[A rant on] The Idiot by Fyodor Dostoevsky

Well.
Has this book got me frustrated or what? I'm not saying that it's good or bad, all I'm saying is that it has me really confused and a little irritated.
Confused, because I know that there is a point in there somewhere (Monica's going to take a magical journey to the land of Sparknotes!), but I can't seem to figure it out. That's what has me irritated.
For a good portion of the book, I couldn't really figure out for myself what was going on under the surface. And sometimes I couldn't even figure out what was going on in the plot. I guess I have a basic enough understanding of the plot to have a vague idea of what the point of the story was, but this book still makes me feel like I'm the idiot for not understanding all the weird symbolism and motifs and stuff. Argh.

And there was the rather sudden ending, well, I guess it wasn't really that sudden or ambiguous. The dealio is, that Prince (who is a really sweet, kind man) has spend the whole book torn between two women. The adventurous and feisty Aglaya, and the tortured, guilt-ridden Nastasia (who feels that way because she was somebody's mistress, I think. Wouldn't swear to it). Prince Muishkin truly loves Aglaya, but his love for Nastasia is more of elevated pity.
By the climax of the story, Aglaya dumps him because she realizes that his epilepsy will have him sickly forever, so after some time he and Nastasia grow closer and become engaged.  However, on their wedding day, Nastasia runs away with another man who loves her, Rogojin, because she feels like a rough, mean man like Rogojin is the only kind of man she deserves. In a few days, a worried Muishkin locates Rogojin and makes the horrifying discovery that Rogojin has murdered Nastasia.  This, along with the realization that every good thing he tries to do just leads to more trouble, drive Muishkin to madness, and at the end of the book he can't recognize any of his friends, or even speak. Rogojin is shipped off to Siberia, and Aglaya gets married to some loser who lied about his big fortune.
The end.
And you know what, I had some issues with the ending of The Man Who Laughs, but that was sort of made up for by the ending line.

When Ursus recovered consciousness, he no longer saw Gwynplaine, and he beheld Homo near the edge, howling into the gloom as he gazed out at the sea.

I know, I know, it makes no sense in context, but I don't want to give away spoilers for a book that the post isn't about. Now, I find the last scene of the Idiot just plain anti-climatic.

So spoke the good old lady, almost angrily, as she took leave of Evgenie Pavlovich.

Um, no offence or anything book, but if I were you, I would have ended on a scene relevant to the main characters and themes of the novel. Eugh.

I guess no letter grade for this one, because I don't feel clever today. :P I guess I'll read it again someday, because it did have it's very strong moments where I really liked it. I feel like the execution could have been better, though.

The Picture of Dorian Gray [1891]

[DISCLAIMER: This review is going to have a bit of philosophical rambling, and while I have a basic grasp on the philosophies brought up, I am by no means a expert. If you happen to be one of those smart people who know a lot about philosophy, feel free to correct me, as long as you're polite about it.]

I've got a confession to make, though you've probably already noticed. I like creepy things. I like weird things. Stories like Coraline, Odd Thomas, or Pan's Labyrinth are kind of my thing. Make of that what you will. This attraction to the macabre is what led me to read this book, and let me say that it didn't let me down in that area. But it's going to take more than some creepy goings on to make a book a favorite of mine. My major issue with this book was, I suppose, the philosophy and characters.
I'm not sure that Oscar Wilde was trying to promote this philosophy or show what was wrong with it (as authors frequently did with their writing, back then). The most prominent philosophy in this book is Individualism, which I don't know that much about aside from what I've hastily researched and read in this book, and it kind of got on my nerves after a while. Individualism focuses on the importance of the individual, and while the individual is important, this philosophy bends a little too much towards Hedonism, for me.
This book seems to show the consequences of living by such a philosophy, and if that's the case, great. I have no problem with different points of view being discussed, except that no other alternative to Individualism is presented. I feel like if you're going to make a successful critique of a certain lifestyle, you should provide examples of different ones. Just my two cents, you don't have to agree with 'em.
Anyway... the story! Which is probably more important anyway. This book is well written (Nice, descriptive language) and fast paced; I was able to read through it in just a day and a half. It did hold my attention, which is always nice. Of all the characters, only one was really likeable. And he dies. And horrible things happen to him, even after he's dead. ._.
I'm not sure how I feel about books with next to no likeable characters. It's hard to be moved by or care about what happens in a story when the characters don't even resonate with you. Stories filled with horrid people can be interesting because of the satire that is usually in them, but they aren't usually every enjoyable books. You know, they're the books you read because they're interesting and important *cough*1984*cough*, but you don't really enjoy them. And because I myself am kind of hedonistic at heart, (Je suis une hypocrite) I like to actually enjoy the books I read.

EDIT: I was reading Peter Kreeft's The Philosophy of Tolkien, and I found a good reason why for a story to be great it has to have likeable characters you can identify with.

"[...] A great story must also have great characters or at least one great character (greatly drawn, at least) for readers to identify with, to find their identity in. We become the characters- in spirit and imagination. No story is great unless it sucks us in, takes us up out of our bodies, and gives us an out-of-body-experience, an ek-statis, standing outside yourself in another. Great stories give us the grace of a mystical experience, on the level of the imagination."

A story like this, or like 1984 may have some points that are worth making, but in the end, the stories we remember and love are the ones that suck us in. So there. ;)

The Verdict: C-
This book is certainly interesting, and who knows, someday when I'm older and less stubborn maybe I'll read it again and come out with a more favorable opinion. But until then... yeah. I'll shut up now and stick my nose back into The Two Towers. :)

A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens [1859]

Sadly, sadly, the sun rose; it rose upon no sadder a sight than the man of good abilities and good emotions, incapable of their directed exercise, incapable of his own help and his own happiness, sensible of the blight upon him, and signing himself to let it eat him away.
- Book Two: The Golden Thread, Chapter 5: The Jackal

Sometimes I get nervous before I review one of my favorite books. Partly because I'm not smart enough to really understand the book in a deeper way, and partly because I'm afraid people will think I'm overselling my point.
But I've made the decision (yes, sometimes you have to decide these things) that I don't mind if people on the internet think I'm stupid or silly, so I'm going to charge ahead on with it. Oh, and there WILL be spoilers in this review. But seriously, if you don't know how it ends, I'll be really surprised.
A Tale of Two Cities is a relatively short book, but it packs quite a punch, at least for me it did. Before I get to why it packed such a big punch, let me get the flaws out of the way first. Because even awesome books have flaws.
For starters, the first chunk of the book drags a bit. Don't get me wrong, it's not exactly boring or turgid, but you start to wonder when this famous Sydney you've heard so much about is going to show up... I also got slightly annoyed with Lucie. I mean, she's practically perfect in every way, and has the required golden hair to boot. As the book went on, some of her deeper qualities showed through (fortitude and patience, for starters.), so it's not like she's a total china doll of a character. But still. Dickens could have made her a little less typical. So yes, there were a few little issues, but when this book is good, it is good. I didn't even mind the heavy-handed foreshadowing.
Something I love about this book is that the action and plot are relatively tight. There's always something of interest going on, and pretty much all the characters serve a purpose to the plot. The characters are pretty good. Not the most developed or whatever but sue me, I like them. Especially Sydney Carton, Mr. Lorry, Charles Darnay, Miss Pross- aw the heck with it, I pretty much liked everyone! Except for the Marquis, of course. I kind of feel a little sorry for the Marquis though. He strikes me as what you get when a spoiled child grows up. With nothing to hinder him or show him the error of his ways, he just got worse and worse. In terms of antagonists though, Madame Defarge is both more sympathetic and terrifying. At the same time.
 And then there's Sydney. I could ramble about Sydney for ages. Don't get me wrong, Charles is awesome. If given the choice between the two, I would probably rather hang out with Charles than Sydney (cuz' you know, sobriety), but Sydney's a more interesting character. His heart is very sensitive, but his mind is cynical and pessimistic, and that stifles any optimistic thoughts that he might dare to think. At least at first, anyway. His development is really good, and Sydney is one of my favorite fictional heroes. And while we're still on the topic of characters... Mr. Lorry is such a sweet man. He goes on and on about how he's nothing more than a 'man of business', but it's quite clear that he's much more than that.
Now, unfortunately for me, I knew of the ending before I was even halfway through it. Long story short, I was sitting in a library, waiting around to die, and I had forgotten to bring the kindle with me. I saw a copy of Tale of Two Cities on the shelf, and I decided I could find my spot in the book and make some progress. Out of habit, I looked at the back cover, and saw the following... "A Tale of Two Cities is the sweeping drama of Sydney Carton- who dies in the place of  Charles Darnay, the husband of the woman he loves."
Yeah. It was awful. I was like this:

CURSE YOU SPOILERIFFIC BOOK!!

 

And this at the same time:

Now that's a man...

Then I thought about it for a while and...

NOOOOOO!!

So children, this is a cautionary tale. Don't ever read the backs of books you haven't finished. Ever. EVER.
But knowing how the book ended offered a new perspective on Sydney's character as I read. I knew what was going to happen, but even so it was interesting to see all the pieces falling into place.

The Verdict: A+
I think it's quite clear that I liked this book in a big way, so at this point the verdict is just a formality. ;) It's been a while since I've read a book that made me simultaneously teary-eyed and uplifted. I feel a little silly maybe, since this 100+ year old book is to me what The Hunger Games and The Fault in Our Stars is to other teenagers. Aw well! Tis the curse of the isolated homeschooler. ;)
Just kidding, we're not isolated, I've actually been outside once or twice this  year! >:D
Oh, and in autumn... heh, heh. That is when the awesomeness begins. Mwhahahahaha. AUTUMN IS COMING!!
And no, I don't watch Game of Thrones. I just like referencing the 'Winter is Coming' thing. Ha.
I'll uh, go now, this tiny text is getting really awkward. D:

Silas Marner by George Eliot [1861]

Hmph. The snobby introduction to my copy of Pride and Prejudice was wrong. I actually did like George Eliot's writing, rather than "grudgingly respect[ing]" it.
Anyhoo, Silas Marner is a redemption story of sorts, about a man who was basically kicked out of his hometown, and now lives in a village where he weaves to make a living. Over time, Silas accumulates a lot of money and hordes it like a miser. Then one night, his gold is stolen. Then on another night, his 'treasure' returns, but in the form of a little girl who he adopts.
This book is very short (the kindle said 190 pages), and the plot is simple. But the writing is rich in imagery, and the characters (for the most part) are well-written. Silas was of course, my favorite, and his development is lovely. It's very sad to see this caring and loving man slowly turn his heart to stone, and it's satisfying when the love that was there all along starts to shine through the cracks. Okay, that was mushy and sentimental, but in all fairness, the book was kind of like that too. Not at all in a bad way though.
Little Eppie (the toddler that literally wanders into Silas' life) on the other hand, well, I've got a little beef with her. For starters, she's totally perfect. Even as a toddler, when she gets into scrapes it's cute and adorable. Seriously? Back in Late April/Early May, when we were visiting friends, I watched over a gang of little girls. Most of the time they were precious and darling, but you know what? Toddlers have tantrums. No matter how virtuous they grow up to be, toddlers will have fits. And you know, when that happens, sometimes they have to be [gasp] punished. And yet the book states that Eppie was raised without needing punishment. Wha?!?
But I did like how at the end, Eppie's real (and rich) father shows up to try and get her to come with him and be an upper-class gentleman's daughter (Her real father isn't bad, he just wanted to do something for his daughter). However, Eppie loves Silas as the only parent she's ever known, and chooses to stay with him. That was lovely, and really, I'm kind of a sucker for Silas and Eppie's relationship. I know how sentimental that makes me, but hey. It's not like my heart is totally made of stone.

The Verdict: B+
I deducted points for the rather rushed ending, and the miracle tot.
But the writing was lovely, and Silas was a great character, and I definitely feel like reading it again sometime. :)

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen [1813]

I was kind of cheating when I put this on my book list. When I wrote that I was kind of less than 40 pages from the end, but decided to put it on the list anyway. :P
Anyhoo, this is Jane Austen's most popular books, and is frequently hailed as her best work. I totally see why that is. The dialogue is witty, the characters are interesting and easy to identify with, and the plot is easy-going and refreshingly free of death and destruction.
I found this book a little frustrating actually, because sometimes I really liked it, and other times I wanted to toss it aside and pick up something else. To help sort out my feelings on this book, I think I'll pull out the bullet points. As usual, what I didn't like first. That way we can end on a positive note. :D

What I Didn't Like
-The pacing. Pacing is largely relative. One person's break-neck thriller is another person's yawn-inducer. For this one, I'd feel hard pressed if you asked me to give you a detailed recap of the book. Not a whole lot seemed to really happen aside from traipsing around from house to house and town to town. Stuff goes on during said traipsing around, but I just didn't feel that enthralled in the general plot.
-I wasn't that enthralled with the characters, either. Don't get me wrong, they were written and developed just fine, but for some reason none of the characters really 'clicked' with me. I think that if a book is going to become a favorite, you have to be able to connect with the characters, and unfortunately, that wasn't the case for this one.
-For whatever reason, I could not get myself to like Mr. Darcy. I know. He was in kind of a foul mood when he first met Elizabeth, and he's just not that sociable. But even when he was figuratively defrosting I just wasn't that thrilled with him.

What I Did Like
-The subplot with Mr. Bingley and Jane. Despite the fact that Mr. Bingley is kind of an airhead, I found his character quite endearing. And really, the reason he can't make his own decisions is because he doesn't even trust his own judgment, which for some reason I thought was funny and adorkable at the same time. (Shush, blogger spell check. 'Adorkable' is a word. By my standards, anyway.)
-The witty writing. One of the things I liked about Emma was that Jane Austen's writing is so incredibly snarky, but in a rather subtle (well, sometimes not that subtle at all) way.

The Verdict: B [?]
For the first time (IN FOREEEEVEEERRRR!!) I actually can't decide on the verdict. XD Some parts of it make me want to bust it down to C+ or so, but then I remember all the times Miss Austen's wit made me snicker, and yeah. I can't make my mind up with this book. But the essential question when reviewing a book is "Would I read it again?". With Pride and Prejudice, I the answer is yes, but not for a while. I'll at least wait until I've read all the other Jane Austen books before I re-read this one.

Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte [1847]

"If all the world hated you, and believed you wicked, while your own conscience approved you, and absolved you from guilt, you would not be without friends."
-Helen Burns

Jane Eyre is kind of what I think of when you say 'Gothic Romance Novel', though according to my mom (who knows way more about literature [and life in general] than I do) it doesn't exactly fit the Gothic Romance Novel criteria. However, it does have your unassuming orphan governess, your mysterious master of the house (:D), and dark secrets in the attic. So by my standards, it's a Gothic Romance Novel. And yes, Jane Eyre is a little (okay, really) melodramatic at times, and there was a bit towards the end that was so unintentionally funny that I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything at the time. But the stuff I liked about the book balanced out all the cheesiness. For one, the characters. You know a book has good characters when you can dislike a character but still know that they are well written. That's how I felt about a few characters in this book (Except for Helen Burns. I'm sorry, I have trouble sympathizing with a girl who's worst 'sin' was that she couldn't wash her face because the water was frozen.), especially Mr. Rochester, who I came to like later. My favorite character was of course, Jane Eyre herself. I thought she was a very witty and interesting narrator, and her character was awesome too. I mean, the girl has got a moral compass, and she is going to follow it no matter what. That. Is cool. I don't quite understand why she fell in love with Mr. Rochester, though. I suppose she could see that he wasn't a bad man, and stuff like that, but still. O.o
Even if the writing was sometimes over-dramatic, I thought for the most part it was really good! Of course, the dialogue is archaic, but most of it was quite realistic. I especially liked the dialogue between Jane and Mr. Rochester. They are obviously very much in love, but they aren't gooey lovers. No, they're both very candid and honest with each other, and that makes the gooey stuff they do say seem all the more sincere. Of course, it's not all romance. There's also plenty of suspense, and a lot of spiritual-Christian-y stuff. I like the way the Christian themes were handled in this book. You've got your strict, Pharisee types, like Mr. Brocklehurst, and St. John Rivers (Pronounced: 'Sinjin', but I call him 'Slimjim'), and then you have people like Helen Burns who are the model of who a good Christian should act. Well, I don't think it would be sinful to stand up for yourself a little, but you can see how Helen 'saved' Jane from a bitterness that was growing inside her as a child. So Helen is kind of like Bishop Myriel from Les Miserables. They're both only in the story for a little bit, but they create a positive, life-long change in the hero.

The Verdict: B+
So, despite the fact that James from Orchestra advised me to stop reading this book and burn it because 'nothing happens', I found Jane Eyre a pretty good read. It's moderately paced, well-written (massive coincidences and goofiness aside), with interesting characters to boot! It's not one of my favorite books, but I certainly liked it, and look forward to reading it again. :)

Notre-Dame de Paris (by Victor Hugo) [1831]

Kind of a weird cover, but the longer
you spend looking at the detail,
the cooler it gets.

Notre-Dame de Paris, or The Hunchback of Notre Dame, is a sweeping novel about Gothic Architechture, The Printing Press, and why Louis XI of France was lame. There's also a little subplot about a teenage girl named Esmaralda, the troubled priest Claude Frollo who's obsessed with her, and a tragically deformed young man named Quasimodo.

In all seriousness, Monsieur Hugo likes to go off on diversions a lot. Some of them are pretty interesting, others are... not pretty interesting. I suppose he has that in common with Charles Dickens.

Diversions aside, this is a really good book (and even the diversions are good, I just don't have a very mature attention span). Contrary to what the English title suggests, the main character isn't the hunchbacked Quasimodo, but Esmeralda.

Esmeralda is stunningly beautiful, and also a very compassionate and trusting person. It's this kindness that causes Quasimodo to love her, and it's her beauty that infatuates Claude Frollo. However, Esmeralda fancies the handsome captain Phoebus, who's a stuff-shirted peacock. Well, not literally a stuff-shirted peacock, but he certainly is one in spirit. Here's where Esmeralda not only gets irritatingly stupid, but also painfully realistic. Despite the fact that he only wants her so that he can have some fun for a few nights, Esmeralda considers him her knight in shining armor because he rescued her from men who were trying to kidnap her (Frollo and Quasimodo, actually). In a climactic scene, Esmeralda's whole-hearted devotion and love for Phoebus gets her into a royal fruitcake of trouble. I thought that was incredibly stupid of her, but it makes sense in a sad way. Girls always stick by men who aren't necessarily good because they (a) Believe they can change them, (b) are desparete, or (c) Believe that their good points make up for any bad ones.

Claude Frollo is an interesting antagonist. We're told about his life, and from what we can see, he isn't a bad man. Unlike in the atrocious Disney adaptation where Frollo kills Quasimodo's mother then tries to kill baby Quasimodo, Frollo finds the abandoned Baby at the church and takes him in. When Quasimodo was growing up, he knew Frollo as the only human being who didn't treat him with disgust. So at first, Claude Frollo is not a bad man. He was stern and cold, but he was not evil. It was only when he let himself be carried away by an infatuation that his soul became twisted.

Then of course, there's Quasimodo. Esmeralda is the main character of the novel, but Quasimodo is who you think of when somebody says 'Hunchback of Notre-Dame'. Quasimodo is one of the most tragic characters that literature has to offer. Rejected all his life, only to lose everything that he ever loved in one bleak day.

The writing for this book is really good- I mean, it's a classic for a reason. It's well told and executed. Something I love about Victor Hugo's writing is how poetical it is, and also the vivid mental images in puts in your head. Your mileage may vary as to whether or not you like how unapologetically dramatic Victor Hugo's writing style is, but it really is a gorgeous book, and it smothered my soul with ennui. (See? I can be unapologetically dramatic too!)

The Verdict: A
Notre-Dame de Paris was one of those books whose ending left me kind of silent. You know, you finish it, and you can't quite believe that you just finished it, and you just kind of sit there for a while, mulling over the last few lines. Of course, I have to cut through my unadultarated praise and say that it wasn't without it's flaws. There were some pacing issues, and I found Frollo yelling "DAMNATION!!" as he fell to his death really cheesy in a not-so-good way. But this is a very good read, and I would highly reccomend it to anyone who doesn't mind soul-shatteringly sad endings.