Lady Chatterley's Lover - DH Lawrence

lady chatterley's lover

dh lawrence

c. 1928

324 pages (154 pages read)

stopped reading 4/10/2011

read for: back to the classics challenge, page to screen challenge, penguin classics, 1001 books

*may contain spoilers*

Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically.

Only months after marrying Connie, Clifford Chatterley is wounded in the trenches of World War I. Though at first feeling pride in her duty to her husband, now paralyzed from the waist down and confined to a wheelchair, Connie soon finds herself feeling stuck in a loveless marriage and a meaningless life. As Clifford pulls away from his wife, becoming more involved with his new housekeeper and his writing, Connie searches for her own fulfillment in the form of a relationship with her husband's gamekeeper.

I'm not really sure if she ever find fulfillment since I didn't finish it. Even though I have feelings of failure whenever I put down a book, I'm trying to get myself to quit books I'm really not enjoying so I'm not just dragging my feet and can move on to something more enjoyable.

Two things that made me put down the book...First, I really couldn't get behind the relationship between Lady C and the gamekeeper. It seemed really forced. Neither of them seemed to provide any reason for any sort of attraction or affection for the other, and I felt their relationship began very bizarrely, based more on convenience or lack of any other option. Maybe I'm wrong and an understanding of their motives for entering into such a relationship becomes more apparent if I keep reading, but I was put off by their initial love scene. This was a time of sexual and social revolution for women and in England especially, it was quite explosive. So I would have expected Lady C to be less passive in the process.

Second, I have trouble at times when novels are neither plot nor character driven, but are instead given over to the author's musings on a specific philosophical or social issue (in this case female sexuality). Some musing is fine, but I start to tune out significantly when ruminations so greatly take the place of active narration. I like action. To me, that's important, and I feel it can replace and enhance too much musing and can often better show (as opposed to tell) an author's thoughts on whatever issue it is (s)he's musing over. Wilkie Collins is a good example of this (and the first that popped into my head), using No Name as a commentary on the absurdity of inheritance laws.

Last of all, I discovered this is one of those texts where I'm much more interested in its history and influence than actually reading it. The obscenity trial in England in the 60s is pretty interesting.

1/5

As I read this in part for the Page to Screen Challenge, check back later for my review of the 1992 miniseries.

The Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck

the grapes of wrath
john steinbeck
c. 1939
619 pages (232 read)
stopped reading 3/28/2011

read for: back to the classics challenge, page to screen challenge, 1001 book, penguin classics

*may contain spoilers*

To the red country and part of the gray country of Oklahoma, the last rains came gently, and they did not cut the scarred earth.

Tom Joad is released from prison after serving a four year sentence for killing another man in a bar fight. He returns home to his family in Oklahoma and finds them packing all their belongings in one lone truck, having been pushed off the land in favor of faster and more cost efficient tractors. Deciding to break his parole, Tom joins his family as they journey to California in search of the American dream.

It took me two months and I only got this far. Some of that I can attribute to the end of the quarter and finals and all, but that's mostly an excuse. I wanted to like this book so badly! So much so that I may actually revisit it at some point. But for now I'm deciding to put it down. Despite writing my senior AP English paper on Steinbeck when I was in high school, I haven't read a whole lot of his work (in all honestly, of the three major texts I discussed in said paper, one of them actually was The Grapes of Wrath even though I didn't read it). The two novels of his I've read are not even quintessential Steinbeck. Instead of East of Eden or Of Mice and Men, I've read The Winter of Our Discontent and The Pearl. Both I really enjoyed, and I looked forward to reading his more popular work.

And there were things about Grapes I really enjoyed. Steinbeck has a beautiful voice, and he has an incredible ability to transport his readers with his words. And his characters are complex and flawed and deeply relatable, even though I've obviously never lived in Depression-era Oklahoma. Those elements were alive and well in Grapes and in those respects I really enjoyed it.

My problem reading The Grapes of Wrath came from the supplementary chapters. Every other chapter followed the story of parolee Tom Joad and his family's exodus to the bounty of California. The ones in between explored the experience of the Depression and the Dust Bowl on a more national level. These chapters were often beautifully written and were I to ever become a history teacher, many of them would be read in my class during our discussion of the Depression. However, for me, the way they broke up the action of the story completely stalled the momentum. Everything would come to a screeching halt, and the fits and starts kept me from fully engaging in what was going on. Like I said, maybe at some point I will try again, but for now I need to put it down.

1/5

The Holy Thief Movie Review

the holy thief
1998
starring: derek jacobi, anthony green, benedict sandiford, and louise delamere

watched for: page to screen challenge

*may contain spoilers*

I know that I just said in my last movie review that I'm an advocate for people cutting movies based on books a break sometimes, but again I'm going to have to be a complainer for this movie. I've seen all of the Brother Cadfael episodes that were broadcast on "Mystery." In fact, I'd seen them all multiple times long before I ever started reading the series. But this is one of the few I've only rarely seen. I assumed that was simply due to Sean Pertwee not playing Hugh Berringar (because really, what's the point of watching if someone else is playing Hugh?), but after revisiting the movie for this challenge, I've decided there are two major problems, each containing LOTS of reasons to stay away. This movie installment is all kinds of terrible.

Problem One: Plot. TOTALLY, TOTALLY DIFFERENT! There's a somewhat different mystery (Daalny's been kidnapped, what?) and a completely different murderer and motive. Yes, I did feel like the motive in the book was a little weak and so I assume the filmmakers agreed which led to the change, and that I could totally get on board with, except what they changed it to made no sense to me. And became historically inaccurate.

Problem Two: Characters. Just about every character in the film is a major distortion of their print counterparts. In the book, Tutillo is mischievous and a bit of a rogue. You honestly feel there's a possibility he was the killer. In the movie he's nothing more than a wet blanket. Prior Herluin, though he's obviously in the wrong regarding St. Winifred and is a bit fanatically devout, is not nearly the ridiculous demonic caricature that's portrayed on screen. And Beaumont goes from being someone who's questionable and complex to a cruel and creepy creature. Even the regular characters are completely distorted. Hugh Berringar, Cadfael's best friend who's usually so fair minded and level headed and in basically ever way Cadfael's equal, is now an ass who inexplicably believes in ridiculous things such as dunk tests (where if you sink in water you're guilty) and cares less for justice and more for easy fixes. And saddest of all was Cadfael himself. I truely think Derej Jacobi IS Cadfael, but this episode had him picking fights and being snotty and cruel towards everyone and it was just horrible.

I really do mostly love these movies (especially One Corpse Too Many and The Sanctuary Sparrow) but this is the one to skip.

2/5 Read my review of the original book here.

Scaramouche Movie Review

scaramouche
1952
starring: mel ferrer, stewart granger, janet leigh, and eleanor parker

watched for: page to screen challenge

*may contain spoilers*

I am usually a strong advocate for film versions of books. I think people sometimes can be extremely harsh in judging the transition from one medium to another and can be overly critical of every minute detail change. For this movie, however, I think I have to join the ranks of the overly critical. Now, there were certain changes I could understand and get on board with, such as condensing the story so that Andre's time in the theater troupe and his time learning to fence happened simultaneously. I understand changing the age of the Marquis to make it more believable to have him and Andre both vying for the affections of Aline. And I even understand changing Climene's name to the much less French Lenore (for a 1952 audience). But that's about as far as the understanding could go.

There was no point in making Lenore Andre's girlfriend from the get-go and Aline a girl he'd never met before. Aline went from being a strong-willed, spunky, and even sometimes arrogant young woman in the book to a demur child-like innocent in the film, just as Andre went from being a thoughtful and intelligent man to being basically a boor and a man-whore. I really couldn't understand the appeal of making Andre fall in love with Aline only to make him "discover" her to be his sister (he finds out later she's not). Who needs a gross incest subplot? Andre's whole family plot unfolds so interestingly in the book, and yet the way it was changed for the film honestly left me confused. I'm all for changes that make sense and/or enhance viewing pleasure, but these changes were pointless.

The thing I found the most ridiculous? In the book, Andre plays a pretty big role in the beginning of the French Revolution. French politics are the backbone of the story. The movie, however, reduced Andre's whole motivation to that of mere revenge, almost no politics in sight. The only reason the viewer would know this takes place during the French Revolution is the randomly added character of Marie Antoinette (not in the book) and Philippe's pamphlet blatantly subtly titled "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." In the movie, Andre makes no political speeches and his role as Scaramouche in the Commedia is reduced to nothing more than a slapstick clown. Scaramouche is not just a clown. He's supposed to be a satirist. Also, if we're really going to get picky, he's supposed to be Spanish and dressed all in black (hence Freddy Mercury referring to him as a silhouette and asking him to fandango). If I wanted to continue in this vein, I could also complain about Lenore being called Columbine (Columbine was a soubrette, a flirtatious and mischievous servant, whereas Climene was supposed to be an innamorati, one of the lovers), but I'll let it lie.

To be totally fair, had I not read the book I think I could have enjoyed it a lot. In fact, I did manage to enjoy the second half once I'd gotten over my initial abhorrence to all the seemingly ridiculous changes. And I will note that it does have some historical value in having (one of?) the longest continuous swashbuckling sword-fights ever filmed (clocking in at over six minutes), which was a great scene. But it wasn't quite enough for me.

3/5

Read my review of the original book here.

The Holy Thief - Ellis Peters

the holy thief
ellis peters
c. 1992
275 pages
completed 1/12/2011

read for: historical fiction challenge, page to screen challenge

*may contain spoilers*

In the height of a hot summer, in late August of 1144, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, deferred to the heat of the sun, and made the final, fatal mistake of his long and opportunist career.

Ramsey Abbey had fallen prey to a band of soldiers of the Empress Maud's party who had left their cause for the more fortuitous pursuits of ransacking and pillaging northern England. The sudden death of Geoffrey de Mandeville left them without a leader and the monks were able to reclaim their abbey. Sub-Prior Herluin and his enigmatic companion Brother Tutillo travel to Shrewsbury in search of money, supplies, and labor to aid in Ramsey Abbey's rebuilding. They stay long enough to help the monks of Shrewsbury protect their treasures against a tremendous flood. When the flood is over and the monks of Ramsey leave, Shrewsbury discovers its most precious treasure, the bones of St. Winifred, is missing. It's quickly discovered to be making its way to Ramsey. Brother Cadfael aids Hugh Beringar to discover if the theft was the work of a man or if St. Winifred herself made her way into the cart. But before the matter can be settled, Cadfael and Hugh may find their holy thief to be a murderer as well.

As the penultimate book in the Brother Cadfael Chronicles, The Holy Thief doesn't disappoint. Brother Cadfael is right in the thick of things, befriending and aiding the accused, breaking some abbey rules in order to investigate, conferring and conspiring with Hugh and Abbot Radulfus. I was pretty disappointed with the last installment (see: Summer of the Danes), but this one was back on track.

Cadfael's relationship with St. Winifred has always been an element of these books that I've really enjoyed. Sometimes Cadfael can come across as slightly too practical for a monk so witnessing their communion is always nice, especially considering what's actually in St. Winifred's reliquary. I also really appreciated the balance between Cadfael's practical feelings on the trial by bible element of the theft (a scene I really enjoyed) as well as his experience of the miraculous as he interpreted the words. Though he knows those can easily be rigged and interpreted in many ways, the words spoke to him very specifically.

In every installment in the series there is always at least one set of lovers (one of which is usually the accused) that Cadfael helps to bring together. And USUALLY I always like them. There have been occasions where I wasn't wild about one or the other (again Summer of the Danes springs to mind). In this case, I liked both characters separately, but the two together left me cold. First off, they didn't interact a whole lot so I wasn't able to see and understand them falling in love. They seemed a little mismatched to me.

I always love when one of these books makes reference to characters and events from previous episodes. And this one had lots of shout outs: Brother Columbanus, Liliwin, and Soulien Blount, all from different books. Nice.

I only have one more to go. I'm going to be so sad to see the series end. :(

4/5

As I read this in part for the Page to Screen Challenge, check out my review of the 1998 TV-movie version here.

Scaramouche - Rafael Sabatini

scaramouche
rafael sabatini
c. 1921
406 pages
completed 1/8/2011

read for: historical fiction challenge, page to screen challenge

*may contain spoilers*

He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.

Distraught after the murder of his childhood friend, Monsier Philippe Vilmorin, for his "dangerous gift of eloquence," Andre-Louis Moreau vows to see justice done. After being brushed off by the law due to the murderer being a Marquis, Andre-Louis takes to the streets of France to incite the Third Estate against the over privileged nobility, continuing the work Philippe died for, though he himself doesn't believe in his friend's idealism. His speeches, echos of Philippe's words, are considered treasonous, and Andre-Louis is forced to go into hiding. He takes up with a band of improvisational actors in the tradition of the Commedia dell'Arte, but he doesn't forget his vow to avenge Philippe or the politics that drove him into hiding. Andre-Louis's life becomes an adventure of secrecy and swashbuckling sword fights, set against the backdrop of the French Revolution, during which his original cynicism may yet become the idealism of his friend.

First off, I always love a strong and memorable opening line and this is definitely a great one. And it really sets the tone for the rest of the book. I don't often notice an author's particular writing style and sentence structure unless it annoys me, but this is one of the times when I noticed how much I felt it added to the story.

Plot-wise I found this book to be constantly engaging with elements of both drama and comedy. It had a good balance of both which I found refreshing. Sometimes adventure/swashbuckling stories like this can take themselves a little too seriously and be too straightforward. And at other times they can try to be a little too hyper-aware and fall over themselves trying to be in on the joke. I hope that made sense. There was a lot of humor, especially in Andre-Louis' scenes with the acting troupe, and some rather dark comedy when Andre-Louis would address the National Assembly after killing other Assemblymen in duels. Yet there was constant drama as well, both political (this is the French Revolution, after all) and much more personal.

I found certain aspects of the personal drama to be a little soapy (the identity of Andre-Louis' mother was obvious as soon as the woman was introduced, even though Andre-Louis had no idea), but for the most part it was deeply complex (I was SHOCKED by the identity of Andre-Louis' father). One aspect that really made the book enjoyable for me was the fact that the villain, the Marquis de la Tour d'Azyr, is introduced very much through the eyes of Andre-Louis and Philippe and so for the first half of the book he seems like nothing more than a monster. However, as the book goes on the reader is able to see him through his own eyes and really come to understand some of his motivations making him much more complex and more man than monster. At first these scenes seemed so incongruous with the way Andre-Louis viewed him, but eventually I was able to put all the pieces together to understand him more. By the end he's much more an antagonist than a straight up villain.

The last time I read a book that focused so much on the politics of the French Revolution, I really wasn't able to comment on the historical accuracy of that book (see: Mistress of the Revolution). This time, however, I was just coming off a history class on the French Revolution. I have to say, it's extremely enjoyable to read a historically set book and really feel like you have a solid grasp on the history of the time. I mean, let's be for real, one class hardly makes me an expert or anything, but having that knowledge really enhanced my enjoyment. I even have a historical quibble! In the book, Andre-Louis went from a member of the National Constituent Assembly to the Legislative Assembly newly created under the constitution of 1791. This would have been impossible, however, as Robespierre passed a "self-denying ordinance" barring any member of the National Assembly from sitting for the Legislative Assembly. This one quibble in no way detracted from my enjoyment of the book, though. In fact, it just made me feel smart. If there had been lots of mistakes, that would have been another story...

5/5

As I read this in part for the Page to Screen Challenge, check out my review of the 1952 film version.

A few last minute additions...

Okay, it's official. I've gone insane and am signing up for two more challenges I'll never finish. To be fair, a lot of the books on these two lists are crossovers from other challenges (and one reread), but there are still a fair number of new ones, too. So here goes.

First, as a major lover of the movies, I'm joining the 2011 Page to Screen Challenge. I've decided to attempt the third level, so 15 books. 20 seemed like too many, but 10 was too few. Really, I want to do 12 to fit beautifully into the 12 months of the year, but 15 works, too. I'm also planning to participate by both reading and watching, so I'm going to watch all the movies too. My books will be...

1. Scaramouche - Rafael Sabatini
2. The Holy Thief - Ellis Peters
3. Lady Chatterley's Lover - DH Lawrence
4. Les Miserables - Victor Hugo
5. The Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck
6. La Mort d'Arthur - Thomas Malory
7. Catch-22 - Joseph Heller
8. The Great Gatsby - F Scott Fitzgerald
9. I Will Repay - Baroness Emmuska Orczy
10. Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte
11. Water for Elephants - Sara Gruen
12. The Name of the Rose - Umberto Eco
13. Mystic River - Dennis Lehane
14. Eduring Love - Ian McEwan
15. Harry Potter - JK Rowling

And the other is the Historical Fiction Challenge. What with my love of history and all, this one's kind of obvious for me. And in this instance I decided to just go crazy and choose the highest level "severe bookaholism," or 20 books. I know. Right after I posted above that 20 was too many. My books will be...

1. Scaramouche - Rafael Sabatini
2. The Holy Thief - Ellis Peters
3. Full Dark House - Christopher Fowler
4. Of Love and Other Demons - Gabriel Garcia Marquez
5. Brother Cadfael's Penance - Ellis Peters
6. The Glass of Time - Michael Cox
7. I Will Repay - Baroness Emmuska Orczy
8. The Diamond - Julie Baumgold
9. The Revolt of the Eaglets - Jean Plaidy
10. The Blue Star - Tony Early
11. The Heart of the Lion - Jean Plaidy
12. Water for Elephants - Sara Gruen
13. The Maiden with the White Hands - Rosalind Miles
14. Small Wars - Sadie Jones
15. When Christ and His Saints Slept - Sharon Kay Penman
16. The Name of the Rose - Umberto Eco
17. Dragonwyck - Anya Seton
18. The White Queen - Philippa Gregory
19. The Day the Falls Stood Still - Cathy Marie Buchanan
20. An Artist of the Floating World - Kazuo Ishiguro