So, I read Les Miserables about a year and a half ago now and I know that it's a book that won't leave me easily. Well, I was restocking my bookshelf earlier today and found a 3 volume set of Les Mis that my mother picked up for me who knows where. Turns out it's an 1862 edition that, if it were not falling apart, might be worth something. Next time I have 500-1000 dollars floating about, I might get them rebound. For now I'll share the Preface, which I guess is from the editor of the Hauteville House in 1862. Or it may be from Hugo, who know?
So long as there shall exist, by reason of law and custom, a social condemnation, which, in the face of civilization, artificially creates hells on earth and complicates a destiny that is divine with human fatality; so long as the three problems of the age - the degredation of man by poverty, the ruin of woman by starvation, and the dwarfing of childhood by physical and spiritual night - are not solved; so long as, in certain regions, social asphyxia shall be possible; in other words, and from a yet more extended point of view, so long as ignorance and misery remain on earth, books like this can not be useless.
And people wonder why I'm an english major.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Rereads
This past week or two has been a flurry of book ordering from amazon and bookthrift.com (highly recommended) because the new semester looms! In addition to normal classes, I will be taking a novel class, which requires about 10 novels at least. While I'm waiting for the new books to roll in, I'm rereading some classics that I didn't need to order. First I read Dracula, and now a partially read Wuthering Heights is staring me down from beside my computer.
I have a love/hate relationship with Dracula. At the same time that the lore is sending chills down my back, I start getting annoyed at all of the sexist comments. Yes, I know it's a Victorian-era book. I also can't stop myself from underlining especially rich sexist comments. Actually, their sexism and insistence on keeping Mina in the dark and shooing her to bed early so the "men" can talk led to the next catastrophic plot point. I suppose the book in part wouldn't exist without Mina's tragedy, but I can't help underlining sentences that insist on men's strength and cunning compared to women's "softness". Though Dracula rebirthed generations of vampire literature and film, I don't think the original is given enough due. The Dracula of the Victorian era could kick every vampire's butt today. Where is the mist, the wolves, and the lunatic eating spiders? At night, Dracula is invincible. And the book points out that it is harder to drive a stake through a chest than Buffy leads me to think. Dracula could control the weather and any dogs or wolves, as well as bats. Also, films like Van Helsing make the heroes of Dracula to be tough vampire hunter sorts. They weren't. I love the fact that the heroes of Dracula are "a few good men" out to protect a good woman and righteousness in general and Van Helsing is just a very clever old doctor. Plus, more victories were won by knowing the train schedules by heart than with knives. A rereading also highlighted the sexual nature of vampirism. The suppressed sexual tension in Dracula is palpable and the men stumbling on Mina's Dracula scene is almost scandalous. Overall, I love the book and can't wait to study it this semester. I'm guessing that Dracula, the Castle of Otranto, and Northanger Abbey will be part of a section on Gothic Horror. I'm excited.
I'm also reading Wuthering Heights again. I never did like this book that much. I'm more of a Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice girl myself. My sister and my mother just love Heathcliff and Catherine. I think they deserve each other, and not in a good way. Now, if only I could fourth the angst and only keep one part, I might like it a bit more. I'm to the part where Heathcliff has just returned from his 3 year hiatus, and the angst is about to get even more insistent. It always surprises me how slow things move in Victorian novels. On one page they skip ahead 3 months and then suddenly they're betrothed at 18. Then they're married at 25....oh well, guess we'll see who's crying now in a couple of chapters.
A thought to chew on: http://www.forbes.com/sites/85broads/2012/08/03/why-leaders-must-be-readers/
I think it's entirely correct. In other fields it's publish or perish...this is opposite but just as true for those fields. I think my favorite is in the description of the author, who is described as training "thought leaders" if I remember correctly. I like that.
I have a love/hate relationship with Dracula. At the same time that the lore is sending chills down my back, I start getting annoyed at all of the sexist comments. Yes, I know it's a Victorian-era book. I also can't stop myself from underlining especially rich sexist comments. Actually, their sexism and insistence on keeping Mina in the dark and shooing her to bed early so the "men" can talk led to the next catastrophic plot point. I suppose the book in part wouldn't exist without Mina's tragedy, but I can't help underlining sentences that insist on men's strength and cunning compared to women's "softness". Though Dracula rebirthed generations of vampire literature and film, I don't think the original is given enough due. The Dracula of the Victorian era could kick every vampire's butt today. Where is the mist, the wolves, and the lunatic eating spiders? At night, Dracula is invincible. And the book points out that it is harder to drive a stake through a chest than Buffy leads me to think. Dracula could control the weather and any dogs or wolves, as well as bats. Also, films like Van Helsing make the heroes of Dracula to be tough vampire hunter sorts. They weren't. I love the fact that the heroes of Dracula are "a few good men" out to protect a good woman and righteousness in general and Van Helsing is just a very clever old doctor. Plus, more victories were won by knowing the train schedules by heart than with knives. A rereading also highlighted the sexual nature of vampirism. The suppressed sexual tension in Dracula is palpable and the men stumbling on Mina's Dracula scene is almost scandalous. Overall, I love the book and can't wait to study it this semester. I'm guessing that Dracula, the Castle of Otranto, and Northanger Abbey will be part of a section on Gothic Horror. I'm excited.
I'm also reading Wuthering Heights again. I never did like this book that much. I'm more of a Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice girl myself. My sister and my mother just love Heathcliff and Catherine. I think they deserve each other, and not in a good way. Now, if only I could fourth the angst and only keep one part, I might like it a bit more. I'm to the part where Heathcliff has just returned from his 3 year hiatus, and the angst is about to get even more insistent. It always surprises me how slow things move in Victorian novels. On one page they skip ahead 3 months and then suddenly they're betrothed at 18. Then they're married at 25....oh well, guess we'll see who's crying now in a couple of chapters.
A thought to chew on: http://www.forbes.com/sites/85broads/2012/08/03/why-leaders-must-be-readers/
I think it's entirely correct. In other fields it's publish or perish...this is opposite but just as true for those fields. I think my favorite is in the description of the author, who is described as training "thought leaders" if I remember correctly. I like that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)