John’s Comments (group member since Jan 26, 2014)

John’s comments from the Classics Without All the Class group.

I quite agree, Alana.

Well said, Eremi.

Have you ever tried vodka with a slice of pickled onion? Wow! (But an acquired taste.)

I am not surprised that Joyce is considered to be a great writer. His portrayals really take one back to the Ireland of his day. I very much respect The Dead for its contrast with flippancy and the sombre ending.

Dorothea: Charlotte Rampling
Casaubon: anyone with cancer of the blood (!)

I guess all the above belongs to 'reader theory' where each reader has her own reactions based on her own experiences of life. I find a lot of 19th century literature characters irritating, but then I 'forgive' them because they were pressured to live the values of the time. ("Its easy for us to ...")And so on.

Yes, Charity, I enjoyed the book a lot. In a way it has left a permanent mark on me. (I read it some time ago.) I very much understand failed idealism.

Hi Charity,
What is it you dislike about Dorothea? How do you mean, "Tick me off?"

Eremi wrote: "I have to say I'm actually feeling a lot of sympathy for Casaubon.

Yes, Casaubon is intense insofar as he loves his work. As to not being his fault, one might say we are all 'not at fault' for being the products of our time. But the feminists are usually the most unforgiving about this outlook.

Like Casaubon, Will gets away with things due to his social position. (But not when he gets a job!)

Thanks for the quote. - John

Lisa wrote: "Maybe I am reading it wrong."

Not for a minute! Casaubon is obviously using Dorothea as a support for his tedious obsessions and is in no way an affectionate man.

Karen wrote: "Dorothea is very stubborn and idealistic, especially for the age, but the poor thing does genuinely think Casaubon and she are kindred spirits and that he will mentor her and foster her thirst for ..."

'Mentor her'- Great expression. I totally agree. Her passage to enlightenment (Will that be the word?) involves a voluntary submission to one she regards as superior in knowledge. Her idealism also prioritises intellectual attractions over the physical. There is a funny part later in the book where Casaubon lies stiff as a post next to her in bed. So much for idealism of the body!

Dorothea: Living in an epoch where choices are not publically available means any independent thinking does not get discussed adequately - if at all. There can be no 'consciousness raising'. The sorrowfull thing is there must have been many women like Dorothea who 'went by the wayside' due to this kind of absence in their lives, plus the locally constricting religious outlook - and still do (say, in the Middle East). As Dominika points out, Dorothea is too idealistic, but this idealism is formed within a social framework which she inherited and was affirmed but not informedly chosen.

Casaubon: The church, of course, ruled everything in ethical thinking. Casuabon is a bore who depends on social sanction for his livelihood - he is just a product of his time.

Mark's remark about comparisons with Jane Eyre, Elizabeth Bennet, and so on, can remind us about how 19th century writers were struggling to give birth to new ethical conceptions of how individuals might start to live fulfilling lives. They were the pioneers who got things moving in human rights - unionisation, the debunking of hypocrasy - and their works are a gift that will be with us for always.

Amelia wrote: "Hello, This is my first time reading with this group. I have to say I was intimidated by the length of the book. I'm on Chapter 8 and so far it's very enjoyable, funny, and considerate. Hopefully I..."

Yes, the length is a bit intimidating. But I never find it over-wordy or dull. For me the whole thing is quite a meditation.

Abigail wrote: "I haven’t read it since college. I remember finding it a bit of a grind till the last 150 pages or so, when the author burrows so deeply into Dorothea’s consciousness that you’re inside her the who..."

Dorothea was the main reason for me reading the book. Her character was, to me, intriguing because she is a person deeply committed to idealism, but at the same time sailing into circumstances where it would not be realised.

Yes, the audio books method is a great way to do a novel and work on other things at the same time. I do it regularly.

Hi Thomas,

I too am a geek - for English etymology (I am surprised how many English words have a French origin, for example.) Like you, I also admire CS Lewis. You know you are a movie fan when you download at 5am for faster streaming. - John

Hi Kat,
There are several Camus readers on this site and, of course, many classics fans. For existential stuff and Foucault take a look at my profile. See you around! - John

I notice in this thread a sense of obligation to read a book one does not like. What for? There is no universal consensus about what makes a good read. What we look for is resonance with a writer - and with those who see a book similarly.

Several. When I was young I thought it was my fault. These days I just say, "Not for me."

Hi all,

I liked Slaughter House Five - very offbeat. Stephen King is a good writer and a very interesting man.

Molly wrote: "Hi--I'm Molly.
After two years of missing my "live-and-in-person" book club, this looks like a fun way to read together on a more flexible schedule. Naming one genre may be impossible, but I relax/..."

Hi Molly,

'Grapes of Wrath' was my first 'serious' book as a teenager. It put me on the road to discovering American history in an entirely different way. (And I used to live in Islington!)