The Sorrows of Young Werther by Johann Wolfgang Goethe

 

So I read The Sorrows of Young Werther by Johann Wolfgang Goethe on holiday last week and then gave a friend my full and frank opinion of it.

He laughed and said I should review classic literature and I thought, hang on, I was meant to be doing that. So I’m back bitches.

The Sorrows of Young Werther is a bit like Pamela in some ways in that it was a publishing phenomenon and also in that the protagonist is a moron.Oh and also both epistolary novels, when did those stop being a thing?

Pamela cries a lot and gets scared by cows Werther is just…idk like a teenager on tumbler or something?

Anyway, The Sorrows of Young Werther was an important novel of the Sturm und Drang movement in German literature, and influenced the later Romantic movement. It made Goethe super popular, Napoleon loved it, there was Wether themed merchandise (including china, which Pamela also inspired) and a bunch of young guys copying Werthers style.

I have no idea why. Werther is a mess and his darling Charlotte is kind of a ho. I’m not into slut shaming but my main thought on reading ‘The Sorrows of Young Werther’ was a resounding ‘damn Charlotte sucks’.

Werther is the second guy she’s driven insane cos she likes the attention and doesn’t care about anyone but herself. Harsh? Maybe. But she consistently does just enough to stop Werther ever moving on, he doesn’t exactly help himself but…

Also she has a feeling that something bad is going to happen, then her husband gets a weird note from Werther asking for the loan of some guns, she then hands these guns to a servant and goes to sleep even though she suspects something bad will happen to someone who is apparently her dearest friend. She could have refused the guns and sent him a note seeing if he was doing ok, could have sent her husband round to check on him, nope, hands over the guns like a lamb.

Spoiler, Wether kills himself in the end.

This book is clearly only included because it’s real old and was inexplicably popular and there is no reason for you to read it. Kk let’s do this again some time.

 

The Lord of The Rings By JRR Tolkien – with extended eagles digression.

Look if you haven’t read The Lord of the Rings then The Lord of the Rings probably isn’t for you. So I am not going to waste my time discussing the merits of this genre defining fantasy masterpiece. Instead I’d like to talk about the Eagles.

It’s a common and annoying argument, why didn’t they just fly to Mount Doom?

Say annoying people with no sense of joy.

Well for one thing that would be a very boring book. The point of The Lord of the Rings is not to save Middle Earth it’s to be a damn good book. That is how fiction works.

However this is not an argument that works with fantasy nerds or terrible literal minded people.

If you like here is one theory about how Gandalf meant to use the Eagles all along. !gasp! Insane but convincing fan theories

Personally I do not care for that theory. For one there has got to be a better way to say ‘take an eagle’. And for another I don’t actually think taking an eagle is a good plan. Elrond says that ‘your hope lies in speed and secrecy’. Or in other words ‘flying on a fleet of giant eagles into Mordor is stupid.’ I mean what deadly winged weapon does Sauron have? Anyone?

Of course, you might be thinking, if they had taken Eagles direct from Rivendell when the Nazgul were unhorsed they could have been in Mordor before second breakfast. Ok, Sauron is a wizard with dark and terrible powers but let’s assume his only chance against aerial assault is the Nazgul. How are the Eagles supposed to know to meet them at Rivendell? Gandalf met Gwaihir at Isengard, yes. But what did Gandalf know at that point? He had no idea what had happened to Frodo and the Ring. He they might already have been in Mordor for all he knew. Hence why he went to the Shire first to find out what was happening. And he went on horseback. Why?

Eagles do not make good beasts of burden. Quote,

‘”How far can you bear me?” I said to Gwaihir.
“Many leagues,” said he, “but not to the ends of the earth. I was sent to bear tidings not burdens.”
“The I must have a steed on land,” I said, “and a steed surpassingly swift, for I have never had such need of haste before.”‘

So Gandalf in his utmost need of speed can’t use eagles because they are not great at carrying people. Gwaihir is the Lord, and therefore presumably the biggest and strongest, of the Eagles and he still managed to carry Gandalf:

1. From Isengard to Edoras i.e. not very far

2. From the Misty Mountains to Lorien i.e. also not very far.

In short Eagles /= winged ponies.

Even if they did decide to use Eagles they would still have to get over the Misty Mountains to find the eagles and the eagles would still have to rest which would presumably not go well assuming that Sauron notices the dirty great birds headed in his direction with his all seeing eye. You couldn’t send Frodo on his own because the moment he touches down an orc will murder him and you can’t send a group because that will draw even more attention, warriors will tire the Eagles faster, you’re limited as to how many Eagles there actually are that would be up for a death mission etc.

Now that’s dealt with.

A note on reading The Lord of The Rings. A lot of people complain that the beginning is boring. It’s a little slow to get going ok, fine.

Watch the first film. Read the Two Towers, read the Return of the King. Now go back and read the Fellowship of the Ring.

This is how I read LOTR for the first time when I was 10 (because I could only afford 2 books and I’d seen the first film). If a 10 year old can do it so can you.

Sybil: Or the Two Nations by Benjamin Disraeli

Sybil has the dubious honour of being probably the best book by a British Prime Minister.

It definitely feels like a political novel. It’s an angry book. Disraeli is not happy about the conditions of the working classes. Which is – duh – a good thing. However, I didn’t feel entirely clear on what the rest of his politics were. Certainly not in favour of revolution. Hardly in favour of the working classes seeing as the ‘noble’ working class characters turn out to be actually noble. In fact the aristocracy generally tend to come off fairly well.

Still he comes out basically for universal suffrage and decent living conditions for the working classes. That’s pretty enlightened even by today’s standards.

Enough about the politics, is it a good book?

Hard to say. I would say the first chapter, a look at dissolute London life, is probably the strongest. It feels realest. The rest… The characters are pretty static. Sybil is your typical boring blonde, though, at least she has some strong opinions. Some strong feelings, in some ways her sense of the political situation is equal to or greater than her father’s. So maybe I’m wrong to write her off. But she’s so pretty and kind to children and childlike and innocent and all the other things Victorian heroines tend to be.

I wouldn’t say it was one of the top 100 books of all time, but in a top 1000? Maybe? If you feel you have to include a few Victorian novels. Even Dickens doesn’t do much for me so I guess this was never going to be a huge winner.

The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka

Have you heard it’s been 100 years since Metamorphosis was published? No? Lucky you. I have heard it just everywhere. So you know if you can’t beat them…

As it happens I read this article yesterday:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/16/you-think-im-mad-the-truth-about-psychosomatic-illness

It’s all about psychosomatic illnesses. That is illnesses whose cause it in the mind but in the unconscious mind. The patients aren’t faking they just aren’t physically damaged. It’s interesting stuff.

The people suffering from these kinds of illness are often suffering from some kind of pressure or conflict that their illness in some way resolves. One woman’s husband didn’t want her to work, tensions increased after an accident in which she got bleach in her eye and had to visit a hospital. The next morning she woke up unable to see.

The argument was moot, she could no longer work.

Another man was facing pressure at work, struggling to achieve the level of success he felt his brothers had achieved. He experienced debilitating symptoms that left him unable to work.

And it wasn’t his fault. He was ill.

I think this is relevant to Metamorphosis. Not because I don’t think Gregor was really transformed but because I think his transformation is in someways a reaction against his life. He is working himself to the bone to support his family. In particular his sister Greta whose dream of studying the violin he is trying to realise.

By his metamorphosis Gregor switches from provider to burden. He no longer has to be worried about being on time for work, or the poor performance which his clerk hints at. He no longer has to support his family because he is conveniently unable. Instead they must look after him, a task they quickly tire of.

Greta has to go out to work as a shop girl, his father comes out of retirement and they take in lodgers. His family now has to work. Greta also takes on responsibility for caring for Gregor but she becomes uncaring and unkind. Gregor is incredibly moved by Greta’s music and retains an affection for a picture in his apartment. He retains a sensitivity to art that is contrasted with the boorishness of the lodgers and goes unappreciated and unnoticed by his family.

It ends when Gregor crawls away and dies. Without his financial contribution he is worthless, without his limbs he is a brute.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone by J.K. Rowling

I don’t know if you know this but I have a whole other blog dedicated to Harry Potter. It’s called Potterflaws so feel free to check that out. Anyway to the point once more.

Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone is the only Harry Potter book to make it on to a top 1000 books list so vague it contains entries like, ‘the Discworld series’. I feel this is kind of odd and poorly thought through. I mean, it isn’t even the best book (The Prisoner of Azkaban is probably the best, followed by Order of the Pheonix). It feels like they went ‘Well it’s a cultural phenomenon so here we’ll put it on the list. But we’re just going to pick the first book without thinking about it because whatevs it’s not real literature’.

On the Philosopher’s Stone. It is definitely a kids book in a way some of the later books aren’t. The books grow up with the characters (and readers) which is one of the things that makes them great and childhood defining. It’s probably the most poorly plotted of the books for details see my extensive work on the subject :p. But it is a great introduction to the magical world. In fact it’s probably the most magical of the books. Diagon Alley, Hogwarts, moving portraits, they all have a unique charm. Ordinary things are touched with a golden wand. Like train travel. I happen to love train travel but in a steam train, on a hidden platform, with an other worldly sweet trolley. That is perfect. In short I get why children instantly took to Harry Potter, why they bathed in it’s world. It’s awesome. And if the writing isn’t first rate? If it isn’t totally original? Will kids notice?

No. Only joyless adults care about that stuff. But still the Prisoner of Azkaban is better because Lupin. I’d also like to give it an award for making time-travel a plot point without ruining the book. Even if that does open you up to a lot of why not go back and kill Voldemort questions (answer: you can’t go back more than three hours without wrecking history but she should have said that in the book not after.)

Anyway I think it deserves to be on the list even if it ended up on the list for the wrong reasons. Small caveat if you’re an adult who somehow hasn’t read it yet you really ought to find a child to read it to or with. Not by kidnapping one or sidling up to one in a public library. Like a relation or friends kid or something.

The Age of Reason by Jean-Paul Sartre

The Age of Reason is also a book by Thomas Paine. Apparently it argues for critical thinking and God, maybe if I read that I would understand the other Age of Reason better.

Though actually I resent having to read other novels in order to understand novels. It’s elitist and pretentious and annoying.

Ain’t nobody got time for that.

So The Age of Reason is actually ok. It’s surprisingly compelling, enough to vaugely interest me in reading the rest of the Roads to Freedom trilogy but not enough to make me actually do it. Though I did look for an online summary because I wanted to know what happened to everyone. I’m not sure that was the point, but whatever.

It’s a bit insular? And philosophical? The women tend to be odd and flat and uninteresting. Marcelle is basically a womb within a womb. She’s always hot and pink and naked in a single room. And pregnant which is pretty much the plot.

Not that she does a thing about that. Very passive.

I guess that’s the idea? It’s a novel about people who can’t quite bring themselves to take any actions. Daniel wants to drown his cats and doesn’t, or kill himself and doesn’t. Mathieu wants something, to propose or run away or something. Ivitch and Boris don’t even seem to want to do anything, they’re ok to be young and actionless. When an action is necessary Boris gets Mathieu to do it.

It has a tendancy to stop when it gets most interesting. Mathieu’s about to sneak into a dead woman’s room and rob her and suddenly two page digression on…something. His state of mind? I skimmed it. Maybe that was a deliberate choice but no one is going to read those pages properly so why bother.

Anyway The Age of Reason. Read it or don’t.

Misery by Stephen King

You know no one is actually reading these? I’m writing for the sake of writing. I don’t know if that’s pure art or pure pointlessness. Never mind.

For someone who claims to not like horror I find I actually do quite like Stephen King. Maybe The Shining kicked my imagination into overdrive but Misery and Carrie deliver thrills without too many chills. And by chills I mean terrifying nightmares.

Let’s start with what I don’t like about this book. I don’t like the use of ‘Misery’ as a name. ‘Misery’ does not work as a name. Especially for a romance heroine. All wrong.

What I do quite like is Paul Sheldon’s slow realization that he actually likes his ‘Misery’ novels. That he isn’t somehow above his most popular work. I do not have a problem with popular authors and I don’t much care for people who do. Books are a form of entertainment and if they do interesting things to your brain that’s all well and good but that should really be in addition to a damn good story. Also popular doesn’t mean bad. Look at Terry Pratchett or maybe Stephen King. There’s some interesting stuff going on.

And why is it always the kind of books read by housewives that get put down? I mean is Twilight really so much worse than the Hunger Games? No, not really but boys are more likely to like the Hunger Games so somehow that makes them better books. Violence doesn’t make things any more worthy.

Rant over. Or at least ready for a sideways topic jump.

Misery is very good. It’s a compelling read. I don’t know if it’s an entirely accurate depiction of mental illness but I’ve read worse. Annie Wilkes has human qualities. I even feel sorry for her some of the time. She’s only mostly an out and out monster. Although she does kill babies which tends to be used as a symbol for people who are just out and out evil. Like The Jew of Malta or something. I’m wondering if you could write an interesting essay on The Jew of Malta and The Mask of Dimitrios. There’s something there I think, if you haven’t read both you will have no idea what I mean and this will be annoying. So enjoy that.

The thing about Misery is it’s one of those books that sticks in your head. There’s images that don’t seem that powerful at the time but you find yourself coming back to them. They lodge somewhere as an expression of something and you can never quite forget them. Not a book you can unread.

 

The Buried Giant By Kazuo Ishiguro

Yes, this is definitely not on the Guardian’s list of 1000 books to read before you die. But I like to think that is because that list was published in 2009 and The Buried Giant was published last week.

Whatever, I’m going to talk about it because it’s great and currently relevant.

I saw a review from the Telegraph that gave this book two stars so I’m guessing the reaction has been mixed. I didn’t read the review because I thought it would make me either sad or angry and I normally get my internet indignation fix from Jezebel.

I don’t know if it’s anything to do with genre. There’s some debate about genre snobbery going on but I haven’t really been following because if I wanted to waste my life reading Ursula Le Guin I’d start with her more obvious fictions.

Sorry not sorry Ursula Le Guin managed to make wizards boring.

Kazuo Ishiguro, however, can make pretty much anything fascinating. I really like his books I really like fantasy; Ishiguro and the dragon was always going to be a winner. I don’t know if part of the reason other people don’t like it is fantasy. I can’t really think of a better reason because it is great. I read ‘Elizabeth is Missing’ the other week which is some sort of Dementia Murder Mystery but this is frankly a better look at memory, dragons are mostly incidental if they’re putting you off. It’s dreamy and mesmerizing, the setting is vaguely historical but not in a way that ever intrudes on the plot.  Also the whole thing is kind of fable like? I mean there aren’t a lot of plot surprises or maybe the plot just unfolds very naturally, it all just links together neatly.

Read it anyhow it’s sort of soothing and I know I’ll read it again.

Oroonoko, or The Royal Slave by Aphra Behn

I’m doing this now because I realised I hadn’t addressed anything from the ‘State of the Nation’ section.

Aphra Behn was a pretty remarkable woman. She was a spy and a playwright, like a 17th century, female, Christopher Marlowe.

Oroonoko is also a pretty remarkable book, it’s one of the first novels and it’s a surprisingly humane early look at the life of a black slave.

Not to say that Aphra Behn was an abolitionist but she was definitely a royalist and dammit Oroonoko is king. Oroonoko isn’t what you’d call a well rounded character, he’s stupidly noble. Like Aragorn-esque in his innate awesomeness, which admittedly does make his slavery and destruction at the hands of petty believable characters more tragic. But also makes him not really human, like he needs to make up for being black by being otherwise flawless. Oh and looking noble and not too off puttingly african… There does seem to be a general feeling that if only Surinam had a properly noble leader everything would have worked out alright slavery or no slavery. There is a decent argument that Behn actually traveled to Surinam during her spying activities which adds a bit of colour to the narrative

Oroonoko is matched in his nobility only by his lady-friend Imoinda. Who ends up getting beheaded to avoid being raped – clearly the better option. Aphra Behn is many amazing, forward looking things but don’t get caught up thinking she was some feminist, abolitionist liberal. Apparently she was inspired partly by Othello which I can see.

Anyway in conclusion Virginia Woolf said:

“All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn, for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds.”

Which is pretty cool and I would totally do, if getting into Westminster Abbey wasn’t so darn expensive.

Nights at the Circus by Angela Carter

 

This gorgeous image nicked from here and is very appropriate for this gorgeous book.

I think I mentioned before my love for Heroes and Villains so it should come as no shock that I also adored Nights at the Circus. It’s a lovely easy read. By which I don’t mean that it’s simple or dull or anything like that. It’s wonderful and you should absolutely read it. Also it has a female who farts, and is still attractive. That’s like a blue literary moon.

However, the ending. The question. Trying to not be to spoilery, the plot revolves around Fevvers an aerilaliste who may or may not be possessed of wings. And it’s one of those things that gets left unsatisfying unanswered. It makes me think of something I read Kazuo Ishiguro say about A Pale View of The Hills.

‘The ending is almost like a puzzle. I see nothing artistically to be gained by puzzling people to that extent. That was just inexperience—misjudging what is too obvious and what is subtle. Even at the time the ending felt unsatisfactory.’

Which is basically how I feel about all open to interpretation endings. I get that it’s the point or half the point. Her wings symbolism New Women who get referenced a bit or something and there’s an interesting musing on marriage and me-ness. But fuck it decide either way. Schrodinger’s Box novels suck.

Anyway it is a very good book which I can heartily recommend.

And on a similarly titled note The Night Circus is also a damned good read.