Archive for the ‘Literary Fiction’ Category

“One Hundred Years of Solitude”
September 18, 2012

One Hundred Years of Solitude

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcí­a Márquez

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

 

4.5 stars for the 'wow' moment at the end.

 

I was not quite sure what to expect when I began this book. The blurb behind my copy reads, “As the mysterious Melquiades excites Aureliano Buendia and his father with new inventions and tales of adventure, neither can know the significance of the indecipherable manuscript that the old gypsy passes into their hands. Through plagues of insomnia, civil war, hauntings and vendettas, the many tribulations of the Buendia household push memories of the manuscript aside. Few remember its existence and only one will discover the hidden message that it holds…” From it I gathered that this was a tale that revolved around a manuscript — apparently, it is not.

 

It is about six generations of the Buendia family; how they found the little village of Macondo, that rapidly grows into a town in and then becomes a metropolitan city. The visits of the first gypsies and the lives of the first Buendia generation in Macondo have a strong vein of mysticism running through the telling. It was a texture, a quality, that excited me, holding me spell bound. However, as the story progresses we are shown the step-by-step process of man's inventions and greed till the village that becomes a town that becomes a city, begins to degenerate in the very hands of the descendants of Macondo's founders.

 

I have discovered that Marquez is a very good story teller. In fact, the entire novel is told to us in the form of a story very rarely containing dialogue. While, ordinarily, I would not have taken to such a format (I'm glad I knew nothing of this when I began this book), I found that Marquez was so much master of the tale he was relating that you don't really miss the dialogue. Another thing I noticed is that you can not skip a single sentence. Each sentence is packed with story. It would have to be considering Marquez takes us through six generations in a matter of only 422 pages!

I've been trying to figure out the exact meaning and significance of the title. “Solitude” is an oft used word in this novel, usually used in relation to the members of the Buendia family, and the story covers a century. Perhaps, it even refers to the solitude of Macondo in terms of its isolation from the rest of the world in spite of its being involved in wars and experiencing colonisation of sorts. I would contemplate this further except that I would give much away.

 

This novel runs the gambit of the foundation, growth and degeneration of human civilisation — the ideas and emotions that prompt man to invent and explore, to build and grown only to destroy without thought or reason.

 

[This book is one more read for The Classic Club.]

 

Rebecca
August 31, 2012

 

 

RebeccaRebecca by Daphne du Maurier

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

My comments on this book are going to be very few, and hardly satisfactory for fans of Rebecca. However, while I found myself admiring and appreciating the plot devices and story itself, I could not attach myself to the whole. Throughout my experience of this gothic novel I felt detached. I doubt, really, that it’s any fault of the book itself. Perhaps it has more to do with my pregnancy and exhausted state of mind at this point in time.

*spoilers ahead*

I can honestly say, however, that I was not much taken in with either the narrator or Maxim de Winter. Neither of them had my sympathy. In fact, I found the former rather annoying with her missish ways and the latter put me off with his off-hand treatment of his second wife. Even when he drops the bombshell about his first wife on her, I could feel no stirring of sympathy or even pity. I simply couldn’t help wondering how perfect they seemed for each other — both superbly conscious of what other people would say about them.

I’ve noticed how some folk, in their reviews, have mentioned how much they’ve been drawn to Rebecca herself. I can’t say that I was. The very first description we have of her from Mrs Danvers was enough to put me off her completely — such an evil creature! Some might say she was simply spoilt, but I doubt there’s anything simple about the manner of woman she was! I will admit however, that du Maurier does a fantastic job in making you curious about this ghost. Like the narrator you really really really want to know all you can about the first Mrs de Winter.

For some reason the red rhododendrons along the drives strike forcefully in my mind’s eye as I think of that novel even now.That’s how intrusive and formidable a character Rebecca strikes me in spite of her absence. Mannerly also stands out as a most impressive character. Everything revolves around Manderley, and as though it were a living, breathing person, it takes on the hue and colours and characteristics of the development of the story. I think it absolutely fitting that Manderley is destroyed at the end. If it were Rebecca who made it what it was then it was bound to fall. After all, Maxim de Winter agrees to this sham of a marriage only because he loves his property and can’t stand a scandal that involves it.

Speaking of which, did anyone find Maxim de Winter weak? Everything for the love of propriety and property. And at the end (which is at the beginning) he can’t even bare the mention of Manderley or aching connected to it. His young wife must shoulder the burden on her own, and help shield him from his memories. Quite pathetic.

I like that the nameless narrator gains some back bone at the end.

I also like how du Maurier actually makes the second Mrs de Winter the shadow of the first Mrs de Winter, when it is the first that is actually the ghost. It was done superbly.

My copy of the novel has an article by a Sally Beauman that I read before beginning the story. In it Shea talks of Rebecca being in a cage much like the narrator, but the two women deal with it all differently….Maxim de Winter being the monster. Towards the end of the novel I found myself thinking “what utter rubbish!” Rebecca was in no cage. She knew exactly what she wanted and she got it. Simple. Too much false analysis is what I call that article.

Hmmm….this post has turned out to be longer than I thought it would. Really, I so sure I’d be writing a maximum of five lines on this because when I think of Rebecca my mind comes up rather blank.

I’d started out by giving this novel four stars but ended it with three for the immediate above reason.

What was your opinion of Rebecca?

 

The Classics Club: Question for August
August 5, 2012

What is your favourite classics book? Why?

This is the very first meme question for The Classics Club members…and really, for all its seeming simplicity, such a tough one at that! Does anyone have just one favourite classic? I know I don’t. Allow me to name just a very few favourites (along with links to reviews I’ve made on them).

…and this is barely the tip of the iceberg!

But, having written my thoughts on the above mentioned I’ve decided to pick a classic I’ve never spoken about on this blog at all. I’m going to go with Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (and The Fountainhead).

Do I hear groaning? :D

I will have to admit at the very outset, that Ayn Rand’s philosophy really sticks in my throat. I cannot agree with her. However, I do understand where she is coming from. I jump ahead of myself, though. For the unaware, Atlas Shrugged (and in a smaller scale, The Fountainhead) is a story about true genius going unappreciated. The genius works for his art or skill, while the mediocre people cash in on the benefits that come from being a genius. Therefore credit goes where it most certainly is not due. Rand objects and creates a world by an invisible (made visible towards the end) John Galt who is responsible for the sudden disappearances of the great minds of the world, no matter which field they belong to — art, business, science and so on. The world is grinding to a halt without these minds and desperate mediocrity seeks to make a deal with the greats.

Allow me to say at this point, that I really can’t go into details because it’s been so many many years since I’ve read Rand. But the thoughts and ideas have stuck to me. Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue and money is a worthy motive. Her heroes and heroines are larger than life. And really, there is something so powerful in her manner of style and the projection of her philosophies. The bulk of her philosophies come out in the famous speech of John Galt that I’ve heard many say they’ve skipped because it is 60 pages long! However, reading the speech makes you aware of the artist behind this creation.

It’s been awhile though. I should see if I can’t read it again some time. :)

So, what are your favourite classics?

On reading Amy Tan.
December 27, 2011

The Kitchen God's WifeThe Kitchen God’s Wife by Amy Tan
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

The Bonesetter’s Daughter by Amy Tan
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I got introduced to my first Amy Tan sometime during the beginning of 2011. My best friend leant me The Kitchen God’s Wife. I never really got around to reviewing this book, but I enjoyed reading about the relationship between a mother and daughter, separated, not only in years, but in language, culture and experience. Almost at the start of the book we are taken into the mother’s history, seeing the events that shape her into the woman she is today. Her forty-something daughter finally gets to hear her mother’s story, and they begin to develop some sort of understanding with each other.

The format is exactly the same in The Bonesetter’s Daughter. A mother and daughter have a greatly troubled relationship. They can neither of them understand the other. LuLing Young, the mother, is in her eighties and her memory is beginning to falter. She decides to write down her past before she forgets, and Ruth, her thirty-seven year old daugther, reads all about it, finally beginning to realise the reasons behind some of her mother’s more constant fears and odd behaviours over the years.

Luling’s history unfolds about half way through the book. I love how Amy Tan makes the distinction between the Americanised Chinese daughters, and the traditional Chinese mothers within the course of the narrative. When we begin reading of the mothers’ histories, the narrative becomes more descriptive, rich with Chinese symbols and motifs. At times, within the narrative of The Bonesetter’s Daughter the language would be painted on like that of a Chinese artist’s brush. I love it when we move into the ‘history’ portion of the novels, and as Chinese history is really a blank for me, I find it a lovely way to read all about it.

It has struck me, during the course of these two books, that the relationships between both sets of mothers and daughters is extremely strained. The mothers are full of superstitious beliefs, and the daughters are quite often embarrassed for their mothers. This reminds me of a trip I took earlier this year to Malaysia. When we went to the bazaar the older Chinese women were rude and cutting. If you stepped into their store you had to buy something or they quite literally threw you out! The younger women were a lot more restrained and polite. By the time I had taken this trip I had finished reading The Kitchen God’s Wife, and I simply couldn’t help but think about it whenever I came across the Chinese. It was an interesting experience. I’d never been kicked out of a shop before!! Ha ha!

But seriously, the lives these mothers have lead are so adventurous that their daughters lives in America seem so tame! I was also fascinated by the personalities these mothers exude. As old women they seem so stereotypical. But as we read about their past they are young women, so full of opinions and with incredibly strong survival instincts. They are very strong characters. I am impressed with their extremely practical side that helps them to move on optimistically, not allowing any situation drag them down, no matter how bad they are. But come to the present and they seem so quarrelsome and bad-tempered. I’m not sure I understand why the difference seems so vast. Can it be the hardships that finally make them so?

Whatever it might be, I think I’d be willing to read more books by Amy Tan. I enjoyed both these books very much! I understand that all her books are based on mother-daughter scenarios, but I doubt this would get old if her story-telling is so good.

A Long Long Time Ago…
November 10, 2011

A Long, Long Time Ago and Essentially TrueA Long, Long Time Ago and Essentially True by Brigid Pasulka

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

…and Essentially True. That’s the title of Brigid Pasulka’s debut (and currently only) novel. I had never heard of this book when I came across it at my favourite book store. I was glancing through the “new arrivals” section when its cover caught my eye. Actually, it was not the cover alone but the title itself. Who wouldn’t, especially if they loved fairy tales, stop in their tracks at site of a title that begins with “a long long time ago…”? A quick glance through the blurb at the back added to my firm decision to buy this book.

I had never, until I read this novel, ever read anything to do with Poland. Especially, with regard to its situation during World War II. So, for me, this was an entirely new experience. The novel covers a span of fifty years in the telling, but essentially it’s about two women – Anielica and her grand-daughter, Beata (known mostly by her nickname Baba Yaga – ouch!). Pasulka splits the narrative of these two women, running their stories side by side, thereby bringing out a strong contrast between their tales, but also bringing out the gradual backdrop of Poland from its beautiful, quiet life before the War to its economical, social, and political state in the early nineties. We read of Anielca and her angelic beauty, her courage and her strength in the form of a fairy tale. A young man nicknamed the Pigeon, falls in love with her the moment he sees her. He is supposed to be remarkable with making things with his hands. So he offers to renovate Anielca’s parents’ home, and in the process he courts her. However, war strikes home before the Pigeon can propose to Anielca, and the rest of the tale is about these people and their fellow-villagers surviving the terrifying months of battles and raids, while still holding strong through love. I simply admired the way Pasulka gives us this whole story – right from start to finish there is a distancing, magical element in the narrative, that keeps you glued to this love story, and makes you feel the way you would while reading something by the Grimm Brothers or Hans Christian Anderson.

On the other hand, though, there is the story of Baba Yaga after her grand-mother’s death. We are taken along in the first person to see the state of things in Poland almost as soon as it has gained its freedom (about fifty years after the World War). Things are a mess. The young live it up high, with no will to fight, to move along and make something of themselves. This attitude irks their parents’ generation – a generation that struggled for its country’s freedom only to watch the precious freedom being frittered away by the next generation that did not understand its value. This tussle between these generations is represented strongly in the lives of Irene and her daughter Magda – Baba Yaga’s cousins. We get immersed in the atmosphere of the times, and empathise with the struggle Baba Yaga has in order to find her niche in a world where nothing seems to have any order.

I really enjoyed reading this book. It was different in its approach to two stories told parallely. Each chapter alternates without fail between the love story of Anielca and the Pigeon, and the coming-of-age story of young Baba Yaga. However, I recall finding the flow smooth enough, enjoying the constant shift between tone, mood and atmosphere across the generations. I would highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys a could spot of literary fiction.

On How I’ve Been Swept off My Feet by “Gone with the Wind”!
August 24, 2011

I finished Gone with the Wind this weekend. There is still a part of me that wishes I had prolonged the last few chapters, given myself time to savour the final pages of this indescribable epic. It is such a powerful story of magnificent proportions in terms, not only of story, but of background, setting, and characterization. Seriously, I think Mitchell has a gift for drawing out her characters with such subtle complexity. As Mel says in his review of the same – The characters were amazingly well developed.   Just as soon as you think you have a character all figured out they do something that shocks you but you realize it is right in character and you just did not understand them well enough

Naturally, the most incredibly fascinating of all her characters is Scarlett O’Hara. I hated her. I was fascinated by her. I admired her. I despised her. Oh, and definitely at the end I admired her all over again. I can’t say that at any point I loved her or even liked her much. But I admired her traits of common sense although I did not agree with the means through which she worked for her gains. And, of course, the strength she has to survive and help all those, who depend on her strength, to survive as well. 

I believe this post is going to be quite a long one. I have so much I want to say about this book that I’ll be labeling each part. To those of you who have never read Gone with the Wind, a warning – there will definitely be spoilers ahead.

The “destruction” and “reconstruction” of Scarlett
Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara
Right from the start we see glimpses of a Scarlett we cannot much like. We see how she cannot stand it when any of her beau are attracted to her contemporaries. We also see how she “steals” them away with her whiles and charms. We see a determined young woman (I refrain from saying ‘lady’) who is used to getting her way and knows exactly how to get what she wants. She is like a spoilt child, and there is so little of the woman in her, really. As the story moves on we begin to be aware of her instincts of a survivor. She is strong, so much so, that the only person who truly knows and understands her, Rhett Butler, leaves her alone with four helpless dependents to find their way back to Tara. He knows that she will make it home without getting into danger. As a result we find that Scarlett has no use and spares not pity for the weak. This would explain the utter contempt she feels for Melanie, and later admiration when the latter shows that her spirit is strong even if her body is weak. And yet, considering that she despises weakness in others, she cannot understand that Ashley stands for the kind of weakness she has no patience with. She is so completely obsessed with him that it is too late by the time she realises that the two people she really loves are the two people she has shunned from the start – Melanie and Rhett. Then there is her obsession with money. Her greatest fear is such a basic one and such an earthy one that her drive to never be hungry again causes her so much in terms of the things that truly matter. At the end, though, when she realises that she loves Rhett Butler, she even understands that if they were poor it would not really matter as long as she had love. 
I believe all this realisation and loss begins the process of her growing from a willful child to a determined woman. Strange, though, isn’t it, that this process begins only toward the end of the novel, not to mention, that in spite of all the trials she goes through up to that point she can still maintain the cruel ignorance of a child. Personally, I like how this entire process of her personality parallels that of the “destruction” of Georgia and the “reconstruction” of the same. In the last page we see that Scarlett is not broken but is as determined as ever to get her way. One can only hope that this time around she would go about it in a more mature manner. 

Character foils for Scarlett
I suspect that Mitchell set up almost every character beside that of Scarlett’s. The three other main characters are Melanie, Ashley and Rhett. It is quite ironic that the two of these three characters Scarlett has the most in common with, she hates, while she loves Ashley without really understanding or knowing him. Melanie and Scarlett are both survivors. They are both strong in spirit, though Melanie lack physical strength. However, the strong fighting spirits are quite different. Scarlett fights with a will to come up on top, to never be hungry or without money again. Her driving force centres about herself. On the other hand, Melanie’s strength is for others. They lean on her and see her as a beacon of light – Ashely, the genteel people of Atlanta, the riff-raff of the same, and quite surprisingly Rhett Butler himself. Of course, Scarlett depends on her a great deal too. Something she realises only when she loses Melanie. If only Scarlett had recognised that the true strength of Melanie was what Scarlett herself understood only as a weakness. Up against Melanie, we see that Scarlett could have survived without losing her soul if only her aim had not been money. 

Clark Gable as Rhett Butler
Rhett Butler also serves as a foil to Scarlett. He is also there to show us how much of herself Scarlett destroys in order to never be hungry again. While these two characters are so completely alike in being selfish and unscrupulous in their means, we find that Rhett is still humane. He knows what kind of person he is. He knows the truth about himself. And so, while he laughs at the world he jeers at himself too. He is a cynical man. But he recognises what kind of people he comes across. He realises that Melanie is truly “a great lady” and not hypocrite hiding behind social etiquette. He knows why Ashley cannot survive in the world after the Civil War. Seeing what Rhett is one cannot help but notice that Scarlett is completely devoid of introspection. She is shrewd, smart, but as ignorant as a selfish child. Everything she sees and understands revolve around her insignificant self and so she never realises the worth of the people who are closest to her. 

Ashley Wilkes is the one Scarlett has the least in common with. In fact, apart from their background they share nothing else except delusion. They are both so deluded about the other, each thinking that they know the other so well. I found it so frustrating when both of them said things that took for granted that they each understood the other. Even at the end, when Scarlett realises that Ashley is as much a child as she is, and is way more lost than she has ever been, she does not truly understand why this is so. 

Ashley, a whimp?

He’s only a gentleman caught in a world he doesn’t belong in, trying to make a poor best of it by the rules of the world that’s gone. (p.1015)

Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes
 This is how Rhett describes Ashley to Scarlett when she finds that the latter is not what she had thought him to be. Do I believe Ashley is a whimp? I doubt it. We only say so in comparison to Rhett. But we know that he is indeed noble, honourable and full of physical courage. As he tells Scarlett when she says she fears hunger, he does not fear starvation. What he really fears is living in a world that he does not know, a world that is far removed from the libraries of home. He is, by nature, a gentle man – a man brought up in times of leisure, who lives in dreams, in the writings of the past, in all things that are beautiful, that is art. With the war Ashley has lost his “mainspring”. I love the speech that a minor character, Will Benteen, gives at the funeral of Gerald O’Hara:

Everybody’s mainspring is different. And I want to say this – folks whose mainsprings are busted are better dead. There ain’t no place for them these days, and they’re happier bein’ dead… (p.704)

 I think Ashley’s mainspring was Georgia of the past. With it went his will to survive. He was afraid of living. He did not know how he was to live in a world he was not brought up in. I believe those who survived the war, in the real sense, were those who loved a good challenge. The kind of people who perk when something dares them. One has only to look at the aristocrat Rene, and his lame friend, Tommy – both of who obviously reveled in the challenge to remake their lives. And then the determination of others, like Mrs Merriweather, who refused to let anything defeat them. For those like her they were still fighting a war that they had to win. But Ashely had never believed in this war. All he longed for was the past. And he was not alone in his longing.

Everything in their old world had changed but the old forms. The old usages went on, must go on, for the forms were all that were left to them. They were holding tightly to the things they knew best and loved best in the old days, the leisured manners, the courtesy, the pleasant casualness in human contacts and, most of all, the protecting attitude of the men toward their women. (p.598)

 Ashley simply didn’t have the heart to fight because he never had wanted to fight. Ashley, we see, isn’t a doer. He is a dreamer, and so completely misplaced. I doubt, though, that that gives anyone call to say that he is a weakling or a whimp.
Ashley and Rhett
Strangely, whenever I came across either character I never thought of their differences but their similiarities. It’s quite amazing how much these two, seemingly different men, actually have in common. As Rhett says (or was it Ashley who did? I cannot recall), fundamentally both men are alike. They come from similar backgrounds and upbringing, even to the extent of their bookish knowledge. Both of them strongly believe that the war is useless, that no good but loss of lives and a way of living can come out of the war. We see how it is the two of them that work to stop the Klan from functioning. And really, it is not ironical. Both are aware of the concept of the “winnowing of the weak”. In fact, both of them, at different times tell Scarlett this using almost the same words. Both of them are very self-aware. They have no illusions about themselves. Ashley is aware that he is not made of the mettle needed to survive the aftermath of the war, and he understands why. Rhett knows himself to be unscrupulous and self-centred.
Melanie
Olivia de Havilland as Melanie
It strikes me as interesting that Melanie is what Ellen O’Hara, Scarlett’s mother, would have been had she survived the war. The person Scarlett most admired and loved was her mother, and yet she was as unlike her mother as night is to day. It comes to mind how often Scarlett thinks of her mother’s teachings only to put them aside saying, none of it makes sense if she and her dependents are not to starve. Yet Melanie retains her gentleness and kindness in the midst of strife, while growing in strength and offering it to others.Really, I think Melanie is the strongest character in the story. She is the pillar of strength  where Ashley, Scarlett and Rhett and even Atlanta, are concerned. It is she who boosts up the morale of all the other characters.
Melanie and Rhett
I like the similarity between these two characters. I like how each of them is strength behind their deluded halves. How they are both the reason Ashley and Scarlett, respectively, make it through as far as the end of the novel, and how the latter two realise this only once they have both lost Melanie and Rhett, respectively. I also love the relationship these two have with each other – one of mutual respect and kindly love.
Margaret Mitchell
Mitchell’s mouthpieces
I noticed how Mitchell uses certain characters to voice insights into others and the real, underlying situation is Georgia’s Southern society. Among these characters Mitchell uses, rather prominently, Ashley and Rhett. They are both observers of the world around them and constantly  seek to enlighten Scarlett, and there-by the reader about people, their situations and their motives. Quite often, in fact, Rhett serves as an analyser of Scarlett’s nature. Another character who plays an interesting part in the revelation of insights into peoples’ nature is Old Mrs Fontaine. While she does tend to miss the mark where Scarlett is concerned (really, I believe Rhett is the only one knows her) she is spot on with every other character including, and especially, Ashley Wilkes and Melanie.
Mitchell’s thoughts?
I do not presume to know what Mitchell was thinking as she wrote this story, but it seems to me that Mitchell is just as admiring and despising of Scarlett as most readers are bound to feel. I doubt she particularly likes Scarlett. You can see how much she jeers at her own character even to describing her as having a “shrewd shallow brain” – an absolutely apt description, I think. It also seems to me that Rhett is really Mitchell, or in other words, Mitchell uses Rhett as the portrayer of her feelings regarding, not only Scarlett, but society and its strange sense of honour and dignity when pitted against common sense. And yet, it would seem, in spite of herself, even as Rhett does, that she cannot help but admire this society and admire the strength that is Scarlett’s. Perhaps, even in spite of Scarlett, Mitchell loves her as does Rhett.
However, from what I’ve heard, Mitchell’s true heroine is really Melanie. I think this becomes quite apparent when Melanie dies as we see who this affects all the people around her including the other main characters. All of them realise that she was their foundation, in a manner of speaking – the person they depended on for love and kindness and generosity. I think Mitchell also sets Melanie up against Scarlett in showing us how, in order to survive, one need not lose one’s humaneness and natural courtesy. Yet, now that I think about it, I wonder, if, in order for Melanie to retain her gentle nature and survive if she did not need Scarlett a great deal in her turn. I think that might be true or Melanie could not have survived – physically that is.
Some things about the emancipation
1. How much did Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin really influence the North’s opinion of the South? It seems to me, from this novel, that its influence was great. Also, I read somewhere (I cannot remember where) that this novel was highly sensationalised and not based completely on fact. How true or not true is this?
Hattie McDaniel as Mammy
2. I found it fascinating the way the Southerner think of the “darkies” and the Northerners’ reaction to the same. The former treat them so well in spite of their being slaves, and the latter fear and distrust them in spite of freeing them. Big Sam’s and Uncle Peter’s experiences with the Northerners were really heart-breaking in a way. I’m curious about the real situation at the time. It seems to me, though, that the outdoor slaves did not have much of a good time, though, it would again seem, that these are the ones that were weaned away from the good, hard-working and trustful lot.
Well, that’s it for now. I think I have covered all that I have wanted to cover, and I’ve rambled on quite a bit!
I loved this so much, though. And thanks to Jillian and her passion for Gone with the Wind and Margaret Mitchell that really spurred me on to pick up this brilliant novel. :D

Comments from my old blog:

Comments (21)

This is simply a brilliant post-I will come back and respond in more detail later-

1 reply · active 7 weeks ago

+1

Risa's avatar - Go to profile Risa 74p · 7 weeks ago

Am looking forward to your comments!:)
Wonderful post. This is one of my favorite books of all time. My favorite character is Rhett, he is a much more complex character than you would think. I think you did a great job of describing him.

1 reply · active 7 weeks ago

+1

Risa's avatar - Go to profile Risa 74p · 7 weeks ago

Thank you.:)
I loved Gone With the Wind so much when I read it, and this is a great review/analysis/everything- I wouldn’t even know where to begin writing about it! One thing though- whenever I think of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, I always think of Gone With the Wind, and how it seemed like everyone had read it and already formed ideas on slavery. And even though I know that Gone With the Wind completely romanticises slavery (‘we don’t mind not being free, because we love the families that own us!’) I think it makes a good point of how northerners wanted the slaves to be free, but didn’t necessarily want to treat them as people. I just thought that was a pretty interesting point to make.

1 reply · active 7 weeks ago

+1

Risa's avatar - Go to profile Risa 74p · 7 weeks ago

I wonder if Mitchell’s being from Georgia influenced her romanticising of slavery? But, on the other hand, I’ve heard that Beecher Stowe’s novel sensationalised it a great deal. I need to read Uncle Tom’s Cabin again from this point of view. I remember, when I read it, how much I cried! I’m also looking at reading Roots in a month or two. It would be interesting to view slavery from the point of view of a black man whose ancestors have been through it all…
I really enjoyed reading this, especially as I’m doing a reread of Gone With the Wind at the moment.I was just on holiday in America and visited Margaret Mitchell’s house in Atlanta. The guide had lots of interesting things to say about Mitchell’s inspiration for the characters. Apparently Melly was based on a cousin of Mitchell’s,who was forbidden from marrying her first cousin and so ended up doing good works in a convent. Melly is similar, only she gets to marry her cousin. It fits in with the theory that to Mitchell, Melly was the real ‘heroine’ of the story.

6 replies · active 7 weeks ago

You know Margaret Mitchell’s first cousin was Doc Holliday, right? Of OK Corral fame?The cousin you speak of (forbidden to marry) was a nun. Holliday was the cousin she was forbidden to marry, as well as Mitchell’s cousin. The nun was also a cousin to both of them. Holliday was in love with the nun (both Mitchell and Holliday’s cousin.) So it’s believed that Ashley Wilkes was in part based on Doc Holliday.Mitchell visited the nun after writing GWTW, and said somewhere (I forget where) that Melanie was indeed based on her cousin the nun. I think that’s the only character she ever conceded had been inspired by a person in real life.
+1

Risa's avatar - Go to profile Risa 74p · 7 weeks ago

Did she have a tendre for this nun cousin of hers?…
A what? She loved her, if that’s what you mean?
+1

Risa's avatar - Go to profile Risa 74p · 7 weeks ago

Yep. That’s what I meant. I’d wondered since in one of your posts you’d mentioned that Mitchell said Melanie was the true heroine of the book, and Melanie is treated with a great deal of love and care in this novel.:)
Oh, yes. As I remember, she loved the cousin and went to see her after the publication of GWTW. The nun was much older than her. Doc Holliday too. I think he died before Mitchell was even born. The nun (Martha Ann “Mattie” or “Sister Mary Melanie”) was in a hospital for some reason, and Margaret used to visit her. My memory that Doc Holliday is her first cousin is from a visit to the Margaret Mitchell House in Atlanta a couple years ago. I haven’t actually researched it, though I saw it verified in a biography I read about Doc Holliday…
+1

Risa's avatar - Go to profile Risa 74p · 7 weeks ago

Interesting. It also seems to echo Carreen’s, Scarlett’s youngest sister’s, decision to enter the convent having lost the only man she ever wanted to marry. Sounds like you’ve had a wonderfully education trip.:D….. I’ve never been to a home of a writer. I hope I get to do so, some day.
I enjoyed reading your analysis. This is one of the novels that I read when I was a teenager (I think around 17) that well and truly cemented my love of fiction. I think at that age, I was mostly aligned with the roller coaster ride that is Scarlett. The more subtle strength of Melanie was a little lost on me at the time, even though my mother named me after that character :) I would enjoy reading the novel again now with the benefit of some life experience, and your incisive insights. Many thanks.

1 reply · active 7 weeks ago

+1

Risa's avatar - Go to profile Risa 74p · 7 weeks ago

Thank you, Mel!:) So your mom’s favourite character is Melanie, then? I really liked her quiet strength, though, at first, her inability to see anything that was the truth about Scarlett, was rather frustrating.
Risa, this was an INCREDIBLE review. You saw so much more in your first read than I can put into words after three reads. I got misty-eyed reading this — truly — because it blows me away how much you saw in this work. You make me want to read it all over again just to see what you saw. So thank YOU for the inspiration!! :-) 1) I haven’t read all of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, but as I understand it, you are correct: it’s inaccurate. Stowe was a sensational novelist and used that base audience to sell Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Sensational novels were basically like soap operas today. I just visited the Stowe House in Cincinnati a couple weeks ago. Stowe was a hard-core abolitionist, and she was smart to sell to the women — to sensationalize slavery to put it in front of their faces. (As I understand it), Uncle Tom’s Cabin is read as pretty racist these days. (I’m not far enough into it to be able to say myself.) Women back then weren’t allowed to read newspapers — often. Any news they got was through their husband’s filter. So Stowe gave them the news in a form they’d be likely to ingest, and it worked. Big time. Wish I could further comment in the book’s validity, but I don’t know enough on it yet.2) As I understand it, the outdoor slaves were “lucky” in the eyes of the house slaves, because they weren’t under the constant eye of the plantation owner and his family. The indoor slaves usually lived with the plantation family, while the outdoor ones got their own cabins and had a bit of (freedom?) while they weren’t in the fields. This is debatable of course! And I can hardly say since I wasn’t there. But from what I’ve read, the house slaves were the first to leave once they got their freedom. As to North/South relations with slaves, the abolitionists were a VERY small percentage of the Northern population. Most were fighting the war to preserve the Union. They didn’t want to free the slaves, didn’t consider them equal, didn’t much care about their cause. Abolitionists were considered by Northerners as well as Southerners exceedingly radical — not only for their ideas on slavery, but for their willingness to let women speak publically. To be an abolitionist was very difficult. There were also different levels of abolition. Some only felt slavery shouldn’t be spread, but should be contained in the states where it was currently active. Others felt it should be altogether abolished. Lincoln was of the prior mindset, as was Thomas Jefferson. The radical abolitionists (the ones fighting for complete and immediate abolition) were a tiny percentage of people, considered pretty crazy by most.Lincoln made the Civil War a war about slavery when he gave the Gettysburg Address, basically saying that the lives lost at Gettysburg wouldn’t be lost in vain, they’d be lost to a greater cause — freedom. That statement turned the focus of the war from retaining the Union (by preventing the spread of slavery into the West), to gaining freedom for the blacks. Not all (not even most) were happy with this turn in focus. When the blacks were freed, many headed for the port cities, and people in the North and East felt jobs were lost because they went to the sudden influx of newly freed blacks. Southern Democrats in particular were outraged. The Republicans (Northerners) briefly granted black men the right to vote shortly after the Civil War — not because (most) actually cared about equality (on the whole), but because they wanted to fill the voting box with votes for the Republicans, so that they could get the Senate majority. Be nice to the new slaves, they’ll vote for your guy. (That’s where “forty acres and a mule” comes in.)

When Hayes ran for President after Grant, the Southern Democrats worked out a deal that if he’d allow them legally to prevent blacks from voting in Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida, they’d put him in office. Again, this was to get a majority in the Senate. Hayes agreed, and any forward advance the blacks had made after the war was lost, and wouldn’t be regained until what is now considered the second Reconstruction — the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

So to answer your question: on the whole, I wouldn’t say the Northerners were kind to blacks, except where they might have advantage. There were exceptions, absolutely. But like I said, that was a minority in the North.

3 replies · active 7 weeks ago

+1

Risa's avatar - Go to profile Risa 74p · 7 weeks ago

Thank you, Jillian. I was so caught up in all of it, I don’t think I put down everythingI’ve wanted to say!Is Uncle Tom’s Cabin viewed as racist? I had no idea. Makes me want to read it again to find out how so, how inaccurate it really was. As I mentioned in response to someone above, I’m hoping to read Alex Haley’s Roots in a month or two, and to be enlightened on the whole slavery thing from a black man’s point of view. It’s a pity that the North disguised their attempt at a Union with the South under the pretext of the abolotion of slavery. I guess it shows, at least in GWTW, that the north did not really care about the slaves. The canvasing for votes was obvious. But the fact that nothing was planned for a whole race of people suddenly set free with nowhere to go and nothing to do, was rather in your face. I felt angry. I realise it was a political move, but it made me wonder about Abraham Lincoln whom I have been told was a man of honour and truth. Then again, I don’t know anything about Lincoln except the praises sung of him.
Well, I don’t want to dishonor the work of those who did care. Look up the Transcendentalists for views of the people who cared – Louisa May Alcott, Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, etc. Bronson Alcott lost his students at his Temple school (which was becoming respected worldwide) when he allowed an African-American girl to join. He knew the risk and did it anyway. I live in the center of the Underground Railroad (the one that is depicted in Uncle Tom’s Cabin.) Some (many) risked their lives to get runaways to safety. So I don’t mean to imply that no one cared – just that the romantic view of the American Civil War as the Northerners fighting to free the slaves – isn’t accurate. Abe Lincoln? I believe he was an honorable man. He met often with Frederick Douglass in the White House for advice during the war. No other President had allowed an African-American to enter the White House, let alone to speak with him man-to-man. As I understand it, Frederick Douglass had respect for Lincoln. I want to read about Lincoln though (and Douglass), to satisfy myself on the matter. Lincoln was a politician, no question. But before the war started, he was speaking out against slavery, saying it was wrong. What gives me pause is that he didn’t fight as a radical abolition; he didn’t believe blacks and whites could ever live together as absolute equals. What gives me further pause (which I also intend to research) is that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence and owned slaves that he never freed. That gives me BIG pause. I guess while you’re learning, remember that most of the arguing about slavery had to do with sectionalism – keeping the Senate balanced between North and South. Look up the 3/5 rule about African Americans, and the Missouri Compromise, and John Brown, and you’ll start to see what was happening right before the war. Most especially, look up “Bleeding Kansas,” the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Missouri Compromise. And then to see the Northern reaction to black freedom, look up the New York riot of 1863.
+1

Risa's avatar - Go to profile Risa 74p · 7 weeks ago

Thank you Jillian!:) I’ll be referring to this comment for awhile while I look up these various titles/acts/incidents you’ve mentioned. It looks like I might need to read them if I want a more objective look at this part of American history…
This is easily the best review of Gone With the Wind I ever read. There’s absolutely nothing left for me to say, except that when I read this for the first time last year, it went directly to my list of best books of all time, and it will be staying there permanently.

1 reply · active 5 weeks ago

+1

Risa's avatar - Go to profile Risa 74p · 5 weeks ago

It’s on my favourtie list too now! And I’m already anticipating and relishing the thought of a re-read, perhaps next year.:D I’d never thought I’d read Gone with the Wind after watching the movie when I was around eleven and finding it rather boring. Now I’m simply thrilled about!

Orange July 2011 Wrap-Up Post: Burnt Shadows
August 3, 2011

We’re already three days into August and I’ve yet to write my wrap-up post for Orange July 2011! I joined this event in the hope of reading a 2009 shortlisted Orange Fiction book. I had found it rather a difficult read, and I quite despaired of ever finishing it. I managed to, though, nearly two weeks ago. 
Burnt Shadows by Kamila Shamsie
The story is about a survivor of the Nagasaki bombing of 1945. Hiroko Tanaka looses everyone she knows and loves, but has the strength to move on. She travels to Delhi, in India, where she knows she will find her dead fiance’s sister, Elizabeth, and her family. Elizabeth immediately welcome Hiroko and begins to treat her like she was indeed her sister. With Hiroko’s flare for languages, she seeks to learn Urdu from the family employee, Sajjad Ashraf. They fall in love, but the whole chaos that erupts from the partition of India, renders them exiles and they are forced to live in Pakistan after they get married. There is a time loop and they come to the period of the Cold War. Beneath the surface there are factions rising in Pakistan, and the son of Hiroko and Sajjad, gets involved at the age of sixteen. Circumstances cause him to lose someone he loves because of his unwitting involvement in the war. Again, there’s a time loop to a few months after the September 11 bombing in New York. We see a Hiroko nearing her ninetieth year, as she dwells with her old friend, Elzabeth, and her grand-daughter, and their sons are involved in a dangerous game of life.
While the story itself was captivating, it was not captivating enough when the language was rather dry. I found that the characterization was rather shallow. There was not a single character that I could relate to on any level. And at some point, the novel began to read as an action novel, with none of the literary quality one would expect in a piece of proclaimed literature. The end of the book takes a rather unexpected turn. There is a sense of completeness and incompleteness; the former in the life of Hiroko and the latter in the suggestion of so much more that could happen. And yet, with all that takes place in this one woman’s life, we get pieces of interesting commentary on the effects of war, but nothing from Hiroko’s emotional experience itself.
On goodreads I’ve given the book three  stars because of its rather speechless end. Otherwise it had really been courting a two-star rating from me.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 210 other followers