Sorry, you must be a member of the group to do that. Join this group.
Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
ABOUT BOOKS AND READING
>
What are U reading these days? (PART EIGHT (2012) (ONGOING THREAD for 2012)
Werner wrote: "Yesterday, I finished reading Unequal Protection and posted a review. As promised, here's the link: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... . I gave it only three stars because of flawed p..."That's quite a review, Werner. Did Hartmann offer any possible solutions to the problems described in his book, Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights?
Jim wrote: "I just finished 2 books today, one audio mystery, Night Passage & one on my ereader, Spin an SF novel. They were both pretty good."I'm enjoying listening to audio books.
I just finished listening to two different biographies about George Washington:
The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon (2009) by John Ferling
and
His Excellency: George Washington (2004) by Joseph J. Ellis
It was interesting getting to know the details of Washington's life including his character and his personality. He was quite an operator! :) One interesting aspect of his personality was the fact that he often found scapegoats to blame for some of his failures. He married a rich woman. He invested in wilderness property in order to be able to sell it and make money. He's credited with guiding the new union through its infancy, following policies which helped it grow and become strong.
I just started the following audio-book: American Lion: Andrew Jackson in the White House (2008) by Jon Meacham. Sounds like he was quite a colorful character. His vice-president, Martin Van Buren, was from Kinderhook, New York. We've passed the site of Van Buren's home many times while driving through Kinderhook on our way downstate. It's 25 miles south of our state capital, Albany.
Joy, did you see a big difference between Ellis' view of Washington & Ferling's? One of the more interesting things about history is how much it changes depending on the author. I usually like Ellis because he is careful to put actions into historical perspective - what everyone else was doing & how they thought at that time. Our society is often at odds with that. Some things are huge & make us realize the vast differences, such as keeping slaves, but others are more subtle like retirement.The U.S. was not formed as a democracy, but as a republic. The founding fathers didn't think everyone should vote because most didn't have the education or ability to vote intelligently. Landed men, those who owned real property, were the only ones allowed to vote in many of the early elections. Statesmen were supposed to be men who didn't have to work because they had enough money, education, & time understand the issues. When Ben Franklin could actually retire from daily business, he felt that he had 'made it' into the circles of power, unlike today when retirement is seen as a time kick back & please yourself.
I've never read anything by Ferling that I can recall, but I've read several of Ellis' books. He tends to be conservative & leaves out things - or puts a different spin on them - than someone like Howard Zinn who wrote A People's History of the United States: 1492 to Present. I don't think Zinn actually fabricates anything, but he certainly has a huge liberal bias.
My review is here:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
You might check it out just for the comments. There are quite a few & some are very interesting.
Years ago, I read several pieces about the Whiskey Rebellion, the first time US troops were used on US citizens by the Federal Government under Washington's orders & was shocked by the different takes on it. Not a single account included all the 'facts' I picked up from other sources. Each was biased, although I think one of Ellis' pieces came the closest to being a balanced view. He's written about it several times in different books.
Thanks, Joy (message 253). To answer your question, Hartmann's basic solution to the problems he describes is to abolish the legal doctrine that corporations, as artificial "persons," are entitled to all the legal rights of actual ("natural") persons. That doctrine was never passed as a statute law; it exists only in what's called "case law," judicial "interpretation" of law. He wants to get the courts to reverse themselves on that point, or to overrule them by a constitutional amendment, which he believes (naively, I think) that they'd construe honestly and defer to.
Jim wrote: "Joy, did you see a big difference between Ellis' view of Washington & Ferling's? One of the more interesting things about history is how much it changes depending on the author. I usually like El..."Jim, I would say that, as far as I can remember, Ferling's "Ascent of GW" seemed to tell more about Washington's shortcomings than did Ellis's "His Excellency". If I had read your question before I listened to the books, I would have paid more attention to the differences between the books. As it was, I was going back and forth between them since one listening device was in the living room and the other was in the kitchen. So my listening was interspersed between the books.
Ferling's book was interesting because it told about the disagreements and animosities between the historical figures of the time. It also told about the friendships. One relationship that was especially interesting was GW's friendship with Hamilton, who was capable but was also a rogue at the same time. I'll bet his life would be an interesting one to read about.
It was interesting to read the details of GW's early life as a backwoods explorer and also as a soldier, with descriptions of the battles and their outcomes.
GW was tall and impressive in his uniform and on his white horse. He had a commanding demeanor. He was fearless in battle. Quite the hero even though credit must be given to the officers under him, something Ferling said GW didn't do all the time. Instead he took the credit himself. IIRC, Ferling pointed out a time when GW didn't tell the truth! :)
I think that much of Ferling's info came from letters and writings of the important people of the time who made comments to each other about GW.
I read your review of Zinn's book. Yes, we do have to be aware that history books may be biased.
I was reminded that I have Anna Karenina for years. Since I know I'll won't make this year's challenge now's the time for such a hefty tome. I've tried it before and put it down. I'm hoping I can get through it this time.
Jackie wrote: "I was reminded that I have Anna Karenina for years. Since I know I'll won't make this year's challenge now's the time for such a hefty tome. I've tried it before and put it down. I'm ..."Good luck with that, Jackie. I watched the movie in 2009 but have no desire to read a "hefty tome". :) I admire your fortitude. :)
I borrowed the movie from the library. It was the 1977 version (of course there are many versions):
"Anna Karenina" (TV mini-series 1977)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075476/
http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Anna_...
"A very married Anna Karenina (Nicola Pagett) begins an affair with a soldier but, separated from her son and without the support of her upper-class peers, her infidelity comes at a cost that might be too high for anyone to endure. Making its original appearance in the U.S. on PBS, this adaptation of Tolstoy's renowned novel following the high drama of 19th-century Russian aristocracy from director Basil Coleman was nominated for two Emmy awards."
Genres: ... British TV Shows, Miniseries, Dramas based on a book ... British Movies, Dramas based on classic literature, British Dramas, British Period Pieces
There's a new version coming out later this year; excellent cast: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1781769/
Interesting cast. I didn't like the ending of the story.Related tangent:
This week I borrowed the following CD from the library: When You Need a Lift: But Don't Want to Eat Chocolate, Pay a Shrink, or Drink a Bottle of Gin
I started listening to it in the car. I had to laugh when one of the pieces of advice on how to be happy was NOT to read anything by Sylvia Plath. Well, that's how I feel about Anna Karenina. :)
I tried streaming the movie, "Sylvia" ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325055/ ). Gave up on it. Who needs to be depressed? :)
PS-I'm sure you know... Plath committed suicide. Her biography: Giving Up: The Last Days of Sylvia Plath
Why is it all the 'classics' are depressing? I want to have fun when I read, be transported to a new place and experience fun things. I only read a few pages of AK and it's a snorefest already, now I remember why I put it down last time.
Jackie, I think it is often the style. They never used one work where ten could fit. I never read AK, but that's been my problem with most.--------
Joy, George Washington, from all I've read, was a truly great man. Not perfect, of course, but it sounds to me like Ferling belongs to the Zinn camp of historians. I don't like them much. Ellis is more balanced, IMO. While he will point out foibles, he doesn't stress them & puts them in context without excusing them. It's easy to point out the evils of slavery & marriages of convenience, but both were common at the time. The latter still is, whether anyone admits it or not.
Washington wasn't the best general of the time, but he was one of the best we had & certainly the best choice from a political standpoint. Keeping his army together after the retreat from NY & during the winter in Valley Forge aren't flashy, but they speak volumes about his ability as a leader of men. Keeping the fractious Congress from meddling too much & coming up with money & supplies was another Olympian feat. The politics that Washington had to juggle were horrendous. Yes, he might have goofed a few times - not with Hamilton, but certainly with Benedict Arnold. If he tooted his own horn a few times, well the blame was all his if things went wrong.
Hamilton was an exceedingly unpopular person among some of the greats of the revolution & Washington, who wrote that he often felt stupid when comparing himself to men such as Jefferson & Adams, still kept him around & nurtured his career. A good thing, too. If it wasn't for Hamilton's setting up the Federal Bank, the fledgling country would most likely have fractured & died, parceled out among the powers of Europe, many of whom we were in debt to.
Remember, the colonies didn't have a centralized banking system or even a standard currency at the time. Jefferson & his group didn't think we needed one. This led to some truly ironic situations. In Massachusetts, independence firebrand Sam Adams wrote the Riot Act, for goodness sake! Read some of his pamphlets which inflamed the public to rebel (Boston Tea Party). Then realize that he penned that act which disallowed people to gather in protest! Why? Because Adams & company ran up against the hard, cold truth of the successful revolutionary against the Establishment - they became the Establishment & had to assume the responsibilities of it. IOW, they had big debts to pay.
The people were protesting because the colony was so strapped for cash that they levied heavy taxes & were so implacable about collecting that they literally turned a sick woman out of her bed to take it! (That incident is more of an urban legend, I believe, but it speaks to the point.)
It was NOT a shining moment in our history. I think it's fair to say that lack of money was the single worst problem our fledgling country faced. The southern colonies didn't have nearly the cash problem of the northern ones, so pooling resources & currency not only protected everyone, but it drew the country together.
Now, don't get me wrong, Jefferson was a great man, but he was a disaster financially & Hamilton was a genius in that area. Jefferson wanted a weak federal government, Hamilton a strong one, so they loathed one another & Washington was firmly in between them, balancing the country between these warring camps. I doubt any man alive at the time could have done a better job of getting the best out of both, though.
To top it all off, Washington - against all pressure from both sides - turned the presidency into the elected office that it is. Everyone wanted him to be president for life. Imagine that! The man had the ultimate power in this country, everyone was begging him to keep it, but he turned it down to set a precedent. Wow!
** On a side note about Jefferson, while he detested the idea of a strong federal government (he was for state rights), he greatly bolstered it during his presidency ironically. For instance, the Fed didn't have the clear right to make the Louisiana Purchase. Jefferson did it anyway & set a precedent completely opposing his professed beliefs.
Anyway, the point of this off-the-cuff (BUT LONG) dissertation is that Washington was one of the few revolutionaries that actually lived up to his espoused ideals. Not only that, but he made them stick, while he was the center of a maelstrom of savage political infighting. Remember that this was a time when people called each other out for pistol duels over slights delivered across the congressional floor. True, most never actually got around to picking up the pistols, but that's how Hamilton met his end at the hands of Aaron Burr just 5 years after Washington's death.
So Ferling can point out a few foibles, but Washington's record speaks for itself. Overall, he was certainly one of the greatest men this country was ever served by.
Jim, I'm a big admirer of Washington as well. An added point on his abilities as a general: he conceived, and pulled off, two of the most brilliant moves of the war, the completely unexpected Christmas Day surprise attack on the Hessian garrison at Trenton, which turned the psychological tide of the war at its darkest hour, and the climactic surprise strike against Cornwallis, cleverly masked by a feint against New York, which bottled him up at Yorktown and effectively ended the war. (And back in the French and Indian War, if Braddock had heeded Washington's advice in the ill-fated attack on Fort Duquesne, the disaster might have been averted.)An alternate assessment of Hamilton is provided by Thomas DiLorenzo in Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution--and What It Means for Americans Today. I haven't personally read the book, so can't really recommend it as such, but I know it sides pretty strongly with Jefferson (I'm inclined to be a Jeffersonian myself). You're right that Jefferson did have real misgivings about the constitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase (though Congress supported him in it), but he bit the bullet and did it anyway. (IMO, it's arguable that the right to buy and own real estate is an implied authority that a governmental entity has by reason of its existence, and previous administrations certainly exercised it, for public buildings, forts, etc. --though, granted, the "Louisiana" of that day was a pretty BIG chunk of real estate!)
Jackie wrote: "Why is it all the 'classics' are depressing? I want to have fun when I read, be transported to a new place and experience fun things. I only read a few pages of AK and it's a snorefest already, n..."Thanks, Jackie. Now I'm glad I didn't try to read it. :)
Jim, you sure know your history. Although Ferling told of Washington's shortcomings he also defended him just as you have done. Whatever Washington did, he did with the country in mind, but he was shrewd at the same time and looked after his own interests as well.As far as GW's praiseworthy reasons for not wanting to go on as president for another term, he was also tired and wanted to retire to do his own thing at Mt. Vernon. That's the impression I got.
I agree that GW deserves credit, as you said, for "balancing the country between these warring camps." It took skill and wisdom to do it.
One of Washington's policies as General was to stay out of battle when he wasn't in a good winning position, thereby keeping his army from losing the war. That was part of his wisdom. The books pointed out certain lucky circumstances that helped GW win the Revolutionary War. I found those interesting.
It was also interesting to realize that politics was as nasty then as it is now.
Werner and Jim, if you ever read the two different GW biographies, one by Ferling and the other by Ellis, I'd be interested to hear what you think of the specific details in the books as you read them.
Werner, philosophically I tend to agree with a lot of Jefferson's written beliefs, but he was such a study in contrasts, that it's hard to say with certainty. He was quite the dreamer & often found that his ideas were at odds with reality. Many people have pointed to his complex, odd relationship with Sally Hemmings & their children on this point, but that's a matter of the heart & the laws of that time & place. His views on slavery & blacks also changed over the course of his life, so I consider that exempt. But his Indian policy was the root of Andrew Jackson's Trail of Tears. He actually brokered a deal with GA to do what Jackson carried out & violated a standing treaty to do so. That's hard to reconcile with his professed ideas on freedom & rights.I've already mentioned The Louisiana Purchase & there was his position on Federal forces. He opposed the Navy previously, but when he was president he used gun boat diplomacy when he kicked Tripoli's butt. He also pushed through the founding of West Point. Again he set precedents that went against all his previously demonstrated beliefs. Then he went on to dangerously cut back both the Navy & the Army. Huh?
I don't think I'd be too interested in any book that says that Hamilton betrayed the Revolution in the title. It obviously has too much of an agenda to be balanced, but thanks for letting me know. From what I've read, Hamilton was pretty unlikable, personally. If Burr hadn't shot him, someone else likely would have, but Jefferson certainly wasn't an example of fiscal responsibility or sense. Personally his fiances were a mess due to his enjoyment of the finer things in life, especially his wine collection. Professionally, he was worse. The Embargo Act of 1807 was another act which greatly strengthened the Fed, also directly in line with Alien Sedition Act which he had vehemently opposed & both were certainly ill conceived. The Embargo hurt the US far more than its intended victims, England & France. It did so in line with Jefferson cutting federal taxes to rely more on customs revenue, too. Again, it's a head scratcher as to how he did that math.
A complex man was Mr. Jefferson. Personally, I've really admired quite a few of the works he, James Dinsmore, & John Hemmings came up with. Many were Jefferson's ideas, but Dinsmore & Hemmings (yes, Jefferson's son the slave) were fantastic wood joiners. I've always loved the collapsible ladder he had built from one he saw in Europe & really wanted to build one. Never have gotten around to it, though. No need, but it would be such a cool project.
http://www.monticello.org/site/house-...
Joy H. wrote: "Jim, you sure know your history...."Not nearly as well as I'd like, Joy. There's so much to read & most of the writer are BORING. I've always thought John Jakes did one of the greatest services to US history by writing the Bicentennial series. Have you read it? If not, you should. It's a historical fiction that follows a family through the founding of the US into the 20th century. It's a bit of a soap opera, but has a lot of good information in it, too. It drops hints of things that are fun to explore further, too.
I have 3 different Jakes books on my GR shelves waiting to be read. I really should give one of them a chance. Which one of his books would you recommend I start out with?I have the "North & South" movie adaptations in my Netflix queue.
My library record shows that I borrowed the audio disc of Jakes' Savannah: Or a Gift For Mr. Lincoln in 2010, but I have no memory of it.
Jim, that Bicentennial series sounds interesting. Is it the Kent Family chronicles?http://www.goodreads.com/series/54197...
I didn't see anything called Bicentennial in the author's 'books by' section. I only had 2 hours sleep last night, or should I say this morning, I'm in a fog.
PS-I checked out Wiki:==================================================
"The Kent Family Chronicles (also known as The American Bicentennial Series) is a series of eight novels by John Jakes written to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America. The books became best sellers, with no novel in the series selling fewer than 3.5 million copies.[1] With The Rebels, The Seekers and The Furies, Jakes became the first author to have three books on the New York Times bestseller list in a single year (1975)."
FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kent...
=====================================================
I suppose this would be the series to start out with. It's the series you mentioned.
Kent Family Chronicles: 3 Volumes In 1
That answers my question. Thank you, Joy.
Jackie, our messages crossed. We were wondering the same thing. :) Great minds... :)
Jackie wrote: "Jim, that Bicentennial series sounds interesting. Is it the Kent Family chronicles?http://www.goodreads.com/series/54197...
I didn't see anything called Bicentennial in the ..."
Sorry, yes. It is the Kent Family Chronicles. He wrote it in the mid 70's & there was a TV mini series. Well worth watching or reading.
I've never read North & South. I've read some other stuff by him but it really cracks me up that I first knew & loved him as an author for Brak the Barbarian, sort of dumb Conan. to go from those short, silly books to the KFC was a bit of a shock.
Joy, truth to tell, I've got so many to-read books already that it's probably unlikely that I'll ever get around to reading either of those Washington biographies; but if Jim ever does, his reactions will be well worth reading! (Since I don't formally study or teach history anymore, my reading these days is more apt to be fiction than nonfiction.)Jim, I agree about the Embargo Act. Regulation of foreign trade is a legitimate Federal power, but the exercise of it there was unconscionably stupid. In his defense on the use of Naval force against Tripoli, though, it's worth being aware of that the Bey of Tripoli had declared war on the U.S. when we refused to pay tribute. As Hamilton pointed out at the time (I don't often agree with him, but hey, even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day :-) ), while a declaration of war by the second country in such a case might not be exactly superfluous, any time a sovereign state declares war on you, you ARE in a state of war, whether you make a reciprocal declaration of it or not. (A similar case occurred between the U.S. and Panama in the first Bush administration, when Gen. Noreiga's puppet Congress declared war on the U.S. --although the U.S. media largely swept that action under the rug.)
I've only read one of Jakes' short stories, a ghost story set during the Civil War; but I've seen bits and pieces of the North and South miniseries and would love to have been able to watch the whole thing. Both of his historical book series sound like they'd be good, solid reads! I'd also heard of his Brak the Barbarian books, and been curious about them --so, Jim, you don't think those are worth much investment of time? :-)
Werner wrote: "Joy, truth to tell, I've got so many to-read books already that it's probably unlikely that I'll ever get around to reading either of those Washington biographies ..."Werner, I know what you mean. I feel the same about my list of books TBR, as well as the movies on my Netflix queues. I'll never get to all of them but if feels good to know they are there if I ever want to read or watch them. It's something like money in the bank. :)
A friend of mine quoted a book about George Washington yesterday but I don't remember the name of the book, the the author of the quote was David McCullough. Hope that is the right spelling. He said, "If it wasn't for George Washington we would not have a country."
Werner, my point on Jefferson's use of naval power wasn't at all that I disagreed with it. No, we HAD to beat Tripoli up. What I disagreed with was although he'd seen how useful the Navy was, yet he cut it back as soon as he could after that, even though it was obvious we needed it. Impractical, optimistic thinking on his part, especially when we were paying tribute to the Barbary Coast to protect our shipping, not to mention what happened a few years later.Jake's Brak is a quick, easy read, so if you ever stumble across a book, it's probably worth grabbing. I've seen short stories in several anthologies... Maybe one of the Flashing Swords edited by Carter. Not sure. I wouldn't go far out of my way, although it's been far too many years. There may have been more to them than I recall.
Jim, thanks for the clarification, and the Brak the Barbarian tip! If I happen to find any of the Flashing Swords anthologies at a flea market or on BookMooch, I'll probably snap it up.
Nina wrote: "... the author of the quote was David McCullough. ... He said, "If it wasn't for George Washington we would not have a country." "Nina, McCullough's words (which you quoted above) hit the nail on the head.
David McCullough is terrific. I've read and enjoyed two of his books:
John Adams and 1776.
Here's my review of the latter: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Excerpts from my review:
=====================================================
The last page of the book says it all:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
p.294 - "The year 1776... a year of all-too-few victories, of sustained suffering, disease, hunger, desertion, cowardice, disillusionment, defeat, terrible discouragement, and fear... [After all that:] ...the outcome seemed little short of a miracle."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, as I read the book, I kept thinking what a miracle it was that the Americans finally defeated the British. The book makes one realize the terrible sacrifices that were made by the Americans in the cause of liberty....
Much credit is given to George Washington for his persevering attitude. On page 271, it says: "Out of adversity he seemed to draw greater energy and determination." Nathanael Greene wrote that GW "never appeared to so much advantage as in the hour of distress." ...
=======================================================
Jackie and Joy: I read the Kent Family chronicles years ago and they are very interesting. For readers who do not know a lot of American history, they are a good start. Fiction and history are well mixed and you get a real feel for the ideans and customs of the time.I highly recommend reading at least volume I, to get a sense of his style.
If I come across the Kent Family series, I'll buy them.I often enjoy historic fiction, it's just that little added drama that makes it an interesting read rather than a dry read like with textbooks.
I finished Machine Crusade and will start the next in the Legends of Dune series: The Battle of Corrin.
Anna Karenina isn't faring as well, I'm having a hard time staying interested in it.
I finished the first two books in c. J. Cherryh's Morgaine Saga (Gate of Ivrel andWell of Shiuan. I am now starting Fires of Azeroth, which concludes the original trilogy. (There is a fourth book written ten years later--which I will eventually read as well.Considering that Gate of Ivrel was either her first or second book--she had two submitted to DAW publishers that year and I don't remember which came out first--it is a very good fantasy trilogy. Better characterization than is usually found in an action saga.
Mary JL wrote: "Jackie and Joy: I read the Kent Family chronicles years ago and they are very interesting. For readers who do not know a lot of American history, they are a good start. Fiction and history are we..."Mary JL, I remember that you had mentioned Jake's books. Thanks for the recommendation. I do intend to read or listen to the Kent Family Chronicles. I think that an audio version might be a good idea for me.
Joy: I would recommend reading or buying just the first volume.If you happen to not like his style, I don't want you to be out a lot of moeny. Of course, interlibrary loan may have it.
MaryJL, I get all my books and audio-books from our public library. So it's no problem. I've already made my request for the first volume as an-audio book. Thanks for your concern and advice.
As of yesterday, I started reading Pro Luce Habere (To Have Before the Light) Volume 1, written by an author I'm a fan of (and not just because she happens to be a Goodreads friend!), Krisi Keley. It's the first volume of a two-volume prequel to her debut novel, On the Soul of a Vampire, which I read last year and really loved. Her vampire fiction is deeply informed by her Roman Catholic faith, and something really new and distinctive in the genre.
Thanks for the links, Werner. Your book, Lifeblood, is the only book about vampires that I've ever read. I never knew that vampire stories could be related to religion.
I'm still reading The Widower's Tale. I'm also listening to several audio-books. A couple of them are: Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex and The Bastard by Jakes. All three of them are excellent (recommended by some of you) and I'm enjoying them. Trouble is, I've been too busy at the Senior Citizens Center to give the books the time they deserve. I'm also tutoring a beginning computer-user at the library. I've also been doing a lot of shopping. :)
Sounds like you've got a really full plate, Joy! But that's much better than boredom. :-)Most people don't associate vampire fiction with any sort of spiritual theme. But like most European folk beliefs, vampire lore was shaped for a thousand years in the matrix of medieval Roman Catholic culture, and it has inherent possibilities for Christian symbolism. That symbolism is fairly strong in Dracula, though most modern readers don't pick it up.
I am on a Star Wars reading kick for a few days. A. c. Crispin, a SF writer whose work I like, wrote a three volume trilogy about Han Solo. I have finished The Paradise Snare and am now reading The Hutt Gambit. The last book of the trilogy,Rebel Dawn is waiting on the desk.Should not take long. It is fast-paced and well written, but geared, of course, to the fans of Star Wars.
Werner wrote: "Sounds like you've got a really full plate, Joy! But that's much better than boredom. :-)Most people don't associate vampire fiction with any sort of spiritual theme. ... vampire lore ... has inherent possibilities for Christian symbolism. That symbolism is fairly strong in Dracula, though most modern readers don't pick it up."
Werner, that's interesting about the Christian symbolism in vampire lore. I was never very good at seeing symbolism in literature, especially if it was hidden and needed to be pointed out.
I googled for "symbolism in literature" and there are many websites about it. The following one is good because it has links to specific examples in specific works:
http://www.brighthubeducation.com/hom...
Scroll down at the above page to see links to the following:
Charlotte Doyle Symbolism
Guide to Symbolism in Heart of Darkness
Huckleberry Finn Study Guide: Symbolism
October Sky Symbolism
Red Badge of Courage Symbolism
Symbols and Motifs From Catch-22
Symbolism and Themes in Fahrenheit 451
Symbolism in A Separate Peace
Symbolism in The Catcher in the Rye
Symbolism in The Great Gatsby
Symbolism in Jane Eyre
Symbolism in The Kite Runner
Symbolism in Lord of the Flies
Symbolism in The Old Man and the Sea
Symbolism in The Scarlet Letter
Symbols in The Grapes of Wrath
To Kill a Mockingbird Symbolism
Understanding Symbolism in Wuthering Heights
I also found the following interesting page:
http://www.johntreed.com/HTWPsymbolis...
The title of the article is: "The silliness of looking for symbolism in literature". :)
Well, all THAT should keep me busy for the rest of the day! LOL
You're right, I never get bored online or with trying to keep up with things.
Mary JL wrote: "I am on a Star Wars reading kick for a few days. A. c. Crispin, a SF writer whose work I like, wrote a three volume trilogy about Han Solo. I have finished The Paradise Snare and am..."Thanks for the links, Mary JL. I'm impressed with the amount of reading you do. I can't seem to finish one book these days! Even my rented Netflix DVDs have to wait for my attention. I'm going to blame all that on the shopping expeditions I've been doing lately. Today's a cold, rainy day. Maybe I'll catch up on my reading and movies. :)
The good weather draws me outdoors but when it's cold, I have no urge to go out.
"Winter, a lingering season, is a time to gather golden moments, embark upon a sentimental journey, and enjoy every idle hour." -John Boswell
PS-I forgot to mention above that I'm been spending a lot of time online at FunTrivia. My team is growing and since I'm the team leader, I have to be a good example by participating and keeping track of our progress.
http://www.funtrivia.com/team_info.cfm
You don't have to be from NYS to join.
I'm making some headway with Anna K, getting into the story but I'm having a hard time with the author's style.Finished the Legends of Dune trilogy. What I like most about this set of prequels is that it plants the seeds for all the great things to come in my beloved Duniverse.
I decided to read Inheritance, the 4th and final book in the Eragon books by Christopher Paolini. I want to give the whole set to an 11 yr old I know who should be visiting sometime soon. I'd like to be able to give him all 4 books at once. This kid is a voracious reader and I do all I can to supply him with books appropriate for his age.
I'll read the newest Dune book next, Sisterhood of Dune , which is why I re-read the Legends prequels in the first place. I love Dune, I love scifi, but I can't do a steady diet of it, not like I can with fantasy. So this is my 'time-out', lol
Jackie, good luck with Anna Karenina. The style must be pretty dense. How would you describe Tolstoy's style?BTW, I went to Shelfari.com and looked for their "Ridiculously Simplified Synopsis".
The best one was: (view spoiler)
(Not much of a spoiler because it doesn't tell the ending.)
http://www.shelfari.com/books/10266/A...
Don't look at the other spoilers at the above link. One tells the ending.
The POV is everywhere, I'm wondering Who's POV is this? It's unsettling. I like to know my narrator so I can settle into a persona. I feel adrift.He has a lot of detail on minor things, things I consider unimportant to the story.
I'm not sure if it's Tolstoy or the translators. If I could read fluently in Russian, I might have a different feeling.
Jackie wrote: "The POV is everywhere, I'm wondering Who's POV is this? It's unsettling. I like to know my narrator so I can settle into a persona. I feel adrift.He has a lot of detail on minor things, things ..."
Can you elaborate on what you mean by the POV? (Point of View)? How about an example?
I hate a book in which there are too many details on minor things. It really turns me off. I don't know why they think those details are so interesting. I suppose the author gets so wrapped up in his story that he loses perspective.
Jackie, I haven't read Anna Karenina, but I'm guessing that the POV there might be third-person omniscient --that is, there's no real "narrator" or viewpoint character, just a narrative told from the perspective of an all-seeing eye that picks up everything important. (And judging from what you wrote, a lot of things minor as well. :-) ) That was a very common practice in 19th-century novels, though it's less widely used nowadays.
Werner, that is exactly the right way to describe it. Thanks for the elaboration.Joy, I can't give examples, mainly because I'm too lazy to copy out the text, it's a paperback and I can't keep it open to type from. It's just every thing, no matter what's going on the 'narrator' know it and reports it. Using Werner's description, it's not so unsettling...or at least I don't think it will be.
About minor details, I don't mind if it pertains to the story and will be important. Stephen King comes to mind in how drastically he changed his style by doing this. It changed me from a major fan who waited with breath held for the newest book to someone who won't even consider reading him anymore. His books were once thrilling and fast paced, now they're utterly boring and convoluted...and it breaks my heart. I suppose he's more 'literary' now and good for him if that's what he wants to be, but it's not what I'm looking for in my reading. That's what I have Tolstoy for, lol
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group
Books mentioned in this topic
My Favorite Comedies in Music (other topics)My Favorite Intermissions: Lives of the Musical Greats and Other Facts You Never Knew You Were Missing (other topics)
Timebends: A Life (other topics)
My Name Is Mary Sutter (other topics)
Pomp and Circumstance (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Arthur Miller (other topics)Victor Borge (other topics)
Robin Oliveira (other topics)
Michael J. Sullivan (other topics)
M.H. Clark (other topics)
More...
Werner, excellent review.