I’ve never been a big fan of classic American literature (unless it was written by Mark Twain). I don’t really have fond memories of any of the American lit I had to read in high school fondly, and in college the only ones I remember enjoying were Puddin’ Head Wilson by Mark Twain, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and House Behind the Cedars by Charles Chestnut (and they still didn’t intrigue me like the British literature).
So when I agreed to teach my homeschooled younger brother’s high school literature class, I had quite a bit of extra reading to do in preparation for American lit this year. This is the main reason there’s a collection of Edgar Allen Poe on my Classics Club Book list, and why I’m re-reading Tom Sawyer. I also added a few other works by American authors, just because I felt like I “should” read them.
Reading The Scarlet Letter
Case in point: Nathaniel Hawthorn’s The Scarlet Letter. This is one of the books that I didn’t read in high school because my mother hated that she was made to read it (this is the same reason I didn’t read any of Shakespeare’s tragedies until college). Certainly can’t fault her for that, since it doesn’t look like this book’s going to fit in my American literature course either (also, I’m just rebellious enough to feel like I don’t have to teach all the “inevitable” high school texts). I’m glad I finally read it, though, if for no other reason than to enjoy passages like this:
Amongst any other population, or at a later period in the history of New England, the grim rigidity that petrified the bearded physiognomies of these good people would have augured some awful business in hand. It could have betokened nothing short of the anticipated execution of some noted culprit, on whom the sentence of a legal tribunal had but confirmed the verdict of public sentiment. But, in that early severity of the Puritan character, an inference of this kind could not so indubitably be drawn.
Bearded physiognomies augur awful business — don’t they sound like the kind of people you’d want for your next-door neighbors?
Or how about this lovely description of the women, also from Chapter 2 where the town is assembled outside the jail awaiting Hester Prynne’s public disgrace for committing adultery:
It was a circumstance to be noted, on the summer morning when our story begins its course, that the women, of whom there were several in the crowd, appeared to take a peculiar interest in whatever penal infliction might be expected to ensue. The age had not so much refinement, that any sense of impropriety restrained the wearers of petticoat and farthingale from stepping forth into the public ways, and wedging their not unsubstantial persons, if occasion were, into the throng nearest to the scaffold at an execution. Morally, as well as materially, there was a coarser fibre in those wives and maidens of old English birth and breeding, than in their fair descendants, separated from them by a series of six or seven generations; for, throughout that chain of ancestry, every successive mother had transmitted to her child a fainter bloom, a more delicate and briefer beauty, and a slighter physical frame, if not a character of less force and solidity, than her own. The women, who were now standing about the prison-door, stood within less than half a century of the period when the man-like Elizabeth had been the not altogether unsuitable representative of the sex. They were her countrywomen; and the beef and ale of their native land, with a moral diet not a whit more refined, entered largely into their composition. The bright morning sun, therefore, shone on broad shoulders and well-developed busts, and on round and ruddy cheeks, that had ripened in the far-off island, and had hardly yet grown paler or thinner in the atmosphere of New England. There was, moreover, a boldness and rotundity of speech among these matrons, as most of them seemed to be, that would startle us at the present day, whether in respect to its purport or its volume of tone.
Isn’t this a flattering portrayal? (in case you were wondering, this is the best passage to read aloud to your younger siblings). In all seriousness, I did enjoy the way Hawthorne uses the English language. His humor is subtle, and so dry it’s almost impossible to laugh-out-loud, but it is in there if you’re paying enough attention not to over look it. In most of his character descriptions, like these women outside the jail, I get the impression of him raising is eyebrow and looking down his nose as he tells you about these poor “primitives.”
“A” is for Adultery
While a tight plot, command of language, and good writing are all things I look for in a novel, what always stands out most are the characters. Perhaps the most interesting character in this novel is Hester’s precocious little daughter, Pearl, whose keen intelligence and disregard for conventional behavior more than once leave Hester suspecting the child’s nature is part of her punishment for committing adultery. Just like she stands out in the town because Hester dresses her in bright colors (including scarlet, since Pearl is the embodiment of Hester’s scarlet letter), so she stands out as a bright spot in a novel that can otherwise be rather grim.
Speaking of Hester’s crime, I’ve heard Christian homeschoolers suggest that we shouldn’t teach books like The Scarlet Letter or The Great Gatsby since they deal with the concept of adultery. You can’t fault these books for “inappropriate scenes” (well, perhaps Gatsby depending on what age your teaching, but I think it’s age-appropriate by high school). It’s the subject matter in general which people find objectionable. But ignoring the fact that people sin certainly doesn’t make sin go away, and books like The Scarlet Letter force us to think about a subject like adultery and how we respond to that. There’s no question in the minds of Hester Prynne and Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale that what they did was wrong, and they spend most of the book miserable as a result of their actions. This is not a book that promotes adultery.
But it’s also not a book that lets you sit back and comfortably judge Hester. Her wronged husband is the most loathsome character in the book, and his reaction to his wife’s adultery is even more destructive than her initial “fall.” The townspeople aren’t easily let off the hook, either, and it is Hester — not her accusers or judges — who emerges as the strongest character. She is the one in the town who gives the most selflessly of her time and meager resources, and she is the only character whose mind escapes from the confines of Hawthorne’s depiction of Puritan thought. She’s far more than simply the woman wearing the scarlet letter, and because her sins are out in the open, she has a chance at the forgiveness and peace that so completely eludes Dimmesdale and her husband.
It is my opinion that Arthur Dimmesdale is one of the most unimpressive men in fiction. What sort of man lets the woman he supposedly loves bear public humiliation and raise their child alone, all while living in the same town? He’s so spineless that, at risk of sounding indelicate, I wondered exactly where he found enough passion or gumption to engage in an illicit love affair. He tells himself that he must keep the secret of his relationship with Hester so that he can continue serving God — for if the truth were known he would lose credibility as a minister. He’s so tormented by guilt that he beats himself and is making a half-hearted attempt at starving to death, but though he assures his parishioners that he’s a greater sinner than all of them, he knows this only makes him seem more devout in their eyes. There is nothing in him that I can admire.
Click here to get a copy of The Scarlet Letter. Please note that this is an affiliate link. This means that, at no additional cost to you, I will receive a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase.
Wasn’t sure which book on my Classics Club list to read next (keep an eye out for an upcoming post about my latest read), so I decided to participate in the latest Classics Spin. Basically, you pick 20 books from your list that you still haven’t read — five you are hesitant to read, five you can’t wait to read, five you are neutral about, and five free choice (I picked rereads) — then post them numbered 1-20 before next Monday, when The Classics Club will announce a number. Then I have to read the book corresponding to that number by January 5. Here’s my list:
Burke, Edmund Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France
Burney, Frances: The Wanderer
Dickens, Charles: Bleak House
Poe, Edgar Allen: Collected Stories and Poems
Rousseau, Jean-Jaques: Emile
Austen, Jane: Lady Susan
Montgomery, L.M.: Emily of New Moon
Swift, Jonathon: Gulliver’s Travels
Radcliffe, Ann: The Mysteries of Udolpho
Beagle, Peter S: The Last Unicorn
Bronte, Anne: The Tenant of Wildfell Hall
Hardy, Thomas: Far From the Madding Crowd
Hawthorne, Nathaniel: The House of the Seven Gables
I’d actually forgotten this was on my Classics Club Book List and just started reading it because I saw it on the shelf. Now I have to write something. But first …
I just read some really exciting literary news that I want to share with you. There’s going to be a web-series re-telling of The Scarlet Pimpernel in a modern setting (think something like what The Lizzie Bennet Diaries did with Pride and Prejudice). You can find more about it at Yet Another Period Drama blog or The Day Dream blog. It sounds fantastic, and I’m so looking forward to seeing it next year.
Anyway, back to Mars.
*insert obligatory spoiler warning*
I really wasn’t sure what to expect from this book. All I knew was that it was written by Ray Bradbury (which pretty much guaranteed it would be intriguing) and it had something to do with Mars. The inside cover of my edition reads, “Ray Bradbury’s Mars is a place of hope dreams, and metaphor.” With that introduction, I was not expecting more than 20 people to have been killed by page 65 (and many more in the following pages). Warning: this is not a “happy” book.
If you’re not expecting a light, happy read, though, this book is fascinating. I think most of us know by now that Mars is not inhabited (as least not by aliens of this sort), but the world Bradbury creates on Mars still seems entirely possible. He has no trouble convincing his readers into a “willing suspension of disbelief,” probably because he doesn’t try. He just writes these stories as if they are real (but more in the sense of myth than history), and we’re perfectly happy to go right along with this fiction.
One of my favorite parts of the book was actually Bradbury’s introduction (You might be a writer if … you’re as intrigued by the author’s description of his writing process as you are by the book itself). He describes the stories that became The Martian Chronicles as “a series of Martian penseés, Shakespearean ‘asides,’ wandering thoughts, long night visions, predawn half-dreams.” He thought they weren’t anything special, until an editor “suggested that I might have woven an unseen tapestry.”
The Martian Chronicles was published in 1950. Since then, it has never been out of print, and my edition notes that it “has been read by more readers around the world than almost any other work of science fiction.” But Bradbury himself didn’t think of it as “science fiction.” This is what he said this book was:
It is King Tut out of the tomb when I was three, Norse Eddas when I was six, and Roman/Greek gods that romanced me when I was ten: pure myth. If it had been practical technologically efficient science fiction, it would have long since fallen to rust by the road. But since it is a self-separating fable, even the most deeply rooted physicists at Cal-Tech accept breathing the fraudulent oxygen atmosphere I have loosed on Mars. Science and machines can kill each other off or be replaced. Myth, seen in mirrors, incapable of being touched, stays on. If it is not immortal, it almost seems such.” — Ray Bradbury, introduction to The Martian Chronicles
Religion on Mars
There are so many threads that weave together The Martian Chronicles. It covers book banning, inadvertent genocide, the nature of man, implications of telepathy, ethics of murder — the list goes on and on. So I’m going to pick just one “thread” to talk about here, and that’s religion.
On Mars, science and religion are not incompatible — they are interconnected. Unfortunately, we only learn this after most of the Martians are already gone and it is too late for the knowledge to help mankind put back together what we separated.
Science is no more than an investigation of a miracle we can never explain, and art is an interpretation of that miracle.” — Ray Bradbury, The Martian Chronicles
Mankind has it all wrong, according to one character who may or may not have lost his mind. Instead of letting science, religion, and art flow into each other, as the Martians did, we tried to separate them. In the process, we lost ourselves and our faith. Then, not content with damaging one world and its people, we moved on to Mars, and killed it.
But The Martian Chronicles isn’t just about all the mistakes humanity made as a whole. It’s about the individuals who lived, loved, killed, and died for a whole host of different reasons. It’s about the priest who believes that even the glowing blue lights on Mars — the last Martians — have a soul and deserve to hear about Christ. It’s about the father who launched his family toward an abandoned Mars to save them from a dying earth. It’s about the young Martian whose telepathy turned him/her into a chameleon as he/she tried desperately to cure their loneliness by becoming a human family’s dead child. It’s about how these people respond to the unknown, and what beliefs they cling to in the end.
I read this book quickly, because I was so intrigued by it, but not so quickly as I have read other novels. It demands more than a cursory glance, and I think it warrants at least one re-reading. If you like “thinking books,” or sci-fi of any kind, I highly recommend giving The Martian Chronicles a try.
Click here to get a copy of The Martian Chronicles. Please note that this is an affiliate link. This means that, at no additional cost to you, I will receive a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase.
I choose The Phantom of the Opera by Gaston Leroux as the first book to read off my Classics Club book list for one simple reason. I had a dream about it.
The edition I read
Now, understand I’ve never read this book before. It’s not even one I checked out of the library, flipped through, and lost interest in. So when I dreamed about seeing the written pages of this book morph into film-like scenes that were not in the 2004 film or the play I saw this year, I decided I needed to read this book. It’s not unusual for me to dream vividly, but it was a bit odd to construct such an elaborate version of something I hadn’t thought about recently.
So I ordered it into the library and read it (in translation, unfortunately, since my French isn’t very good). And I was pleasantly surprised to enjoy the book. It must have been almost 10 years ago that I first became seriously interested in the musical The Phantom of the Opera, and at the time I decided against reading the book because so many reviewers I read said they were disappointed. They said if you like the play, don’t bother reading the book because Andrew Lloyd Webber somehow managed to pull brilliance out of a terrible novel.
Overall Impressions
It is not a terrible novel, though I understand why some readers didn’t like it. Many who love the musical expect a more romantic Phantom character, while Leroux’s Erik (a.k.a. The Phantom) is firmly rooted in a Gothic tradition of villainy. He sleeps in a coffin. His lair includes a torture chamber. He has no nose in his deathly-pale face.
But we’ll get to comparing it with the play later. For now, back to the book. It is written as if by a narrator who began studying the events surrounding the tragedy of the Paris Opera House about 30 years after its haunting by the “ghost.” This haunting coincided with the famous disappearance of Christine Daaé and the Vicomte de Chagny. Our narrator connects these two events, interviews the only witness who is both surviving and locatable, and happens into possession of some very intriguing documents attesting to the ghost’s antics. In short, he is uniquely positioned to be the only person qualified to uncover the truth regarding the opera ghost.
Parts of the story are told as we would think of a “normal” 3rd-person narration, others are the narrator’s conjectures about what might have taken place, still others are written as if borrowed from the memoirs of a few key characters. This rather disconnected narrative style works surprisingly well, and there were only a few places where I thought it jarring to be reminded that the narrator is supposedly piecing this story together from multiple sources of evidence.
Comparing Phantoms
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
Probably the main change from the book to the play is how Erik is portrayed. This blog post about The Many Faces of Erik collects pictures of the Phantom’s portrayal in film and on stage, both before and after Webber’s musical. I could have nightmares about that face from the 1925 version, but it’s probably the closest to Erik in the book.
Erik is described as having “a death’s head,” and his hands are skeletal and cold. Even the most ghoulish Phantom make-up in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musicals can be hidden under a half-mask. In the book, the entire man is deformed in some vague way that can’t really be hidden. The people who glimpse him even in disguise get the impression of a ghost or skeleton.
And his character is more twisted in the book as well. In the play, we know the Phantom as a genius who has gone mad and kills to protect his secrets. In the book, we are given more of Erik’s back-story and made to see him not as an unstable, unloved man who is carried away by his passion, but as a violent man without a conscience who has a history of inventing new ways to kill and torment people for pleasure. He captures our imagination, our horror, our pity, but not our love.
Angel of Music
Christine and Raoul’s back-story was very similar in the book and play, with the book simply being more fleshed-out. I liked Raoul less in the book, though. He seems a rather pale, helpless character who follows Christine around vacillating between hating of her for loving someone else and being willing to do anything to protect her from Erik. If he was translated perfectly from the book to the musical and the changes for the Phantom left in place, I doubt there’s be any part of me hoping for Raoul to win Christine.
Poor Christine, in the book and play, was doomed by her father’s promise to send her the Angel of Music. This is built-up even better in the book, with her father telling stories about how the greatest musicians heard the Angel of Music, who moved them from talented to unforgettably brilliant. Christine’s father was a great violinist, but never heard the Angel. His daughter, however, was waiting for him to send one from heaven, and when Erik first sings to her she asks if he is her Angel. He grasps the title eagerly, and she’s lost to his music.
His voice first appears in the book simply as a speaking voice — the man Raoul hears but cannot find in Christine’s dressing room and the invisible speaker in Box 5. Madam Giry calls it “such a lovely man’s voice … so soft and kind.” When Erik finally sings, the word “captivating” hardly seems to do the listeners’ reactions justice:
The voice without a body went on singing; and certainly Raoul had never in his life heard anything more absolutely and heroically sweet, more gloriously insidious, more delicate, more powerful, in short, more irresistibly triumphant. He listened to it in a fever and he now began to understand how Christine Daaé was able to appear one evening, before the stupefied audience, with accents of a beauty hitherto unknown, of a superhuman exaltation, while doubtless still under the influence of the mysterious and invisible master.
Sierra Boggess as Christine and Ramin Karimloo as The Phantom in “Phantom Of The Opera At Royal Albert Hall.”
The voice was singing the Wedding-night Song from Romeo and Juliet. Raoul saw Christine stretch out her arms to the voice as she had done, in Perros churchyard, to the invisible violin playing The Resurrection of Lazarus. And nothing could describe the passion with which the voice sang: “Fate links thee to me for ever and a day!”
The strains went through Raoul’s heart. Struggling against the charm that seemed to deprive him of all his will and all his energy and of almost all his lucidity at the moment when he needed them most, he succeeded in drawing back the curtain that hid him and he walked to where Christine stood. (from Chapter IX)
Michael Crawford (original Broadway cast), Ramin Karimloo (25th anniversary cast), and Cooper Grodin (touring cast I saw in Columbus) have voices like this. That spectacular voice, which mesmerizes Christine and the audience, is the secret of Erik’s allure. Without it, he would just be a hideous man with an even more hideous soul hiding under an opera house. But add this voice, and he becomes something unforgettable — the dark menace who should be repulsive but is somehow irresistible.
Click here to get a copy of The Phantom of the Opera. Please note that this is an affiliate link. This means that, at no additional cost to you, I will receive a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase.
In my never-ending search for new things to write about, I stumbled upon The Classics Club by way of Carissa’s post at Musings of an Introvert. I love classic literature (not really a surprise to most of you — if someone doesn’t like at least some classic literature they probably shouldn’t major in English), so why not come up with a reading list and blog about each title? That will give me topics for 10 of Mondays blog posts for the next five years.
The challenge for those who join The Classics Club is to make a list of at least 50 books and read through it in no more than 5 years. I thought 10 books a year would be thoroughly doable (to put this in perspective, I’ve read 45 books so far this year), and so I posted my list and I’m signing up today. Some of them are re-reads, but most of the ones on the list are new to me. The titles on the list may change as I read, but here are the one I’m starting out with (*indicates a re-read):
Adams, Richard: Watership Down*
Anonymous: The Arabian Nights
Austen, Jane: Lady Susan
Beagle, Peter S: The Last Unicorn
Bradbury, Ray: The Martian Chronicles
Bronte, Anne: The Tenant of Wildfell Hall
Bronte, Charlotte: Villette
Burke, Edmund Burke: Reflections on the Revolution in France
Burnett, Frances Hodgson: A Little Princess*
Burnett, Frances Hodgson: The Secret Garden*
Burney, Frances: Evelina*
Burney, Frances: The Wanderer
Burroughs, Edgar Rice: Tarzan of the Apes*
Cooper, James Fenimore: The Red Rover*
Cooper, James Fenimore: The Water-Witch
Dickens, Charles: Bleak House
Dickens, Charles: Oliver Twist
Dickens, Charles: The Mystery of Edwin Drood
Dostoevsky, Fyodor: The Brothers Karamazov
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan: The Hounds of the Baskervilles
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan: The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan: The Sign of Four
Dumas, Alexandre: The Count of Monte Cristo
Eliot, George: Adam Bede
Eliot, George: Middlemarch
Gaskell, Elizabeth: North and South*
Gaskell, Elizabeth: Wives and Daughters
Hardy, Thomas: Far From the Madding Crowd
Hawthorne, Nathaniel: The House of the Seven Gables