"Daniel Boone's Own Story" by Daniel Boone and "The Adventures of Daniel Boone" by Frances Lister Hawkes

How weird that these two short books have never crossed my path before this!  Especially considering what a big fan of Daniel Boone I have been since I was in single digits.  I've read so many junior biographies about him, so many articles... but never his own short account of how he helped open Kentucky for settlement?  Not sure how it escaped me before now.

Well, Daniel Boone's Own Story is the bold adventurer's own recounting of how and when and why he explored Kentucky with his brother and a few friends, how he returned to lead surveyors there, and why he brought his own family with a larger group to settle there.  This all happened before and during the American Revolution, but had little to do with the Revolution except to mention Lord Dunmore a couple of times (he who was Royal Governor of Virginia until the Revolution began) and to talk about refusing to surrender to British authority even as a possible escape from being held captive by a hostile tribe.  

I loved how Daniel Boone expresses himself in this.  He's straight-forward, modest, thoughtful, a little funny here and there, and can turn a pretty phrase.  And he repeatedly credits God with blessing his efforts, helping him and others out of difficulties, and making the beautiful wilderness land that Boone so cherished.

The Adventures of Daniel Boone by Francis Lister Hawks obviously draws on Boone's book, but fleshes the narrative out more.  It talks about Boone's life before and after the opening of Kentucky, which is nice.  I didn't learn much new from it that I hadn't read in other books, but I enjoyed the refresher anyway.  Hawks has a high-flown, old-fashioned writing style that makes Boone seem doubly plainspoken and uncomplicated by comparison.  But I didn't dislike the book just because his prose got a little purple here and there.  

Particularly Good Bits:

So much does friendship triumph over misfortune that sorrows and sufferings vanish at the meeting not only of real friends, but of the most distant acquaintances, and substitute happiness in their room (p. 4, Daniel Boone's Own Story)

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG-13 for discussions of torture, some of which would be very disturbing for people with vivid imaginations.

Since these are so short, I am counting them together as my 50th book read for my 4th Classics Club list.  Which means I have finished my list!  Again!  Since January of 2014, I have read and reviewed 200 classic books :-D

(Actually, I've read more classics than that in those ten years, because I only count a book once for the Classics Club, and if I read it again after that, it doesn't count for my lists.)

I'll be making a fifth list soon!  Stay tuned for that...

"The Cricket on the Hearth" by Charles Dickens

I can't believe I'd never read this before!  Somehow, I thought it was about a literal cricket sitting on a hearth, telling us stories about the people he's met and things he's experienced.  It is not about that AT ALL.  

I mean, there's a cricket in the story that does chirp near a hearth.  But it's not a talking or sentient cricket.  It's kind of a symbol of contentment and coziness in your own home and among your own family members.  I'm so glad this was one pick for this year's #DickensDecember readings over on Instagram, because I absolutely delighted in this book.

This book is actually about a sweet and cheerful young wife, her older and devoted husband, and some of their friends.  A shadow of suspicion falls over their happy home for a while, and I devoured the last couple chapters of this book in great worry over what was going to happen.

SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH.  One of the things I liked best were some cool parallels to the Biblical account of Mary and Joseph.  A young and sweet wife, an older husband who suddenly suspects things are not right with his marriage, his plan for a quiet and private separation, and a sudden revelation of unknown facts that makes everything okay again.

I am not always the biggest fan of Charles Dickens, but this is going on my list (with A Christmas Carol and A Tale of Two Cities) of Dickens books I truly and thoroughly enjoy!

Particularly Good Bits:

But let us be genteel, or die! (p. 74)  (I am guessing that Amy March's line "Let us be elegant, or die" in Little Women by Louisa May Alcott is an allusion to this line, since the March sisters are such fans of Dickens.)

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG for some allusions to suspected marital unfaithfulness.  No cussing, smut, or violence.

This has been my 47th book read and reviewed for my fourth Classics Club list.

"The Annotated Persuasion" by Jane Austen (annotated and edited by David M. Shapard)

Do you ever love a book so much that you draw the last few chapters out as long as you possibly can?

It took me almost a week to read the last three chapters of Persuasion this time.  They were such exquisite joy, and yet so cozy and comforting, that I simply had to revel in and savor them as long as possible.  Finally, finally, finally things went well for the patient and persevering Anne Elliot.  So satisfying!  So heartwarming!

And I love that Persuasion is the first book I finished reading in the new year.  This book is full of new beginnings and hope for the future.  It should go into rotation as a first-of-the-year book for me on a regular basis.

The annotations by David M. Shapard were once again a continual delight.  I will never remember even a tenth of what I learned while reading all six of these annotated Austen books over the past twelve months... but that's okay!  I will remember some of it, and I can always read them again one day.  There's enough information in these to make reading them equal to taking a whole college course on Austen, I think.  They aren't fast reads, but they are worthwhile.

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: G for the original text and PG-13 for the annotations, which sometimes delve into modern vs. 1800s notions about sexual purity and so on.

"The Annotated Emma" by Jane Austen (annotated and edited by David M. Shapard)

This is the first time that I have truly enjoyed reading Emma.  I've read it twice before -- once in high school in the 1990s, and once in 2012.  Both times, I laughed my way through it, but I also cringed my way through it.  Emma Woodhouse's meddlesome ways just annoyed me so much!  And, truth be told, they still do.  

But the annotations by David M. Shapard are wonderful, and they added so much to my enjoyment.  He pointed out a lot of places where Emma is extremely kind or sensitive toward her father, and he also highlighted a lot of places where she starts to grow and change much earlier than I had realized.  So, I liked that.

This will never be a top favorite Jane Austen book for me.  My rankings of her books haven't changed over the course of this year's #JaneAustenDeepDive adventure with friends on Bookstagram.  But I did enjoy both Emma and Mansfield Park a lot more this time around, which I think is a big plus!

Particularly Good Bits:

And yet she was a happy woman, and a woman whom no one named without good-will.  It was her own universal good-will and contented temper which worked such wonders.  She loved every body, was interested in every body's happiness, quick-sighted to every body's merits; thought herself a most fortunate creature, and surrounded with blessings in such an excellent mother and so many good neighbours and friends, and a home that wanted for nothing.  The simplicity and cheerfulness of her nature, her contented and grateful spirit, were a recommendation to every body and a mine of felicity to herself (p. 34).  (And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is why Miss Bates is my favorite character in this book.)

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG for the text (illegitimate children are mentioned) and PG-13 for the annotations (which discuss sexual mores and customs a bit more frankly than Austen herself does).

This is my 33rd book read and reviewed for my fourth Classics Club list.

"The Annotated Mansfield Park" by Jane Austen (Annotated and Edited by David M. Shapar)

You know what?  I really liked Mansfield Park this time through :-o  The first time I read it, maybe 15 years ago or so, I found it terribly dull.  The second time I read it, about ten years ago, I found Fanny annoying.  But this time, I thought Fanny was a lovely character, and I wasn't bored a bit!

I think that was partly because of the annotations -- as always, I learned a LOT from those.  But it was also because I read this as part of the #JaneAustenDeepDive2024 group buddy read on Instagram.  Discussing the book with other readers really helped me settle my own opinions about the characters, and especially about the romance between Fanny Price and Edmund Bertram.  I've never had much patience with Edmund before, because he seems so ridiculously unable to see the truth about either Fanny or Mary Crawford (or many other people around him), but this time, I could see how that is not necessarily a character flaw -- he sees the good in people and disregards the rest, which doesn't make him dumb.  It just makes him kind of endearingly naïve.  While Fanny did sometimes displease me a little with how she tends to do the reverse and see bad things in people while ignoring their better points, I didn't find her completely annoying this time.  In fact, I enjoyed the book!  Yay!  Total win.

Particularly Good Bits:

Children of the same family, the same blood, with the same first associations and habits, have some means of enjoyment in their power, which no subsequent connections can supply (p. 428).

"Shakespeare one gets acquainted with without knowing how.  It is a part of an Englishman's constitution.  His thoughts and beauties are so spread abroad that one touches them every where, one is intimate with him by instinct" (p. 606).

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG for the text for some discussions of adultery, and PG-13 for the annotations for some franker (but still tasteful) discussions of sexual matters. 

This has been my 29th book read and reviewed for my 4th Classics Club list.

"The Annotated Northanger Abbey" by Jane Austen (Annotated and Edited by David M. Shapard)

I'm halfway through my ongoing quest to read all these annotated Austen editions!  The #JaneAustenDeepDive reading group on Instagram has been a continual delight, and the two-months-per-book pace has been perfect for me to read these detailed and informative editions.  

I think I learned more from The Annotated Northanger Abbey than from the Pride and Prejudice or the Sense and Sensibility, largely because this one explained alllllll the allusions to popular novels that Austen makes throughout the book.  One day, I will read some of the books she talks about, just to more fully understand this one.

Northanger Abbey remains tied with Pride and Prejudice as my second-favorite Jane Austen.  Up next for our group read-along is Mansfield Park, which is my least-favorite Austen.  I'm hoping that reading the annotated edition will help me appreciate it better.

If you don't know, this book is about a young woman who loves to read Gothic romance books, that era's version of romantic suspense, basically.  She travels to a resort town with some friends of her family, where she makes new friends and forms an attachment with a charming man with a great sense of humor.  But she lets her imagination start to run away from her sometimes, and has to learn to differentiate between fact and fiction.

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG for some mild bad language in the text, and PG-13 for the annotations, which talk about sexual mores and attitudes at the time.

"The Annotated Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen (Annotated and Edited by David M. Shapard)

Reading an annotated book like this is almost like reading two books at once.  You have the actual novel, and you have the extensive notes, and you go back and forth from one to the other every paragraph or so.  As it happens, I love to learn about history and literature, so I absolutely am loving these annotated editions!!!  But they are a very different reading experience from simply reading Austen's books for fun.  

And yet, I still got sucked into the book.  Like always, from about the time Elizabeth visits Pemberley onward, I could not read fast enough to suit my own wishes.  It absolutely fascinates me how Austen can sweep me off my feet time and time again, even though I know exactly how the book will end, and how we get to that ending!  Powerful writing indeed.

If you don't know, Pride and Prejudice is a timeless look at how our frailties and failings can define us, but don't have to.  When two flawed people meet, they can either fall in love and accept each others' flaws, or they can fall in love and try to help each other grow and mature and improve.  Austen definitely falls in the "help each other improve" camp, and I love her for it. 

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG for the text and PG-13 for the annotations, which talk about subjects such as Regency attitudes about unmarried sexual intimacy in a much more frank way than the text does. Nothing salacious, and no bad language, but not necessarily something I would hand to a young teen, either.

"The Annotated Sense and Sensibility" by Jane Austen (Annotated and Edited by David M. Shapard)

This is the second time I've read The Annotated Sense and Sensibility, which pairs Jane Austen's classic novel with extensive notes and commentaries by David M. Shapard.  I used this edition back in 2021 when I led a read-along here for S&S, and I very much enjoyed learning from it.  So, when I decided to join the #JaneAustenDeepDive2024 reading group on Instagram, I decided I wanted to read all of these annotated editions.  We're taking two months to read each book, and really having a great time discussing things very thoroughly.  

That slower pace is ideal for these annotated editions because they really do take a lot longer to read -- there are thousands of notes in here explaining everything from naming conventions to social niceties to the differences between a carriage and a barouche, to what kinds of food would be common in that era for different classes.  Because history fascinates me, I absolutely loved reading this edition, even for the second time!

However, reading a thoroughly annotated book like this is a very different experience from reading the novel on its own.  I can't fully immerse myself in the story because, every paragraph or two, I have to stop reading the novel to read an explanatory note.  So, because I love history, I found it very enjoyable, but enjoyable in a different way from simply losing myself in the story.

That means that I would not recommend reading this annotated edition if it is your first time reading Sense and Sensibility.  But if you have read it before, and you want to understand the society and world and times that the story takes place in and was written in, then it can be very wonderful.

I know this review is mostly about the annotations, not the story itself.  Briefly, this is the story of two sisters, Elinor and Marianne, whose father dies at the beginning of the book, and they and their mother and younger sister must move away from their home and live in a much smaller and poorer way than they are used to.  Both Elinor and Marianne fall in love, but their different temperaments and personalities, and the very different nature of the men they fall in love with, means that they have very different experiences in love.  The whole book is a meditation on whether or not it's wiser to let your heart by ruled by your head, or let your head be ruled by your heart -- or whether it might be wisest to balance the two.  It's a good book, but not a high favorite of mine.

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG for the text and PG-13 for the annotations, which talk about subjects such as unwed pregnancy in a much more frank way than the text does.  Nothing salacious, and no bad language, but not necessarily something I would hand to a young teen, either.

This has been my 23rd book read and reviewed for my fourth Classics Club list.

"The Snow Storm: A Christmas Story" by Catherine Gore

Although parts of this had that overblown purple prose too many Victorian authors were fond of, the story was a lovely one, and I especially enjoyed the last few chapters.

The story concerns a small British village next to a large estate.  The estate was purchased by some newly rich people and utterly renovated by them quite recently.  They plan to have a fancy Christmas party there and have invited a lot of friends from London to make merry there with them.

The renovations involved turning an old man out of the farm which his family had tenanted for generations, and he is slowly sinking toward death with the grief of this.  But he has a very cheerful and competent niece (?) who is taking care of him now and has made his poor cottage into a snug home.

The London friends get stuck in a blizzard on their way to the estate and must take shelter where they can.  Naturally, some of them stop at this cottage of the poor, dispossessed old man.  Also naturally, a stranger also stops there who turns out not to be a stranger at all, because this is Victorian Literature and Everyone Must Be Connected Somehow.

Happily, I read enough Victorian books to be cool with that ;-)  I did enjoy the book a lot, though I freely admit to having skimmed some of the more purple parts.

Particularly Good Bits:

The poor were sanguine.  The poor are usually sanguine.  It is one of the few luxuries in which they can indulte.

...she had laughed her way through the labours of life;--guiltless of an unkind word or unfair action:--comprising her moral law in "do as you would be done by;" and her philosophy in "put your shoulder to the wheel; tomorrow's a handier help than yesterday."

If Dinah's whole life, in short, had been one of unmixed prosperity, it could scarcely have left her more thankful, or more thoroughly content.

However cheerless the prospects of the family, the sunshine of her buoyant spirits rendered them light.

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: G.  Nothing objectionable here.

This is my third book read for the Literary Christmas Reading Challenge, my 59th book read from my TBR shelves for #TheUnreadShelfProject2022, and my sixth for my fourth Classics Club list.

"The Swiss Family Robinson" by Johann David Wyss

I read this with some friends on Instagram as part of the #DisneyOriginsBookClub last month, and it was such a fun trip down memory lane for me!  I read this several times as a kid, and I've seen the 1960 Disney movie dozens of times -- it's one my kids love now too.  But I haven't reread the book since my teens, so I was eager to revisit it.

I finished reading this right before we went to Florida on vacation.  My choice of attraction to visit in Disney World was the Swiss Family Robinson tree house, and it was awesome!  The pictures throughout this post are from my visit there.

A Swiss family -- Mother, Father, Fritz, Ernest, Jack, and Francis -- are stranded on a deserted island when the colonizing ship they were sailing on runs afoul of a giant storm.  Because that ship was meant for the establishment of a new colony, they have every conceivable tool and supply at their disposal.  They just have to ferry them to land from the shipwreck.  Also, because both Father and Mother are extremely resourceful and unbelievably knowledgeable, they have no trouble at all making a very fine new home on that deserted island.

One of the things I liked best about this book is how adamant the father (who is the narrator) is that they ask God to bless their every venture, and thank God for every blessing that befalls them.  You can tell that the author was a minister, and that he took his faith very seriously.

Besides being a minister, Johann David Wyss was an amateur naturalist and outdoorsman, and he made up this story as a series of bedtime stories for his sons, teaching them lessons about animals and nature, as well as survival skills and moral lessons.  He wrote the stories down eventually, but never shared them with anyone.  His son, Johann Rudolph Wyss (author of the Swiss national anthem!), eventually found his father's handwritten manuscript, spiffed it up, and submitted it to a publisher.  And it was a great success, way back in 1812.

All of that explains why this story is extremely episodic (because it was made up in little bits at bedtime, night after night) and occasionally pedantic (because it was meant to instruct the storyteller's sons).  Neither of those characteristics made the book unenjoyable for me in the slightest, but there were people in our reading group who found those aspects fairly off-putting, so YMMV.

Is this story far-fetched?  Totally.  Is it a rip-roaring good time?  Absolutely.  I really love stories of people building new lives with only what they have at hand, and that's probably due in a large part to this book.

By the way, the family's last name is NOT Robinson.  Their last name is never given, nor are the first names of the parents.  Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe was so popular when it came out in 1719 that it spawned an entire genre, called "robinsonade."  As this Wikipedia article explains, robinsinade stories are all about castaways surviving on deserted islands or in other remote and inaccessible places.  There were German robinsons and French robinsons and so on -- so the book's title means this is a robinson story about a Swiss family, not about story about a Swiss family named Robinson.

Now you know!

Particularly Good Bits:

With God's help, let us endeavour to live here contentedly, thankful that we were not cast upon some bare and inhospitable island (p. 20).

Everyone had the pleasant sensation which attends successful labour, as well as experiencing the joy of affording unexpected pleasure to others; and I especially pointed out to my sons how truly genuine happiness consists in that, rather than in mere self-gratification (p. 87).

But, in reality, the more there was to do the better; and I never ceased contriving fresh improvements, being fully aware of the importance of constant employment as a means of strengthening and maintaining the health of mind and body (p. 160).

And my great wish is that young people who read this record of our lives and adventures should learn from it how admirably suited is the peaceful, industrious and pious life of a cheerful and united family to the formation of strong, pure, and manly character (p. 237-38).

What can be more delightful than to find harmony of opinion in those we love when a great and momentous decision has to be taken? (p. 274)

"The whole earth is the Lord's, and where, as in His sight, you lead good and useful lives, there is your home" (p. 276).

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG for characters running into dangerous animals now and then.

This has been my 36th book read from my third Classics Club list.

"The Count of Monte Cristo" by Alexandre Dumas

I haven't read the full text of this book since I was eleven.  Thirty years ago, I fell in love with Edmond Dantes, and this book has been in my top 3 ever since.  When I was a teen, I bought my own copy.  I reread it.  And I was a little confused because I remembered things about the story that seemed to be missing.  Like all this stuff about a baby in a box.  I finally decided I'd just confused The Count of Monte Cristo with some other book, and shrugged it off. 

It wasn't until a few years ago that I learned that many, many English translations significantly abridge this book.  And never bother to call themselves "abridged."  They cut out certain plotlines that the translators find distasteful or think modern audiences won't like... such as all that stuff about the baby in the box.  Well, once I learned that, I set out to find a good, reliable translation.  What I learned is that the Penguin edition pictured here, with a translation by Robin Buss, is considered the most accurate modern translation, so that's the version I've got now, and the one I read this summer.

I'm really not sure how they'd make a bunch of this work without the baby in the box, as that's kind of central to a big part of the plot, and I'm not surprised that I wondered where it went when I read that other version.  If you're scratching your head and saying, "I read this book, and there was no baby in a box," then you probably read a sneakily abridged version too.  I'm just sayin'.

Anyway, I read the real thing this time.  And I adored it all over again.  Yes, this book is 1200 pages.  It's a brick.  A chunkster.  A tome.  And I gobbled it right down.  For the last few hundred pages, I was so excited and happy I would put the book down and just bounce up and down with joy from how beautifully everything was slotting together.  My goodness, what a breathless ride.  

Quick summary of the plot in case you don't know it: Edmond Dantes is thrown into prison after being wrongly accused by a couple of men who are jealous of him.  He eventually escapes, becomes fabulously wealthy and sophisticated, and returns to France to wreck the men who wrecked his life, stole his fiancée, and starved his father.

I think two things set this apart from ordinary stories of revenge. First, I love how Dantes, as the Count of Monte Cristo, uses his enemies' own past crimes, as well as their pet sins, to ruin them.  He doesn't steal their fortunes or slander their names or steal their wives and sweethearts.  He just patiently brings their own long-buried secrets to light and lets them suffer the consequences of their own wrongdoing.  That's brilliant.

The other is that Dantes learns, eventually, that revenge can get away from the avenger and cause more harm than intended.  He discovers that, though he considers himself a tool of God for striking down wrongdoers, he is NOT God, and his strikes can cut too wide a path.  He also learns that revenge hollows you out, while helping others fills you up, and turns from one to the other at the end.

(Mine from my Instagram)

Particularly Good Bits:

"Happiness is like one of those palaces on an enchanted island, its gates guarded by dragons.  One must fight to gain it" (p. 42).

"Hatred is blind and anger deaf: the one who pours himself a cup of vengeance is likely to drink a bitter draught" (p. 385).

"There are two medicines for all ills: time and silence" (p. 523).

"I like everybody in the way that God ordered us to love our neighbours, that is, in Christian charity.  I only bestow true hatred on certain people" (p. 747).

"I do not think this is the moment to give way to sterile misery: that may be enough for those who want to suffer at their ease and have time to drink their own tears" (p. 786).

"He's a wonderful person for raising one's spirits, because he never asks questions: in my opinion, people who don't ask too many questions give the best consolation" (p. 938).

Moral wounds have the peculiarity that they are invisible, but do not close: always painful, always ready to bleed when touched, they remain tender and open in the heart (p. 952).

People were hanging on his every word, as is always the case with those who say little and never waste words (p. 1048).

So, do live and be happy, children dear to my heart, and never forget that, until the day when God deigns to unveil the future to mankind, all human wisdom is contained in these two words: 'wait' and 'hope'! (p. 1243)

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG-16 for suggestive dialog, drug use (including a pretty racy drug-induced dream), some mild profanity, violence, and poisonings.

This has been my 26th book read and reviewed for my third Classics Club list.

"Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass" by Frederick Douglass

I can't believe I'd never read this before!  You'd think with all the history classes, all the literature classes, surely someone would have assigned Frederick Douglass's Narrative to me.  But, nope.  You'd also think I would have gotten around to reading it before now, on my own, especially since I've owned a copy for at least two years.  But, nope.

Well, I've read it now, and I found it both enlightening and enjoyable.  While sometimes Douglass does start to sound a little bit... oratorical... he mostly tells his life story in a straight-forward and easy-to-read manner.  Certainly, he was writing this with an agenda, namely to convince people of the evils of slavery, but it rarely felt like a lecture or an argument.  Just a man telling you about his own experiences, and letting you conclude for yourself whether or not his life was typical or atypical for those living in slavery.

I was a little sad that he couldn't give a more detailed account of his escape to freedom in the north, but he withheld most of it to protect those who helped him, who were still alive and possibly in danger of reprisals, so it was understandable and wise of him to omit that part, I thought.

It was really interesting to read this on the heels of The Color of Compromise by Jemar Tisby because it succeeded in something that I thought Tisby failed at.  Douglass did a great job of pointing out that the failure of Christian churches toward enslaved people is not the fault of Christianity, but of individuals claiming to be Christians.  Tisby lumped those together, but Douglass clearly separated them, especially in the book's appendix, where he wrote:

What I have said respecting and against religion, I mean strictly to apply to the slaveholding religion of this land, and with no possible reference to Christianity proper; for, between the Christianity of this land, and the Christianity of Christ, I recognize the widest possible difference -- so wide, that to receive the one as good, pure, and holy, is of necessity to reject the other as bad, corrupt and wicked.  To be the friend of the one, is of necessity to be the enemy of the other (p. 71).

If you're looking for something to read for Black History Month, this gets my vote.  It's a quick read, not difficult, and both historically and culturally important.  Since yesterday is believed to have been Douglass's birthday, I thought it was a good time to read it, and I'm glad I did.

Particularly Good Bits:

The songs of the slave represent the sorrows of his heart; and he is relieved by them, only as an aching heart is relieved by its tears (p. 9).

The silver trump of freedom had roused my soul to eternal wakefulness (p. 24).

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG-15 for descriptions of whippings, beatings, and other acts of violence, as well as discussions of sexual misconduct and force.  Those were non-graphic, but I won't have my kids read it until high school because I don't think they'll be ready for it.

This was my 16th book read for my 3rd Classics Club list, and my 7th book read off my unread shelves for #TheUnreadShelfProject2021.

"Jane Eyre" by Charlotte Bronte (again)

Have you ever thrown caution to the wind and decided to read a massive book in a very short space of time?  Like, say, a 627-page book in three days?

If so, you're not alone.

One Sunday, I decided that I could not pass up the opportunity to discuss my favorite novel with one of my favorite living authors, Katherine Reay.  She and a couple other authors direct the "What the Dickens" reading group on Facebook, and Jane Eyre was their latest book to discuss.  And the discussion was slated for Wednesday.

So, Sunday evening after supper, I started rereading Jane Eyre.  Tuesday night around 10pm, I finished it.  It took me 51 hours, but I did it.  And then I got to discuss it last night, and that was nifty.  But know what was niftier than the discussion?

The experience of inhaling my favorite book, that's what.  I am, by nature, a savorer.  I want to read things slowly, draw out the experience.  I can make a decent-sized book series last for years.  I can make a TV series last for decades.  I enjoy anticipation, I enjoy savoring... but I've realized (mostly thanks to The Blue Castle) that devouring a book as quickly as possible can also be a joy.  A different kind, but just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad.

By the end of this reread, I felt like I had words shooting out of my fingers and toes and the ends of my hair.  I had gorged myself on words, and it felt pretty glorious. 

I'm going to try to remember this.  That reading a book really fast does not mean I will necessarily enjoy it less, it just means I will enjoy it in a different way.

And yeah, I love this book.  Sorry that this doesn't say much about what Jane Eyre is actually about.  You can read my review from a few years ago for more on that, I guess.

One random thing I noticed this time that I'm not sure I ever have before -- Jane actually likens the third story of Thornfield to "a corridor in some Bluebeard's castle" (p. 145) the first time she visits it.  How did I never notice that bit of foreshadowing before?

Also, it brought home to me again that it isn't until Rochester "began to experience remorse, repentance; the wish for reconcilement to my Maker" and "began sometimes to pray: very brief prayers they were, but very sincere" (p. 619) that the "miracle" occurred that carried his voice to Jane's ear over all the land that separated them.  Like a benediction that says yes, he is forgiven, and now he and Jane can go on with their lives.

Particularly Good Bits:


"...it is weak and silly to say you cannot bear what it is your fate to be required to bear" (p. 72).

"Life appears to me too short to be spent in nursing animosity or registering wrongs" (p. 75).

"Human beings never enjoy complete happiness in this world.  I was not born for a different destiny to the rest of my species: to imagine such a lot befalling me is a fairy tale -- a day-dream" (p. 357).

"Yes; I feel now that I was right when I adhered to principle and law, and scorned and crushed the insane promptings of a frenzied moment.  God directed me to a correct choice: I thank His providence for the guidance!" (p. 499).


If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG for scary situations, cruel treatment of a child, and discussions of Rochester's possible fathering of an illegitimate child.

"Persuasion" by Jane Austen (yet again)

Yup, still my favorite Jane Austen book.  I can't believe the last time I read this was in 2015!  Silly me.

Characters are always what draw me to a story -- if I love the characters, I will love the book.  If I don't engage with the characters, no matter how much I like the author's writing, I won't actually love the story.  So the reason that this is my favorite Austen book is because Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth are my favorite Austen heroine and hero.  And together make my favorite Austen couple.  That's just how it is.

Of course, Austen's writing also delights me. She's so smart without being pompous, polished without being glib, and sincere without being sappy.  I love how deeply we get to know and understand her characters -- many of them, not just the main character.  And I love the way her books bring home to me the fact that no matter how much the externals of society change, people are the same inside, century after century.

Quick description of what the book is about, in case you don't know already:  Miss Anne Elliot and Captain Frederick Wentworth were engaged eight years ago, but she broke off their engagement because her surrogate mother believed the marriage would be unwise and imprudent.  Neither of them have ever fallen in love again.  Now Wentworth is back on sea, important and wealthy and ready to settle down, but still harboring bitter disappointment over Anne's ending things with him.  Anne is unappreciated by her own family and has lost her girlhood beauty, but has grown into a patient, wise woman who has learned to understand herself and those around her.

I read this as part of a buddy read on Bookstagram, and that was so much fun!  I really love discussing books with other book lovers.

(Mine from Bookstagram)

Particularly Good Bits:

"There is hardly any personal defect," replied Anne, "which an agreeable manner might not gradually reconcile one to" (p. 31).

A submissive spirit might be patient, a strong understanding would supply resolution, but here was something more; here was that elasticity of mind, that disposition to be comforted, that power of turning readily from evil to good, and of finding employment which carried her out of herself, which was from Nature alone (p. 138).

Her spring of felicity was in the glow of her spirits, as her friend Anne's was in the warmth of her heart (p. 227).

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: G.  Nothing objectionable here.

Like I said, it's my favorite Jane Austen novel.  I have many copies...

"The Hunchback of Notre-Dame" by Victor Hugo

Um, yeah.  So, the best thing I can say about this book is that, now that I've read it, I never have to read it again.

It's not that I don't enjoy tragedies.  I mean, this is the person who has seen nineteen different versions of Hamlet, many of them multiple times.  I like a good, sad story.

So it's not the tragicality that made me dislike this book.  It's the fatalism.  The bleak flavor that permeates it.  Hugo seems to be saying that fate dictates how everything will turn out, what everyone will do, and that is absolutely the opposite of my belief in the gift of free will.  The characters become puppets for the author to move around, and Hugo uses them to try to convey the idea that all people are puppets, jerked and shoved about by fate.

If fate dictates everything, there are no consequences for actions, no accountability.  Right and wrong are sapped of their meaning, and everything is dictated by the whim of some made-up, nameless, uncaring power.  Feh.

Even with the fatalism aside, this is a book full of people doing really stupid things that ::surprise!:: lead to bad results.  I hate that kind of tragedy.  I only enjoy tragedies that feel inevitable, where the events set in motion by the villains lead to sadness and badness that the heroes mitigate the best they can, but which eventually overwhelm them because they're flawed themselves.

(From my Instagram)

So, yeah.  I loved Les Miserables when I read that twenty years ago, and I'd like to revisit it one of these days.  But I have no desire or need to revisit The Hunchback of Notre-Dame.  Ever.

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: R for lascivious desires and intentions and behavior, scenes of torture and violence, and voyeurism. 

Some happy news!!!  This is my 50th book read and reviewed for my second go-'round with the Classics Club, which means it's my 100th book for the club as a whole!  I have sent up a third list of 50 books and will embark upon it in July.

This is also my 24th book read for #TheUnreadShelfProject2020.

"Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen (yet again)

This is the first time I've reread Pride and Prejudice since 2013.  I feel like admitting that might get me hauled away for insufficient Austen fandomness or something.  But it's true.

Anyway.  Once again, this book delighted me.  It made me laugh.  It made me smile.  It made me unaccountably anxious to zip through the last third or so of the book so Lizzy and Mr. Darcy wouldn't have to be separated for too long.  Isn't it amazing how a story I KNOW so very well can still make me want to hurry up and see how it turns out?  Wonderful stuff.

Something that really struck me this time through is how anti-romantic this book is.  Or maybe not anti-romantic, but non-romantic, in the sense that we think of books as romantic today.  The characters who act the way we think romanically inclined people ought to, swooning and going into raptures about handsome men or beautiful women, and feeling lots of physical attraction toward the opposite sex... are all idiots.  Yes, I'm looking at you, Lydia and Wickham and Kitty.  Even Bingley, who is enraptured with Jane's beauty, is... not portrayed as the brightest candle on the cake.  

On the other hand, we have Mr. Collins and Charlotte Lucas having zero physical attraction in their relationship at all, and that's portrayed as not very ideal either.  But very sensible, if dull and sometimes disagreeable.

But with Lizzy and Mr. Darcy, we have a balance.  Two minds that understand and value each other's good qualities, abilities, understanding, and personalities, and also two people who find each other attractive.  Except that, especially for Lizzy, the physical attraction comes AFTER the mental attraction.  Mr. Darcy does admire her fine eyes long before she finds him at all agreeable, but he kept trying to dispose of that attraction because he thought WHO she was wouldn't be a good fit for him.  Still, overall, they're as interested in each other as they are attracted to each other.  I think Austen is trying to show us how very important it is to have both those aspects in a relationship.

Anyway, totally love this book.  I love how, like Lizzy, Austen obviously is diverted by "follies, whims, and inconsistencies," and yet, also like Lizzy, she never stoops to "ridicule what is wise or good" (p. 52).  I can laugh with her in good conscience.

(Mine from my Instagram account.)

Particularly Good Bits:

"Affectation of candour is common enough -- one meets it every where.  But to be candid without ostentation or design -- to take the good of every body's character and make it still better, and say nothing of the bad -- belongs to you alone" (p. 13).

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG.  No violence or smut, but there's a couple who lives in sin for a time, which is alluded to in the most genteel and vague way possible.  No real bad language, but Lydia does like to say "lord" a lot, which could be seen as a profanity.

This is my 47th book read and reviewed for my second go-round with the Classics Club!  Only three to go and I'll have finished my second set of fifty!

"Nutcracker and Mouse King" by ETA Hoffmann AND "The Tale of the Nutcracker" by Alexandre Dumas

I'm reviewing these together because The Tale of the Nutcracker is Alexandre Dumas' French translation of the German story Nutcracker and Mouse King by E.T.A. Hoffmann.  And the edition I read has them both together, translated into English by Joachim Neugroschel.

I'd never read either of these before -- my knowledge of the Nutcracker story comes from the ballet by Mikhail Baryshnikov that we watched on PBS every winter when I was a kid, and which I now watch on DVD with my own kids.  It was interesting to see the differences not only between these two versions of the story, but between them and the ballet!

E.T.A. Hoffman's is the original, and it has this very bold, brash feel to it.  And it's kinda dark.  Very German-winter-near-the-old-and-scary-forest sort of vibe.  It's all about a little girl named Marie who has a somewhat creepy godfather, Herr Drosselmeier, as well as a bratty brother named Fritz and a snobby sister named Luise.  They get a huge number of fabulous presents for Christmas, including a mechanical castle made by Drosselmeier, who is a Chief Justice, but seems to spend most of his time making fantastical toys and fixing clocks.  He also gives the family a very ugly nutcracker. 

Marie loves the Nutcracker.  She stays up late playing with him, gets attacked by lots of mice led by a seven-headed Mouse King, the Nutcracker and all of Fritz's toy soldiers come to life and have a battle with the mice, and Marie gets injured in the fray, but saves Nutcracker from the ravages of the Mouse King by throwing her shoe at him.  She faints from blood loss, and has to spend a week in bed recovering.

While she's stuck in bed, Herr Drosselmeier comes to visit.  No one in her family believes Marie's story of how she hurt her arm, but Drosselmeier seems to.  He tells her a long story about a princess named Pirlipat, some wicked mice, and a brave young man who tried to save the princess from the mice, only to get turned into a nutcracker.  Marie is convinced this story is about her new Nutcracker, especially when she gets visited by the Mouse King for several nights running.  Mouse King demands she sacrifice all her candies and cookies and marzipan treats to him, or else he'll gnaw on Nutcracker.  Marie tearfully complies, until all her goodies are gone.  But then Nutcracker comes back to life, defeats the Mouse King once and for all, and takes Marie on a journey to the Land of Sweets, which he rules.

After seeing many delightful things there, Marie falls asleep, and wakes up back at home in bed.  Her whole family laughs at her when she tells them about her journey.  But then Herr Drossellmeier returns, with his handsome nephew who has just returned from a long journey, and who obviously is the Nutcracker released from the enchantment for good.

Marie, though only 7, accepts this nephew's offer of marriage.  One year later, they get married, and live happily ever after in the Land of Sweets.

Um, yes.  Child bride and all that.  Hmmmmmmmm.  It's a weird, wacky story, obviously not meant to be taken seriously, so I guess we're just supposed to shrug and be cool with it.

Alexandre Dumas' translation is fairly similar, but he takes out a lot of the scary or weird parts, or tames them down.  Yes, the same Alexandre Dumas who wrote The Count of Monte Cristo and The Three Musketeers tried to make a more-child-friendly version of the story when he translated it.  Which amuses me.  Basically the same things happen, except the mice are way less icky and the whole thing has a more sparkly, bright feel.

I definitely preferred Dumas' version because it was more whimsical, yet a little less nonsensical.

Overall, the story reminded me of a blend of The Wizard of Oz, the Chronicles of Narnia, and Alice in Wonderland, plus the game Candy Land.

You know how, in the ballet, about half the time is taken up with the girl and the prince watching his subjects dance while in his magical kingdom?  That's like one paragraph in this story.  Which also cracks me up.

One thing I like better about both of these than the ballet (at least the Baryshnikov version, which is the only one I've seen) is that they make it clear that the Nutcracker really DOES come to life, and the girl DOES get to marry him and live happily ever after.  I don't always hate the "it was all a dream" kind of ending, as it does work for some stories, but I've never liked its use in the ballet.  So I shall imagine the ballet ends this way from now on.

If This was a Movie, I Would Rate It: PG for some scary/creepy stuff involving mice gnawing on, or threatening to gnaw on, people.

This is my first entry into the Literary Christmas challenge and my 38th for my second go-'round with the Classics Club.