There are two main “seasons” to read classics: winter and summer breaks. Classics demand, for the most part, a lot more focus than regular books mostly due to the unfamiliar syntax or the heavier topics. Some of them also weave complicated plot lines where one simple sentence can change the course of the story so the reader needs to pay attention to every single word, every pause, every gasp of air. While this exercise might seem strenuous, there is a reason why these works are considered classics. Their themes transcend the test of time and their style inspired the next generations of writers. It is critical to understand the repercussions of these books in today's literary, political or even social world. However, that does not mean that all classics are good! I compiled a list of all the classics I read over the summer, get ready for some unpopular opinions! Enjoy. P.s. My definition of "Classics" is quite vague. They generally include any book that is at least 50 years old and still read today. "Classics", to me, include authors, novels, dramas, short stories… that would be considered in their geographical area as part of their literary canon. Night Flight by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry 3/5 *Read in the original French Summary In this gripping novel, Saint-Exupéry tells about the brave men who piloted night mails places from Patagonia, Chile, and Paraguay to Argentina in the early days of commercial aviation. My thoughts Night Flight is not a bad book, it is just not a very interesting one. The subject-matter has potential. Pilots flying across Patagonia during the unpredictable night can be a wild story if you forget about the fact that they are flying mail, and not people. Perhaps it was my fault, I imagined an Hollywood-like story about pilots trying to save their passengers from a crashing place. What I got was a pilot flying pieces of paper that sees a storm and tries to escape it yet there is no huge influx of emotion, no panic as he is doing so. I wanted to be stressed about his faith and worried about the family he was leaving behind, but I didn't feel a single thing. There truly was not much action or plot line. From the beginning, we can guess how the story is going to end and while the build-up is well-done, there is nothing else that rounds the story up. The characters are not particularly lovable due to their lack of emotional sensibility. I also did not connect with the writing style. It was too rational for my taste, but I can see how others could find some beauty in it. I felt like it was stuck between being a piece of fiction, a piece of non-fiction and a philosophical essay. Saint-Exupéry was perhaps trying to make a point at the difficult lives of pilots, but also about human resilience in general, but I felt like he never fully captured either idea. Overall, Night Flight is a short read, but a forgettable one. I would recommend it to people who loved The Little Prince or fans of authors like Paulo Coelho. The Red and The Black by Stendhal 2,5/5 *Read in the original French Summary Handsome, ambitious Julien Sorel is determined to rise above his humble provincial origins. Soon realizing that success can only be achieved by adopting the subtle code of hypocrisy by which society operates, he brings to achieve advancement through deceit and self-interest. His triumphant career takes him into the heart of glamorous Parisian society, along the way conquering the gently, married Madame de Rênal, and the haughty Mathilde. But then Julien commits an unexpected, devastating crime — and brings about his own downfall. The Red and The Black is a lively, satirical portrayal of French society after Waterloo, riddled with corruption, greed and ennui, and Julien — the cold exploiter whose Machiavellian campaign is undercut by his own emotions — is one of the most intriguing characters in European literature. My thoughts The Red and The Black is officially the book that took me the longest time to finish. I started this bad boy in November 2015. That's two years and eight months since I finished it in June. Why did that happen do you ask? Well, there's the intimidating length of the book since my edition was over 600 pages. Then there's simply the fact that the story is quite boring. The Read and The Black does not have any real moral to the story. You would think that it is about how trying to become a high-society member will only bring you trouble, but most of its members turn out fine. The story follows Julien, an incredibly smart peasant whose only goal is to become rich and famous amongst the Parisian court. Needless to say, he is not an honourable character. However, the worst part is that he pretends that his despicable actions are not about him rising up in society. He genuinely thinks that he is falling in love time and time again. You know me, I love a good antihero, yet Julien deceived me by not fully embracing his role as a hypocritical character. He is not alone, almost every character is overdramatic and quite stupid, really. Stendhal's writing style and his use of context is where the beauty of this book lies. Stendhal is widely considered to be the creator of the psychological novel which marks the transition between Romanticism and Realism by representing accurately the context of the 1830s Parisian society while portraying characters prone to grand excesses of emotion, The Red and The Black does just that. Lady Chatterley’s Lover by D. H. Lawrence 3,5/5 Summary Lawrence's frank portrayal of an extramarital affair and the explicit sexual explorations of the central characters caused this controversial book, now considered a masterpiece, to be banned as pornography until 1960. My thoughts Lady Chatterley’s Lover is far out of my comfort zone. If you've been following me for some time, you know that I despised Emma, found myself quite bored while reading Wuthering Heights (it is not that good, sue me) and that the book I hate the most is Madame Bovary. The only reason why I even gave it a chance is that Montreal's classical ballet company, Les Grands Ballets Canadiens, is doing an adaptation of the book choreographed by Cathy Marston. I figured I should read the book before seeing the ballet. Surprisingly, I didn't hate it. The progression is quite stagnant. D. H. Lawrence is famous for his understanding of women's psychology and desires. There were some parts which he did just that wonderfully. It does feel strange to hear such truths coming from a man, but one cannot deny their accuracy. However, that, in my humble opinion, does not sustain a novel. Men aren't sensible, and Connie, our main protagonist, is bored, and that was most of it until her affair with her husband's gamekeeper which sparks back the fire in her soul. I wanted something more, not just insanely long monologues or transcripts of conversations Connie is not a part of. By modern standards, this plot would be considered weak and lacking in interest. Even if she was a bit boring, I did enjoy Connie’s character. She represented accurately the average woman in her era yet had a rebellious spirit that kept the novel going. Even if she is an intelligent and well-rounded woman, that does not transpire in her choice of lovers. To put it gently, Connie’s lovers are mean and egocentric. Even her husband is not my idea of a good person. He has the weirdest views of marriage as if it was more of a contract between two people who fulfill themselves intellectually than an equilibrium of two beings with emotional attachment. Oliver is not better. That man was rude and even cruel at times. Connie seems to be looking for affection, but Oliver does not provide that. Lawrence confuses physical contact for affection and care. To me, they are not mutually exclusive, but in Lady Chatterley’s Lover is never felt like they came together. I deeply respect the generation-altering work that it did in giving power to the woman especially when it comes to her choice of relationships. Even if this book is far from today's ideas of feminism, but it is definitely an impressive step forward for an early 20th-century novel written by a male. This simple fact makes the read worth it. It is rare that a novel changes the course of history, however, when reading Lady Chatterley’s Lover, I truly felt at an important cornerstone, at a turning point of the woman’s rights movement that was just starting to gain momentum after the first World War. P.s. insulting lesbians is not cool, Oliver. The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli 3/5 *English translation by Summary Here is the world's most famous master plan for seizing and holding power. Astonishing in its candour The Princeeven today remains a disturbingly realistic and prophetic work on what it takes to be a prince . . . a king . . . a president. When, in 1512, Machiavelli was removed from his post in his beloved Florence, he resolved to set down a treatise on leadership that was practical, not idealistic. . . My thoughts Let me attempt at rating a political science novel. Not only am I not sure how to rate this since its A) a letter addressed to someone and was never meant to be read by a larger audience B) about political science and Italian history. How do you give that a rating? It certainly cannot be based on my agreement of the argument since that would indicate a clear bias regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of Machiavelli’s arguments. It is also difficult to address the writing style, the plot progression… I will say that the text definitely resonates and applied during medieval and ancient times. I remain in doubt about its application in a modern world mostly because of the fall of the nobility and the rise of popular discourse through social media. Machiavelli was definitely not a peaceful thinker, and some of his points do not hesitate to preach violence and the taking of arms to gain power. No wonder people think politicians are two-faced and merciless. However, even for his time, he does not underestimate the power of the people. As uneducated and delirious as the tiers étatwas in the Middle Ages, Machiavelli understands that the simple power of the numbers is enough to overthrow a government. He encourages Lorenzo Di Piero de Medici to strive for a balance between pleasing the people and his nobles, something that could still apply to today's politics, replacing the nobles by big campaign donors. Even if some of Machiavelli’s concepts can still be applied today (I doubt we can still talk about taking over each other’s fortresses), you do need a good knowledge of Italian history, particularly of the Renaissance period to fully appreciate The Prince. I am no expert, and I do feel like that did impede my reading experience, but I do know a fair amount about the Borgia, Sforza, Medici, Orsini and Colonna families. Machiavelli uses mostly examples from his current time or from Ancient Rome to prove his points, and since it is not a history treaty, he does not explain the events but simply uses them to prove his point. Unless you buy an edition with a ton of footnotes, stay away if you are clueless about this historical period. (Seriously, my only points of references were the shows Medici and Borgia on Netflix, which I highly recommend, I was clueless when it came to Ancient Rome). I will most likely reread this throughout university in political science, and I can’t wait to. It is the kind of book that merits a reread to be fully appreciated. Xx.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
MeI'm in love with the world. Archives
April 2020
Categories
All
Archives
April 2020
|