Review: JEEVES AND WOOSTER by PG Wodehouse

Original Publication Date: 1934

Genre: Mystery, comedy

Topics: Society, love, no good deed goes unpunished












Review by Sharky & Smiles:

Imagine you’re a pleasant, helpful, not very clever member of the upper class. Imagine your friends aren’t even that clever or that pleasant and helpful. And they keep getting into trouble and expecting you to get them out of it. Of course, they’re your pals, so you do, mostly based on plans your incredibly intelligent valet makes up. Same thing applies when you mess everything up and get into even deeper trouble.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster, needlessly overcomplicating a simple problem.

Simple problem you say? Now imagine if X loves Y but can’t meet Y so Z goes to make sure Y doesn’t get stolen away by Y’s charming guest while pretending to be A because A is engaged to B and B’s relatives are expecting A to visit and A can’t make it.

... what...

That’s the BASE plot of the book we read. It just gets worse from there until everything collapses on itself like an abused soufflé. Somehow into a happy ending.

The pattern is broadly the same in each book in the series, but they’re all uniquely absurd in their own ways. The nice thing is you can probably just grab any Jeeves and Wooster book (and there’s a lot of them) and enjoy it as a stand-alone, without having to worry about sequence or whether you have to read five other things to know what’s going on.

You’ll likely never know quite what’s going on anyway, and that’s the fun of it. It’s another one of those wild rides where you just have to trust the author. And if you can’t do that, if you keep stopping to roll your eyes or object to how silly things are getting, you don’t enjoy. These are SILLY books. So silly. Complete, absurd, slapstick, screwball comedy narrated with a style I’m completely in love with.

Remember what we said about Hitchiker’s Guide being weird with amazing narration? This is very like that, but without the freedom of weirdness of being set in space among aliens. And if you think a non-magical, non-alien setting doesn’t give you much leeway to be silly and strange, boy are you wrong.

The characters are more like caricatures, the plots are basically ridiculous, and the narration keeps going off on its own tangents in the most amusing ways. Great descriptions, run on confusions and liberal use of ‘dash it all!’

I’m 100% behind the way things are narrated. But I tend to lose patience with the characters sometimes, they’re all such idiots. They’re supposed to be but that doesn’t always help.

I caught Sharky yelling oh my God just tell the truth already at the book.

Oh my God just tell the truth already it’s not that hard but you’re making it harder what is happening why is nobody making any sense.

It got worse for him when someone tried to tell the truth, it got over-exaggerated by someone else, and now nobody believes the original truth.

WHAT IS HAPPENING WHY IS NOBODY MAKING ANY SENSE.

But that’s why you have to hold on and just trust the author. Everything has to go horribly for the main character, Bertie, before things can get better for anyone else, and always in the most ridiculous ways. It would almost be tragic if it wasn’t so funny.

Unlike Sharky, Jeeves is actually helpful. And objectively the smartest person in every book.

But even the stupidest characters can be really sarcastic and witty, even if Bertie can never quote anything properly even when he’s trying to act clever.

Someone somewhere once said something very profound about comedy and tragedy being the same. Kind of. Broadly. Probably.

Now you know what to expect when Bertie quotes anything.

I like the setting. There’s something nice about spending time in a little bubble where the biggest problem tends to be ‘my aunt is angry at me and she’s very scary’. It reminds me of those books where kids could have adventures because they didn’t really have to worry about anything else. Despite the fact that these books are set between wars and during, we’re in a sunny little patch where things are good, money- and status-wise, but love and family is confusing and people are unreasonable and sometimes there isn’t time to dress for dinner and you feel out of place.

Just so you know, Smiles has been shaking in place, trying not to spend the entire review just spouting off quotations rather than talking about the book.

I just want to quote so many things! ... which I do with every book. Tell you what, between this review and the next one, we’ll do a mid-week upload with a quote from each of the books we’ve reviewed!

Wha- we didn’t discuss that!

Oh Sharky, when do I ever discuss what we’re going to do with you?




Download Right Ho, Jeeves by PG Wodehouse at Project Gutenberg|Librivox

Review: THE RAIN-GIRL by Herbert George Jenkins

Original Publication Date: 1919

Genre: Romantic comedy

Topics: Depression, suicide, family, society            














Review by heidenkind:

Recently home from the trenches of WWI, Richard Beresford finds that he simply cannot deal with stuff anymore. Not his former job at the Foreign Office, not his family, not the whole getting-up-in-the-morning and getting-dressed thing, or eating or reading or hobbies or anything at all. So he decides he's just going to wander around and be tramp. His very proper family is horrified, but he ignores them, sells all his possessions (aside from his books), and starts off across the countryside. No sooner can you say survival skills, however, than he comes across a manic pixie dream girl sitting on a gate in the rain, happy as you please. Richard is enchanted with the young woman and becomes obsessed with finding her, even though he only knows her by his nickname for her: The Rain-Girl.

You might recognize the name Herbert George Jenkins from another of his romantic comedies, Patricia Brent, Spinster, which Liz reviewed here a little over a year ago. As much as I enjoyed Patricia Brent, Spinster–and I did enjoy it a lot more than Liz did; I thought it was a charming and delightful Cinderella story–The Rain-Girl is much better. While Patricia Brent, Spinster, was a tad predictable and suffered from a surfeit of incredible coincidences, The Rain-Girl is much more grounded and goes to some surprisingly dark places while still maintaining the clever dialog and humor of a comedy.

Richard is obviously suffering from what we would call post-traumatic stress syndrome. He wants to check out of life, by which I mean he no longer cares if he lives or dies, and is in fact leaning more towards the latter. There are moments in The Rain-Girl where Richard is perilously close to committing suicide, and there are conversations between him and his cousin, Lord Drewitt, where they argue that they should have the right to kill themselves if they like–after all, it's *their* life. If you can't end it went you want, what can you do?

All this probably makes The Rain-Girl sound like a downer, but it's not. Richard doesn't really want to kill himself, he just doesn't know to cope with life anymore, at least not until he's faced with the challenge of finding the Rain-Girl. Lord Drewitt, who's in the book quite a bit, is filled with sarcastic quips and clever bon mots, and his mother–Richard's aunt–adds a nice bit of spice to things trying to keep her son and nephew in order.

Basically, The Rain-Girl is a really fun book even if Richard has some serious shit to deal with. The world is the same one occupied by the main characters of Patricia Brent, Spinster–Lady Tenegra even makes an appearance–so if you enjoy novels set amongst English high society, this one's your jam.

As for the eponymous Rain-Girl, I called her a MPDG in the summary, but she's really not. I expected her to be, but Richard's attraction goes deeper than that even in the beginning. He likes her because she's interesting and different and doesn't fit in, kind of like how he feels he doesn't fit in anywhere anymore; and he admires her ability to enjoy something that's usually considered bad, like the rain. She's also not a "girl," but a woman whose quirky exterior belies a very serious and independent character.

Basically, if you enjoy historical romances, I think you'll really like The Rain-Girl. I really wish more of Jenkins' romances were available!




Download The Rain-Girl by Herbert George Jenkins at Librivox|Internet Archive

Review: THE GOLD BAG by Carolyn Wells

Original Publication Date: 1911

Genre: Mystery

Topics: Society, trust, family


















Review by heidenkind:

Burroughs, a young detective, goes to West Sedgwick to investigate the murder of a millionaire. The old man was found dead in his study, and the only clue was a gold bag (and a flower petal, but the book's called The Gold Bag, so let's just focus on that). Was the killer the millionaire's beautiful niece, who stood to inherit his entire fortune? Or was it her sketchy fiance, or his secretary? Burroughs and a whole team of detectives just can't figure it out.

The Gold Bag is probably the worst detective novel I've ever read in my entire 29 years of reading mysteries. Even Inspector Gadget has more going on with his little gray cells than Burroughs.

Here's the thing: The Gold Bag is the second book in The Fleming Stone Mystery series. Stone is (almost exactly) like Sherlock Holmes: he can draw conclusions about people and events by observing the tiniest details. But calling The Gold Bag a Fleming Stone novel is like calling 21 Jump Street a Johnny Depp movie. Yeah, maybe his scene was the best one in the film, but it was just the one scene.

In The Gold Bag, Fleming Stone makes a brief appearance in the first chapter, then doesn't show up again until the very last chapter, and the last part of the last chapter at that. Meanwhile, Burroughs is the main character and "detective," and THE MAN IS AN INCOMPETENT IDIOT. He couldn't detect his way out of an elevator. And it's not played for laughs, either–Carolyn Wells seems to actually believe he and the other detectives (there's a whole slew of them, standing around doing nothing) are conducting some sort of legitimate investigation here.

No.

My first inkling that this "investigation" wasn't going to go so well came in Chapter Four, during the coroner's inquest. Gregory Hall, the fiance of the victim's niece, was on the stand answering questions about his movements on the day of the murder. He'd actually been away on business that night–or so he claimed–but when asked where he stayed and what business, exactly, he was engaged in, Hall refused to answer with, "As it has no bearing on the matter in hand, I prefer not to answer that rather personal question."

Exquise me? This is a murder investigation, buddy, we decide what's relevant, not you. Instead of saying that, however, the coroner's like, "Oh, okay then, we'll respect your privacy. You obviously didn't do it, after all, since you were out of town!"

Ummm...

Then there's Florence Lloyd, who is clearly Suspect Number One. Her uncle told her he was going to cut her out of his will if she married Hall, AND she admitted to owning a gold bag like the one found in the office. But she gave it away, she doesn't remember to who. Florence is dismissed by Burroughs and everyone else out of hand because she's a pretty, wealthy young woman, so OBVIOUSLY she couldn't have killed anyone. In fact, Burroughs develops a tendre for her that kind of made me throw up a little in my mouth.

At first I assumed that the detectives were just lazy, or maybe in the past respecting people's privacy was more important than finding a man's killer. But really this is all about assumptions and labels and society. At one point someone suggests the victim's brother, who stands to inherit now that Florence is cut out of the will, might be the killer. To which Burroughs laughs and says–direct quote–"Don't be absurd! A man would hardly shoot his own brother."

Dude, have you heard of these two guys called Cain and Abel? That story ring any bells in your echoing headspace?

It gets even more ridic. When Burroughs finally finds the owner of the gold bag-the person who either killed the victim or was the last to see him before he was murdered-he lets her know he's coming, affording her an opportunity to write him a letter stating that she has no idea who did it and isn't involved in the affair at all. "I would go straight to you, and tell you all about it, but I am afraid of detectives and lawyers... But I am going to see Miss [Florence] Lloyd, and explain it all to her, and then she can tell you."

Inexplicably, Burroughs' reaction to this woman's letter is to smile and think to himself, "Marathon Park [where the woman lives] was evidently no place to look for our criminal." Say the fuck what? This is based on her handwriting and the fact that the tone of the letter made her sound like "a foolish little woman." As opposed to a woman who's clearly trying to avoid talking to the police?!?

At this point in the book, I really hoped Fleming Stone would show up and declare Florence to be the killer within three seconds, despite the fact that Florence was the only character in The Gold Bag I even remotely liked. That didn't happen. Honestly, I don't remember who the killer turned out to be, I just didn't care by that point. The only thing that kept circling in my mind was that Wells made Anna Katharine Green look like freakin Agatha Christie-a prescient thought, as it turned out, because guess whose books convinced Wells to start writing mysteries?

AKG strikes again.

Aha! I knew I'd seen that millionaire-who-was-killed-in-his-study plot before.

The Gold Bag is pretty awful. Not only is the crime solving lazy, so's the writing. L A Z Y. Wells did no research into her topic, put zero thought into her characters or story, and the only things remotely good about the book were stolen from other books. The Gold Bag is only original in its terribleness.




Download The Gold Bag by Carolyn Wells at Project Gutenberg|Librivox

A Harlot High and Low by Honore de Balzac

Original Publication Date: 1847 French: Splendeurs et miseres de Courtisanes
Genre: suspence. romance, sociological analysis
Topics: mores, price of success, love, prostitution, crime, money and power, Paris
Review by :Bridget/Anachronist @portable pieces of thoughts 

 Synopsis:

The book is a sequel of “ Illusions perdues” (‘Lost Illusions’) and the last part of ‘ La Comédie Humaine’, a series which forms a cohesive overview of French Parisian and Provincial society during the Restoration and July Monarchy. Like the previous part it features the same main characters: Lucien Chardon /de Rubempré and Vautrin. In order to make it more lucid let me summarize the first part very shortly before progressing to the second.

 Lucien starts off as a young, handsome, talented man from good but impoverished family. He hopes to make his mark as a poet and, in order to do so, he moves from his provincial home to Paris. After being spurned by an aristocratic lover, he is forced to prostitute his talent in different newspapers in order to survive. Things go from bad to worse and Lucien, who had made a lot of foolish mistakes and doesn’t possess a strong character to somehow make up for them, is about to commit suicide. In the last moment he is approached by a sham Jesuit priest (read: devil incarnated), the Abbé Carlos Herrera a.k.a Vautrin, an escaped convict and criminal mastermind. They make a pact in which Lucien agrees to follow Vautrin’s instructions on how to conquer Paris promising to share his future riches and glory.

 Vautrin manages to arrange a very profitable marriage between Lucien and a rich aristocratic heiress named Clotilde de Grandlieu. It revives Lucien’s ambitions and hopes. Clotilde is intelligent but ugly; she fancies Lucien but he prefers his secret lover, a prostitute called Esther Van Gobseck, known as the Torpedo. Esther and Lucien fall truly in love with each other. This fact might have thrown a wrench into Vautrin’s best-laid plans; instead of forcing Lucien to abandon Esther the clever man allows him to continue the affair, secretly making a good use of it.

 Pretending to be a clergyman again, Herrera/Vautrin convinces Esther that, in order to deserve Lucien, she must become a completely different person. He sends her to a convent for a period of time to be taught how to become a proper Catholic girl (Esther is Jewish but it doesn’t matter) and a true lady. She tries her best but she’s a whore at heart; she does what she has to do out of love, though. Once Esther has been turned into an acceptable mistress Herrera allows her and Lucien to continue their affair secretly. For four years Esther remains locked away in a house in Paris, totally secluded, taking walks only at night in a carriage, pretty much breaking any connection to her old Torpedo days. One night, however, the Baron de Nucingen, a rich banker, spots her in a park and falls deeply in love with her.

When Vautrin realizes that Esther became Nucingen’s obsession he decides to use it and advance Lucien’s prospects. The plan is the following: Vautrin and Lucien are 60,000 francs in debt. The luxurious lifestyle that Lucien has had to maintain in order to impress the family and friends of his future wife costs a lot and their creditors are getting impatient. They also need one million francs to buy the old Rubempré land back, so that Lucien can marry Clotilde and settle down like a real aristocrat. Esther out of love for Lucien agrees to become a courtesan again and milk as much money as possible out of the impossibly rich Nucingen.

Things don’t work out as smoothly as Vautrin would have liked – and the ending is very bitter. Still the show goes on for those rich and priviledged.

 What I liked: 

 Balzac explores the artistic life of Paris in 1821-22 and furthermore the nature of the artistic life generally. He does it in a great way. He starts a simple story of a weak young man being helped by an older, more experienced and cunning tutor and then it explodes into a multi-novel epic. The narrative is powerful enough to carry readers past any of the flaws – I wasn’t bored for one single second. The deception, corruption, and trickery, at every level of society are brilliantly displayed, often almost off-hand, in casual conversation because everyone expects nothing different.

There’s a great cast of secondary characters, too, from the maids Herrera uses in his carefully orchestrated plans to various members of high society. I liked this book especially because, although Balzac doesn’t do badly with the romance he builds his novel around, he doesn’t really have much patience for it. He, like me, is not a romantic person at heart, believing in more primal instincts – survival, cunning, logic. Love doesn’t conquer all: no one is ever allowed to forget that Esther is a whore and likes her job, that it’s practically in her blood and that she can be little else, no matter how hard she tries and no matter how much she adores her poor, infatuated, ambitious Lucien.

Criminals are perceived similarly – the author even admires them for being true to themselves and their instincts. Small wonder Vautrin steals the show in every part of his series. Balzac’s writing, even at its messiest, it’s never less than forceful. The best thing about him is that he never offers a didactic or ‘social’ novel (mind you we are dealing here with an 19th century writer - compare that to any Dickens book!), and ultimately it’s for the best that he lets himself get carried away by the nasty criminals so readily. A novel meant to be about prostitution, with a courtesan (or harlot) in the title, manages to dispense with her services for its entire final part: that’s a bit odd but entirely deliberate. Balzac knows where his strengths lie and when Esther (or, especially, Lucien, the weakest link in the chain) no longer serves his narrative purposes the author is quick to brush them aside (by killing them, no mercy) and concentrate on the anti-hero he can have the most fun with.

 What I didn’t like: 

 A Harlot High and Low is part of Balzac’s grand ‘Human Comedy’ series, and like many of his novels it’s one that seems to get out of hand. It seems too long; what’s more the author simply doesn’t have any patience to describe good moments in full – the happy four-year period Lucien and Esther were granted by Herrera occupies…one paragraph.

 And speaking of that period…I do wonder how Esther managed such a long seclusion. During that time she led a life of a vampire and should have succumbed to serious depression – think about vitamin D deficiency among other things. Also the obsession of the rich old banker with a prostitute he just glimpsed once or twice was a bit over the top.Well- different times, different criteria. At last, Balzac’s inability to make Esther and Lucien more forceful heroes, in my opinion prevented A Harlot High and Low from being a great novel; in fact I would love nothing more but them turning the tables on that devilish Vautrin.

 Final verdict: 

 It’s summer so treat yourself with this one, especially as it can be read as a stand-alone. It might not be flawless but still the writing style is superb. If you know French I highly recommend reading it in original version.

 Download A Harlot High and Low Honore de Balzac at Goodreads

Review: THE STRANGE CASE OF DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE by Robert Louis Stevenson

Original Publication Date: 1886

Genre: mystery, horror

Topics: madness, good vs evil, society









Review by heidenkind:

Mr. Utterson, a London lawyer, is concerned that his friend, Dr. Jekyll, has developed a relationship with an unsavory character named Mr. Hyde, especially as Hyde has been connected with several incidents of violence and assault. Eventually Jekyll assures Utterson he's cut off all ties with Hyde, but the mystery of Hyde's connection to Jekyll persists, especially after Jekyll disappears.

A few weeks ago, I got it into my head that I was going to read The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. This is a book I'd had no interest in reading before; and, considering I DNF'd Treasure Island earlier this year, I didn't have super-high hopes for it. I was pleasantly proved incorrect—I loved Jekyll and Hyde, and this novel will definitely land on my short list of favorite reads of the year.

Robert Louis Stevenson had me from the very beginning of the story with his comparison of Utterson—a completely conventional, moderate, and reasonable man—to that of his friend and distant relative, Mr. Enfield, a "well-known man about town":

It was a nut to crack for many, what these two could see in each other, or what subject they could find in common.

In this way Stevenson immediately sets us up for a story about the multiple sides of men's characters—for, if Utterson was completely mild-mannered and Enfield completely dissolute, how would they manage to enjoy one another's company so much? Clearly there's a little of Utterson in Enfield and vice versa.

Fittingly, it is through Enfield that the character of Hyde is introduced, seen in a disreputable part of town knocking over a little girl. Utterson also knows Hyde, or knows of him, because Hyde is mentioned in the will of his friend, Dr. Jekyll. Like Utterson, Jekyll is an upstanding gentleman whose friends are "all intelligent, reputable men and all judges of good wine." So what would Jekyll have to do with a reprobate like Hyde? Utterson wonders.

Obviously we all know the answer to that question, even if we haven't read the book. But the real issue driving the story is WHY—what would drive Jekyll to even conceive of a way to isolate a part of his personality and then switch from one to the other?

Jekyll and Hyde was not what I was expecting based on the adaptations I've seen. It's more of a detective story than a horror story, and neither Jekyll nor Hyde are as good or evil as they've been portrayed. Is Hyde really evil, or is he just uncivilized? He knocked over the girl by accident, and he did offer recompense to her family. It seems like Hyde's demonic nature is more perception than reality; as soon as people see him, they detest him. According to Enfield,

I had taken a loathing to my gentleman at first sight. So had the child's family, which was only natural. But the doctor's case was what struck me. He was the usual cut-and-dry apothecary, of no particular age and colour, with a strong Edinburgh accent, and about as emotional as a bagpipe. Well, sir, he was like the rest of us; every time he looked at my prisoner, I saw that Sawbones turn sick and white with the desire to kill him.

How else is a person supposed to react when people treat them like that?

Jekyll wasn't the mild-mannered shy physician I anticipated, either: he's a gentleman bachelor NOW, but it's stated that in his youth he was "wild," and there's a certain "slyness" about his face.

It's for these reasons that I don't see The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde as being a tale of good versus evil—instead, it's a cautionary tale about conformity. Jekyll wants to be normal and to fit in with those men who are respectable and intelligent, so he tries to remove the part of himself they would shun if they knew about it. Whether it's addiction, the id, or a demon, Hyde represents whatever society rejects. In Jekyll's attempt to conform to society's definition of a gentleman doctor, he in turn rejects the part of himself that society finds distasteful, and in the process he destroys himself.

The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is one of those deceptively simple novels, like Animal Farm, that's a good story and also makes you think. It's accessible to people of all ages and backgrounds and can be read simply as a great story, an indictment of Victorian society as a whole, or anywhere in between. Definitely a book I think is a must-read.



Download The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson at Project Gutenberg|Librivox|Internet Archive

Review: THE AGE OF INNOCENCE by Edith Wharton

Original Publication Date: 1920

Genre: general fiction

Topics: love, society, tragedy





















Guest review by Ash (http://bookletsgo.wordpress.com/):

Blogging about certain books can be a challenge at times and I believe this is one of those times. Deemed as one of the best classics in English Literature, The Age of Innocence throws light on the late 1800′s upper-class society in America..particularly the New York society. I came across this book through a lot of sources but one that particularly struck me was a review by Danielle.

The novel opens with an Opera theater where all of the New York’s elite are watching a play. Newland Archer, the hero of this story is looking out for his fiance May Welland when he spots her seated beside her infamous cousin, Countess Ellen Olenski. Rumors are astrife that the Countess is in NY recouping from a disastrous marriage to a Polish Count. Even so, the New York society condemns her decision and shows it quite boldly. At first, Archer takes it upon himself to show his support to May and her family for sheltering the countess but he finds himself in love with Ellen Olenski who also finds herself returning the affections. And then May who is all the while docile and quiet, decides to prepone the wedding, and Archer finds himself married to May Welland. This doesn’t put a dent on Archer's affections until May makes a decision that changes the course of the story. Describing this plot any more wouldn’t do any justice for its a very difficult to blog on this particular title.

Archer is torn choosing between what society approves vs. what his heart desires. Although his first impression of May is that she meets the Society’s standards and his in every way, he gradually realizes that May and many women like her were groomed to be perfect, ignorant of any independent thoughts or opinions. Ellen is a complex character who seems to be a misfit both in NY and in Europe. She struggles the most trying to fit in with the NY society which scorns her every decision pushing her to the brink of moving back to Europe. For me, May was perhaps the most complex of all characters...She is first introduced as a docile well-bred lady and as a reader, you'll be taken in by it all. Watch out though, for she does have some tricks up her sleeve.

Edith Wharton comes from an upper-class family herself and so her insights into New York old society’s rules and customs are well highlighted in every chapter. Whereas Europe has more liberal code of behavior and independence in thought, NY society condemns any semblance of independent thought or action. So long as a man conducts his affairs in secret and silence, he is exempted from the scorn and rejection by the society whereas a woman is literally shunned. This is another point that is brought out by Ms. Wharton. And then there are the usual theatrics associated with the society when people meet at an Opera or a Ball or a dinner. The novel has many other characters painted to life who add spice to the otherwise quiet plot but its best to explore them through the book then through a blog. For those who don’t want to read the book, I recommend the film featuring Winona Ryder and Michelle Pfeiffer.


Download The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton at Project Gutenberg|Librivox|GirleBooks

Guest Review: CAMILLE or LA DAME AUX CAMELIAS by Alexandre Dumas fils

Original Publication Date: 1848

Genre: tragedy

Topics: love, society, bourgeoisie










































Review by Ash G. (http://bookletsgo.wordpress.com/):

Camille was first published in 1848 and later converted to plays which have gained popularity over the novel. The novel’s well-written introduction proves to be a valuable guide and sets context on the contents and timeline of this novel. The author Alexander Dumas fils makes references to the tale of Manon Lescaut and Chevalier Des Greiux highlighting the contrasts between the characters and lifestyles of the 2 courtesans as well as their lovers.

Narrated by an unknown person, the novel begins with the death of Marguerite and the auctioning of her personal possessions by her creditors. It is followed by the arrival of Armand Duval in Paris, and the narrator goes on to describe Duval’s efforts to exhume and re-bury Marguerite all of which adds a macabre twist to the story. Afterwards the chapters are narrated by Armand as he divulges his past to the unknown narrator and the story goes thus -

Marguerite is a well known courtesan in Paris and is, both admired and feared by men and women alike. Dumas attributes this to Marguerite’s strong yet sensitive spirit which akin to the delicacy of the Camellias creates an alluring persona. And Armand like many others before him falls hopelessly in love with Marguerite.

Dumas depicts Marguarite in a favorable light comparing her persona and presence to the light and delicate nature of the camellias yet she is shown to possess a strong spirit that is pure…untainted by her profession. And just as the camellias wither in a day, so is Marguerite’s death depicted…a result of her enduring suffering from tuberculosis. And in a bid to pacify the astonished audience and to leave no doubt of his disapproval of a Courtesan’s life, Dumas smartly attributes Marguerite’s suffering to God’s will…the final judgement perhaps. The novel when taken without this allegory is a beauty in itself but takes on a heavy note once you start to ponder. The only exception to Armand’s character is that unlike the others before him, he proves his unwavering love by admitting his shortcomings freely and tracing Marguarite’s last moments until the very end.

Camille is also notable for its brilliantly detailed depiction of the parisian life and the world of courtesans during the 19th century in France. The book by itself is quite descriptive but it may also help to read it with the aid of a guide. Camille is definitely well worth the read and an addition to the personal collection!



Further reading:

• 1920's film adaptation of Camille starring Rudolf Valentino

Download Camille by Alexandre Dumas fils from Librivox or Project Gutenberg FRENCH|ENGLISH

Guest Review: THE CHERRY ORCHARD by Anton Chekhov

Original Publication Date: 1904

Genre: play

Topics: society, class































Review by Liz Inskip-Paulk (http://ravingreader.wordpress.com/):

Having absolutely no familiarity with Chekhov (except for his namesake Chekov in Star Trek), I was curious to read some of his work. I am not that familiar with reading plays – I love to attend good ones locally, but I have found that reading a play and watching a play can be two very different experiences.

So – trawled around the ‘net for a while and decided on “The Cherry Orchard” as my first foray into his work. Having finished it, I am not quite sure what has made this work so famous. It seemed pretty ordinary to me (although I do expect to get harpooned by avid fans when I say this). What is the big deal about this?

The play is set in Russia (naturally, as Chekhov was Russian), and focuses on a family of the aristocracy and the return of the matriarch after having lived overseas for quite some time. Essentially, the family estate (which includes a large and famous cherry orchard) is faced with foreclosure due to unpaid debts and they have to decide what to do with this: do they sell the orchard and their grounds to another family? Do they sell it to a real estate developer (equivalent) and see it sectioned off into holiday cottages and the orchard dug up?

Scene from first production of The Cherry Orchard at Moscow Art Theater.

So, as a reader, it would seem appropriate to expect some kind of settlement by the end of the play, but this is not to be. I am very open to Po-Mo endings, Po-Mo anything really, but this particular version just struck me as pointless – absolutely nothing happens. There are endless conversations about what various people think should happen, but after all that build-up, there is nada. As mentioned before, I am not a reader who necessarily needs a story to have the ending all wrapped up and in a pretty bow, but at least make it have a point in some way. (Unless I am missing something?)

There are some obvious themes throughout the story -- the changing roles of class in Russian society, the theme of identity (and changing identity) -- which were interesting when you link them back to what was happening to Chekhov personally: his family ended up in poverty and having to sell their own house to cover costs, Chekhov himself refurbished a house later in his life (complete with orchard and pond) upon which he lavished care and in the words of his brother, “look[ed] after… as though they were his children,” the play has a physician and Chekhov was a physician etc…

Chekhov died of TB just after this play came out, and one apocryphal anecdote has it that his body was transported to Moscow in a refrigerated railway care for fresh oysters…

In further researching this, it was noted in numerous sources that most producers are not sure how to show the play – is it a tragedy? Is it a comedy? And I think that here is the crux of the whole problem – because the play does not commit itself to one or the other, I wonder that it becomes less than either.

As mentioned in the introduction, I am not a Chekhov expert by any means, not am I an experienced dramatist or reader of plays, so it might well be that I am missing something vital here in my interpretation of The Cherry Orchard. Can anyone enlighten me?



Download The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov at Project Gutenberg|Librivox

Guest Review: MAPP AND LUCIA by EF Benson

Original Publication Date: 1920-1939
 
Genre: comedy
 
Topics: society, English village politics
 




















Review by Liz Inskip-Paulk (http://ravingreader.wordpress.com/):

Burying into Benson…

I’ve been diving into the fictitious and rather perfect world of an English country village and its inhabitants the last few weeks, this one of Risholme, the home of Lucia and her gang and all the machinations involved in their social shenanigans.

E. F. Benson (1867-1940) wrote a series of novels with the group title of “Mapp and Lucia”, all revolving around the social goings on of a group of (mostly? all?) upper-middle/upper class villagers who are vying with each other as to who should “rule village society”. Lucia rules the roost so far in the series, but she’s had some serious challenges from Daisy et al. especially when she left for London for a while.

I am up to number 3 in the Benson series now* although I did read a couple of them (accidentally) out of order just to get a taste of things, and if you are after a light frothy read about domestic community social politics, then these Lucia books are *perfect* for that. (It could be argued that the Mapp and Lucia books are a more domestic version of Wodehouse’s Bertie and Wooster, I suppose.)

Lucia is the de facto “head” of the village, although in her absence, the inhabitants grouse about her leadership style, and it is this tension that provides the ongoing theme throughout the Mapp/Lucia series. Benson provides an anonymous omniscient and rather camp narrator to tell the story, and this works very well as it allows the reader to see the different PoVs involved in the tangled weave of local politics (socially speaking) through a rather witty lens.

Clearly, the world of Risholme is idealized and epitomizes the idea of “traditional English village” more than real life, but they are rather fun to read. A slightly snarky sense of humor pervades the story, which removes some of the seriousness of the events, and they are really funny in places.

The Benson Mapp/Lucia series is relatively easy to get hold of on-line -- he was a prodigious author, writing a large body of work including fiction, non-fiction, articles and essays -- but it is for Lucia that he remains most famous for.

The Mapp/Lucia series are a treat to read, but like anything sweet, will need to be spread out to get the most fun from it. At the same time, though, I recommend that you don’t leave huge gaps between each title so you can keep the key characters straight.

Take a visit to Risholme and see for yourself!

E. F. Benson’s Mapp and Lucia series:

• Queen Lucia (1920)
• Miss Mapp (1922)
• Lucia in London (1927(
• Mapp and Lucia (1931)
• Lucia’s Progress (1935) (also known as The Worshipful Lucia)
• Trouble for Lucia (1939)

Download the Mapp & Lucia Series by EF Benson at Librivox|Project Gutenberg

Review: SENSE AND SENSIBILITY by Jane Austen

Original Publication Date: 1811

Genre: women's fiction

Topics: romance, society, marriage, women






















Review by heidenkind:

Is Tasha about to complain about a classic and beloved novel? Yes, probably.

Elinor and Marianne Dashwood--and that other sister no one cares about--are thrown out of their home after their father dies and must find some men to marry in order to gain access to their money. Unfortunately, they have no sense when it comes to men.

This was the first time I read Sense and Sensibility, and I think it will probably be the last. The novel certainly has its moments, but there's also a lot that bothers me about it, and in the end the bothers outweighed the enjoyment I got from it.

First of all, the title bothers me and has always bothered me. Sense and Sensibility? What does that mean? Also, most of these characters are the antithesis of sensible. Secondly, the story is kind of like Pride & Prejudice, only if Mr. Bennet died at the beginning, Jane married Mr. Collins, Elizabeth made an idiot of herself over Wickham, and Mr. Darcy didn't exist. Depressing!

Third of all, the heroine of the tale is Elinor Dashwood. At first she seemed sensible, but as the novel went on, I found it more and more difficult to sympathize with her, or even like her. I felt kind of bad about how much disliked her, actually, but she's extremely judgy and complacent. I guess more than anything I resented the fact that Jane Austen expected me to approve of her behavior and disapprove of Marianne's, when Marianne was a much more appealing character. The final chapters where Elinor and Edward are all judgy together and she pulls a Fanny Dashwood by convincing Edward that Lucy Steele is a horrible person who never loved him ("Ah, yes, you're right, she was a selfish trollop, why didn't I realize?") when she spent the entire novel pretending to be her friend sums up her entire character for me. UHG. He's already chosen to marry you, why don't you just let it go, beyotch?

Hugh Laurie as a hilarious Mr Palmer.

Basically the only characters I really liked in Sense and Sensibility were Colonel Brandon and the Palmers. Mr Palmer was hilarious. Col Brandon is also pretty awesome, and I loved how Marianne treated him like he was teetering on the edge of death because he was "old" (she was young enough to be his daughter, so); but the conclusion of his and Marianne's romance was super-disappointing, especially after having to listen to Elinor and Edward talk for an entire chapter.

I basically spent the majority of Sense and Sensibility very annoyed with at least one character, and sometimes all the characters. On the plus side, it does read really fast (of course I listened to it on audio, but it felt like it was going by quickly), and the secondary characters are fun. Still, I'm glad this wasn't my first Jane Austen novel, or I'm not sure I would have read any of her other books.


Download Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen at Project Gutenberg|Librivox|GirleBooks

Guest Review: UNDER THE GREENWOOD TREE by Thomas Hardy

Original Publication Date: 1872


Genre: social novel


Topics: pastoral life, love, society




















Review by Liz Inskip-Paulk (http://ravingreader.wordpress.com/):

Dick wondered how it was that when people were married they could be so blind to romance; and was quite certain that if he ever took to wife that dear impossible Fancy, he and she would never be so dreadfully practical and undemonstrative of the Passion as his father and mother were. The most extraordinary thing was that all the fathers and mothers he knew were just as undemonstrative as his own.

This is a book of gentle humor and loving description of country life in an English small village – quite idyllic and a big comparison with his later much bleaker published works. This reminded me of E. F.  Benson, Miss Read, and Angela Thirkell, except written from a Victorian mindset and using the vocabulary of the day.

It also covers a few more serious issues - gender roles, the changing times of agriculture – but it has plenty of levity and wit in its gorgeous descriptions of countryside and the people who inhabit the village. The female protagonist is a headstrong and educated village school teacher who, of course, is who a lot of the village men (and women) talk about. She’s not a shrinking violet, by any means, and the end of the book could be seen as moralistic or shocking, depending on your viewpoint.

…wives be such a provoking class o’ society, because though they be never right, they be never more than half wrong.

The book starts off with a section introducing the reader to the members of the Mellstock Quire (or Choir) and I would have been perfectly happy if the whole book had revolved around these fairly funny guys. It was still a good read when Hardy takes the narrative off into other worlds, but honestly, it would have worked just fine to stick with these early characters.  (They reminded me of the old BBC comedy, “Last of the Summer Wine”…)

Divided into sections to represent the changing seasons (plus a conclusion), this was a fast read with quite a few snappy one-liners in it (not what you’d expect from an author with such a gloomy reputation) and there is plenty of satire and irony scattered throughout the story.  However, despite this humor, there are loads of pastoral paradise descriptions as well – it was a beautiful reading experience and just sucked me in. I could really see some of what he was describing in my head.

…hanging of bacon, which were cloaked with long shreds of soot, floating on the draught like the tattered banners on the walls of ancient aisles…

So – there’s the twisting winding love story, the interloping of an unwanted new organist which upsets the balance of things, and a new vicar who wants to “modernize” things. There’s a funny group of old grumpy men and a country wedding, and lovely descriptions in between. I don’t think this is a particularly deep and meaningful book, but as a good read, it checks all the markers for me. I am now rather curious to read his later work to see the contrast between this rather happy story and his other more tragic takes on life.

There’s also a 2006 TV production of Under the Greenwood Tree which I’d like to track down at some point.

• Written in 1872 when Hardy was 32 – grew up in a small village in Dorset with a stonemason father and a reading mother. Mostly taught himself from the books he found in Dorchester, the nearby town, and was an apprentice to an architect when he turned 16. Specialised in restoring old houses and churches and after living in London for a few years, returned to Dorchester to be a professional restorer of church there.
• First novel he wrote was rejected and then he burned the manuscript, but then Under Greenwood got published (under an anon name at first). Also serialized (similar to Dickens et al.)
• Work reflects his idea of rural life in his fictional county of Wessex, although got bleaker as time progressed
• Also quite forward thinking with regard to role of Victorian women and the novels Tess of D’Urbervilles and Jude the Obscure were eviscerated in the press enough to stop Hardy writing novels and concentrate on poetry
• Died in 1928, and it seems (according to legend) that his heart was to be buried in Stinsford, his birthplace. All went according to plan until a cat belonging to the Hardy’s sister snatched the heart from the kitchen (where it was being temporarily kept) and disappeared into the woods with it. Yikes.

Guest Review: THE ODD WOMEN by George Gissing

Original Publication Date: 1893

Genre: fiction

Topics: marriage, society, women













Review by Liz Inskip-Paulk:



Another provocative read from Victorian writer George Gissing, this one focused on the role of women in society and the push-and-pull of the early feminist movement. The title comes from a phrase that one of the female characters says in the middle of the book:

My work and thought are for the women who do not marry – the “odd women” I call them. They alone interest me.

(Speaking is Rhoda Nunn who runs a typewriting/business school for middle class women who don’t want to/can’t get married and will need to work.)

As is the trend in Victorian novels, there is a dichotomy set up in the structure of the book: the group (mostly women) who believe that women should have more choices for their lives than just getting married, and then characters (such as Mr. Widdowson – a real pain) who believe that women should do what’s expected of them (i.e. what men expect them to do), and this age-old battle is a constant thread throughout the plot.

Here is an example of Widdowson’s (misogynistic) PoV:

Women’s sphere is in the home, Monica (name of wife). Unfortunately, girls are often obliged to go out and earn their living, but this is unnatural, a necessity which advanced civilization will altogether abolish.

Basically, the plot concerns three groups of people: two women who are business partners in the women-focused business school (neither married), a family of sisters, and a few men who stray into the obits of these folks. A lot of the action revolves around the machinations and stratagies for the women to get married (or not married) to the right people (or not). It gets quite complicated in places, rather like a Venn diagram in terms of worlds colliding and overlapping with each other, but it’s realistic in that in the confining world of Victorian times, your friends and family did interact with each other a lot, primarily because that was who you met back then (due to convention, transport limitations, individual freedom etc.)

As mentioned, the story revolves around relationships and cultural expectations for gender: who should get married to whom, when… Monica, the youngest of the group of sisters in the novel, ends up choosing to marry an older widow (Mr. Widdowson of the quotation above) who ends up being a jealous and controlling husband for her. (Not a real shocker there, as he more or less stalked her during his “courtship” of her and eventually browbeat her into submission and marriage. Not a good start to a lifelong relationship, I’m afraid.)

There’s a rakish cousin involved “with a past”, and there’s scandals of the Victorian type, such as babies out of wedlock, “women of the street”, and substance abuse. Again, this novel is close to being a sensation novel, but just stays on the serious side of things most of the time. It’s well written, certainly, and representative of its time. After all the complex action that occurs throughout the novel, the ending was a bit of a disappointment, but those Victorians could be a bit heavy-handed with their moralism every now and then.

Gissing was a promising student in the late 1800’s, and won a prestigious scholarship to a forerunner of University of Manchester. However, he focused on more than just his studies (as people do), and ended up falling in love with an unsuitable orphan prostitute called Nell. He gave her money to keep her off the streets, and when his funds ran out, Gissing stole from his fellow students which didn’t go over well.

Gissing was expelled, and sentenced to a month’s hard labor in Belle Vue Gaol in Manchester in 1876.

He left for a year to move to the States, but was not successful so decamped back to England after a year or so. (This experience was influential in his novel, New Grub Street.)

Nell was still around, and they married a few years later. There’s a discussion about how true Gissing’s literary tales of his poverty are, but even if he himself didn’t actually live them, they seem to be accurate so perhaps it was through observation of others.

Eventually, Nell died of alcohol-related disease, and Gissing went on to marry another “unsuitable” working class woman who ended up in an asylum. (Not sure what role Gissing played in her being ill. He sounds like he was a lazy work-avoiding layabout to me.) And when the second wife was indisposed, there was a third woman who came into Gissing’s life and took care of the kids. (Gissing, it seems, was too busy being “scholastic” to help much with his family life.)

One interesting overlap is Gissing was friends with J. M. Barrie (he of Peter Pan fame) among others, and as Barrie himself had somewhat of a weird life, perhaps it enabled Gissing to see his lack of involvement as normal.

Despite my misgivings about Gissing as a responsible human being, he was a prolific writer and ended up published twenty-plus novels and short stories over his time.

Review: MYSTERY AT GENEVA AN IMPROBABLE TALE OF SINGULAR HAPPENINGS by Dame Rose Macaulay

Original Publication Date: 1922

Genre: mystery, in the loosest sense of the word

Topics: politics, gender, society













Review:

Henry Beechtree is a reporter for the British Bolshevist, an early-twentieth century version of Fox News. He's in Geneva covering the meeting of the League of Nations, but delegates keep disappearing. Who could be responsible? Henry thinks he knows.

Mystery at Geneva was not at all what I was expecting. Rose Macaulay opens the novel by stating,

As I have observed among readers and critics a tendency to discern satire where none is intended, I should like to say that this book is simply a straightforward mystery story, devoid of irony, moral or meaning. It has for its setting an imaginary session of the League of Nations Assembly, but it is in no sense a study of, still less a skit on, actual conditions at Geneva, of which indeed I know little, the only connection I have ever had with the League being membership of its Union.

She then proceeds to spend the next 280-ish pages ridiculing nationalism, gender assumptions, religion, politics, reporting, and other aspects of European society, as well as going into extreme detail describing the League of Nations and how it's like a high school full of cliques and hypocrisy.

As for plot, it wouldn't be accurate to say there isn't one, but if you're reading it you will wonder if there is. Only about 10% of the book has anything to do with an actual mystery. This is not a novel of international intrigue; it's a book where guys sit around discussing subjects in such a way as to highlight how ridiculous they are. Occasionally a League delegate disappears and people are like, "Hey, that's upsetting. We should figure out what happened," then they go right back to pointless talking. Metaphor much?

This sounds exactly like the sort of thing that would normally drive me crazy--I HATE mysteries that aren't mysterious--yet somehow I actually enjoyed myself. Macaulay is funny, and it's kind of fascinating to me how the more things change, the more they stay the same. She could just as easily be pointing out the failings of the UN and modern journalism. Plus, her tangents against gender assumptions are pretty awesome. Here's one passage I thought was interesting:

It may be observed that there are in this world mental females, mental males, and mental neutrals. You may know them by their conversation. The mental females, or womanly women, are apt to talk about clothes, children, domestics, the prices of household commodities, love affairs, or personal gossip. Theirs is rather a difficult type of conversation to join in, as it is above one's head. Mental males, or manly men, talk about sport, finance, business, animals, crops, or how things are made. Theirs is also a difficult type of conversation to join in, being also above one's head. Male men as a rule, like female women, and vice versa; they do not converse, but each supplies the other with something they lack, so they gravitate together and make happy marriages. In between these is the No-Man's Land, filled with mental neutrals of both sexes. They talk about all the other things, such as books, jokes, politics, love (as distinct from love affairs), people, places, religion (in which, though they talk more about it, they do not, as a rule, believe so unquestioningly as do the males and the females, who have never thought about it and are rather shocked if it is mentioned), plays, music, current fads and scandals, public persons and events, newspapers, life, and anything else which turns up. Their conversation is easy to join in, as it is not above one's head.

Wow, that was a long thought! Now you have an idea of what I mean about the characters going on and on about things. Here's another excerpt that I liked:

Deeply Henry, going about his secret and private business, intent and absorbed, pondered this question of News, what it is and what it is not. Crime is News; divorce is News; girl mothers are News; fabric gloves and dolls' eyes are, for some unaccountable reason, News; centenaries of famous men are, for some still stranger reason, News; railway accidents are News; the wrong-doing of clergymen is News; strangest of all, women are, inherently and with no activities on their part, News, in a way that men are not... To be News in oneself, without taking any preliminary action—that was very exciting for women... All sorts of articles and letters appear in the papers about women. Profound questions are raised concerning them. Should they smoke? Should they work? Vote? Take Orders? Marry? Exist?

All this discussion about gender becomes very pertinent by the end of the book, and The Mystery at Geneva has an ending I honestly didn't see coming. On one hand, I thought it was a great twist. On the other, I'm not sure it effectively supports the point Macaulay was trying to make about gender definitions being total bull crap.

Mystery at Geneva is no Riddle of the Sands (review here)--this is not an international spy thriller. It's social commentary. If I had been reading it, I might have started to lose patience; but since I was listening to it on audio, I kind of just let it go and enjoyed the exquisite irony of Macaulay's writing. That being said, I can see why this novel is a forgotten classic: it's obscure, a bit preachy, long-winded, and the plot is literally a joke. But weirdly I had fun with it.



Get Mystery at Geneva: An Improbable Tale of Singular Happenings by Dame Rose Macaulay at Librivox|Project Gutenberg|Internet Archive

Guest Review: HOWARDS END by EM Forster

Original Publication Date: 1910

Genre: society novel

Topics: gender, class, appearances













Guest review by Liz Inskip-Paulk:

So – I did have to take some deep breaths right from the start when I saw that the book title was “Howards End” (with no apostrophe), but once I had leapt that hurdle, it was ok. (Deep breaths are a wonderful thing for a Grammar Nerd. Ha.)

I have been dying to read some EM Forster books since a long time ago, at least ten years or so, but for some reason or another, I hadn’t picked one up. Then, the other day, saw it on a list of classics that another bookie person was reading and thought now was the time.

Basically, a story that revolves around the ongoing fate of Howards End, a country house whose ownership links three different families, it is also a book to be read on two levels. On one level, is the basic plot of wealthy High Society families in London during the Gilded Age (a la Wharton books) and all their machinations with regard to appropriate marriages and friends etc. And then on the other level, is Forster mucking about with turn-of-the-century symbolism of class roles, gender roles, and the overarching worry of this time in UK history: where is England going? Will it remain structured as two classes of rich people and poor people or will Socialism win the day? (This was before WWI had even occurred and wasn’t even a speck on the horizon at this point.) With England just finishing up the years of the Industrial Revolution (where business and money were Kings), it must have been rather a worrying time for the people at the top of the business heap. Would socialism come and take everything that they worked for and believed in?

The story focuses on three groups of people: the Wilcox family, a wealthy business-oriented family (who represent commerce); the Schlegel artistic and intellectual family (who represent the arts and thinking etc.), and then the Bast family who are at the bottom of the heap, money-wise and education-wise. The family who links the two extremes on this scale is the Schlegel daughters who, through a chance meeting on vacation on the Continent, happen to make the acquaintance of the wealthy Wilcox family. Actually, accident plays a big role in how the Schlegels meet the Basts as well…

So, as you can see, the book doesn’t just question gender roles and society in general, but is also philosophical in many ways, discussing the roles and importance of business/commerce and the arts – is one better than the other? A discussion, I think, that continues to this day and age if you think about funding in schools etc across the nation.

The book also throws Imperialism into the mix as well – what role did England have on colonizing the rest of the world? How would it continue? What would it mean?... Lots to think about, and it’s clear that there were strong winds of change at this time in the world – look at Wharton, James, Forster, Chopin (Kate)…

Haven’t actually told you much about the actual plot, but suffice to say, it’s about who will marry who, and when and where, and who will inherit what. I thought the plot was actually more of a vehicle or a framework for Forster to hang his deeper questions on – the future of England and its role in the world, the questioning of commerce vs. art, gender roles…

This was a good read. The story held together very well, and characters were believable and realistic. When I was reading the story itself, all these philosophical strands were there in the background, but the story itself came first. It wasn’t until afterward that I was struck with all the deep thoughts about the book itself so all this questioning about life is only in the background for the most part. (Forster occasionally makes forays and digression into philosophical questions, but it’s not too distracting.)

Forster wrote quite a few books, but after he published his last novel in 1924, he didn’t write another novel for the next 46 years. He lived in one of the halls at a college in Cambridge and apparently sat around doing not much for decades. (Unless someone knows differently?) I think he authored some literary crit. articles, but nothing major. He died in 1970 in the family house of his long-term partner.

Review: PENELOPE'S ENGLISH EXPERIENCES by Kate Douglas Wiggin

Original Publication Date: 1900

Genre: comedy

Topics: travel, society, comedy of manners













Review:

Penelope is one of three American women living in London. Although they're of different backgrounds and ages, they all share one talent: social faux pas among the British!

Penelope's English Experiences is a collection of very short (think newspaper column-length), humorous essays about the travails of living in England for an American woman. The essays center around things like trying to understand British currency, British humor, and how intimidating English servants are. Kate Douglas Wiggin (of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm fame--which I didn't know until I googled her) pokes gentle fun not so much at the British but at Americans traveling abroad and how they desperately want to be liked by everyone, including the servants.

Mind, when I say "humorous" I don't mean these stories are laugh-out-loud funny. They did make me chortle once or twice (there's a comment Penelope makes about Americans procrastinating that struck me as particularly clever... no idea why, of course ;), but mostly the stories are just cute, and some are pretty obscure.

I suppose you could call Penelope's Experiences Abroad a proto-chick lit novel. It's all about her adventures as a single woman living in London, and is very episodic. Unfortunately I've never been a big fan of chick-lit, and since there wasn't any narrative to speak of, it was easy to get bored during the more obscure columns. Honestly, the only saving grace is that the stories are so short.

I would say Penelope's English Experiences, as unoffensive as it is, is skippable--unless you have a particular interest in turn-of-the-century women living in London, in which case you'll probably get all the jokes and find this book pretty interesting.



Find Penelope's English Experiences at Librivox|Project Gutenberg

Review of The Castle of Wolfenbach by Eliza Parsons

Original Publication Date: 1793

Genre: Gothic horror

Topics: damsel in distress, incest, murder, kidnapping, family secrets, forgiveness












Review:

Spooky castles, damsels in distress, evil villains, murder, seeeeecrets, and even a pirate, these are the gothic elements you'll find in The Castle of Wolfenbach by Eliza Parsons.

On a dark and stormy night, Matilda stumbles to the Castle of Wolfenbach in search of refuge. The servant there warns her of the ghosts who harass visitors and indeed Matilda hears rattling of chains and moans from another part of the castle. She is unimpressed with these Scooby-Doo antics and next morning investigates these sounds on her own. Lo and behold, she finds a lady and her maid hiding in the abandoned wing. Immediately, they become besties and she tells the lady her tale of woe. Matilda is an orphan raised by her uncle. Everything was kittens and rainbows, until he turns V.C. Andrews and plots with the housekeeper to rape her. Matilda flees with her servant Albert. And the castle is as far as she gets. The lady is sympathetic, she too has a tale of woe, but...she'll tell it another time. In the meantime, she writes to her sister who just happens to be looking for a companion for a trip to England. How serendipitous! Things are really turning around for Matilda.

One morning, Matilda makes a visit to the lady to hear her story only to find her rooms are trashed, her maid murdered, and the lady missing. Oh noes! What happened here?! Matilda does the only thing she knows how to do, she flees. Now she has a destination- the lady's sister in Paris. She'll know what to do! What Matilda doesn't know is that her uncle is hot on her trail.

I had such high hopes for Matilda. I thought she was going to be a kick-ass heroine. I mean, she runs away from her creepy uncle even though she has no place to go. Then she faces the 'ghosts' just like a Velma and helps move a murdered corpse. What can't she do?! Apparently everything, once people are around. I get the feeling if you put Matilda on a deserted island with a coconut and a bowie knife she'd have a raft built in a week. Put a couple of people on the island with her, she'd fall in a hole. Once she gets to Paris, she spends more time crying hysterically or swooning. Boy, she does a lot of swooning. For example, a mean girl at a play gives her a dirty look and she faints. 

She's not the only lady who faints at the drop of a hat. They all do. No wonder they had to wear such pouffy dresses. It was for padding. I suspect Parsons had no idea how to make her ladies express any violent emotion so she made them faint. A lot. It also gets them out of making decisions or doing things. (Note to self: Must try fainting the next time I don't want to make dinner.)

 Of course, fainting is preferable to how the men react to their strong feelings. They get stabby. "I can't have my way?...Everyone dies!" The reasonable solution to all life's problems is to murder the cause of those problems. No? Oh right, that's not how normal people deal with stuff. Pardon me, I was confused. To put a cherry on top, once they confess, all is forgiven. Murdering people is ok, as long as you fess up...eventually. What a great lesson for the reader.

That sort of falls into the moral of the story, because it must have a moral. Forgiveness is part of it. Also trusting in Providence because you're young and pretty and maybe noble and everyone loves you (except those who HATE you) and also the heroine of the a gothic novel. It will all work itself out. And it does!

As for the writing, don't expect introspective characters. Their motives are skin deep and easily discarded. Parsons doesn't do 'show, don't tell' well. Behold the following passage! (the emphasis is mine):

Pierre was already in bed, and Jaqueline preparing to follow, when the trampling of horses was heard, and immediately a loud knocking at the door; they were both alarmed; Pierre listened, Jaqueline trembled; the knocking was repeated with more violence; the peasant threw on his humble garment, and, advancing to the door, demanded who was there? 'Two travellers,' answered a gentle voice, 'overtaken by the storm; pray, friend, afford us shelter." 

I'm giving you the impression that I didn't like The Castle of Wolfenbach and that's not true. I LOVED it. It was so bad it was good. Matilda was so sweet my teeth ached but she had her moments. I wanted to know what was going to happen to her and the lady from the castle. I loved the evil villains. They were so EVILY! And the mean girls, so MEAN! And it's all plot. A fast plot with everything in it but the kitchen sink.

I can see why these type of books were so wildly popular. They were "horrid." Jane Austen's character Isabella Thorpe recommends The Castle of Wolfenbach to to Catherine Morland in Northanger Abbey. I guess I'm a bit like Catherine. There's nothing wrong with a little danger, as long it's fictional.

So, as long as you don't take The Castle of Wolfenbach too seriously you'll enjoy it.

Originally published on Chrisbookarama.

Guest Review: A ROOM WITH A VIEW by E.M. Forster

Original Publication Date: 1908

Genre: romance?

Topics: love, society, coming of age













Review by Patty from Tale of Three Cities:

Many times, the novels I've read as a teenager seem to lose their appeal when re-reading them as an adult. Others, on the contrary, gain even more allure and highlight new facets to their story.

A Room with a View by EM Forster is one such novel.  Having read it while a teenager (and watching the film about 15+ times...), I was still aware of the main characters and the overall plot, but I could not remember whether it was all that good.  

The first comment I can make on A Room with a View is definitely politically incorrect: I had the impression that I was reading a book written by a woman! I know this is ridiculous, there is no feminine or masculine way of writing, but I honestly found the writing style too focused on petty details, too romantic... too pink!!! (excuse the expression). It didn't make an impression as such, but that made me pay even more attention on the book...

Moving on, Forster presents an array of situations and happenings to showcase comparisons: the two main venues in the book are Italy and England: Italy, the land of freedom, of laughter, of endless meadows with violets, a pure beauty - in sharp contrast with stiff upper-lipped England, full of rules and regulations, with the Church imposing the norms of society, a beauty perhaps only on a first glance... I found the stereotyping very amusing, and mostly spot-on: I believe the intention here was not to shock the audience, but rather  to move across the "sensitive" subjects rather painlessly, while still making the social criticism. Very clever indeed...

Lucy and her warden Charlotte find themselves without rooms with a view in Italy. Such a dramatic event surely cannot be sustained of course, and a respectable complaint starts being heard in the Pensione.  Upon the offer by the Emersons to swap rooms with theirs that do actually have a view, we witness the hardship of  good manners, taking refuge with the vicar, and finally the obedience towards the decision taken by said priest - the fact that this coincides with the original desire of the ladies, need not bother us. First: things are not always what they seem. From the perspective of a woman who knows what her position in society is, but who nevertheless wants to accomplish (tiny) things, the procedure to follow is way too time-consuming and complicated: she has to make everyone think it was their own idea and decision, while she has been plotting the end result since the beginning... 

(the women's) mission was to inspire other to achievement rather than to achieve themselves.

Difficult times... (I really laughed when Charlotte wouldn't give the big room to Lucy because young Emerson had it - that worry for absolute protection is bound to have the opposite results).

This difference between the new generation and the established one is also a main theme in this book. Not only is Lucy rebellious in contrast with her warden Charlotte but also the two Emersons seem to differ immensely - they just don't understand one another. Only novelists are allowed to cross over to the other side, and hence we have the little devil in the story: Miss Lavish. She will inform Charlotte of all possible mischief that can befall Lucy (I believe this is how Charlotte catches Lucy in the meadow and spoils one of the best romantic scenes in literature...) but she is also the source of amusement for Cecil by writing a book on Italy that will inevitably bring George and Lucy together... (I'm starting getting the romance now...)

On to the next set of comparisons, the conservative versus the radical: the Cecils of this world, who will say to whoever will listen how radical they are, how beyond class they've become, only to prove that they keep the status quo and even worse - they are actually misanthropists:

of course, he despised the world as a whole; every thoughtful man should; it is almost a test of refinement.

Fortunately, there are also the Georges and Lucies in this world, who may stray in the beginning, when they're still trying to fit in the norms of society, only to realise that life's too short for "trying": there has to be a rebellion, and it has to be now. Not in the most articulate manner as in Lucy's breaking the engagement off, but all's well that ends well.

Although the novel is full of comparisons / antitheses, it prefers staying on the surface of the matter at the most crucial point - I was surprised when Lucy and Cecil call off their engagement, that the dialogue is plain and civil to the point of being dry - not much information is provided for the inner feelings (or lack thereof) of the two main characters. That was the only point where I felt I wanted more.

In general, I have to say the novel gave me a lot more food for thought. The characters are given much more shine and I got much more information on the main characters: I was surprised, for example, at the very unflattering light Charlotte is portrayed. I had as reference the film, where Charlotte, while a stiff old spinster, is actually a likable stiff old spinster. I did not get that feeling at all with the book. She is to be meaningless, living in a cheerless, loveless world,  

a world of precautions and barriers which may avert evil, but which do not seem to bring good...  

There is only one hint at her good soul at the very end of the book. Interesting to see the difference between writer and filmmaker...

For the visual interpretation of this novel, I re-watched the 1985 film by the same name, directed by James Ivory. I have to agree that the film does the novel more than justice - the points where the novel may lack in depth, are compensated by the actors' interpretation.