Brooke’s Comments (group member since Nov 11, 2011)

Brooke’s comments from the Should have read classics group.

Lisa wrote: "This is the group read for October. Please be respectful of others in the group and remember that we are here to enjoy the books and find an appreciation for the classics we didn't enjoy in school..."

Thanks Lisa! I completely agree. One of my favorite parts of this group since I joined was the collaboration and respectfulness of the majority of the group. I look forward to more.

I'm from Northern/Central California and have spent quite a lot of time in Monterey, Salinas and the surrounding area. So I've always felt an affinity for Steinbeck, but also have had a hard time comparing his Central Valley to the one I grew up in and experience now. It was such a bleak and corrupt place in The Pearl that I've struggled to get through any of his other books (Of Mice and Men was particularly difficult). I'm hoping to make it through this one and hear everyone elses perspectives and provide my own as well.

I agree with April and Suzanne about how disturbing it was. I was particularly struck with (view spoiler)[ how quickly it degenerated from order to chaos without "adult" and "society" rules and how much the boys all needed a common enemy (first the beast, then Ralph) to have a daily purpose and satisfy their bloodthirst. Then, how quickly they went back to being children needing rescuing once the adult authority figure was back in the picture. It makes me wonder what "common enemies" we create in our lives and cultures to satisfy our own bloodlust. I was finishing it up on a plane and the woman in the seat next to me mentioned that it was one of her favorite books and that in college she wrote an essay on the religious symbolism in the book. I found that to be an interesting task because I hadn't see a lot of religious imagery in the text. It seemed to me much more about man's nature and what lies under the surface once you don't have an authority (like religion) to govern you. Although, I can see the sow's head as a personification of evil or the Devil and as Simon and Ralph have interactions with that evil symbol they are forced to acknowledge the base nature of those around them.

(hide spoiler)]

I don't know if it's just because we read them back to back, but I keep thinking about the parallels between Newland Archer from Age of Innocence and Guy Montag.

(view spoiler)[

Both are dealing with the distinct awareness that there is a deeper tumult beneath the veneer of the societies they belong to and both see the changing of the tides that is coming. Both have women they are committed to who don't seem to understand what they're going through and are going through the motions the societies they belong to expect of them, and both have "other women" who open their eyes to a new way of looking at the world- an enticing freshness to their perspective. Newland gave into the expectations on him by his peers, but Guy violently and inextricably separated himself from his peers and was able to go on living because of it.

(hide spoiler)]

I'm glad to hear that people are seeing Newland as flawed as I saw him.

I saw the movie before I read the book and the film did portray him much more sympathetically, although that might just be a reflection of what an incredible actor Daniel Day Lewis is. I viewed the film as a tragedy when I saw it, but reading the book brought out more of the dry-witted sarcasm and made the book both a tragedy and a comedy.

Between Ellen and May, who do you think was the more complex character? Who knew Newland the best and was best able to meet his needs (even the needs he didn't realize that he had)?

I just want to test this:

(view spoiler)[ what book will we read in August? (view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

There are references to the entire book in this post, so those who haven’t finished should skip this until finished-

I finished last week, but am still processing the book, which is why it has taken so long to contribute. Of all the books we've read so far this year, this one made me the most introspective. The other books have been great stories, groundbreaking for their time and compelling and engaging for the reader. But we were being taken on a journey that was someone else’s journey and were along for the ride. This book brings up some big ideas about individuality, conformity, and how people react and adapt to change, themes that keep the book relevant to current readers and contribute to making it one of the “classics.”

Firstly, the book makes the reader wonder what ignorance is in their own life and to what extent they are putting on blinders to the truth around them. What do we think is “right” because someone else told us it was right, because the groups we belong to tell us that it’s the only right way to do things. What opportunities and experiences are we missing out on, which, like meeting new and thought-provoking artists at Mrs. Struthers, or living in a neighborhood that isn’t fashionable, are because we believe it’s not “done”? Times are always changing and things that would be considered shocking and taboo in one generation the next generation is indifferent to. It made me think about what cultural issues and trends are getting a lot of attention and opinions now (especially by the major media outlets) that our children's children will laugh in the future that we ever debated or spent time discussing it at all. And how much time should we spend holding onto opinions that are quickly becoming obsolete before we accept the change and move on. My profession has undergone drastic changes in recent years, so it was interesting to reflect on this and think about how it will continually evolve and I need to change rapidly with them if I want to get all I can out of my career instead of constantly focusing on how things used to be.

The book also made me think about the contrasts between what is on the surface and what is going on underneath the surface. Newland believes that being around Ellen has forced him to see below the surface and acknowledge the hypocrisy of the society he belongs to. Then he spends the whole book assuming it's only him and Ellen who are observing the world at a deeper level and cutting through the layers of pretense to connect with each other as human beings. But others are aware of what’s going on under the surface and I feel like Newland finally realizing the extent to which May knows and has known is just as startling to the reader as it was to him. The line I highlighted was when he was in Paris and his son tells him what his mother revealed on her death bed: “It seemed to take an iron band from his heart to know that, after all, someone had guessed and pitied.… And that it should have been his wife moved him indescribably.” It’s almost as if he and May were both able to see what was really going on and never able to acknowledge the truth to each other. Even though I know that we as the readers are supposed to lament the fact that he an Ellen never see each other again, I find it just as lamentable that he lived every day with May and they were not able to have a candid and genuine connection with each other that they both seemed capable of having. She watched and observed him and was able to see the changes in him and react to them, but he never did her the same courtesy. He decided that she was unable to see or think beyond their insulated world (based on conversations he had with her when she was a very young woman) and treated her that way for their whole marriage. And it seems like his attitude of “don’t tell your mother, she can’t handle it” rubbed off on the kids too and they were unable to be their authentic selves with her either.

Yay! I'm starting with The Murders at Rue Morgue, if everyone wants to start there!

Carlos wrote: "Speaking of Sherlock on TV.. I happened to start reading "The Hound of the Baskervilles" as I also began getting into the show "Psych" on USA Network. This idea might be a stretch, but it's kind ..."

That's a really interesting idea. I've often thought that Adrian Monk from the show Monk was a play on Poirot (fastidious and particular, notices little details), so it would make sense for USA to do another mystery/comedy show with a play on Sherlock. Of course they always talk about the parallels between Holmes and Dr. House from the show House too, so it's interesting that you could interpret and reintent the Doyle books from a medical drama perspective or a buddy comedy perspective. Now we just need to find the modern-day Nero Wolfe equivalent!

I just saw the preview for the new Edgar Allen Poe movie "The Raven" and it got me thinking about Poe stories. I know we already have May and June books picked, but I'm wondering if it would be fun to pick a few key Poe stories and discuss them prior to the movie, which looks like it will reference multiple story lines. I am planning on starting with the Murders of Rue Morgue, if anyone's interested.

I just read it too. It's such a quick read and despite the fact that I read it in the 80 degree heat of the California desert, it gave me chills. Such great descriptions of the desolate English moors, and there is also a diabolical villain for Holmes to go up against. Both Holmes and the villain are at their sneaky, ingenious bests. In my opinion, one of the most inspired parts of Doyle’s stories is having Watson be the narrator so we can watch the story unfold and be continually surprised with the turn of events. And Watson is actually a very smart, observant and intellectually intelligent man. But no one compares to Holmes, so we the audience can still feel smart and insightful for picking up the same details as Watson while getting a thrilling Victorian story and to be continually surprised by both Holmes’ intuition and his condescending attitude to everyone who isn’t him. An engaging, thrilling, methodical story.

I just finished (a little late) and really enjoyed it. I really enjoyed tracking all their stops along the route of their journey on the map and looking up all their stops and reading about the places. It would make a great geography/history/literature project for students to read the book, following the stops along the map and reading about the history of each port.
I also really enjoyed the contrast between the passionate Frenchman Passepatout and the calm, even-keeled, indefatigable Fogg. Fogg comes off as cold for many sections of the book, so when he does show excitement or passion (especially at the end) it's such a surprise to the reader, but makes me more empathetic.
This book was made to be a movie. It's so visual and face paced, I'm surprised there haven't been more versions made.

Mo wrote: "Brooke wrote: "I also think the book is about the potential that people have if we put them in the right environment to grow. The version I read is the annotated version and there is a discussion ..."

I completely agree. I think by the time we adopted our dogs we had spent much more than we would have by adopting from a breeder, and we filled out out an application that was at least 5 pages long. But back in Anne's time, then you just ask someone else to pick up a child for you on their way home from town!

I got it on my Kindle for $7.16 and it was called: "The Annotated Anne of Green Gables." In non-Kindle edition it's around $46, which is a bit much. If you don't have a Kindle or Ipad, then you can download the Kindle software to your PC and buy it for $7 and just read it on your PC too.

I also think the book is about the potential that people have if we put them in the right environment to grow. The version I read is the annotated version and there is a discussion of how all of Lucy Maud Montgomery's books feature an orphan and I think she must have had sympathy for children without homes and wanted to convey that if they were placed in a loving home they could have the potential to be as successful, and even more successful, than their peers who grew up with one or both parents. I'm not sure as to the political climate or the attitude towards orphans at the time (although calling the orphanage an asylum definitely sets a certain impression with the modern reader), but based on the fact that the Cuthberts could have someone else just go pick up an orphan for them whose purpose would be to be a helper on their farm, it makes me think that there weren't the same rights and protections for children as we see today. And before coming to Green Gables, Anne was essentially an unpaid nanny to her guardian's biological children. So, I have to think that Montgomery was trying to make a social commentary about encouraging adoption and giving these kids a chance to flourish in the world. I wouldn't be surprised if many people who chose to adopt in their adult life had read the book and been affected by it in childhood.

For those who were trying to picture what Prince Edward Island (PEI) looks like while reading, the website How Stuff Works (a Discovery channel website) has a video podcast called "the coolest stuff on the planet" that does 5 - 10 minute videos of different places in the world and they have once on PEI that shows aerial shots of what the island looks like today and a house that will give you some idea of what Green Gables would look like. You can just type "Anneland" in the search bar on the website and it will pull up the video, which is about 9 minutes. I thought it was a very cool way to see the island, and I'm told the TV series was also filmed on the island.

Not necessarily based on the Should Have Read books, but my best books of the year are: Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion, Bossypants, and Ready Player One.

I think if I were a teacher I would also bring up the "child-parent" aspect of the story and discuss with the class what their thoughts were there. To some extent I'm sure every parent at some point sees that in the child they've "created" that they've created a monster. What are Shelley's implications for the more simple familial relationships expressed in the book? I felt sorry for everyone in the story, but the most for the innocent characters (Elizabeth, Clervel, etc.) who only loved life but were sucked up in the malestorm of Frankenstein's conceit.

I think you have to watch movies that are adaptations with the understanding that the director's purpose is to convey the mood, actions and characters of the people in the book to the viewer, and that conveying all those things in visual form requires a different approach than when conveying it in a verbal (literary) form. So, if when watching the movie based on the book you're thinking "but in the book they made a cup of Earl Grey and in the movie they're making Darjeeling" then you should stick to the book, because the movie will disappoint you. But if you're looking to experience the same intellectual and emotional stimulation that you got in the book in a movie (and get to see certain scenes that you pictured in your head played out visually), you have to concede that it will normal require departures from the source material in order to achieve that. The best example I can think of is The Watchmen movie, which had to cut out a lot of detail and characters and plotlines, but kept the mood and philosophical concepts of the graphic novel. So, the readers make some concessions in order to be able to experience the visuals of the novel, and people who wouldn't normally be exposed to the content (i.e. non-readers) get to experience the spirit of the book as well. The worst adaptations, though, cut out the memorable visual parts of the book and don't appeal to those that haven't read the book either.

Another series that departs from the books, but I found enjoyable is the Case Histories books by Kate Atkinson, which were adapted into a mini-series and showed on Masterpiece Mystery in the US. And the Swedish Millenium Trilogy movies were spot on in terms of keeping the theme/spirit of the books.