I don't feel pressured to read. I do it because I enjoy reading. But for the past week or so it's been a chore. I completely blame Charlotte Brontë. Jane Eyre almost killed me. I told myself I'd finish it before 2011 got here... that didn't happen. I've completed five other books in the time it took me to knock this 19th century British behemoth out. It's over and done; I've turn the last page. The final word was, "Amen" and in response all I could say was, "Hallelujah!"
I liked it better than Wuthering Heights but thats not say much. I'm glad I read the book. If nothing else, it proved that 19th century British lit ain't for me. Dickens, Eliot, pick a Brontë, I'll throw Conrad into the pot, and damn near anyone else other than Jane Austen you can think of I'll pass and say their work is not for me. I can admit that there is quality there, I'd just rather contemplate the sharp end of a Bowie knife on a tender spot on my body than seek said quality out.
It's odd as I love Russian 19th century writers so much: Turgenev, Tolstoy, Checkov, Dostoevsky, Lermontov, and probably a host of others I don't know and can't pronounce. German writers from the same time, Goethe, Schiller, Heine also make me very happy. I've even come across some French writing for the time that I've thoroughly enjoyed though I'm not well versed enough to even drop names. I'm sure some bright, literature person could tell me what that means about me and my reading preferences but I don't know such people...
So Jane Eyre is over and done with, problem solved right? All-kinds-of-wrong. I'm reading Middlesex, which is possibly the most compelling thing I've ever come across--and it just won't end. It never ends... and I've no clue where it's going. It's long to def: i.e. really long. I like it better--much better--than The Virgin Suicides, but at least that one was terminal. Middlesex feels indefinite. (Commentary forthcoming) Jeffery Eugenides is quickly joining the ranks of the previously mentioned British authors from yesteryear.
I'm also reading The Mammoth Book of Merlin figuring super awesome short stories will help pick up my reading pace. Normally this is true, but this collection has very few redeeming qualities to speak of so far; I've about a hundred pages to go. It's not bad; all the writing is very competent. It is however, the most uninteresting compilation I've ever come across. Considering the subject matter I'm amazed at the blandness of the stories included. It makes me believe in the power of some of those 'name brand' editors I see on regular fiction anthologies and collections. I'm not even sure that Michael Swanwick, with the last story in the book can save this mammoth book of trite banalities.
I want to read something fabulous at this very moment and at the same time, my disenfranchisement with reading makes me not want to open a different book, but rather turn to the unthinkable: renew my World of Warcraft account after four long years of dormancy.
My favorite hobby somehow got tedious.
Help.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Ah, 19th century lit. I rather agree with your opinion on Bronte. The female characters are much too annoying both in Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights.
I have to say that I enjoyed reading Middlesex though. Not that I don't know where you are coming from when you say the book is endless. But at the same time it's so atmospheric and in a way captivating that I found myself progressing despite everything. And I thought it was pretty satisfying at the end.
I think the key is to pick up something easier to read after finishing one of these behemoth. This way you can fight reading inertia :)
I love Middlesex but if I ever get to the end, I'll be surprised.
I think I'm gonna run to children's literature or cookbooks next; something super easy.
It just hit me today, that I was talking about Middlemarch in my post and not Middlesex. Oops.
Well, I did mention "Eliot" so I may have contributed to the confusion. I must say that as long as Middlesex seems, I'd rather read it any day over Middlemarch.
Upon writing this, I'll probably avoid all books with the word, "Middle" anywhere in the title for a very long time.
Oh, if you want to end up in a corner rocking back and forth and whimpering, read WIDE SARGASSO SEA now. It's kind of a JANE EYRE chaser.
Seriously, I love and admire the Brontes. VILLETTE and JANE EYRE are two of my favorite books. I do think you have an age and gender divide here, though.
I have it! Read The Eyre Affair by Jasper fforde, if you haven't already. That's not a typo, it's his last name. You'll laugh, and you may find a new appreciation for those "annoying" 19th century women characters.
For me, C Bronte is my hero. That she could pull off that audacious, rebellious ending while adhering unwaveringly to the conventions of the 19th century novel is nothing less than astounding. Jane says "No" to the only two choices fictional women had; ilicit affair and death in childbirth/virtuous and boring marriage with Rivers, and gets to have autonomy and passion--and remain an equal in the relationship. Yes, Bronte did have to main Rochester to do it, but still. . .
And that was supposed to read "Maim Rochester to do it. . ." if only I could type.
I'll second Marion on Fforde recomendation. Hilarious books!
I've heard of the Jane Eyre Affair though I can't place exactly where I've heard of it. I won't say, 'its' on the list' because I think that would feel a bit masochistic, rather... "I'll keep it in mind.'
I think the age and gender excuse for not liking a particular anything are cop outs. I'm ten years out from being Rochester's age and ten-ish years from Jane's. Furthermore, I could argue that Rochester went through a good deal more drama than Jane. To be as smart as she was, she suffered some epic break downs that I found at odds with all her established intelligence, and they were all self inflicted.
Finally, the maiming of Rochester's (which would have been a better book title ;) ) was an absolute cluster... She's wants to be recognized as an equal to men for all her mental capacity. She is always intimidated by Rochester due to his intensity (and possibly because she's twenty something years younger than him... let me tell you how that will end...) She not only gets parity, but dominance over men (wave the feminism banner high!) due to Rochester's maiming and becoming a dependent upon Jane. What amazing ascendency.
The character marginalization of Rochester a man; that allowed her to achieve supremacy made me not only roll eyes but solidified all my bad feelings about the book. Perhaps I'm being too contemporary in my view, perhaps I really am a sexist. But I felt the maiming of Rochester deprived Jane's views of credence as she could no longer ever hope to be his equal considering how far he has fallen and rendered her as a brilliant nurse, in love with her invalid charge; the labors of which would defeat the purpose of her questing mind and desires to be free of any kind of menial domesticity.
I thought he was a much more sympathetic character than she.
That was more talk of Jane Eyre than I ever intended to share. I'm exhausted just but saying all that!
Well, now I'm interested! You are not a sexist, but you are reading through a contemporary lens and not taking into account what was available to women in Bronte's position at that time--or to fictional heroines at that time. You're applying 21st century sensibilities to 19th century characters.
Of course,the whole Bronte family was as whack-job as they come. That is a factor.
The Eyre Affair is alternative-history/fantasy. The main character's name is Thursday Next and you might really enjoy it.
Chad, if you're sick of the debate, please let me know. I'll stop, honest.
I'm not sick of it; all is well (just don't ask me to read it again!!!!).
I will say that my previous remark of Rochester's marginalization was far too weak of a word. Hell, for them to get together--to be equals in the mind of Jane and the readers, or at least female readers--Rochester's is burned and scared, lost an eye, went blind in the remaining one, and lost a limb! If you hadn't read the book, some people may think I'm making this up; I'm not making this up! Marginalized is far too weak a word; look how far he had to fall for them to be 'equals.' This is of course not taking into account any mental anguish and suffering that one would go through surviving Rochester's ordeal.
In short, I think Jane settled and became a hypocrite...
Rivers was never gonna work, teaching at the school in Morton was never gonna work, and nor was being a governess of rich children; all would require her to settle into a role of repetition and cease to challenge herself. Which is exactly what she was okay with in the end in taking care of Rochester in his state. I'm not sure if it was more demeaning to him or her...
(Notice how I completely refuse to talk about the "in love" factor? ;) )
Well, remember that the Brontes were big fans of the so-called "Byronic hero" and so all of the stuff they put their characters through was larger than life. Rochester's getting his sight back at the end of the book, though. I do think Bronte believed that he DID have to "fall".(And he "falls" when he first meets Jane, remember? Off his horse.) Remember too that Bronte was a preacher's daughter and despite her disgust for the hypocrisy of the mainstream church, she had some well-established opinions about people paying for their sins, and Rochester had a few--not the least of which is trying to trick Jane into an illicit relationship with him through an illegal marriage.
In the Brontes' juvenilia, they did horrid things to their warring characters--locked up innocent maidens in dungeons for years (they emerged wan but beautiful as ever) cut off limbs, slashse faces, etc of their shadowy, rakish, dashing heroes; so Rochester paying a physical price for escaping the fire doesn't seem that extreme--and plainly Bronte's female readership of the time concurred, although the male critics didn't like it much, especially once they found out the author was female.
He did fall when they first met. Wow, she was kicking Rochester's ass from the start!
Okay, to be serious (kind of), how about, "The Metaphysical Castration of Rochester" instead of maiming? At the very least it would be a good title for a dissertation.
I plead ignorance to all Bronte related knowledge except my poor reading and interpretation of the books I've read. I'm sure what you say is gospel and I offer not argument.
Marion, I think we are coming really close to having a book discussion online! Believe it or not, I've never done this before. The only thing holding us back (hence the, 'think') is that I 'think' we are agreeing with each other...
I think we are having a book discussion--exciting! Cheer up, I like the book more than you so we aren't completely agreeing.
I think you have inspired me to write a blog post about Jane Eyre and Charlotte Bronte. I haven't started it yet but I might go do that right now.
Post a Comment