Whenever Hollywood attempts to do a "modern" adaptation of classic literature by throwing together a caste of up-and-coming teenage hearthrobs, it's uWhenever Hollywood attempts to do a "modern" adaptation of classic literature by throwing together a caste of up-and-coming teenage hearthrobs, it's usually a fail. Great Expectations starring Ethan Hawke and Gwyneth Paltrow: Fail. Romeo and Juliet starring Leonardo Dicaprio and Claire Daines: Fail. O starring Leelee Sobieski and Josh Hartnett: Let's make that a double Shakespeare Fail.
However, reading Les Liaisons Dangereusesmakes me appreciate the artistry, yes the artistry that went into making its 90's teenage counterpart, Cruel Intentions. This book sounded so promising: It's a satire of the moral ambiguity of French aristocracy, a cat and mouse game of seduction, and it contains two of the most scandalous villains in the form of Merteuil and Valmont. My freakin ass.
Merteuil and Valmont were indeed scandalous, but I just got so sick and tired of the repetitive nature of the letters and the naivety of the other characters. By the time that Merteuil and Valmont had ruined everybody, I had stopped caring. This would be a typical letter exchange that would go on in the book:
Danceny: I love you Cecile. Cecile: I love you Danceny. But I'm not allowed to, so stop writing me. Danceny: I couldn't possibly. I will die without your love. Cecile: Okay, keep writing me. I love you so much. Danceny: I love you too. Proclaim your love for me again. Or else I will die. Cecile: Okay, I love you. But my mom says I'm not allowed. Looks like you better stop writing me. Again. Danceny: Never. I love you too much to ever stop writing.
How many times can you say the same thing over and over again? Just read Dangerous Liaisons and you will find out.
A few things that saved the book was the erotic sense of humour in the work (at one point, Valmont uses a naked woman as his writing desk), and de Laclos' ability to write unique characters.
Other than that, watching Sarah Michelle Gellar get her just desserts to The Verve is much more entertaining than reading this book. 2 stars. ...more
No, no. By no means do I worship the devil-- I don't sacrifice chickens on my spare time, nor do I run arI've always had a fascination with the Devil.
No, no. By no means do I worship the devil-- I don't sacrifice chickens on my spare time, nor do I run around naked in pastures to howl at the moonlight. However, I was raised with a strict Catholic upbringing by a very superstitious Grandmother. So at a young age, I had a very black and white concept of good vs evil, and heaven and hell. Movies like The Omen (Gregory Peck version, if you please), and The Exorcist use to scare the living daylights out of me.
As I grew up, my Grandmother's version of the Devil started to melt away, and I developed a fond appreciation for different interpretations of "Lucifer", "Satan", "Beelzebub", whatever you'd like to call him. I've come across some interesting portrayals of the Devil, but Bulgakov really takes the cake.
In "The Master and Margarita", the black magician Woland is Satan incarnate. He comes to pay a vist in Stalanist Moscow with a very intriguing posse which includes a talking, gun-slinging, vodka-loving cat, Behemoth . If there ever was the perfect time and place for Satan to vist the world, it would be Stalanist Moscow; citizens are petrified of the Police, the art world is censored and controlled by the government, and, as portrayed in the novel, people are willing to oust each other to the police if it meant some sort of personal gain. The Devil uses this to his advantage and wreaks havoc in Moscow by exposing the follies of mankind.Yet, I can't really see the Devil as "the bad guy" in this book. He's merely just doing his job-- punishing the wicked, and rewarding the good.
"The Good" in this book are of course the title characters-- The Master (a nameless writer in an asylum, whose book about Pontious Pilate is interwoven with the plot) and Margarita, his beautiful, devoted lover. Over the course of the book, I've really come to love both of these characters. Bulgakov is great at manipulating feelings. Even though there aren't any erotic scenes in the book, you feel the sexual passion between the couple. You feel the despair they when they're separated from each other. You feel pathos for the Master when he suffers a mental breakdown, and you squeal in delight as Margarita races naked through the sky. I couldn't help but feel a sense of elation when the two are rewarded in the end.
The Master and Margarita is one of the most profound, and entertaining books I have ever read. It celebrates sensuality, yet it's critical against instant gratification. It deals with good vs. evil, and the gray area in between. there's so much allusion to so many great works of art, that I can only look forward to rereading this book only after I can fully understand all of these allusions. And in the midst of this depth, Bulgakov still manages to throw in the most imaginative twists to his story: Satan's ball for sinners, a talking cat, a flying pig, and naked women flying through the air.
It's a lengthy, but quick read, and I recommend it to everybody!...more
Whenever I read Jane Austen, I have to overcome the sudden urge to start speaking in an upper-class English accent. And why not? Even with the hardshiWhenever I read Jane Austen, I have to overcome the sudden urge to start speaking in an upper-class English accent. And why not? Even with the hardships portrayed in Austen's novels, she has the ability to keep the mood humorous and light. Wouldn't life be better if it were narrated in an Austentanian English accent? I think so.
I've debated much with myself about the rating I would give this book. Make no mistake, I absolutely, positively, with all my being, loved this book. I would have given it a 5 had I not remembered how much I loved Pride and Prejudice. Austen just has the talent of making guys-that-seem-like-jerks so damn endearing. Even though I thought Edward Ferrars was a lying, cheating prat, I was in love with him by the end of the novel.
Austen creates a great contrast between the two Dashwood sisters; Elinor, the practical, logical sister; and Marianne, the impulsive romantic. I think that the contrast between the two women is what has given this story its universal appeal. We can all relate to the duality of Emma and Marianne's characters. Like Elinor, we try to keep our poker faces on, especially when dealing with douchebags like Edward Ferrars. Even in this modern age, society looks down, (or at least makes fun of) people that follow impulsive, passsionate urges. Yet like Marianne, we have to fight hard to supress these instincts. What I love about Austen is how she shows the flaws of being too logical or too romantic. The sisters were only able to find peace within themselves when they learn how to balance sense and sensibility. Interesting tidbit: Austen had once said that the character she most identifies with, out of her whole body of work, was.... drumroll please... Marianne Dashwood. After reading a biography about Austen,it was apparent why. She had been offered a marriage of convenience, accepted it, and later declined the offer. She would rather marry for love than financial convenience.
The rest of the story line is pretty typical for a rom-com :girl falls in love with guy, guy ends up being jerk and makes girl cry, jerk ends up not being jerk after all. The good girls go home with their men, while the bad girls go home punished. But not harshly, this is Austen land after all. However typical the story line, the characters and the dialogue keep the read light, easy, and fresh.
Okay, so I've read about a billion other reviews about Jane Eyre. I think of these billion, about half of them turn into comparive essays about CharloOkay, so I've read about a billion other reviews about Jane Eyre. I think of these billion, about half of them turn into comparive essays about Charlotte Bronte and Jane Austen: who the better author is,what type of tea they drink, and why Lizzie Bennet can totally kick Jane Eyre's ass (or vise versa). Why can't Team Austen and Team Bronte get along? In my mind, both of these ladies are great authors. Both of them write great characters, great plots, and really mean social commentaries. Of course, both of them offer something a little different. Reading Jane Austen is like sipping a fruity martini cocktail--sweet, refreshing, and no matter how bitter things get, you always hit a nice juicy cherry at the bottom. Bronte, on the contrary, takes a darker, heavier approach-- like a shot of espresso on a rainy day. I also have to add that Mr. Rochester and Mr. Darcy are literary hunks. I'd let the two of them tag-team me any day. Jus' sayin.
For the people who haven't read Jane Eyre, without giving away too much of the plot, here is the low down. The heroine is Jane, a woman who survives a very rough childhood. She spent her childhood living with her miserable Aunt Reed and three very spoiled cousins. She is eventually sent away to boarding school where she is forced to overcome more obstacles. She eventually accepts a post as governess and captures the heart of Mr. Rochester-- an eccentric rich guy with a dark secret locked up in his attic.
I remember taking women's studies classes in college. When we did the unit on feminist writing, I remember reading that Jane Eyre was one of the earliest examples of a feminist hero (Lizzie Bennet was also one of them by the way.) When I had taken this course, I had memorized Pride and Prejudice front to cover, but I had never read Jane Eyre. I completely know what the buzz is all about.
Jane Eyre is plain. She is poor. But she is also intelligent. She has a strong sense of self. People that have criticized Jane's character have called her a "doormat" or a "prude". I don't think she's a doormat at all. I think that she is so tied down by her sense of duty as teacher, and then later as a governess, that she restrains a lot of what she has to say. And yet, since the book is written through her perspective, we know how intricate and deep Jane's thoughts are. There's always an inward battle between what she wants, and what she has to do. This plays such a significant role later on in the novel when she has to choose between the man she loves and her own personal convictions. If sticking to her guns is what defines Jane as a prude, then I applaud her for being one.
Mr. Rochester is also very plain. He's even been described as ugly. Bronte does such a great job with establishing Mr. Rochester's character-- through his speech, through his little mannerisms-- that soon after he's introduced, there's already a sense of intimacy with his character. If passionate declarations of love and wild kisses are your thing, then Mr. Rochester is the bachelor for you. There are several parts in the book that just gave me chills because of the chemistry between Edward Rochester and Jane. The intense passion between Edward and Jane puts shame to any of our modern romance novels-- and not a corset was ripped, or a skirt hem raised.
5 stars. This is one I wil reread over and over again. Just like Pride and Prejudice.
I really enjoyed Madame Bovary. What's interesting is that I read it with a group of other women, and we all had such different opinions about the boo
I really enjoyed Madame Bovary. What's interesting is that I read it with a group of other women, and we all had such different opinions about the book.
Madame Bovary was written by Flaubert in the mid 19th century. Flaubert was well known for being a perfectionist with his writing. Apparently, when he wrote Madame Bovary, he would always be looking for "le mot juste" or "the right word". It really does show in his writing. He uses words effectively and concisely. From a single sentence you can get the feel for the banality of peasant life. From a single line of dialogue, you can already gauge the characters in the book.
Madame Bovary, in short, is about a beautiful woman trying to escape her mundane life by indulging in materialistic things, and having adulterous affairs. It is a social commentary on the bourgeois, and a satire on romantic literature.
Emma Bovary is presented as a beautiful and intelligent woman whose mind has been corrupted by reading too many romance novels. She is characterized as someone that constantly indulges her every whim. and to absolve her sins, she turns to religion, or full out devotion to her foolish husband. She lives life expecting high society and romantic escapades, it's almost hilarious how deluded she is. And yet, I find Flaubert's commentary on indulgence and romanticism as relevant today as it was in his time. Instead of Emma's romantic literature, we have "MTV cribs", reality TV, and dozens of magazines on how to attain the perfect life, perfect car, perfect body.
Flaubert also gives us a colourful set of characters. We have Charles, the foolish husband. We also have the scheming pharmacist, Homais, and his productive, intelligent wife.
I'd recommend this to everyone.Very well-written and fast paced...more