novels | Rachael Loves Reading

Review: Oroonoko

Posted on September 12, 2015 by Rachael

Oroonoko, Aphra Behn, 1688.

Rather unsurprisingly, Sparknotes doesn’t have a summary of this book, so see this one at a site called GradeSaver.

So a lot of people in the class were hating on this book, because people were like WTF, why do we have to read this book no one’s ever heard of from the 17th century by some person no one’s ever heard of?

I kind of sympathised with these arguments at first, but after learning about Ms. Behn, and reading this book, I didn’t mind having this book on the course. Haters gotta stop hating.

(Not related to this review, but I love Taylor Swift.)

Oroonoko is considered one of the earliest novels in English literature, which is pretty cool to begin with, but the fact that it’s written by a woman is even cooler!

According to her Wikipedia page (don’t judge me), Behn was ‘one of the first English women to earn her living by her writing’, and ‘broke cultural barriers[,] serv[ing] as a literary role model for later generations of women authors’. She was also a spy for the monarchy of Charles II–even cooler!

So I liked reading her stuff. Might have even been cool to study one of her plays as well, but that probably would have pushed the haters over the edge.

Oroonoko is a great find from the 17th century…better than Gulliver’s Travels (which is 18th century, but whatever)!

Props to Ms. Behn!

PS. Apparently someone adapted Oronooko into a play?? Read a review about it in The New York Times here.

–Rachael

Review: Northanger Abbey

Posted on September 12, 2015 by Rachael

Northanger Abbey, Jane Austen, 1817.

The 2008 Oxford World’s Classics edition of Northanger Abbey, that I definitely had in Fourth Year when I did the Jane Austen class. I sadly can no longer recall which edition of NA I had in First Year. The good thing about this edition is that you get JA’s other little fiction snippets!

First off, see Sparknotes if you haven’t read NA.

Okay, admittedly I was a little wary of this book at the start because I remember my Mom saying that she didn’t like Northanger Abbey all that much, and she is a big Jane Austen fan. I was nervous about what this book could possibly have in it to make my Mom dislike it.

Well, to our mutual surprise, Northanger Abbey is my favourite Austen (other than Pride and Prejudice, of course). Northanger Abbey is just endearing and good fun the whole way through.

NA is a parody of ‘Gothic’ (what one might call horror…but not Stephen King levels) novels, which were popular in the 18th and 19th centuries. Gothic novels often had spooky, abandoned castles, locked doors, and suspicious people with secrets to keep… Northanger subverts all of these tropes. The spooky old castle is just old, and too big for the family living in it. The cupboard is just a cupboard, to keep laundry in, not secrets. And no, that guy didn’t do that thing that you think he did.

Catherine Morland is the perfect pair of eyes through which Austen makes the Gothic look ridiculous. Catherine Morland, at 17 years old, has never really left home before, but has enjoyed reading Gothic novels. So when she does finally leave home, and arrives at Northanger Abbey, her favourite books seem to come to life around her! It’s impossible to fault Catherine for her naiveté, because her experiences are what make the book so entertaining. Some may find Catherine to be a rather weak heroine, but I enjoy her greatly.

So I would say, give this rather underrated, under-appreciated Austen a go!

You should also look into Val McDermid’s modern re-telling of Northanger Abbey.

McDermid replaces the Bath society scenes with the chaos of the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, and updates Catherine’s Gothic favourites to the infamous Twilight series, and their ilk. It’s great fun, and not the usual sort of thing McDermid writes, so enjoy it! (The first picture is the US paperback edition; the second the UK paperback edition).

And if you’re interested in a film version, there’s a good one starring Felicity Jones as Catherine, who you may recognise if you’ve seen the recent film The Theory of Everything, as she plays Jane Hawking in it (it’s also got Carey Mulligan in it, playing Isabella Thorpe, an actress I like a lot who is also currently in the film of Far From the Madding Crowd, which you should see if you have the chance) (AND it also has Liam Cunningham as General Tilney, who some may recognise as Davos Seaworth from the TV series Game of Thrones).

Lastly, because I can’t find any reviews of Austen’s Northanger Abbey, here are some reviews of McDermid’s.

–Rachael

Review: Frankenstein

Posted on September 12, 2015 by Rachael

Frankenstein, Mary Shelley, 1818.

The first copy I bought of Frankenstein for the Second Year English class. I bought it from the used book store Barnardo’s, so it didn’t cost more than £5.

The more scholarly edition of Frankenstein (specifically the 1818 text) that I used for my dissertation. Shelley published a second edition of Frankenstein in 1831 that has a foreward, and other amendments, so it was important that I have the original 1818 version.

The Norton Critical Edition of Frankenstein that I also bought for my dissertation, because Norton Critical Editions always include scholarly essays on the text.

The Penguin Classics Deluxe Edition that I bought because the cover is cool.

Same story here. I bought this edition for the cover. Pulp the Classics is a great little imprint that make rather humorous covers for classic books (I have their editions of Pride and Prejudice, The Picture of Dorian Gray, and The Hound of the Baskervilles). Somehow they’ve made The Monster look a little like (an older) Kevin Bacon on this cover…maybe that’s just me.

Vintage Classics edition of Frankenstein that I hope to get one day, because it has Mary Shelley’s earliest draft, with Percy Shelley’s comments. This is the ultimate nerdy scholar edition, which I wish I had had for my dissertation, but better late than never…

So as you may have gathered, I love Frankenstein. Reading this book was a special experience. As was the case (pun!) with Jekyll and Hyde, one may think they know what Frankenstein is about. However, there is (to my knowledge–I didn’t see the stage production of Frankenstein with Benedict Cumberbatch in it) no adaptation that lives up to the real thing (though Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein is good fun).

The most amazing thing about Frankenstein is the fact that in the book The Monster can speak and read. The whole point of The Monster in the book is that he actually isn’t a ‘monster’; he is essentially kind, and good-spirited. His ability to learn and use language is what humanises him. We can understand why he does ultimately resort to violence against Victor; because it is the only thing Victor will respond to and, in a way, it is what Victor expects of The Monster.

Anyone who reads Frankenstein and whose heart doesn’t melt at The Monster learning to speak and read, and at The Monster watching the De Lacey family has a problem. That is why I love this book. For those scenes.

Many people are surprised that this book was only written in 1818, and I think this is because the book feels rather modern–both in its construction, and themes. This book really kicked off the science-fiction genre, as well as the great debate in literature, as well as other media, about the morality/ethicality of scientific experimentation. A great credit to Mary Shelley, especially as she was only about 21 years old when Frankenstein was published. Not many people have written such enduring works of literature at such a young age.

I’ll be writing more about Mary Shelley later, when I get to the Dissertation part of ‘The Big List’.

Also, you’ll notice I haven’t included a link to the Sparknotes summary of Frankenstein, and that is for two reasons. 1) I don’t think the summary is very good and 2) I really think you should read Frankenstein. However, out of consideration for those with very busy lives, here is the Wikipedia page on Frankenstein, which has a better summary, and some good information on the story behind Shelley writing Frankenstein.

For further reviews on Frankenstein:

The Guardian, August 6 2014.
The Guardian, November 11, 2013.
The Independent, August 28, 2014.

The 2011 National Theatre production of Frankenstein starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller that I wish I could have seen. Looks very interesting.

The unfortunately ubiquitous image of Boris Karloff as Frankenstein’s Monster in the 1931 film that everyone should try to erase from their minds. The monster does not have bolts in his neck, for Christ’s sake!

That’s probably it from me on this, though my respect and admiration for this book really knows no bounds.

–Rachael

Review: The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

Posted on September 12, 2015 by Rachael

The Strange Case of Dr Jeykll and Mr Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson, 1886.

Penguin Classics edition of Jekyll/Hyde that I did in fact have to purchase, but I bought it from a second year English student, so it only cost me like £3. This cover may give you nightmares, but I guess that’s kind of the point.

See Sparknotes.

This is one of those stories that’s in the public consciousness enough that you think you know the story, but when you read it, you’re really pleased to find that it’s just even better than the idea of it you had floating around in your head.

One of the best things about this book is how short it is. I always appreciate shorter works of fiction for my classes (just wait till we get to the Victorian Novels class in third year), but in this case (pun!) it’s really nice being able to just pick up Jekyll on a stormy evening, and appreciate the atmosphere of the text, in conjunction with the stormy atmosphere outside. This is the perfect thing for Halloween night if you live somewhere where you don’t get a lot of trick-or-treaters (like our house). You can read it all in one evening, and still have time for other things, like a Tim Burton movie marathon. Whatever suits your fancy.

But more seriously, the other great thing about Jekyll/Hyde which you don’t get without having read the book is Jekyll’s mental struggle over Hyde (Jekyll’s confessional chapter at the end). There’s something really tempting about the freedom and purity of sensation of Hyde’s animalistic rage, so you can understand why Jekyll is drawn to being Hyde. Yet Jekyll can’t also help but be completely disgusted by Hyde and his actions as well. It’s a great moral dichotomy here. Very compelling.

What’s also great is the setting–the unsettling anonymity of the urban metropolis of late 19th century London. A place where you never really know who your neighbours are. It’s only in this kind of place where Hyde can exist, preying on people and getting away with it. Totally spooky. Excellent street scenes. Even the lampposts are creepy!

There are several adaptations of Jekyll & Hyde in several different media. I would love to see a stage version; I think it would be really interesting seeing one actor playing both Jekyll and Hyde.

Poster from the 1880s. I don’t know if this is an advertisement for the book, or what, but it’s pretty cool!

You can find proper reviews of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde here, in The Guardian, and here, from The British Library.

–Rachael

Review: Beloved

Posted on September 12, 2015 by Rachael

Beloved, Toni Morrison, 1987.

We read this book in high school as well, so another free copy for me!!! I saved rather a small fortune on books in first semester. However, whatever money I saved on books was invariably spent on other things (food, coffee), so I didn’t come out ahead.

See Sparknotes before beginning this review.

I have great respect for Toni Morrison, and I hope to read her new book, God Help the Child, but I did not get this book, and, based on conversations with classmates, no one else really did either. I really enjoy magical realism (again, One Hundred Years of Solitude), but this is something else all together.

The main issue with this book is that it’s written in a stream-of-consciousness style all the way through, so it’s often difficult to tell who’s narrating at any one point, and what is going on where/when. This book is a like trying to read someone’s dream journal written between 4 and 5 AM. I can respect Morrison’s reasons for writing in this style. I don’t inherently dislike stream-of-consciousness style writing. It can be rather effective (see The Catcher in the Rye). I just think that in this case, the transitions between characters, time, and place are rather abrupt, making the book difficult to follow. But some people must have understood it; I mean, the Pulitzer Prize committee must have, because they awarded Beloved the prize in 1988.

I don’t want to say that I disliked this book, because I feel that’s unfair to Morrison and the narrative she’s trying to write. I just didn’t understand it, even after reading it twice. Maybe third time’s the charm?

Final note: Apparently Beloved was made into a film in 1998 starring Oprah (Winfrey, as if there’s any other) as Sethe? Maybe the film will make the book a lot clearer? I don’t know, but maybe I should give it a try.

If you want to read a proper review of Beloved, check out this review from The New York Times.

–Rachael

Review: Heart of Darkness

Posted on September 12, 2015 by Rachael

Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad, 1899.

Norton Critical Edition of Heart of Darkness. This is the edition I got from my high school when we studied the book in 12th grade, so, once again, I didn’t have to buy the book! I was on a roll!

For those of you who haven’t read Heart of Darkness, see Sparknotes.

Another generally positive review from me, though more for the text’s ease of use than its plot. And by ‘ease of use’ what I mean is that this book has some of the most obvious symbolism and imagery of any book I’ve ever read. Another one is The Awakening by Kate Chopin, which we also read in high school, and, incidentally, was written in the same year as Heart of Darkness. So Heart of Darkness is a very comprehensible, and workable text, which is excellent for high school and undergraduate coursework. I thank Joseph Conrad greatly for this, though I’m not sure he would take it as a compliment. And I really don’t mean this as a slight against Conrad. I thought his prose was very good, and I really like his tone and perspective. I admire Conrad for writing this in his third language!

That’s probably all I have to say on Heart of Darkness. Regrettably, I have not seen Apocalypse Now, the film starring Marlon Brando which is a re-telling of Heart of Darkness in the context of the Vietnam War. I should get around to that soon, but I can’t lie, I am rather put off by Marlon Brando’s big creepy face on the poster. Apart from his playing Stanley in A Streetcar Named Desire, I really don’t like Marlon Brando. I like The Godfather, but I don’t like Marlon Brando. Sorry.

For a proper review of Heart of Darkness, you can check out reviews from either The Guardian or The Independent, whichever suits your fancy.

–Rachael

Review: Wuthering Heights

Posted on September 12, 2015 by Rachael

Wuthering Heights, Emily Brontë, 1847.

1983 Bantam Classics edition of Wuthering Heights that I think we also just had around the house! Hooray for not having to buy the book, again! I rather like the windswept-ness of this cover.

For those of you who haven’t read Wuthering Heights, consult Sparknotes.

I must confess that before even touching this book, I had some (as it turns out, completely incorrect) thoughts on what this book was all about. To me, the word ‘Wuthering’ sounds flowery, sappy. Like a limp handshake with someone who’s got overly-lotioned hands. This word in my mind is the colour lavender. It also sounds like a good word to describe that shudder thing horses do when flies land on them. Or to describe someone who’s being really indecisive when ordering food. IDK, but the word ‘Wuthering’ didn’t (doesn’t) tick any good-sounding boxes in my head. And put together with ‘Heights’ it just made me think of bad soap opera drama type shows on ABC family.

So I thought this was going to be a soppy romance, like The Notebook or something.

And I think I read in some interview with Johnny Depp (it may have been in People magazine) that Wuthering Heights was his favourite book.*** I was confused as to why a girly romance would be his favourite book–I mean, he’s a cool dude.

So when I finally read this book, I couldn’t have been more WRONG.

Wuthering Heights is not a sappy love story. It is not The Notebook. Yes, there is a man and a woman, and man loves woman, but that’s about it as far as ‘romance’ goes.

However, I was very happy to be proven wrong! I liked Wuthering Heights, despite its creepiness! As you may have gathered in my review of Great Expectations, I like the creepiness and the eerieness! However, Heathcliff does get to be a bit much. He’s rather alarming in his obsessive stalking and creepiness–a 19th century Christian Grey, if you will. And there’s some puppy murder in this book. NOT OKAY.

As frustrating as it may be for the poor Catherine Earnshaws (mother & daughter) to be stalked by Heathcliff, the generational continuation thing across the two parts of the novel is my favourite thing about it. I love that sort of stuff in novels, where you get to see the progression and changes of subsequent generations over time. One of the reasons I love One Hundred Years of Solitude so much (but we’ll get to that in a later review).

I don’t know that I have much more to say about the novel other than I was pleasantly surprised to have been proven wrong. I don’t know why Emily Brontë chose such a feeble sounding word as ‘Wuthering’ to title her novel…maybe other people aren’t as put off by the word as I was (am). But another positive review from me on this one. Minus the puppy murdering. I’d love to have a word with Emily on that one.

***Upon further review, apparently this interview I’m remembering was in Cosmopolitan magazine. How embarrassing. Anyway, here is the quotation that stuck in my mind: ‘Am I a romantic? I’ve seen Wuthering Heights ten times. I’m a romantic.’ I think he may have missed the point of WH more than I first did. Maybe this 1939 film he’s referring to tried to paint over WH as more of a romance à la The Notebook??? If the poster’s anything to go by it looks almost more like Frankenstein than Wuthering Heights!

Review: Great Expectations

Posted on September 12, 2015 by Rachael

Great Expectations, Charles Dickens, 1861.

The 1963 Signet Classics edition of GE that we had lying around in the house that I brought with me to uni. Hooray for not having to buy the book! Apparently this edition cost 60 cents in 1963, which in today’s money is $4.64 (which at the moment is exactly £3).

Overall I liked Great Expectations. There were definitely some things I liked more than others, but on the whole pretty enjoyable, and a good start to my university career. I was, however, a little stressed about finishing it in time before classes started (a sign of things to come…)!

For those of you who haven’t read Great Expectations before, consult Sparknotes.

So Charles Dickens. A huge name in literature, yet I’d never read anything by him before. Shame on me.

First, let’s talk about the things I liked about the book.

Pip, what a charming name for a protagonist.
I really liked the opening scene in the graveyard. It felt very atmospheric. Beautifully touching moment of Pip sitting in front of his parents’ graves. I loved the mist amongst the tombstones. All very evocative, and because of this fogginess, you really feel startled when Magwitch pops out from behind the tombstone and confronts Pip.
You can really feel and share Pip’s mortal fear at being faced with the imposing Magwitch. A testament to Dickens’ skill at conveying emotion, and eliciting empathy from readers.
In a similar way, you can really engage with poor Pip’s agonising guilt and paranoia about Joe and his sister finding out that he stole the file, and some bread for Magwitch. Very compelling and engaging.
Magwitch defending little Pip, what a nice convict.
Miss Havisham & Satis House. My top feature of the book. I would probably read a book just about her and the house–origin story, please! Miss Havisham is my favourite character in the book, other than the sweet, young Pip in the first ten or so chapters of the novel. I mean, you can’t help but love little Pip. He’s called Pip!! Anyway, I love her sort of ethereal, not-all-there, living ghost quality. I love the frozen-in-time look to herself and the house. Wonderfully eerie. It’s got that Tim Burton-y vibe that I like. Just beautiful, and delightful visual fuel for the imagination.
Estella. I love that Miss Havisham has basically trained up a heartbreaker/man eater. Some people will be frustrated by Pip being rejected at the end, but I enjoyed it. A+ revenge-is-a-dish-best-served-cold move from Miss Havisham (though she claims to pity Pip, and beg his forgiveness–I call BS on her, she’s putting it on). Although I guess it is a little unfair on Pip. Whatever. I think this whole issue of the ending, and how fair or satisfactory it is, is a great discussion point.

I think that’s the majority of the things I liked about the novel. On to the things I didn’t like as much.

Pip starts out as an admirable young lad, but his crippling sense of moral righteousness/impetuousness, etc. gets a bit grating as it goes on. It’s also frustrating that he can never view Magwitch as anything other than a convict, and snub him because of it. Pip is just too rigidly fixed in certain areas, and though it makes the social and class themes of the novel work, it’s not that enjoyable to read. I think that’s partly to do with more modern sensibilities. We want our characters to be a bit more adaptable these days.
From about the time that Magwitch and that other guy, Compeyson, show up at Pip’s place of residence (approx. Chapter 39), to the end of the novel, I found that it was really hard to follow the plot, and make sense of what was happening. Kind of convoluted.
Orlick’s attack on Pip’s sister. I thought that was going a little far. I know Pip’s sister isn’t a very likeable person, but you can’t help but feel pretty bad about how she’s left after that attack. Orlick is the Ramsay Bolton of Great Expectations, which is fine, whatever, I’m not objecting to the presence of a cruel, masochistic character, I just really didn’t think this bit was necessary to the plot of the novel. (see rage about that scene from GoT).
Compeyson…he’s a convict like Magwitch?? How does he fit in to all of this? Who’s he related to? I’m so confused!
Wopsle…who’s he again? Why is he important? He seems to pop up all the time? idk…
Jaggers, Wemmick, Herbert Pocket, Startop, Drummle.?! TOO MANY PEOPLE, DICKENS!

So, to summarise, enjoyable on the whole, despite its convoluted-ness and complications, which I think is caused partly by there being too many characters to keep track of, and Pip’s inflexibility, which is part of Dickens’ whole point about social and class ‘expectations’, but rather frustrating and tiring as the book goes on. It would really be great if someone wrote a prequel about Miss Havisham & Satis House.

If you’re interested in a screen adaptation, there are plenty to choose from, but I liked the 2011 BBC mini-series.

Also, if you want to read a proper review of Great Expectations by proper book reviewers, consult this review.

–Rachael