows this Vronsky character is the reason why. In fear of meeting Vronsky he tries to rush out of the house as quickly as he can. But at the door they meet, and Vronsky convinces Levin to stay. Interested to meet this man, Levin agrees. And makes a fool of himself. Which reminds me, that at the beginning I probably found (I did, I did find him, I just hate to admit it so I say probably) found Vronsky much more charming. And therefore in my mind he was automatically set up as the good looking, athletic male character. Which he remained throughout the novel.

But then there is a ball. And anyone whose ever read an 19th century book knows what trouble a ball can be. Vronsky once agains courts Kitty. But as is politically correct, they do not dance every dance together. So he meets and asks this Anna woman, the Shcherbatsky's sister-in-law to dance with him. And then it's all down hill from there. Poor Kitty, turns down many suitors for the last dance, as she is sure she will dance it with Vronsky, they always do. But five songs before this final dance she realizes her courtship with Vronsky is over. And the next chapter is the first glimpse into Vronsky's head. He admits, though he courted Kitty, he never intended to marry her.

Let's take ourselves to 1870's, Russia. Or anywhere in Europe, practically the whole world for that matter. You do not go each night to an elligible young ladies house, take her for walks during the day, and dance at each ball with her unless you intend to ask for her hand in marriage. In fact, I would argue that even today a young man should not spend so much of his free time with a woman unless he intends to at least date her. Isn't that the counsel Elder Oaks gave us several years ago? So I would argue that Vronsky was in the wrong all along and he knew it. He just didn't care to fix it.

And clearly he was in the wrong when he made his next few choices. To get on a train to Petersburg and follow Anna to her home. *Oh, interjection into all these thoughts. Anna and Vronsky didn't meet at the ball. They met at the train station, where he picked up his mother and Stiva picked up Anna. Annna and Countess Vronsky had ridden together and fell in love with each other. And at first sight Anna had a soft spot in her heart for her son, Vronsky, cause he gave some poor woman whose husband had just been ran over by the train 200 roubles. An act he obviously did to try and impress Anna, so my quesiton is, was that before or after we meet him at Kitty's house. I think after, let me check.

Yup, it was after Kitty's house, but before the ball. Vronsky and Anna obviously had a love at first sight moment, which we witness through Anna. She is flattered but she definitely thinks of the love of her husband and son back home in Petersburg. She is presented as a strong and steady character.

Back to Vronsky's choices. He follows Anna back to Petersburg and right there at the station, where she meets her husband and son, Vronsky casually walks by as if he is there by chance. He spends the next couple of weeks getting to know all of Anna's society friends, so as to be around her every chance he gets. Grrrrrrrrr. Anna tells him from the get go that his being in Petersburg is inappropriate and the reader has much hope to see her stay steady and strong. But you just know, you just know that is not how it is going to be and sure enough . . . a couple hundred pages in she's pregnant with Vronsky's child.

There love, I can't critique it to harshly. Anna and Karenin do share a love, Vronsky and Anna are in love. It's wreckless and passionate. And though I don't condone affairs, I took into consideration the time and the fact that Anna married an old man when she was young, without much courtship and I give her the benefit of doubt. I wonder if this is why Tolstoy doesn't go into Vronsky's head much, cause he wants you to understand the affair from Anna's perspective. Soon however, we do realize that the Vronsky who coulnd't possibly imagine him self married, ever, when he is courting Kitty, realizes that he could marry and spend his life with Anna. He could give up his bachelor ways and care for this woman he loves with all his heart.

And that's where I will end my thoughts on Vronsky. I'd rather save his outcome for my analysis of Anna.

So onto Kitty Shcherbatsky, Katerina actually, but we call her Kitty. I was surprised to find on goodreads that some readers enjoyed Kitty's character most. I guess I thought she was kind of like Vronsky, important but flat. So I thought more about Kitty and her character and I came to conclude. She definitely has the most beautiful changes and growth out of all the characters. I knew that as I read, but I guess I didn't really appreciate them as much cause they weren't as in your face as Levin and Anna's were. Kitty starts out young and single. Caught between two men. Both of whom she loves. Levin is a long time family friend, she grew up with him and loved him, but before she was ready to marry he left. And then enters Vronsky. So when she's of marrying age Levin comes back and she knows why, but she is torn. And she does what any of us would do. She turns him down. I never despised that about her, her choice made sense. And her choice made Vronsky's leaving her that much harder. During the time of Levin's proprosal she expected Vronsky to proprose as well. So when he ran off to the city, after a married woman Kitty was left heartbroken. And not just becuase he decieved her. But becasue of his deciet she turned down another man that she also loved. So in a matter of days she went from having two wonderful courtors to nothing. At the beginning of the novel you spend much time pitying her. Not quite the same pity you have for Levin, but small amounts of pity till . . . therefore you automatically hope for them to end up together. But for the most part it doesn't look like it will be so. Levin is too proud and hurt to meet Kitty again and she is a product of her time and can't go chasing after him. Plus, I always figured that if they did end up together their marriage would somehow be ruined. But Levin's feelings of being second choice. Or another affair with Vronsky, or a terrible death or something. I just felt in my soul that happiness couldn't be for them.

After months of illness (heart break really) a doctor finally tells Prince and Princess Shcherbatsky that they must take Kitty away. Now really, think about it. That is the best remedy for a broken heart. In fact I have often suggested it for my friends (and really even tried it myself a couple times). Get out of town, move away, see the world. Forget about these men.

And so we begin to see Kitty's growth. At a German spa she meets and befriends Varenka, a sweet little Russian girl who aids in the conversion of Kitty. Though Kitty had always been reared in Christian ways, Varenka teaches her how to be truly Christian. She dives right into the act of helping others, but her good looks and high society kind of hinder her (or rather, others misinterput her intent because of these traits) and she evnetually has to find balance in her new found faith and her current life.

After this trip abroad I don't think we really see Kitty again, until about 1/2 into the book (by which time you've really given up on the idea of her and Levin). Kitty is coming to dine at Dolly (her sister's) house and Stiva has invited Levin. The two are in the same room for the first time since the proprosal, it's probably been at least a year. But it's obvious that Levin quickly forgets his pains and falls in love with Kitty all over again. He doesn't dare propose again so instead they play word games in the which they discuss their feelings for one another. Levin is reassured she'll say yes and the next day everything is decided. They are married only a few weeks later. D

During their engagement Levin has bits of panic where he thinks she can't possibly love him, but she always reassures him she does. They immediately move to the country where Levin lives best, even though it is hard for Kitty to leave her family, she insists she wants to go. There she falls even more in love with him and they seem to have a great marriage as newlyweds. Soon Levin's sick brother is said to be dying and he is called to his bed side. Levin wants to go alone and is even upset by the fact that Kitty wants to come, merely to support Levin. But she wins the arguement and here we see Kitty at her greatest. Levin's brother Nikolai hasn't led a very virtuous wife and both men worry what will happen when Kitty and Kikolai's long time "whore" (I gather) meet one another. Kitty shocks even the Masha (the whore) when the two women finally meet. Kitty does not judge or condem her. Kitty merely helps Masha and Levin in nursing Nikolai back into health. Not much health really, just enough help to live 10 more day and die a little more content. Kitty really is the Savior in the whole scene with Nikolai, not just for Levin - who finds the death of his brother very difficult, but also for Nikolai.


I'll spoil the happy ending here. Kitty gives birth to a healthy baby boy. And she and Levin do have a wonderful marriage. I feared it could not be, but pleased to find it was. One last note about Kitty. She plays a great hostess to Dolly, Dolly's umpteen children, and the two sister's parents. It is obvious Levin prefers and empty house but Kitty takes care of her family when in time of need. She also, despite a rough start, warms the heart of Agafya Mikhailovna, Levin's head housekeeper. The winning over of Agafya just shows me how wonderful Kitty really must be.

But what I really wanted to get to when I began that last paragraph was Vasenka Veslovsky. Veslovsky is a guest at the Levin house as a result of the evil Stiva. Veslovsky is much more like Stiva then Levin. He lavishes attention on Kitty. Constantly taking and kissing her hand, causing her to laugh at his light hearted jokes. He even follows her around the dinner table at once, always wanted to be alone with her while in a roomful of people. This behavior of course causes jealousies in Levin. When he and Kitty first discuss it Levin decides he has been too hard on Vasenka and offers to take him hunting. There the two men bond and Levin feels bad about his previous ill feelings. But when the men return to the house, Veslovsky continues to dote on Kitty while Levin is across the room. The couple once again finds themselves discussing these behaviors and in tears Kitty confesses she wishes this guest (and many of the others) had never come and destroyed their happy honeymoon stage. So it is with her permission that Levin throws the man out. The other guests, Stiva in particular, think this reaction is so ridiculous. But despite Stiva and Veslovsky's pleas (Stiva even tries to convince Levin he should be flattered another man would court his wife) Levin sends him away, not in a carriage, but on top of a pile of hay. So unlike Levin to send someone (other than a servant or farm help) from his house in this manner. Possibly my favorite moment in the entire novel.

Alright, after going at this for hours again tonight. I realize I will have to reserve Levin and Anna for tomorrow. I think I'll go ahead and post this cause it's already MONSTOROUS! I hate to wait any longer to write down my thoughts on the novels co-protaginists. Goodreads had a link to an article comparing the two that I thought would be supre interesting and another link to a podcast discussion of the novel. So I guess I'll have to check those two things out tomorrow as a refresher before I begin my final conclusions of Anna Arkadyevna and Konstatin Levin.

Emma, the original Bella

It took me a while to get through this one, and I'm not sure why. Generally speaking, I liked it. I just kept reading so many other books while I was trying to get through this one. Austen's writing is always wonderful. But Emma herself, not so enjoyable. B-R-A-T. I've never met a "heroine" who was so selfish . . . wait, wait, Emma is the original Bella! All the boys like her and I just can't figure out why. She thinks she is better than almost all the women in the story. Which, considering the time, there was quiet a caste system. And that is one of the things that really annoys me about this book. Harriet, her sweet friend who never does anything wrong, other than heed Emma's advice, finally gets her happy ending, no thanks to Emma. And now the two of them can't be friends. Even though their husbands associate with one another through business and the two of them have spent most the novel together. But Harriet married into her social status, and Emma into hers and now they have to quit socializing together. That is so bizarre to me. I just don't understand the time period or their way of thinking.

For example, if I had lived back then I think I would have ended up married to Eric Hintze in the 6th grade. Because the first time a boy ever tells you he has feelings for you, the next thing you discuss is when you are going to get married. It's so crazy to me. You can flirt and associate publicly with any and as many boys as you desire. But once you speak one on one with a male it's over. He is inevitably going to propose to you.

I felt like Austen started the book off with too many characters. There was so much to keep track of. And I wasn't even sure why half of them were of any importance to the novel. But in the end I guess they all come together nicely and each has it's purpose. Austen is really good at making that one character you just laugh at every time they speak, cause they are so ridiculous and . . . you know someone just like them. Oh Mrs Elton.

Most likely, this one won't end up on my best 50 books ever list. Maybe it would make the 100, but not 50. I'm not opposed to having Austen on their twice, just not with this one.

I grew up in a small village.

I don't think I've ever been so excited to finish a book. Not that it was bad, it just felt like I read three or four books because there were so many stories within the story. Some were more compelling than others. The ending was disturbing, even more so than Grapes of Wrath. Which says a lot. Although, I have to give Aureliano and Amanarta Ursula credit, they weren't 100% sure they were related, so they weren't fully aware of how disgusting their affair was. And I have to admit I saw it coming, since incest was Ursula's biggest fear.

I liked the story theme that history is forgotten, almost even erased. I still think the banana rebellion was a bit of a stretch. There's no way a town wouldn't notice the murder of 3,000 people. But I guess the point is that if a government is evil enough they can cover it up. Pretty amazing.

Overall, the book was a bit graphic for me. And I'm not excited to read his next one. But I do see why this was on my list of 50 greatest books. The sentences are flawless, even in translation. The story is compelling, even if it feels a bit rushed. I'd never want to teach this, not even in AP. I just felt like there was so much there that I didn't understand. Thank you sparknotes for helping me get through it.

Now about the title of this post. I do think this book was trying to prove something about the isolation of a small village, and I didn't really get what. Some people left the village and came back so it wasn't all that terribly isolated. Maybe it was trying to prove the crab bucket theory. Like I said, I'm just not sure I understood everything that was going on in this novel.

Authors of my 50 greatst novels

So I've been thinking a lot about how most the authors on my list of 50 greatest authors are native English speakers and it really disturbs me. So I've set out to read a lot more African novels. I looked for Asian ones but it was kind of hard. You might say it bias just cause I speak English but I figure any work of literature that is really considered great would have been translated into English. Which, about 12 of the authors are from countries where the most spoken language is not English, so I'm guessing those books were translated. Anyway, to let you know what the list looks like . . .
There are 14 British authors with 18 books
12 American authors with 14 books, two of which are African American
1 Columbian (the only S. American) with 2 books
2 Irish
1 Spanish
4 Russians, unless you count Ukraine, then there is 5, with 7 books
1 German
3 French
1 Japanese
1 Austrian

So there you have it, the many countries of my list. The list I come up with should be a lot more diverse. Keep your fingers crossed that I can finish all my reading by age 35. Maybe I'll give myself 5 years of "other country reading" and wait to publish my list at 40.

My Dear Friend Tess

I finally finished Tess of the D'Urbervilles. I was almost done when I left my book at my friend Marie's house. I had to wait a whole week to finish the final chapters. When I turned the last page I think I said to myself (out loud, cause I do talk to myself) "Good job Mr. Hardy!" It was such a great read. I was told the basic plot before I began reading it. I knew it was about a girl who was raped, then fell in love, and when she told her new love about her past he left her. But there were still plenty of surprises. Parts that actually made me gasp, grunt, and laugh out loud. I only had about 15 pages left to read today, but those last 15 pages just totally shocked and thrilled me. I really think the story line is fabulous. And I can't help but wonder if it wasn't a little before it's time. It just seems like most Romantic/Victorian novels I've read in the past are nothing like this one. Yet the writing really puts it in its time. Easy to read, beautiful prose.

My favorite such prose is found on page 100 of Volume II, just after Angel St Clare finds out about her past. The narrator says, "With all his attempted independence of judgment this advanced and well-meaning young man, a sample product of the last five-and-twenty years, was yet the slave to custom and conventionality when surprised back into his early teachings. . . In considering what Tess was not, he overlooked what she was, and forgot that the defective can be more than the entire." It also goes on to say that no prophet had told him (or anyone for that matter) that Tess's rape was not her sin. It just kills me that during that time period rape really was considered the sin of an innocent woman. Just blows my mind. Especially because Angel confesses to having spent a night himself with another woman, this confession relieves Tess and so she tells him about the situation with her monstrous cousin, Alec D'Urberville, and Clare packs up and leaves her! It just flabbergasts me.

But the ending even flabbergasts me more than that. I love it. This one will definitely be on my list of the top 50. It may rank in the 40's, but it will be there. I wonder if Hardy has another classic I can read. I also wonder what his religious affiliations were. I would assume he was raised Christian, but deep down was rather atheist. Much like Angel Clare. I think it's really ironic that Tess runs into Alec years after the rape and he has become a devout Christian. Much to the thanks of Angel's father. When she meets him again I couldn't decide if I liked him or not. Forgiveness is a hard thing. When finishing this book, I tried to think of all the religious symbolism of this novel, but it wasn't until I looked up themes on Sparknotes.com (my professors would be ashamed) that I realized Justice is a huge underlying theme. And to think I over looked it, Justice has always been one of my favorite themes. It seems to appear in a lot of classic novels, Shakespeare, Dickens, they all used it. So why wouldn't Mr. Hardy. But the role Justice plays in his novel is quite different from other novels I've read. He seems to think Justice is a cruel joke the pagan gods seem to play on those that suffer. Christianity teaches that those who suffer will receive happiness in the life after this one, but Tess's family seems to have no happiness in sight, and for her punishments are large (even in the after life she will face a "Just" punishment). But I will say Alec gets what he deserves. And I love it! The D'Urbervilles really seem to have a family curse that follows them around.

Brilliantly Confusing

So I've come to conclude Toni Morrison is a little over my head. I read one of her books in a class at USU and I loved it, but I felt like I only got through it because I was reading it with a brilliant professor and a small group of students. Reading Beloved I was all on my own. Well, me and sparknotes.com. I think she is a very talented author, with a glorious collection of novels, short stories, and poems. I feel I have to expose my students to this gifted, modern day miracle of a writer, so we read her short story Rectatif. And they love it. And with a little help from me they really understood it. But I really was a little lost on this one. Thankfully, one of my colleagues saw me reading it, she is a middle aged black woman, and she too said Morrison is over her head. So I guess I'm not alone on this one.

I will definitely put Morrison on my list of top 50 books (when I finish this list I've created I plan to make up my own). But I think I will have to go with Paradise even though Beloved is suppose to be her greatest work. I just believe Morrison is most well known for her controversial depictions of race and Beloved didn't have as much as that. There was definitely an identity struggle happening among the ex-slaves. Which I think was probably pretty accurate of the time. It would be hard to figure out who you were if you were raised as a piece of property.

The story isn't really about that though. It's just one of the motifs running through the novel. It's really about a woman who kills her daughter, Beloved, because she thinks she will be safer dead - away from the grasp of White men. Well, Beloved comes back to haunt her mother. Causing her older brothers and her mothers boyfriend all to run away. The character who stays is her little sister Denver. I love this character. I don't think Denver got the credit she deserves. She was a very intriguing character. Maybe when I read it a second time (if I ever do) I'll understand it a little better.

A True Classic

It seems likes its been a long time since I posted on this blog. I guess that's because I stopped reading my students' books and returned to the classics. I love the classics, and I especially love Dickens. I think he is the greatest writer of all time. Though I have to admit the beginning of this novel was a bit much for me. There were a couple of chapters that just blew me away with their beautiful literacy, but all the characters felt rushed and shallow. Except the Defarges. At all times I disliked Madame Defarge. She was so dark and evil. Such a contrast form some of the other characters. Doctor Manette seemed to be the only complex character at the beginning. Always returning to his work as a shoemaker. But by the end Mr Carton was definitely complex. Such a humble and heroic figure. I could not beleive what he did for Charles Darnay. I'd tell you but that would spoil it for you. Let's just say he made a huge sacrifice, with dignity.

There were a couple chapters that really painted a picture of the darkness of the revolution. People on the streets were gulping up spilled wine, as if it was their only hope of survival. An arrogant aristocrat runs down children on the streets of Paris with his carriage. That was so shocking. And as Ben said, probably true to the era. I just can't blieve that the world was in such a state just several hundred years ago. We've come a long way. But our troubles now are so different. We still have Defarges, Marquis and Manettes and Cartons. Heroes and heroines of all sizes.

I didn't think this book was as great as Bleak House. But that may be because I read Bleak House with a brilliant professor and I read this all on my own. I do look forward to more of Dickens classics. Brilliant man, absolutely brilliant.

A lot of thoughts on this one

I've always been really interested in the treatment of mental health patients. I have my reasons. I would even say that's why I selected Psychology as a minor. I've just always believed mental health is a real issue that needs more attention. So this book fascinated me. It brought out a lot of different emotions. First, it's hilarious. Then it's a bit dry and confusing. Next, it intrigues you. And finally it shocks you.

The theme of laughter really intrigued me. The idea that these hospital patients lost the ability to laugh was really interesting. I wonder what it would take to loose that. A lot of suffering and monotony. It was very rewarding to watch the men on the ward finally work up the gall to laugh at themselves. You just had to love McMurphy for that.

I found the characters in this novel fascinating. Nurse Ratched is such an evil witch. And I just know there are people in the medical field that are like this. There are people in all fields like this. So damaging and evil. Bromden, the narrator is also really interesting. I love that he acts deaf and dumb through the first half of the novel. And the night he finally begins to talk is wonderful. I love that he has to practice talking again. Then of course there's the McMurphy -- who I would claim didn't really need to be on the ward. I kept waiting for his great escape, but if I told you how he eventually got out I would ruin the shocking part of the novel.

Overall it is great book. But I don't know that it will end up on my list of the top 50. We'll see how the next 36 go. I'm curious to see who makes the cut.

My Honey's Favorite

1984 is Ben's favorite book, and I finally read it. Bonus points: it's the first of my "greatest 50" list. It feels like such an accomplishment. I have a lot of thoughts on this book. I love a thought provoking book. First let me quote "It is impossible to found a civilization on fear and hatred and cruelty. It would never endure."

"Why not.

"...It would commit suicide," (pg 221)

"Nonsense. You are under the impression that hatred is more exhausting than love. Why should it be? And if it were, what difference would that make?"

I wonder if that civilization has actually endured. I look at dictatorships in Africa, China's dark history, terror in South East Asia and I have to wonder if civilizations based on fear, hatred, and cruelty exist fluently in our world. Unfortunately I think fear is the root of all hatred, and the two are common denominators in all world wars, and even some countries starvation crisis. What else would drive a government to slave labor children? Fear and hatred. What else would cause thoughts of racism in a young American's mind? Fear and cruelty. Now the question is, how do we purge the world of these three evils? Is that possible?

Another thought that struck me as I neared the end of this book was the idea of betrayal. Winston struggles through starvation and brutal beatings while refusing to betray Julia. But in the end he collapses. When the fear of his life is thrown before him, he chooses to throw Julia infront of the rats. And likewise she confesses that "Sometimes they threaten you with something-something you can't stand up to, can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it somebody else, do it to so-and -so. . .you want it to happen to the other person. You don't give a damn what they suffer. All you care about is yourself," (pg 240). This may be true for most people. It may even be true for me, I've never been in such a situation. I hope I would have the courage to just die for someone I loved, but I don't really know that I would. However, I do know that the Savior did. When faced with the something most of us couldn't stand up to, He suffered for us. When faced with the cruelest sins of the world, He took them upon himself. When faced with the fear, hate and cruelty of the world, He suffered for us all. He is amazing. He is my Savior and my Friend.

Now, it takes a great book to exemplify the magnitude of the Saviors love. And for that reason, my Honey's favorite is also one of mine. Orwell is brilliant.

50 greatest books of all time

1. 1984 George Orwell
2. Invisible Man Ralph Ellison
3. Middle March George Elliot
4. Great Expectations Charles Dickens
5. Great Gatsby F Scott Fitzergald
6. Wuthering Heights Emily Bronte
7. Ulysess James Joyce
8. One Hundred Years of Solitude Gabriel Marquiez Garcia
9. Love in the Time of Cholera Gabriel Marquiez Garcia
10. Don Quixote Miguel De Cerantes
11. Absalom Absalom William Faulkner
12. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Mark Twain
13. Crime and Punishment Fyodor M Dostoyevsky
14. War and Peace Leo Tolstoy
15. Pride and Prejudice Jane Austen
16. The Idiot Fyodor M Dostoyevsky
17. The Sound and The Fury William Faulkner
18. The Portrait of a Lady Henry James
19. To the Lighthouse Virginia Wolf
20. Bleak House Charles Dickens
21. Vanity Fair William Makepeace Thackeray
22. Catcher in the Rye J.D. Salinger
23. Nostromo Joseph Conrad
24. Tess of the d’Urvervilles Thomas Hard
25. The Scarlet Letter Nathaniel Hawthorme
26. A Tale of Two Cities Charles Dickens
27. Frankenstein Mary Shelley
28. Animal Farm George Orwell
29. Jane Eyre Charlotte Bronte
30. The Grapes of Wrath John Steinbeck
31. The Old Man and the Sea Ernest Hemingway
32. The Trial Franz Kafka
33. The Red and the Black Standhal
34. Lotlita Vladimir Nabokov
35. The Ambassadors Henry James
36. Beloved Toni Morrison
37. Emma Jane Austen
38. Moby Dick Herman Mellville
39. The Golden Notebook Dois Lessing
40. The Tale of Genji Shikibu Muraskai
41. Things Fall Apart Chinua Achebe
42. Les Miseralbes Victor Hugo
43. Madame Bovary Gustave Flaubert
44. Anna Karenina Leo Tolstoy
45. Fathers and Sons Ivan Turgenev
46. Dead Souls Nikolai Gogol
47. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest Ken Kesey
48. Oliver Twisr Charles Dickens
49. Uncle Tom’s Cabin Harriet Becher Stowe
50. Tilogoy: Molloy Malone Dies, The Unnamable Samuel Beckett
51. The Sun Also Rises Ernest Hemingway
52. Heart of Darkness Joseph Conrad
53. The Man Without Qualiies Robert Musil
54. On the Road Jack Kerouac
55. Honorable Mention (Books I’ve already read that were on at least one list, but I think they should be on the list) A Brave New World Aldous Huxley, My Antonia Willa Cather, Lord of the Flies William Golding, Kite Runner Kaleid Houssien, Poisonwood Bible Barbra Kingsolver, To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee, and Of Mice and Men John Steinbeck)