Pride and Prejudice and ... Zombies?

Yes. Its' true. It's a book. And I originally borrowed it from my Youth Minister who is a Zombie nerd. And then all the lit nerds in my family read it. We liked it much better, and so he let me permanently borrow it. It's a neat deal.

The sad thing is about this book is that it doesn't exactly fit into a category,which is appealing and yet detrimental. Why? Because the people like my youth minister say "Too much Pride and Prejudice and not enough Zombies." Whereas people like me, my sister, and my mother say "Too many zombies, not enough Pride and Prejudice!" And so it appeals and yet is not completely satisfactory.

Though not one of my favorite books, it is very, very clever. It is entertaining to the masses because of the humorous and light references to Zombie and Zombie-slaying, but to the P&P lover it has much more depth. Now, keep in mind that the real P&P lover- which includes at least 3/4 of all women plus a few men, those people who read it at least once every year, if not more - know exactly what happens in the book. They can practically mouth along with Mary as she spits out her prudish, erudite sayings. They roll their eyes at Mrs. Bennet's ramblings. They look forward to the occasional sarcastic, yet loving, remarks by Mr. Bennet. They know exactly when and how Lizzy will feel as she gazes upon Pemberly. They swell with pride as Lizzy announces "What are men to rocks and mountains!" They know everything that happens in the book. Which makes a remake so much more appealing because they know what is going to happen, they just don't know how, or if the new author will dare to change anything else.

Much to my dismay, Seth Grahame-Smith did do several things I did not like, which I suppose is inevitable. He added a couple of crude, I repeat, crude jokes into *gasp* Jane Austen literature. How could he??? Then, I suppose it is modern America. He made Mrs. Bennet much worse than the just silly fool she is and made Mr. Bennet (which is possibly what I got angriest about) a man who did not love anyone in his family except for perhaps Elizabeth and cheated on his wife. Speaking of abusing your "literary licence"....

But I did have a couple of favorite places in the book. For example, the cleverness of it all. The verbal duel between Elizabeth and Lady Catherine DeBourgh was added to with a physical duel which showed off their mad ninja skills in a dojo. Also, there was a scene which would have been a little weird if you hadn't memorized P&P from top to bottom because the whole scene was a setup for one line in which Fitzgerald praises Elizabeth's fingers. In the original work, he is referring to her at the piano. In the new version, he is praising her ability to parade up and down the room while walking on her fingers.

It is really a lovely book and writing about it is making me want to read it again after a 6-8 month respite. Mostly because I love Pride and Prejudice so much, though. Just to cap off, let me give you some of my favorite quotes from the real thing just because I can. :)

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.

I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine.

If a woman is partial to a man, and does not endeavour to conceal it, he must find it out. Amen, sister!

But no sooner had he made it clear to himself and his friends that she hardly had a good feature in her face, than he began to find it was rendered uncommonly intelligent by the beautiful expression of her dark eyes. Haha! Got you Darcy! By a pair of fine eyes!

A lady's imagination is very rapid; it jumps from admiration to love, from love to matrimony, in a moment.

Good opinion once lost, is lost forever.

Darcy had never been so bewitched by any woman as he was by her. He really believed, that were it not for the inferiority of her connections, he should be in some danger. Hmm....is that pride? Or prejudice?

Is not general incivility the very essence of love?

Adieu to disappointment and spleen. What are men to rocks and mountains?

Stupid men are the only ones worth knowing after all.

Neither duty, nor honour, nor gratitude ... have any possible claim on me.

I cannot fix on the hour, or the look, or the words, which laid the foundation. It is too long ago. I was in the middle before I knew that I had begun.

Now that I'm done, I feel like reading the real version!

Frankenstein; or, the Modern Prometheus

Firstly, the movies and such stemming from this semi-original concept are very misleading. There is no Igor or dank, dark, family castle in Germany where a lab is hidden by a trap door. Secondly, why would you purposely construct a monster that is clearly a monster and then shudder and flee? But this is only one of the many questions that arise from reading Mary Shelley's crowning acheivement. (By the way, she was only 19 when she wrote it and it arose from a friendly competition to make the best ghost story.) The innate nature of man, the relationship of the created to its creator and the nature of ... nature are all addressed in this book. The praise and notoriety this book receives is justly given, especially as its status as the pinnacle of gothic novels and the cornerstone of science fiction.

Okay, what's with this novel? Is it just a fun little horror novel about a genius who shakes his fist at God by creating life whose 'new life' comes back to haunt him? As we already clarified: No. What has been said about Frankenstein, the fact that it was partially based on Shelley's life, seems plausible. So the number of siblings and their deaths and even Clerval seem to come from Mary Shelley herself. But of course, the primary form of diverting literature at that time was grisly gothic novels. So perhaps the morbidness came from there. Some people are surprised that a 19 year old could come up with something so...horrible or morbid. But she was caught up on the literature, she was friends or acquaintances with most of the novelists themselves through her father, and how many people do you see today who are goth or emo or trying to sport their dark side?

Question: As we have surmised, the whole life bestowing process eventually gives rise to a monster. Then who's to blame? Is it Dr. Frankenstein or the monster's fault? This kind of brings us to the question of the innate nature of man: innately good, original sin, or tabula rasa? My theory (at least, according to the book): Either tabula rasa or innately good. So I believe the corruption of the Creature is Frankenstein's fault primarily. Of course, the beloved french family didn't help either. But let's review the points against Frankenstein.

1. The first act of humanity the creature saw was betrayal, whether he recognized it or not, when Frankenstein ran out on him.

2. Frankenstein was afraid and ran out on him and didn't come back. At least for a while. So, if Frankenstein thought the Creature was dangerous, why did he allow him to escape, or leave, when he might to damage to fill-in-the-blank. I mean, if you don't take charge for yourself, at least do it for person or persons unknown.

3. What did the creature want? Love. Well, that was easy. Don't we all want to be loved by our creator? What did Frank. not give the Creature? Love. Well, that was easy. Frankenstein was the reason the Monster sought revenge on his brother, their devoted servant/caretaker, his wife/sister, his father, his dearest friend, and, eventually, him.

4. Frank. never reasoned with the monster properly or listened to his reasoning. I mean, take the whole instance of the monster's bride. (Or corpse bride, if you like.)

5. I just don't like Frankenstein, let's be honest. It seems like he deserves the ruination. He runs for the whole book, except when it's too late. Oh, and he leaves his one remaining relative behind in Geneva. We think.

6. Imago Dei. It means image of God. Since Frankenstein is the god, or the creator, in this instance, I believe that he created The Creature in his image. Not his external image, but his internal image. This is perhaps the weakest argument of them all but perhaps the most plausible, in my eyes.

Word Alert! Vocabulary: Frame story. A frame story is a story within a story. Frankenstein begins on a book in the arctic where the captain is pursuing arctic knowledge. He sees a stranded man (Dr. Frankenstein) and invites to come aboard. After a few days time he compels him to tell his horrid story - (Place Frankenstein story here)- "...and that is why I, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, am in the frozen, barren wastelands." (not direct quote) Story wraps up on board the boat, and captain, who learns his lesson about the dangerousness of knowledge, turns toward home. Do you see the frame?

Naturally Nature. Mary Shelley was surrounded by Romanticists (her father, her lover/husband, and Lord Byron, a friend) and so was influenced by them greatly. I mean, she snatched her husbands heart (possibly his liver, actually) out of his funeral pyre, for Pete's sake' and kept it between the pages of a book before burying it in Italy. One great theme of Romantacism? Nature. Frankenstein seeks consolation from nature and the Monster is soothed by the moon. Shelley uses wonderful description when she speaks of the mountains and valleys and lakes. From Frankenstein's narrative: "[Scenes from nature] elevated me from all littleness of feeling, and although they did not remove my grief, they subdued and tranquillized it."

Then again..."Where had [those feelings] fled when the next morning I awoke?...[The mountain] is a scene terrifically desolate. In a thousand spots the traces of the winter avalanche may be perceived, where trees lie broken and strewed on the ground, some entirely destroyed, others bent, leaning up on the jutting rocks of the mountain."And then the lake scene where Frank. crosses the clear water with his newlywed and then crosses it a day later when she is dead. He becomes disturbed by the serenity and unmutability of nature when he realized that nothing here in the water has changed, his dead wife does not disrupt the natural world.

(Ok, so I haven't really finished. It's what I wrote last summer. And I had to erase one and a half sentences about dual natures and stuff. But it's really not bad, as it is.)

Oh, Christie, Christie.

Everyone has a guilty pleasure. Mine is Agatha Christie.Oh! The mysteries are captivating as the characters are splendid. I recently read The Man in the Brown Suit. Again. I think this might have been the fourth or fifth time at least. A hint for those of you who aren't experienced enough to know: the mysteries that don't involve Poirot or Marple are just as good or better than those that do. The espionage novels are stellar, too. The Man in the Brown Suit is one of Agatha Christie's earliest novels (and one of her best). Girls especially will identify with the spunky girl hero and swoon with the discovery of...well...you'll find out who! True, there are a couple of dead bodies, but the story is mainly about the search for the leader of a major crime ring, and a diamond theft!

Oh, I love Christie, and if you are in my area, you are welcome to Christie books by the handful if you know me. Oh, if you are new to Christie, may I suggest: The ABC Murders, Man in the Brown Suit, The Secret Adversary, Ten Little Indians, Murder on the Orient Express, and almost any other. Just contact me and ask me how good it is, and I'll tell you! : )

How to Read Literature Like a Professor

The perfect book for this blog! How to Read Literature Like a Professor by Thomas C. Foster is a must-read for all who enjoy getting into books and wallowing in the plot while also pondering what it could really mean. Really, this book sits beside Strunk and White on the bookshelf, for while Strunk and White expounds on the grammar of the English language, How to Read Literature formats you with the grammar of the novella, short story, novella, or even poem. Even though it talks about something a college student or thereabouts needs for his studies, this book still won't go over too many people's heads. As long as you have read a book not taken out of the Young Adults section of the library, or at least can imagine one, this book will be interesting and understandable.

In his book, Foster explores such catagories as the influences of modern literature (Shakespeare, the Bible, folklore, and Greek mythology), the symbolism behind important acts (quests, communion, sex, violence, baptism), the reason behind the setting (season, climate, geography, rain, snow), the meaning behind a character's condition (heart disease, cancer, birthmarks, scars, death, and tuberculosis, endlessly tuberculosis), and how the social/political condition surrounding the author can provide proper undertone the the story.

I won't ramble on about this wonderful book. But it is wonderful. He talks about tons of books to provide basis and substance to his topics, but Never fear! because even if you haven't read the work he references, he sufficiently explains its relevance without giving away too much of the story. Even he gives away the whole story, I found that he in no way dampened my desire to read the work. In one instance, I had never heard of the short story by Marquez that he talked about, but it sounded to intriguing that I wanted to pick it up right away.

If you liked this book, or just really interested in how the English language works, another basic in reading and writing is The Elements of Style, by Stunk and White.

One Hundred Years of Solitude III

I promise this is the last one! I'm just gonna give you some quotes to chew on!

The first one:
“Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.”
Note: I rather like this guy's writing style. He does this all the time, he mentions an incident that will happen, refers to it every 20-30 pages or so, but doesn't explain it for 100 or so pages. It's rather intriguing.

“She would put handfuls of earth in her pockets, and ate them in small bits without being seen…”
Told you. She eats dirt.

“Although she was already a hundred years old and on the point of going blind from cataracts, she still had her physical dynamism, her integrity of character, and her mental balance intact.”
Referring to Ursula. Amazing character.

“ ‘Look at the mess we’ve got ourselves into,’ Colonel Aureliano Buendia said at that time, ‘just because we invited a gringo to eat some bananas.’”
Haha. Love this guy.

“ ‘Sit down,’ she told her. ‘I don’t need cards to tell the future of a Buendia.’ Meme did not know and never would that the centenarian witch was her great-grandmother.”
“ ‘Just like Aureliano,’ Ursula exclaimed. ‘It’s as if the world were repeating itself.’”

“It had never occurred to him until then to think that literature was the best plaything that had ever been invented to make fun of people.”

“Tormented by the certainty that he was his wife’s brother, Aureliano ran out to the parish house to search through the moldy and moth-eaten archives for some clue to his parentage.”
Turns out, she's his aunt. Now think that through.

And finally, the last quote, still amazing:
“Aureliano Babilonia would finish deciphering the parchments, and that everything written on them was unrepeatable since time immemorial and forever more, because races condemned to one hundred years of solitude did not have a second opportunity on earth.”

Awesome. Now read it.

One Hundred Years of Solitude II

Ah, symbols! themes! and motifs!!

They all get mixed up, so here you go. YOU get to decide what is what.
Passion does not equal Love-
I believe I've mentioned this one before. The whole Buendia family either eschew love and find passion in a different place, or have wild nights of passion all through their youth or something. Actually, a common figure that awaken most of the men in the Buendia family to their passionate nature is Pilar Ternera. Weirdly enough, she serves as sort of an oracle of sorts to the Buendia men. Not only does she give them confidence to approach the other women in their lives or simply pour out their suffering lonliness for one of their women in an improper place, but she is also a fortune-teller, and a pretty accurate one at that. She is also, ironically enough, serves more than a mother than Ursula does. All the Buendia men open up to her and she comforts them. She is driven by compassion, which is a little strange. Another thing which I also mentioned earlier: The child that is born at the end of the novel, which immediately meets a disastrous end, is said to be the only Buendia child born with a heart.

Fate-
A community lives and dies in one hundred years. Pilar Ternera said, "'Sit down... I don't need the cards to tell the future of a Buendia.'" Ursula: "'Just like Aureliano!...It's as if the world were repeating itself.'" The whole book is full of prophecy, from the trite card readings of Pilar Ternera, to the mad, incomprehensible scribblings of Melquiades the Mysterious Gypsy that it was prophesied could not be understood until the "Fall of the House of Buendia". Actually, does bear certain resemblance. It is rather gloomy how the family does not seem able to escape. It seems rather Naturalist. How nature is pitted against humanity (and nature is certain to win). Anyway, you see the point.

Language-
There are tons of language and literature in this book. They clearly speak Spanish as their native tongue, but English (an encyclopedia), Latin (crazy Patriarch), Sanskrit (prophetic writings), and several languages unknown (in the form of a sailorish tattoo on a Jose Arcadio) all weasel themselves into the picture. Also literature plays a major part in one Aureliano's life as he is allowed to be social and finds himself in a literary debate circle (more historical than Oprah's book club) which opens him up to a world of friendship and...um...passion again and eventually his aunt which he (after going crazy from lust) indulges in an incestuous relationship with. At the end the final character (which ends up being an Aureliano) is referred to as "Aureliano Babilonia" which suggests Babylon which represents chaos and downfall of all humans and miscommunication.

Good vs. Evil-
Of course! The signature of a good book, though not necessarily necessary, is tackling the problem of good and evil. A lot of characters perform wicked deeds. Actually the ones who perform the most wicked are the most intelligent. Like the genius of languages. Or the war colonel. The colonel is fascinating. He really longs for a quiet life, but feels called to the cause of revolution. A very decent man, actually. One more thing. We've got a supposed "and he walked with God" instance. Twice, if you wanna see it. And it's always someone called Remedios (which is, of course "Remedy", a very pure term). Remedios the first was a child bride. Charming and amazing. She brought vitality, life, and joy into the family. And the relationship wasn't incestuous! Prize. She died. Very early. It seems like she was still a child, a very mature child when she died. She died, while not a virgin, still pure. Remedios the Beauty was an idiot, to some. In fact, she was pretty intelligent, but very simple. Her simplicity gave her more charm which added to her wonderful looks. Several men died - rather insensibly to her - for her love. She was not given passion. She prefered to walk around naked because it was liberating, but resigned herself to a sackcloth instead. And she shaved herself bald for comfort. She bathed amongst scorpions but wasn't bitten. Yeah, you say, she's pretty immaculate, but not holy. Well, she was taken up ito heaven. So apparently she was. What Marquez seems to be saying is that both good and evil can be found within us, but also the amount of good and evil you have doesn't seem to affect your fate. Ach, back to fate.

The Elements/Primality-
Ok, we've already gotten a reference to Babylon, but also elements consume this text: Water (rain, river, the sea, flooding and lack thereof), earth (Rebeca ate earth), Wind (you'll find out. It's at the end), not so much fire, but ice!(presented as very mysterious). The Buendias also seem to have a very base, primal feelings and instinct. GEt my Woman and get to my CAve. Which I guess is because they...

Represent the World-
They seem to represent the world and it's fatality and it's stupidity and it's violence, but also it's pure joy and it's vitality and it's fierce loyalty. It's good/bad, pure/evil, destructive/restoring. Ok, the book tends to lean more toward the destructive side. But you get the picture.

There's more. But I won't get into it. I've waxed long.