midnightfaerie has
5353 books
(102 selected)
—
compare books
|
stats
midnightfaerie
>
Books:
classics
(102)
×
controls:
shelf settings: main
views:
covers
table
print
| # | cover | title | author | isbn | isbn13 | asin | num pages | avg rating | num ratings | date pub | date pub (ed.) | rating | my rating | review | notes | recommender | comments | votes | read count | date started | date read |
date
|
date purchased | owned | purchase location | condition | format | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0241003008
| 9780241003008
| 4.26
| 136,831
| 1969
| Sep 29, 1994
|
Forgot how wonderful this book is. With beautiful illustrations and a story all can understand, it's a favorite for my 5 yr old and my twin 2 yr olds....more
Forgot how wonderful this book is. With beautiful illustrations and a story all can understand, it's a favorite for my 5 yr old and my twin 2 yr olds. If you're one of those ppl that use the library often and only keep the special and unique for your own, you'll want to make this one part of your collection.(less)
| Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Mar 19, 2013
|
Mar 19, 2013
| Board book
| |||||||||||||||
| 0736890815
| 9780736890816
| 2.67
| 3
| Jan 2001
| Jan 01, 2001
|
Another great book by Rustad. Informative and educational, the pictures and easy reading make this a lot of fun. Not only do you learn about stingrays...more
Another great book by Rustad. Informative and educational, the pictures and easy reading make this a lot of fun. Not only do you learn about stingrays, but if you're child needs something to read for early reading skills and sounding out words, this is perfect. It has one or two sentences per page with a few harder words that are good for sounding out and beginner phonics. These books are a perfect combo for my 5-yr-old's reading and science lesson, and on top of it, he enjoys it. Two thumbs up to Rustad! ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Feb 19, 2013
|
Feb 19, 2013
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0375814248
| 9780375814242
| 3.95
| 153,530
| 1961
| Sep 10, 2002
|
I read James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl with my five year old. We had just finished Charlotte's Web and I was looking for chapter books I could...more
I read James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl with my five year old. We had just finished Charlotte's Web and I was looking for chapter books I could enjoy as well. And I knew we had the movie so we could watch it when we were done. It turned out to be a great choice. Dahl uses the cliffhanger method at the end of almost every one of his chapters, and each chapter is only a page or two long. That combined with great illustrations, made for a win-win situation. I often ended a chapter only to have my son beg for another. This is a good sign, and something he didn't do with Charlotte's Web, even though he enjoyed it too. I also picked it because it was something I had never read. Turns out it was the perfect selection all around. Only took us a few weeks to read it and it was highly enjoyable. The characters come alive in a way other stories about bugs never did for me. I actually found myself sympathizing with the earthworm. The imagination and magic factor held me the whole time, and my son and I often discussed what would happen next. Some of our ideas were so far out there, but we laughed, knowing it was highly possible, even probable that they could very well be true. Dahl's penchant for silliness and the unexpected made our guesses that much more realistic. The vocabulary was perfect, just enough to keep me from being bored, but easy enough for my son to understand, and we both learned new words! His was peach stone, another name for a peach pit. Mine was steeplejacks, and no, I won't tell you what it is, you have to look it up. Dahl's writing is fantastic, and I had great fun making up tunes to his songs throughout the book. The book definitely has the longevity factor going for it, and children can appreciate the many themes of friendship and loyalty for the duration the book. So in these regards I think it can be considered a classic. The only complaint that some may have about this book is that he uses the word "ass" a few times in it, and even though I was told about it, I was still surprised when I stumbled over their use. Because I was reading this to my son, it wasn't a problem, I just substituted a word for it or skipped over it. If a child is reading the book on their own, well, I'm a big believer that if the adult cares so much, they should be reading the books first and then discussing it with their kids. Much of the great literature that's out there has ideas that are taboo in polite circles or are difficult concepts to explain when looking at human history. But that's what makes them great. And it's much better to educate your child, and do it yourself, before they get misconstrued opinions from the world at large or other teachers. I remember many teachers I had that pushed their opinions, good and bad on students when reading literature. That's a parent's responsibility. As for this book, it was excellent. And I highly recommend it for your first chapter books for your child. Now for the movie. I was excited because this was the first time my son had read a book and seen the movie afterward. It was funny to see how disappointed he was. That sounds bad. What I mean is, he enjoyed it and we had a fun "popcorn night" that is one of his favorite things, but his favorite part of the movie was the part about the sharks. He was like, "There wasn't a robot shark in the book! Where are the real sharks? And what happened to the cloud men?" I laughed. I told him it often happens that the movie is nothing like the book and then asked which he liked better. He vehemently exclaimed "The book!" Which, of course, was the whole objective. Lesson learned. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Jan 02, 2013
| Jan 21, 2013
|
Jan 02, 2013
| Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
| 0553328298
| 9780553328295
| 4.20
| 2,974
| Oct 1986
| Oct 15, 1986
|
*The Earth Children Series by Jean Auel are outstanding books. Along with Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, these are my favorite books. It’s a story of a g...more
*The Earth Children Series by Jean Auel are outstanding books. Along with Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, these are my favorite books. It’s a story of a girl named Ayla, who lived during the ice age in Europe. She gets seperated from her people by an earthquake and near death, gets found and rescued by the Clan of the Cave Bear people. A type of cave people that becoming extinct while Ayla’s race thrives. It tells of her story of fitting in, being raised by people so different, yet so similar, and her struggle to be like them without loosing herself. If they put as much money into them as they have Harry Potter, they would be as popular as Harry Potter. I often compare them to Harry Potter in that they are just all around good stories. Filled with love stories, action, and suspense, you get lost easily. And Auel’s supurb description of the time period makes you feel like you could be there, standing next to the glacier in all its beauty. Being such good stories, I’ve reread them many times. These are Auel’s life work and she has finally finished the last one of the series and it’s coming out in March of 2011. I can’t wait. As a side note, I have to mention the God-awful movie adaptation they made starring Darly Hannah years ago. Please don’t watch it. It is nothing like the book and goes so far as to do it a disservice by making people not want to read them. Auel’s research and detail in the history of the time period and landscape and her ability to tell the story in such rich detail makes this an instant and lasting classic. I can’t recommend these books enough. ClassicsDefined.com (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| not set
|
Dec 28, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0452284236
| 9780452284234
| 4.06
| 934,979
| 1949
| May 06, 2003
|
This book floored me. My first review I threw up on goodreads a few years ago was from my high school experience of reading it. What a difference read...more
This book floored me. My first review I threw up on goodreads a few years ago was from my high school experience of reading it. What a difference reading it as an adult makes! Not only does Orwell touch on so many ideas and topics that could leave book clubs discussing for ages, but he has a unique and fresh perspective on human kind's version of utopia and the direction our world is really headed. Some are under the mistaken impression that this book is about totalitarian regime's and Stalinistic and Nazi type rulers. I don't think it is. I think he cautions us against "doublethink" which is prevelent even in today's society, so much so, that we don't even realize its existence. Doublethink is a term he coins in the book meaning holding two opposing beliefs at the same time, knowing they are both true. It requires us to consciously subdue the the fact, while convincing ourselves that the opposite is true. In the story it sounds ridiculous and unobtainable. You think, any sane or rational person would realize they're just deluding themselves. But really, don't we do it all the time? Example: "I'm just going to have a little piece of this apple cake. It's made out of apples, so it's fruit. So really, it's healthy for me." To a friend you say: "I just don't know why I can't lose that weight, I eat healthy, really I do." What about on a bigger scale? Don't Christians speak of loving your neighbor and thou shall not kill? Why then is war okay when it's justified by bringing peace? (This is not a political statement, I'm just using it as an example of what I think Orwell is getting at) Or if we call ourselves a free and liberal society, yet, isn't the heart of our system still based in a material world? I think Orwell is pointing out that this isn't a futuristic society he's imagining, it's here and now. It's all around us, and if that's true, where will we be as "freethinkers" in twenty years? Fifty years? One hundred years? If we take a government, or even an ideology, and say we belong to that idea, we support it, and we come to believe those ideas as truth, then we feel free. Those ideas become who we are, and we feel free because there is no longer any distinction between fact and fiction. We have surrendered ourselves to that ideology as being the truth, and in turn it grants us freedom. Whether this is true or not, it's an interesting idea. No one likes to think that in believing in something, we have given up our individualism for the greater cause of that belief. I have two main thoughts here: 1. George Orwell is brilliant. and 2. Seriously, how can high school students know enough about life to understand and appreciate the nuances of this novel? Perhaps it's just me, maybe I was more concerned with boys than with literature at that point in my life, even though I love to read. I saw 1984 as a dis against the privacy act, and I could almost swear that I remember the teacher even teaching that. As our world gets more technological, our privacy goes out the window. I have no problems with that. I thought the idea that "Big Brother is always watching" meant the idea of our government taking away our privacy as a whole and was limiting our freedom. I didn't buy it. A conservative Republican even from a young age, I thought, all these people that were so concerned with being watched were hiding something. (But maybe my membership in the Republican Party was just an ideology that allowed me to feel free since it unburdened me with the work of having to explain my political beliefs?) Now, reading this book again, I can see there is so much more to this story. A powerful, compelling, and slightly disturbing story about a world where we give up our freedom to feel "free", Orwell's novel is a masterpiece ahead of its time, or maybe even after its time. A definite classic, it shows the many sides of human nature and how we rationalize our beliefs to ourselves. It has longevity, I have no doubt it will impact the reader many years from now. To me, it's an original concept and nothing like I've ever read. It has a huge following, is controversial, and will have a substantial and lasting impact on our literary world. Could this really happen? When I first read it, I thought that idea was absurd. Now? I'm not so sure. In the end, I loved this book and highly recommend it. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Dec 04, 2012
| Mar 06, 2013
|
Dec 04, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 3.75
| 1,010,104
| 1945
| 1951
|
An Animal Tale of epic proportions, Animal Farm is yet another creative way an author has found to express his political beliefs. Orwell, completely a...more
An Animal Tale of epic proportions, Animal Farm is yet another creative way an author has found to express his political beliefs. Orwell, completely against Totalitarianism and all it encompasses, uses animals to show how power can corrupt when left to its own devices. The story is about an animal farm that is tired of the terrible treatment they receive from Jones, the drunk owner of the farm. One day after another binge, he forgets to feed the animals and having had enough, they rebel. They attack the humans and chase them off of the land, claiming it for their own. In the beginning, they declare "All animals are equal", and strive to live up to their noble intentions. But, as Orwell demonstrates, some aren't content to live in equality and scheme to find ways that elevate themselves to power. The pigs, being the most intelligent, with the ability to read, are the ones that vie for the power, some being more obvious in their scheming than others. Later on, the rules end up changing and their motto becomes "All animals are equal, some just more equal than others." The pigs, which end up walking on two feet, imbibing in alcohol and trading with other humans, break all the rules that were first established and live a life of luxury, off of the other animals hard work. In the end, the animals can't tell the difference between the pigs and the humans anymore. There has been much discussion on whether this book was an allegory or even a representation of the Soviet rule, but whatever the case, the message is clear, absolute power corrupts absolutely. I don't think anyone can disagree that this extreme case of Totalitarianism is bad. The debate comes in when we look at whether this would be the case if people were left to their own devices without government or rules initially. Would we feel the need to create rules? To enforce them? To elect a leader? Why couldn't the animals all live peacefully as they were? The answer is simply because now they have to take care of themselves, whereas they didn't before. Now it's their responsibility to feed themselves and that requires work and organization. But couldn't we find an efficient method of creating rules and doing the work? I don't think that this situation would always turn out this way. Who's to say we wouldn't elect someone like Old Major, someone with equality and fairness as his core beliefs? I'm not sure this extreme result would always be the outcome. That aside, I actually found the crow the most intriguing part of the story. I have to admit I had never heard what Animal Farm was about, so it took me a bit into the story before I realized the significance of the name Napoleon for the conniving pig. Once I did, it was easier to recognize the significance of the crow's name, Moses. Moses was the one character outside of it all. One that didn't seem to buy into the rebellion. Instead he preached about "Sugar Candy Mountain", that wonderful place in the sky where the animals could have peace and rest. Obviously this bird represented religion and/or the church, but what exactly was Orwell trying to depict with this? Was it that, if the animals had only listened to Moses more, they would have found the happiness and peace they were searching for? Or was it a means by which the pigs used to distract the animals from questioning their motives? I'm still not sure. After reading some other reviews, a third and interesting hypothesis has been brought up. That Orwell is trying to depict how when Old Major is first speaking about his ideals in the barn, and Moses is asleep, that the church was asleep when Communism first came into the picture? I'm not sure, but it's an interesting argument to be sure. I must also note, that it must be said, that Orwell is confusing and sometimes contradicts himself when trying to come across with his beliefs. He's been stated as saying he's a "democratic socialist", yet is against totalitarianism. The definition of socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." And it seems to me, that the animals start out with the utopia of socialism and it ends up being totalitarianism. So, to me, it almost seems as if he is saying that socialism, left in it's perfect form to do as it will, will eventually turn into a totalitarian regime. Which, to some aspects, I agree with. I very much enjoyed Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, and felt that book held that belief as well. But with Animal Farm, I think there's a fine line between socialism as a general good and socialism as seen from Marxism (the stage following capitalism on it's way to becoming communism), and sometimes it's unclear as to which thought Orwell is adhering to. But that could be a whole big debate, and I'm just not willing to turn this into a political debate. Also, a short note on the movie with the Jim Henson muppets. Nothing short of amazing. The movie was a great representation of the book, entertaining and disturbing. I also love how the muppets can look so real and disgusting at the same time. In the end, I found the book delightful, and a refreshing change at depicting political agenda. I think it raises more questions than it answers, and it's definitely a classic. It's original, has a huge following, it's been around for a while, and it's controversial. Highly recommended. ClassicsDefined.com (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Dec 04, 2012
| Dec 17, 2012
|
Dec 04, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||||
| 0141439807
| 9780141439808
| 3.77
| 120,101
| 1814
| Apr 29, 2003
|
Click here for Jane Austen Disclaimer Mansfield Park by Jane Austen was the last of the Austen tomes I had to read. All that are left are the smaller,...more Click here for Jane Austen Disclaimer Mansfield Park by Jane Austen was the last of the Austen tomes I had to read. All that are left are the smaller, more obscure reads. I really enjoyed this one. Fanny was a delightful character who I could really relate to. I loved how she said more by not saying anything a good portion of the time. I didn't agree with the critics who called Fanny "annoying" or "always right". I thought that she was infinitely more complex than that. Just the fact that she considered marrying for the "wrong reasons" shows the human side of her and that she was mature enough to see how "marrying for love" like her parents did, could not be the wonderfully happy experience that most fairy tales buy into, without money. We see that she notices more of the dingy aspects of being poor when she comes back to visit her family than she did before and it was more like a statement of fact than a snobbish judgment. It just was what it was. To me, those that are grown, and have seen a little more of life, know that the world is run by money and not love. (I wonder how many criticisms I'll get to that comment?) And although in happy fairy tales such as these, love tends to win out, no one ever seems to mention that, "Oh yeah, by the way, did you notice that she also inherited the house that was as big as an apartment complex?" Makes love a little easier to handle after the "infatuation period" wears off. Fanny was independent, educated, and well written. She had a quiet spark, but a spark nonetheless, and it was a spark that Edmund noticed from the beginning, so we can give him credit as well. I also found the theme of slavery to be interesting. She brings it up just enough to show that it's appalling, yet not enough to bring down the happy tone of the story. What was she trying to say? Was she against it? Was she trying to just give some realism to the current trends of that time period? Did she want to show some different sides to her characters? In any case, I found this novel to be refreshingly different from Austen's other books and after finishing all her novels, most likely, my favorite. Fanny's enchanting persona and how she sees through those around her, to the subtle various themes Austen has underlying the story, makes this (possibly) my favorite Austen novel. It's only other contender is Persuasion, where I see a similar heroine in Anne, soft spoken in voice, yet strong in character. In the end, Austen is talented, no matter which one you read, and I look forward to reading some of her smaller, more intimate works. ClassicsDefined.com (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Oct 26, 2012
| Dec 09, 2012
|
Oct 26, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0880880813
| 9780880880817
| 3.94
| 94
| Nov 30, 1948
| Mar 01, 1998
|
The Wit and Wisdom of Benjamin Franklin was erratic at best. Tidbits taken from Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac" are splattered throughout the book...more
The Wit and Wisdom of Benjamin Franklin was erratic at best. Tidbits taken from Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac" are splattered throughout the book and they range from enlightening snippets such as: "He's a fool that cannot conceal his wisdom." to mundane sayings bordering on obtuse such as: "If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun." Overall this has some interesting thoughts I found amusing but didn't think it was worth the read in the end. What it did do for me was make me want to read Poor Richard's Almanac. If you're considering picking this up to get a feel for Franklin, don't bother. Just skip to the real thing. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Nov 04, 2012
| Nov 12, 2012
|
Oct 01, 2012
| Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
| 1853262439
| 9781853262432
| 3.71
| 10,002
| 1594
| Dec 01, 1999
|
Click here for William Shakespeare Disclaimer The Comedy of Errors by William Shakespeare was a horrendous and bastardized version of a typical Shakes...more Click here for William Shakespeare Disclaimer The Comedy of Errors by William Shakespeare was a horrendous and bastardized version of a typical Shakespearean comedy. So many errors of mistaken identity that made the circumstances confused and dispositions ill toward characters that didn't get resolved until the end of the play made it most excruciating to read. It's almost as if Shakespeare had to churn out a play in a short period of time and he took A Midsummer Night's Dream and Much Ado About Nothing, ate them both, and then vomited the result which turned out to be this play. To say the least I didn't enjoy it. The play is about twin brothers and their twin servants who get constantly mistaken for each other in overly dramatized circumstances that I think are meant to be funny, but just don't pull it off. What gets me so annoyed is that the first brother, Antipholus of Syracuse, is travelling the world searching for his long lost twin brother and even though he is mistaken constantly for his brother and is treated strangely because of it in so many ways, it never occurs to him that it might be because of mistaken identity. He seems like somewhat of an idiot to me. In the end, the payoff of everyone finally finding out what was going on just wasn't enough. It was a short and unimpressive play. But since it is Shakespeare, I've put it under classics. However, Shakespeare has done better. ClassicsDefined.com (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Sep 08, 2012
| Dec 08, 2012
|
Sep 08, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0747263744
| 9780747263746
| 4.10
| 194,571
| Jun 19, 2001
| Mar 04, 2005
|
American Gods by Neil Gaiman was wow. Just wow. I haven't read a book that's touched me this deeply in awhile. Let me start off by discussing the two...more
American Gods by Neil Gaiman was wow. Just wow. I haven't read a book that's touched me this deeply in awhile. Let me start off by discussing the two biggest things I enjoyed about this book. First of all, those who know me, know that I'll read anything. I've even been dared to read things. From Satanic ritualistic books, to obscure Foreign history books, to books about math, politics, or even how a fish changed the world, I read it all. So when a novel comes along that stands out as different than anything I've ever read, I sit up and take notice. The second reason I loved it was because I was constantly surprised. With or without foreshadowing, I usually can guess where a story is going or how it will end. With American Gods, I was confounded at every turn. I laughed out loud often at the plot, at the bewilderment, and at myself for my assumptions with where the book was headed. Even though many have given summaries on the plot, I don't think that I can really describe accurately what this book is about. Part of me still isn't sure, and I feel I'll need to read it a few more times before I can begin to grasp it. But as far as the book jacket goes, it's about a man named, Shadow, who gets put in jail for three years over something stupid. Upon getting out he's excited to go home to his wife Laura, when he finds out she's been killed in an auto accident. On his way home to the funeral, he meets up with a special elusive character, who offers him a job as a driver/body guard/errand boy. Although it doesn't completely sit well with him, he has nothing better to do, so he takes it. And that is just the first chapter. This book goes all over America. It explores our history, our religions, our ancestry. It covers the things we do that makes us alive, love, mystery, action, murder, revenge and so much more. The book is about all of these things, and then none of these things, and it was beautiful. Gaiman's writing is exquisite. It makes you gulp in awe, reach out and touch the lightning because it's right in front of you, and it makes you repulsed from character acts that are revolting. Any horror or fantastical thing the mind can think of, this book has covered an aspect of it. I adored this book. I've always wanted to read a Gaiman, ever since I discovered that one of my favorite singers, Tori Amos, was a good friend of his. She mentions "Neil" in at least one song on every album. I had picked up a few copies of Sandman, his graphic novel years ago, because I knew one of his characters was based on Tori, but never really read the whole story. This was my first Gaiman. I've heard mixed reviews on it, long-time Gaimen fans either love it or hate it, and it has gotten lots of acclaim, sometimes more than any of his others. I'm glad it was my first. It gave me insight into this author who has been so controversial in my reading circles. As for being a classic, this has so much potential. So many unique ideas, and so superb in its style of writing, I think it definitely has potential. It's only been out a little over ten years and doesn't have as many followers yet, so it might just take time. I can't, for the life of me, label this style of writing, or tell you what the original concept is. I know it has underlying themes and substantial influence it the fantasy genre, but I'm not sure it's enough to put it in those categories. It's probably not well known enough to consider it a knowledge base of its field, but I believe it's a good representation of the fantasy genre, or at least what is possible in fantasy when we strive for such creativity and imagination in this field. And even though it's not a collection of authors, I still think this can be classified as an anthology of sorts, since the history of its topic is so diverse. Because of all of these reasons, I am putting it on my classics list. It might take fifty years, but I believe this book read far from now, will have just as much impact on its reader. It's been a long time since I've been so touched by an author. I am in love again. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Aug 30, 2012
|
Aug 06, 2012
| Mass Market Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 074348486X
| 9780743484862
| 3.80
| 33,296
| 1623
| Aug 23, 2011
|
Click here for William Shakespeare Disclaimer As You Like It by William Shakespeare wasn't as satisfying as I thought it would be. It started out in g...more Click here for William Shakespeare Disclaimer As You Like It by William Shakespeare wasn't as satisfying as I thought it would be. It started out in good form, similar to Much Ado About Nothing, my favorite Shakespearean play thus far, but then quickly fell flat for me. I thought it would be a little more about the Duke getting banished, but really this was just a side note for the various romances going on. I did enjoy the Rosalind dressing like a man and fooling her lover, as well as the wit and match making she did throughout the play. I looked forward to the ending with everyone being surprised with the unveiling, but there was hardly any climax compared to the build-up of the plot. Of course, once again, this could be attributed to the fact that we should not be reading Shakespeare, but viewing it, as it was intended and perhaps I could fall in love with the characters a bit more. Touchstone was a fine sideline as a fool and even though I had a hard time understanding all of his banter and references, after doing research and finding some understanding in his words, he was quite enjoyable. But my favorite part of the play was the epilogue, where Rosalind states the obvious when she asks, "Was this a good play? Probably not, but clap for me anyway!" And then makes a reference to the fact if she weren't a man, she'd be hitting on he men in the audience. (All characters back in the day were played by men.) Which is funny, I think, a man, pretending to be a woman that's pretending to be a man. Talk about an identity crisis. I saw a very bad version of the play on Netflix. It was somewhat modernized but bad acting and no scenery made it most boring and tedious to get through. If anyone has any recommendations on a good movie adaptation of this play, I'm all for it. In any case, it was a decent play, but not one of Shakespeare's best. But now I know which play the saying "All the world's a stage" comes from, so in that, I feel like I've gotten something out of it. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Jun 26, 2012
| Sep 07, 2012
|
Jun 26, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 1593082649
| 9781593082642
| 3.73
| 109,540
| 1817
| Mar 03, 2005
|
Click here for Jane Austen Disclaimer Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen was a light and fun story, typical of most Austen novels. Published after her de...more Click here for Jane Austen Disclaimer Northanger Abbey by Jane Austen was a light and fun story, typical of most Austen novels. Published after her death, it has a slightly different tone than the others, almost as if it was a different writing style altogether. I almost wonder if she meant to ever have it published. The plot centers around a young girl named Catherine, who falls in love with Henry Tilney, a clergyman. Between the misunderstandings and overactive imagination of the young 17-year old, much humor ensues, which again, is typical of Austen novels. I enjoyed the book, it was sweet and relatively short, put together well, so it was a fun read. Not one of my favorites, but still another excellent addition to the Jane Austen collection and a classic that's definitely worth the read. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Jun 26, 2012
| Oct 25, 2012
|
Jun 26, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0061120065
| 9780061120060
| 3.79
| 101,793
| 1937
| May 30, 2006
|
Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston was a piece of black literature that was infinitely more poignant than Uncle Tom's Cabin, yet the p...more
Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston was a piece of black literature that was infinitely more poignant than Uncle Tom's Cabin, yet the plausibility has yet to be decided. I also enjoyed it much more than Uncle Tom's Cabin. The story is about Janie, a beautiful black woman and her journey into adulthood, and on through three marriages that shapes who and what she becomes. Although many criticize Hurston's use of authentic literary diction ("Dey gointuh make 'miration 'cause mah love didn't work lak they love, if dey ever had any. Then you must tell'em dat love ain't somethin' lak uh grindstone dat's de same thing everywhere and do de same thing tuh everything it touch."), to me, it was much like Shakespeare, once you got to reading, it grew on you. It also added to the reading experience. When I mention plausibility, the story loses this for me when a character does something I can't understand or relate to. If a character's action is so far removed from something I'd ever do, I'm either left feeling cheated or I'm left with the only other alternative, that the character is an idiot. And I didn't want Janie to be an idiot. I'm speaking of the hurricane and not leaving the lake. Much like a Stephen King book I once read, I wonder how any person cannot leave a situation when they see every other creature known to mankind leave, friend and foe alike, in the same direction. The Indians left first, then the townies, then a few of their own, and still, I could maybe understand their decision to stay in spite of the hurricane. However, when the wolves and snakes and every other natural born enemies begin to all move together in an eastwardly direction, with no thought or concern for who's walking next to them, who wouldn't get the hell out of there? Hence, my decision of low intelligence that I attributed to the characters. The only rationalization that I could possibly come up with to excuse Janie and Tea Cake would be that they were both extremely adept at talking themselves out of thinking that they could be in any danger. They were both excellent at denial. They just didn't want to leave so they convinced themselves that there was nothing to worry about. Maybe. This is still a far-fetched rationalization in my opinion. Other than that, I really enjoyed the book. I also found the whole inception into popularity interesting as well. For the first thirty years after the novel was published in 1937 it went largely unread and was not thought well of by many a critic. The most popular opinion seemed to be that Hurston didn't depict enough turmoil and hardship of black life in the south and made her life out to be almost nice compared to what most really went through, according to the critics. This is why, they said, this literature could not be taken seriously. Then, little by little, it grew in popularity in certain circles. It was an underground phenomenon, especially in the sixties, during a time where questioning, self-realization, and woman's studies became more prominent. Then in the early seventies, Alice Walker began to teach it in African-American studies. Walker was appalled at how it had been deemed unimportant and even went so far as to go on a quest to find Hurston's grave and honor it. Then it was so popular, they couldn't keep up with the demand in 1975 and was out of print. It only grew in popularity from there. For a novel with such a tentative and unappreciated beginning, to a popularity in required reading classes, this little book has had quite the journey. I think it deserves more recognition. Mostly because of Janie, our self-reliant, articulate, and ever evolving heroine. She's someone we can admire. Through her adversity she triumphs, she's a strong woman who doesn't look back when walking away from one man who she's already married to, to marry another. Her story wasn't tragic, and she wasn't pathetic, like so many women characters written during this time. And even though her story was sad, she's still going strong, ever standing in the end, to the tenacity and credit of her spirit. The book has been respected for a while, it has many underlying themes pertaining to the human condition, and it has a huge following. I believe this book can be considered a classic. The only reason it's not a four are the issues I stated earlier dealing with the hurricane. But highly recommended and well worth the read. ClassicsDefined.com (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Dec 04, 2012
| Dec 13, 2012
|
May 31, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0743273567
| 9780743273565
| 3.80
| 1,197,811
| 1925
| Sep 30, 2004
|
This bombastic roaring novel goes from eliciting Bronx Cheers to being the Cat's Meow. A faithful embodiment of what the twenties were like, the book...more
This bombastic roaring novel goes from eliciting Bronx Cheers to being the Cat's Meow. A faithful embodiment of what the twenties were like, the book thrusts us into the thick of things with no buildup whatsoever other than the most beautiful of slanged prose. "The abnormal mind is quick to detect and attach itself to this quality when it appears in a normal person, and so it came about that in college I was unjustly accused of being a politician, because I was privy to the secret griefs of wild, unknown men." I've never known an author to use such different styles of adjectives, from classical to modern vernacular, and have it come off as anything less than choppy. But Fitzgerald pulls it off, over and over again. His writing astounds me and leaves me breathless with new experiences, and for that, I thank him. The story is told from Nick Carraway's point of view, both a participant in the story and also someone who fades easily into the background to observe. It seems from a surface look at his writing, that he despises these people he associates with, and finds their habits and actions distasteful, yet he can't seem to get away from them. He is fascinated and repelled at the same time. "There are only the pursued, the pursuing, the busy and the tired." Living next to Jay Gatsby, he is pulled into the life of the rich socialites. At first he thinks it's because of mere whim but then finds out it's because Gatsby wants an afternoon tea arranged with one Daisy Buchanan, Nick's cousin, a married woman, and the girl whom Gatsby was once in love with. Nick arranges it against his better judgment and from there, the story never seems to slow down. Whether fast-paced in action, or fascinating conjecture of life's little moments, this book had me hooked from beginning to end. "Daisy, was too wise ever to carry well-forgotten dreams from age to age." Fitzgerald has a unique and different style of writing that doesn't come close to anything I've ever read before. He also has an uncanny way of making you not only be able to imagine the 1920's, but feel it, taste it, smell it, and, in this case, sweat it. All of it adding to the list of reasons we should consider him a classical writer. There are many underlying themes here, not the least of which are love, hate, revenge, guilt, self-worth, and infidelity. The Great Gatsby has definitely withstood the test of time, selling more books with each passing year, and along with the magic factor, he also has a huge following. For all these reasons and more, I consider this book a classic. "It vanished in the trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby's house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder." One last thing I'd like to mention is that I'm really looking forward to the movie coming out in May. And it was in no small part of my decision for reading this book on my list. I also have to say, Leonardo Dicaprio never impressed me much in Titanic, my first movie of him. But then I saw Who's Eating Gilbert Grape, and Gangs of New York, and Catch me If you Can, and Blood Diamond. And even though I never particularly enjoyed watching him, I was greatly impressed with his talent, and grew to enjoy watching him, so that when I heard he was going to play Gatsby, I was satisfied that he would do the character justice. Dicaprio, combined with Toby Maguire, was enough to make me blissfully anticipate the coming of this film. I do believe, ever since Spider-man, the critics don't give Maguire enough credit as an actor. But I will never forget him in The Cider House Rules and especially The Ice Storm. Those alone give him credit as an actor. So, I happily look forward to watching this movie, especially after having just added this book to my favorites. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Apr 21, 2013
| Apr 28, 2013
|
May 30, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0345339738
| 9780345339737
| 4.46
| 256,908
| 1955
| Jul 12, 1986
|
The Return of the King was by far the best Lord of the Rings yet. It made me cry several times and had some key elements to it that really made it the...more
The Return of the King was by far the best Lord of the Rings yet. It made me cry several times and had some key elements to it that really made it the best and rounded out the series perfectly. First of all, we have my favorite part, when the hobbits come back to the Shire. They've been through so much and are hoping to rest but are sorely mistaken when they find their beloved Shire in ruins. Trees cut down, water polluted, homes destroyed, and basically a gang of ruffians has taken over. These ruffians, who are twice as big as these hobbits, tower over them, informing them of all the rules they've broken and how they're under arrest, and the hobbits just laugh. Going through town, and ignoring every rule and missive blatantly, they do what they want and scoff at the opposition. After everything they've been through, it's pretty much like they're saying, "Whatever, you ruined my home, I don't care how big you are or how many of you there are, get over here so I can kick your ass." It's just beautiful, the whole scene, who they encounter there, how the battle ensues, and I was very disappointed that the movie didn't even touch upon it. Second, the two battles. Tolkien expertly bringing in the different races one at a time to ensure a fantastic climax of an epic battle. I especially loved the addition of the dead. It seemed a nice sideline at first but quickly became an integral part of how the battle at Gondor turned out. I loved the detail as they went through the mountain and again, I wished the movie would have focused a little more on this as well. Then there's the debate at the end. Perhaps this is understood among LOTR nerds, however, in my circles, there's heavy debate on whether the "Havens" are actually death for the characters going there. I'm still undecided. It seems as if Tolkien was hinting at this all along, constantly bringing up the pain in Frodo's shoulder and pointing out that he's never fully whole again and he's been "too deeply hurt". Then there's the whole debate on whether Gandalf died in Moria and came back. It almost seemed so to me, especially when he says "Oh yes, Gandalf, that's what they used to call me." Like he was not quite with it. The elves that go are different, since they live many times longer then the other races and have different magical powers. Or perhaps the elves keep them from aging/dying and so they go with them to live there so they don't die. There are many examples of things that are said that can be interpreted to mean that they've dying, (anyone who reads the book can find them, they're easy to find, so I won't go into them here), but there still seems to be a big debate on whether it's spiritually/physically/metaphysically dying/leaving an old life behind/etc. As for me, I think they've died physically. Not right then, but they are sailing to their peace. But that's just my opinion. I'd also like to state quickly my favorite characters. First, Galadriel, probably because it's the faerie in me. She's exquisite, magical, strong, tenacious, and wise. And she doesn't mind flirting across races. And she allows herself to hold the ring, testing herself to see if she can withstand it, and does. That's cool. Then there's my second favorite, Legolas. Intelligent, quiet, skilled, neat friendship with a dwarf, and he can walk on snow, among other things. Just very cool. Then it's really difficult, but I'd have to say Samwise. Frodo gets on my nerves quite often, he seems pretty whiny. But Sam, to me, is the real hero. Loyal, true, brave, always putting Frodo first, and carrying him in the end. Just a all around great character. Some other characters that touched me were Merry and Pippin, how they changed through the book, with them, I think you saw the most personality growth. Then there's Tom Bombadil. What's his story? Really? I think Tolkien should have written a whole book just about this guy. He's so interesting and he was there before all of them. And what was that bit about at the end? Gandalf saying he's gotta go spend some time with Tom, and they had a lot to discuss. So interesting and then just dropped! So much of that in this book! Frustrating and intriguing all at the same time. In the end, just a fantastic story. Characters that appeal to every type of personality with heroes to love, and villains to hate. A classic fantasy story, I can now see why many fantasy reviews are compared to this book. An enchanting story and for all the reasons I've stated in all three reviews, a classic. ClassicsDefined.com (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Sep 14, 2012
| Oct 02, 2012
|
May 30, 2012
| Mass Market Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0618346260
| 9780618346264
| 4.36
| 264,296
| 1954
| Sep 05, 2003
|
The second installment of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien, was more exciting than the first. For some reason, The Two...more
The second installment of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Two Towers by J.R.R. Tolkien, was more exciting than the first. For some reason, The Two Towers was a much bigger page turner for me than Fellowship of the Ring. I'm not sure why, perhaps because there were more action scenes. The Battle at the Two Towers was fascinating to me, and not at all like I remembered. I really enjoyed it, even though Tolkien seems to have a minimalist way of writing. He's a good writer, but I find the climatic scenes diminished, and not as "climatic" as I would have liked. For instance, when he brings in the Ents, they're just there as if they'd been there all along, instead of having them charge over the hill at a great time of perilous need. Perhaps he thought that was creepier, and I suppose in a way it was, but after all the build up of their relationship with Pippin and Merry, and having been dormant so many years, I thought somehow it would be a bigger entrance. But I see this happening a lot with Tolkien and think it's more his style of writing. Maybe it's my love of obsessive cheese in stories that's makes me unable to better appreciate his more subtle style. His imagery is beautiful, but because of the let down in the big scenes, these aren't a part of my list of favorite books. Even though they aren't my favorites, that doesn't take away from the fact that these should be considered classic literature. For all the same reasons I stated in my review of The Fellowship of the Ring, the same holds true for this book as well. Another aspect of this book I like was Tolkien's was of incorporating various story telling techniques into the plot. Besides the poetry and songs, there were a few times that the actual dialogue accomplished this. One example I particularly enjoyed was towards the end, when Frodo and Sam are walking up the stairs, they discuss how their story will be told to children years from now. Sam even goes so far as to make up speech that the would be children might say, "Yes, that's one of my favourite stories. Frodo was very brave, wasn't he, dad?" And Frodo responds in kind, but showing that the kids might be more interested in hearing about his loyal and true companion, Samwise the stouthearted. Then they go on to discuss aspects of their story, such as where they're stuck right now in it and if the reader might not consider closing the book at this point because they don't want to read anymore. In this way, Tolkien is adding more depth to the multiple layers of storylines, and talking directly to the reader as well. It's done in a brilliant way that doesn't make it too obvious or corny. It's one of the things I love about Tolkien. In this passage they also discuss whether or not this is even a good story and whether Gollum would think himself the hero or the villain. It was rather clever. One other thing I'd like to note that bothered me, or rather that bothers me often about stories such as these, and it's a small thing really, but the fact that the characters disburse of potentially helpful items so easily. I know it's a sense of honor and a show of how important a person is and all that to send them off in their funeral with important items, but really, if you're on a life or death mission, don't you think said dead person would rather you kept the things you might need? When they ship off Boromir's body in the boat and send with him the things of value, all I could think of was how stupid it was, what if they could use that stuff later? Granted, it came into play later, when his brother had the vision and noted these things, but still, was it that important he still have them in the boat? If I had been the one that died, I would've wanted my friends to use what they could to further their quest if possible. You never know what you might need. Small point in any case. Overall, I finished this book quickly and found it quite suspenseful. The spider creature at the end was nice too, totally creeped me out. It's been awhile since a creature has disgusted me that much. I really don't remember anything much about these books so I wasn't expecting it, along with Gollum's betrayal. Looking forward to finding out what happens in the final book, Return of the King. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Sep 14, 2012
| Sep 23, 2012
|
May 30, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0618346252
| 9780618346257
| 4.27
| 823,344
| 1954
| Sep 05, 2003
|
Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien was so much more enchanting then I remember. It just goes to show how much our tastes can change along with h...more
Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien was so much more enchanting then I remember. It just goes to show how much our tastes can change along with how we view the world can alter as we get older. I really didn't like any of these books when I was a kid, but it was fantastic. I couldn't wait to finish it so I could watch the movie again, which I hadn't seen in years. I was impressed by how closely the movie followed this book, beside the leaving out of Tom Bombadil. The elves and Galadriel are still my favorite characters, there's just something about the way they hold themselves and how they perceive the world that's captivating. Not to mention their awesome magical abilities. I'm so glad I decided to read these again. Not only am I viewing them in an entirely different light, but I never knew/remembered how much poetry/prose/lyrics/whatever you want to call it is in this book! I'm so saddened when I hear that people skip over that stuff just so they can get to the "good" parts, never realizing much of it is, in fact, the "good stuff". It tells the history of the land, it helps us understand the characters and their motives better, and it's just really beautiful. It really adds to the story for me. I absolutely love it. The book wouldn't be half as good without it. Reading these books again also allows me to better understand fantasy book reviews, since a good 90% of them are compared to Lord of the Rings. Tokien has yet to fail at bringing me under his spell. With every battle, with every song, and with every scenery description, his loquaciousness pulls me in. I also challenge anyone to find a reason this can't be a classic. Besides the massive following, it is without a doubt, the cornerstone of its genre. Like I mentioned earlier, very few fantasy novels aren't compared to this trilogy at one time or another. It has the magic factor, longevity, and underlying themes. It has an original concept - the first story like this of it's kind. And it's had substantial influence in its genre for decades. It can't not be considered a classic. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Sep 17, 2012
|
May 30, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0451528956
| 9780451528957
| 3.71
| 90,771
| 1886
| Sep 02, 2003
|
A lesson in the duality of human nature is on every level of this book, with examples on every page. From the architecture, to the emotions that flit...more
A lesson in the duality of human nature is on every level of this book, with examples on every page. From the architecture, to the emotions that flit across a servants face, to the weather, everything is an exercise in duality to emphasize the theme of good verses evil in human nature. Stevenson does an excellent job of portraying his idea throughout the book. A simple idea but not as simple to demonstrate, this novel shows easily how we not only divide our personality traits into simple black and white boxes such as good and bad, but also how we try to rationalize those aspects of ourselves we don't necessarily like but have a hard time giving up. Although I think the extreme contrast in good and evil was needed to get his point across, it also tries to show us which is the character we should be. In our naivete, we as readers, can easily find ourselves judging our protagonist, saying to ourselves that Dr. Jekyll should have had more strength, he should have just given up Mr. Hyde while he still had the chance. But those being honest with themselves, I think, will find that they are entranced with the thought of embracing their evil side with no moral consequences. Imagine for a second what it would be like to completely let your bad traits take over, and do everything you've always wanted to do, but morality, conscience or religion held you back. I think it would be the most amazing natural high a human could experience, and that alone held my fascination with this book. A short but captivating story that has held the interest of its readers for years, and with a huge following. A classic in its own right, it comes highly recommended. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Oct 16, 2012
|
May 30, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0753453800
| 9780753453803
| 3.77
| 134,991
| 1883
| Sep 15, 2001
|
Treasure Island was a swash-buckling adventure where the stakes were high and the Gentlemen of Fortune weren't so gentle when seeking their fortune. I...more
Treasure Island was a swash-buckling adventure where the stakes were high and the Gentlemen of Fortune weren't so gentle when seeking their fortune. I absolutely loved this book. Having never read it before, I picked it up because it looked to be a quick read, and I had books on route to my house and not much time before they got here, I thought I'd get another quick read off my list of classics. Immediately upon reading I wanted to get on a boat and search for buried treasure, but settled for playing in the sandbox in the backyard. Stevenson brings to life characters in a new and frightening way that held me captivated, in which Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde failed to do. He writes in such a way in this novel, that the characters come to life vividly and with great detail in my mind as I read, even though, when I later went back to re-read parts, the characters weren't defined nearly as minutely as I thought they were. I don't attribute this to my own imagination though. I think Stevenson's brilliance lies in the meticulous vagueness of his descriptions, allowing the reader to take the direction of their choosing with the character's appearance. A perfect example of this is in Ben Gunn. My husband and I were watching Treasure Island with Eddie Izzard, and he commented on the age of Gunn, saying he'd seen another movie where he was old, opposed to this one, in which he was younger in age. So then I thought back to the book and wondered, what age was he? So I looked it up, and really, it could be interpreted in so many ways: "...unlike any man I had ever seen, stooping almost double as it ran..." - As an animal or from old age? "...his voice sounded hoarse and awkward, like a rusty lock. I could now see he was a white man like myself, and that his features were even pleasing. His skin, wherever it was exposed, was burnt by the sun; even his lips were black; and his fair eyes looked quite startling in so dark a face. Of all the beggar men I had seen or fancied, he was the chief for raggedness." - Old? Young? "...I was a civil, pious, boy..." - Speaking of when he was young, makes me see him as older. "You're a good lad, Jim..." - He calls Hawkins a lad, which makes him seem older to me, but then, how old is old? For the time it was and the longevity of life span, especially for the pirates with so hazardous a life, they didn't live long. So maybe in his thirties? Besides the wonderful characters, the chapters were breathtaking, causing me to sit at the edge of my seat with each page turn. What a wonderfully suspenseful tale with such colorful inhabitants! Even the slang was picturesque, with nicknames like "Barbeque" for Silver, and "Long John's Earrings" for the ropes strung across the ships decks that allowed our favorite character to pass easily from port to starboard with his one leg. And even though the movie I saw gave a satisfying death to the despicable Trelawney, I'm rather glad that the book left him alive at the end. It wasn't what I expected and it was more true to life. The abhorrent man, who puts himself off as one of the good guys, never seems to be the one with a bad run of luck. And although Muppet Treasure Island was not exactly true to the original story, (the Captain a frog?), it was still surprisingly accurate in most aspects of the novel, which is something I've always enjoyed about the Muppets, especially in The Christmas Carol. Overall, it was a superb book and an intoxicating adventure. A natural classic, with a huge following, underlying themes, and above all, a great deal of the Magic Factor, it's a story that will live through the ages and continue to be adapted in many ways and various forms for years to come. Treasure Island is a beloved tale for both young and older readers alike. I highly recommend it. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Dec 04, 2012
| Apr 23, 2013
|
May 30, 2012
| Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
| 0140283331
| 9780140283334
| 3.59
| 927,294
| 1954
| Oct 01, 1999
|
Lord of the Flies by William Golding has many underlying themes relating to the human condition within it, but the most prominent seems to be good vs....more
Lord of the Flies by William Golding has many underlying themes relating to the human condition within it, but the most prominent seems to be good vs. evil in looking at what would happen when all constraints holding back your savagery are released, would you succumb to evil? Or would you stay true to the good that resides in all people? Each child in this story represents a different outcome of this situation, from Ralph, the one who tries to hold on to his morals to Jack, the one who wants to give in to his savage side, to Piggy, the scientific one who uses reasoning to decide his choices. Many have argued that, after having read this book, even though they believed that we were all inherently good, that we too, would give in to our baser instincts once all rules and laws were removed holding our integrity in place. I disagree. I don't think it's as simple as all that, and I think Golding was trying to portray that too. Yes, we see a lot of savage behavior in these boys once they're stranded on the island, and it's easy to focus on the bad, but in some of the others, such as Ralph, Piggy, and Simon, you see the struggle to hold on to hope and goodness. Instead of black and white, you see many flavors of gray in the personalities and that Golding was trying to show not only the different outcomes in behavior but also that when all restraints are gone, that it is still a personal choice and that there will always be someone struggling for the greater good. Perhaps this is just a silly school girl hope of mine, to believe in the kindness of humans in extreme circumstances. It reminds me of a quote from a movie I saw recently, "Love Actually". It said, "As far as I know, in the phone call recordings from the people on the plane in 911, there were no messages of hate or revenge, they were all messages of hope and love." And I believe, in the end, this is the goal that "most" of us would work toward. I think Golding does a good job of portraying both sides. Another theme that runs throughout this novel is the "loss of innocence". The children gradually become more adult-like in their bitterness when they realize that others don't care about rescue, or that they probably won't ever be rescued, or when they realize that the others have given into their dark side. These themes are just one example of why this should be deemed a classic. Another interesting aspect of this book are the religious themes that supposedly run through it. Critics have been stated as saying there are many parallels between this story and the bible, with Simon being similar to Jesus, in being the first to realize what is happening and then gets killed when trying to convey that truth. Also when he speaks to "The Lord of the Flies", it is somewhat reminiscent of Jesus's talk with the devil. For me, these are loosely based and in no way proven to be what Golding actually intended. But this happens often, with controversial books, it's hard not to look at religious symbolism when talking about the conflict between good and evil. In the end, between Goldings confusing but unique writing style, to the themes, to his huge following, and to all the controversy this novel has produced, it cannot help but be labeled as a classic. Also, even though I didn't necessarily enjoy his writing style (it seemed a bit contrived and was trying too hard to be vague and ended up coming out obtuse) I did enjoy the book and the themes that went along with it. It was a page turner for me as well, I couldn't wait to get to the end. Overall, a good story. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Dec 04, 2012
| Dec 25, 2012
|
May 30, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 1840224029
| 9781840224023
| 3.73
| 74,059
| 1852
| Dec 05, 1999
|
I've read some reviews on this book and there's one in particular that I agreed with, especially the first paragraph. Here's the review if you'd like...more
I've read some reviews on this book and there's one in particular that I agreed with, especially the first paragraph. Here's the review if you'd like to read it: Click here for Stephen’s Review In the first paragraph he says that he was glad he read it due to its historical significance, however he didn't think it would be considered a classic or much remembered if it hadn't this historical significance. (For those who aren't aware, many historians site the impact of this book as what triggered the Civil War) I completely agree with this statement. The writing wasn't anything spectacular or memorable and honestly I had a difficult time getting through it. I won't go through the plot, it's popular enough that it's been reiterated numerous times before and easy to find. I had trouble from the first, when I realized the baby was going to be sold. As a mom, I have a very hard time with anything hurting children. It's probably what put me in a bad mood from the beginning. I knew the tone of the book would be all about slavery and how horrible it was, and that already put me off. I know slavery is awful. I've read lots of books and learned about it in school. It sounds terrible but I'm tired of hearing how awful it was for blacks, Jews, women, etc. Perhaps it stems from my German heritage. My mother was born and raised in Germany, and so the whole Hitler debacle is close to my heart. Yes he was evil and killed lots of people, but he also did good. And how do these people get into power if others don't let them? Eventually he was very powerful and could do what he wanted, but he had to start somewhere. People had to start following him when he was a nobody. The economy was a wreck and he had great plans to revive the nation. I knew someone who met Hitler and he said the first thing he noticed was how charismatic he was. In the end, Hitler and slavery were truly evil things, but there are always two sides to every story, and not everyone opposed to the "evil" side is completely innocent. Also, I'd like to think the best of human nature. We abolished slavery right? It's over, right? I know some would say no, there is still so much mistreatment going on. Yes, sure. Most women today still don't make as much money as men do. We see it everywhere. But change takes time. And we've seen huge changes to this effect, look at our president. I never thought I'd see an African American president in my lifetime. I often wonder if we'll ever have a woman president. That being said, I can see how this book could be considered a classic with the impact that it made. It's had substantial influence on society and a lasting impact on politics. It's withstood the test of time and has a huge following. It's been considered controversial over and over again and has underlying themes relating to the human condition. So I concede it's a classic, I just don't like it very much. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Oct 31, 2012
|
May 30, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0521618746
| 9780521618748
| 3.99
| 282,031
| 1602
| Aug 01, 2005
|
Click here for William Shakespeare Disclaimer Hamlet by William Shakespeare has got to be high on my list of the Shakespeare plays. Although Much Ado...more Click here for William Shakespeare Disclaimer Hamlet by William Shakespeare has got to be high on my list of the Shakespeare plays. Although Much Ado About Nothing, so far, is still my favorite, I think Hamlet has made a close second. Intrigue, love, betrayal, and a man struggling with his internal desires are just a few of the things this story contains. I had never read or seen Hamlet up until now and my eyes are opening to just how many references to this play I have read in books or seen in movies. From the famous quote "There's something rotten in Denmark" to "Methinks the lady doth protest too much" I couldn't believe just how many lines I had heard in various places before. My favorite character is Hamlet, the Prince of Denmark, the man who battles his conflicting desires and responsibilities. He covers the whole gamut of emotions for the human condition, I can only imagine the skill and depth it would take to play this character. One of the things I've noticed about Shakespeare is that there is a lot of angst in his famous speeches. Part of me almost relates them to (And forgive me Shakespeare fans), the Twilight Saga. There is just so much drama that reminds me of the teenage type angst you see in the Meyer books. Yes, I realize that's why they're called dramas, but sometimes, it can be a bit much emotionally. And I'm forced to set the book aside for a bit until it all sinks in. Some of my favorite lines of all Shakespeare were in this play. When Hamlet is asked what he's reading he replies "Words, words, words!" I just loved that. There is also one of his crazy periods when he is asked how he fares. He replies "Excellent, i'faith, of the chameleon's dish. I eat the air, promise-crammed. You cannot feed capons so." Basically meaning, "Excellent, eating the same food as chameleon's: fresh air and empty promises. You can't feed chickens like that." I just love it. It literally made me laugh out loud. I also love when Shakespeare makes a character with excessively flowery speech, that has trait of some kind that's meant for humorous relief. In this play, it was Polonius, an elderly Councillor of State. I love it when his diatribe got so long that even the Queen lost patience and told him to get to the point. "My liege and madam, to expostulate What majesty should be, what duty is, Why day is day, night is night, and time is time, Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time..." You get the picture. One other thought that I'd like to touch upon briefly is Ophelia. She fascinates me in that I'm not sure her intentions completely. I was thoroughly confused when I first encountered Hamlet's scorn of her when he was supposedly supposed to be in love with her. Then her mad rant, which some of the plays and movies depicted as being because he slept with her. But I hadn't read that so I was wondering exactly what text depicts this? So I did some research and found some interesting interpretations. First, there's Ophelia's mad rant poem about a maid being seduced by her lover and coming to her bed, and then the sing song poem a bit later about not coming to her bed. So, okay, I guess I can concede that there's some indication that he slept with her, especially after he tells her to remember his sins in her prayers. If he's treated her honorably, why should she remember his sins, unless they sinned together? Okay, so now that we've established that she might have slept with him, could it possibly follow that she's pregnant? I found some compelling arguments to this point by Alex Epstein that I think are legitimate enough to state here. First, the flower meanings. Yes, Rue, that she gives herself, is a symbol of regret, but it's also a powerful abortive tool. If he's just denounced her, told her to go to a nunnery (which has been translated by scholars to mean whorehouse), killed her father, and then sent away to England, there's really no hope for their love. And if she's pregnant, the obvious solution is either an abortion or killing herself to save face. Hamlet has been away long enough at Wittenberg for her to know she's pregnant. Another hint at this way of thinking is in Act 2 Scene 2 when Hamlet is being his crazy self, he tells Polonius "Conception is a blessing, but as your daughter may conceive - friend look to't'." Then there's the fact that Gertrude is very specific when she details Ophelia's death later. It's possible that it's because she was actually there to witness it, approving of the only means Ophelia has left to keep her honour. Also, the heroine of The Rape of Lucrece kills herself after Tarquin rapes her to preserve her honour. So it's a theme Shakespeare has done before. These are just some of the points made to this idea. I think that it's very probable. And it clears up some of my questions. The only one it doesn't is when Hamlet first goes off on Ophelia. Like I said before, if he really loves her, would he be so harsh in his farce of insanity? And wouldn't he let her in on it? But he's really mean to her. The only information I could find on this is that some think that in some of the reprintings of the plays there is a lost stage direction which has Hamlet entering in on the conversation between Ophelia and her father and overhearing the fact that she's meant to spy on him. That makes sense, and it seems that most of the renditions of the play I've seen, interpret it this way. Otherwise, he's an ass for being so mean to her when she really didn't do anything. So this relationship between these two lovers has a lot of double meanings within their craziness. Interesting to ponder and discuss. Overall, Hamlet is right there at the top with my favorites, but I'll reserve further judgment until I've read all of Shakespeare. The first movie I saw was the one with Kenneth Branagh. I love him doing Shakespeare, he does it phenomenally. He's a brilliant actor anyway, and Shakespeare just brings this out in him. This movie is two disks and almost five hours long because I believe they do the whole play word for word, without changing anything. (I'm I remember the reading correctly) This is nice, because you really get to see how your reading was interpreted. Also, Kate Winslet as Ophelia is absolutely amazing! Her crazy rant was beautiful and I wished we could have seen her death. I really enjoyed those two together. Another wonderful bit about this movie is all the stars! Just some of the few that you see in here are Robin Williams, Charlton Heston, Jack Lemmon, Rufus Sewell, Gerard Depardieu, and Billy Crystal. And they are all excellent in their roles. If you have the time, to get a complete understanding of the play, I would recommend this rendition of the play. I loved it. The next one I saw was Veggie Tales: Lyle the Kindly Viking King. Although Jimmy the Gourd is not as seasoned as Kenneth Branagh, his acting ability in the role he was given is outstanding. This version, entitled "Omelet", give new meaning to the phrase "2B or not 2B" (when playing Battleship), and "To Eat or not to Eat" when it comes to sharing the last eggs in the kingdom. Although it doesn't follow the play word for word, (probably because it's only 15 minutes long), it still adequately portrays the benefits of sharing, as is its intent. A lovely interpretation of Hamlet and I highly recommend it. (Especially for children and adults under 5 yrs old) The next version I saw was the one starring Mel Gibson. He also did a superb job even though I didn't enjoy the overall movie as much. I absolutely love Helen Boham Carter and this movie was no exception to her highly acclaimed acting career, in fact, I was surprised how young she was and how good she was even at that age. They changed some of the lines, dumbing it down a little for the general public if I remember correctly, and changed some of the plot to make for a standard 2 hour length film. In the end, the acting was worth it, although the storyline was not. The next take on Hamlet I saw was a little bit different. It was called "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead". A satire and new take on Hamlet, it was at parts, entertaining, boring, hilarious, and downright silly. In the end, I liked it. If you're looking for some new interpretations of Shakespeare to absorb, try this one out. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Jun 23, 2012
|
May 30, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0321107217
| 9780321107213
| 3.45
| 21,100
| 1854
| Oct 09, 2003
|
Click here for Charles Dickens Disclaimer I'm not even sure where to start with this book. First of all, Hard Times is one of the shorter, and lesser...more Click here for Charles Dickens Disclaimer I'm not even sure where to start with this book. First of all, Hard Times is one of the shorter, and lesser known of the Dickens novels. At only around four hundred pages, it almost seems like a novella compared to his other tomes of one thousand pages or more. The book has some interesting characters. We have Thomas Gradgrind, the obstinate disciplinarian, who raises his children to use their head and facts in all things and to never "wonder" because that will lead to flights of fancy which can only lead you astray. He is to be taken down a piece at a time, so that his contrition at the end of the novel allows us to forgive him and admire him in his role of one of our lead characters. We have a Mr. Bounderby, a friend of Gradgrind, who also adheres to the Philosophy is Fact principle, but more out of slogans than anything else. A detestable man, he is self-made and self-serving, raising himself to a social status that is hypocritical and not altogether of pure fact. Whereas Thomas Gradgrind believes what he is preaching, Mr. Bounderby uses it only a means to an end or for a statement of self. And we have Stephen Blackpool, Dickens typical representation of the lower classes, sporting integrity and morals, enduring the everyday toil of working poverty, while he is victimized by his fellow workers and employer. The lowly servant brought down by the system. Damn the man. Then we have some female characters such as Sissy, the young woman Gradgrind takes in when her father abandons her, and Mrs. Sparsit, who is ever wiping the brown from her nose where Bounderby is concerned, or contrarily, calling his portrait a "Noodle", when he's not around. I've mentioned before some criticism about Dicken's novels that I've read dealing with the insipid nature of Dickens female characters. While this is often true, in this novel I found the opposite in our female lead, Louisa, Thomas's beloved daughter. While raised in the same way as her brother, Tom "the Whelp", instead of masking indifference to their families rule and wallowing in self-pity and gambling like Tom does, Louisa's intelligence is displayed in the fact (pun intended), that she realizes from the beginning that something essential is missing from her life. She is drawn to the circus as a child, although severely reprimanded by her father, and recognizes an integrity and warmth in Sissy which she herself doesn't have. She gives into a loveless marriage with Mr. Bounderby, hoping that in some way it might help her brother get out of his careless ways, or at the very least, help pay for them. She shows strength, courage, and amenability when none other exist during times of duress. There are many more characters as there often are, as lovely and as detailed as these, however, these were some of the main ones. And once again, we see how Dickens' writing serves to develop the ramifications of public issues for individual lives. He shows us that the consequences for individual men and women matter most in a social system. He also reiterates his main theme over and over again in showing us that a simple life, adhering to the Philosophy of Fact, strips us of our sympathy, leaves us empty, and is a basic misconception of human nature. Like I mentioned earlier, Gradgrind is brought to his knees at the end of the novel in realization of what he's done to his children, showing us the irony of his ideas. Louisa is finally brought light in Gradgrind's eyes, when another man, other than her husband proposes a love-filled affair, something her husband could never fathom. She breaks down in despair and runs to her father, finally telling him everything she's really felt all these years, and this is only the beginning of Gradgrind's downfall. Her brother, Tom, falls too, but he has learned nothing but selfishness from his upbringing and tries to find satisfaction in pursuing his own selfish interests to no avail. When he resorts to desperate means to fill the gap, everything falls apart and Gradgrind finally realizes what he's done to his children. Blackpool, our somewhat hero, or at least stable character of the story, is hurrying home from another town to clear his name of something he's been wrongly accused of when he falls into Old Hell Shaft, a big hole. An appropriate allegory, he is destroyed by this big black hole in nature and left by the uncaring industrialists that have plagued him from the beginning. Besides the underlying themes, I also found this novel suspenseful and highly entertaining. Although Mr. Sleary's lisp was difficult to understand at times (I found myself reading some of his lines out loud, much to my detriment, but to the merriment of my husband), it still was one of my favorite Dicken's novel thus far. Even though Dickens can be sometimes predictable, I still wasn't sure how the tale would end. And I'm in awe of just how many books he's written and how all of them are so different and enjoyable. While Dickens writing never ceases to transport me into his world, he's also an expert on relaying his ideologies and political and social beliefs through his stories. On top of this, his characters come to life in new and dramatic ways, differently in each and every novel he writes. He's one of my favorite classical authors and this is another brilliant piece of work in a long line of books. I highly recommend it. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| not set
| Apr 16, 2013
|
May 29, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0142000698
| 9780142000694
| 3.31
| 77,378
| 1945
| Jan 08, 2002
|
The Pearl by John Steinbeck was both alluring and disturbing at the same time. The writing was eloquent, although not that extraordinary. I agree with...more
The Pearl by John Steinbeck was both alluring and disturbing at the same time. The writing was eloquent, although not that extraordinary. I agree with most critics on this piece, that it is mediocre compared to his other works, of which there are so many. Having only read a few so far, I still consider myself a Steinbeck novice, but hopefully that will change soon with the number of titles I have recently acquired by him. The Pearl had me at the edge of my seat, I could not put it down. But now having finished it, had I known what it was about before I read it and how it ended, I probably would not have read it. But then, I would have missed out. Aside from the plot, I rather enjoyed it. The Pearl is about Kino and his wife Juana, and their baby boy. Kino is a pearl diver and very poor. One day he finds the ultimate pearl, huge and beautiful and perfect, something that is sure to bring in a great deal of money, and it changes his life. He immediately imagines a wedding for him and Juana, something they couldn't afford before, and an education for his son. But nothing goes quite as expected in this tale and Steinbeck does a decent job of showing the dark side of human nature as well. Based on a Mexican folk tale, these types of stories always seem to have a history of teaching something, but in this tale, I'm just not sure what the teller is trying to show. Not being familiar with this particular folk tale, I don't know how well Steinbeck brought forth the true essence of the tale and what it was trying to tell. On the other hand, maybe it's just as simple as be careful what you wish for, and Steinbeck choose to focus instead on the duality of human nature and the possibilities that love might bring along with hope, and how it might affect a family who is rooted in tradition. If that's the case, he does quite well. I think due to the age of the book, what an influence the author has had overall on literature, and the underlying themes this book portrays, it could be considered a classic. I'm a little on the fence with this one, but in the end, I have decided to place it in the classics heavily depending on the worth of the author. As I read more Steinbeck, I might end up creating a page for him, deciding he is an overall classical author, much like Austen, Shakespeare, and Dickens, and therefore his work, good and bad can also be considered thus. But I need to get more of his novels under my belt before I make that decision. In the meantime, the book was riveting and definitely has worth in the category of classics. Recommended. ClassicsDefined.com (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Dec 04, 2012
| Dec 05, 2012
|
May 29, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0140439072
| 9780140439076
| 3.94
| 22,839
| 1890
| Oct 01, 2001
|
The Sign of the Four by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was not as suspenseful for me as A Study in Scarlet, but it had more action and some romance with Watso...more
The Sign of the Four by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was not as suspenseful for me as A Study in Scarlet, but it had more action and some romance with Watson which made up for it. Another great mystery with Sherlock Holmes doing his magic and wowing everyone in the process. The plot centers around a great treasure, a set of twin brothers, and a beautiful woman Watson quickly realizes he has feelings for. As usual, the police look like a bunch of blundering idiots next to Holmes and end up crawling back to him for help when they get stuck in the case. Some interesting twists and turns but all in all I enjoyed his first book better. It doesn't really matter though, to me, Sherlock Holmes is always good for a cozy evening by the fire with a glass of wine and a penchant for conundrums. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| May 17, 2012
| May 28, 2012
|
May 17, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0743477103
| 9780743477109
| 3.85
| 255,389
| 1606
| Jun 24, 2003
|
Click here for William Shakespeare Disclaimer Macbeth by William Shakespeare is a tale about a man who makes the wrong choices and lives (or rather di...more Click here for William Shakespeare Disclaimer Macbeth by William Shakespeare is a tale about a man who makes the wrong choices and lives (or rather dies) to regret it. After hearing about a prophesy that starts to come true by three witches, he starts to think maybe he could be king. As if it's never occurred to him before. To me, this makes him something of an idiot. Then his wife gets in on the action and starts to use her wiles to convince him to kill the king. I won't ruin the ending for you, but basically it's all about power and betrayal. It's the one where the lines "Double, double toil and trouble, Fire burn and Cauldron bubble" and "Something wicked this way comes" comes from. I'm not sure how I felt about this one. Shakespeare is obviously brilliant and puts meat in his characters that take on a life of their own. So if, for instance, you hate a character, you don't merely dislike him, you downright wish to see maggots spouting from mouth. Macbeth's and Lady Macbeth's unscrupulous actions have you squirming in your seat. The play was coarse the character's fought dirty and there was lots of blood. This was not a light and fluffy piece. I think my favorite characters were the witches. They were just really creepy. I heard a rumor that every time this play was performed or made into a movie, there were always problems and issues with it and they never did well because of it. Apparently Shakespeare used real witch spells and that's why many actors won't go near this one. Bad things always happen surrounding this play. Even in just reading the play the witches freaked me out, so I can see that. But maybe it was some of the ingredients used in their spells. Some of my favorites were the liver of a blaspheming Jew and the finger of a birth-strangled babe ditch-delivered by a drab. (the finger of a baby that was strangled as a prostitute gave birth to it in a ditch) So you can see how this has a high creep factor. I also enjoyed Lady Macbeth's character. She started out strong and I liked her conniving to get what she wanted. I'm sure lots of reviews have been written with references to the whole Eve-factor and woman being the downfall of man aspect here, but I could care less. Shakespeare did it well. The obvious hero of our story, Macduff (must Shakespeare make so many of his characters in his plays start with the same letter?) is good and strong and true of character and also boring as sin. The not so obvious hero in my opinion is Malcolm, King Duncan's son. Many see him leaving after the main event as running scared. I don't see it that way. I think he was smart to leave. I felt like he did it to regroup and think through his actions instead of doing something hasty. I respected him more for that and thought he was the most intelligent character of the bunch. This fact was reinforced when he performed his little "test" on Macduff, to see if he really wanted him on the throne or if he was only looking to kill him. I really liked him and would have liked to see this part hyped up a bit more in the movies. Overall, it was a good solid production, but a gut wrenching plot, which for me, I have to be in the mood for. The first movie I saw was the version starring Patrick Stewart. It was very raw, but in a good way. It left me feeling disturbed. It was set in a 20th century military type society and the actors were well cast. I especially loved how they did the witches, very disturbing, and Lady Macbeth was superb. She was probably my favorite character in this movie. I also enjoyed Porter's crassness at explaining inebriation while urinating in the sink. Overall, very close to the play and well done. The second movie I saw was the Sam Worthington version of Macbeth, which dealt with the mob. It was wonderfully violent and appropriately gruesome, exactly like the play. It was a neat take on the story and I think they did it well. I read some bad reviews from high school teachers saying there was no way that their students could watch it. Well, duh. Have you read the play? Overall it was a great interpretation and I highly recommend it. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| May 11, 2012
| Jun 10, 2012
|
May 11, 2012
| Mass Market Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 1420925539
| 9781420925531
| 4.10
| 72,617
| 1887
| Jan 01, 2005
|
A Study in Scarlet by Sherlock Holmes was another enthralling and suspenseful mystery. Doyle wins again with his ever lovable Holmes and Watson duo. T...more
A Study in Scarlet by Sherlock Holmes was another enthralling and suspenseful mystery. Doyle wins again with his ever lovable Holmes and Watson duo. This was his first Holmes story, and I loved that it was a novel and not a short story. To me, there was much more depth and description to the characters that really added to the novel. I'm in the progress of creating a list of reasons that these books are classics, but I don't know yet, if it's just the Holmes stories that I consider classics, or Doyle overall as an author. I have to read some more of Doyle's work before I decide that. But I'll eventually make a page for it like I did Shakespeare, Austen, and Dickens. Reading this book it's easy to see why Sherlock Holmes is one of the most influential personas of all time. His brilliance and flaws all rolled into one make him one of the most interesting and alluring characters ever. I had an introduction to my book by David Stuart Davies, a British writer who has written extensively about Sherlock Holmes, both fiction and non-fiction. In it, he brings up some points that I didn't know previously and found both delightful and surprising. The first being Doyle's non-attention to detail, the opposite of our beloved character, Sherlock Holmes. For a man who writes about a character who pays so much attention to the smallest clue, it's no wonder I was shocked to find that he wasn't a big fan of re-reading his own novels, or fact checking his work to make sure the stories all matched in facts. For example, in this book, Watson's army wound is on his shoulder, but in the next, The Sign of the Four (which I will be reading next), Watson's old army wound is in his leg. There are several of these inconsistencies throughout the Sherlock Holmes stories and I find it kind of fun to try and locate them. Another fact I found fascinating was that Doyle met Oscar Wilde at a luncheon for a magazine launch, who was also commissioned to write some books for the magazine. Wilde was to write The Picture of Dorian Gray while Conan Doyle was to be the second Holmes adventure, The Sign of the Four. This meeting has been said, by some to be the thing that might have inspired Doyle to make Holmes a drug user, a past time popular during that era in Victorian society. There is also speculation that the character, Thaddeus Sholto, has some Wilde-like qualities about him and may have been inspired by him. There are more fascinating facts about Conan Doyle, but I'll leave that for future reviews, or hopefully, for my readers to read on their own. Overall, I very much enjoyed this book, and look forward to reading more Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| May 07, 2012
| May 21, 2012
|
May 07, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0007181701
| 9780007181704
| 3.92
| 525,904
| 1953
| 2004
|
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury was a mind blowing gasoline fire to the brain. While I rarely give out 4 stars on goodreads.com, it's even rarer to giv...more
Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury was a mind blowing gasoline fire to the brain. While I rarely give out 4 stars on goodreads.com, it's even rarer to give a book a 5, which indicates the book is one of my favorites. This got 5 stars for me. As I sat stood ran in my mind crazy home with kids playing screaming fighting calgon take me away running getting dirty wondering why I didn't drink more often and who was going to pay the bills as I filtered out the blast bang from the weasel dinosaur singing on TV and the ipad tablet going with sounds from angry birds and computer's singing out a tune unlike the mario brothers theme song I began to to wonder if the world ever slowed down or turned off. I realized I did not know a single person or family who didn't immediately turn on the boob tube for comfort relaxation down time after work school driving coming home. The radio was screaming was used to be called music the TV in the bedroom sang about brushing your teeth and the TV in the living room was screaming about the next presidential election when I sat down in front of the computer to check on notifications for goodreads and updates on facebook. This world where kindles are replacing books and flashing images on a screen are replacing self thought I wondered where we were all heading and where was my release escape quiet down time from this all consuming noisy hell? I remembered a time of sitting on the porch at my grandmother's farm watching the sun go down after a hard day's picking strawberries sipping lemonade waiting for the cabbage truck that would bring the farmer next street down and hopefully his three cute farmhands. I remembered playing outside in fields playing house in mud on swing sets hide and seek in corn fields imagination pretend under trees until the sky was pink purple blue midnight blue against black trees and porch lights coming on I was booking it home so as to not get in trouble for being so late lest I wouldn't be able to do it all again tomorrow. I thought about this crazy fast speeding world and listened to the crickets in the back yard and the beaded prisms I made hanging from the trees when I was pregnant on bed rest and forced to quiet times and self contemplation. I look at the flowers painted on the beams of the back porch I did using blues and reds and yellow. The green of the grass and trees and moss calls to me like a song rising about the yelling and noise of the house. But there is no one else, no time no room no place to escape, not now, with noise everywhere and kids yelling and dinners needing cooked and sticky fingers needing washed and diapers and beds needing changed. Instead I look to the computer and do bills and yell and scream Stop it! Don't touch that! I said no! Leave him alone! And I blow air at the escaped tendrils of hair on my forehead trying to get them out of my eyes, no time to run to the bathroom to even fix my messy ponytail. And I yell and scream Come here! Where is it? Do you want a timeout? Brush your teeth! And I pick up dirty laundry and cry inside and the noise gets louder and the kids start running and something crashes and my teeth grind and suddenly I can't stand it any longer and I lock myself in the bathroom and just try to breathe and see my book sitting on the counter and open it to read a few pages and... Silence. Serenity. Calm. I have found my peace. My head clears. My mind starts to work. The mush that used to be brain cells I used for computer programming start firing synapses again and I can breathe. All I have is this binding with some paper pages between and suddenly my world goes quiet and I can think again. I finish the chapter and lay the book down smiling. Ready to face what's on the other side of the door again. If I could be any of the hobos following the train tracks of Bradbury's book, which would I be? Leviticus? The Merchant of Venice? Paul Lawrence Dunbar? Ray Bradbury? As long as there are people like me out there, treasuring like the gold the written word, I can only dream the reality of Bradbury's world won't come to fruition. But the words so powerful entrench my soul and saturate my mind with thought and feeling and passion. So, for now, my thirst is quenched. ClassicsDefined.com (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Apr 24, 2012
| May 05, 2012
|
Apr 24, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 0743477561
| 9780743477567
| 3.74
| 68,823
| 1597
| Dec 23, 2003
|
Click here for William Shakespeare Disclaimer The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare was thought provoking. I was floored when I finished the p...more Click here for William Shakespeare Disclaimer The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare was thought provoking. I was floored when I finished the play and couldn't wait to watch some of the movies I had gotten from the library. Out of all the plays of Shakespeare's that I've read so far, this one, by far, has got the most potential for impact to a reader. I really enjoyed it and am still digesting in my head, and will probably be doing that for some time. I can't wait to hear what my book club thinks of it. First of all, let me state that I had no idea what this play was about and went into it blind, having no prior contact with the plot or any of the movies. The book version I read had a lot of forewords including a Publisher's Note, Introduction, The Theatrical World, The Texts of Shakespeare, and Notes on the Text. This took me much longer to read than the actual play, which was only 100 or so pages long. All the notes that were included in the book were very interesting but not at all helpful in understanding the play, not even the footnotes of this edition helped much. I enjoyed learning more about the Theatrical world during Shakespeare's time, how the plays were folded and sold, and even the bit about the so-called conspiracies surrounding the debate on whether Shakespeare was really the author of these plays. I recommend this reading for any Shakespeare reader, but this information is everywhere, so you don't necessarily have to get this book for it. That being said, so far, this was the hardest play to digest and to understand. I found myself reading all the footnotes and still being confused, so I often lay down the book and took to the web to make sure I was understanding each scene correctly. The basic overall gist of the play is that there's this man, Antonio, who is very good friends with, Bassinio, a man who borrows a lot of money from him and comes to him once again to borrow some money, this time for a trip to win a girl's heart, Portia. Antonio's ships are out to sea and is currently out of cash but says if Bassinio can find a lender, he'll stand by him for the loan. Bassinio finds a lender, a Jew named Shylock, who is the "bad guy" of the play, and the best character ever. Shylock hates Antonio because of his anti-Semitism and because he often gives out loans with no interest, thereby undercutting the Jew's business and his interest rates. He eagerly enters into contract with Antonio, wanting to hold the power over him. They argue and somewhat make amends and then jokingly (or is he?), Shylock says, well, if you don't pay me back, you can always give me a pound of flesh instead. Antonio agrees, knowing his ships will be in soon to repay the loan, although Bassinio doesn't like it. Bassinio goes and wins Portia's love then hears that Antonio's ships were lost at sea and Shylock is asking for his pound of flesh. He hurries back with friends to the court in Venice to try and help. Portia decides her and her gentlewoman, Nerissa, are going to disguise themselves as men and go to court, Portia posing as a lawyer and Nerissa the assistant. There is much more to this play, but that's the basic storyline. There are a few things I want to point out. First, I think Shylock is a brilliant character. After doing some research, I found out that back in the day this story would have been just as it was, simple, Shylock being the bad guy, everything ending on a good note. But because of how society has changed, this story is interpreted much different now. In the past, Shylock would have been the bad guy and would have been seen as getting everything he deserved. Now reading it, it's just not that simple. I found myself often siding with Shylock and sympathizing with him, hating the Christians for what they did to them. Typical self-righteousness of the religious majority once again preaching, this time about mercy, but when the tables are turned against the bad guy, instead of living what they preach, they do much worse by Shylock and I found myself hating them. Even though Shylock goes too far, when taking out his knife and scale to get ready to take his pound of flesh, when Portia finds a loophole in the law to turn the tables, they not only take away his money and his pride, but they force him to convert to Christianity! So they take his faith too! I was floored. But like I said, back then this would have been seen as just, and not only that, it would have been seen as the right thing to do, having saved this Jew from Hell. So when reading Shakespeare, you really have to look at the political and social climate of the times to understand what was meant. But I still think this could have so much meaning today. Shylock has so many layers and can be compared to so many situations. He's obviously not just hating Antonio, he's hating all the Christians in Venice that have hated him and done him harm. Let's just take religion out of it, and suppose it was one of these kids today that's bullied in school and so decides to shoot a few of his classmates? An honest person can see justification in what Shylock does but maybe just not how he goes about it. Because of this, I think he's one of the best characters in Shakespeare I've read so far. Also, because of how we perceive Shylock and the courtroom scene in today's world, it's harder to classify this as a comedic tragedy instead of just a tragedy. The characters Shakespeare brings in for comic relief are few and so brief, it's almost like he just threw them in there to change up the pace. I'm still wondering why he even bothered with the scene between Lancelot and his father, unless it was a poor excuse for some comic relief. The only other really good character in this play is Portia. Intelligent, far smarter than her man, and almost an equal to Shylock in layers and depth of character, we find a strong woman, wanting to prove herself as more than just a trophy to be had. I enjoyed her part in the play and won't go into everything, so as to give it away. The only thing that I'd like to mention that struck me as odd, had to do with Antonio's role. In the book, he talks of how he'd do anything for Bassinio and they're the best of friends. Then I watch my first movie, the Trevor Nunn, 2004 version, and see Antionio caress Bassinio's head by running his hand's through his hair. I was like What the heck? Was Antonio gay and I missed it? Because to me, that says a lot about his character. So again, I immediately stopped what I was doing and got online to research, and again, it all comes back to interpretation, which is why Shakespearean plays can be so different from one to another. Because of the one line about giving anything for Bassinio, including his life, and because no female love interest was ever mentioned for Antonio, there are some that believe his declaration of love for Bassinio was something more. Also, in the beginning, and throughout the play, Antonio is depressed. Further research showed me that in Shakespeare's plays, and during that time period, whenever someone was said to have been melancholy, it was assumed they were in love. His friends ask him if it's business that he's sad and he says no, and then they ask if it's love and he says never! But there are critics who believe he is denying it and that he's trying to hide his love for Bassinio. Those adaptations also tend to have the "outing" of those feelings shown through Antonio's big speech in the courtroom, as did this movie version did. Whether or not you agree, well, it's all in how you read it and which version it is that you're reading I suppose. All in all, I really liked this play and felt like there is much discussion to be had about the themes, especially mercy and representations of religion. There are so many little hypocrisies in the characters that you see throughout the play, that it's easy to miss. For example, we see that Shylock is set up as the antagonist in the play, but the characters that are supposed to be attributing bad qualities to him, end up making us feel more sympathetic to him. When Lancelot decides to leave his employment, he really doesn't give us any reason, besides thinking that being too close to a Jew might rub off on him. And when he calls him a devil, he then states that the temptation to leave is more devilish still and his desire to stay is a product of his conscience, what usually tells him what's right and wrong. Then there's Jessica, Shylock's daughter, who doesn't seem to have any real complaint against her father other than she's bored with him, which we can probably attribute to her youth, and her eagerness to be with her lover and convert to Christianity. She then calls her own morality into question when she calls the shame she feels for her father a sin, and feels guilty because of it. Just one more thing to make us sympathetic to Shylock, a good father and a man who (it is stated) is good to his servants, having them turn their back on him and speak ill of him. He gets nothing but crap the whole play. But as I said earlier, this only adds to the depth of his character and to my enjoyment of the play. The first movie I saw, I stated earlier, was the Trevor Nunn, 2004 version, which had a very good Shylock and an ugly Portia. Bassinio and his friends all looked the same to me, and they completely left out the portion about Lancelot and his father which I thought really had no significance to the play anyhow. And of course, like I mentioned earlier, this adaptation intimated that Antonio was in love with Bassinio. Something that I had a problem with was the accent Shylock had. A character with a strong (albeit good) Jewish accent, low tone of voice, and speaking Shakespearean isn't the easiest to understand. Also, the scene where Shylock gets good news then bad news then good news then bad news made it look like he was a bit flighty, going from despair to extreme happiness every two seconds. In all fairness, it was written that way, but still, it's the one scene I didn't like with Shylock. It was decent but I often found myself reading the book as I watched to make sure I was understanding the lines and I don't know that I'd recommend it. The next play adaptation that I saw was the BBC version. I choose to watch this one before the Al Pacino one because the BBc version, while not always the best acting, tend to be more accurate to the book, and also the dialogue shines through a bit more. It was very accurate and the biggest snooze fest I've ever had. Not recommended at all. The Merchant of Venice movie with Al Pacino was by far the best, although I felt they really put a spin on the whole let's feel sorry for the Jew angle. I think that people end up feeling that way anyway, but when I read the play, it was a gradual realization that Shylock was getting the short end of the stick. But it built up and built up and then made the court scene all that dramatic. In this version, when they started right from the beginning with you feeling sorry for him, to me, it wasn't as a dramatic outcome at the trial. But maybe that's just me. I loved the Portia in this and didn't care for Bassinio, but I'm not a huge Joseph Fiennes fan. In any case, it was a good rendition, though I enjoyed the play more this time, and am hugely looking forward to seeing this play at the Ohio Shakespearean Festival this summer. Also, I must add, as of now, I think Shylock is my favorite character of all the plays so far, because of the depth he has, but as of right now, Much Ado About Nothing is still my favorite overall play. I love the comedies best and Merchant just didn't have enough to make it a comedy. ClassicsDefined.com(less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Apr 18, 2012
| May 2012
|
Apr 18, 2012
| Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
| 1858131111
| 9781858131115
| 4.55
| 13,254
| 1933
| Dec 31, 1993
|
This book, The Complete Works of Jane Austen, is not to be confused with The Newly Discovered, Unfinished, & Finished Complete Works of Jane Auste...more
This book, The Complete Works of Jane Austen, is not to be confused with The Newly Discovered, Unfinished, & Finished Complete Works of Jane Austen. The first, which I have completed, contains only the larger, more popular novels that Austen is known for, while the other contains those novels along with many smaller obscure novels, novellas, poems, and letters. I have finished the major books, and am now working my way through the smaller ones. As for my opinion on Austen: As I work my way through the works of Jane Austen I find myself with manner of speech slightly affected and by no means convinced that Miss Jane Austen could be anything other than a classicist of the highest order. Here is my list of reasons forthwith that hath convinced me (that's a little Shakespeare influence creeping in, which I'm also reading): 1. Austen's manner of writing has bewitched me like no other. Her phrasing and intimate knowledge of propriety of the time period make her as unique as social virtues amoung the maids of a manor. 2. Then there's the length of time she's been around. The fortitude of her writing has helped her persevere through the duration of years since having first written the novels. 3. The magic factor is evident throughout her work and is evident alone in the number of story adaptations of her works out there. 4. When looking at her methods of form, it is said she was the beginning of the movement from neo-classicism to romanticism. So for this I think we can loosely put her into the category of introducing a new style of writing. 5. I think it almost need not be mentioned that Miss Austen has a huge following. I only pause a moment on it here to continue its course of perpetual provocation. 6. Because she is one believed to have begun the period change to Romanticism, it can therefore be concluded that she was looked on to be one of the first and an expert in the field. At the very least one to which all others might have been compared to. 7. Educators teach Austen because they find her easy to learn, familiar, and non-controversial. However, because of this she is taught often. And because she is taught often there has been some discourse as to her even being taught at all. Some have declared that they are vexed, and that she should not be "forced upon" English Literature students therefore eliciting a response to banning her. And so, it can therefore be concluded, that because she is not controversial, she is controversial and should be banned. 8. Underlying themes are pursuant throughout all of Austen's works. Human fallacies of disillusionment, unrequited love, and betrayal are just some of these. But if one looks closely, one is sure to find many more apparent within. 9. Austen also had substantial influence with social and political issues as a direct result of her writing. She wrote about problems that were a result of unfair laws and customs. They dealt a lot with women's rights. They were specifically problems with women inheriting money, women finding and having ways to make livings, neglect of education, social evaluations of worthiness based on wealth or income, and so on. She was one of the first authors to write on these matters in a clear and succinct form, so as to have an influence on other authors and persons of importance. You will find more on this opinion here: My thoughts on Austen's writings and the movies made relating to her works The following are my reviews on each of the books listed in this novel: Mansfield Park Northanger Abbey Emma Persuasion Pride & Prejudice Sense & Sensibility (less) | Notes are private!
| none
|
1
| Apr 2012
| Dec 09, 2012
|
Apr 01, 2012
| Paperback
|
Loading...
