war and peace. leo tolstoy. (77)

in claire messud's "the emperor's children", one of the character's julius was a bit of a hot mess when it came to love. he was constantly pondering if he was a natasha or pierre and this pondering lead to my reading of "war and peace". also "anna karenina" sparked a interest in russian literature, so i decided to read more tolstoy.

as you may recall i had translation problems with "anna karenina" and in my search saw that tolstoy endorsed the maude one. however, i found out that was a bunch of hoopla. but thanks to read russia's great translation chart i went with dunnigan translation because academics endorsed it. (though i wish i read the ecco press version with more peace and less war because let's get serious i could have done without all the battle and retreat talk). the chart was right with its description of it being a small fat book. it was 1455 pages, well 1425, there was about 30 pages of intro, though i didn't realize how thick it was until anyone and everyone who saw me reading commented on its thickness. see below:

and with its 50 million pages it took me an eternity to read. or what felt like one, especially at the end, those last 50 pages were torture. it actually took me 3 months to read but i took breaks to read 7 other books that came in for me at the library and needed to be returned within the three weeks allotted for checking out. luckily for me, "war and peace" wasn't a popular library book because i was able to recheck it out after having it for 9 weeks. (you only get two renewals but if when you turn it in there are no request you can recheck it out.)

so where does one start for a blog entry on a book that was 1400 pages long. i will say that i believe that this work is better than "anna karenina". it had it all war, romance, scandal, philosophy, historical theory, political science, and religion. i think the reason it is not called "the greatest novel ever" is the fact that no one ever has the time to read it. though i wonder if it was split up and called it a trilogy with a prequel if it would do better? the book is already divided into four books. like i told grandma bea, it's not a lot of pages if you think about how many pages the harry potter series is. publishers should give this idea a spin, cash in on the trilogy trend.

so the novel:

"war and peace" is the story of five families in russia during the war of 1812 and the napoleonic invasion of moscow. i think a testament to tolstoy's great writing is that he creates such great characters. and just like with "anna karenina", i became invested in their lives. i admired all of the families with the exception of one, the kurágins. (btw it was so confusing to keep track of all the russian names so make sure you read a version that has some kind of family tree or listing). the kurágins are kind of like kardashians, you love to hate them. and though they are horrible people, they are a great source of drama so you look forward to their appearance in the book. plus they are stupid and vain, are wealthy but not as a result of hard work, and trick the world into worshipping them. (for kurágins its the russian elite, for the kardashains its america.) the family member i abhorred the most was hélène. she would be the kim, down to the point where they both tricked men into marrying them and both of their marriages ended up in fatty paychecks. i hated hélène because of what she did pierre. it made my blood boil how she looked down upon him when he had his bastard status but once he surprisingly received his father's inheritance, her family forced him to marry her! then she cheated on him not only once but twice! she even remarried even though he was still alive! and poor pierre risked his life for her, when he challenged one of her lovers, dolokhov (who was pierre's friend), to a duel. she died in the end, i forget from what, but that is partially because i imagine it being syphilis, the whore!

and then her father (who is definitely kris due to all of his plans to make his kids wealthy by forcing rich people to marry them) tried to have her brother anatól marry princess mayra (who i loved) because he knew his son was idiot and would have no great income of his own. but then he made a pass at this french lady that was mayra's BFF and thank god princess mayra was smart enough to know once a cheater always a cheater. and then anatol goes on to ruin natasha's engagement to prince andréi by attempting to kidnap her so he could marry her! and to top it off he was married at the time! what horrible people, but what good scandals! (seriously though someone should make a primetime drama based on these storylines!)

but aside from those black souls, everyone else is extremely lovable. due to "the emperor's children", i anticipated pierre and natasha being my favorites, but that was not the case. i did love pierre and felt bad for how his story started out and could not believe all he suffered especially during the invasion. all of the turns and twists in his story, had me on the edge of my seat. i constantly worried about him and wished he had a friend to help him out.

natasha was a great character as well. in fact one of my favorite quotes was about her as a girl: "natasha skipped back and jumped up and down one spot like a goat". i can just see her young and full of joy jumping like a goat. lol. nastasha keeps the reader entertained with all of her lovers. however, at times she was such a silly girl that i couldn't handle her. but thankfully in the end she did mature.

but of all the characters, my favorites were nikolai rostov and princess mayra. i don't want to give too much away but i thought they both had such sweet spirits. their love was boundless that one can not help but love them. they both put their family first and made sacrifices for their loved ones. as i read, nikolai reminded me of levin (who i absolutely loved in "anna karenina") with his admiration of peasant life and dedication to his family. their storyline was one of my favorite but do not want to give too much away.

the "peace" storylines were great and kept me glued to the book. during those parts the pages just flew by. but the "war" part not so much. it was like pulling teeth. i enjoyed the "war" parts when it included the storylines of the characters i knew, prince andrei, and the rostovs, especially nikolai's lispy friend, denisov. however, all the talk about the generals and tsar bored me to death to be completely honest. i was tried of reading about kutuzov and people's opinion of him. i think it was because it was so repetitive, especially the discussions about the retreat. it just seemed like every chapter involving that part of history seemed to be the same thing over and over. even as a history major it became too much for me. i like a little bit of history mixed in my novels but not entire textbooks excerpts. i hate to admit it but my eyes glossed over some of the war talk because it wasn't that interesting.

i did gloss over the ending. i almost didn't finish the book. the last 50 pages are tolstoy's analysis of napoleon's invasion and legacy plus and theories on history: what is power and what is power that moves nations. again even as a history major, reading it was tedious. i was tempted to not read the last 50 pages because in all honesty who would know if i didn't. but i had to be true to myself so i read the words though nothing truly stuck.

and let me clarify, tolstoy made interesting points in the last section of the book. he did pose very thought provoking questions but lacking knowledge of the war of 1812, napoleon and tsarist russia, i couldn't contextualize his theories. and though his theories were about history in general, i was wanted to finish the book and not think. he did raise questions of where does power truly lie among the masses or within leaders. (he discusses this within the book pointing out how the people who have the least prestige in armies are ironically the ones that armies are reliant upon, the soldiers. he also discussed how the courses of the battles were not directed by those in charge but by individuals on the battlefield when they were seeking immediate solutions. soldiers directed the course based on what was occurring at the moment. and furthermore, if there is no existing deity what is will and thus the will of god in the context of history? i remember in high school, impressing my history teacher with my question of "but how do we know the king was actually chosen by god? how do we know that god gave him power?" it's true most of history is explained via fate or destiny but what is this greater force? interesting stuff but not what you would expect to see in a novel, especially after 1400 pages so hopefully my glossing can be forgiven.

religion played an important in this book. pierre became a freemason and was on a search for spiritual peace. (random note while i was reading about his freemasonry, i was shocked at that this secret society was discussed. i wonder if tolstoy got in trouble for revealing secrets? i for one am not that interested in the freemasons but liked their whole finding someone to give gloves part). princess mayra was über religion to the point of letting pilgrims stay with her. even prince andrei found god toward the end of the book. however, even with all the talk about god and christianity. my theory is that tolsoy was a buddhist. i wikipedia'd it and it looks as though he was a christian and was a big promoter of non-violence. however, from what i read, he still sounded more of a buddhist. are there christian buddhists? i googled it but it looks like there are buddhist christians.

here are some examples of tolstoy's buddhist thought:

while imprisoned in the shed pierre learned, not with his intellect but with his whole being, that man is created for happiness, that happiness lies within him, in the satisfaction of natural, human needs, and unhappiness arises not from privation but from excess . . .

(buddha realized his suffering came from excess and promoted an abandonment of worldly possessions.)

in the last he had been unable to see the great, the unfathomable, the infinite, in anything. he had only felt that it must exist somewhere and he has been seeking it. in everything near and comprehensible he had seen only what was limited, petty, commonplace, and meaningless.

[. . .] now, however, he learned to see te great, the eternal, the infinite in everything, and therefore in order to look at it, to enjoy his contemplation of it, he naturally discarded the telescope through which he till then been gazing over the wads of men, and joyfully surveyed the ever-changing, eternally great, unfathomable and infinte life around him. and the closer he looked, the happier and more serene he was. the awful question: what for? which had shattered all his intellectual edifices in the past, no longer existed for
him. to that question: what for? a simple ander was now always already in his soil: because here is a god, that god without whose will not one hair of man's head falls.

(buddhism prompts this notion of looking for god in everything.)

and lastly on his deathbed, prince andrei thought to himself:

"love? what is love?" he thought. "love hinders death. love is life. all, all that j understand i understand only because i love. everything is, everything exists only because i love. all is connected by love one. love is god, and to dies and that i, a particle of love, shall return to the universal and eternal source."

(i know that christians believe in love and returning to god, but this passage implies a spirit returning to be part of a higher being, versus being human form
in heaven.)

there is a lot more to be covered from this book but instead of going in depth just thought i would highlight some of the random thoughts i had as i read:

is bulkwinkle's boris and natasha named after tolstoy's boris and natasha?

did natasha's nursing of prince andrei's remind anyone of kitty's nursing of levin's brother?

what is with all of the female taking lovers in tsarist russia?!?!

what did the painting of the king of rome look like? (i googled and that event really did happen.)

why did pierre let himself be forced into marriage?!?!

and how clever of the russians to burn their own city. i would rather leave ashes for invaders than riches for them to loot.

i think julius from "the emperor's children" was more of a natasha. he wasn't pure of heart enough to be pierre.

(that was just some of them.)

all in all, tolstoy's "war and peace" is truly a great novel. there were so many surprise twists that i literally gasped or shook my head in amazement of how life worked out for the characters. if you have time, i highly recommend it and good luck on the war parts.

romeo and juliet. william shakespeare. (57)

again flavorpill's "30 before 30" list is the motivation behind another book. shakespeare's "much ado about nothing" is on list but the description explains:

We expect that by the time you’re 30 you’ll have read several Shakespeare plays — we recommend one per year at least, starting at age 12 — but this one is our favorite.

i sadly realized that i have never read a complete shakespeare play. "romeo and juliet" was assigned my freshman year, and i only read 3/4 of it. we were assigned "othello" my senior year which i never read though i do remember this hilarious satire we created about race and sexual orientation for a class assignment.

however what makes my relationship with shakespeare even sadder is the fact that our drama teacher was a shakespeare fanatic and i was cast as a member of the chorus for at least 2 plays . . . and still have never read a play.

so i decided to redeem myself and read them all (hopefully before 30). so i decided to start with "romeo and juliet" because it's where my relations with shakespeare should have started 15 years ago.

the funny thing while reading it, images from the 1968 movie (with a young michael york. swoon) and the lurhmann version (no swoon for leo, i have never found him sexy) were both in my head. though 68 beat out leo and claire, in the end.

finally reading shakespeare and not relying upon cliffnotes. i learned:

a. tybalt and mercutio were cousins to the prince (missed that my freshman year and sadly didn't realize it while watching endless rehearsal of my high school's production of it.)
b. consummating marriages was a top priority back then.
c. shakespeare sure did love his sexual innuendoes. (the nurse's jokes about juliet being on her back?!?!)
c. he sure knew how to write about love:

My bounty is as boundless as the sea,
My love as deep; the more I give to thee,
The more I have, for both are infinite.

or

How silver-sweet sound lovers’ tongues by night,
Like softest music to attending ears.

i also appreciated (though not about love):

True, I talk of dreams,
Which are the children of an idle brain,
Begot of nothing but vain fantasy

one reason that i never gave shakespeare a chance was, i could not follow his flow (i know, this makes him sound like kanye) but now that i am older, his words make more sense. or maybe i am just paying attention for the first time. nonetheless, i look forward to reading the rest of his works.

ps i would also just like to add though i may not have paid attention to our high school production of "romeo and juliet" like i should have. i did create a magic moment in the play. i suggested that our drama teacher play the foo fighters' "doll" as juliet drinks the poison. in my own humble opinion it was beautiful.

perfect huh?

pride and prejudice. jane austen. (56)

before i start, this is not the bookcover i checked out. the one i checked out was old, blue and plain. i choose this cover because it shows my newest obsession thanks to "pride and prejudice" . . . colin firth.

i have to say that at first i didn't care for "pride and prejudice." maybe i was blinded by my pride, there were times when i found darcy's and elizabeth's conversation hard to follow, were they flirting with each other?!?!
or maybe i was unjustly prejudice against it, the brönte sisters didn't win me over with their "great" romances, so jane austen didn't stand a chance. i wasn't completely invested in elizabeth and darcy's romance, maybe because i knew it would sort out from. so my anticipation resulted in impatience and so the book moved too slowly for me. i mean it was like get on with it already. and stop with the weird stares, darcy!

however, like elizabeth's feelings toward darcy did a 180. so did mine. i read "pride and prejudice and zombies" immediately after and found mr. darcy, oh so more romantic on my second reading. (the zombies didn't help, but the re-reading of austen's text did.) then i checked out the BBC mini-series and of course after watching colin firth in that bathtub and diving into the lake, i was smitten, with firth and "pride and prejudice".

that lake scene is not in the book. but it sure is in the mini-series. and i mean he doesn't even get close to naked but watching him walk around wet afterward, sure is sexy!

prior to reading the book, i had never seen the mini-series, only knew colin firth played darcy. yet as i read, i visualized firth as darcy, even more random it was firth as mark darcy from bridget jones' fame that i actually imagined.

nonetheless, it resulted in me being obsessed with colin firth afterward. the embarrassing kind of obsessed. i.e.:

a. watching "what a girl wants" (yes, starring amanda bynes) not only once but twice (abc family and MTV randomly aired it)
b. watching "love actually" (it's the only firth film i own) and fast forwarding to watch his scenes
c. watching the mini-series twice in 1 week (i wanted to get my viewing worth before returning it to the library)
d. buying "fever pitch" on ebay (i had no idea it existed until i amazoned "colin firth dvd", okay maybe amazoning "colin firth dvd" is the embarrassing part)
e. borrowing "a single man" from friend (though this isn't that bad)
f. buying the pride and prejudice BBC companion novel cos he was on cover
g. buying "the king's speech" book cos he was on the cover (in my defense it was only $1)
h. contemplating buying the episode where he proposes in the mini-series so i can have it on my kindle to watch whenever i want

sad, i know. i realize that i am not actually in love with the colin firth but it's the lloyd dobler effect that chuck klostermann writes about in "sex, drugs, and cocoa puffs". (women love john cusack because we are in love with his character lloyd dobler from "say anything".) colin firth has the mr. darcy effect. and i know, he is 20 years my senior and happily married with a family but in a perfect world, we would have a "lost in translation" friendship. we'd meet in some hotel bar (maybe at the four seasons), i'd take him karaoke-ing (in k-town) and wear a pink wig. we'd end the night at some random taco truck and when we'd part, he'd whisper something in my ear that only i could hear and would never share with anyone . . . okay, i'll add:

i. making up fantasy about hanging out with him in LA ala "lost in translation"

oh and i have to share one last "pride and prejudice" purchase! this adorable tank that i got at uniqueLA. i was a little tipsy when i bought it and had this longest discussion about "pride and prejudice", colin firth, the bbc version, the keira knightly version and the zombie novel. ps this doesn't get a letter cos its not embarrassing.

sorry i know this a book blog, so some thoughts on the actual book. i had seen bits and pieces of "becoming jane" so got that storyline confused with the book. but i guess if austen wrote about her life than this makes sense. i now want to read her memoir.

this too was on flavorpill's 30 before 30. though i am not sure if it would make my list. i did admire elizabeth for her boldness and unconventionality; not accepting mr. collins' proposal, standing up to lady catherine (at dinners and the proposal inquiry) and of course landing darcy. and she does have a great cinderella story, a girl without strong social relations marrying a man having ten thousand a year! and it is a reasonable love story. although i love romances (and romantic comedies), i am also very skeptical of them. (i have also never been in love so that is probably where my doubts spring from.) however, with this romance, elizabeth's love for darcy grew throughout the book so their love was "real" because it wasn't based on an instant attraction but something that strengthen as elizabeth learned more about the real darcy. (though austen still has a place for love at first sight with jane and mr. bingsley). so i take that back. maybe it will make my 30. i need to read more of her works to decide.

ps i also hated how lydia and wickham were saved from their mess. but will get to that in my "pride and prejudice and zombies" entry.

jane eyre. charlotte brönte. (10)

even though "wuthering heights" was horrible, i decided not to judge an author by her sister and moved on to charlotte brönte. plus people are always raving about "jane eyre", its like the quintessential novel every young woman should read. though i never did.

before i continue with "jane eyre", i would like to share that growing up i read a lot but never read any of the classic romances by female writers. i have no idea why. so now as an adult i have a lot of books to cover.

the beginning "jane eyre" reminded me of one of my favorite books as a kid, "the little princess". both novels featured smart and sincere little girls who are mistreated at an orphanage. i was sadden by the living conditions of the orphanage and was surprised that brönte wrote so critically of the church.
but being the skeptic that i am, i was not surprised by the church abusing a situation. also miss temple reminded me of miss honey from "matilda" and i kept on thinking that in some way it would be exposed that helen was her daughter. but that may have been too much. (also i would like to suggest that you check out the 1943 movie version featuring orson welles, a screenplay co-written by aldous huxley, and a young elizabeth taylor as helen.)

anyone who has read "jane eyre" knows that it is pretty lengthy, it does span her life and there are a lot of twists and turns. and i will have to say that with every surprise twist i was genuine caught off guard. but i won't discuss them here cos then this entry will read like a sparknotes summary.

what i will discuss is my skepticism when it came to jane eyre and mr. rochester's love. as we have seen before, i am not always one for love. hate to be the grinch that stole romance but i felt that the only reason jane fell for mr. rochester was that he was the only male she interacted with in life. there was her abusive cousin and the evil mr. brockehurst but other than that no one. and like any good girlfriend, i was worried about jane because rochester was her first love ad her first relationship. i mean the poor girl was in an orphanage her majority of life and then falls for the first guy she conversed with. in my opinion, she fell in love because there was no other option. and you have to admit he was extremely rough around the edges so it wasn't like her falling for him seemed reasonable at first. but as it turned out, i was wrong. he was extremely sweet and worthy of her love. i mean he won me over with the following declaration of his love:

"i sometimes have a queer feeling with regard to you--especially when you are near me, as now: it is as if i had a string somewhere under my left ribs, tightly and inextricably knotted to a similar string situated in the corresponding quarter of your little frame. and if that boisterous channel, and two hundred miles or so of land come broad between us, i am afraid that cord of communion will be snapt; and then i've a nervous notion i should take to bleeding inwardly. As for you--you'd forget me."

and even after being being against their love, i was extremely heartbroken when their first wedding didn't happen. i thought jane's running away from mr. rochester was a huge mistake. she saw the monster he was married too so she should have overlooked his marriage to it. if it was me, i would have married him but i do have less integrity than jane. but my sadness soon changed because in the end, jane and mr. rochester get their happy ending. though sadly rochester did lose a limb but thankfully charlotte gave him his sight back.

i was extremely grateful to charlotte brönte for restoring my faith in the classic romance novels, after i had read her sister emily's disastrous novel. and i have also decided to one day, force my teenage daughter to read "jane eyre" so she doesn't wait so long in life to experience a great story like i did.

wuthering heights. emily brönte. (8)

i have no idea why "wuthering heights" is a classic. it doesn't deserve such a title. there is nothing timeless and enduring about this novel. i can't imagine a reader feeling any other emotion than disgust while they are reading. holly golightly cited it as her favorite novel in "breakfast at tiffany's" and as much as i love her, i do not value her opinion. though her admiration of this book makes sense especially since she is phony and a double rat when it comes to love.

the issue that i had with "wuthering heights" was that all of the characters were horrible. i did not and could not root for catherine and heathcliff's happiness or love because i found them unworthy of it. i could
not pity them. they were so cruel and evil that their miserables lives were their just desserts! furthermore, one could not side with the forces that kept heathcliff and cat apart because they were just as cruel and awful. there was on one to sympathize with because their were all appalling. the only person i felt for was the servant, nelly, she didn't deserve to be surrounded by such horrendous people and drama. actually i also felt bad for the isabella linton, because heatlhcliff took advantage of her love.

i will add that i was happy that in the end, the kids' found happiness because they did suffer due to the cruelty of the generation before them. but their happy ending does not save the entire novel.

to be honest the only good thing that came from this work was this kate bush song: