Thread Of Dire Judgment

[Jayme]

Ièll give you that one El. Probably not the best choice of words.

Maybe itès time to reboot...

[Carol]

Jayme I thought you were doing that on purpose. Ha

[Kaion]

El wrote: "Kaion, I love the phrase "deep dark foggy racism". And I know I'm not Alex but I just want to throw in my couple o' pennies by saying that if everyone disliked all literature on the pretense of it..."

True that. (And I think Birth of a Nation is a pretty good movie, so yeah. But it *is* technically good. Like Citizen Kane is great technically, but you know, boring emotionally- but that's a whole different conversation.)

That might be an easy thread topic. Why every book is racist.

[Heather]

Becky wrote: "Oh no, Heather. I loved MP! I loved Fanny for sticking to her guns. But most of the people I know who enjoy Austen seem to like MP least."

Oh good to hear!!! I never understood why it was one of the least favs. :)

[Katie]

Kaion wrote: "Alex, 5 stars for Heart of Darkness? That's like giving 5 stars to deep dark foggy racism. Yeah, I said it."

Sorry, Kaion, I gotta throw down for Conrad. Actually, I'm not sorry. Racist? Really? Is it that simple? And I bet Ayn Rand is a communist, too, right? ;-)

No doubt I love Heart of Darkness in no small part because of a professor who spent an entire week of classes dissecting the first chapter and explaining it as an indictment of colonialism. (London is built to grandeur through imperialism, "darkened" by the resulting moral degradation. And this, too, has been one of the darkest places on Earth...) It's also interesting to me that Conrad was born in a Poland under the control of Imperial Russia. Oh, and that whole frame narrative thing that leaves you questioning who is really steering the story? That's pretty freaking brilliant.

So, maybe Conrad shows more racial prejudice than we would like. (Chinua Achebe certainly thinks so.) That doesn't mean his novel wasn't, for its time, fairly open-minded (even subversive) in other ways. It also doesn't keep it from being awesome.

And anyone who would give it less than five stars is a fascist. Clearly.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Oh, Birth of a Nation is a very important movie. Horribly so, in both history and film history.

My mother says she'll never forget seeing it - in a segregated theater in Fayetteville, N.C., in the early 60s.

And I'd like some of whatever Jayme's keyboard is having - it looks like it's having fun!

[Jayme]

I fixed it!

[El]

Citizen Kane is "boring emotionally"? That makes me sad, but tis not a thread of bashing movie tastes (thankfully!). :)

[VMom]

El wrote: "When did the title of this thread turn into Thread of Jane Austen? Let's go back to bashing each others reading habits!

"

OT: For anyone interestted, there is a Jane Austen group on goodreads with really interesting discussions. Right now they are discussing Northanger Abbey.

[Liz]

Kaion wrote: "Susanna wrote: "I find the moral of The Giving Tree not very attractive.

As a child, I loved Ozma of Oz best. Also quite fond of The Patchwork Girl of Oz and Rinkitink in Oz."

I sort of agree ab..."
Yeah, I can understand, that and sorry for sucking this entire thread briefly into Austen talk, LOL.

I'm not sure what to think of Heart of Darkness. I've read it twice and both times I feel like it's passed me by so quickly without my absorbing the entire story. It made more sense the second time, but still.

[Sasha]

Katie covered me pretty well on Heart of Darkness. (Including pointing out Achebe's brutal dismantling of the book, which represents a real turning point in how it was perceived; nice post there, Katie.)

What Conrad's saying is that we "civilized" people are just as savage as the "savages." That's not entirely an un-problematic statement, as it places the standard for savagery on natives of the Congo, but at the time that was the wildest place we knew of, so you can at least sorta see where he was coming from.

Conrad was clearly sympathetic to the Congo cause, but he refused to get officially involved, which was wrong of him. His book was seen as an indictment of Belgian rule, but he wouldn't man up and stand behind it in a meaningful way; so while Heart of Darkness helped expose Belgian atrocities, he could have done more.

Heart of Darkness makes me uncomfortable; it's a complicated work, and it says a lot of things, not all of which I'm okay with. But I think his heart was in the right place; and where it wasn't, I agree with those who brought up Birth of a Nation. (Although I thought that movie was boring.) Being ethically problematic doesn't necessarily mean it's not great art. And Heart of Darkness is, if nothing else, a good book.

[Lauren]

Alex, sorry it took so long to respond to the Salt question-I tend not to get on the computer on weekends.

So I enjoyed the progression of Salt and all the little useless trivia. It's been a while since Iread it but most of the time when I tackle a book that could potentially have some dry, slow spots I'm reading other books at the same time to break the monotony. I may not have gotten a good feel for flow as a result.

Someone made a comment about 5 stars being for books you just can't put down. I can't use 5 stars for that-I read Twilight in a day (granted a was out of work that day because you can't be a courier with a hurt back) but that book was crap! I hated the characters but felt compelled to keep reading because I wanted to know what happened. I think a lot of times those stars mean nothing to anyone but the individual-most rate on how they feel about a book not necesarily quality. (Like Wuthering Heights, I hated that book to but could recognize the quality of it.)

[Usako]

My book club is reading Ulysses over the course of a year. I was in the midst of doing other things so I didn't hop on this wagon - most particularly b/c they were tracking their progress on Facebook and I plain ol' don't get that website.

And one of them LOVES the novel.

[Charity]

Ulysses...oh geez, blechety-bleh.

[Jayme]

Another private profiler! You're a cheater, Tanja.

[Chantelle]

Lauren wrote: "I think a lot of times those stars mean nothing to anyone but the individual-most rate on how they feel about a book not necesarily quality. (Like Wuthering Heights, I hated that book to but could recognize the quality of it.)"

I think that's exactly what it is for me - I can recognize the quality of a lot of books that I don't necessarily love and feel like I will carry in my head/heart for ever and ever and ever.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Yep.

For example, I respect James Joyce without enjoying him.

[Donna]

Erika wrote: "I thought The Book Thief was pretty good (I gave it 4 stars) but I couldn't understand why so many people have read this book and nobody ever talks about I Am the Messenger. I loved I Am the Messen..."

I liked it. It wasn't my fave but I def enjoyed it!

[Donna]

Jenna wrote: "Alex wrote: "I will personally hunt down each of you who don't appreciate Garcia-Marquez and leave bags of flaming poop on your doorstep.

I read 100 Years too long ago to rate it, but I remember l..."


I loved Blindess. Even if it was grusome and made me throw up a little I still gave it 5 strs just for the "beauty" or his writing.

[JSou]

Susanna wrote: "Yep.

For example, I respect James Joyce without enjoying him."

Exactly. I feel like Wes Mantooth in Anchorman when it comes to James Joyce.

"I hate you Ron Burgundy, but dammit I respect you."

[Bridgit]

Lauren wrote: "Alex, sorry it took so long to respond to the Salt question-I tend not to get on the computer on weekends.

So I enjoyed the progression of Salt and all the little useless trivia. It's been a whi..."

I have to agree with you Lauren - i LOVED Salt. I didnt think it was boring at all. I read it while I was on my honeymoon and kept shouting out all the cool new facts I was learning to my husband while we were lying on the beach. Like the fact that the word 'salary' is based on salt, becuase they used to pay soldiers and others in salt becuase it was so valuable.

Love it! But, i am a super geek so it was totally up my alley.

[Sasha]

But I'm a super geek too! Maybe we should have a geekoff.

You've read a lot of books.

[Bridgit]

Alex, I loved it so much I am thinking about getting Cod - now doesnt THAT sound fascinating.

and yes, :), i do read a lot of books. Sometimes, when I want to be really nice to my husband I tell him that I love him more than my books. . . Sometimes its actually true... :)

[Sasha]

And I couldn't really find anything to judge you about, other than 1421's presence on your TBR stack. That book is scientifically unsound.

Certain books just keep coming up: people have strong feelings about The Road, some philistines enjoyed The Da Vinci Code, most people seem to hate The Odyssey. I'm worried that we're running out of things to make fun of each other about.

I was kinda tempted to read Cod too, because I'm a glutton for punishment. I like books like that; I just don't like Kurlansky's writing.

I'm lucky that I married a book nerd, so we don't have to pretend to love each other more than whatever we're reading. :)

[Bridgit]

1421 is no where near the top of my TBR. It is only on there becuase I saw it on sale for like $3 and picked it up before knowing anything about it. It has probably a 10% chance of getting read in the next 10 years.

Probably the only shot it has of getting read is if one of my reading challenges specifically asks for a history book about imperial china - which seems a tad specific - and even then i would probably just skip that task. :)

[Sasha]

Or read When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet of the Dragon Throne, 1405-1433. That's sortof about the same thing, but responsibly researched. And a great book.

[Bridgit]

but think of the $3 i would have wasted!!

[El]

Wait, who hates the Odyssey? Did I miss someone who deserves to be bashed? Or were they soundly bashed for that already and I just slept through it? :)

[Cindy]

Lots of people have been bashing Ulysses, but I haven't seen anyone burn the Odyssey yet.

If there were no Odyssey, think of all the awesome derivative books and stories that would no longer exist! For shame! (Except Ulysses, that and its overinflated ego can go.)

[Sasha]

But if you read it, you'll have wasted $3 and a week.

[Cindy]

Wait, if you combine Salt and Cod, do you get Klippfisk?

[Lauren]

I have A Splintered History of Wood: Belt Sander Races, Blind Woodworkers, and Baseball Bats sitting on my TBR shelf at home.

Bridget, Our tastes in books read is very similar, I may be snooping your shelf to see what else I might like. I also make my husband crazy by reading random tidbits from my more nerdy books...like the recent ones about our food culture (or lack of) in America.

[Bridgit]

Lauren wrote: "I have A Splintered History of Wood: Belt Sander Races, Blind Woodworkers, and Baseball Bats sitting on my TBR shelf at home.

Bridget, Our tastes in books read is very similar, I ..."

Good to know! Going to check out your shelves now!

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

1421. Oy. Pseudohistory and badly written.

[Sasha]

El & Cindy, maybe I forgot to point it out, but I've seen Odyssey come out with two stars from a surprising number of people. I assume it's the same reason lots of people hate the Aeneid: they were forced to read boring translations during high school.

I'll keep an eye out so I can bring the next person guilty of it to task. :)

I totally agree, Cindy: that thing has spawned an awful lot of cool stuff. Which reminds me, the new book The Lost Books of The Odyssey: A Novel looks interesting. NY Times gives it a pretty good review.

And thanks for getting my back, Susanna. :)

[Kaion]

I'll bite, but I've only read a few passages from the Odyssey for high school. Maybe it was the translation? I know it's mythological and all that jazz, but seriously? A witch tried to seduce me and turned my men into pigs? Worst (deadbeat dad) excuse ever. ;)

Speaking as someone liked Beowulf and loves Journey to the West adaptations (yes, they *also* took forever to take a trip, but there were seductive *spiders*... and an impregnating spring).

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Oh, I gave the Aeneid one star because I read it in Latin. Not a pleasant memory.

[Sasha]

See, you jerks? You should be giving Latin one star. Or high school. You're blaming the messenger!

One of the things I love about Odysseus is that he's so morally ambiguous. He's a pathological liar. History's first unreliable narrator. Much of the Odyssey - and most of the weirdest parts, including Circe - are narrated by him, so you could reasonably ask whether he's not making the whole thing up, like everything else he says. Who's around to back up his story? His whole crew is dead.

And that's why I think the Odyssey is so cool. It's so much more complicated than the Iliad.

[Kaion]

So we *are* supposed to believe he's a lying deadbeat dad? Thank god. My teacher fed us something about personal journeys and overcoming obstacles.

[El]

The Iliad is really just a war-story. Lots of blood and guts and grunting, which is all fine and good if that's what you want. The Odyssey actually does tell a nice adventure story, but also lets us know what's going on back home too (ie, Penelope), and I felt all around it was just a more complete story. I loved it in high school.

I guess you could say Odysseus is one of the first (and best) unreliable narrators. That's a good point to bring up, Alex. About him being a liar and all.

[Sasha]

Why, thank you El.

Yeah, the Iliad is just straight up war. It's a solidly constructed story, but there's not much to it. (Of course, I'm a big fan of blood and guts and grunting. Ask me about Braveheart!) The Odyssey is a more challenging work.

Kaion, I think you can believe whatever you want, and that's the point. Homer sets him up as an ambiguous character. He's described tons of times as a crafty liar, so that's pretty solid. But I'm probably in the minority for thinking his entire story, the whole middle part of the Odyssey, is suspect.

But check this out: throughout the Iliad and Odyssey, the only supernatural element is the Gods themselves...with the glaring exception of Odysseus's narrative. Now all of a sudden there are monsters and witches and pigmen and cyclopes and he travels to the underworld. It's a total shift in what's possible in Homer's world.

Say you're a deeply religious person who believes in miracles and all that, and your friend suddenly tells you a story about vampires being real. That's how the Odyssey would have sounded to contemporary audiences back then.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

And he was famous as a liar!

I guess the Odyssey was his "fish tale." LOL

[VMom]

Susanna wrote: "And he was famous as a liar!

I guess the Odyssey was his "fish tale." LOL"

Well, sailors are famous for telling strange tales and being superstitious, right? Mermaids, Kraken, falling off the edge of the world, etc.

[[ JT ]]

For a modern translation of some of the ancient classics (The Odyssey, Iliad, and Aeneid), I HIGHLY recommend Stanley Lombardo! His translations are wonderful. :) Everyone swears by Fagles but Lombardo is where it's at!

[Sasha]

I looked him up, Amanda; he sounds interesting. He's modernized things considerably - this positive NY Times review mentions Odysseus asking the Cyclops to "be a pal" - and apparently tightened the text as well, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with those things.

I checked out the first couple of pages of Odyssey and Aeneid and thought they flowed well. That's especially impressive in the Aeneid's case; after the famous "I sing of arms, and a man," that text gets a little dense for a while.

Thanks for telling us about him.

[[ JT ]]

Alex: No problem at all. I majored in Classical Studies and in one of the "intro" classes, my professor had us read all Lombardo. Having read all three before by other translators (and bits in pieces in Latin), I found his translations to be very welcoming to a modern non-scholastic reader (most of the people in the class were just taking it to fulfill requirements) but also to someone studying the topic. :)

[Jayme]

I really liked the Odyssey, I loved all the fantastical tales in the middle, whether or not they were true, they were my favourite part! The Illiad was a good book, but the Odyssey is way better, I have to agree with El on that one.

[Mary]

Susanna wrote: "1421. Oy. Pseudohistory and badly written."

Do you mean 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus? A friend of mine suggested this to me and I was thinking about reading it, but...maybe not!

[Sasha]

Mary! Oh God no! They're two very different books. 1491 is awesome. It's really fun to read and it'll blow your mind to find out how much of what you were taught about Native Americans is utterly wrong. And it's well researched; Mann sometimes speculates, because we don't know everything, but he does a good job of telling you when he's speculating and when he's not. I highly recommend 1491. I love that book. Really, I can't praise it enough.

1421, on the other hand, is crap.

[Sasha]

I'm gonna post twice in a row because I was so distressed about the confusion between 1491 and 1421 that I thought it deserved its own post.

Wow...I really was distressed. Y'know, sometimes I worry that I might be a huge nerd. ...nah.

Amanda, I focused on early Celtic lit in college. Cool! We have such useful skills! Anyone need me to explain The Táin to them? No?

Xox, I love Shakespeare. I realize my stars are misleading; I rated Shakespeare based solely on comparison to his other plays, because I think Shakespeare stands alone. Trying to compare him to, say, Michael Crichton novels seems pointless. So I gave Lear five stars because I love that play, but I gave Henry VIII two stars because...that's not a good example because seriously Henry VIII sucks balls. Okay: I don't particularly care for most of Shakespeare's comedies. Relatively speaking.