Great Books
To read or not to read?....that is a silly question!
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The Timelessness of FRANKENSTEIN
I absolutely LOVE FRANKENSTEIN by Mary Shelley. It's difficult to explain what it is about this book that is so incredibly awesome. I've read the book often enough now that you'd think I have it memorized, but I thoroughly enjoy each and every reading. I've been reading the same edition for the past several readings and it's interesting to note that not only do I re-underline (in a different color) the exact same passages, but I also still have other passages that I can't help underlining this time through! There's just so much that's great about this novel. What's even more awesome is that even more than a hundred years later, it's still a novel that hits home.
Here's this creature who just wants the love and fellowship of his fellow human beings but he's denied that simply because he's so hideous to look at. People are afraid of him and, as a result, won't take the time to get to know him. He knows that if people would just give him a chance, he'd be able to convince them, to show them that he is capable of giving love as well as worthy of receiving love. There are still so many people today who are ostracized by society simply because they're DIFFERENT from everyone else. While we didn't get a chance to talk about it in class, this is exactly the theme of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, another of my favorite stories, but written by Gaston Lereaux, a French author.
I guess, in a way, I tend to identify with the creature in the respect that because I am so different from most people I know, I am often teased, picked on, and left out of activities, etc. that my friends, co-workers, etc. enjoy together. But my mom always told me that it's ok to be different. While sometimes it hurts that I'm not accepted in certain circles, overall, I'm happy with who I am. Just like anyone else, I know I have areas that need to be worked on, improved, but as a whole, I like who Polly Anna is and what she's accomplished in life. I have my days of low self-esteem, of course. But as a whole, life is good and I'm ok with being different.
The biggest difference, of course, between the creature and myself is that he allows the rejection of his creator and society to lead him down a path of destruction while I refuse to go that way. I don't know that the creature could have done much of anything to convince anyone, ever, of seeing him as the loving human being he so desired to be. It is just too difficult to get beyond his horrific appearance. But even Victor says at the end of the novel that his creature has the power of persuasion and he warns Walton not to be pulled in by the creature. So it seems that there MIGHT have been a chance to the creature to find SOMEONE who would look beyond his hideous appearance to the true, loving man inside.....
I also love FRANKENSTEIN because I can relate to Victor in how he gets so incredibly engrossed in his study and the creation of his monster, that everything else around disappears. Granted, he fails to pause long enough to question whether or not what he is doing is morally the right thing to do while I feel that I am at least aware enough, even in my most absent-minded moments, to know right from wrong and to do the right thing---as much as I am able. When I am reading or writing, everything around me disappears. I am not aware of much of anything going on. I've often joked with my family that when I'm reading, a herd of elephants could rampage through my living room and I wouldn't even notice it. I really do think that's pretty close to being true. Victor was that involved in his studies and his creation of his monster.
I could go on and on and on about how wonderful FRANKENSTEIN is as a novel. I could talk about all the great themes that are covered, all the wonderful references to other texts and great poems that Shelley uses, all the wonderful, beautiful lines and descriptions, how well Shelley keeps track of dates/time, and on and on. It is for these reasons and many more that not only is the novel amazing to read, but the story itself is so widely referenced in movies, tv shows, books/novels, songs, and on the list goes. It's a timeless tale that if you've never taken the time to read, you really, really, really should!
Saturday, January 26, 2013
British History: Wives of Henry VIII
Henry VIII's Wives by Julie Wheeler
Concise. Clear-cut. Straight to the point. No opinions or outside commentary. Just a basic telling of the 6 wives of Henry VIII. Still, very interesting, at least it is to me. I'm fascinated by all of this. The one part that always confuses me and makes so me upset is how so many of the women have such similar names: Anne, Mary, Katherine, Jane. They didn't have a lot of variations as far as names for women went in the 16th Century. It's no wonder that even someone like me who loves all things British can easily get confused as to which woman is which at what time and which woman did what when. Overall, this book is a nice simple explanation of Henry VIII's wives that helps keep the women straight, at least better than some other sources I've read in the past. It even includes some pictures. None of which are very attractive, but, well, it was the 16th century.....
Concise. Clear-cut. Straight to the point. No opinions or outside commentary. Just a basic telling of the 6 wives of Henry VIII. Still, very interesting, at least it is to me. I'm fascinated by all of this. The one part that always confuses me and makes so me upset is how so many of the women have such similar names: Anne, Mary, Katherine, Jane. They didn't have a lot of variations as far as names for women went in the 16th Century. It's no wonder that even someone like me who loves all things British can easily get confused as to which woman is which at what time and which woman did what when. Overall, this book is a nice simple explanation of Henry VIII's wives that helps keep the women straight, at least better than some other sources I've read in the past. It even includes some pictures. None of which are very attractive, but, well, it was the 16th century.....
The Bloody Countess
I am absolutely fascinated by the Countess Bathory. Ever since I first heard about her about 2 or 3 years ago, she has fascinated me. My husband had had trouble sleeping one night, so he had watched some tv while he was awake. He watched this show about this woman who had murdered young virgins to use their blood so she could look and feel young. My husband told me about the show and I have been obsessed with Erzebet Bathory ever since. I now own several books about her, both fiction and nonfiction. This little book tells the essential story in an overview but with enough detail that anyone new to the Countess will understand the whole story.
I wish I knew what was so fascinating about a woman serial killer such as the Countess. She is probably the most horrific woman ever to have lived--that we know about, but yet I can't get enough information about her--who she was and what she did. And how she did it.
What fascinates me more than anything else about the Countess is that Bram Stoker did know about her when he wrote his wonderful novel DRACULA. He had planned on using her in his novel, but it just didn't work out. In his notes for a sequel, she played a major role. That sequel was written recently by a great-great-great (I can't remember how many greats) newphew of Bram Stoker and the Countess plays a central role to the story as a whole. It's wonderful!
If you want a quick overview of who the Countess is, this little book is a nice, quick, easy, but thorough read.
The Bloody Countess by Amber Holbrook
I wish I knew what was so fascinating about a woman serial killer such as the Countess. She is probably the most horrific woman ever to have lived--that we know about, but yet I can't get enough information about her--who she was and what she did. And how she did it.
What fascinates me more than anything else about the Countess is that Bram Stoker did know about her when he wrote his wonderful novel DRACULA. He had planned on using her in his novel, but it just didn't work out. In his notes for a sequel, she played a major role. That sequel was written recently by a great-great-great (I can't remember how many greats) newphew of Bram Stoker and the Countess plays a central role to the story as a whole. It's wonderful!
If you want a quick overview of who the Countess is, this little book is a nice, quick, easy, but thorough read.
The Bloody Countess by Amber Holbrook
I answered study guide questions: ANNA KARENINA
Anna Karenina Reading Group Guide
1. When Anna Karenina was published, critics accused Tolstoy of writing a novel with too many characters, too complex a story line, and too many details. Henry James called Tolstoy's works "baggy monsters." In response, Tolstoy wrote of Anna Karenina "I am very proud of its architecture-its vaults are joined so that one cannot even notice where the keystone is." What do you make of Tolstoy's use of detail? Does it make for a more "realistic" novel? IT MAKES FOR A VERY LONG, VERY COMPLICATED NOVEL. I, FOR ONE, WOULD HAVE LIKED IT BETTER IF ALL THE "FLUFF" HAD BEEN LEFT OUT. I FOUND MYSELF SKIMMING OVER THOSE SECTIONS WITH BARELY A GLANCE AT THE WORDS UNTIL I GOT TO REAL MEAT, THE HEART OF THE STORY---ESPECIALLY THE PARTS THAT CONCERN ANNA AND VRONSKY.
2. The first line of Anna Karenina, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way," can be interpreted a number of ways. What do you think Tolstoy means by this? ALL FAMILIES HAVE THEIR TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS. HOW THEY DEAL WITH THOSE CAN DETERMINE HOW WELL, OR NOT, THE FAMILY GETS ALONG. THEY CAN PULL TOGETHER AND WORK THROUGH THEIR TRAILS AS A FAMILY UNIT, COMING OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE STRONGER AND CLOSER FOR IT OR THEY CAN GO THROUGH THE TRIALS AS INDIVIDUALS AND COME OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THEM DISLIKING EACH OTHER FOR THE FAULT EACH SEES IN THE OTHER IN THE WAY THE OTHER GOT THROUGH IT.....
3. In your opinion, how well does Tolstoy, as a male writer, capture the perspectives of his female characters? IT IS INTERESTING TO ME TO NOTE THAT TOLSTOY SEEMS TO CAPTURE THE PERSPECTIVES OF HIS FAMILE CHARACTERS QUITE WELL. HE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THE BONDS MOTHERS HAVE WITH THEIR CHILDREN MOST OF THE TIME, YET, AS IN ANNA'S CASE, HOW NOT ONLY HER DRUG USE BUT ALSO HER DESPAIR OVER HER SITUATION AFFECTS HER RELATIONSHIP WITH HER DAUGHTER--VERY NEGATIVELY.
Do you think Anna Karenina is the most appropriate title for the book? I DO. SIMPLY BECAUSE ANNA'S STORY IS NOT ONLY THE MOST TRAGIC, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY THE MOST INTERESTING PART OF THE NOVEL. I HUNGRILY LOOKED FOR EACH MOMENT TOLSTOY WOULD GO BACK TO ANNA'S STORY. I DID NOT WANT TO READ ABOUT ANYONE ELSE, REALLY, EVEN THOUGH LEVIN AND KITTY'S STORY IS INTERESTING, TOO--JUST NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AS INTERESTING AS ANNA'S AND VRONSKY'S.
Is Tolstoy more critical of Anna for her adultery than he is of Oblonsky or of Vronsky? ABSOLUTELY. OBLONSKY IS FORGIVEN BY HIS WIFE AND THEY EVEN GO ON TO HAVE ANOTHER CHILD TOGETHER--WHILE OBLONSKY CONTINUES HIS WILD LIFE-STYLE WIHT OTHER WOMEN. THE MEN CERTAINLY ARE TREATED WITH MORE RESPECT BECAUSE OF AND THROUGH THEIR AFFAIRS THAN WOMEN, ANNA IN PARTICULAR. SHE IS SHUNNED BY SOCIETY AND BARELY LEAVES THE HOUSE, WHILE VRONSKY GOES ABOUT SOCIETY AND CONTINUES TO ENJOY THE COMPANY OF POLITE SOCIETY.
4. What role does religion play in the novel? Compare Levin's spiritual state of mind at the beginning and the end of the novel. What parallels can you draw between Levin's search for happiness and Anna's descent into despair? IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN THE NOVEL. IT IS ALWAYS THERE, ON THE PERIPHERY, BUT NOT REALLY DISCUSSED--EXCEPT WHERE LEVIN OR ANNA'S HUSBAND IS CONCERNED ALEXY KARENIN IS SEEN AS SUPER SPIRITUAL BECAUSE HE IS ABLE TO FORGIVE ANNA HER AFFAIR WITH VRONSKY AND EVEN BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO GIVE ANNA HER DIVORCE. (WE WON'T EVEN GET IN TO THE RELATIONSHIP HE'S INVOLVED WITH....) LEVIN IS THE CENTER FORCE FOR RELIGION THROUGHOUT THE NOVEL AS HE STRUGGLES WITH WHETHER OR NOT HE IS A BELIEVER. ONCE HE SEES "THE TRUTH," HE REALIZES THAT EVEN WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING, HE WILL GO ON BEING THE MAN HE'S ALWAYS BEEN--FIGHTING WITH HIS WIFE, DISAGREEING WITH OTHERS, ETC. BUT THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE BELIEVER AND HE REALIZES THAT THAT IS PERFECTLY OK AS FAR AS A BELIEVER IS CONCERNED.
5. Why is it significant that Karenina lives in St. Petersburg, Oblonsky in Moscow, and Levin in the country? How are Moscow and St. Petersburg described by Tolstoy? What conclusions can you draw about the value assigned to place in the novel? WHILE THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION, I'M JUST NOT INTERESTED IN IT ENOUGH TO ANSWER IT OR WRITE ABOUT IT....
6. What are the different kinds of love that Anna, Vronsky, Levin, Kitty, Stiva, and Dolly seek? How do their desires change throughout the novel? I THINK THEY ALL SEEK THE PASSIONATE LOVE THAT ANNA APPEARS TO HAVE FOUND WITH VRONSKY, BUT AS ANNA'S RELATIONSHIP WITH VRONSKY PROVES, EVEN THAT TYPE OF PASSION DOESN'T MAKE ONE HAPPY AND SETTLED WITH LIFE AND LOVE. ONCE ANNA HAS EXACTLY WHAT SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS SEARCHING FOR, SHE STILL ISN'T AND CAN'T BE HAPPY, SATISFIED WITH LIFE. SHE ACHIEVES WHAT SHE'D ALWAYS DREAMED OF HAVING AT THE COST OF HER SOUL AND THAT DESTROYS HER RATHER THAN BRINGS HER TO THE PLACE OF COMPLETE JOY AND PEACE ANYONE WOULD IMAGINE ONCE HAVING FOUND AND FOLLOWED HIS/HER HEART.
7. How do the ideals of love and marriage come into conflict in Anna Karenina? Using examples from the novel, what qualities do you think seem to make for a successful marriage? According to Tolstoy, is it more important to find love at all costs or to uphold the sanctity of marriage, even if it is a loveless one? THIS IS A DEEP ONE THAT MIGHT TAKE MORE THOUGHT THAN I HAVE TO GIVE IT RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. MARRIAGE IS SEEN AS SACRED IN THAT EVEN THOUGH SO MANY OF THE CHARACTERS IN THE STORY HAVE AFFAIRS--MEN AND WOMEN, IT STILL IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE. IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE, ACCORDING TO SOCIETY, FOR THE MEN TO SLEEP AROUND WITH OTHER WOMEN AND THEIR WIVES ARE EXPECTED JUST TO ACCEPT IT AND GO ON AS IF NOTHING UNTOWARD HAS HAPPENED. YET, ONCE ANNA BREAKS WITH ALEXY KARENIN, SHE IS A SOCIAL PARIAH AND IS MEANT TO SUFFER BECAUSE HER HUSBAND REFUSES TO RELEASE HER. IF SHE WOULD HAVE GONE BACK TO HER HUSBAND, ALL WOULD HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN AND THEY WOULD HAVE CONTINUED AS IF NOTHING HAD EVER HAPPENED. AND ALEXY WOULD HAVE BEEN FREE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH HIS AFFAIR, HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH LIDIA IVANOVA. AS LONG AS ALEXY AND ANNA ARE EXTRANGED, HE IS NOT FREE TO HAVE AN AFFAIR WITH HER. SUCH CONTINUES TO BE THE STATE OF MARRIAGE IN SO MANY CASES, ALTHOUGH IN THE 21ST CENTURY, DIVORCE IS ACCEPTED AND THE NORM.
8. Ultimately, do you think Anna Karenina is a tragic novel or a hopeful one? TRAGIC. LEVIN IS NOT A MAJOR ENOUGH CHARACTER TO THE STORY AS A WHOLE FOR ME TO FEEL UPLIFTED AS THE STORY ENDS WITH HIS FINDING TRUE SALVATION. SUICIDE IS SUCH A MAJOR THEME THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE STORY THAT AS I FINISHED READING THE NOVEL, I'M LEFT CONTEMPLATING THE WHYS AND WHEREFORES OF THE SUICIDALS THOUGHTS OF THE DIFFERENT CHARACTERS THROUGHOUT THE STORY. ONES WHO PROBABLY HAD MORE REASON THAN ANY OTHER TO THINK OF SUICIDE NEVER EVEN CONSIDER IT, LIKE DOLLY. (NOT THAT I WOULD WANT HER TO DO THAT. IT IS SIMPLY THAT SHE HAS ALL THOSE CHILDREN AND A HUSBAND WHO CARES NOT ONE WHIT FOR HER.) VRONSKY ACTUALLY ATTEMPTS SUICIDE, BUT SURVIVES, YET AT THE END, HE'S PUTTING HIMSELF IN A SITUATION IN THE WAR WHERE HE CAN'T WALK AWAY WITH HIS LIFE. AND LEVIN, WHO HAS EVERYTHING TO LIVE FOR, WANTS TO DIE. SUICIDE IS A HEAVY SUBJECT AND I, AS A READER, CAN NOT WALK AWAY FROM THIS NOVEL WITHOUT FEELING ITS IMPACT ON THE NOVEL AS A WHOLE. A READER DOES NOT EASILY FORGET----I WON'T FINISH THAT THOUGHT FOR ANYONE WHO HAS NOT READ THE NOVEL OR WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS......
1. When Anna Karenina was published, critics accused Tolstoy of writing a novel with too many characters, too complex a story line, and too many details. Henry James called Tolstoy's works "baggy monsters." In response, Tolstoy wrote of Anna Karenina "I am very proud of its architecture-its vaults are joined so that one cannot even notice where the keystone is." What do you make of Tolstoy's use of detail? Does it make for a more "realistic" novel? IT MAKES FOR A VERY LONG, VERY COMPLICATED NOVEL. I, FOR ONE, WOULD HAVE LIKED IT BETTER IF ALL THE "FLUFF" HAD BEEN LEFT OUT. I FOUND MYSELF SKIMMING OVER THOSE SECTIONS WITH BARELY A GLANCE AT THE WORDS UNTIL I GOT TO REAL MEAT, THE HEART OF THE STORY---ESPECIALLY THE PARTS THAT CONCERN ANNA AND VRONSKY.
2. The first line of Anna Karenina, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way," can be interpreted a number of ways. What do you think Tolstoy means by this? ALL FAMILIES HAVE THEIR TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS. HOW THEY DEAL WITH THOSE CAN DETERMINE HOW WELL, OR NOT, THE FAMILY GETS ALONG. THEY CAN PULL TOGETHER AND WORK THROUGH THEIR TRAILS AS A FAMILY UNIT, COMING OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE STRONGER AND CLOSER FOR IT OR THEY CAN GO THROUGH THE TRIALS AS INDIVIDUALS AND COME OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THEM DISLIKING EACH OTHER FOR THE FAULT EACH SEES IN THE OTHER IN THE WAY THE OTHER GOT THROUGH IT.....
3. In your opinion, how well does Tolstoy, as a male writer, capture the perspectives of his female characters? IT IS INTERESTING TO ME TO NOTE THAT TOLSTOY SEEMS TO CAPTURE THE PERSPECTIVES OF HIS FAMILE CHARACTERS QUITE WELL. HE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND THE BONDS MOTHERS HAVE WITH THEIR CHILDREN MOST OF THE TIME, YET, AS IN ANNA'S CASE, HOW NOT ONLY HER DRUG USE BUT ALSO HER DESPAIR OVER HER SITUATION AFFECTS HER RELATIONSHIP WITH HER DAUGHTER--VERY NEGATIVELY.
Do you think Anna Karenina is the most appropriate title for the book? I DO. SIMPLY BECAUSE ANNA'S STORY IS NOT ONLY THE MOST TRAGIC, BUT IT IS CERTAINLY THE MOST INTERESTING PART OF THE NOVEL. I HUNGRILY LOOKED FOR EACH MOMENT TOLSTOY WOULD GO BACK TO ANNA'S STORY. I DID NOT WANT TO READ ABOUT ANYONE ELSE, REALLY, EVEN THOUGH LEVIN AND KITTY'S STORY IS INTERESTING, TOO--JUST NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AS INTERESTING AS ANNA'S AND VRONSKY'S.
Is Tolstoy more critical of Anna for her adultery than he is of Oblonsky or of Vronsky? ABSOLUTELY. OBLONSKY IS FORGIVEN BY HIS WIFE AND THEY EVEN GO ON TO HAVE ANOTHER CHILD TOGETHER--WHILE OBLONSKY CONTINUES HIS WILD LIFE-STYLE WIHT OTHER WOMEN. THE MEN CERTAINLY ARE TREATED WITH MORE RESPECT BECAUSE OF AND THROUGH THEIR AFFAIRS THAN WOMEN, ANNA IN PARTICULAR. SHE IS SHUNNED BY SOCIETY AND BARELY LEAVES THE HOUSE, WHILE VRONSKY GOES ABOUT SOCIETY AND CONTINUES TO ENJOY THE COMPANY OF POLITE SOCIETY.
4. What role does religion play in the novel? Compare Levin's spiritual state of mind at the beginning and the end of the novel. What parallels can you draw between Levin's search for happiness and Anna's descent into despair? IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THE ROLE OF RELIGION IN THE NOVEL. IT IS ALWAYS THERE, ON THE PERIPHERY, BUT NOT REALLY DISCUSSED--EXCEPT WHERE LEVIN OR ANNA'S HUSBAND IS CONCERNED ALEXY KARENIN IS SEEN AS SUPER SPIRITUAL BECAUSE HE IS ABLE TO FORGIVE ANNA HER AFFAIR WITH VRONSKY AND EVEN BECAUSE HE REFUSES TO GIVE ANNA HER DIVORCE. (WE WON'T EVEN GET IN TO THE RELATIONSHIP HE'S INVOLVED WITH....) LEVIN IS THE CENTER FORCE FOR RELIGION THROUGHOUT THE NOVEL AS HE STRUGGLES WITH WHETHER OR NOT HE IS A BELIEVER. ONCE HE SEES "THE TRUTH," HE REALIZES THAT EVEN WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING, HE WILL GO ON BEING THE MAN HE'S ALWAYS BEEN--FIGHTING WITH HIS WIFE, DISAGREEING WITH OTHERS, ETC. BUT THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE BELIEVER AND HE REALIZES THAT THAT IS PERFECTLY OK AS FAR AS A BELIEVER IS CONCERNED.
5. Why is it significant that Karenina lives in St. Petersburg, Oblonsky in Moscow, and Levin in the country? How are Moscow and St. Petersburg described by Tolstoy? What conclusions can you draw about the value assigned to place in the novel? WHILE THIS IS A GOOD QUESTION, I'M JUST NOT INTERESTED IN IT ENOUGH TO ANSWER IT OR WRITE ABOUT IT....
6. What are the different kinds of love that Anna, Vronsky, Levin, Kitty, Stiva, and Dolly seek? How do their desires change throughout the novel? I THINK THEY ALL SEEK THE PASSIONATE LOVE THAT ANNA APPEARS TO HAVE FOUND WITH VRONSKY, BUT AS ANNA'S RELATIONSHIP WITH VRONSKY PROVES, EVEN THAT TYPE OF PASSION DOESN'T MAKE ONE HAPPY AND SETTLED WITH LIFE AND LOVE. ONCE ANNA HAS EXACTLY WHAT SHE THOUGHT SHE WAS SEARCHING FOR, SHE STILL ISN'T AND CAN'T BE HAPPY, SATISFIED WITH LIFE. SHE ACHIEVES WHAT SHE'D ALWAYS DREAMED OF HAVING AT THE COST OF HER SOUL AND THAT DESTROYS HER RATHER THAN BRINGS HER TO THE PLACE OF COMPLETE JOY AND PEACE ANYONE WOULD IMAGINE ONCE HAVING FOUND AND FOLLOWED HIS/HER HEART.
7. How do the ideals of love and marriage come into conflict in Anna Karenina? Using examples from the novel, what qualities do you think seem to make for a successful marriage? According to Tolstoy, is it more important to find love at all costs or to uphold the sanctity of marriage, even if it is a loveless one? THIS IS A DEEP ONE THAT MIGHT TAKE MORE THOUGHT THAN I HAVE TO GIVE IT RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. MARRIAGE IS SEEN AS SACRED IN THAT EVEN THOUGH SO MANY OF THE CHARACTERS IN THE STORY HAVE AFFAIRS--MEN AND WOMEN, IT STILL IS NOT JUSTIFICATION FOR DISSOLVING THE MARRIAGE. IT IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE, ACCORDING TO SOCIETY, FOR THE MEN TO SLEEP AROUND WITH OTHER WOMEN AND THEIR WIVES ARE EXPECTED JUST TO ACCEPT IT AND GO ON AS IF NOTHING UNTOWARD HAS HAPPENED. YET, ONCE ANNA BREAKS WITH ALEXY KARENIN, SHE IS A SOCIAL PARIAH AND IS MEANT TO SUFFER BECAUSE HER HUSBAND REFUSES TO RELEASE HER. IF SHE WOULD HAVE GONE BACK TO HER HUSBAND, ALL WOULD HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN AND THEY WOULD HAVE CONTINUED AS IF NOTHING HAD EVER HAPPENED. AND ALEXY WOULD HAVE BEEN FREE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH HIS AFFAIR, HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH LIDIA IVANOVA. AS LONG AS ALEXY AND ANNA ARE EXTRANGED, HE IS NOT FREE TO HAVE AN AFFAIR WITH HER. SUCH CONTINUES TO BE THE STATE OF MARRIAGE IN SO MANY CASES, ALTHOUGH IN THE 21ST CENTURY, DIVORCE IS ACCEPTED AND THE NORM.
8. Ultimately, do you think Anna Karenina is a tragic novel or a hopeful one? TRAGIC. LEVIN IS NOT A MAJOR ENOUGH CHARACTER TO THE STORY AS A WHOLE FOR ME TO FEEL UPLIFTED AS THE STORY ENDS WITH HIS FINDING TRUE SALVATION. SUICIDE IS SUCH A MAJOR THEME THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE STORY THAT AS I FINISHED READING THE NOVEL, I'M LEFT CONTEMPLATING THE WHYS AND WHEREFORES OF THE SUICIDALS THOUGHTS OF THE DIFFERENT CHARACTERS THROUGHOUT THE STORY. ONES WHO PROBABLY HAD MORE REASON THAN ANY OTHER TO THINK OF SUICIDE NEVER EVEN CONSIDER IT, LIKE DOLLY. (NOT THAT I WOULD WANT HER TO DO THAT. IT IS SIMPLY THAT SHE HAS ALL THOSE CHILDREN AND A HUSBAND WHO CARES NOT ONE WHIT FOR HER.) VRONSKY ACTUALLY ATTEMPTS SUICIDE, BUT SURVIVES, YET AT THE END, HE'S PUTTING HIMSELF IN A SITUATION IN THE WAR WHERE HE CAN'T WALK AWAY WITH HIS LIFE. AND LEVIN, WHO HAS EVERYTHING TO LIVE FOR, WANTS TO DIE. SUICIDE IS A HEAVY SUBJECT AND I, AS A READER, CAN NOT WALK AWAY FROM THIS NOVEL WITHOUT FEELING ITS IMPACT ON THE NOVEL AS A WHOLE. A READER DOES NOT EASILY FORGET----I WON'T FINISH THAT THOUGHT FOR ANYONE WHO HAS NOT READ THE NOVEL OR WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS......
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Serial Killing as Comedy
I LOVE Joseph Kesserling's ARSENIC AND OLD LACE. Granted, I am more familiar with Frank Capra's movie version of the play, but I absolutely LOVE this story. I don't know why I find it funny that two very sweet, little elderly women are killing lonely, elderly men as a CHARITY--with elderberry wine laced with arsenic, strictnine, and another poison I can't remember right at this moment in time--cyanide! But this is THE FUNNIEST movie EVER!!!! I love it! Aunt Abby is my absolute favorite character. If I ever get a chance to act in a play, I want to play Aunt Abby. And I'll "run" across the floor on my tiptoes everywhere I go!!!!
I always hesitate to take this movie into my classrooms because it's in black and white. It came out in the movie theater in the early 1940s, so to students, it's REALLY "OLD." Students tend to be wary of old movies, especially old black and white movies. But I have found that, for the most part, many of my students don't mind it so much once they get into it. Some of them are even laughing more throughout the movie than I am--which is VERY unusual!!!
I know serial killing is not a funny subject, but any stretch of the imagination. It is NOT something to joke about, but when it comes to a story like this one that is so obviously ridiculous to the extreme and it's MEANT TO BE RIDICULOUS, it's impossible not to laugh....!!!
Every semester I think about NOT showing ARSENIC AND OLD LACE in my Lit. as Research classes, but in the past couple of years, every semester, I can't bring myself to take it out of my curriculum....and so far, I'm glad I'm using it!!!!
I always hesitate to take this movie into my classrooms because it's in black and white. It came out in the movie theater in the early 1940s, so to students, it's REALLY "OLD." Students tend to be wary of old movies, especially old black and white movies. But I have found that, for the most part, many of my students don't mind it so much once they get into it. Some of them are even laughing more throughout the movie than I am--which is VERY unusual!!!
I know serial killing is not a funny subject, but any stretch of the imagination. It is NOT something to joke about, but when it comes to a story like this one that is so obviously ridiculous to the extreme and it's MEANT TO BE RIDICULOUS, it's impossible not to laugh....!!!
Every semester I think about NOT showing ARSENIC AND OLD LACE in my Lit. as Research classes, but in the past couple of years, every semester, I can't bring myself to take it out of my curriculum....and so far, I'm glad I'm using it!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)