Lord of the Flies by William Golding

I finally had to read Lord of the Flies for tutoring purposes, because it is a required reading for our national high school English finals, and at first it wasn’t as bad as I had expected from all the bad things I had heard about it. I thought that the boys’ behaviour wasn’t really any different from how contemporary kids would behave in a similar situation.

About two thirds in, however, I had to start agreeing: it was really that bad.

And in the end, I am not so sure the behaviour was just a result of the boys’ spoiled rich British origin. Perhaps any other group of people (children) in the same uncontrollable, helpless, and scary situation would eventually react similarly.

I will not even touch the issue of gender and the lack of girls in the book – I do wonder whether things would be worse or better if the group included girls – since Golding himself was unwilling to explore that and was only able to ask questions regarding that possibility himself.

My edition included study materials with useful chapter summaries and discussion/reflection questions and additional information on the issues connected with the novel, which were its saving grace.

It also included Golding’s essay on fables and his intentions regarding what he wanted to show about the human nature and how it is governed by nationalism and prejudice, especially in connection with Nazism and fascism, which are certainly important issues to consider (and beware of perpetuating) yet again nowadays.

Golding does manage to show the worst of human nature when unfettered by societal constraints and bolstered by fear (of the unknown, other) and I definitely agree with his notion that we are all capable of the same atrocities if we fail to check ourselves and each other to keep from succumbing to fear, prejudice, and other-ing specific groups people.

However, I believe that without accompanying materials and guidance the readers who are unaware of the story's connection to British exceptionalism and colonialism cannot really discern these themes and their messages, especially not ESL students who are struggling with understanding the language itself.

Even without language understanding issues, I could only see the aforementioned connotations while reading through the additional materials. Hence, I believe that among literally millions of books out there, our national board for HS English finals could have certainly found a better book to teach about such important topics as the dangers of nationalism and prejudice in present times.

A Happy Death by Albert Camus

As a sort-of preconception of The Stranger, A Happy Death is also its flip-side in which Mersault gets away with pre-meditated murder (as opposed to what we could say is, if I remember correctly, involuntary manslaughter in The Stranger.)

While Mersault of A Happy Death is not yet the alienated and detached Mersault of The Stranger, for he still possesses the ability to be affected and to form attachment, the early seeds of absurdism are present in his quest of finding happiness.

In accord with his – for the lack of a better word – victim’s claim that money cannot buy happiness but it can buy time, which is essential for the pursuit of doing what you want and enabling one to be one’s true self, Mersault discovers that one can only find happiness with oneself, in the very solitude of being oneself.

However, that is easier said than done, as having time does not guarantee happiness per se. To be happy requires being the will to be happy, to immerse oneself in the present, in the here and now, and arrange the time one has to that purpose.

And that state is what Mersault manages to achieve and does in the end meet – although an outside observer would call it all but one – a happy death.

I must say I find these concepts both mind-boggling and intriguing but also agreeable – to an extent; they certainly give one food-for-thought and the desire to revisit them and this novel as well as its eventual and more famous successor.

Additionally, A Happy Death (as well as The Stranger, as far as I remember), has a certain ease of language, and I found myself liking the style very much; I particularly loved how Camus uses the wording and pacing to illustrate various settings and Mersault’s states of mind.

My edition came with a lengthy afterword, providing literary analysis I disagree with on several points.

Chiefly, it simplifies Mersault motive for his act of murder merely as greed (and jealousy, which I couldn’t see at all), whereas I saw it at least in equal part as an act – albeit certainly not selfless – of some kind of mercy that can be basically considered euthanasia of the man who per his own admission did not want to live the life he had but lacked the courage and strength to end it himself. (To be clear, I am not exonerating Mersault’s motives, I just think they are more complex that Mr. Sarrocchi would want the reader to believe.)

I also do not think the discrepancies between the autobiographical elements of Camus’s life and their imperfect alignment in fiction should be held against the novel. After all, complete truthfulness to real life is not the measure of quality of fiction.

And lastly, according to Mr. Sarrocchi, A Happy Death supposedly failed as a novel in terms of form and composition, which must have been the reason it was not published at the time of writing and was later reworked.

Nevertheless, to conclude, I think that in 80 years since the novel’s conception (and 45 since the aforementioned critique’s) the literary landscape has changed enough that we, new readers, can appreciate A Happy Death from a different perspective and with the experience of the present time which Camus’s work seems to resonate with perhaps better than it did with the time of its origin.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Note: This review contains SPOILERS.

After overcoming the initial shock of Huxley’s brave new capitalist eugenics utopia, I kept asking myself through most of the book what Huxley was high on and reminding myself that he was into experimenting with hallucinogens at the time and thus he might have actually been high on something.

While I have so far liked what I have read of contemporary dystopia, I have found the ‘old’, classic dystopia, such as Brave New World or, also recently read, Animal Farm much less likeable. On the other hand, I tremendously enjoyed Verne’s Paris in the Twentieth Century. So perhaps the fault is in these specific books.

It is strange how all these authors of the past viewed the future, which has in the meantime become our present in some cases, as a world of complete ‘moral’ disintegration of society that is entirely submitted to the ‘values’ of capitalism, consumerism, and (to an extent) technological advancement, rejecting emotion, art, and personal freedom.

And yet, I don’t see – or foresee – these bleak visions coming true. Granted, the 17^th century after Ford of the Brave New World is still quite a bit ahead. Nevertheless, I think we can safely hope – as we see the very elements (or similar ones) of the scientific progress mentioned in these stories having already become our reality without most of the ‘predicted’ accompanying societal degradation – humanity will never come that far, or better said, fall that low. Maybe it is because, as a self-identified pessimistic idealist, I think individual people can be horrible (as well as others can be amazing), but I have faith in humanity as a whole.

But I digress.

To return to Brave New World, this strangely hopeless (and implausible) vision of the distant future (despite its utter ‘stability’ and overall ‘happiness’ of its inhabitants) was not even the major reason for my dislike of this book.

My biggest complaint is that Huxley keeps picking up various characters’ stories and not finishing them, save one, and what we see of them just seems under-developed, going against all the most important rules of writing a good story – at least by modern standards. I daresay that if any contemporary author pitched this story, it wouldn’t get published without some major additional work.

For example, when we first meet Bernard and Lenina, they both act ‘queer’ for the ‘civilised’ society of the book’s universe, seeking solitude, lacking lovers, or being too attached to a single one – and nothing comes out of it, apart from their trip to the reservation.

We can only guess that Lenina finds the experience so terrible that she decides to fully immerse herself in what is considered proper behaviour in the ‘civilisation’– but that is just a guess, as her change of heart is abrupt, never explained, and her past ‘queerness’ is never mentioned again. (Shouldn’t she be able to at least somewhat understand or compare her, albeit past, fleeting feelings, to Bernard’s or even John’s?)

Bernard and Helmholtz, who remain ‘queer’ and dissatisfied with the ‘civilisation’, get sent to an island for that reason – and we learn that that is actually more a reward than a punishment because islands are where people can be more individual than within the rest of the society – but that is the end of their story. Whereas, I would be very much interested in how they fare afterwards and whether they can realise their selves better there, outside of the ‘civilisation’.

And finally, there is John, the ‘Savage’. I’ll just mention the two things that irked me the most, besides the blatant racism typical of Huxley’s time.

Firstly, John forgetting about Linda when she dies. Sure, he remembers her. What I mean is: this is a man who was raised on a reservation, who is used to the human customs as we know them (mostly), who must have surely been used to something akin mourning and funerals, and he just walks out of the hospital? He doesn’t even suggest a funeral? I assume he has been told what happens to the dead, but he just accepts it? This goes completely against his character.

And secondly, how he ends up: yes, sure, in line with Huxley’s racist, capitalist, eugenics beliefs, whoever cannot adapt to his brave new world can only be driven to death by both their internal and external demons. What a pile of equine excrement.

To top it all, the writing itself, sometimes verging on stream of consciousness, is not anything to laud, either.

Hence, in conclusion, for all that Brave New World may be a classic (I'm only giving it two stars for that reason) – and it certainly has an intriguing concept that could provoke much thought, but lacks in execution and development – it just did not work for me.

Animal Farm by George Orwell

As I understand it, the entire story of Animal Farm is one giant cynical metaphor for a failed communist utopia (because a communist utopia is a fail all of itself). It includes all the most representative tropes from mindless masses (animals) and propaganda (Squealer) to class enemies (upper class/management/capital owners), both outside (humans) and inside (Snowball and other ‘traitors’) ones, and everything in between.

In addition, its allusions to the strife between the West and the East, reminiscent of the Cold War that was yet to begin at the time of writing and publishing the book as well as the story’s cycle from capitalism to communism and back (as it happened in the 1990s) are also quite visionary.

As such, Animal Farm is a very clever work of fiction.

However, coming from one of those ex-communist countries, I also feel more than a little offended by its cynical satire that mocks the silly, blind working-class people, comparing them to animals.

The insult is somewhat softened only by the fact that the story also shows that neither the capitalist masters nor the new ‘people’s’ leaders have actual working people’s best interest in mind but only their own and would therefore ally themselves with each other despite whatever contrary principles (that can always be twisted to suit them) they otherwise preach to the people ‘below’ them.

Next, the final outcome of the story implies that the working masses are incapable (too stupid and meek) of the self-managing they long for; since they are only capable of (blind) loyalty and obedience, they should clearly submit to the will of their betters (of which the better ones are the capitalists, of course).

In that point, Animal Farm also serves as a warning/anti-communist propaganda, which makes sense, given the time of its conception: there is no hope in defeating capitalism, no recourse for lower and working classes to free themselves of governance and better their positions/lives; quite the contrary, they should be grateful for their lot in the capitalist world.

Personally, I think both capitalism and communism are failed systems and we need to find an alternate viable option that would allow people both individual expressions of their aspirations as well as offer protections to the underprivileged and limit their exploitation by the privileged (what social state is supposed to be if it wasn’t all too often hijacked/strong-armed by capitalism.)

But, I strongly resent the Western media’s portrayal of people from (ex-)communist countries that reduces them to half-starved idiots decades and more behind times, which isn’t true and has, majorly, never been, not to mention that the so-called ‘Eastern Bloc’ has never been a uniform, one-dimensional entity and there have been vast differences between, for example, USSR and Yugoslavia.

Hence, I have mixed feelings about Animal Farm; I could give it either 4-5 or 1 stars, so I’m giving it sort of median 3. Still, it is a highly thought-provoking story that is quick and easy to read (and also fun at times if it doesn’t make you mad) and as such I’d recommend it as well-worth to read.

Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson

This was a refresher reread for me due to the TV show Black Sails, which was created as sort-of a prequel for Treasure Island and you should totally watch it if you haven’t already.

I first read Treasure Island in 5^th or 6^th grade (I remember taking it from the 5/6^th grade literature section in our school library, so it must have been around then). That was about a quarter of a century ago, and I only recalled a handful of names (namely, Flint, Silver, and, curiously, Ben Gunn) from it. Hence, now that the show ended, it seemed a good time for a reread.

Of course, Treasure Island is a YA (before there was YA, I guess) adventure story, while the show itself is much more serious, complex, and, of course, intended for adult audience. It is also more than superior to the novel (I know, blasphemy!) and I choose to actively ignore some elements of the book in favour of the show.

That said, I actually found Treasure Island fairly interesting this time around – and I suppose also the first time, because it is the kind of read that would have appealed to me at that age. I can see why I didn’t remember it well, though.

The story is a fast-paced adventure, which tells more than shows and is scarce with details and, thus, isn’t very memorable. The main character being a boy (and also kind-of the author’s self-insert, I think) might have contributed to it being easily forgettable, as well.

Nevertheless, I didn’t hate the book and I found certain elements entertaining in the light of Black Sails. Therefore, the reread was overall worth my time. 

Dracula by Bram Stoker

SUMMARY (from Goodreads): When Jonathan Harker visits Transylvania to help Count Dracula purchase a London house, he makes horrifying discoveries about his client. Soon afterward, disturbing incidents unfold in England – an unmanned ship is wrecked at Whitby, strange puncture marks appear on a young woman's neck, and a lunatic asylum inmate raves about the imminent arrival of his "Master" – culminating in a battle of wits between the sinister Count and a determined group of adversaries.

MY OPINION:

I find it difficult to review Dracula because it is a classic, and not only that, it is a classic about the vampire of all the vampires, and you all know how much I like reading about vampires. That said, I cannot say I enjoyed Dracula, although I liked and appreciated some elements.

One of the reasons for my lack of enjoyment was that I was familiar with the basic story from the movies and a retelling of the novel (Dracula, My Love by Syrie James) I had seen and read beforehand. Therefore, I was not interested in the plot, because I knew what happens next. So, it took me ridiculously long to finish the novel. However, this was not the book's fault.

But then, there were a whole lot of things that bothered me in the book:

• I was horrified by all the chauvinism in Dracula. I realize it was published in 1897, and written by a man, but that is no excuse – there are plenty other, older male authors whose writing is much less sexist than Stoker's. Unfortunately, this book is a sharp reminder that chauvinism is not something from the past, and that is even more disturbing.
• Dracula is terribly condescending towards women. Women are called unworthy of men, because men are so intelligent, good, kind,…and women cannot possibly achieve their greatness. Yet, all those strong and brave men weep, yes, weep (what a paradox!). Women are weak and fragile, and they obviously have women's brain, since Mina has "man's brain" (oh, and Dracula has "child-brain"). Naturally, the women are utterly happy to attend to men in every way, there is nothing they could possibly be dissatisfied with.
• Stoker is similarly patronising towards the poor, the uneducated, and the foreigners. Hence, their characters are full of stereotypes and are always looked down upon by the main protagonists. The main characters are conceited and snobbish, but they think of themselves as noble and kind. At one point Mina openly expresses her delight about "the wonderful power of money" and how fortunate they are to be rich. I found it disgusting.
• Everybody in the group of the main characters is so kind and sweet and they trust each other so completely the moment they meet and see how fine people they are. The level of sweetness made me sick.
• All the men are in love with Lucy (and Mina, I think, although it is not  explicitly said in the book), but surely in a purely innocent way, because Lucy is so beautiful and, again, sweet. Of course, they always behave as perfect gentlemen. I am not completely sure of social conventions of the time, but I found it strange how often Lucy is alone in the presence of men and is perfectly all right with it. Even in this day and age I would find it very uncomfortable if men I barely knew were watching me sleep. I would find that much more creepy than some intangible monster that may or may not be somewhere outside.
• Another thing that bothered me was Lucy's treatment. I recognise that from Stoker's standpoint blood transfusion was a fantastic medical progress. It is so even now. I recognise that mistakes happen on the way towards any kind of achievement, this is after all the way of making progress. But, from the present point of view, performing transfusion with unsterile instruments and without any blood-type knowledge seems stupid.

Finally, there are also things I liked in Dracula:

• The writing is beautiful.
• The descriptions are so vivid the places come to life before your eyes.
• I liked that Stoker's Dracula is an old-school vampire, a powerful creature who can change form and manipulate weather.
• The traditionally Slavic way of killing a vampire. (Although, I don't like the sacrilegious usage of the Host and religious prejudice Stoker employs in this book.)

Overall, I am giving Dracula 3 stars, because it is a classic and I feel like I should appreciate it more, but as for the level of enjoyment I would give it 2 stars only.

RECOMMENDATION: Even though I did not enjoy Dracula because of many things I found disturbing, I can see the value of some of its elements. After all Dracula is the predecessor of modern paranormal fiction, and you know how much I love that, especially with vampires in it. So, if you like paranormal and  a beautifully written classic, I do recommend you to give Dracula a try.

The Collector by John Fowles

SUMMARY (from Goodreads):  Withdrawn, uneducated and unloved, Frederick collects butterflies and takes photographs. A lottery win enables him to capture art student Miranda and keep her in the cellar of the Sussex house he has bought with the windfall.

MY OPINION:

I was surprised by how captivating and fast read The Collector is. I always expect a classic to be somewhat tedious, but this novel is so intriguing I could not put it down because I had to know what happened.

Fowles tells the story from both sides, Frederick's and Miranda's. The first part of the story is told from Frederick's P.O.V. and it made me sympathise with him despite his wrongful actions, because his reasoning is sensible and, in a way, innocent.

The events are then retold by Miranda and are, in spite of repetition, fresh, because her experience is new to the reader. Miranda thinks very highly of herself and feels only contempt towards Frederick. She thinks she is better than other people – especially working-class, uneducated people such as Frederick – because she is an artist. She feels superior to them due to her way of thinking. These traits made me dislike her. On the other hand, her fear, feeling of suffocation, longing for freedom, and inability to understand Frederick are perfectly understandable, and I did feel sorry for her and I hoped she would be fine in the end.

The last part of the novel is again told by Frederick, who finally turns out to be a monster. However, the reasons for him becoming a psychopath he is are clear. I could not help but wonder if his life would have taken a different path had people around him, Miranda especially, acted differently and understood him. So, I felt sorry for him, in spite of everything.

All in all, The Collector is an insightful take on human psychology. It is suspenseful and tragic and makes the reader think about social and philosophical issues.

RECOMMENDATION: The Collector is a gripping, thought-provoking novel for everyone who wants to take a look into the psychology of both the captor and the captive.

Menaechmi; Or, the Twin-Brothers by Plautus

SUMMARY (from Goodreads): Considered to be Plautus’s greatest play, Menaechmi; Or, The Twin-Brothers is the story of two twin brothers, Menaechmus and Sosicles, who are separated at age seven when their father takes Menaechmus on a business trip. This classic play, which provided the inspiration for Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors, draws heavily on the theme of mistaken identity.

MY OPINION:

This classic comedy is a quick read, but it is not much fun. I liked it all right, and I smiled a few times, but it did not make me laugh out loud.

The situations caused by mistaken identity are pretty amusing for their part. Unfortunately, my focus was diverted elsewhere from the comic elements by the topics of adultery and exploiting relationships between people. I cannot find people cheating and/or making advantage of other people funny, so that ruined some of the comedy for me.

I think I would have had more fun had I seen Menaechmi in a theatre. After all, being preformed is the point of plays, isn’t it?

RECOMMENDATION: Menaechmi is a classical comedy. As such it offers some thought-provoking topics concerning people’s behaviour alongside the central theme of mistaken identities.  

A Doll’s House by Henrik Ibsen

SUMMARY (from Goodreads): A Doll's House is the story of Nora Helmer who has secretly borrowed a large sum of money to help her husband recover from a serious illness. Nora who has borrowed this money by forging her father's signature soon discovers the value of the relationship she has with her husband, Torvald, when he becomes the director of the bank that employs the man, Nils Krogstad, who has lent the money to Nora. When it is discovered that Nils has commited a forgery himself, Nils threatens to reveal Nora's secret to her husband if she does not convince Torvald to allow Nils to keep his position at the bank. A Doll's House is a gripping drama about a failing, loveless marriage.

MY OPINION:

In the beginning A Doll’s House just seemed ridiculous. I did not like Nora, who acted as a spoiled, wasteful, silly woman. I disliked Torvald even more, because he was treating Nora as a toy, a doll who does not have her own mind but has to do everything as he says, thinking included.

Although Nora grows a spine and becomes rather likeable at the end, there is one thing about what she does that I do not approve of. Also, the story line of other characters is wrapped up rather quickly and is not entirely convincing.

Nevertheless, this play is an interesting read; it is fast-paced, and the course of action and the characters are easily imaginable. The resolution is not predictable at all; I never expected it to end the way it does.

RECOMMENDATION: A Doll’s House is an enticing read about a failed relationship and people pushing after a desired social status. 

The Pillars of Society by Henrik Ibsen

SUMMARY: A small coastal town in Norway. A respectable family hiding scandals. Long lost relatives who come from America disturb the peace of “decent” people. Progress is threatening to shatter the secluded society.

MY OPINION:

This is a play about double morality of the people who are supposed to be an example for everybody else because they are the “the pillars of society.”

What I liked: Ibsen’s course of events flows very naturally, and the characters are transparently and multi-dimensionally outlined. The ending is surprising and cathartic for the characters as well as for the reader, and it made me smile contentedly.

What I disliked: The false glorification of some people who are thought to be better than other people and the whole double-standard rules limiting an individual’s happiness. Also, I was bothered by people who thought they knew what was best for other people.

Generally, this is a great illustration about a hypocritical society, the people who appear to be something they are not, and the people who want to dictate other people’s lives. The play clearly expresses Ibsen’s criticism of such society, and presents his opinion on how things should be, especially with the ending.

RECOMMENDATION: This is a short, but compelling read about society’s double standards. I think everyone who wants to read a socially critical book with a cathartic ending would like The Pillars of Society. 

The Inspector General by Nikolai Gogol

SUMMARY (from Goodreads): The corrupt officials of a small town in Tsarist Russia mistake a penniless clerk from Moscow for a government agent in Gogol’s satire on the grotesque side of human nature. A play described by Vladimir Nabokov as the greatest ever written in the Russian language.

MY OPINION:

The play jumps right in the middle of the action and moves at a fast pace.

What I liked: Gogol’s satire is hilarious and compelling, making the reader laugh out loud and read the play through in one sitting. The language is beautiful and conveys the sarcasm and hidden meanings perfectly.

What I disliked: As it is usual with plays, I needed a couple of pages to remember who each of the characters is and flip back to the character list a few times.

This book is a timeless piece, as it explores the corruption of politicians and officials.

RECOMMENDATION: I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to read something entertaining which at the same time makes you think.

The Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger

SUMMARY: A seventeen-year-old Holden Caulfield tells a story about what he did during a few days a year ago when he was expelled from school. Instead of going home, he aimlessly wanders the streets of New York, making observations about everything and everyone and behaving stupidly.

MY OPINION:

I first read this book when I was around 18. Rereading it now, it was quite a different experience, because my English is now much better than then and because now I can see it from a teacher’s perspective.

Nevertheless, I could not find many things to enjoy in this book. The plot itself was disappointing. I kept waiting for something big to happen, but there is no such event, just a teenager rambling about.

Holden is a spoiled rich boy, who is constantly complaining about everyone being phony. He is intelligent but lazy which is why he fails most of his classes and gets kicked out of school. He behaves foolishly and spends his money carelessly. The only sympathetic characteristic I could find about him was his affection for his dead brother. Otherwise, he is just an annoying teenager, alienated from his parents, though they seem quite ordinary parents for their class and time, at least Holden does not provide any solid example of them not being nice to him.

What I like in The Cather in the Rye is how Salinger captures teenage slang in such a timeless manner that can be related to teenagers in the present. Also, the following of Holden’s statements made me laugh (it was sarcastic bitter-sweet teacher's laughter): “You can’t stop a teacher when they want to do something. They just do it.” and “You don’t have to think too hard when you talk to a teacher.”

There are a few such sarcasm-provoking sentences scattered across the book, which livens it up a little. I found the parts where Holden expresses his opinion on a few books and films interesting, too, since I obviously like talking about these topics.

RECOMMENDATION: Need a substitute for an afternoon nap? Read this, it is very calming and relaxing, nothing too exciting; that is if you do not get unnerved by teenage rambling. 

  

Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen

SUMMARY (by the publisher): Catherine Morland, an unremarkable tomboy as a child, is thrown amongst all the ‘difficulties and dangers’ of Bath at the ripe age of seventeen. Armed with an unworldly charm and a vivid imagination, she must overcome the caprices of elegant society, encountering along the way such characters as the vacuous Mrs Allen, coquettish Isabella and the brash bully john Thorpe. Catherine’s invitation to Northanger Abbey, in her eyes a haven of coffins, skeletons and other Gothic devices, does lead to an adventure, though one she didn’t expect, and her misjudgement of the ambitious, somewhat villainous General Tilney is not  wholly unjustified. However, with the aid of the ‘unromantic’ hero Henry Tilney, Catherine gradually progresses towards maturity and self-knowledge.

MY OPINION:

Northanger Abbey is a wonderfully crafted story about a young girl’s path to maturity. The writing is beautiful with exquisitely formed sentences clearly conveying their meaning. The dialogues, as well as the descriptions of people and places, transfer the reader with ease to the nineteenth century England.

The main character, Catherine Morland, starts off as an innocent, naïve, unlearned girl. As a daughter of a country vicar with numerous siblings, she does not know about the perils awaiting her in the elegant society of Bath and its conventions. Growing up in close connection to nature and absorbed in gothic novels, she is a person capable of wild imagination, but unfortunately a poor judge of people and their manners. In the world when few things are spoken directly, she is at loss to read people’s true feelings and intentions.

Having experienced a few unpleasant events as a victim of her innocence, Catherine gradually learns a few things about the world. With the help of her innate sense of what is right and wrong, she grows and becomes a person able to stand up for herself and her beliefs. Forced to be on her own, she starts using her brain and proves to be a smart and resourceful woman.

The final touch to Northanger Abbey is Austen’s skilful incorporation of criticism towards several social characteristics of the time. Thus, she wittily portrays everyone’s preoccupation with wealth and social status. In a humours way, she presents the general opinion of the time about literature, the worshiping of poetry and the dismissive attitude towards the novel.

Through her exceptional ability as a writer, Austen disproves the chauvinistic and condescending male view upon women and their capacity of writing. Northanger Abbey, with its story, characters and wording, is Austen’s best answer to her contemporaries and their doubts in women’s writing.

RECOMMENDATION: Northanger Abbey is a masterpiece for its writing, plot and characters. It is a must-read for everyone who wants to enjoy a good story, beautiful language, and a balanced view upon the English society of the 18^th century.

The Stranger by Albert Camus

SUMMARY: After his mother’s funeral, Meursault, a young French-Algerian starts a relationship with a former office clerk and gets involved with a local pimp’s business which results in him committing a murder. The trial evolves around trivial events instead of focusing on the crime.

MY OPINION:

The Stranger was a part of my high school compulsory reading requirements. I read it then, found it dull, did not understand it and, consequently, hated it. Rereading it now, with some more perspective to life, I can finally see its value.

This book is about being different. Mersault is the stranger, because he is a stranger among the people around him. His life is aimless, so he becomes apathetic, not feeling anything, although he is good at observing other people’s feelings. He recognises when people feel happy, sad or angry, but he cannot feel anything but indifference to everything, despite being aware what he should feel according to propriety.

Society finds his behaviour morally unacceptable. Therefore, when he is tried for murder, he is really tried for his demeanour and for his lack of emotions. Meursault is not a likeable character, but he can be given credit for his integrity. Perhaps it is not something he can control, but he sticks to who he is. He knows what he is supposed to do, how he could help his case, but he refuses to employ false pretence to save himself.

Meursault’s strangeness seems absurd, and so does his clinging to his strangeness. However, what is the most absurd is that in a way people are all strangers to other people, and yet they are ready to judge each other for it. I think this is the true focus of The Stranger.

RECOMMENDATION: The Stranger is a book for everyone who wants to read something which makes one think about human emotions, morality, and being different. 

Persuasion by Jane Austen

SUMMARY (from Goodreads): At twenty-seven, Anne Elliot is no longer young and has few romantic prospects. Eight years earlier, she had been persuaded by her friend Lady Russell to break off her engagement to Frederick Wentworth, a handsome naval captain with neither fortune nor rank. What happens when they encounter each other again is movingly told in Jane Austen’s last completed novel. Set in the fashionable societies of Lyme Regis and Bath, Persuasion is a brilliant satire of vanity and pretension, but, above all, it is a love story tinged with the heartache of missed opportunities.

MY OPINION:

Persuasion is the first book by Jane Austen I have read since I tried Emma in high school and could not make past the first few pages. Maybe it had been because of the translation or I just had not been up to it then. I read Persuasion in English and after getting used to the writing style in the first two chapters, I could not believe I had been intentionally avoiding Austen for such a long time.

As already mentioned, it takes some time to get used to the language of the late 18^th/early 19^th centuries. However, when I got past this I found the book very enjoyable, both for the plot and the characters as well as for its language and writing style.

Anne Elliot is a character I can easily relate to and sympathise with. Being the middle child, she gets little or no attention from her father, despite being the most sensible and pleasant one of the three Elliot sisters. She is a quiet, good-natured person who would do anything to please everybody. She even gives up her love to indulge her family’s pride.

Her older sister Elizabeth is very much like her father who appreciates her above all of his daughters. She shares his feelings of pride and social value; nowadays we would call them snobbish. Mary, Anne’s younger sister, is in addition to being proud, also eternally unhappy; she is always complaining, she longs to be in the spotlight and I think she is a hypochondriac.

A major theme in Persuasion is social status. Every character is constantly concerned with what is or is not proper for a person in his or her position. Concerning social position, characters are generally narrow minded, which is a real obstacle for love which wins only by improving one’s social position in  order to become an appropriate match. This was actually the only thing that bothered me in this book.

Another compelling feature of Persuasion is its historic testimony about socially acceptable behaviour in the past. I find it especially intriguing how little time and chance young people had to get to know each other and fall in love. Otherwise, the plot flows smoothly, there are beautiful descriptions of scenery, and some unexpected twists continue gripping the reader’s interest throughout the book.

RECOMMENDATION: Persuasion is a timeless book which deals with topics important at any point in history. I think anyone could find it to be an interesting read.