Literary Blog Hop March 31- April 2

I completely forgot it was time for this lovely once fortnightly feature from The Blue Bookcase, probably because I've spent the last 2 days doing team building exercises that mostly involved me getting very muddy and pissed off with the world so that I've been unable to think of anything else, apart from how much I ache! But anyway- I'm totally on this now!

So, this week's question is:
Do you find yourself predisposed to like (or dislike) books that are generally accepted as great books and have been incorporated into the literary canon? Discuss the effect you believe a book's 'status' has on your opinion of it.


I'm not really sure what I think about this one. My family all seem to assume that, whenever I read a book that is a) thick, b) more than 100 years old, c) a classic, I am reading it only because I am 'supposed' to, and not because I actually want to, and therefore I can't really be enjoying them. This is really not the case, but this doesn't mean that I don't have a certain way of thinking about classic books.

The way I feel is basically this- if a book is a classic (an old classic) then there must be some reason that it has endured, and that is hopefully that it's amazing. And modern classics, they must have done something right too, to have gained that distinction. I am probably quite likely to consider them to be good, and to want to read them for myself, to get some kind of idea why they are classics. So I suppose I sort of 'like' them before I begin, as much as I possibly can.

This, of course, all dissolves when I actually read the books. My opinion of them is in no way blunted or exacerbated by the fact that they are classics, and I form it in spite of this fact about them. In a way, I suppose, I am more disappointed by classics when they are awful as opposed to just 'regular' books, but that's only because I can't really understand what it is about them that has made them endure for so long (Dickens is my prime example here) and I have to wonder whether anyone actually likes them, or is just reading them because they 'should'. I, for one, try to make sure that this is something that I never do.

How about you? Do you have any special feelings about classics, even if it's just avoiding them like the plague? Let me know below!

Top Ten Tuesday

Ooooh yeah! My favourite meme of the week, hosted as always by the wonderful The Broke and the Bookish, and this week it's authors that we think deserve more recognition. This one was especially tricky for me, because I tend to basically read books that are only by extremely esteemed authors- case in point, Wuthering Heights, and Anna Karenina, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest... you get the general idea. Add to that the fact that basically my favourite author in the world is John Steinbeck, and I was basically screwed! But, I rallied myself and managed to think up 10 authors (some of non-fiction) who I think deserve more credit than they get- even if they do already get a fair bit of credit! And then I really easily thought up 5 authors who deserve less recognition, a list which, to be honest, makes me look like a bit of lazy reader- which I am not! But anyway, I hope you enjoy!


Top Ten Authors who deserve more recognition


1. Stephen King- I know. I've made it fully obvious that I love him (just check out the challenges tab for information about my labour of love for him) and I realise that he gets plenty of recognition for being such an entertaining and imaginative author. It's just that I would defend to the death his literary merits too, and I think he's a really important part of literary history (something which he probably wouldn't even agree with himself. Which is another reason to love him!) Basically, everyone should just read them some Stephen King!


2. Tony Kushner- I seriously don't even know how well regarded Tony Kushner is in the outside world, but in my brain he is honestly the greatest writer, and therefore deserves all the recognition that can be bestowed on one. I'm going to make a guess and say that he's pretty well regarded in the theatre world, but less so in the reading world- which is a MISTAKE! Read my review of Angels in America for more evidence of my Kushner-mania...


3. Joyce Carol Oates- I think Oates may be recognised to a greater extent in America, because I have basically never really seen her mentioned in the British press at all (I could of course be wrong about this, because I pretty much just stick to reading the books and that's it). The first book I read of hers was 'We Were the Mulvaneys', and after that I was hooked- it was so good, it actually made me forget that I had an exam the day after I was reading it, and made me stay up waaay too late before that one... But it was totally worth it.


4. Richard Yates- It's probably not that fair of me to assert that Yates deserves more recognition, having only read one of his books that was also turned into a movie (Revolutionary Road). Nonetheless, I went from not at all knowing who he was, to being pretty blown away by this book he had written, which was far far better than the movie, although that was ok too. But I should probably read some more of his books to back this one up!


5. T C Boyle- Again, I've only read one of his books, but it was awesome enough to make me go out and buy another. The Tortilla Curtain is a kind of satire on people who consider themselves 'enlightened', but are actually pretty racist, and also deals with the heartbreaking conditions faced by illegal Mexican immigrants in the US, and it definitely deserves more publicity and praise than I've really read about it (having written an essay on it, I happen to know there's not a whole lot of things written about it) and the same could be said for the author. Also, his full name, Tom Coraghessan Boyle, really is pretty spectacular enough in itself to warrant him more attention!


6. Michael Cunningham- The author of basically one of my very favourite books, The Hours, this is yet again the only book that I have read by him, but oh my what a book! I don't know if having read only one of the books of all these authors is a symptom of the rest of their writing being awful, or just the lack of recognition that they get on the whole. I'm more inclined to go with the latter, especially in Cunningham's case, because The Hours is honestly one of the best things I have ever read ever (did I mention that already? Because it's definitely true!) and he deserves all the recognition in the world for that book alone, if you ask me.


7. Daniel Keyes- Flowers for Algernon is about the most moving piece of science fiction ever written. Enough said.


8. Arundhati Roy- Her novel, The God of Small Things, has remained with me in a way that very few books have done- it's moving, strange, unjust, tumultous, and I couldn't put it down. Having just extensively researched her (i.e. looked her up on Wikipedia) I see that The God of Small Things is basically her only novel, her main focus being on social and political issues, and her politics seem to be pretty similar to my own... if this is part of why I love her novel then so be it, but it is pretty amazing in spite of this, rather than because of it (although I totally want to be her friend now). So, she deserves a greater recognition for her artistic qualities, rather than her politics, although these are, of course, equally important!


9. Michael Moore- Love him or loathe him (I tend to do the former, because I basically continually agree with him), you'd still pretty much have to admit that he's a pretty great writer. He always presents his arguments in a coherent and logical way (something I appreciate as a philosopher) and above all manages to keep you entertained, even in political matters that can be pretty boring. I think that even the staunchest right winger could appreciate his books at a superficial level, while completely hating everything he stands for. So, more recognition for his writing rather than his rabid left wing politics? Yes  please.


10. Barack Obama- Oh yes, you voted for him (or, I hope you did at least!) but you may not know that your President can write. (I just realised that I completely wrote that for American readers only, but really- I would love it if Obama was my President. Or that we had a President. *Sigh*). But anyway, Dreams From My Father is one of the best memoirs I've probably ever read, and however many Nobel Peace Prizes the guy gets, I think we should all still remember that he also has the soul of an artist; and how is that not better than being the most powerful man in the world?!


And now, just for my peace of mind, the five authors who deserve less recognition:


1. Daniel Defoe- I don't know if you've ever tried to read Robinson Crusoe, but OH my God, it's just horrible- a whole load of list making, and then enlistment of a man who he makes do everything for him and justifies it because he has taught him Christianity, and so that's ok! I guess this makes me less of a fan of 18th century values, than Defoe himself, but trust me, it's also appallingly written too (I like to refer to the time he was writing as 'the time before people knew how to write novels properly') Just, avoid at all costs please?


2. Samuel Richardson- A similar problem to Defoe, in that the dude can't actually write, but it's almost even more insulting that the piece of trash he produced (Pamela) spawned a cultural craze in the style of Harry Potter, for a book that is not even 1% as good as Harry Potter is! Also, reading Pamela made me want to kill myself quite a bit, so it's probably best to avoid it as much as you can.


3. Charles Dickens- Yeah, I just can't. I hate him, I really do. I also hate that people expect me to be well versed in Dickens because I have an English degree. I'm not, because he sucks! And I can't get past all the words that are there for no reason! Just, no.


4. James Joyce- This list is making me look more and more like a pleb. But, I'm sorry, reading is there to, not necessarily be easy, but at least to be comprehensible, and to not make me feel like I'm sinking into quicksand while I'm reading it. I'm sure there are people out there who genuinely do enjoy Joyce, and good for them. I just really can't relate.


5. Bret Easton Ellis- I kind of swing both ways on Ellis, because he certainly knows how to disgust and create vivid pictures for his readers (I actually blocked out parts of American Psycho, and if I say the bit with the mouse/rat was one of these than I think you might understand why) but then his books also have no cohesion, no story, and are essentially empty. Which, I'm pretty sure, is the effect he is trying to create, but at the same time it leaves me cold and feeling no connection for his writing, which is something I always want to have. However, having read basically everything he's ever written meant that I could fully enjoy this hilarious mash-up of Ellis and the Babysitters Club, so maybe he's not all bad after all.


So, that's my top 10 and bottom 5! How about you? Any authors you think should get bucketloads more attention than they do already? Or conversely, ones you think are awful and everyone should just shut up about (because clearly that's what I'm really interested in!)? Let me know in the comments!

Devouring Books: Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

Wow. Just wow. It took me about a million years to read (actual time: about the whole month of March, and maybe a little bit more too), a lot of moany tweets, and weeks of aspiring to finish this behemoth of a novel, and I finally did, by powering through for my whole Saturday afternoon (I couldn't actually think of a better way to spend it!)

So, in spite of all this moaning and sighing and negative "I'll never finish it ever because it's just too long!" thoughts, I really and truly loved Anna Karenina. Tolstoy has reaffirmed my love for Russian authors that Nabokov awoke with Lolita, and that I'm totally going to have to continue with Crime and Punishment (having not got my hands on a copy of War and Peace yet). Anna Karenina is huge, but within it's hugeness, it just says so much- about society, about the peasants, education, Russian law, attitudes, lifestyle; and all of this is just seamlessly integrated into a plot that always keeps you interested and engaged, and most of all caring about what happens to the characters.

So, let's talk about the characters, shall we? I had heard a lot of really negative things about Anna before I started reading, and at first I didn't really see anything to complain about with her- she's pretty nice and lovely looking (apparently an important trait to have in Russian Society in the 19th century) and everyone seems to adore her, until she has the misfortune to fall in love. With someone who isn't her husband. And with someone who her new best friend has set her heart on (poor Kitty!) My feelings about her pretty much go downhill from here, and while I sympathise with the familiar literary theme of forbidden love and loveless marriages, I still can't really support Anna because she is being completely and utterly selfish, and after all that isn't even happy. Vronsky (the man she falls in love with) is less blameless in the whole scenario, being a bachelor, and not having to return Kitty's love for him; but I almost like him less- he really is very selfish, and hardly thinks of Anna at all, even when he is loving her. I also just generally find him boring, the kind of man who doesn't really understand politics or anything important, and more pertinently, doesn't care that he lacks these interests. His main interest, I found, was himself.

If you think I'm being too harsh on Vronsky than you may be right, but this is only because I am genuinely in love with Levin, about as much as I have ever been with any fictional character. (he's just pipped Luke from the Gilmore Girls on my fictional men to marry list- yes, that is an actual list I have made) He is honestly so perfect- shy, unsure of himself, a deep thinker, a worrier, and reading his thoughts at times felt very familiar to me- not that I consider myself as awesome as Levin, of course, but just that some of the things he thinks deeply about have also concerned not just me but, I'm sure, everyone who isn't just wondering when the next episode of Jersey Shore is on (or whatever the kids watch these days, I don't know!) Religion, the meaning of life, the right way to work, the right way to live- all of these things occupy Levin, and I completely and utterly love him for it. The description Tolstoy has of Levin while he is awaiting the birth of his child seemed to be so true and likely to me that I was grinning the whole way through- his anxiety, and then a bit of normalcy, and then back to worry and pacing again- it was pretty much genius, and one of the realest things I can remember reading.

Another thing that struck me with Anna Karenina is how much I kind of really like, but then also dislike Russia. Let me explain. I love how completely educated everyone seems to be, how everyone can speak Russian, French and English, and converse sensibly on practically all matters. It seems like a really amazing culture to be in. But then, there are the things that really annoy me. The fact that Society (that's with a capital 'S') depends on being seen with the right people at the right time in the right places, and that everyone just flits around everywhere, without actually achieving, or really even doing anything. At one point, I did begin thinking, 'No wonder they had a revolution! The peasants got sick of the rich people having everything and doing nothing with it, and decided that enough was enough!' Mind you, life for the peasants pretty much sucked with Communism as much as without it, so Russia has apparently just never had a fair class system- there is very much a separation between the haves and the have-nots.

But anyway, back to the story. So, another reason to love Levin is that he more or less shuns Society, preferring to stay in the country and actually work (there is a section where he finds actual labour pretty much the most satisfying thing he's ever done), and even when he is in Society, he never feels fully comfortable there. This is in stark contrast to Anna, who is necessarily shunned from Society (for leaving her husband and taking up with Vronsky, although interestingly not for having a very well known about affair with him) and this, at least partially, leads to her rather unpleasant breakdown- being unable to occupy herself with petty society matters, she spends the entirety of her time questioning how much Vronsky loves her, or whether he does actually love her at all, irrationally ignoring all the signs that he does and twisting everything to convince herself that she is unloved. It was really very taxing being in Anna's head through all this, because you just want to shake her and go 'Stop being such a fucking idiot!' but alas, you can't, and her ending is inevitable, although still fabulously tragic!

The supporting cast of characters in Anna Karenina is one of it's biggest strengths- apart from the two main couples, there is a whole host of family members, servants and other people in Society that mean something interesting is always happening. Even the minor characters are still extremely interesting- I still vividly remember a lawyer that Karenin (Anna's husband) has a one-chapter interaction with, because I found him pretty hilarious! Of all the 'supporting' characters though, my favourites have to be Oblonsky (Anna's brother) and Dolly (Kitty's sister and Oblonsky's wife). Obonsky is just a ridiculously happy person- he seems to generally go through life not really worrying about what he does and who it might hurt, as long as the things he does make him happy. This means that, quite a lot of the time, he does things that cause Dolly a great deal of hurt, and she is under quite a lot of emotional distress for quite a lot of the novel, loving a man who should never have married, and unable to stop doing so even though he is the greatest cause of her sorrows. There is a quite wonderful chapter where Dolly, able for the first time to escape being a mere wife and mother, thinks about her life and how it could be so different, and so much better than it is. I find it so wonderful that Tolstoy, in the time this was written, was able to appreciate that women don't just get married and are happy forever, but that we are in fact a great deal more complex than this- for a male author to recognise this in the 1860s suggests to me just how extremely extraordinary he really is.

All I really want you to take away from this review is this- 1) Russian literature is really great, 2) You should absolutely read Anna Karenina, not just because it's an 'important' book (although it really is), but because it is wonderfully written, the characters are so well drawn that I talk about them as if they are real people, and it is just one of the greatest things I've ever read. Please don't let its size intimidate you either- even if it takes you a whole month to read (ahem), it will still be as potent and amazing as if you read in mere days. And who knows, Levin might even allow you to have a revelation about the meaning of life or something like that- and wouldn't that be wonderful?

Mailbox Monday/ In My Mailbox

Hey, it's that time again, where I express to you how naughty I've been, buying books with my no money, and then you comfort me and tell me they're great! No visits to the library this week (I'm saving that for tomorrow, before I properly start my new job on Tuesday, scary stuff!) but I did buy two new books, whoopsie! And they are:


Room by Emma Donoghue
I have only ever read or seen good things about this book, so I thought the time had come to buy it. It sounds heartbreaking but cute, and something that I should definitely be reading, plus I've had it on my amazon wishlist ever since it came out in hardback/I read the New York Times review of it. When I saw it had come out in paperback, well, I knew I had to buy it! In my defence, I bought it with a mother's day present, and it is less than 2 weeks until my birthday- what if no one else buys me a present at all?! Then I at least won't be sad because I can read my book! Betcha never thought of that! Also, this recommendation by Audrey Niffenegger makes it sound pretty spectacular too: "Room is a book to read in one sitting. When it's over, you look up: the world looks the same but you are somehow different and that feeling lingers for days." Yeah, I think I might be reading this book pretty soon...

Full Dark, No Stars by Stephen King
Continuing on my quest for a full reading of the works of the great Stephen King, I found a pristine copy of his latest book for £1 in a charity shop. And when I say pristine, I mean pristine- I'm pretty sure that nobody's read it before, which means a score for me! I am actually feeling little pangs of sadness around this purchase though, because I basically can't read it for another 56 books (and that's just King books!) but maybe I should just read it whenever I want and re-read it when I get to the end of my challenge... That sounds like the best way to me!




So anyway, yes, this is what I bought. How about you? Any exciting new books making their way into your household this week? Let me know below!

IMM is hosted by The Story Siren, every Sunday.
Mailbox Monday was created by Marcia at The Printed Page. It is the gathering place for readers to share the books that came into their house last week. You can view the touring blog list at the Mailbox Monday blog for the upcoming months.

Hop Hop Hippity Hop

Oh my God, I'm actually participating in the Friday blog hops. Go me! Even though, I'm really only doing it because I feel like I haven't blogged enough this week, mainly because Anna Karenina and The Stand are taking up about 900% of my concentration, and I haven't read a nice little book in between to review for you. I'm so sorry! But not really hehe. Also, I really like the questions on this weeks hops! So, without any ado at all, here they are...

If you could physically put yourself into a book or series, which one would it be and why?
I've seen a few people answer Harry Potter, and that did pretty much occur to me straight away, BUT I've already been there! Like, seriously, you read the books and you are just unquestionably there, and it's difficult to drag yourself back into the real world at all! So, I'd probably have to go for On the Road- not because I think it's the best written book ever or anything like that (although I did enjoy it) but because of the sense of freedom that is continually there in the book- the way you can throw aside your obligations and just be free and travel anywhere and everywhere, and the entire world is open to you. The same pretty much goes for Travels With Charley, or any kind of road trip across America kind of book... In case you can't tell, that's kind of a big thing that I want to do at some point in my life!

Inspired by the inane twitter trend #100factsaboutme, give us five book related silly facts about you.
How fun! So, just off the top of my head...
1. I read classics when I was far too young to understand them, so I hated them all for a really long time (Pride and Prejudice is my prime example)- now I adore them (in general)

2. My favourite place to read is on a blanket in my back garden in the sunshine... Bliss :)

3. I used to get book recommendations from Sweet Valley High and Babysitters Club books (Seriously... Lila once did a book report on The Great Gatsby, so I decided I had to read it!)

4. I love Stephen King basically better than any other author (except possibly Steinbeck), and I would defend his literary merits to the death.

5. When I read The Bell Jar, I honestly thought for a pretty long time afterwards that I was also crazy- that's one helleuva good book!

Thanks to Crazy for Books and Parajunkee's View for hosting these hops! Let me know your answers to either/both of the questions below!

Revisiting Films... The Brave

I have now watched The Brave three times in my life, and each time it seems more and more hopeless, and to have so fewer redeeming features than ever before. This is not to say it is a bad film- on the contrary it's a pretty good film, especially from a first time director (Johnny Depp, who also stars), but it is also incredibly difficult to watch at times.

It is especially difficult for me, a fully paid up Depp Devotee (if you don't believe me, check out this guest post I did where I fully confess the depths of my obsession) to watch his character continue living, knowing that his time on earth is limited to one more week. This is actually a fact that remains pretty obscure throughout most of the film- when Raphael (Depp) meets with McCarthy (Marlon Brando), the man who makes snuff movies, there is not really any mention of his death, per se, although you do get an eerie sensation from the scene, but unless you were listening very closely, you may have missed the whole 'I'll pay you for killing you' part of the exchange, and will have to wait until Raphael spells out exactly what is going on to a priest, very near the end of the movie. And what is going on is really horrible.

It seems almost impossible to understand why someone would sell themselves, their entire life, for $50,000, until we follow Raphael home, and understand exactly what he is dealing with. He lives adjacent to a rubbish dump, his family essentially has nothing, and there is nothing he can do to help them. All he has to offer them, or so he thinks, is the money that his death will bring, so that they can move onto a better life somewhere else. The tragedy of this though, is that throughout the film, in his last week, Raphael proves to the audience just how indispensable he really is to his family, and even to the community at large- we never get to see how they would get on without him, but in my mind it wouldn't be very well- he has so much heart and soul that he would be missed a whole lot more than he could possibly imagine.

So, brave? Unbelievably so, yes. But what could be even braver is sticking around for his family, and keeping on trying, because knowing that he died so that they might have a better life is not something that his family should be expected to have to live with. I mean, how could they? Taking the money and knowing it is a replacement for her husband, and her children's father, is something that his wife shouldn't have to deal with, especially since she tells Raphael earlier in the film that she wants him to spend more time with his children, not none at all. In the book, or so I have read being unable to find a copy of it anywhere at all, Raphael has signed a meaningless contract and his family are not entitled to any money at all. The film thankfully doesn't allude that this is the case, especially since Marlon Brando's character is made to seem like a friendly murderer! But that ending is an especially horrific one, making Raphael's sacrifice for absolutely nothing. The film at least grants him a slightly more dignified end.

There is actually quite a bit more to the film than what Raphael has agreed to, and considerations of his mortality, but it is really hard to focus on all of these things without also thinking 'Oh nooo, he's going to die soon' *sad face*, or at least it is for me. I happen to know that this film has never been released in the US, I think because some people didn't like the way it portrayed the failures of the government to protect Native Americans (or something like that, as you can tell, I'm a little shady on the details) but if you've been able to see it, then I'd love to know what you think of it. Did it just put you in a deep and unabating depression for the duration of the film, or were you able to appreciate Raphael's final days the way you have to hope he did too? Let me know in the comments!

Fifty Books A Year

The English government has announced that it wants children in education to be reading 50 books a year, prompted by the fact that most kids only read 2 books for the entire 2 years they are taking their GCSEs (taken when we're about 15/16, to my lovely readers from further afield, i.e. most of you). Being a general armchair agitator, I find it really really hard to agree with this rich tory moron (Education Secretary, Michael Gove) but I can't disagree with something that would open up so many worlds to so many more children. Personally, when I was that age, I read way more than 50 books a year, so I think it's a completely achievable thing to ask, but not when the government is also closing libraries at an alarming rate. Being a poor child, I completely relied on libraries to fuel my reading habit, and literally the most exciting weekends of my childhood were when they had new Babysitters Club books, and I could take them home and read at least two before school on Monday! (Yes, I was a deprived child.)

So, yes, my point. Reading is a wonderful and amazing thing, and something that I would love all children to appreciate and adore as much as I do. But the way to do this is not to expect parents to fuel a reading addiction with the tiny bit of money that they have now that VAT is so high, but to keep all libraries open, and to even open a few more for good measure. If the government doesn't respect the importance of reading by carrying out this one action, then how can children be expected to find reading important at all? And the worst part of it is, the children who need to have access to the other worlds that reading opens up for us all the most, are the ones least likely to get it, because libraries in the least affluent places are the first ones to go. How does this make any sense? It really doesn't.

Hey, I got my government bashing in there anyway! Now go and read this article, by the man I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to marry one of these days- he says that everyone, not just children should be encouraged to read at least twenty books a year... 20? I'm pretty sure I've done that in just a month before, am I right?! Good God, how I do love reading...