Wednesday, January 16, 2013

my books - Sophie's World (1991) by Jostein Knox

Oh honey, this is not a book for the faint of heart. It is a translation. It is long. It is a philosophy book. Yes, I kept notes as I read. I don't expect anyone to make it through my notes. But I am putting them here so I can find them again. If anyone has actually read this book, please leave a note. I will be very surprised.



Wiki notes:

Sophie's World (Norwegian: Sofies verden) is a 1991 novel written by Norwegian writer Jostein Gaarder. It follows the events of Sophie Amundsen, a teenage girl living in Norway and Alberto Knox, a middle aged philosopher who introduces her to philosophical thinking and the history of philosophy. Sophie's World won the Deutscher Jugendliteraturpreis in 1994. It was originally written in Norwegian and became a best seller in Norway. The novel was later translated into fifty-three languages, with over thirty million copies in print.[1] The English version of the novel was published in 1995. It is one of the most successful Norwegian novels outside of Norway. The book has since been adapted into a film and a PC game.




The Garden of Eden (at some point something must have come from nothing) Chapter title comes from Sophie’s secret ‘den’ in the hedge of their garden.

Sophie Amundsen is lonely – mother works, dad is captain of a big oil tanker, grandmother died 6 months ago. One friend is mentioned – Joanna – she walks part of the way to and from school with her each day. (side note - At this point Sophie ‘reads’ as a very two dimensional character.)

One day Sophie starts finding a series of letters – hand delivered – no postage showing/teaching her the history of the philosopher’s way of thinking.

The first contains a question: “Who are you?”
Followed by another with the question: “Where does the world come from?” Sophie wonders “who had jolted Sophie out of her everyday existence and suddenly brought her face to face with the great wonders of the universe?” (page 9)

As Sophie checks the mailbox for a third note on that first day – she finds a ‘ real/stamped piece of mail – a postcard to Hilde Moller Knag from her father on Hilde’s birthday. The note says “Dear Hilde, Happy 15th Birthday! As I’m sure you’ll understand, I want to give you a present that will help you grow. Forgive me for sending the card c/o Sophie. It was the easiest way. Love from Dad.” (page 10) (side note - at this point – my suspicions are immediately on alert – because the birthday card coming to Sophie’s address c/o someone she doesn’t even know – is so purposeful – that I KNOW it has some major significance).

Sophie thinks about her three interconnected ‘problems’
1. who is putting letters in her mailbox,
2. Difficult questions letters contain,
3. Who is Hilde?

The Top Hat (the only thing we require to be good philosophers is the faculty of wonder)
Sophie’s first “course in philosophy” arrives in a big brown envelop. This explains to Sophie that after people’s basic needs (food, shelter, water, etc) have been met, “there is something else – apart from that - which everyone needs, and that is to figure out who we are and why we are here.” (page 14) “part of something mysterious and we would like to know how it all works.”(page 16) “THE ONLY THING WE REQUIRE TO BE GOOD PHILOSOPHERS IS THE FACULTY OF WONDER.”(page 17) Thought provoking information that most people burrow deep into the fur of the white rabbit where it is safe – and only a curious few move to the very ends of the fur - Our world IS the white rabbit being pulled from a hat –(for more information read last 2 paragraphs on page 20)

The Myths (a precarious balance between the forces of good and evil)
Evolution of philosophy in Greece 600BC. Religious explanations or myths are “a story about the gods which sets out to explain why life is as it is”. Example: “the Lay of Thrym” (page 25) about Thor and his hammer to explain good and evil. Philosophical questions are “Development from a mythological mode of thought to one based on experience and reason.”(page 28)

Natural Philosophers (nothing can come from nothing)
Three new questions arrive in Sophie’s hand delivered mail:
“Is there a basic substance that everything else is made of?”
“Can water turn into wine?”
“How can earth and water produce a live frog?”(page 31)
Earliest Greek Philosophers were called “natural philosophers because they were mainly concerned with the natural world and it processes.” (page 32)
Four roots: earth, air, fire, water (page 38)
“Then Anaxagoras held up that nature is built up of an infinite number of minute particles invisible to the eye” (page 40)

Democritus (the most ingenious toy in the world)
Sophie figures out a pattern to the letter deliveries – every afternoon there is a big brown envelope with her lesson – and while she is reading the lesson – the philosopher would sneak up to the mailbox and deliver a little white envelope. So she decides to keep an eye on the mailbox and catch the philosopher. That day’s lesson: “Why is Lego the most ingenious toy in the world?”(page 44) Democritus was the last of the great natural philosophers (page 45) “he assumed that everything was built up of tiny invisible blocks, each of which was eternal and immutable. Democritus called these smallest units atoms.”

Fate (the fortune-teller is trying to foresee something that is really quite unforeseeable)
After reading that day’s lesson (Democritus above) and seeing no one at the mailbox – she goes downstairs to find an envelope on the front porch (instead of the mailbox). Envelope is a little wet and has two holes in it (clue).
“Do you believe in fate?”
“Is sickness the punishment of the gods?”
“What forces govern the course of history?” (page 49)
Lesson talks about moving out of the tradition that everything is fate/predetermined. Hippocrates (page 56) believed “Health is a natural condition.”
Sophie writes a letter to the philosopher asking if they can meet – puts it in a pink envelope in her mailbox. Sophie catches a glimpse of the philosopher at her mailbox late that night. (Her mother has been noticing a difference in her behavior and thinks she has a boyfriend.) Sophie finds a red scarf under her bed with the name Hilde on it.

Socrates (wisest is she who knows she does not know)
Postmark/stamp from the original postcard to Hilde from her father refers to the Norwegian UN (united Nations) battalion in Lebanon. Sophie starts noticing things in the paper about the battalion. Sophie receive a reply from the philosopher that he can no longer deliver the letters in person and that they will be delivered by his ‘little messenger to Sophie’s secret place in the garden. If Sophie wants to reply she is to put a cookie or a lump of sugar in her pink envelope and leave it in the secret den in the garden. He also says – that if Sophie finds the red scarf to take good care of it. Note is signed - Alberto Knox.
Questions included in note:
“Is there such a thing as natural modesty?”
“Wisest is she who knows she does not know. . .”
“True insight comes from within.
“He who knows what is right will do right.” (page 60)
Lesson comes later in the brown envelope through the regular mail:
What is known of Socrates is from the writings of Plato.
Socrates did not think that he had all the answers (modesty). Socrates promoted discussion, not instruction. Was executed for “introducing new gods and corrupting the youth” (page 67).

Athens (several tall buildings had risen from the ruins)
Sophie received a VCR tapes featuring Alberto Knox giving her a guided tour of Athens. He then goes back in time (on the tape) to the time of Socrates and Plato and shows her how Athens looked then.

Plato (a longing to return to the realm of the soul)
Hermes (dog) makes a delivery of a big brown envelope to the hedge the next morning while Sophie is there. Sophie tries to follow Hermes but he barks and runs. She sits on a tree stump and reads the lesson “Concerned with both what is eternal and immutable in nature and what is eternal and immutable in regards to morals and society.” (page 83) Form or mold so that a horse looks like a horse even though each horse is not identical. And a horse is always all horse and not half horse and half something else (page 85). Soul exists before it inhabits a human body (page 88) Myth of the cave – if cave dwellers only ever see the shadows (from the fire) on the cave wall of ‘real things’ - they think the shadows are all that IS. They do not know the real things exist. When on cave dweller SEES the real things and tries to tell the rest – they will probably kill him (page 89).
The Major’s Cabin (the girl in the mirror winked with both eyes)
After reading the lesson (still in the woods on the tree stump) Sophie decides to follow the path the way that Hermes went. She finds a little cabin on a little lake. She takes the rowboat across the lake to the cabin. She is not strong enough to pull the boat up firmly on the shore. Tiny little cabin – typewriter, fire, someone is living there – but no one is home. Two paintings on the wall – a house on a bay titled “Bjerkely” and an old man titled “Berkeley”. Dog bed with golden hairs – she knows that the occupants of the house are Alberto Knox and Hermes. Finds a wallet with ID for Hilde Moller Knag. Also is an old mirror in a gold frame. As she stares at her reflection it appears that the girl in the mirror winks with both eyes. Freaks her out a little and then she hears dog barking and has urge to FLEE. On her way out – sees an envelope on the table marked “Sophie” and takes it with her. Boat is now drifting on the lake with paddle floating separately. She runs for home – muddy and ashamed. Mother thinks she has been with a boy – Sophie tells her that she has been to the cabin – her mother tells her it is called the Major’s Cabin because an eccentric major used to live there – but that it has been empty for many years. (page 99). Mother talks about a party for Sophie’s birthday which is just a few weeks away. Sophie writes a note to the philosopher apologizing for the cabin and the boat and the envelope. She asks him to convince her that her “deceased grandmother’s soul is happy in the world of ideas.”(page 100) Envelope that she picked up on table asks: “What came first – the chicken or the ‘idea chicken’?” and “are we born with innate ‘ideas’?” and “What is the difference between a plant, an animal, and a human?”

Aristotle (a meticulous organizer who wanted to clarify our concepts)
Sophie gets a note back (via Hermes) from Alberto teasing her about being a sleuth and a burglar and saying that if she is this curious about the answers to the riddles of philosophy that her adventure is very promising. He also says that now he has to move. Aristotle – student of Plato and Europe’s first great biologist. As she finished reading the lesson on Aristotle in her room – she could not stand the mess. She cleaned up, organized and sorted. She finds a white stocking that does not belong to her (again probably Hilde’s) it joins the red scarf, Legos, VHS Video. She feeds her animals (fish, birds, tortoise, cat). She tells her mother that she is lucky to be “human and therefore have the rare capacity for thought” (age 118). She organizes all her philosopher lessons in a binder. “Sophie was in the process of compiling her own book on philosophy. It was not by her, but written especially for her.” (page 119). She does not do her homework.

Hellenism (a spark from the fire)
Sophie finds a postcard with a picture of a UN jeep addressed to Hilde c/o Sophie. It had a Norwegian stamp and was postmarked UN Battalion” on Friday, June 15, 1990. (June 15 is Sophie’s birthday which is in a month). So now Sophie knows that the cards to Hilde are somehow coming in advance, Sophie and Hilde have the same birthday and they both have father’s on the other side of the world. Sophie has not studied for her Religion test. She uses her studies of Philosophies to answer the questions on the test. Teacher says that she is either getting an ‘A’ or a ‘D’ (decides on A) and that next time she had better study. Packet is waiting in the den (hedge) and it has been there for sometime as it is not wet (dog mouth). Alberto says that he realizes she has other studies and there will be no more questions – just the packets. Hellenism – Sophie thought – “could she really believe that everything was one divine ‘I’? Could she believe that she carried within her a soul that was a ‘spark from the fire’? If it was true, then she was truly a divine creature.” (page 137)

The Postcards (I’m imposing severe censorship on myself)
Sophie and Joanna decide to go camping on a national holiday (no school). They came near the Major’s Cabin and go visit. They are careful to pull the boat/oars up on land so it doesn’t float away. Cabin is now deserted. Mirror is still there. They find a box of postcards addressed to Hilde Moller Knag. Postcards are recent. UN postmark. Postcards talk about Hilde’s father coming home for a visit for her birthday (or at least by Midsummer Eve a week later) and a birthday secret. (page 142-143). Postcards say that Hilde will soon meet a girl names Sophie and that Sophie knows no more about it than Hilde does but will soon catch on and maybe Joanna can be of help too - ? Berkeley and Bjerkely portraits are still on the wall. Sophie takes the mirror (and postcards) when they leave the cabin. They go home for rest of holiday. Sophie watches Norwegian UN battalion (in Lebanon) news on TV.

Two Cultures (the only way to avoid floating in a vacuum)
Sophie gets note from Alberto – he says that he left postcards at cabin for her – as he guessed she would go back there – and that was the only way that Hilde will get them.
Lesson includes the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.
“It is the only way to become a human being. It is the only way to become more than a naked ape. . .”
“Sophie sat for a while starting into the garden through the little holes in the hedge. She was beginning to understand why it was so important to know about her historical roots. It had certainly been important to the Children of Israel. She herself was just an ordinary person. But if she knew her historical roots, she would be a little less ordinary. She would not be living on this planet for more than a few years. But if the history of mankind was her own history, in a way she was thousands of years old.” (page 161)

The Middle Ages (going part of the way is not the same as going the wrong way) Longer periods of time pass between Alberto’s contact with Sophie and between Hilde’s postcards from her father. And they stop coming by mail and pop up in all sorts of odd places. One day a postcard blows up against the kitchen window as she is fixing dinner. Then she gets a call from Alberto asking her to meet him at St Mary’s church early the next day. She spends the night at Joanna’s and then sneaks out early to go to the church. Alberto is dressed as a monk from the middle ages. Loved the description of the middle ages as 100 years being one hour on a clock – so that it was always the same Sunday (page 167). St Augustine - Greek philosophy carried over to the new age – he saw no contradiction between Christianity and Plato. And St Thomas Aquinas philosopher and theologian – Aquinas Christianized Aristotle in the same way that St Augustine Christianized Plato (page 177). Names (page 183): Hilde=Hindegard was a nun in Rhine valley – preacher, physician, botanist and naturalist. Sophie=Female side of God is in ancient Christian and Jewish belief is Sophia. Alberto=“Aquinas had a famous philosophy teacher called Albert the Great”. The Renaissance (O divine lineage in mortal guise)

From meeting Alberto at St Mary’s – Sophie dashes back to Joanna’s where she was supposed to be (she had sneaked out to church at 6:45am). Joanna’s parents have missed her – Sophie’s mother called for her – getting tricky to keep the deception going. Sophie returns home and takes a nap – she dreams of Hilde at home on a dock and Hilde’s dad coming home. Hilde drops her crucifix on the dock and when Sophie wakes – the crucifix is under her pillow. Hermes (dog) arrives in garden to have Sophie follow him to meet Alberto. Sophie follows Hermes to Old Town and Alberto’s house. When she gets there– she finds a postcard to Hilde from her father saying that Sophie is now meeting the philosopher at his house. Hilde’s father talks about the difference in time (page 190) – between generations, between different parts of the world, “have you ever thought that the history of Europe is like a human life? Antiquity is the childhood of Europe.” Alberto is dressed in Renaissance costume . Alberto and Sophie talk about the cheap tricks that Hilde’s father plays – putting Hilde’s lost things where Sophie can find them – scarf, crucifix, postcards, etc. “he gets more and more audacious. I wouldn’t be surprised if he isn’t using us as a kind of birthday diversion for his daughter.” (page 191) Alberto’s top floor apartment is full of antiquities. He points out three things – compass, ancient firearm, incunabulum (which means cradle – it is a book printed in the cradle days of printing). These are the key discoveries/preconditions to the Renaissance compass-navigation, weapons- military superiority over American and Asiatic cultures, printing-spreading of new ideas. Age of Empirical Method (observation, experience and experiment). Alberto calls Sophie “Hilde” several times. Sophie finds ten crowns ($) that she needs for bus ride home (turns out later that this was another trick of Hilde’s father).

Baroque (such stuff as dreams are made)
Sophie sees someone from Norwegian UN Battalion is killed on TV and is upset. The story of Alberto (teaching her about philosophy) and his dog Hermes comes out (to her mother). Sophie keeps quiet about Hilde and Hilde’s father. Instead she says that it is Alberto’s brother that is in UN Battalion and that is why Sophie is so interested/worried. Sophie’s philosophical thinking comes out more and more in her school work. Her teachers are interested in where she is learning this – as it is NOT taught in school. Postcard to Hilde shows up at Sophie’s school. Sophie finds another one in the same spot where the ten crowns $ had been and in it he talks about Hilde’s losing ten crowns and how someone that needed it might have found it and then lost another ten crowns that someone else needed (Sophie). Alberto is in another costume (wig, lace) for richer Baroque age. ‘Carpe diem – seize the day’ and ‘memento mori – remember you must die’ (page 223). Shakespeare had one foot in the Renaissance and the other in Baroque (wrote about 1600) (page 225) Alberto has 1st edition copy of “Descartes philosophical essays published in 1637 in which is famous Discourse on Method originally appeared.” And a small casket (box) with a collection of lenses for eye glasses.(page 222)

Descartes (he wanted to clear all the ruble off the site)
Direct line of descent from Socrates and Plato via St Augustine to Descartes (page 230)

“reason is the only path to knowledge”
“Cogito, ergo sum” – I think, therefore I am. (page 235)
Alberto introduces Sophie to a PC and she types in and asks about herself and Hilde and then Major Albert Knag writing pops up on the screen and he wishes Hilde a happy birthday. Alberto erases him but says “it’s impossible to say where he’ll turn up next time.” (page 242). Sophie wants to find the Major – Alberto says it is impossible.

Spinoza (God is not a puppeteer)
Spinoza belonged to a Jewish community in Amsterdam – excommunicated for heresy. “He believed that Christianity and Judaism were only kept alive by the rigid dogma and outer ritual. He was the first to apply what we call is historico-critical interpretation of the Bible.” (page 244) Alberto offers Sophie a banana and when she peels it there is a happy birthday to Hilde written inside. Sophie questions whether “he is the one putting words in our mouths.” (page 252)

Locke (as bare and empty as a blackboard before the teacher arrives)
Sophie’s mother insists on meeting Alberto. Sophie ends up showing her the first part of the Athens VHS tape to show him to her mother. Her mother says that Alberto looks very much like the major that lived in the cabin. They talk about the similarities in the names Knox and Knag. Sophie gets more birthday cards for Hilde but none for herself. Hermes (dog) says “happy birthday, Hilde” to Sophie (page 256). Descartes and Spinoza were both rationalists (believes strongly in the importance of reason) Locke (page 259) Essay Concerning Human Understanding published 1690 – where we get our ideas from and whether we can rely on what our senses tell us. And division of powers in government. Hume (commit it then to the flames)
Age of Enlightenment
(page 266) “Hume wanted to investigate every single idea to see whether it was compounded in way that does not correspond to reality. “

Berkeley (like a giddy planet round a burning sun)
(Remember it is Berkeley in the portrait at the Major’s cabin)
Sophie looks out Alberto’s window and sees a plane with a banner that says “happy birthday Hilde” flying by. Alberto says it looks like there is going to be a storm. Sophie says she’ll take the bus home. Alberto says that he hopes the Major is not behind this (the storm) too. Sophie says “He’s not God Almighty, is he?” (page 278) About Berkeley - Alberto went on “Material reality was not the only thing Berkeley was questioning. He was also questioning whether time and space had any absolute or independent existence. Our own perception of time and space can also be merely figments of the mind. A week or two for us need not be a week or two for God…”(Page 281)

Alberto tells Sophie “For us – for you and me – this ‘will or spirit’ that is the cause of everything in everything could be Hilde’s father.”…and Sophie says “Are you saying he’s been a kind of God for us?” and Alberto replies “To be perfectly candid, yes. He should be ashamed of himself!” (page 281) Sophie runs all the way home in a terrible storm – her mother runs out to hug her – her mother cries “What’s happening to us, little one?” - “I don’t know” Sophie sobbed “It’s like a bad dream.”

Bjerkely (an old magic mirror Great-grandmother had bought from a Gypsy woman)
Point of view switches to include Hilde. It is the day of her 15th birthday. The answers to many things about Sophie are understood. Sophie’s garden is at Hilde’s house. THE Mirror hangs above Hilde’s Grandma’s old dresser. “Many years ago her father had joked about not being able to wink at your own reflection with both eyes at the same time, except in this brass mirror.” Captain’s cabin is her father’s studio down by the lake. When Hilde was small – she is the one that didn’t pull the boat all the way up. When it was adrift in the lake, she was the one that felt embarrassed.

The Enlightenment (from the way needles are made to the way cannons are founded)
So now – for the rest of the book – it is both parts/viewpoints. Hilde knows about Sophie as Hilde reads the book that her father wrote and sent her for her birthday. (SIDE NOTE: Literally – Hilde is reading this same book that I am holding reading). Hilde very much has the feeling that Sophie EXISTS (outside of the book). It is like two parallel worlds – and there are mysteries in this - for example – the severe storm that raged in both worlds – when Hilde’s father had all ready written it into Sophie’s world – but it happened in Hilde’s world too. And Hilde’s missing crucifix – Hilde didn’t realize it was missing – but her mother did and mentioned it to the father – but now the mother can’t find it either – and remember Sophie found it under her pillow.

Hilde’s dad writes in background information on the UN.
Alberto and Sophie continue their studies – even though Alberto says (page 305-6) that “It may turn out that we ARE thoughts, and that is quite different from thinking. We have good reason to believe that we have merely been invented by Hilde’s father as a kind of birthday diversion for the major’s daughter from Lillesand.” Alberto tells Sophie that he is working on a ‘trick’ for them to find their own free will. (page 306-7)

KANT (the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me)
Hilde’s dad calls on the phone to wish her a happy birthday and Hilde says that she feels a little sorry for Sophie. Hilde feels like she is IN the picture of the house (looking out) that is hanging in the Captain’s Cabin. Hilde’s dad writes in background information on the UN. Kant and Hume are talked about (back and forth) in this chapter – it is a LONG chapter. Hilde’s father writes in a sea serpent (in the lake), Little Red Ridinghood and Winnie-the-Pooh into Sophie and Alberto’s lesson at the cabin.

Romanticism (the path of mystery leads inwards)
Hilde is still reading her book. Sophie is planning a Philosophical garden party for her birthday. And in the lesson is the story – “Novalis became engaged to a 14 year old girl. She died 4 days After her 15th birthday, but Novalis remained devoted to her for the rest of his short life.” (page 344). Her name was Sophie and (our) Sophie wonders about the coincidence because of the name and the fact that she is 15 + 4 days. Alberto tells her not to worry as there are many more chapters to finish and nothing will happen until the Major is finished writing. Aladdin stops by the cabin – rubs his lamp and the Major appears to wish Hilde one more happy birthday. Alberto and Sophie plan to contact Hilde by the fact that the Major is typing half asleep and has no correction fluid, so they can contact Hilde and he can’t do anything about it. They consider convincing Hilde to run away. And they consider that while the Major sits in Lebanon typing about them – someone else might be sitting somewhere typing about HIM typing about them. That he might only be a character in a book too.
Hegel (the reasonable is that which is viable)

Hilde feels that her father is being a rascal in how he is treating Sophie and Alberto. Hilde devises a plan to get even with her father – a trick of her own. (page 366-7) “Hegel says that the world spirit returns to itself in 3 stages. By that he means that it becomes conscious in 3 stages. “ subjective spirit (individual ) and objective spirit (family, civil society, and the state) and absolute spirit (art, religion, and philosophy). And Sophie asks Alberto if his statement “that philosophy is the mirror of the world spirit” has something to do with the mirror and Alberto says yes – but only Hilde knows what it means.

Kierkegaard (Europe is on the road to bankruptcy)
Hilde works on her plan to surprise/trick her dad when he is on the way home. Alice (in Wonderland) knocks on the cabin door and gives Sophie two bottles (to drink from). Red makes everything appear as one – pantheism or idealism. Everything as one big ego (page 371). A sip from Blue and every individual things is a wonder – this is individualism . Sophie has to take small sips from both to balance things out again. (side note: I loved this)

Marx (a spectre is haunting Europe)
Hilde takes action on her plan to trick her father – by calling friends/relatives in Copenhagen and asking them to do something. Joanna and Sophie make preparations for the philosophical garden party. Alberto works on his secret plan to work ‘between the lines’ of the fictional reality that the major is writing. Sophie meets Ebenezer Scrooge (rich ) and the matchstick girl (poor) on her way to learn about Karl Marx.

Darwin (a ship sailing through life with a cargo of genes)
Hilde wakes up in her bed – contemplating what it would be like if she woke in a different place or a different time. Noah (ark) knocks on the cabin door and gives Sophie a picture of all the animals he saved. “Naturalistic scientist will exclusively rely on natural phenomenon” – applies to Marx, Darwin and Freud (page 401).

Freud (the odious egoistic impulse that had emerged in her)
Hilde has to go ‘row’ vigorously to calm down she loved that everything in the binder was written for her (by her dad) but she did NOT like how he was treating Sophie and Alberto.

“She could not fathom that they were no more than ‘electromagnetic impulses’ in her father’s brain.” (page 424). “She could not accept that they were only paper and printer’s ink from a ribbon in her father’s portable typewriter. “ Knock at the cabin door and it is The Emperor (stark naked). Lesson on Freud. Alberto asks Sophie to create a diversion on the way home so that the Major’s attention is on her and Alberto can work on his plan.

Our Own Time (man is condemned to be free)
Sophie sings and dances and yodels on the way home. She climbs a high tree and can’t get down. A goose comes to help her. Goose slaps Sophie and she shrinks down to the size of her thumb. Climbs on gooses back and goose flies her home. Goose wishes that they had time to fly through the whole history of philosophy. Later Alberto and Sophie meet in town to talk about “our own time”. A time of communication by computer – no longer have to travel. And Alberto shows Sophie hundreds of books in a book store about telepathy, astrology, ESP – that do not contain one bit of genuine experience – that map a landscape that does not exist. And Alberto takes Sophie back to the philosophy section of the store and shows her a book called “Sophie’s World”. She heads for home with the book under her arm.

The Garden Party (a white crow)
The party turns into a sort of circus – demonstrators carrying signs about the UN, people throwing fireworks, throwing things on the roof, exploding the cake, having sex under the bushes, crashing cars into trees and in the chaos – Sophie and Alberto escape.

Counterpoint (two or more melodies sounding together)
Hilde finishes the book and can’t believe that her father wrote that last chapter. “Was it just to demonstrate his power over Sophie’s world?” (page 479) Sophie and Alberto go to Bjerkely to see what happens when the Major returns. Every day humans can’t see/hear them but other characters that have escaped from books can – they belong to the world of the invisible people. (page 491). The Major on his way home – finds notes, and envelopes and directions where ever he goes – Hilde is directing his world all the way home like he directed Sophie’s.

The Big Bang (we too are stardust)
Sophie is able to make Hilde feel her presence very slightly. Sophie unties the rowboat so it is floating freely once again. Sophie and Alberto are free to go wherever they like. The whole situation has flipped – it started out as Hilde and her dad ‘reading’ about Sophie’s World and now Sophie and Alberto can observe theirs like they are reading it.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

What's in my yoga bag

If you are someone who carries one yoga mat (and that is it) into class, been there, done that. I understand and was at that point once upon a time.



I am in a wide variety of classes on a weekly basis.

I am at studios where props are used in every class.

I leave all the supplies (shown below) in my car trunk 100% of the time.  I simply grab what I need for each class.

I take my Kleen Kanteen into every class. Most of the time, by the end of each class, I have finished one full Kanteen.

I take my phone (on silent) into each class.

In the winter, I wear my boots and then take clean shoes (to change into) for free weights and stations.


For the rest of my supplies -


The simplest class is circuit/stations. For that class, I only take in my beach towel and my strap. I pull them out of my yoga bag and then replace them immediately after class. I use the beach towel under my knees in a lot of stations. Sometimes I use it to prop the back of my butt for better posture. Often at the end of class, there are more people than mats for stretching. I can either sit or lie on my beach towel (folded in half length wise my head and torso and butt fit just fine and it offers a bit of padding from the floor). I use the strap at the end of class to stretch my hamstrings in order to protect my lower back.








The next simplest classes are free weights and Pilates. I take the same supplies into these separate classes. All these supplies fit in my yoga bag (very old, no longer available, originally from Target).




In my yoga bag are the beach towel and strap (shown above).



Also included (in my yoga bag) are my mats. One is full length and the other is half length. When rolled they are exactly the same size in my bag, side by side.





The full length, lighter blue mat is the thinnest I have ever seen. It is 1/8 thick and has a lot of traction. It is a gripping type of mat that prevents slipping. The other, half mat that is more of a royal blue is 1/4 thick. (It started as a full size mat that I cut in half with my kitchen scissors. I gave the other half to one of the women in my free weights class.)  I use it under my hands and knees in free weights class. I fold it in half and then half again and put it under my hands for tricep dips in table stance. I use the half mat under my torso when we are on our sides in Pilates to protect my hip. When I am flat on my back or on my front or on my feet, I do not use the extra padding, I only use the thin mat. 





In the very bottom of my yoga bag are supplies that I sometimes need in free weights or Pilates and a pair of emergency socks.






In the pocket of my yoga bag are other supplies - tissues, foot moisturizer for after class, rescue inhaler, pad, chap stick and hair ties. My hair is not long enough for hair ties, but I keep them there for other people's hair emergencies (sometimes my own girls are with me).






All of those things (show above), stay in my yoga bag.




When I am going to a regular yoga class, I add my two yoga blankets to my bag. I use them (in some form) in every yoga class (under me in shoulder stand so my neck is extended and protected, as a wedge under the back of my butt for improved posture, etc).








For my 1 1/2 hour relaxation class on Sunday nights, I take in my yoga bag, my blankets and also my own bolsters.

My yoga bag, with the blankets, goes over my right shoulder. I can carry all three bolsters in my left arm/hand, that leaves my right arm free for carrying my Kleen Kanteen by its loop, opening doors and signing in at the desk. My car fob is around my neck. My phone is either in my pocket or my bra.  

The class is often crowded, there are not always enough studio supplies for everyone. My bolsters are old, but still very firm. The studio bolsters have lost a lot of their support. I am more comfortable with my face on my own bolsters instead of on studio bolsters where faces, bare feet and clothed butts have been for years.





Wednesday, January 09, 2013

My books - Son (2012) by Lois Lowry

Amazon (very kindly) sent a note to me last summer/fall which said -
Did you know Lois Lowry is publishing Son?

Amazon went on to explain that Son is the fourth in The Giver series.

The Giver is a Newberry winner.

Gathering Blue and The Messenger are numbers two and three.

All three kids and I have read/love the first three books in this series.


These (four, Lowry books) are about Dystopian societies on the same planet, at the same (general) time.

Other examples of Dystopian literature include Fahrenheit 451 (1953) by Ray Bradbury, A Clockwork Orange (1962) by Anthony Burgess, Unwind (2007) by Neal Shusterman, The Hunger Games (2008) by Suzanne Collins, The Drowned World, Crash, and The Drought by J. G. Ballard, Worldshaker (2009) by Richard Harland, Divergent (2011) and Insurgent (2012) by Veronica Roth, Wool (2012) by Hugh Howey.

Both girls have read all the Hunger Games books, loved them. Both my girls read Divergent and Insurgent over Christmas break. They both thought Divergent was most excellent (better than Hunger Games). They were both disappointed at the ending of Insurgent. They both are awaiting publication of the third next year.


I preordered two copies of Son for the youngest and middle for Christmas.

By the time they came in November, it was a very welcome surprise (I had forgotten).

Youngest reread The Giver over Christmas break to refresh her mind  (it had been a long time since she read that one, she read the other two more recently).

She is still in the midst of Son.

I asked her what she thought. And she said that she started Son and then realized she wanted to reread The Giver because she had an idea who it (I guess the son) was. She also said that Son is a bit like the others where one almost has to read it twice and also have nice discussions on it.

Middle will have it done shortly if she doesn't already.

I have already downloaded Son from Audible.

I will listen when I have an extra few days here or there between book group assignments.

Wednesday, January 02, 2013

my books - The Language of Flowers: A Novel (2012) Vanessa Diffenbaugh

Wiki on the term "language of flowers":
The language of flowers, sometimes called floriography, was a Victorian-era means of communication in which various flowers and floral arrangements were used to send coded messages, allowing individuals to express feelings which otherwise could not be spoken. This language was most commonly communicated through tussie-mussies (small flower bouquets), an art which has a following today. The nuances of the language are now mostly forgotten, but red roses still imply passionate, romantic love and pink roses a lesser affection; white roses suggest virtue and chastity and yellow roses still stand for friendship or devotion. Also commonly known meanings are sunflowers, which can indicate either haughtiness or respect – they were the favorite flower of St. Julie Billiart for this reason.

"Be like the sunflower that follows every movement of the sun, and keep your eyes always turned towards our good God."
St. Julie Billiart



NPR on the novel:
Victoria Jones is often sullen, silent and hostile, but she learns to communicate through flowers. Vanessa Diffenbaugh's debut novel tells the story of this woman, who struggles to overcome her troubled childhood spent in a series of foster homes.



Random House said:
The Language of Flowers, Vanessa Diffenbaugh’s mesmerizing, moving, and elegantly written debut novel, beautifully weaves past and present, creating a vivid portrait of an unforgettable young woman whose gift for flowers helps her change the lives of others even as she struggles to overcome her own troubled past.
“A deftly powerful story of finding your way home, even after you’ve burned every bridge behind you. The Language of Flowers took my heart apart, chapter by chapter, then reassembled the broken pieces in better working condition. I loved this book."
Jamie Ford, author of Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet.



Middle and I both read this book. We really enjoyed it.

It is a first novel for Diffenbaugh, who as a foster system mother who went on to adopt one of her foster kids, had a message she wanted to share.

Middle and I have known foster families.

We have seen the court system over compensate for birth moms to the (ultimate) detriment of kids.

Even though I was never in the foster system, I related in many ways to this book. Far too many school changes, far to many beds, far too much instability for a kid to handle.

I could see how attachment disorder happens and then colors life.

Tuesday, January 01, 2013

My books from 2013

Around the World in 80 Days (1873) by Jules Verne

 Atonement (2001) by Ian McEwan

Cutting for Stone (2009) by Abraham Verghese

Far from the Madding Crowd (1874) by Thomas Hardy

The Good Earth (1931) by Pearl S. Buck

Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet (2009) by Jamie Ford

House of the Seven Gables (1851) by Nathaniel Hawthorne

The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (2010) by Rebecca Skloot

Kidnapped (1886) by Robert Louis Stevenson

King Lear (1603-1606) by William Shakespeare

The Language of Flowers: A Novel  (2012) by Vanessa Diffenbaugh

The Lemon Tree: An Arab, a Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East (2006) by Sandy Tolan

Life of Pi (2001) by Yann Martel

Light Between Oceans (2012) by M.L. Stedman

Lolita (1955) by Vladamir Nabokov

Moby Dick (1851) by Herman Melville

My Antonia (1918) by Willa Cather

Oliver Twist (1838) by Charles Dickens

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich  (1962) by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

O Pioneers! (1913) by Willa Cather

The Portrait of a Lady (1881) by Henry James

Reading Lolita in Tehran: A Memoir in Books (2003) by Azar Nafisi

The Red Pony (1937) by John Steinbeck

The Scarlet Letter  (1850) Nathaniel Hawthorne

This Side of Paradise (1920) by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Son (2012) by Lois Lowry

The Song of the Lark (1915) Willa Cather

Sophie's World (1991) by Jostein Knox

State of Wonder (2011) by Ann Patchett

Tender is the Night (1934) by F. Scott Fitzgerald

A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1943) by Betty Smith

Things Fall Apart (1958) by Chinua Achebe

Their Eyes Were Watching God (1937) by Zora Neale Hurston

The Woman in White (1860) by Wilkie Collins

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

my books - Anne of Green Gables (1908) by Lucy Maud Montgomery.

Oh, how I wish I had read this book (and undoubtedly the series) out loud to the kids (or at least the youngest) years ago.

I had never read Anne before last month. I simply didn't know.

If you are trying to place the style of this book, it is similar to the Little House on the Prairie series. It is that type of book. Anne is an orphan. She was not abandoned. Her parents died when she was small baby (epidemic). The story starts when she is 11.

Here is a bit of background (context section) from Sparknotes on Lucy Maud Montgomery (1874-1942). It was interesting to note that she married at age 37 and had three children. Highly unusual for those days.



Wiki notes:
Anne of Green Gables (1908) is a bestselling novel by Canadian author Lucy Maud Montgomery. Written as fiction for readers of all ages, since the mid-twentieth century, the literary classic has been considered a children's novel. It recounts the adventures of Anne Shirley, a young orphan girl sent to a middle-aged brother and sister who have a farm on Prince Edward Island, and who had intended to adopt a boy to help them. The novel recounts how Anne makes her way with the Cuthberts, in school and the town.

Since publication, Anne of Green Gables has sold more than 50 million copies, and has been translated into 20 languages. Numerous sequels were written by Montgomery, and since her death, another sequel has been published, as well as an authorized prequel. The original book is taught to students around the world.

It has been adapted as films, made for television movies, and animated and live-action television series. Plays and musicals have also been created, with productions annually in Canada since 1964 of the first musical production, which has toured in Canada, the United States, Europe and Japan. Others have been produced in Canada and the United States,

In writing the novel, Montgomery was inspired by notes she had made as a young girl, about a couple who were mistakenly sent an orphan girl instead of the boy they had requested, yet decided to keep her. She drew upon her own childhood experiences in rural Prince Edward Island. Montgomery used a photograph of Evelyn Nesbit, which she had clipped from New York’s Metropolitan Magazine and put on the wall of her bedroom, as the model for the face of Anne Shirley, the book's main character.

Montgomery also was inspired by the "formula Ann" orphan stories which were popular at the time and distinguished her character by her insistence on spelling her name as "Anne". She based other characters such as Gilbert Blythe, in part on people she knew. She said she wrote the novel in the twilight of the day, while sitting at her window and overlooking the fields of Cavendish.






As soon as I read those Wiki notes, my mind went to the poem (written in 1885) -

The Little Orphan Annie
by James Whitcomb Riley

Little Orphan Annie's come to my house to stay.
To wash the cups and saucers up and brush the crumbs away.
To shoo the chickens from the porch and dust the hearth and sweep,
and make the fire and bake the bread to earn her board and keep.
While all us other children, when the supper things is done,
we sit around the kitchen fire and has the mostest fun,
a listening to the witch tales that Annie tells about
and the goblins will get ya if ya don't watch out!

Once there was a little boy who wouldn't say his prayers,
and when he went to bed at night away up stairs,
his mammy heard him holler and his daddy heard him bawl,
and when they turned the covers down,
he wasn't there at all!
They searched him in the attic room
and cubby hole and press
and even up the chimney flu and every wheres, I guess,
but all they ever found of him was just his pants and round-abouts
and the goblins will get ya if ya don't watch out!!

Once there was a little girl who always laughed and grinned
and made fun of everyone, of all her blood and kin,
and once when there was company and old folks was there,
she mocked them and she shocked them and said, she didn't care.
And just as she turned on her heels and to go and run and hide,
there was two great big black things a standing by her side.
They snatched her through the ceiling fore she knew what shes about,
and the goblins will get ya if ya don't watch out!!

When the night is dark and scary,
and the moon is full and creatures are a flying and the wind goes Whoooooooooo,
you better mind your parents and your teachers fond and dear,
and cherish them that loves ya, and dry the orphans tears
and help the poor and needy ones that cluster all about,
or the goblins will get ya if ya don't watch out!!!



Wednesday, December 19, 2012

my books - East of Eden (1952) by John Steinbeck

Wiki writes:
Often described as Steinbeck's most ambitious novel, East of Eden brings to life the intricate details of two families, the Trasks and the Hamiltons, and their interwoven stories.

The novel was originally addressed to Steinbeck's young sons, Thom and John (then 6½ and 4½ respectively). Steinbeck wanted to describe the Salinas Valley for them in detail: the sights, sounds, smells, and colors.

The Hamilton family in the novel is said to be based on the real-life family of Samuel Hamilton, Steinbeck's maternal grandfather.

A young John Steinbeck also appears briefly in the novel as a minor character. According to his third and last wife, Elaine, he considered it his magnum opus – his greatest novel.

Steinbeck stated about East of Eden: "It has everything in it I have been able to learn about my craft or profession in all these years." He further claimed: "I think everything else I have written has been, in a sense, practice for this."


Does that almost bring a tear to your eye? It does mine.





This is my oldest's all time favorite book. It is a beloved book to him.

I read it specifically because he wanted me to read it (and it was darned well about time, I am 51 years old and college educated, Steinbeck is a Nobel Prize winning American author.).

I loved this book. It belongs to a lengthy list of really great books I have read. The book is deliciously long. It is a really, really good story.

In fact, I am not sure what my one favorite would be. I have read a lot of books I truly love. But the ONE? Not sure I can choose. Once upon a time it was Gone with the Wind. At other points it was Agatha Christie in general. At another time it was the Merlin Series by Mary Florence Elinor Stewart.   Oldest loves the the Stewart Merlin Series also. I am not sure either of the girls has ever read it.

I read East of Eden shortly after Grapes of Wrath. I think there were three books in between those two texts. As I got ready to start East of Eden I asked oldest if I needed to be forewarned (is Eden as sad as Grapes?).

He assured me that it was not as sad. I asked what it was about and he told me two brothers. Then I looked it up on Wiki and it reference two families. I actually think it is more accurate to say it is about a man who had a family (including a brother) and neighbors and friends.  At one point in the story, I thought oldest should have said - it is about a psychopath (antisocial personality disorder). Because that stood out to me in the book. I also saw a lot of history repeating itself.

The title of the book relates to the Garden of Eden and the story of Cain and Able. Not only can one see that story running through the book, but it also shows that story is running through human kind through the ages.

As I read, I was a little worry history was just going to keep repeating itself and no one was going to learn/change through the generations of families.

That is a topic that is hard for me. I feel very strongly about there being lines in the sand and learning and applying.

I almost called the oldest several times to ask if history just keeps repeating itself in the story. I didn't, he was in the midst of studying for very hard finals.

And honestly, I am not sure how he would have answered that question. I am not sure how I would answer that question now that I am done with the book. Human kind, families, are a complex issue.





For those of you who like older/classic movies, yes there was an East of Eden movie.

Wiki writes:

East of Eden is a 1955 film, directed by Elia Kazan, and loosely based on the second half of the novel of the same name by John Steinbeck.

The film stars Julie Harris, James Dean (in his first major screen role), and Raymond Massey. It also features Burl Ives, Richard Davalos and Jo Van Fleet, and was adapted by Paul Osborn and John Steinbeck.

Although set in early twentieth century Monterey, California, much of the film was actually shot on location in Mendocino, California. Some scenes were filmed in the Salinas Valley.

Of the three films in which James Dean played the male lead, this is the only one to have been released during his lifetime and the only one which Dean personally viewed in its entirety.

In 1995 Nonesuch Records issued an album of music from both "East of Eden" and "Rebel Without a Cause" - both written by Leonard Rosenman - played by the London Sinfonietta conducted by John Adams.


If you like context as much as I do, here it is (from Sparknotes) for Steinbeck (as author of East of Eden). This section does not give away the plot. At the end of the context section there is a review of Genesis and the story of Cain and Able.




Wednesday, December 12, 2012

my books - A Farewell to Arms (1929) by Ernest Hemingway

In a post a while ago, I wrote:
This (For Whom the Bell Tolls) was my second Hemingway book (read A Farewell to Arms last year and liked it too). His books have a very definite style. These first two were very much about men, but the men both had women they deeply loved.

I found A Farewell to Arms to be a bit choppy around the middle, but it is set during a war and war is muddled. Actually For Whom the Bell Tolls is set during war too. And it is much cleaner, more straight forward in its telling.


Here is The Big Read's Audio Radio show on Farewell to Arms.



That (above) was the grand total of my notes on Farewell (and apparently For Whom the Bell Tolls also) the first time I read it.

I read Farewell again last month.

If you are wondering why I reread Farewell, two reasons:
1. I have always wondered if I didn't like it simply because it was my first Hemingway and I didn't have my Hemingway chops (I have loved the Hemingway books I have read subsequently.)
2. I read All Quiet on the Western Front (also WWI) and wanted to compare.



On Farewell, Wiki notes:
A Farewell to Arms is a novel written by Ernest Hemingway set during the Italian campaign of World War I. The book, published in 1929, is a first-person account of American Frederic Henry, serving as a Lieutenant ("Tenente") in the ambulance corps of the Italian Army. The title is taken from a poem by 16th-century English dramatist George Peele.

A Farewell to Arms focuses on a romance between Henry and a British nurse, Catherine Barkley, against the backdrop of World War I, cynical soldiers, fighting and the displacement of populations. The publication of this, Hemingway's bleakest novel, cemented his stature as a modern American writer, became his first best-seller, and is described by biographer Michael Reynolds as "the premier American war novel from that debacle [World War I]".

The novel was first adapted to film in 1932, with further versions in the following decades.

Even though there was dirt and shrapnel and wounds and fear and displacement in Farewell, it is not the same level of war as All Quiet.

Farewell sort of reads as the Country Club version of war when compared to All Quiet.

My husband has read both of these books also. He commented Farewell reads like the Hollywood version of war. And All Quiet reads like real war.

Part of this is the fact that the main character in Farewell was sleeping in a bed and being fed and drinking (a lot) of alcohol during his version of the war. The main character in All Quiet was living in a trench (with dead bodies) and was pretty hungry.

These differences were probably due to the two different sides of the war represented AND the different rank/level of the two main characters.

And part of it is Hemingway's writing style.



There is The Iceberg Theory of Hemingway's writing:

Hemingway:
"If a writer knows enough about what he is writing about, he may omit things that he knows. The dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one ninth of it being above water."


and  Wiki:
From reading Rudyard Kipling he absorbed the practice of shortening prose as much as it could take. Of the concept of omission, Hemingway wrote in "The Art of the Short Story": "You could omit anything if you knew that you omitted and the omitted part would strengthen the story and make people feel something more than they understood." By making invisible the structure of the story, he believed the author strengthened the piece of fiction and that the "quality of a piece could be judged by the quality of the material the author eliminated." His style added to the aesthetic: using "declarative sentences and direct representations of the visible world" with simple and plain language, Hemingway became "the most influential prose stylist in the twentieth century" according to biographer Meyers.


So, what did I think of Farewell to Arms, this second time through, on its own merit (not comparing to All Quiet on the Western Front)?

My impression, reading it the first time, a while back, was indeed because I was not used to Hemingway.

I loved For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Sun Also Rises, Old Man and the Sea when I went on to read each of them (after my first reading of Farewell).

And on the second reading, I loved Farewell too.

My favorite of the grouping is For Whom the Bell Tolls. That one is about the Spanish Civil War. No, I am not fond of war, but it is a truly great book.   My second favorite, The Sun also Rises, is about bull fights and drinking and carousing. As I said at the time - who would have guessed I would have loved that book - ?

I am very much a Hemingway girl.

I never would have known this if Hemingway books had not kept showing up on my to read lists. I would not have read the first one and then gone on to read the following three, on my own. I would not have understood that I needed to get my Hemingway Chops and learn how to read his style.

Wednesday, December 05, 2012

my books - All Quiet on the Western Front (German: Im Westen nichts Neues) (1929) by Erich Maria Remarque

Wiki notes:
All Quiet on the Western Front (German: Im Westen nichts Neues) is a novel by Erich Maria Remarque, a German veteran of World War I. The book describes the German soldiers' extreme physical and mental stress during the war, and the detachment from civilian life felt by many of these soldiers upon returning home from the front.

The novel was first published in November and December 1928 in the German newspaper Vossische Zeitung and in book form in late January 1929.

The book and its sequel, The Road Back, were among the books banned and burned in Nazi Germany. It sold 2.5 million copies in twenty-five languages in its first eighteen months in print.

In 1930, the book was adapted as an Oscar-winning film of the same name, directed by Lewis Milestone.



In the spirit of warning me, we now have a tradition:

For Tess of the d'Urbervilles middle warned - it is a tragedy. Just when you think, this time it might work, this time things might be better for poor Tess - remember it is a t-r-a-g-e-d-y.

For Grapes of Wrath oldest said - it is sad. It starts out sad, it stays sad, it is just sad.

As I got ready to start All Quiet on the Western Front my husband said - it is war, war, war.



First of all, I would like to say this is a truly great book.

It is very well written.

Even though it is a translation, it is very easy to understand. The language is NOT stilted or awkward to me (but I will add I am very used to translations now, I have read a lot of them).

This book captures the essence of front line warfare.

There are only slight sections where one realizes the book is about the German side of WWI. The story is sideless, timeless.

It is one of those books that captures an era, but, yes, it is a timeless rendition of war.

Yes, there are gruesome parts. It is front line battle from a very nasty war. Some still say the nastiest war before mustard gas was made internationally illegal.

Like the other books listed above (Tess, Grapes) and Uncle Tom's Cabin which I would put in this same category, I did fine with it. I think because I was forewarned, I was okay all the way through the story.

I read it as a piece of history. I did not picture it happening to anyone I know. It did NOT give me nightmares or cause me to ruminate in any way. I thought about the book in the context of the book only.


On this topic, Sparknotes writes:
The overriding theme of All Quiet on the Western Front is the terrible brutality of war, which informs every scene in the novel. Whereas war novels before All Quiet on the Western Front tended to romanticize what war was like, emphasizing ideas such as glory, honor, patriotic duty, and adventure, All Quiet on the Western Front sets out to portray war as it was actually experienced, replacing the romantic picture of glory and heroism with a decidedly unromantic vision of fear, meaninglessness, and butchery. In many ways, World War I demanded this depiction more than any war before it—it completely altered mankind’s conception of military conflict with its catastrophic levels of carnage and violence, its battles that lasted for months, and its gruesome new technological advancements (e.g., machine guns, poison gas, trenches) that made killing easier and more impersonal than ever before. Remarque’s novel dramatizes these aspects of World War I and portrays the mind-numbing terror and savagery of war with a relentless focus on the physical and psychological damage that it occasions. At the end of the novel, almost every major character is dead, epitomizing the war’s devastating effect on the generation of young men who were forced to fight it.



If one read Catch-22 and took out all the Who's on First? farcical nonsense, it would be very similar to All Quiet. Two different wars, two different sides, but very similar viewpoints.

I also thought about the last episode of the television series Mash as I read. The statement of what war does to participants that was shown in Hawkeye's mental collapse. I was in college when that episode ran. I remember discussing it with an English professor who was shocked the series did not have a humorous, happy ending. I asked if he had been paying attention through all the episodes. Because like China Beach, I thought the writers held on to the futility and horrors of war on a consistent basis. I thought there a profound point to the ending episode of Mash.

As, I said, this was a most excellent book. Another one that I think should be read by all, even though it is not a very pleasant topic.

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

my books - Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln (2005) by Doris Kearns Goodwin

Wiki notes:
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln is a book by historian Doris Kearns Goodwin published in 2005. The book is a biographical portrait of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and some of the men who served with him in his Cabinet from 1861 to 1865. Three of his Cabinet members had previously run against Lincoln in the 1860 election: Attorney General Edward Bates, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase and Secretary of State William H. Seward. The book focuses on Lincoln's mostly successful attempts to reconcile conflicting personalities and political factions on the path to abolition and victory in the US Civil War.

While consulting on a Steven Spielberg project in 1999, Goodwin told Spielberg she was planning to write Team of Rivals, and Spielberg immediately told her he wanted the film rights. DreamWorks finalized the deal in 2001 and the film has been in pre-production since. Daniel Day-Lewis agreed to play Abraham Lincoln after Liam Neeson withdrew from the project in 2010 after being attached from the start; with Sally Field playing Mary Todd Lincoln. The screenplay was written by Tony Kushner. Filming began on October 17, 2011, and ended on December 19, 2011. The film will be released nationwide on November 16, 2012.


Yes, that is right, I read a contemporary (2005) book!
And it is a nonfiction book (to boot)!
But, yes, the topic is truly classic.


I read the book; have not yet seen the movie.
Oldest and husband saw it and said it was excellent.
The movie is much narrower in scope than the book.


This book was a daunting task, 36 discs/42 hours.  That is about 70 minutes per disc.


I tried to think of the longest book I have read recently. Bleak House (Dickens) came to mind. I looked it up and it was 29 discs at 33 hours.  

I tried to pace myself at two discs per day, 7 days a week. That is 140 minutes per day. Between driving, housework, waiting, shopping, I have 140 minutes most days. No, it didn't happen EVERY single day, because Thanksgiving was in there, but it did happen almost every day. And a couple days I had time for more than 2 discs. So, I finished in about 20 days.

That is a long time, for me, on the same book. But that is also pretty quick work for this volume. I ran into another woman who read it, and she said it took her three full weeks (also) of very concentrated effort. So she and I were pretty much at the same pace.



I have always been interested in Lincoln. I have visited (I think) all of his memorial sites in Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, Washington DC. I would not say Lincoln is a hobby of mine.

But I probably read all the Lincoln books on the shelf when I was in 6th grade and read the whole biography/autobiography section of the school library. I think I remember reading Lincoln (1985) by Gore Vidal, but that book is actually historical fiction. 

I was a little worried Team of Rivals was going to read like a history text book. It does not read like a text. Yes there is a LOT of data in it. The book is written so all the data is interesting and there is a definite story. The data is woven well.

The first four discs alternate between introducing Edward Bates, Salmon P. Chase, William H. Seward, and Abraham Lincoln. This section of the book talks about all four of these families, how these men were raised, educated, wedded, established. There is a nice amount of information on these men's wives and children and households. The reader is given an interesting overview.

Lincoln's childhood is given as a very brief overview. More time is spent on his early adult years. And then the book really dives into his law practice, his start in politics, his presidential run and the presidency itself (which is all about the Civil War).

Slightly more information is given on Lincoln (vs the other three men on the team) as the book progresses. But not by much. The topic is the TEAM, not Lincoln as an individual.

I thought this was an excellent book. Even though there are a lot of characters and data, Goodwin did a good job in staying focused and writing an interwoven story.

I knew much of the Lincoln history. But I did not know most of the cabinet history.

Goodwin referenced her sources in a friendly, conversational way all the way through the book. An example is "in a letter to her father, Kate wrote . . .".

I also loved her asides to the modern reader. When she talked about Lincoln sleeping with his roommates, she explained how that was typical in that time frame and why she did not think there was anything sexual in it from their writings/records of the time. In other words, she knew that was where our minds were going to go, and she answered it.



PS -
My husband is going to listen to this book next. He has listened to a lot of other non-fiction that he really enjoyed. As I talked about this book (no spoiler worries in reading historical books!) as I read, he kept asking me what year? and I never knew. So, I think he reads with a historical calendar in mind, and obviously I do not. 

Wednesday, November 21, 2012

My books - The Grapes of Wrath (1939) by John Steinbeck

Wiki notes:
The Grapes of Wrath is an American realist novel written by John Steinbeck and published in 1939. For it he won the annual National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize for novels and it was cited prominently when he won the Nobel Prize in 1962.


Steinbeck is the oldest's favorite author.

I think East of Eden (1952) and Grapes of Wrath occupy spots one and two in his all time favorite books.

If you are trying to remember the other Steinbeck book I read earlier in the year, it was the novella Of Mice and Men (1937).

As soon as I have a little break in my book deadlines, I am going to read East of Eden. Honestly it is pretty ridiculous that I am 51, college educated, and have not read it.


Wiki notes:
The Grapes of Wrath is a 1940 drama film directed by John Ford. It was based on John Steinbeck's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel of the same name. The screenplay was written by Nunnally Johnson and the executive producer was Darryl F. Zanuck.
Cast:
Henry Fonda as Tom Joad.
Henry Fonda as Tom Joad
Russell Simpson as Pa Joad
Jane Darwell as Ma Joad
John Carradine as Jim Casy, former preacher
Charley Grapewin as Grandpa William James Joad
Zeffie Tilbury as Grandma Joad
Frank Darien as Uncle John Joad
Dorris Bowdon as Rose-of-Sharon "Rosasharn" Rivers
O.Z. Whitehead as Al Joad
Frank Sully as Noah Joad
Darryl Hickman as Winfield Joad
Shirley Mills as Ruthie Joad
Eddie Quillan as Connie Rivers, husband of Rosasharn
John Qualen as Muley Graves, neighbor in Oklahoma
Roger Imhof as Mr. Thomas, ditch employer
Grant Mitchell as Manager of government camp
Charles D. Brown as Wilkie, boy lookout at dance
John Arledge as Davis, bulldozer driver
Ward Bond as Friendly Policeman, Bakersfield
Eddie Waller as Proprietor
Max Wagner as Guard
(Darryl Hickman is the last surviving cast member.)


I can 100% understand why this book, The Grapes of Wrath, won a Pulitzer.

Steinbeck captured an era. And it is a gut wrenching, no one wanted to talk about it, part of history. I wonder, without this book, if generations would understand why some of the laws (minimum wage, working conditions, child labor, etc) are so important.

I also wondered, as I read, how different things are for illegal, migrant workers and their families in the south/west today.

If you are not familiar with this part of history on Oklahoma and then in turn, California, the Context section from SparkNotes gives a very good, short overview without giving away the book.


I did have the "just get there already" sentiment through the middle of Grapes.

And at one point I thought - Mr. Steinbeck, did you feel you needed to clean house on your number of characters?

But those feelings were just for part of the middle, the story re-emerged (with a lot less characters!).

And I had a driveway moment for the last several chapters. I sort of cleared the decks, put my ear buds in, and listened all the way to the end.

I was (quite) startled at the abrupt ending.

But then as I thought about it, there was no way to slowly end it or wrap up the story lines. Their lives were sort of a never ending struggle. There wasn't going to be a magic solution or a nice tidy package.

I knew this was a sad story, oldest warned me.
It always amuses me that for many of things I read, at least one of my kids has read it. And honestly for these types of books, I like to KNOW before I start them. I am not saying I want a spoiler. I am saying I want to be told - sad, tragedy, really stupid people, etc.

And when I finished this book, oldest and I talked about it for a long time.

How great is that?


As I read, I thought of Uncle Tom's Cabin quite a bit. It is not the same story line, but the social context was there and both books were written to further social awareness, capture an era.

So, yes, very glad I read Grapes of Wrath. It was darned well about time for this one too.

I have been seeing parallels of the social issues all over the place and have noticed many references to the book just in the few weeks since I read it.

Isn't amazing how often that happens with a topic?


Friday, November 09, 2012

American Film Institutes (AFI) Movie Lists

Youngest has been watching movies by category and by actor. She worked her way through some of the musical section of DVD's at the library. This was things like Oklahoma, South Pacific, Singing in the Rain. In the past she has worked her way through much of Barbra Streisand. She loves Audrey Hepburn. Sometimes she works on an era like When Harry Met Sally, Pretty in Pink, etc. She doesn't work exclusively through a whole set. She does a bit here, a bit there. She has been working through the classic movies on Netflix.





I found these movie lists and thought you might enjoy them.

Most of the links below list 100 of the best movies under that theme.

The top actors list does not include movie titles, but looking for movies with those actors would be a whole additional list.

Very good project for winter.

I do not snack in front of the TV.

I only watch TV at night, as part of my settling down ritual, when I am done with food for the day.






The year in front of the category does not mean the movies are from that year. It refers to the year the list was published. 

    Wednesday, November 07, 2012

    My books - The Age of Innocence (1920) Edith Wharton

    The Age of Innocence is Edith Wharton's 12th novel, which won the 1921 Pulitzer Prize.


    Wiki notes:
    The Age of Innocence centers on an upper-class couple's marriage. (Note: part one is pre marriage, part two is while they are married). Though the novel questions the assumptions and morals of 1870s' New York society, it never devolves into an outright condemnation of the institution. In fact, Wharton considered this novel an "apology" for her earlier, more brutal and critical novel, The House of Mirth. Not to be overlooked is Wharton's attention to detailing the charms and customs of the upper caste. The novel is lauded for its accurate portrayal of how the 19th-century East Coast American upper class lived, and this, combined with the social tragedy, earned Wharton a Pulitzer Prize — the first Pulitzer awarded to a woman. Edith Wharton was 58 years old at publication; she lived in that world, and saw it change dramatically by the end of World War I. The title is an ironic comment on the polished outward manners of New York society, when compared to its inward machinations.


     SparkNotes Context Section includes:
    It is believed that the expression "keeping up with the Joneses" once specifically referred to Edith Jones Wharton's parents, who were known throughout New York for their lavish social gatherings.

    I had a hard time getting into this book. Not sure why. I understood it. Just was not really invested in the first half. I had a couple thoughts that it might have been a bit to much like Emma or Room with a View. (Although I read Dracula  and another book after those two and immediately before The Age of Innocence.)

    LOVED the second half.

    Truly treasured the last several chapters.


    The protagonist is a man. So that made it different than Emma and a Room with a View. 

    I thought about men in general as I read this book.

    Men who are stand up men, and men who are not.

    Men who are loyal to their children and the mother of their children, and men who are not.

    I also thought of the men who jump from woman to woman.

    I also thought of breeding/class and education.

    I thought of whether you marry a boyfriend or a husband. 

    I thought of looking at the whole picture of your life and the stability and foundation of your family.

    Wednesday, October 31, 2012

    My books - Dracula (1897) by Bram Stoker (1 of 2)

    The Context Section for SparkNotes about Dracula is sort of gruesome. Here are the (non-gruesome) sections of interest to me:

    Bram Stoker was born in Dublin, Ireland, in 1847. The son of a civil servant, Stoker was a sickly child. Stoker’s mother, a charity worker and writer, spent a good deal of time entertaining her son with fantastic tales. Stoker went on to study math at Trinity College and graduated in 1867, at which time he joined the Irish civil service. He also worked as a freelance journalist and drama critic, which enabled him to meet the legendary stage actor Henry Irving. The two men became lifelong friends, and Stoker managed Irving’s theater from 1878 until Irving’s death in 1905. Stoker married an aspiring actress, Florence Balcombe, and the couple had one son, Noel, who was born in 1879. Stoker moved to London in order to oversee Irving’s theater, and he fell into the city’s literary circles, which included figures such as Oscar Wilde, Arthur Conan Doyle, and Alfred Lord Tennyson.

    and

    Stoker also relies heavily on the conventions of Gothic fiction, a genre that was extremely popular in the early nineteenth century. Gothic fiction traditionally includes elements such as gloomy castles, sublime landscapes, and innocent maidens threatened by ineffable evil. Stoker modernizes this tradition in his novel, however, moving from the conventional setting of Dracula’s ruined castle into the bustle of modern England. As Stoker portrays the collision of two disparate worlds—the count’s ancient Transylvania and the protagonist’s modern London—he lays bare many of the anxieties that characterized his age: the repercussions of scientific advancement, the consequences of abandoning traditional beliefs, and the dangers of female sexuality. To this day, Dracula remains a fascinating study of popular attitudes toward sex, religion, and science at the end of the nineteenth century.





    Note that while there are stakes pounded in hearts and a head stuffed with garlic and the like, I did not find this a particularly gruesome book. The (full) SparkNotes entry was actually more gruesome than the book.

    Never in a zillion years would I have guessed the author of Dracula was Irish.

    My husband, middle and I have all read Dracula. My husband and I read it recently for one of our book review groups. Middle read it several years ago, in French. She suspects she missed a lot of the nuance of the story, because she was translating as she went. I have heard it said that one has to think in the language to really get it.

    My husband and I loved this book.

    It is yet another example of a story I did not think I would enjoy and it would have been on the bottom of my stack if it had not been assigned.

    Most excellent writing, plot, characters, tale.

    When I finished it, I could have turned around and listened to the whole thing again and picked up nuance that I missed the first time.

    A very rich read.

    Wednesday, October 24, 2012

    My books - A Room with a View (1908) by E. M. Forster

    If you are trying to remember, E.M. Forester's works include:
    Where Angels Fear to Tread (1905)
    The Longest Journey (1907)
    A Room with a View (1908)
    Howards End (1910)
    A Passage to India (1924)
    Maurice (written in 1913–14, published posthumously in 1971)

    Prior to A Room with a View, I had only read A Passage to India which I loved.


    Here is the Context Section from SparkNotes on A Room with a View if you like just a bit of time/place/background on your authors like I do.


    I suspect that if I had read this book directly after Catch 22, I would have liked it more. Room with a View would have been like a breath of fresh air. I would have enjoyed it more.

    The way that my book schedule stacked up, I read Room with a View directly after Emma. Maybe it sort of paled in comparison. Maybe the two books are too much alike and i got tired of it. For whatever reason, A Room with a View was just okay in my mind.

    Middle and my husband read  Room with a View also. And neither was a big fan.

    I am not sure if it is too simple. Or too much a sort of convoluted romance or what. There aren't any heaving bosoms or bare chested men, it is not a modern romance novel.


    Wikipedia noted:
    A Room with a View is a 1908 novel by English writer E. M. Forster, about a young woman in the repressed culture of Edwardian era England. Set in Italy and England, the story is both a romance and a critique of English society at the beginning of the 20th century.
    That is a very accurate way of explaining it.


    If you are wondering about the Edwardian Era (like I did), Wikipedia goes on to write:
    The Edwardian era or Edwardian period in the United Kingdom is the period covering the reign of King Edward VII, 1901 to 1910.

    The death of Queen Victoria in January 1901 and the succession of her son Edward marked the end of the Victorian era. While Victoria had shunned society, Edward was the leader of a fashionable elite that set a style influenced by the art and fashions of Continental Europe—perhaps because of the King's fondness for travel. The era was marked by significant shifts in politics as sections of society that had been largely excluded from wielding power in the past, such as common labourers and women, became increasingly politicised.[1]

    The Edwardian period is sometimes extended beyond Edward's death in 1910 to include the years up to the sinking of the RMS Titanic in 1912, the start of World War I in 1914, the end of hostilities with Germany in 1918, or the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.



    When my group met to discuss this group, pretty much everyone had ambivalent feelings. The vast majority of the group had read the book. Almost no one hated it. But, no one thought it was the best read of our year. A couple people had been unable to get past the first section. This first part, like many English Author books, sort of sets up the rest of the book. We all agreed that the first part was just sort of "to be gotten through" by all.

    The more we discussed A Room with a View, the more I came to appreciate it.

    Wednesday, October 17, 2012

    My books - Emma (1815) by Jane Austen (1 of 2 posts today)

    “Ah! There is nothing like staying home for real comfort.” 
    Jane Austen

    I had just finished Emma when this post mentioning Pride and Prejudice caught my eye.

    What stayed with me (from that post) was the concept of knowing one is happy without feeling outright happy at key points in our lives. It is a short but interesting post on happiness.



    Yes, Emma was a reread for me.

    My husband and I had both read this book for college, the same instructor in fact. This was a flamboyant professor who professed his love for Emma at every opportunity. If Helen ever had him, she will remember immediately. We all graduated in 1983, so it was at least 30 years ago we read this book. As I read, bits and pieces of the plot came back to me. My husband had no memory of the details of the book and even needed a character list to keep everyone straight as he first listened. I think there were about 23 on that list.

    Husband did not care for Emma 30 years ago. And honestly he did not care for it now either. 30 years ago he thought he did not like it because the professor was so over the moon about it that no book could have lived up to expectations.

    Now he did not care for it because he felt all the characters talked too much. He was actually surprised I liked it.

    I went into Emma just after finishing Catch 22, so Emma was very welcomed at that point. In Cold Blood might have been very welcomed at that point.



    I remembered liking Emma 30 years ago.

    I thought I would not like it the second time around.

    I thought knowing the general outcome of the book (in advance) was going to ruin it for me.

    It did not.

    Laura mentioned (long ago in a comment) that as a literature major in college, there was a design of study that revealed the plot of books in advance so the writing style/composition could be analysed as one read. So, the professor told them the general plot of the book before they read it for class. And then as they read, they analyzed the author's process/style.

    I had this experience with Emma. I think I noticed a lot more because I knew what was coming. I enjoyed the process. I think I might have liked it better the second time around, I enjoyed/caught the nuances more.



    I have read all of Jane Austen's books. I have read Pride and Prejudice and now Emma twice as I had read them long ago and then reread when they came up on recent book review group lists.

    If I had not already read all of them, I would be suggesting the other titles for book group reading lists. I would want to have read them all.

    I love her books, our girls love her books. Oldest has read at least Pride and Prejudice (for a class) and loved it too.



    There is a woman in one of my book review groups who always talks about the subtle humor in books. She will mark certain passages in books, read them aloud to the group, and talk about the subtle humor. She is really helping me in my reading as I am catching the subtle inferences of authors more readily. I think - there is a Chris moment - each time I hit one. It has really helped me grow in my reading. I had that experience (a lot) while reading Emma this second time. And I kept thinking - wonder if Chris will mention that one - before I remembered I was reading it for my other reading group - Chris will not be there.



    I think Jane Austen is a good example of subtle. These are not merely 'girl books', these are social context books (in my opinion).


    Context Section from SparkNotes:
    Jane Austen, whom some critics consider England’s best novelist, was born in 1775 in Steventon, England. The seventh of eight children, Austen lived with her parents for her entire life, first in Steventon and later in Bath, Southampton, and Chawton. Her father was the parish rector in Steventon, and, though not wealthy, her family was well connected and well educated. Austen briefly attended boarding school in Reading but received the majority of her education at home. According to rumor, she had a brief love affair when she was twenty-five, but it did not lead to a marriage proposal. Two years later she accepted and then quickly rejected a proposal. She remained unmarried for the rest of her life. Austen died in 1817, at age forty-one, of Addison’s disease.

    Austen began writing stories at a very young age and completed her first novel in her early twenties. However, she did not publish until 1811, when Sense and Sensibility appeared anonymously, -followed by Pride and Prejudice (1813) and Mansfield Park (1814). Emma, which appeared in 1816, was the last novel published -during Austen’s lifetime. (Northanger Abbey and Persuasion appeared posthumously.)

    Austen’s novels received little critical or popular recognition during her lifetime, and her identity as a novelist was not revealed until after her death. As admired as Austen’s novels later became, critics have had a difficult time placing them within literary history. She is known for her gently satirical portraits of village life and of the rituals of courtship and marriage, but she wrote during the Romantic period, when most major writers were concerned with a very different set of interests and values. Romantic poets confronted the hopes and failures of the French Revolution and formulated new literary values centered on individual freedom, passion, and intensity. In comparison, Austen’s detailed examination of the rules of decorum that govern social relationships, and her insistence that reason and moderation are necessary checks on feeling, make her seem out of step with the literary times. One way to understand Austen’s place in literary history is to think of her as part of the earlier eighteenth century, the Age of Reason, when literature was associated with wit, poise, and propriety. Her novels certainly belong to an eighteenth-century genre, the comedy of manners, which examines the behavior of men and women of a single social class.

    Rather than dismiss Austen as a writer who shuns the artistic and political movements of her time, it is perhaps more useful to think of her as an early feminist. Critics have pointed out that the Romantics, who were almost exclusively male, offered a poor model of literary fulfillment for the ambitious woman of the time. While male writers such as Percy Bysshe Shelley and Lord Byron possessed the freedom to promote their own individuality through wide travel and sexual and military adventurism, women were largely denied these freedoms. For women, the penalty for sexual freedom was social ostracism, poverty, and worse. In Sense and Sensibility, Austen describes explicitly the danger that cultivating emotion posed for women of her time.

    In this social context, Austen’s commitment to reason and moderation can be seen as feminist and progressive rather than conservative. The intelligence and resourcefulness of her heroines stand in constant contrast to the limits of the constricted world of courtship and marriage defining their sphere of action. While reading Emma it is interesting to consider to what extent Austen accepts or questions the idea that marriage represents a woman’s maturity and fulfillment.

    Some consider Emma Austen’s best and most representative novel. It is also her longest novel, and by many accounts, her most difficult. Long praised for its rich domestic realism, Emma also presents puzzling questions: how can a character as intelligent as Emma be wrong so often? When does Austen expect us to sympathize with Emma, and when does she expect us to criticize her? Is the ending as genuinely happy as it is presented to be, or does Austen subtly inject a note of subversive irony into it? That these questions are on some level unanswerable ensures that Emma will be read again and again.


    If you are wondering about my husband - he kept with the book, and liked it well enough by the end (he said the second half was better), but it certainly will never be a favorite. And he is not itching to read another Austen.

    He watched Emma with Gwyneth Paltow. He loved the movie. He thought it was very funny and well done.

    A couple people in the group watched the BBC version of Emma (there are at least two and the more recent one is better in my opinion).


    After the meeting the facilitator and I were talking -
    The facilitator of the group is male, heterosexual, youngish, and very well read. He had never read any of Austen's work before Emma. And he loved it. He said he had to read it at a much slower pace and really think to catch the humor.

    I told him I think that is one advantage I have in listening to the books. The pace for reading out loud/listening is MUCH slower than the pace for reading text. Much slower (I read very quickly). By listening, I am forced to a yoga like state of reading. My iPod has a feature where I can adjust the pace (slow, normal, fast, very fast).

    I usually listen on normal.

    I have a book I am just starting (Age of Innocence (1920) by Edith Wharton)  where there is something off about the reader. It is a volunteer reader through USF Lit2Go. Normally their readers are very good. I am going to try a slower pace to see if that helps. If not, no harm in buying from Audible sometime (I watch the sales), as it was a free download from USF Lit2Go.

    I also have Siddhartha (1922) by Herman Hesse with a dreadful reader. This was a very inexpensive (maybe $2) download from Audible. I bought it before I understood the importance of listening to a sample of the reader's style before downloading. There was a reason it was on sale! If I end up rebuying a different version, no harm. But I am going to try a slower pace to see if that helps the very speedy reader sound.





    Wednesday, October 10, 2012

    My books - Catch-22 (1961) Joseph Heller. (1 of 2)

    Context Section from SparkNotes:
    "Joseph Heller was born in Brooklyn in 1923. He served as an Air Force bombardier in World War II and enjoyed a long career as a writer and a teacher. His best-selling books include Something Happened, Good as Gold, Picture This, God Knows, and Closing Time, but his first novel, Catch-22, remains his most famous and acclaimed work. He died of a heart attack in December 1999.

    "Heller wrote Catch-22 while working at a New York City marketing firm producing ad copy. The novel draws heavily on his Air Force experience and presents a war story that is at once hilarious, grotesque, cynical, and stirring. The novel generated a great deal of controversy upon its initial publication in 1961. Critics tended either to adore it or despise it, and those who hated it did so for the same reasons as the critics who loved it. Over time, Catch-22 has become one of the defining novels of the twentieth century. It presents an utterly unsentimental vision of war, stripping all romantic pretenses away from combat, replacing visions of glory and honor with a kind of nightmarish comedy of violence, bureaucracy, and paradoxical madness. This kind of irony has come to be expected of war novels since the Vietnam War, but in the wake of World War II, which most Americans believed was a just and heroic war, Catch-22 was shocking. It proved almost prophetic about both the Vietnam War, a conflict that began a few years after the novel was originally published, and the sense of disillusionment about the military that many Americans experienced during this conflict.

    "Unlike other antiromantic war novels, such as Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front, Catch-22 relies heavily on humor to convey the insanity of war, presenting the horrible meaninglessness of armed conflict through a kind of desperate absurdity rather than through graphic depictions of suffering and violence. Catch-22 also distinguishes itself from other antiromantic war novels through its core values: the story of Yossarian, the protagonist, is ultimately not one of despair but one of hope. He believes that the positive urge to live and to be free can redeem the individual from the dehumanizing machinery of war. The novel is told as a series of loosely related, tangential stories in no particular chronological order. The narrative that emerges from this structural tangle upholds the value of the individual in the face of the impersonal, collective military mass; at every stage it mocks insincerity and hypocrisy, even when such values appear triumphant.

    "Despite its World War II setting, Catch-22 is often thought of as a signature novel of the 1960s and 1970s. It was during those decades that American youth truly began to question authority. Hippies, university protests, and the civil rights movement all marked the 1960s as a decade of revolution, and Heller’s novel fit in perfectly with the spirit of the times. In fact, Heller once said, “I wasn’t interested in the war in Catch-22. I was interested in the personal relationships in bureaucratic authority.” Whether Heller was using the war to comment on authority or using bureaucracy as a statement about the war, it is clear that Catch-22 is more than just a war novel. It is also a novel about the moral choices that every person must make when faced with a system of authority whose rules are both immoral and illogical."




    This book was published the year I was born. I did not read it in college. I suspect that it was standard reading for college students in the 60's and 70's. I was in college in the 80's.

    This was a tough book to read. There is some gore, but honestly not a lot. And that is not what made it tough. It was the absurdity that was hard (for me). In the beginning it reminded me a lot of the humor/absurdity of The Confederacy of Dunces. The topics are not at all the same. Catch-22 is sort of that old "Who's on first?" routine gone to war.

    My husband had read it (on his own, not in college) and actually loved it. But he told me (as soon as I started complaining about it) that I was probably not going to like it (all the way to the end).

    To be very honest, I had to make myself stay with it through disc 6 (there were 15 discs, so well over 15 hours).

    Then at disc 7 (almost half way) I ran into people who had read it in college and they all told me to stick with it.

    They did not tell me I would love it, they told me it was an important novel that they were surprised I had not read in college.

    And I ran into people who never finished it because they couldn't stick with it.

    At that point it was exactly like it is at the half way point of a hard exercise class. Am I going to walk out when the real benefit is just about to start? When I could be DONE (with a feeling of accomplishment rather than defeat which does not feel good to me)? Not likely.

    The second half the book was easier (for me) to read/listen than the first. I think there was slightly less of the "who's on first?" shtick going although it remained loyal to the absurdity of war all the way to the end.

    To be honest, I listened to half, took a time out to listen to Treasure Island for a book review meeting, and then finished the second half. So, Catch-22 was in my life for almost three weeks.  Certainly not as long as war impacts people's lives, but long enough for me.

    I would have enjoyed it more (my first read) if it was part of the curriculum  for a college class.

    Yes, in the end, now that it is done, I am glad I read it.

    No, I would not read it a second time. If it were assigned for another reading group, I would refresh my brain with SparkNotes and happily go discuss it.


    Wednesday, October 03, 2012

    My books - Treasure Island (1883) by Robert Louis Stevenson (1 of 2 posts)

    This is an interesting side note: when I was looking at house plans, for our current house, about 12 years ago, one of the house plan books I checked out from the library was by Robert L. Stevenson. When I raised an eyebrow to the librarian at the checkout desk, she said - yes, it is the same one. When I looked on biography websites last week, writing this post, I could not find that book listed. Nor any references to R.L. Stevenson house architecture.

    I sent a note to my local library asking about the book, here is the response I got:

    Hello,
    Unfortunately, there is nothing by this description in our catalog anymore.
    The following titles are owned by other libraries in the U.S.:
    Homes of character, illustrating one hundred designs Robert L Stevenson
     &
    Portfolio of homes designed Robert L Stevenson
    I'm unsure if it's the same Robert Louis Stevenson though.
    Both titles list the birth year as 1883, while the Treasure Island author's birth year was 1850.

    So the librarian 12 years ago made an assumption. I followed right along, because it didn't occur to me to check the birth dates either, I just looked at the name.





    TODAY'S POST ON TREASURE ISLAND:


    Wikipedia notes:
    "Treasure Island is an adventure novel by Scottish author Robert Louis Stevenson, narrating a tale of "buccaneers and buried gold". First published as a book on May 23, 1883, it was originally serialized in the children's magazine Young Folks between 1881–82 under the title Treasure Island or, the mutiny of the Hispaniola with Stevenson adopting the pseudonym Captain George North. With Jim Hawkins as the main character in the story.

    "Traditionally considered a coming-of-age story, Treasure Island is an adventure tale known for its atmosphere, characters and action, and also as a wry commentary on the ambiguity of morality — as seen in Long John Silver — unusual for children's literature now and then. It is one of the most frequently dramatized of all novels. The influence of Treasure Island on popular perceptions of pirates is enormous, including treasure maps marked with an "X", schooners, the Black Spot, tropical islands, and one-legged seamen carrying parrots on their shoulders.[1]"



    My husband and I started listening to this book on the same day. He came home from work and said - I bet you love this one.

    And I did.

    I had never read it before last month. Not sure how I missed it.

    And if I had read it, I would have read it out loud to my kids. They would have loved it too.

    One thing I loved (from the point of view of reading it to kids) is that the first sentence, from the point of view of Jim, tells the reader Jim/the main character is going to be okay:
    "SQUIRE TRELAWNEY, Dr. Livesey, and the rest of these gentlemen having asked me to write down the whole particulars about Treasure Island, from the beginning to the end, keeping nothing back but the bearings of the island, and that only because there is still treasure not yet lifted, I take up my pen in the year of grace 17__ and go back to the time when my father kept the Admiral Benbow Inn and the brown old seaman with the sabre cut first took up his lodging under our roof."

    Frankly, there are a lot of people who die in this book. I would still read it to a child who really loves stories (as long as they were not prone to fear and could enjoy the story). But I would make sure to point out that first sentence so they were not scared for Jim through the whole story.




    It is one of those books which might make a better listen than a read, because the speech is pretty wonderful. The version I listened to was from USFLit2Go off iTunes. The reader was really great. I could hear him turning the pages of the book, which added to the whole experience.

    Oldest listens to an individual who does his own podcasts of Sherlock Holmes. So this is just a lay person who has taken this on as a project. I think he is working his way through (podcasting) the complete works. And every once in a while, you can hear the guy's cat meow. Sort of priceless.

    There were several people at our book review group who said they wished they had listened to this book as they thought it would be a better read in audio format. They were not saying they didn't like the book, almost everyone LOVED it, but they thought it would have been better as a listen.

    The group facilitator is always surprised that all the women in the group LOVE what he thinks of as boy books. He does not mean male books. He means juvenile fiction action books.

    I was not surprised I loved it. But I (too) was surprised at some of the women (in the group) who loved it.

    I have started listing all the characters (from that month's book) on the huge dry erase board at our discussion group. I write the name and then something very short that will trigger our memories (Ben Gunn - marooned 3 years). It allows for much better discussion as it is easier to remember all the names. And it also insures that we talk about all the characters. Treasure Island is not very long, a super fast read at 7 CD's/7 hours, but I thought I was going to run out of board, lots of characters.

    We had a great discussion. One other thing that our facilitator always says - he does not have to keep track of every nuance as he reads, because one of us (in the group) will be sure to bring IT up (whatever it is in a particular book). This group has a lot of detailed readers (I am one of them). And we have a couple former English Lit high school teachers who actually taught some of these books. My other group does too. Those former Lit teachers add a lot to the mix.