The Great Gatsby Read Along: Chapters 7 to Finish

With the release of The Great Gatsby movie tomorrow, I had to pull it together to get our final discussion up for the novel.  Today my AP Literature students took their AP test, so I'm praying that I stop dreaming of sonnets, thesis statements, and the best way of teaching iambic pentameter.  Seriously.  The other morning I woke up reciting types of poetry, "Elizabethan Sonnet, sestina, ballad, ode, elegy..."  It was maddening, and has left me exhausted.  I have had a really great group of students this year, who worked like crazy.  I'm sure they did great.

So, back to Gatsby and his crazy life.  What's not crazy about these final chapters and why did I love it so much?  It's not that I love to see things fall spectacularly and dramatically apart, but that I love to see the mind of an author throw down on the page.  What can we say?  Fitzgerald royally threw down on the page and left it all there for us to mull over for years to come.

How much do I recount from these final chapters?  Do we talk about Daisy icing Gatsby out?  Do we talk about why Gatsby stuck around and didn't see the writing on the wall?  Do we talk about Tom's crazy lover, Myrtle, and her date with a speeding car?  Do we dive into the crazy jerkish person Tom is, who seems more lacking in conscience than any character we've encountered?  Or, do we look at Nick one last time and ask how much of all of this his narration shaped for us?  I don't even know.  I can see that any one of these could make for a full and exhaustive post.  Instead, here's what stood out to me:

• Mr. Wilson. 
  
  He seemed so pathetic and sympathetic all at the same time.  His massive panic over his wife's affair and determination to take her away from that crazy place was understandable.  I think we can all see that Myrtle wanted to escape her mundane life with her mechanic, gas station owning husband, but Mr. Wilson seemed like a truly pathetic character that I finally saw with new eyes.
• The color blue.  Back in my post "The Great Gatsby Read Along: Chapters 3 to 4," I mentioned the strange use of the color blue to describe the yard.  Here in the final chapter of the novel, Nick comments, "So when the blue smoke of brittle leaves was in the air and the wind blew the wet laundry stiff on the line I decided to come back home" (176).  I get that smoke can be blue, but the way Fitzgerald has used it on several occasions in the novel has left me thinking about its significance--if any.  I just haven't pictured lawns or yards as blue.
• The fact that Gatsby admits he originally only got together with Daisy because he wasn't sure he could, and then only wanted to get what he could for a time.  In the end, he didn't expect to fall in love with Daisy.  I don't remember Gatsby being a playboy.  No judgment here.  I just didn't remember that detail from his story.
• Nick's soft spot for Gatsby.  After the dirty business with the murder, Nick is the one who finds him.  Nick is the one who feels it deeply that Gatsby should not be alone in his death.  Nick is the one who recalls telling Gatsby, after a party, "'They're a rotten crowd,' I shouted across the lawn. 'You're worse the whole damn bunch put together.' I've always been glad I said that" (154).    Nick saw something in Gatsby, perhaps as the true tragic, mislead figure in the whole story?
• Zelda.  Yes, I thought about Fitzgerald's wife Zelda, who was supposed to have suffered from schizophrenia and whom he supposedly fashioned his character Daisy.  Was there a twisted sort of love/hate relationship with Daisy and Zelda?  On page 179, Nick reflects, "They were careless people, Tom and Daisy--they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let others clean up the mess they had made..."  Having had a relative with schizophrenia, parts of these lines resonated with me with a frustration that I wondered whether Fitzgerald might have been dealing with?
• The past.  This theme, reliving the past or facing the past, runs through the novel until the very end.  I love the last two paragraphs of the novel and their final dealings with Gatsby's desire to relive the past or to recreate it.  Maybe it's something we all want, because we idealize the past in some way?  In reality we can't escape the past, because it is our present, and yet we also can't relive it.  How ironic.  As Nick concludes, "So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back carelessly into the past" (180). Beautifully thought provoking.

So what stood out to you in these final chapters? Does the title then tell us that Nick put aside the tall tales of our main hero and found him to be "The Great"?  I kind of like to think so, but wonder what that then says about the other characters that brought about Gatsby's demise. 

Anyway, here are a few questions:

1. What do you think happened to Daisy after the "accident" with Myrtle?  What conversation do you think happened between she and Tom?
2. Was the laser-point focus of Gatsby his own sick fault, or did he ever have a real chance with Daisy?  Could they have ever had a life?
3. What is it about the past that we somehow can never escape it or relive it?  Or can we actually relive parts of it, and so that gives us some sick hope?
4. What most stood out to you in these final chapters?
5. What do you most look forward to seeing in the film?

Well, thank you to all who joined in on the Read Along!  Now I hope we can all get to the movie this weekend and have one last Gatsby chat.  Thanks again!  Don't forget to leave a comment with a link to your post, if you choose to participate.  

One Week to Gatsby!

I know I'm posting A LOT about The Great Gatsby, but we're on the countdown.  If you haven't yet had a chance to check out The Great Gatsby official site, you really should.  It's like literary eye candy!  The costumes, sets, and music look and sound amazing. Let me just share my favorite trailer.  Amazing!

The Great Gatsby Read Along: Chapters 5 and 6

Not a lot of reading for this week, but some pretty serious development happened.  Rather than a chapter by chapter run down, I wanted to maybe focus in on the multiple perspectives at play in the story.  We have Gatsby's perspective, Daisy's perspective (of sorts), and Gatsby and Daisy as a couple perspective--well, and we always have Nick's perspective as our narrator.  Let me explain what I mean here.

Gatsby's Perspective:  Gatsby really reveals himself to be this insecure little boy behind the big money bravado.  It seems that no amount of power or money can hide him from his insecurities about Daisy.  We get that they have a past, but what in the world happened between these two to cause him to be so completely insecure?  That is the question that these chapters seem to be highlighting with greater and greater emphasis.

Gatsby's eagerness in chapter 5 to learn whether Nick has talked to Jordan Baker about Daisy, is palpable.  Gatsby won't come out and ask, "He waited, looking at me with suppressed eagerness" (82).  It is the great unspoken plea, to which Nick reassures him that he will set it all up.  And yet, Gatsby highlights through his protests, just how much he does want Nick to invite Daisy in his line, "'Oh, that's all right,' he said carelessly, 'I don't want to put you to any trouble'" (82).  This feels like it needs a Gertrude line from Hamlet ("The lady doth protest too much") to explain it.  In what Gatsby dances around in these chapters, he paints a more delicate and insecure portrait of himself than any narrating of his woes to the audience.

Gatsby has SO many moments of complete emotion-filled vulnerability, that I could fill paragraphs with his behavior and words.  He is antsy, sleepless, and "bored" one moment, only to frantically second guess himself and berate himself for what he believes Daisy feels (or doesn't feel).  On one hand he plays it cool, while on the other he reveals just the opposite (Hello!  Showing her clippings about her life?).  Jay Gatsby is on a mission, and that mission is Project Get-Daisy-to-Leave-Tom-and-Marry-Me.  Or, as he remarks at the end of chapter 6, to repeat the past.

Daisy's Perspective:  Does anyone really know what she is thinking?  I think it's easy to jump to a hatred of Daisy, but I keep coming back to all we've learned about her.  A seemingly unhappy (at best) marriage to Tom (loveless at worst), an acceptance of her fate with Tom out of a need for security (financial AND social?), and a recognition of her dependence on men as a woman (thinking back on her "little fool" comment from earlier), all leave me believing that she is reacting from a place of hurt and fear.  Maybe it might be easiest for her to ditch Tom to return to Jay?  It seems that might be what she has in mind from her behavior around Gatsby.  And yet, she hasn't made a move to remove Tom from her life.  Would she dare?

Gatsby and Daisy Perspective:  There are these moments in the story that struck me.  When they were together, Daisy shed tears over their past,  Gatsby revealed he'd followed her life, Daisy acted much calmer, and Gatsby could back off and be a bit more subtle in his pursuit (the music wafting from the doorway after the party, "...in the very casualness of Gatsby's party there were romantic possibilities absent from her world.  What was it up there in the song that seemed to be calling her back inside?"). 

In Summary:  I love the multiple layers to these characters.  There is a lot of acting going on at a surface level--which we all do, while the real vulnerability hovers just under the surface to pop up and reveal itself.  As Nick says, Gatsby has an "appalling sentimentality," that grabs at all of us.

Line I Snickered At:  After Gatsby and Daisy reconnect at Nick's house, Nick excuses himself so they can talk in private.  On his way back in, he states, "I went in--after making every possible noise in the kitchen, short of pushing over the stove--but I don't believe they heard a sound" (89).  Yea, I can't help but picture Nick bumbling his way back into the house.  What did he think they were doing, anyway...  Too funny.

Okay.  I've rambled on way too much as it is!  There is so much I could go back to say in these chapters, but I'm looking forward to now finishing it up so that we can pull it all together.

Here are some of my questions for this week:

1. I'm reminded of a psychology lesson I once learned, that states that the person with the least interest in the relationship, controls it.  Is that person Daisy?  Is she so "secure" with Tom that Gatsby could be no more than a momentary diversion from her unhappiness?  
2. Did you have any lines that jumped out at you in these chapters?
3. How has your opinion of Gatsby and Daisy changed now that they have finally met again?

Well, thank you again for joining me!  This has been fun to revisit. 

 Please share if you would like!  Whether you've drafted up a blog post with your thoughts (which I hope you'll link), or you share some of your thoughts in the comments, I hope you jump in.

Just as a reminder, this coming week we'll be reading from Chapter 7 to the end.  Happy reading!  I hope to see what you're thinking!

The Great Gatsby Read Along: Chapters 3 and 4

Thanks for your patience this last week.  Midterms and prom really kicked me in the behind.  I don't think life is going to slow down much until the end of May, but this last week was just a bit crazier than normal, so thanks again for waiting on me!!!

Let's talk Jay Gatsby!  We know that he is the central character of this novel, and yet we don't learn much about him until Chapter 3.  It seems to me that authors usually like to introduce that main character to us much earlier than we see here.  In some ways, holding off until this third chapter added this element of mystery that has been built around him.

Right off, I have to say that I loved the descriptions about the party.  Maybe it's the foodie in me, but I love some good food references along with the style, fashion, and mood of the scene.  The mention of the oranges, the baked meats, and varied liquor all gave it that extra luxurious feel.  Fitzgerald didn't have to tell us Gatsby was rich, he SHOWED us in the most alluring ways. 

The one thing I noticed outside of the visuals created by the party was the references to colors, "his blue gardens" (39), "yellow cocktail music" (40), and "a uniform of robin-egg's blue" (41).  These interested me mainly because I couldn't quite put together why certain colors matched what it was describing.  I can see the uniform being a blue color, maybe as a certain stand out color, but gardens that are blue or music that is yellow?  I've been mulling that one and have only determined that they lend a certain tone and interest factor to the scene.

What descriptions most stood out to you as you read these chapters?

Gatsby definitely has charisma and charm, which is reflected in chapters 3 and 4.  One moment in chapter 3 especially made me want to understand Gatsby, and that is after he initially introduces himself to Nick and admits that he is not the best host.  He gives Nick a look:

He smiled understandingly--much more than understandingly.  It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance over it, that you may come across four of five times in life.  It faced--or seemed to face--the whole external world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor.  It understood you just as far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would believe in yourself, and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, hoped to convey. (48)

I loved this description of Gatsby, and have to say that besides feeling somewhat sad for him for not being involved in his own parties, I also can see how his actions and descriptions like this make us want to know Gatsby's background so we can understand him better.  What kind of sadness lurks behind a facade like this? 

So, what is Gatsby's story? He pulls Jordan Baker aside, which Nick later learns has to do with her connection to Daisy.  He hears rumors of Gatsby being a bootlegger and a German spy.  Then, in chapter 4 Gatsby, himself, introduces Nick to Mr. Wolfsheim--the guy who fixed the 1919 World Series?!?  All of the stories, and Gatsby's own "side-eyed" account of his life at Oxford, in the Great War, and awarded a medal of honor from places like Montenegro, all seem too colorful to believe.  If true, what a colorful and interesting character.

Once again, I find Nick an interesting observer in all of this.  Is Gatsby's interest in Nick just because of his connection to Daisy, and the fact that he is Gatsby's next door neighbor?

 My favorite part of the reading for this last section was Jordan Baker's reminiscences and story.  We finally get to hear about Daisy's early connection to Jay Gatsby prior to the war, followed by her marriage to Tom--who cheats on Daisy within a week of their marriage.  After telling Daisy's story, Jordan reveals her sympathy for all Daisy has put up with in Tom and tells Nick, "There are only the pursued, the pursuing, the busy, and the tired.  And Daisy ought to have something in her life" (79).  In other words, she wants Nick to host Daisy at his home so that she can look onto Gatsby's property. 

These are interesting turns in the story, and I really was left wondering how Nick is supposed to feel about all of this.  Isn't he being pulled into a drama that can only be bad news?  These are high-rollers he's associating with, who are "cheating" in their personal and public lives.  At this point in the story, let the drama ensue!

We're obviously setting the ground work for additional drama to come.  Here are just a few questions I wanted to pose and have been considering:

1. What do you think of Gatsby's absence from his own parties?
2. Is Gatsby a character you feel sympathy or cynicism towards?
3. Are we supposed to feel for Daisy as Jordan does, and if she really wanted to meet up with Gatsby again, wouldn't she already have done it?
4. Is there anything else that stood out to you or you questioned?

Please share if you would like!  Whether you've drafted up a blog post with your thoughts (which I hope you'll link), or you share some of your thoughts in the comments, I hope you jump in.

Just as a reminder, the next couple of days we'll be reading Chapters 5-6.  Happy reading!  I hope to see what you're thinking!

The Great Gatsby Read Along: Chapters 1 & 2

The opening of novels is all the same--establish setting, characters, and situation.  Sometimes that opening feels like it drags along, especially if you have to learn a whole new language of sorts, like when I read a dystopian novel and have to figure out the rules of the world.  In the case of The Great Gatsby, we are obviously introduced to West and East Egg, as well as a complex collection of characters who start to build their back story so we can catch up with the present.

For our first two chapters, I wanted to look at what we ran across and get your own two cents and feedback.

Setting:

Set on Long Island--West Egg and East Egg, to be precise.  Separated by a "bay" of water, West Egg was the poorer, less socially affluent side of the bay, while East Egg supported the richer, more connected side of society.  Our narrator, Nick Carraway, lives on West Egg in a small rental cottage between two larger mansions.  One of these mansions is owned by none other than Mr. Jay Gatsby.  The other main characters, Daisy and Tom Buchanan, live in East Egg in a giant mansion of their own.

What is the significance of this setting?  Is the proximity to New York City significant to the tale?  How do the size of the homes and location all play into the social hierarchy being used by Fitzgerald?

Obviously, at the end of Chapter 1, we see that Gatsby must be yearning for whatever is across the bay from him--at the Buchanan's mansion:

"...--fifty feet away a figure had emerged from the shadow of my neighbor's mansion and was standing with his hands in his pockets regarding the silver pepper of the stars...I didn't call to him, for he gave a sudden intimation that he was content to be alone--he stretched out his arms toward the dark water in a curious way, and, far as I was from him, I could have sworn he was trembling.  Involuntarily, I glanced seaward--and distinguished nothing except a single green light, minute and far away, that might have been the end of a dock..." (20-21)

I loved this conclusion to the first chapter, since I kept reminding myself that Nick was the narrator, so everything is filtered through his own sense of curiosity.  His lack of omniscience here adds a nice foreshadowing and a longing that echoes through this conclusion.

Also, I think that you can never quite discount the social divides that are set up in a novel.  Knowing who has money and where those with money live or don't live is important to keep in mind.  As always, money talks.  It doesn't always say very sensible things, but the desperation of folks either not having it or having too much of it can make for a tricky and interesting side narrative.

Characters:

Point of View--We know that Nick Carraway is telling the story.  What do we really learn about him?  He comes from a "Middle Western city," where his family was of some prominence.  After WWI, Nick moved to the East to study the bond business.  In some ways, Nick sets us up to believe he is a humble, young character; he is living in a humble little cottage of sorts and is not set up like his neighbors.  And yet, isn't he also able to easily mingle in rich society pretty easily and quickly?  His relation to Daisy Buchanan might be part of it, but even that might suggest he comes from at least enough money to set him on the path that others might only dream about.

Should we question our reading of the characters in the novel since Nick is the narrator?  Aren't we getting everything filtered through Nick's point of view?

Tom Buchanan is Daisy's ex-football hero husband, said to have had his glory days playing his football, only to find he could never reach those heights again.  He is described as being almost a brute of sorts: "supercilious manner," "shining arrogant eyes," "a cruel body," and "his speaking voice, a gruff husky tenor" (7).  Then, he seems to say to the reader and to Nick:

"Now don't think my opinion on these matters is final, " he seemed to say, "just because I'm stronger and more of a man than you are."  (7)

 Um, can we say he's kind of an arrogant pig?  He not only can't live down his glory days, but he also has to continue to prove he's a bigger and badder man than anyone else around him.  Nick notices how he interrupts Daisy continually throughout their first night when Nick comes over, and we end Chapter 2 with Nick's introduction  and night in the city with Tom and his mistress.  Maybe a thing of the times, and maybe Daisy needed a break, but we have to see Tom as a pretty puffed up character who it will be easy to want to see fall from his high horse!

Daisy Buchanan is Tom's wife and Nick's cousin.  Nick describes her as having, "a conscientious little laugh," and that she laughed, "as if she said something very witty," with a "low, thrilling voice."  He also added depth to his descriptions by showing that, "Her face was sad and lovely, with bright things in it," and that, "...there was an excitement in her voice that men who had cared for her found difficult to forget" (9).

Does this mean that's how she really was, or just how Nick perceived her?  Is Daisy this flirting, trilling little character that is laced with a certain amount of sadness?  Well, it would certainly seem so by our introduction to her and Tom in these opening chapters.  Tom spends his time cutting her off, and it is suggested that she knows about Tom's mistress, Myrtle.

There's so much we could talk about in these chapters!  I could go on and on!  I don't even want to dabble in the bit with the mistress just yet, mainly because I keep mulling over our main characters and their lives.  I think that one of the most famous, and poignantly sad moments comes when Daisy tells Nick what she felt at the time of her daughter's birth, saying:

"She told me it was a girl, and so I turned my head away and wept. 'All right,' I said.  'I'm glad it's a girl. And I hope she will be a fool--that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool.'" (17)

 These lines really strike me, because they say a lot about Daisy and the head space she is in here.  This doesn't seem like a flippant comment to me, but one from a place of despair and personal experience maybe?  I think Daisy understands her world a bit too well.

Okay.  Enough from me on these opening chapters!  I can't say enough how much I'm loving this reread.  It's been way too long since I last read The Great Gatsby, so I've forgotten so many key details!  Now it's your turn.  Share with us!

1. What role(s) do you see for the setting in the novel?  Do you like this setting, and does it affect the way you read the story?
2. Since Nick is the narrator in this story, do you think it's possible he might be setting us up to like or dislike certain characters?  Do you trust his retelling?
3. What do you think of Tom, Daisy, and Myrtle?
4. What else stood out to you in these opening chapters?

 Please share if you would like!  Whether you've drafted up a blog post with your thoughts (which I hope you'll link), or you share some of your thoughts in the comments, I hope you jump in.

Just as a reminder, this coming week we'll be reading Chapters 3-4.  Happy reading!  I hope to see what you're thinking!

Fiction to Film: The Great Gatsby Read Along is Here!

Like many avid readers, every time I see a trailer for The Great Gatsby, I can hardly stand it.  Any time there is a great novel made into a big budget film, I get a little excited and nervous to see how it turns out!  Well, after some chatting on Twitter after a certain Louisville vs. Wichita State game, Trish got me to thinking about a possible Read Along to go before the film.  Honestly, what better time to reread--or read for the first time--the awesome novel that is The Great Gatsby?!?

Here's the deal.  I've never ran a Read Along, but I thought I'd give it a try.  Besides, we have the movie to look forward to at the end of all of this!

DETAILS

Book Length:  My copy comes in just under 200 pages
Chapters:  9
Time to Read:  1 month, with weekly check-ins
End Goal:  To reread Fitzgerald's famous novel & then go check out the movie!

If you're not convinced, check out the movie trailer and then tell me you don't want to reread this gem?!?

If you want to join in, here are the reading details for the coming month:

•  4/10 to 4/17  Chapters 1-2  (40 pages)
• 4/17 to 4/24  Chapters 3-4 (47 pages)
• 4/24 to  5/1  Chapters 5-6  (34 pages)
• 5/1 to 5/8  Chapters 7-End (72 pages)
• 5/10 --Go see the movie!

If you think you can join or just want to jump in on the discussions, grab the button (pardon my button-making), and then post a blog post that you can link back here to the Mr. Linky.  If you just want to join in with us, you can do that as well down in the comments below.

Why don't we get started with a little Initial Post Survey: 

1. Have you read The Great Gatsby before?  If so, what did you think of it the first time you read it?  If not, what do you most look forward to?
2.  Have you seen any other film version of the novel?  What did you think?
3. What do you think of the new film coming out?
4. Any other thoughts on The Great Gatsby you want to share...

Well, let's get a copy and get going!

Review: Outlaw: The Legend of Robin Hood by Tony Lee and Sam Hart

When you're in a reading slump, nothing helps perk things back up again than a great graphic novel or two, three, or four.  I recently tried out a graphic version of the famous tale of Robin Hood.  It was a lot different than I expected, so let me share!

Synopsis:  From Goodreads, "How did Robin of Loxley become Robin Hood? Why did he choose to fight injustice instead of robbing for his own gain? Expressive and gritty, this graphic novel whisks readers back to Crusades-era England, where the Sheriff of Nottingham rules with an iron fist, and in the haunted heart of Sherwood Forest, a defiant rogue — with the help of his men and the lovely Maid Marian — disguises himself to become an outlaw. Lively language and illustrations follow the legendary hero as he champions the poor and provokes a high-stakes vendetta in a gripping adventure sure to draw a new generation of readers."

Review:  Having read many different versions of the tale of Robin Hood, I was interested to see how a graphic novel version would take it on.  The tale was very classic to the most popular version of the story and took in Robin's time in the Crusades, his return to find his father deceased, his conflict with the sheriff, and his love for Marianne.  I can't say that it departed much from the original, but I will say that I wanted even more of his time with his outlaw friends.  I suppose I just wanted to see the relationships developed a bit more.  I'll admit though that I love this tale and seem to piece together the bits of the story I'm given with all the parts that I enjoy.

 One drawback to this graphic version is the darkness of the pictures.  I'm not quite sure why they came out so dark, but they made it feel like it was all set at night or in a dark castle or lodge.  I can see that the darker pictures, with sharp angles might be trying to set the tone and give it a slightly comic feel perhaps?  I'm not sure, but I did wish at times that I could reach for a button to turn up the light a little.  The focus in this tale was on the conflicts with the sheriff and less on character relationships (as the title suggests), but it was still the story I remember.  Overall though, I thought this graphic novel made the story its own in tone and style.  In classic graphic novel style, it clips along through the story, drawing on pictures to propel the story, and was a quick, fun read.   

*FTC Disclosure:  This review is based on a library copy of the novel.

The Value of a Re-Read: Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

In preparation for this year's AP English Literature and Composition class, I assigned the novel Frankenstein for their summer read.  Despite knowing the wealth of information and analysis waiting in this famous novel, I've never been a real fan.  So why assign it, right?  Well, my first reading of the novel had more to do with ME than actually not liking the novel.

Here's my deal.  The first time I read Frankenstein was actually not long after graduating from grad school, just over four years ago.  At the time, I was coming out of a four year relationship that I didn't want to see end, but knew was necessary.  In short, I was bitter, sad, and angry.  So there I was reading Frankenstein, about this monster who keeps getting rejected by any human being he came in contact with, including his creator.  Not only that, but his big resolution was to ask for Victor Frankenstein (his creator) to make him a mate so that he wouldn't be alone?!?  Bah!  Even now, when I put myself in the mindset I was in at the time, I know exactly why I hated that stupid monster and the novel altogether.  The monster was justified in feeling kicked around and derided by everyone he knew, but thinking that a girl monster as a companion would just solve everything made me annoyed to no end!  Yes, I 100% read myself into the story.  Yes, I saw myself as that monster, as continually kicked around by life.  The difference was that I saw the reality of needing to suck it up and move on!  Poor monster.  I was guilty of reading myself into the text way too much.

Let's fast forward four years.  My own heart has had a chance to heal and be thankful for the conclusion of a relationship that wasn't meant to be.  I went back and re-read Frankenstein so that I'd be ready to discuss the themes and plot lines in the story with my students.  This time around, I found myself more sensitive to the monster's anguish and much more frustrated with Victor for being so self absorbed and narcissistic that he couldn't realize his role in all the bad that had happened.  With a little aesthetic distance on my part, the themes came out a bit stronger and I wasn't consumed by emotional conclusions I couldn't escape that first time around.

This led me to question other books that I might have read myself into or even misunderstood at a different time.  For instance, I know that I didn't get all the nuances of The Glass Menagerie when I first read it in high school. That didn't, however, eliminate me from seeing many different themes from the beginning.  I can't say that I would just not read a book or dissuade someone from reading a novel or play because they couldn't directly connect with it, because there is still a lot to get out of them.  Although, on the other hand, I would say that I've learned that you just might have to give novels you've had a strong reaction to a second chance.  In some cases an experience or two, or year or two, can change your entire perspective on a novel and its themes.

Now, where can we get the extra time we need so we can re-read?

What books have you read again and had a different response to the second time around?

Review: Edith Wharton by Hermione Lee

June has turned out to be a pretty crap month as far as reading and even relaxing is concerned.  I know, I know, I know.  When you've traveled for fun, no one pities you in the slightest, but I'm just saying that this has been the craziest, on the go month for being a break!  One of my big goals, every summer, is to read books that will help me prep more for my AP classes.  I haven't done very well in that regard, but I did recently read most of Hermione Lee's large biography, Edith Wharton.  Amazing and dense is the easiest review to write, but I'll try to explain a bit better than that!

Review:  In short, Lee's biography is more than just a book about the famous author Edith Wharton.  In this densely written book, we learn about the culture of turn of the century, upper-class society in New York City.  We learn about gardens and landscaping in the United States in comparison to Italy and other European countries.  We learn about little lap dogs, and their popularity way before the likes of Paris Hilton started toting them around.  We learn of the ever sophisticated, cultural center that was Paris, as the escape for artists in all walks of life.  We learn that writing reflects the pain of one's life so directly, that the mental anguish or non-disclosure of such pain can eek out into the words on the page whether the writer want them to or not.  For Edith Wharton, the complexities of her life were shown in all of these lessons and a million more. 

I can't really, adequately review  a book of this nature without directing more of my thoughts around how the book was written.  In a pretty weighty, yet engaging academic voice, Hermione Lee takes a linear approach to Edith Wharton's life, in a very non-linear way.  Although she starts with her early childhood and marriage, she also bounces around to show how things that occurred in her life are reflected and influence events later on.  This moving backward and forward through Wharton's life leaves the chapters in the biography feeling more like individual academic essays that could be lifted from the book for research.  I would think that unless you are really, really interested in Wharton's life, that I would only pick up this hefty book for individual research or curiosity.   This is not easy reading, by any means, but it is richly satisfying and made me appreciate the artist's life much more.  For college students or academics, Lee's book would be a brilliant resource that I can heartily recommend.  Give yourself plenty of time to peruse, because you'll need it!

*FTC Disclosure:  Review is based on a library copy of the book.

Jane Eyre (2011): Film Thoughts

Jane Eyre is one of those grand novels, that if you've read and compared to Wuthering Heights, you probably came to a definite conclusion about which Bronte novel you liked better.  I was always a Jane Eyre fan, although I'll admit to really wishing Jane would have given Rochester a good kick in the shins through many scenes in the novel.  Wuthering Heights always disturbed me, with Heathcliff and Catherine's cruelty to one another, all in the name of love.  Ironically, Jane and Rochester also have a pretty cruel fated relationship.  Both are fairly complex characters, with troubled pasts and emotional baggage to pack around.  To this we add the complexity of class distinction and gender difference.  Therein we get the recipe for an angsty, Gothic/Romantic novel that we continue to read, film, and discuss.

This newest Focus Feature filming of Jane Eyre is well done.  My emotions ran the gamut, and I can say that I was pretty invested in the characters and their story.  The opening sequence starts with the scene in the novel where Jane has run away from Rochester and Thornfield Hall.  From there, the film is a set of flashbacks from her life, including her troubled upbringing, her time in the girl's school, and her time at Thornfield Hall.  As with some of the other film versions of the novel, this Jane is plain, but very pretty in her plainness.  Rochester seems, at least in my opinion, to be the wild card. He can either be slightly mad and scary looking, or you can go for the ruggedly handsome, leading man type.  In this case, he seemed a bit of both.

Let me be frank in saying that I've always thought that Rochester was a bit of a jerk.  In some sick, sadistic way, I found that jerk side of him made his eventual romantic side that much more charming and romantic.  You know, the bad guy the girl turned good, or the rich guy who hooks up with the poor chick?  It's all very Cinderella story, but in this case, Rochester isn't exactly a "Prince Charming".    Here's what I found interesting.  In the novel, Rochester seems to do a series of things to Jane that reveal that he gets that she's lower status, poor, and lacks opportunities afforded to him.  How do we know?  He makes rude comments to her.  He seems to lord his money over her.  He makes snide remarks about Adele and her mother.  He gets to know Jane a little, only to drag a woman he is supposed to be courting into the picture and into her very face.  He ignores her.  He commands her.  He dominates her.  He pleads with her.  He taunts her.  You get the picture.  Yes, he's wounded, and yes you get that he falls for Jane.  What I couldn't quite grip was the gentle touch they gave to the film's Rochester.  Were they trying to not annoy a modern audience?  Would we see Rochester's brusqueness as the exact opposite of romantic love and not care to see Jane with him?  I'm not sure if this was intentional or not, but it was interesting to consider.

This version has a real movie feel to it, with the blending of beautiful sets, scenery, and music.  The acting is very good, with little deviation from the novel, aside from some of the order in which they tell it, scenes they chose to condense or leave out, and some pretty sexy kissing going on.  Overall, it was an excellent film and one that I will definitely add to my collection! 

If you've seen Jane Eyre, what were your thoughts? 

Sunday Blatherings: Lots of Les Miserables

I've been a bit absent this week.  Third term ended on Friday and our grades had to be in, so I had spent night and day grading.  Sadly, most of it was due to students trying to "death bed repent" as I call it.  My frustration was at an all time high, so I felt like following that old adage, "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all" where posting was concerned!  Honestly, I didn't even read this last week, and I've been laying low this weekend.  I was so run down that I didn't leave my house, not once.  It was nice, but I'm already bracing myself for work in the morning.

One of the great, shining lights is what I'm teaching right now.  Grading, I could throw out the window, but the teaching still drives me.  In World Lit. we've been reading Les Miserables by Victor Hugo.  I don't know if it's the stress that's gotten to me at the end of this past term, but I've been a bit obsessed with both the novel and play and can't get them out of my head!  The timing couldn't be better with PBS showing Les Miserables: The 25th Anniversary Concert.  Between teaching it in class, watching clips from the movie, and then watching the PBS special, I've had Les Mis on the brain so much that I'm constantly humming the tunes! In fact, as I locked myself inside this weekend, I watched the PBS special again--twice.

I think that I'll be back to myself soon, relatively speaking!  Until then, I'll keep reveling in Les Mis.  :)  Here are my favorite clips from the encore.  If you haven't seen it, I can't recommend it enough!

The Bronte Sisters Take Popular Culture By Storm... Again

Yes, I'm seriously excited about this one! There is yet another film version of Charlotte Bronte's famous Jane Eyre coming out in 2011 and I, for one, will be anxious to see this newest version.  Surprisingly, it has been over two years ago that I reviewed the newer BBC version of Jane Eyre and really enjoyed it.  However, with a cast that includes such grand actors as Judy Dench, I have high hopes for this film coming out in the spring.

It does seem that everywhere we look authors are either discussing, rewriting, or filming versions of the classics we read in school.  Today I teach those classics and am amazed by the foot dragging that goes along with these reading assignments!  You would think that although old, that students would want to be part of the dialogue and to know more about some of these famous works.  Right?  Wrong.  They are pretty hesitant to read classics on their own, and unless the reading "type," even less likely to admit to liking a classic to their classmates unless they feel like they really got it.  Sometimes, this is actually where a well-made film adaptation or modernization can at least help my students to understand what they've read--after they've read it.

The Bronte sisters seem to be entering into our current craze for remakes and adaptations of famous classics.  As one example of the buzz surrounding Jane Eyre, it's hard to miss the new YA novel Jane, by April Lindner, that is all the talk on the web.  Bloggers seem to scrambling to get their hands on this modernization of Bronte's famously tormented governess, now working for a rock star.  I'll admit that I have my own copy on hold at my local library, and I am anxiously waiting to get my hands on it to give it a go.  Jane Austen seems to now have company in the book and movie field, adding to our love of period pieces and classical literature that we love to read and watch.  Maybe my students would enjoy this more?  Yes, I'm sure they would, but they really need to read the original to get the comparison!

To add a little more depth to this conversation, I noticed this past week that Meg Cabot posted on her Twitter page a query about Jane Eyre vs. Wuthering Heights readers/fans.  Supposedly, this was all spurred on by an article in the Guardian titled, "How the Bronte's Divide Humanity."  Considering the title, it is an obvious argument between readers who enjoy the Heathcliff & Cathy drama, versus those who lean more towards the Mr. Rochester and Jane tale.  According to the article, her theory states:

...everyone who's read both Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights is passionately devoted to one book but nose-holdingly repelled by the other. If you want to be particularly contentious, you can divide those who satisfy the basic entry criteria into two types – those drawn to demure, bookish Miss Eyre and those for whom the pyrotechnical hanky-panky between Cathy Earnshaw and black-browed Heathcliff is paramount – and call them Librarians and Rock Stars.

As for myself, I suppose I'm a librarian, since I am much more drawn to "demure" Miss Eyre over maniacal Cathy of Wuthering Heights (which I had to read FIVE times as an undergrad English major).  I'll admit to being drawn to the quasi-happy ending of Jane Eyre, while being disturbed by the cruelty between the "lovers" in Wuthering Heights.  I suppose I needed Heathcliff and Cathy though, to shake some of my romantic immaturity away with their cruel jabs at one another!

Regardless of your own leanings, the Bronte's have left a definite impression on readers that continues to spark discussions today.  Spin offs, modernizations, and remakes will likely continue as long as their stories are pertinent and connect to us in some way.   For my own part, I'll definitely be trekking off to see this newest film in the spring, and probably offering my AP students some extra credit for viewing it as well.  (Won't they be happy campers!?!)

What do you think?  Are you a Cathy or a Jane Eyre fan, and will you be going to see this newest version of the film?

Film Review: Doctor Zhivago (2002)

Growing up, I somehow decided that "real love" had some sort of tragedy involved.  In fact, I didn't think it was romantic or a deep love if tragedy didn't separate the couple in some way.  I know.  As an adult I now realize how sick I was (and am), and that I've set myself up for a repetition of my own sick ways.  I won't go into my own love life, but I will say that tragedy was involved.  Do I think that was real love?  Yes, but I can't say that it is "romantic," nor a way to spend one's life.  Thankfully I have realized that's not the best form of love, but I do still, strangely, like tragedy!

Having backed up my view on tragedy, I have to precede my review of Doctor Zhivago with a quick explanation.  I grew up on musicals and old movies.  An 8-Track of Camelot piped through our house on Saturday mornings while we cleaned--in fact, I can't hear the song "Camelot" without feeling like I need to pick up a dust rag!  Although Doctor Zhivago isn't a musical, "Lara's Theme" is haunting and fits the film.  Yes, the film is sad and tragic, but I have loved it for a very long time.  This is why I had to watch the new, updated version with Keira Knightley that came out in 2002.

Synopsis:  From Amazon.com, "A man torn between two women amid the chaos and brutality of the Russian Revolution.  One of the world’s most famous love stories and half a century of Russian history come to life in this adaptation of Pasternak’s masterpiece by celebrated screenwriter Andrew Davies (Bridget Jones’s Diary, Pride and Prejudice). War and revolution bring poet and physician Yury Zhivago (Hans Matheson) together with the beautiful Lara (Keira Knightley), his muse and all-consuming passion. But both are haunted--Yury by guilt over his betrayal of Tonya, his beloved wife, and Lara by fear of Komarovsky (Sam Neill), the powerful man who means to have her any way he can."
  
Review:  This mini-series was good, but just didn't reach the epic scale of the 1965 film version of the story.  The acting in the series was surprisingly good, as well as the sets, and I thought that their demonstration of the conflict in Russia to be necessary.  Having said that, I somehow couldn't get past Keira Knightley as Lara.  I think that Knightley is beautiful and an amazing actress, but have to admit that I missed our more vulnerable Lara in Julie Christie.  Zhivago was also hard for me to take in Hans Matheson, mainly because his roles in other films have been so diverse as to distract me and remind me of his other characters.  For instance, he has played Marius in the film version of  Les Miserables, but also the dastardly scoundrel Alec D'Urberville in the amazing new adaptation of Tess of the D'Urbervilles.  Honestly, I saw him more as Alec, so couldn't sympathize as much with him.  Yes, he is a great actor, and one that I think has amazing talent to have me so riled up at his individual performances, but will admit that I'm overly influenced by these other parts he has played.

If you are a fan of the original Doctor Zhivago, I say you really must watch this version.  If you are not familiar with it, have a culturally iconic flashback moment and watch the older version of the film.  Actually, they are both are worth your time.  Let me be honest in saying that the story is sad and tragic, but is interesting in its treatment of love and marriage.  This movie haunts me, and to this day has me wondering if the loss in the film is worth it for that chance to have loved at all?  As the adage goes, "It's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all."  In the case of this film, we encounter that adage up close, and I'm still not sure if that's true.  All I know is that I hope that's not my own destiny!

By the way, although the novel is dense with Russian politics that can be confusing, this is also a great novel.

What do you think?  Do you think it's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all? 

Film Review: Jude the Obscure

It's been awhile since I last reviewed a film, but recently put a couple of period dramas in my Netflix circulation that I can talk about.  Since finishing the novel Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy, I really felt as though I secured my fan status of Hardy's work.  My admiration for his guts in tackling hard social issues surrounding marriage and women really have me in awe at his bravery!  Now I realize that his novels, and this one in particular, have received mixed reviews because of their often gloomy topics and outcomes.  For whatever reason, I really like the buttons that Hardy tried to push, and can continue to push in his readers today.  Having said that, I was curious to see this novel about poor Jude, the stone mason and academic, put to film.  Unfortunately, most of Hardy's novels have not been updated as Tess of the D'Urbervilles has been, so I had to settle on a BBC Masterpiece Theater version from 1971.  (See my Jude the Obscure review for more specific information on the storyline.)

The film itself was in broken into six mini-episodes that covered each of the sections of the original novel.  The filming felt very similar to a video recording of a stage play though, with its strange jumps and one dimensional shooting.  There was very little movement to capture the actions of the characters, but one film shot to show an entire scene.  Some of the backdrops, especially of Christminster looked like painted backdrops, since I didn't notice the people moving?  The acting was also a bit jarring.  Besides the characters looking out of date and garish in a lot of ways, I thought that the acting was reminiscent of the overacting that would be done in an older, classical version of a Dickens story.  In fact, it reminded me a bit of an old Christmas Carol film that was in black and white.  It was all just a bit much. 

The one thing that I thought was the most out of character with this out of date telling of Hardy's novel was the nude scenes.  Honestly, for something that would have been aired on PBS, I had a hard time imagining the scenes of the women undressing and showing their breasts and torsos being allowed on television.  Besides, having read the novel, I was confused as to the reason behind artistically choosing to shoot partial nudity?  It was just a bit odd is all.  If it was a necessary element to forward the character development and story I would understand, but this just felt thrown in there in a really bizarre way.

To be honest, the film was too long for me.  After about two and a half hours I started fast-forwarding drawn out dialogue scenes to get to the scenes that I remembered with  great interest, such as when Jude's wife returns and he finds out he has a child, or when Sue joins Jude and overlooks the downcast opinions of society to be with him.  Other than a few interesting interpretations, I can't say that my modern sensibilities caught on to this rather long, drawn out film.  In my estimation, I would definitely stick to the book until a better film adaptation rolls down the pike!

In closing, I have to say that while I ADORE my Jane Austen and Elizabeth Gaskell films that have been made and remade of late, I really wish that some of these old films would get a good update.  In fact, I'd love to see someone conquer books such as Don Quijote or Brave New World.  Filmmakers have such a great wealth of stories to choose from in these classic novels! Maybe it's time for them to tackle some of them again?


Are there film adaptations of any novels or plays that you wish they would update? 

Review: Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

I debated reviewing this amazing dystopian novel or not, but determined that I HAD to give it a plug on my blog. This last month, in preparation for the AP Literature exam for my students, we read Brave New World. I distinctly remember reading it when I was in high school, and what a breath of fresh air (strangely enough) that it was after all of the classic "oldies but goodies" we had been reading. I think this might have also been the case for many of my students, as they really seemed to "dig" it, with it's in-your-face sort of satire. So, why not review it? It's been awhile since I had read it, and I have to say that I really enjoyed revisiting it with my classes.

Synopsis: Deemed a science fiction original, Aldous Huxley sets forth a future society in which happiness is the key. Humans are scientifically engineered, both genetically and psychologically, to be a part of a certain "caste" in society. Those who are set apart to work, are conditioned from their pre-natal state, through maturation, to seemingly enjoy their status, and not desire more. Alphas are the highest caste possible, and only remotely are these upper echelons allowed the opportunity to think and create in their society. Otherwise, all members of this society take Soma tablets to escape reality and be happy, listen to hypnopaedia as they sleep to condition them to not question or think, and use sex and erotic play as a normal behavior to be shared freely. In this society, humans are not to "bond" with one another, nor do they have children. Into this mix of conditioned humans are our main characters. Bernard likes to think and consider why he's different, so he avoids Soma pills, and wants to pair off with Lenina (who is a very typical female, and is therefore freaked out by Bernard's strange need to be with her, but not have sex with her). Then there is John, considered a native, and a young man who was born of a woman and raised outside of the community on a "reservation." John is obviously not like the others, and when introduced into their society, we find that this can be a volatile mix.

Our essential question then becomes, how important is it to be comfortable and happy at all times? What must be sacrificed so that all people can be happy? Do we really have to sacrifice passion and individual thought to achieve peace and balance? And...who decides what is peace and balance?

Synopsis: I forgot how much I loved this book. Just about every page of my copy of the novel was marked up with my thoughts and connections. Everything from the names used in the book (which all tie to famous communists or free-thinkers of the time), to the casual way in which sex was treated (since all passions lead to crime and unhappiness), were really interesting to think about and consider. From the beginning, I told my students that this book was not about glamorizing immorality, nor degrading reason, and that they should be looking for the satire. Luckily, they found it! The satire in the novel is embedded in the absurdities behind erotic play being encouraged for children, avoiding family connections at all costs, and packing Soma pills around so that an escape from reality was just around the corner. It is obvious that Huxley is pointing out more about how pain, love, fear, joy, hate, and happiness all go together; that essentially, we as humans have to have structure and control, to understand and enjoy beauty. Essentially, without pain, chaos, and restraint, we would be like infants, who are unable to comprehend creation in any sense.

It seems obvious that Huxley's novel is a reaction to the many political powers threatening societies across the globe. While we see the way forcing others to behave in certain ways can backfire, we also see Huxley pointing a finger at us as individuals, asking us to examine our own beliefs that affect our daily lives. Religion seems to come directly under fire in the novel, not for its ability to inspire, but for its power to direct the way people think, almost mindlessly. In essence, we can see that thought, feeling, and believing are encouraged on an individual basis, and in a way that unites us as human beings. Huxley definitely seems to be encouraging a certain morality that I find refreshing, and a message that can only be reached with an open mind and a little reason. Overall, I think this was a great text to end my school year with, and I loved the discussions we had. From my own point of view, it was a great experience re-reading this as an adult, as I found so much more to connect to than before. If you want a lot of discussion, this is the book to pick up!

If you've read Brave New World, what did you think? Do you enjoy reading dystopian novels, and why? I'd really love to hear what you think.

Review: East of Eden by John Steinbeck

For a couple of years, I have been trying to get through John Steinbeck's famous East of Eden. I loved Of Mice and Men, but the jury was out on The Grapes of Wrath, so I figured it could go either way. Well, can I say that based on how long it took me to read the novel, should spell out part of my response to its themes and ideas. In fact, I'm still wondering if there were any themes?

Synopsis: The novel begins around two brothers, Adam and Charles Trask, who were both raised and cared for in very different ways by their parents. In particular, Adam was the much-loved son from a first marriage (that ended in tragedy), which the second son Charles was left feeling jealous. Regardless of the trouble between these brothers, they were family, and they set up a farm together. To their familial lives entered Cathy Ames, truly one of the wildest and evil characters to ever appear in print. Cathy, with her continual agenda and inability to feel for anyone in her life other than herself, married Adam, and the two eventually had two sons together (or do they?), after which even more turmoil was introduced into the story as Cathy caused a riff between the two brothers, and cared little for her husband and infant sons.

Review: As mentioned earlier, if there was a message to the novel, it slipped past me entirely. To be quite honest, I think I'm done with Steinbeck for awhile. I find myself saying, "What the HECK?" way too often...and I'm totally a "What the HECK"-loving sort of gal, but this was a bit too much. I often seek out the core message of the novel, especially in a classic, and all I could readily grasp was the connection to the Biblical story of Cain and Abel, rife with all sorts of symbols of good and evil. Fine, I get that. Is that the message? That the world is filled with people of different backgrounds, with different feelings and actions based on love or hate?

The story was engaging, and so filled with drama that I understand why people like this novel. I, on the other hand, really didn't like the story. I'd love to have a conversation with someone about the way Steinbeck ends his novels. In some ways, I end feeling manipulated, which is actually one of my number one pet peeves with any story. Make me part of the story, engage me, but don't manipulate me. To me, that sometimes feels condescending, as if I can't get the gist of something based off of the story, or that you have to throw in such an obscurity as to make me flip back the pages to see if I missed something.

If I'm honest with myself, I'd say that two of the core reasons I disliked East of Eden were due to the hype, and then my overwhelming hatred for the over-the-top-twisting-of-the proverbial-villain-mustache character of Cathy. She's not just evil, she simply doesn't have a beating heart. The only people I've ever encountered like her have been mass murders I've seen in interviews on TV; people who are totally withdrawn from society and social values to such a degree that they can't see anything outside of themselves. I recognize that Cathy makes the lives of every character she touches, miserable, and that she helps expose the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in others. That's fine. I just couldn't decide what I was supposed to glean from her evil nature. Did something really horrible happen to her? Was she sexually abused to the point of bending her to a deviance outside of social comprehension? I just don't know.

In the end, I couldn't see my way out of the novel, and didn't enjoy it. I'm glad that I read it, and have it as part of my literary "consciousness," but that's as far as it goes. I followed my reading up with a three day misery-fest by watching the 1980's, famous film adaptation of the novel, starring Jane Seymour. Kudos to Jane Seymour for playing this monster. As an actress I've learned to adore Jane Seymour, so all congratulations for being a strong enough actress to scare me senseless and make it so I can never quite look at her in the same way ever again! Although the film was VERY 80s in its filming, music, and acting, it did stay pretty close to the core of the novel...which is probably why I was thankful to drop it back in the return box at the library! Overall, I would say that East of Eden was not a success for me. I've had strong opinions about other "classics" and best sellers before, and I will now be adding East of Eden to that pack. I'm thinking that as an English teacher who is always striving to cover my basics in literature and genres, that I'm done with Steinbeck. I get his "jig" now (as I like to call style), and I'm just not that into him.

For more information on the novel, see:East of Eden, and for the film adaptation see: East of Eden.

I know that many readers adore this novel, and literally could not put it down. What insights can you add, and why did you enjoy it? Of course I'm entitled to my opinion, but what might I have missed?

*FTC Disclosure: This review based off of a person copy of the novel, and a library copy of the film.

Review: Pride and Prejudice (The Graphic Novel)

Recently, I was sent a recommendation to the graphic version of Pride and Prejudice, adapted by Nancy Butler. Being the Austen fanatic that I've come to realize that I am, I placed it on hold at the library. There's no need to really rehash what the story is about, as it really is a graphic telling of the famous novel, but will say that the heart of this famous love story is all present and represented nicely.

I thought that this graphic version of the famous story to be quite fun reading. In fact, after taking it to school to show it to the librarians and several of my classes, I had a couple of students who wanted to take it home (which I would have considered had it been my own copy). It was a cute, fast read, and the pictures that went along with the chosen dialogue were quite well done. Other than being a little distracted by Elizabeth's lips (excessive lines made it look like she'd had a bit of botox), it was a great read. I highly recommend this graphic novel to anyone who is an Austen fan and would like to see their favorite scenes played out in graphic fashion.

Thanks to the librarians at my school, they also pulled a variety of other graphic novels and mangas for me to try out. Below are the ones they checked out to me. I'm excited to give them a try!


Admittedly, I'd rather read novels in the classic sense, minus the pictures, but I found this to be a fun departure from the norm. Am I the last to the graphic novel craze? I'm curious as to what other graphic novels or stories you might recommend?

Second Helpings

The weekend is over. (Moment of silence, please.) It was such a nice weekend, too. Because I had such a bad week last week, I honestly had very little to grade over the weekend...at least compared to all the other weekends thus far this year! :) Oh...and I'm going on three days without a headache!!! MIRACLE! Bad news though...I have no idea why.


Well, I finished Tess of the D'Urbervilles over the weekend, which as before, was a great read. It's tragic, and will make you angry, but has such great messages! Written during the Victorian era, Thomas Hardy pretty much let this be his last novel after being labeled a pornographer for this novel and Jude the Obscure. That bothered him so much, that he stopped writing novels and went back to just writing poetry. At a time when his message of hypocrisy towards women and their virtue was misunderstood, I think he did an amazing job of causing a stir so that people would maybe rethink their cultural viewpoint. Great novel.

I also finished reading Megan McCafferty's second novel in her series, Second Helpings. Like the first novel, I found the teen characters way too obsessed with the status of their virginity; however, I think this novel was able to develop some important relationships between characters that the first struggled to build. As a reminder, the story is basically about a brainiac girl whose best friend moves out of state. As she tries to rebuild her high school life, she finds that the hypocrisy of teens to be just about too much for her, and she tries to be herself...which is ironic, because she spends more time in the novel protecting herself from getting hurt by pretending that nothing bothers her! During the course of the novel, our main character applies for, and gets accepted into college, and falls in love (twice...sort of). The conversations going on are still pretty PG-13/R, and I could see why McCafferty's switch moved from YA with the first novel, to the adult section with her later books. I still wonder if her teen readers will be following her as she moves her character into her college years? I understand that it's hard to market a story about a teenager to adults, but making the cross over into genres part way through the series seems odd to me. Oh well...

In the world of film, I watched The Forsyte Saga, about a British aristocratic family living in London at the turn of the century. Extended branches of the Forsyte's get married, have children, marry for love and not for love, deal with gambling issues, build extravagant country estates, have children, etc. It honestly felt a little bit like Dynasty in the British Victorian to Edwardian era. Netflix recommended it to me because of all the other British dramas I've been watching, so I guess they threw this one my way. While not really what I expected or wanted, still more entertaining than many other things I could have been watching while I finished up my grading!

Well, I have to get ready for the day...so, until next time...bye! :)

Revenge and Tess

Yes, I should be in bed, but about two hours ago I hopped online to check on an assignment for a student, and he reamed me out on every response...for no reason! Since I don't have kids, I suppose this is what then keeps me up at night...my students. Man, do I need a life!

Anyway, I didn't mention that I've been catching up on various BBC films while I've been grading lately. Over the weekend, I watched the new release (actually not BBC) of Brideshead Revisited, which is a look at the last of the British aristocracy and their fight with maintaining social norms, family expectations, and religious pressures. It's not a feel-good sort of film, but I have to say that I really liked it because it made me want to go back to graduate school again and be in my Contemporary British Fiction class. Sigh...to discuss the impact of class structure on everything from basic friendships to gender identity was pretty fascinating. It's a bit deep and dark, so I can't say that I can recommend it to anyone interested in light and peaceful. For me though, the issues left me thinking long after the movie was over.



I also watched the film version of Tess of the D'Urbervilles. It is an amazing piece of cinematography, with beautiful landscapes and vibrant colors. The story is very nicely portrayed here as well, so overall, I really loved their keeping to the heart of Hardy's novel...especially since it's one of my favorite stories.


Once again, not a happy-ending sort of film, but holy cow...what a treasure of ideas and musings! I'm supposed to be throwing a film night for my AP students, next weekend. So here's the problem, towards the end of the film, a male character hops out of bed buck naked, to stand in front of the window to stare out at the "morning after." It's not really part of the story, but we know how creative license occurs. My problem is that I have to watch out for it when I know my students will be wanting to watch the film. Of course, now I'll be a huge Nervous Nelly, because I'll have to be right on my tiptoes to skip ahead long before we hit that scene! (P.S. Not a cute booty shot either!) Anyway, I do still think this is the best of all the Tess films I've seen.

To finish off, I wanted to share a book I finished tonight. Yes, after a hideous week of long hours so far...getting to work this morning at 6:30 am, I rushed home to read and unwind. I needed to finish Jo Barrett's novel This is How it Happened, so I pushed through to get it read and returned to the library.
The basic premise of this novel is that her ex-boyfriend basically used her the entire time they were together, to the point where he gets her fired from her job, steals her files of ideas, and makes it almost so that she can't get work again. The book opens with her spiking brownies with poison, and thereafter trying to come up with every possible way of getting even known to man. So, I can't say that the emotions she expressed in these scenes as being totally unfamiliar to me, so I felt for her. The bad side here is that I didn't necessarily like her or any other character all that much, so I didn't really believe the story as a whole. I've read another of Barrett's novels, which I remember being a so, so read for me at the time. Her narrative style and ideas are good, but somewhere in the middle of it all, I simply don't end up relating to the female leads she creates, and then don't like the story. Overall, not my favorite read, but okay.

Well, having said all this, I have to admit that I've had a horrible craving for my old graduate school fare. I went down and dug through my old Native American novels and books of theory, and literally felt a painful twinge in my chest. What I wouldn't give to be studying literature again! So I grabbed an armload of books and hauled them up to my already overrun room, in the hopes that I can read some Eldrich soon!