A Grief Observed by C.S. Lewis

“I never knew that grief felt so much like fear.”

In A Grief Observed Lewis shares his thoughts and emotions with regard to the death of his wife, Joy Davidson, and it is perhaps one of the most powerful books on suffering that I’ve ever read.  As a reader, you are drawn into his grief and, contrary to what the title suggests, you can feel and experience Lewis’ anguish right alongside him, at times almost against your will.  Lewis is pain personified, and it’s raw and it’s shocking.

In his book, The Problem of Pain, Lewis deals with suffering from an aspect of reason and pragmatism, but in A Grief Observed, he is a broken man, on one hand calling out for sense and understanding to apply to a situation that is beyond comprehension, and on the other, resisting examining his situation. Lewis’ faith was shaken but not broken.  He does not deny God, yet he does ask what kind of God is He?  What type of God would allow something like this to happen?  He asks hard questions, makes brutally honest statements, and you wonder if this man is on his way to losing his faith.

“Talk to me about the truth of religion and I’ll listen gladly. Talk to me about the duty of religion and I’ll listen submissively. But don’t come talking to me about the consolations of religion or I shall suspect that you don’t understand.”

Yet why can’t we ask hard questions of our Maker?  Why can’t we storm and rage against the injustices of life?  Lewis kicked and stormed against the door of Heaven and instead he found an opening into his own soul.

“God has not been trying an experiment on my faith or love in order to find out their quality. He knew it already. It was I who didn’t. In this trial He makes us occupy the dock, the witness box, and the bench all at once. He always knew that my temple was a house of cards. His only way of making me realize the fact was to knock it down.”

After long endeavouring to remember his wife’s countenance, it is only when he stops struggling to see Joy, that her face suddenly returns to his mind. Lewis finally realizes that we need to seek God for Himself — for who He is —- and not for what we can get from Him.

“You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you. It is easy to say you believe a rope to be strong and sound as long as you are merely using it to cord a box. But suppose you had to hang by that rope over a precipice. Wouldn’t you then first discover how much you really trusted it?”

Madeleine L’Engle writes in her introduction to the book:  “I am grateful to Lewis for having the courage to yell, to doubt, to kick at God in angry violence. This is part of a healthy grief which is not often encouraged.  It is helpful indeed that C.S. Lewis, who has been such a successful apologist for Christianity, should have the courage to admit doubt about what he has so superbly proclaimed.  It gives us permission to admit our own doubts, our own anger and anguishes, and to know that they are part of the soul’s growth.”

courtesy of Dawn Huczek
source Flickr
Creative Commons
———————————————————————————–

C.S. Lewis Project

Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift

“My father had a small Estate in Nottinghamshire; I was the Third of five Sons.”

As Samuel Johnson stated, Gulliver’s Travels is a work “so new and strange, that it filled the reader with a mingled emotion of merriment and amazement.”  One must remember that at the time of Gulliver’s Travels, readers had rarely encountered prose fiction in the form of stories, let along the fantastical stories and adventures of Gulliver.  They didn’t quite know how to respond.

In the last chapter of the this book, its purpose is laid out to the reader, that Swift’s “principal Design was to inform, and not amuse thee.”, a deviation in form, since most medieval writers sought to do both.  The Roman lyric poet, Horace, stated that, “The poet who pleases everyone is the one who blends the useful with the sweet, simultaneously amusing and informing the reader.”  Likewise, Thomas More in his Utopia states that his book is “A Truly Golden Handbook, No Less Beneficial than Entertaining”; Shakespeare seeks also to entertain and instruct, and The Cantebury Tales are described as “tales of best sentence and sola”, expressing the standard medieval definition of literature which both informs and gives pleasure.  So why does Swift no longer want to amuse readers?  Why does he choose to change the medieval model of how literature was represented?  If his readers have not noticed the festering undercurrents of judgement within the story, it’s as if Swift was determined emphasis the seriousness of the work.  As throughout his story, he gives the English people strengths that do not exist, so he also gives the reader amusement, where amusement does not exist.   No wonder people were puzzled by his unique representation.

Born in Dublin  in 1667, Swift spent the early years of his life moving between his hometown and London, attempting to gain a footing both in politics and the Church.  His first position was with Sir William Temple a retired English diplomat who was writing his memoirs.  Swift formed a close relationship with Temple and when he died, Swift hoped to gain a position at Canterbury or Westminister through King William, but the position never materialized.  Amid various other disappointments, Swift continued his travels between Ireland and England, and during these years, he produced A Tale in a Tub and The Battle of the Books, gaining a reputation as a writer.  Gulliver’s Travels was published later in his career, in 1726.

Mural depicting Gulliver surrounded by
the citizens of Lilliput
source Wikipedia

Episodic in nature, Gulliver’s Travels follows Lemuel Gulliver as he visits various unknown civilizations and learns their ways while gently comparing their societies with those of his own.  I say gently because Gulliver makes his musings appear as a gentle examination, but Swift has other ideas. One doesn’t have to look very hard to see that this work is a sweeping condemnation of the human race.

Gulliver first lands in Lilliput where the society is diminutive in stature compared to Gulliver’s enormity.  Initially accepted by the Lilliputians because of his good behaviour, he eventually upsets them by refusing to help them conquer another province and he is forced to escape.

Gulliver exhibited to the Brobdingnag
Farmer – Richard Redgrave
source Wikipedia

His second adventure is nearly an inversion of the first, in that this time Gulliver is small and, landing in Brobdingnag, soon realizes the gigantic features of its inhabitants.  While being poorly treated by his first family, Gulliver eventually comes to the Queen who treats him reasonably well and he is able to converse with the King.  The King, however, becomes unhappy with his description of the state of Europe, in particular their use of guns and cannons.

Gulliver discovers Laputa,
the flying island
J.J. Granville
source Wikipedia

The next adventure includes the flying island of Laputa, which is a rather bizarre place.  The inhabitants are devotees of the arts of mathematics and music only, but not only fail to employ them for any benefit to society, they also, through self-deception, are blindly unable to recognize their failures.

The land of the Houyhnhnms is Gulliver’s fourth and final stop, a land of wise and noble horses, but he also encounters a race called Yahoos, a race very much like himself yet more filthy, vulgar, bestial and stupid.  Although they at first recognize him as a Yahoo, the Houyhnhnms finally take to Gulliver, impressed with his cleanliness and ability to reason.  Yet in spite of the relational ties he makes in this land and his desire to remain among these highly civilized beasts, the horses foresee a danger in Gulliver’s presence and send him off in a boat.  When he arrive home, our protagonist is a changed man.  Disgusted with the “Yahoos” of his country, he is barely able to live in their company, finally choosing a rather secluded life.

Gulliver taking final leave of
the Houyhnhnms (1769)
Sawrey Gilpin
source Wikipedia

Through Gulliver’s interaction with the Liliputans and the Brobdingnagans, Swift satirizes British politics.  The Liliputans are only concerned with petty and trivial problems, and in their self-aggrandization can only see themselves as governors of the whole world.  Yet while Liliput represents a small view of man, Brobdingnag represents a large one.  As in Liliput, Swift explores the contrasts between liberty and law, but now the situation is reversed as Gulliver is in miniature in a land of giants.  The island of Laputa is built upon philosophy and it’s inhabitants are seen as Swift’s critque of scientism, or that the only way to true knowledge is through scientific disciplines.  Only what can be seen and measured is taken into account, but, of course, this leaves no room to examine the soul.  The land of the Houyhnhnms is perhaps the most fascinating part of the voyages.  In this land the beasts are the civilized society and the Yahoos, who are human, are savages.  The Houyhnhnms live by reason and that reason, working within nature, give rise to their idyllic existence.  Gulliver believes that if he lives long enough with his friends, this virtue will rub off on him, but in fact the horses see his reason as imperfect and therefore he is more dangerous than a Yahoo who has no reason at all.  In reality, Gulliver is half-way between both species, halfway between pure passion and pure reason.

Apparently both Sir Walter Scott and William Thackeray were shocked and repulsed by Gulliver’s fourth voyage, yet there is still argument as to whether Swift’s work was a satire in the form of Horace, where he is only lightly satirizing Gulliver’s idealism, or the heavier satire of Juvenal, whereupon his writing is a vitriolic, sarcastic diatribe condemning the human race.  I’ll leave it to the reader to decide.  Yet perhaps Swift himself can shed light on his intentions:

“I have ever hated all Nations professions and Communityes and all my love is towards individualls for instance I hate the tribe of Lawyers, but I love Councellor such a one, and Judge such a one for so with Physicians (I will not speak of my own trade) Soldiers, English, Scotch, French; and the rest but principally I hate and detest that animal called man, although I hartily love John, Peter, Thomas and so forth.  This is the system upon which I have governed myself for many years (but do not tell) and so I shall go on until I have done with them I have got materials toward a treatise, proving the falsity of that definition animal rationale [rational animal], and to show it would be only rationis capax [capable of reason].  Upon this great foundation of Misanthropy (though not in Timon’s manner) The whole building of my Travells is erected.  And I will never have peace of mind until all honest men are of my Opinion.”

While I thought Swift’s satire brilliant, and his characterizations mostly just, I felt that he focused only on the negative aspects of human nature.  If Swift really saw the world only through a lense of disappointment, treachery, selfishness, and deceit, yet missed the integrity, loyalty, virtues and goodwill of the flip-side of human nature, that is truly a tragedy.

Read for my Classics Club Spin #8, Fariba from Exploring Classics joined me in reading this one.  Here is her most excellent review.  Thanks for the company, Fariba!

(And further reflections by Fariba on Gulliver’s Travels)

Utopia by Thomas More

“The moste vyctoryous and tryumphante Kynge of Englande, Henry theight of that name, in all royal vertues Prince moste peerlesse, hadde of late in contrauersie with the right hyghe and myghtie king of Castell weightye matters, and of greate importaunce; for the debatement and final determination wherof the kinges Maieste sent me Ambassadour into flaunders, ioined in commission, and whom the kinges maiestie of late, to the greate reioysyng of all men, did preferre to the office of maister of the Rolles.”

I certainly promise not to write this review in Middle English but I thought I’d give you a taste of it.  And, no, I didn’t read the complete book in ME, I was able to get through about 1/5 of it and then changed to a modern English version.  And most happily, I might add.  The original Utopia was written in Latin in a fine emulation of Ciceronian Latin, yet More took it a step further in humour and playfulness.

Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor
Hans Holbein the Younger
source Wikipedia

Born in London in 1478, Thomas More was a very learned man and, if he had been able to follow his inclinations, would have been destined for the church.  His father, however, had other aspirations for him and, being a dutiful son, he conceded to his wishes and chose the law as his profession.  Unexpectedly, he was a marvellous success as a lawyer.  He soon had a thriving business and his extraordinary aptitude quickly brought him under scrutiny of the “higher-ups”. The political positions he was eventually offered were always accepted reluctantly, and More had a life-long dilemma with reconciling his loyalty to his sovereign and his loyalty as a Christian to his conscience.

As a Catholic, More opposed the Protestant Reformation.  Serving as Lord Chancellor under King Henry VIII, he was accused of inflicting harsh treatment on heretics, but he denied the accusations.  What is interesting is that his son-in-law at the time, was enticed by “Lutheran heresies”, and More’s reaction when speaking with his daughter, was surprisingly temperate: “Meg, I have borne a long time with thy husband.  I have reasoned and argued a long time with him and still given him my poor fatherly counsel; but I perceive none of all this can call him home again.  And, therefore, Meg, I will no longer dispute with him, not yet will I give him over; but I will go another way to work, and get me to God and pray for him.”

A man of honour and high standards, he would not even compromise for his family.  When one of his sons-in-law expected preferential treatment  because of More’s office, More stated, “If my father whom I dearly love were on one side and the devil, whom I sincerely hate, were on the other, the devil should have his rights.”

With King Henry VIII’s decision to divorce his queen, Catherine, More’s power began to unravel.  While remaining quiet publicly, he continued to support the Pope over the King, and when he was required to sign a letter asking the Pope to annul the marriage, More refused.  Henry soon began to isolate him. Eventually when More openly refused to acknowledge the annulment, Henry took action, arresting More for treason.  He was decapitated on July 6, 1535. When the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, heard of his death, he said, “Well, this we will say, if we had been the master of such a servant, we would rather have lost the best city of our dominions than have lost such a counsellor.”

Map: This picture was taken from
 one of the first editions of the book,
which is published online at the 
Bibliotheca Augustana

Probably inspired by his close friend, Desiderius Erasmus, Thomas More wrote Utopia in 1516 during an embassy to the Netherlands.  A very brief book, yet with a complex structure, More used himself and a character called Raphael Hythloday to present political philosophies that range from the insightful and wise, to the curiously peculiar.  In Book I, More crafts the setting for Utopia and then, through his character and Hythloday’s, offers a discourse on the evils and ills prevalent in European society.  While having a parallel set-up to Plato’s Republic (Morton = Cephalus; Hythlodaye = Socrates; lawyer = Thrasymachus), More adopts occurrences from his own day to structure the framework of Utopia and construct a more politically and socially organized text.   More uses this venue to chastize the actions of kings who use the country’s money for unproductive warmongering, and especially vilifies the practice of hanging thieves on the gallows, often for very petty infractions.  In Book II, More offers a detailed description of Utopia, its inhabitants and its societal structure. The Utopian community supports common property, slavery and religious tolerance.  Agriculture is the most treasured occupation but each Utopian is required to learn some other trade as well.  Finery is frowned upon, pre-marital sex and adultery punishable, and while atheists are allowed in Utopia, they are shunned because their views are counter-productive to the Utopian community.

More & Hythloday discuss Utopia
source

Scholars are still in disagreement as to More’s purpose when writing this book. On one hand, some purport that More’s intent was to write and endorse a treatise on communism and its implementation.   Others scholars differ in opinion; while the book had a basis in the condition of European politics, it was nevertheless written tongue-in-cheek.  Brewer in his Reign of Henry VIII, appears to support this view:

“Though the Utopia was not to be literally followed —- was no more than an abstraction at which no one would have laughed more heartily than More himself, if interpreted too strictly.  Utopia might serve to show a corrupt Christendom what good could be effected by the natural instincts of men, when following the dictates of natural prudence and justice.  If kings could never be elective in Europe, Utopia might show the advantage to a nation where kings were responsible to some other will than their own.  If property could never be common, Utopia might teach men how great was the benefit to society, when the state regarded itself as created for the wellbeing of all, and not of a class of a favoured few …….”

C.S. Lewis, a medieval and renaissance scholar, takes More’s book as a light holiday work, and this summation rings true, as More make some comments himself that were obscure, but appeared to poke fun at his work.  Lewis states:

 “….. it appears confused only so long as we are trying to get out of it what it never intended to give.  It becomes intelligible and delightful as soon as we take it for what it is —- a holiday work, a spontaneous overflow of intellectual high spirits, a revel of debate, paradox, comedy and (above all) of invention, which starts many hare and kills none …..  There is a thread of serious thought funning through it, an abundance of daring suggestions, several back-handed blows at European institutions …….  But he does not keep our noses to the grindstone.  He says many things for the fun of them, surrendering himself to the sheer pleasure of imagined geography, imagined language, and imagined institutions.  That is what readers whose interests are rigidly political do not understand: but everyone who has ever made an imaginary map responds at once.”

If we take into account some of the regional names in this work, the purpose may become clearer still.  “Utopia” literally means, “no place”; “Achoria” means “Nolandia”; “Polyleritae” means “Muchnonsense”; “Macarenses” means “Happiland”; and the river “Anydrus” means “Nowater”.  Even Raphael’s last name, Hythlodaeus, translates as “dispenser of nonense”.  Was More being ironic or serious?  I doubt we can ever know for sure.

In spite of the obscurity of the book and some of the controversies surrounding More, I loved both the author and this work.  He appeared to treat both his wives well, quite clearly loved his children, was well thought of and respected, and in spite of his position, chose to write a story that not only amused his readers, but allowed them to explore human nature and come to their own conclusions with regard to universal issues.  Thomas More is a man to be admired and Utopia is certainly a book to be read!

  • translated by Clarence H. Miller (English translation)
  • also Oxford Press “student” edition edited by J. Churton Collins (Middle English translation)

Further reading:  

Richard II by William Shakespeare

” For God’s sake, let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings ….”

Why do they call this play a “history”?  It was an absolutely tragedy …. gut-wrenchingly tragic, and I still feel depressed about the outcome.  Dare I say this is my favourite Shakespearean play so far?  Isn’t that weird?  An historical play about a king of whom I knew little about ……..  Yet Shakespeare’s verse is astonishingly beautiful.  The words flow around you like a bubbling river, conveying the anguish, terror, loss, loyalty, courage, deception, abandonment and hopelessness.  Not only is the play alive, but the story is alive and the words have a life of their own.

Richard II, King of England
portrait at Westminster Abbey (mid-1390s)
source Wikipedia

The play begins with a dispute between Henry Bullingbrook (Bolingbroke), cousin to King Richard, and Thomas Mowbray, Bullingbrook accusing Mowbray of misappropriating money and claiming that he was part of the murder of the Duke of Gloucester (which was probably orchestrated by Richard), yet before either can accomplish a duel, King Richard decides to banish both, Bullingbrook for 6 years and Mowbray for the term of his life.  John of Gaunt, is broken hearted at the exile of his son, Bullingbrook, and soon becomes sick with grief.  Upon Gaunt’s death, Richard decides to expropriate his estates and money, thereby defrauding Bullingbrook of his inheritance.  As Richard leaves to deal with the wars in Ireland, Bullingbrook gathers supporters and lands in England for the purpose, it appears, of regaining what is rightfully his.  Because Richard has taxed his subjects without remiss, and has fined the nobility for errors of their ancestors, most of the nobles rise up against him.

John of Gaunt
father of Henry IV
source Wikipedia

When Richard returns to England he is left with a small contingent of supporters including his cousin Aumerle, the Duke of York’s son, and lords Salisbury and Berkeley and other retainers.  Upon meeting with Bullingbrook, Richard relinquishes the throne to him, and Bullingbrook wastes no time in appointing himself King Henry IV.  Immediately, Richard is placed in prison.  When an uprising by Aumerle is discovered by his father and vehemently exposed, Aumerle is graciously pardoned by Henry IV, yet with dire threats towards the other conspirators.  In prison, Richard attacks his warden in frustration and is killed by Exton; when Henry hears about the murder, he is distressed and the play ends with his sad lament.

When I finished this play, I was so anguished by Richard’s sad end and how he’d been treated, yet reading some pre-history would have perhaps measured my emotions, as the good king was not entirely as innocent as he is made out.  Richard inherited the title of king when he was 10 years old and spent many years of his reign under the control of counsellors and advisors.  It wasn’t until later on, that he appeared to throw off their power and come into his own.  However, the fact that he taxed the populous to such extreme extents to finance his wars and royal coffers, contributed to the fact that he was not well loved or respected.  He was a king who ruled by impulse and without a justness that would have connected him to the people.  In fact, in the play, when he is walked through the streets, people dump garbage on his head, not a very fitting display for a monarch who truly believed that he was anointed by God.

Richard being taken into custody
by the Earl of Northumberland
source Wikipedia

Another consideration is that Shakespeare is writing drama.  He is known for taking the framework of history and then chopping and changing and perhaps, speculating for dramatic and political effect.   It is interesting that at the end of the play, Richard is seen as a pitiful figure who has voluntarily given up his kingship, and Bullingbrook condemns his murder, leaving the new king innocent of the crime and helpless to stop its culmination.  A very safe and uncontroversial tact on both sides for our playwright!

My favourite speech of Richard’s pulses with foresight, nostalgia and lament:

“For God’s sake let us sit upon the ground 
And tell sad stories of the death of kings:
How some have been deposed, some slain in war,
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed,
Some poisoned by their wives, some sleeping killed.
All murdered.  For within the hollow crown
That rounds the mortal temples of a king
Keeps Death his court and there the antic sits,
Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp,
Allowing him a breath, a little scene,
To monarchize, be feared and kill with looks,
Infusing him with self and vain conceit,
As if this flesh which walls about our life,
Were brass impregnible.  And humoured thus,
Comes at the last and with a little pin
Bores through his castle walls, and farewell king!”

As Richard begins to realize the possible outcome of the circumstances and tries to reconcile them with his belief that a king is sanctioned by God, we see his syntax begin to break down, with his pronouns of “we”, being reduced to “I”.  It is truly pitiful.

Richard II
Anonymous impress from the 16th century
source Wikipedia

On a political note, this play was used to stir up populous support for Robert, earl of Essex, Queen Elizabeth I’s one-time favourite, during his rebellion against her.  On the eve of the uprising, his supporters paid for the play, Richard II, to be performed at the Globe Theatre, but Essex’s attempt to raise a coup against her failed. Retaliation was swift, however.  On February 25, 1601, Essex faced his execution and was beheaded on the Tower Green.  His was the last beheading at the Tower of London.

This was another wonderful experience with one of Shakespeare’s historical plays.  I had expected to like them least in the canon, but they are certainly quickly becoming by far my favourites!

Watched:  The Hollow Crown:  Richard II

Othello by William Shakespeare

“O, beware, my lord, of jealousy;
It is the green-ey’d monster, which doth mock
The meat it feeds on.”

Othello the Moor is lauded over Venice for his help in attempts to rid them of the pesky Turks in their battle over Cyprus.  Yet when Othello weds the beautiful Venetian Desdemona in secret, some opinions of his prowess change, notably those of Desdemona’s father.  And unbeknownst to Othello, Iago, his third-in-command, is plotting a dastardly revenge for being passed over for promotion, the position being given to Othello’s loyal lieutenant, Cassio.  Hence proceeds perhaps the most shocking example of manipulation in literature, as Iago takes possession of Othello’s mind and emotions, like a beast taking possession of its prey, transforming our noble Moor from a honest, straightforward, respected man into an enraged, vengeful monster who believes every evil of his innocent wife, including her unfaithfulness with his second-in-command, Cassio.  Othello’s jealousy manages to eclipse anything within our understanding.

Abd el-Ouahed ben Messaoud
ben Mohammed Anoun,
Moorish ambassador to Elizabeth I
suggest inspiration for Othello
source Wikipedia

Iago reveals that, as well as the injury of being passed over for promotion, he also harbours a suspicion that Othello has been sleeping with his wife, Emilia, who is Desdemona’s lady-in-waiting.  There is no proof of this accusation in the play, and it is likely that Iago is expecting people to act with the same lack of integrity and base bestial urges, that he himself would, in the same circumstances.

How does a gentle and admired military leader allow himself to be reduced to a maddened beast, his fury leading him to commit the worst atrocity against a perfectly innocent human being, and one who has loved and supported him through their short marriage?  What hidden button inside Othello’s psyche has Iago discovered and pushed, knowing that it will make him snap?

Maria Malibran as Rossini’s
Desdemona
Françoise Bouchot
source Wikipedia

Certainly there are various issues that come into play and work against Othello.  He is used to being a commander, yet is unused to being a husband and obviously, when in love, is out of his depth.  Perhaps he sees Desdemona as a possession that he has conquered and, instead of being able to relax in his marriage, he, like a military leader, feels that he must wage battle to keep her.  And when difficulties do arise, instead of trying to search out the truth, he acts like a military leader and attempts to “conquer the enemy”.  He has insecurities that lead to him being a willing pawn of Iago’s machinations. The jealousy that Iago is able to set aflame within him, corrupts his normal good sense and his actions become intemperate.  I certainly have compassion for his state, as I believe these aspects have severely affected his decison-making and emotional state, but, that said, he is still human and he still has the option of choice.  He knows right from wrong, yet he decides to allow his emotions to rule and himself to be led down the tragic path of mindless jealousy.  In reality, he allows himself to turn into a beast.

Othello & Desdemona
Antonio Muñoz Degrain
source Wikipedia

Shakespeare’s exhibits an uncanny ability to weave endless possibilities into a Gordian knot of drama and draw the reader into his poetic spell.  Will we ever know exactly what motivated Othello and his spiral from an honourable man to a madly jealous murderer.  Will we ever understand why he believed Iago without any “ocular proof”?  What happened to the military commander that must have been used to exhibiting self-control?  Do intense emotions subvert our ability to act as a human beings?  There are so many avenues to explore and no obvious or set answers.

Of all the characters in the play, my favourite character was Emilia.  While she remains surprisingly unaware of the plotting and intrigues of her husband, upon realizing the truth, she becomes the voice of the audience, who has until this point been mute in horror, and satisfyingly spews vile recriminations on the head of Othello.

T.S. Eliot had a different view of the last actions of Othello than many older critics:

“I have always felt that I have never read a more terrible exposure of human weakness — of universal human weakness — than the last great speech of Othello.  I am ignorant whether any one else has ever adopted this view, and it may appear subjective and fantastic in the extreme.  It is usually taken on its face value, as expressing the greatness in defeat of a noble but erring nature. What Othello seems to me to be doing in making this speech is cheering himself up. He is endeavouring to escape reality, he has ceased to think about Desdemona, and is thinking about himself. Humility is the most difficult of all virtues to achieve; nothing dies harder than the desire to think well of oneself. Othello succeeds in turning himself into a pathetic figure, by adopting an aesthetic rather than a moral attitude, dramatising himself against his environment. He takes in the spectator, but the human motive is primarily to take in himself. I do not believe that any writer has ever exposed this bovarysme, the human will to see things as they are not, more clearly than Shakespeare.”

I read this play as part of a Shakespeare: From the Page to the Stage course that I’m taking online, and it’s definitely moved in among my favourites!

Laurence Fishburne & Kenneth Branaugh
Othello 1995
source Wikipedia

The Classics Club “50” Survey

Being swamped with reads and my two courses (one of which is taking three times as long as they estimated), I was going to wisely ignore the 50 question survey from the Classics Club.  But when I read a few of my blogging friends interesting posts, I had to give it a whirl.  It took 2 weeks to compile but worth every minute.  I’d almost forgotten the habit of past contemplation, which brings such value into our present reading habits.

1. Share a link to your club list.
Here’s a link to my current list.  I’m about 1/5 of the way through.
2. When did you join The Classics Club? How many titles have you read for the club? 
I joined on November 12, 2013.  My complete list is comprised of 168 books:  15 books from Ancient times; 16 books from Medieval/Early Renaissance;  41 books from Early Modern times; and 96 books from Modern times.  Of the 168 books, I’ve finished 33, so I’m exactly on track (or ½ a book behind, if I want to be picky!).
3. What are you currently reading?

Le Morte d’Arthur by Sir Thomas Malory and Utopiaby Sir Thomas More.  Two books by two “sirs” ….. boy, how did that happen?
4. What did you just finish reading and what did you think of it?
Four Shakespeare plays, Romeo & Juliet, Othello, A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Much Ado About Nothing.  I’m reading them for an edX Shakespeare course.  Both new to me were Romeo and Juliet and Othello and I really enjoyed them, especially Othello.  The last two were re-reads: I love Much Ado but A Midsummer Night’s Dream has never really been a favourite.
5. What are you reading next? Why?
For Christmas, I’d like to read Dickens,  The Chimes; for the spin, I’ll be reading Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift; God in the Dock for my C.S. Lewis Project; and I hope to get to Framley Parsonage by Anthony Trollope to continue the series, but I am doubting that will happen until January.
6. Best book you’ve read so far with the club, and why?
Absolutely, without even having to think about it, Paradise Lost by John Milton. It completely blew me away; his characterization of Satan was by far the best that I’ve ever encountered, and the scope of the work was so ambitious that one could only admire his ability, even if he fell short in certain areas.  War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, would probably come second.  As I just mentioned on Ruth’s blog, after I finished this one book, I felt I’d had the benefit of reading three!
7. Book you most anticipate (or, anticipated) on your club list?
Oh, the anticipation changes depending on my mood.  Right now, I’m looking most forward to Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott and The Histories by Herodotus. 
8. Book on your club list you’ve been avoiding, if any? Why?
My dread of certain books, however, does not often change.  I would go to the furthest Antipodes to avoid The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and Aristotle’s Ethics. I would have also paid to avoid anything by Henry James, James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, etc.   I have few of these writers on my CC list, which was really dumb because now they’ll all be populating my second list. 
9. First classic you ever read?
I believe it was Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.  Either that or The Vicar of Wakefield  by Oliver Goldsmith.  I was late starting to read classics and, honestly, read mostly garbage before I hit 20.
10. Toughest classic you ever read?
Well, because I was a classics newbie, I’d have to say The Vicar of Wakefield but only because my brain had to be trained to absorb well-written prose.  Thankfully I was a fast-learner.  But after I was “classicfied”, I would probably choose The Divine Comedy.  On the surface, it’s not a tough read but if you want to dig deeper, there are so many layers to it that I don’t think you could mine them all if you read it once per year.   
11. Classic that inspired you? or scared you? made you cry? made you angry?
The Chosen by Chaim Potok.  The relationship between one of the characters and his father was so well-drawn out, yet vibrating with conflict and tension.  I don’t want to give too much away, but for most of the book, you’re shocked at how one character treats the other, then at the end you find out why he has been acting in that manner, and it’s a good reason.  Then you experience the internal conflict within yourself …… his behaviour is wrong yet it’s not wrong.  You want to condemn him yet, how, when his motivations were pure?  It’s really quite a fantastic book.
12. Longest classic you’ve read? Longest classic left on your club list?
Definitely, The Count of Monte Cristo followed by War and Peace.  And the longest left on my list ……????  Wow, thanks for this question ….. it’s made me realize the number of true chunksters I have yet to read.  And it’s scary!  Probably The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (did I really put this on my list?) and then possibly, The Fairie Queene.
13. Oldest classic you’ve read? Oldest classic left on your club list?
That would be The Epic of Gilgamesh, which I think dates to around 2000 B.C., and the oldest one left is Herodotus’ Histories.
14. Favorite biography about a classic author you’ve read — or, the biography on a classic author you most want to read, if any?
I’ve read a great number of biographies this year and I’m not sure that I could pick a favourite.  Thomas Merton’s Seven Storey Mountain was wonderful, as was Surprised by Joy by C.S. Lewis.  And I can’t miss mentioning Augustine’s Confessions, as well as saying that I began a new relationship with Montaigne after reading selected portions of his Essays!  
15. Which classic do you think EVERYONE should read? Why?
Oh, I don’t think I can answer this one. I need to give recommendations based on the person or it could go horribly wrong.
16. Favorite edition of a classic you own, if any?
I have a first edition of The Pickwick Papers by Charles Dickens, which has four engravings missing.  Every time I look at it, it gives me a thrill. 
17. Favorite movie adaption of a classic?
Pride and Prejudice from 1995 with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle; Cold Comfort Farm with Kate Beckinsale; and  Kenneth Branaugh’s Mucho Ado About Nothing.
18. Classic which hasn’t been adapted yet (that you know of) which you very much wish would be adapted to film.
Dante’s The Divine Comedy, or a good adaptation of Le Morte d’Arthur, both likely impossibliites.
19. Least favorite classic? Why?
Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier.  Should I start ducking the tomatoes?  It was painful!  The characters didn’t resemble real people and their actions were stupefyingly dense.  I’m still trying to brace myself to read some more of her works.
20. Name five authors you haven’t read yet whom you cannot wait to read.
1.             Albert Camus
2.             Winston Churchill
3.             Herodotus
4.             Honoré Balzac
5.             Samuel Johnson
21. Which title by one of the five you’ve listed above most excites you and why?
I don’t know but grasping at a first thought, I’ll say, A Journey to the Western Islands of Scotland by Samuel Johnson.
22. Have you read a classic you disliked on first read that you tried again and respected, appreciated, or even ended up loving? (This could be with the club or before it.)
I can’t think of any that specifically fit this criteria, but I did hate A Picture of Dorian Gray for about ¾ of the book and then ended up loving it.  I also thought I’d hate The Dharma Bums by Jack Kerouac but was charmed by it.  Perhaps I’m really a closet-hippie, perish the thought! 
23. Which classic character can’t you get out of your head?
Monsieur Myriel from Les Miserables, Satan from Paradise Lost, Sarpedon from The Iliad (don’t ask me why),  Moomintroll and Socrates.  Whew!  What a list!.
24. Which classic character most reminds you of yourself?
Definitely Elizabeth Bennet!!
25. Which classic character do you most wish you could be like?
Cassandra from I Capture the Castle but probably for only certain parts of her life, Gerald Durrell for the part of his life that he was on Corfu as a child, and Elizabeth Bennett.
26. Which classic character reminds you of your best friend?
Believe it or not, Jane Bennett.
27. If a sudden announcement was made that 500 more pages had been discovered after the original “THE END” on a classic title you read and loved, which title would you most want to keep reading? Or, would you avoid the augmented manuscript in favor of the original? Why?
Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre (I think O mentioned these books too) In these books it always seems like the fun ends after marriage, and it would be groundbreaking to discover that it doesn’t!
28. Favorite children’s classic?
Swallows and Amazons by Arthur Ransome and Finn Family Moomintroll by Tove Jansson.
29. Who recommended your first classic?
I chose it myself.
30. Whose advice do you always take when it comes to literature. (Recommends the right editions, suggests great titles, etc.)
My blogger friends, particularly O who finds absolute treasures, Jean, who I think knows about every book that was ever printed, and Ruth who picks truly wonderful reads.  I also go to Nancy for history books and other eclectic finds, and Sophia for YA fiction; they don’t always fit into the classics category but I’m mentioning them in any case.
31. Favorite memory with a classic?

Reading Middlemarch by George Eliot for the first time.  I read it in the summer on the beach and was completely enthralled for the 6 days it took me to read it.  I can still remember the crash of the waves.

32. Classic author you’ve read the most works by?
Definitely C.S.  Lewis.  I could probably teach a course on him now.  I probably know more about him than he knew about himself.  Wait, no, Jean knows more than I do.
33. Classic author who has the most works on your club list?
William Shakespeare.  There is really no excuse as to why I haven’t read all of his plays. 
34. Classic author you own the most books by?
C.S. Lewis again.  Although I do own a lot of Enid Blyton.  Would she count as a classic?  And Dickens ….. lots of Dickens.  Oh, and I have about 10 different copies of The Lord of the Rings.
35. Classic title(s) that didn’t make it to your club list that you wish you’d included? (Or, since many people edit their lists as they go, which titles have you added since initially posting your club list?)
Not really any I can think of.  I’m happy with my list and I know I’ll be making another.  Now if you’d asked me which books I’d remove from the list, I’d have a detailed answer!
36. If you could explore one author’s literary career from first publication to last — meaning you have never read this author and want to explore him or her by reading what s/he wrote in order of publication — who would you explore? Obviously this should be an author you haven’t yet read, since you can’t do this experiment on an author you’re already familiar with. 🙂 Or, which author’s work you are familiar with might it have been fun to approach this way?
Hmmm, this is difficult to answer.  Perhaps Balzac?  But that would be an enormous undertaking.  I’m reading through Zola’s Rougon-Macquart series right now (on book four) but since I’ve read him, he wouldn’t count.
37. How many rereads are on your club list? If none, why? If some, which are you most looking forward to, or did you most enjoy?
I had 11 re-reads. I was probably looking forward to The Odyssey the most of all and I did get tons more out of it on the second reading.
38. Has there been a classic title you simply could not finish?
The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco.  I felt that he had some ulterior motive or that I was being dragged on a journey by someone I didn’t trust.  Sounds odd, I know.  It’s on my list so I’m going to give it another try.  Oh, wait, I should have said Tender is the Night by F. Scott Fitzgerald.  Whenever I read Fitzgerald’s works I feel like I’ve wasted my time and I don’t think I’ve ever felt like this before with a classic. 
39. Has there been a classic title you expected to dislike and ended up loving?
Definitely! To The Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf.  I loved her stream of consciousness in this book.
40. Seven things you’re looking forward to next year in classic literature?

1. Start to read poetry regularly.
2. Reading more essays.  I so enjoyed Montaigne this 
    year!
3. Reading The Cantebury Tales paired with The Brubury
    Tales, a modern re-telling.
4. Continuing my WEM & Shakespeare challenges.
5. Concentrating on regularly reading some children’s
    classics for my much neglected children’s book blog,
6. Reading more regularly in French (we’ll see how that
    goes)
    Challenge, I think.  For those of you who don’t know
   me, lists make me nervous, but this challenge seems
   open enough that I hope to make it work.

41. Classic you are definitely going to make happen next year?
The Cantebury Tales, and The Histories, and possibly adding Ivanhoeand The Fairie Queene as good intentions.
42. Classic you are not going to make happen next year?
I am dreading Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Good grief, why did I put it on my list?  I mean I want to read it, but when it’s on a list you have to.  I also wish to avoid The Interpretation of Dreams by Sigmund Freud and Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche.
43. Favorite thing about being a member of the Classics Club?
Being part of a blogging community has been the best thing.  I’ve made so many new blog friends and it’s been wonderful to be able to share a passion for reading with everyone and be introduced to new books.
44. List five six fellow clubbers whose blogs you frequent. What makes you love their blogs?
Yipes!  It’s so hard to pick just five, or even six!

1. O’s blog Behold the Stars – she finds such obscure classics from well-known authors (I don’t know how she does it) and her reviews are so well-researched, amazingly well-written and chock-full of interesting tidbits.

2. Ruth @ A Great Book Study – I just love how thoughtful her reviews are; she gives insights into the deep profound mysteries of life, probably without knowing that she does it!

3. Jean @ Howling Frog Books – I have never met a blogger who has introduced me to more of an eclectic assortment of excellent books.  It’s great!  And she’s smarter than me! 😉

4. Jason @ Literatue Frenzy – he’s not always active (on his blog, I mean) but always deeply intuitive.  His posts are wonderfully eloquent, passionate and insightful, and he is perhaps the most polite blogger I know!

5. Nancy @ Ipsofactdotme – a truly contemplative reader and one with great perseverance (with much struggle, she taught herself to read in French).  Her reviews are insightful and structured in a way that make them refreshing reads.  She’s always very gracious.

6.  Carol @ Carol’s Notes – by reading just one of her posts, you can tell that she is so obviously a writer.  She blogs not only about books, but about human experience and human nature, with a wisdom that is truly amazing.  It takes me about four days to think about her posts before I’m able to respond.
Perhaps if I stop with numbers, I can get a couple more in:
Newly discovered blog:  Mockingbirds,Looking Glasses, and Prejudices – it’s quite startling how similar we are.  However we can’t agree about Mr. Rochester. 
Honourable mention:  Marianne’s blog — I know she likes to keep it low key but I can’t rave enough about her writing.  It’s just beautiful.  Every post, every comment is a delight to read and leaves you feeling like you’ve just received a unique and refreshing warm spring breeze.

And lastly, all the blogs on my blogroll to the left.  They are all excellent.
45. Favorite post you’ve read by a fellow clubber?
I think this is my favourite question.  I’d much rather talk about other people than myself! 😉

I loved O’s post on Agnes Grey — it really connected the reader to the book and the author and I think would increase the enjoyment for a first time reader X4.  

Jean’s Classics Club June Meme response was so insightful and timely.  

Jason’s post on Sense and Sensibility from a man’s point of view —- just great!

Carol’s How Did Emily Dickinson Know About Thought Police was a treat; she is a master at interweaving human nature and wisdom into her posts.

Phinnea’s first post on our Le Morte d’Arthur read-along left me in tears of laughter ……. Her posts are hilarious!

Ruth’s posts on Lewis and Clark were pretty awesome. It’s so difficult to write about non-fiction and make it sound exciting, yet she is amazingly adept at it.

……… seriously, I could go on and on with this question ……..

46. If you’ve ever participated in a readalong on a classic, tell about the experience? If you’ve participated in more than one, what’s the very best experience? the best title you’ve completed? a fond memory? a good friend made?
Oh my, yes!!  In spite of feeling that I’ve had a rather average reading year, I participated in two read-alongs that were just amazing: the Paradise Lost Read-Along and The Odyssey Read-Along.  They both happened at times when I had time to read and I learned sooooo much from having the time to read contemplatively.  I hope I can get free time that will coincide with another read-along in 2015.
47. If you could appeal for a readalong with others for any classic title, which title would you name? Why?
I’m not sure.  Perhaps Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, which is not even on my list and would be a re-read for me, but I think it would be a lot of fun! I’d also like to do a read-along on a non-fiction book because I think it would be weird, but I have no idea which one.
48. How long have you been reading classic literature?
Not very long.  I probably began in my early 20s, but seriously since 2010.
49. Share up to five posts you’ve written that tell a bit about your reading story. Reviews, journal entries, posts on novels you loved or didn’t love, lists, etc.

         1. A little about me
2. Paradise Lost (my book of the year)
3. The Beginning of 2014
4. War and Peace (my longest read)
5. Extra, extra, read all about it!
     

50. Question you wish was on this questionnaire? (Ask and answer it!)

I think everything has been well covered!

Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare

“O, Romeo, Romeo!  Wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name
Of, if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love,
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.”

Of course, we all know the story.   In Medieval Verona, the Capulets and Montagues are feuding, their hatred spilling over into battles in the streets; revenge and killings abound.  Yet Romeo, the Montague, meets Juliet, a Capulet, and all thoughts of his former love, Rosaline, fly from his head as his heart is captured by her beauty.  Will Romeo and Juliet’s love survive the heated rivalry and secret machinations of the houses of Montague and Capulet?

Well, no, of course not!

Juliet
John William Waterhouse
source Wikiart

While Romeo and Juliet is certainly a story of young love, it is also a cautionary tale against letting one’s heart (and other body parts) rule one’s head with unhealthy intensity.  Friar Lawrence cautiions Romeo during his effusive praise of Juliet after only one glance of her:

“These violent delights have violent ends 
And in their triumph die, like fire and powder, 
Which, as they kiss, consume.  The sweetest honey 
Is loathsome in his own deliciousness
And in the taste confounds the appetite.
Therefore love moderately.  Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow.”

Romeo and Juliet the tomb scene (1790)
Joseph Wright
source Wikiart

Later, when Romeo’s friend, Mercutio is slain by the Capulet, Tybalt, cousin to Juliet, love is forgotten in the passions of revenge and Tybalt’s life is forfeit under the steel of Romeo’s sword.  A sentence of exile is pronounced as the lovers’ hopes spiral into a well of despair.  A message gone astray, culminates in the deaths of these two lovers, echoing a tragic pathos that the reader can sense building throughout the play.  Right from the beginning, when you view their impulsive, forbidden love, blossoming amongst the fields of vendettas, discord and enmity, you know that it cannot last.  It’s like an explosion of fireworks that streak across the sky in a pattern of colours and textures and beauty.  But eventually these grand passions burn themselves out and in place of the awe-inspiring spectacle, darkness remains.

Yet while there is tragedy in the fateful story, Shakespeare also shines rays of hope.  With the deaths of the two heirs of both the Montagues and Capulets, all animosity melts away as the families share the pain of a double grief.  So instead of Romeo and Juliet’s deaths being merely tragic, the lovers’ demise turn out to be a kind of sacrifice, two deaths that culminate in the saving fate of the two families.  Is Shakespeare alluding to the belief that peace in society is more important than a passionate love of two individuals?  Who knows, but it’s a thought that resonated with me long after I turned the last page …….

Juliet and her Nurse (c. 1860)
John Roddam Spencer Stanhope
source Wikiart

I read this play for my edX Shakespeare: On Page and Performance course, play 1 of 6.

Productions Watched:
         Romeo & Juliet – Shakespeare Stratford Collection    (★★★☆)
Audiobooks:
         Archangel Audiobook – Romeo & Juliet (★★★★★)                           

Classics Club Spin #8 ……… And the Winner Is ……………

Number 13 !

Yipes!  That means I’ll be reading:

I’m not quite sure how I feel about that.  I’m happy to read it but I think there is a deeper message, a commentary on government or society, or something like that ……..???

Curiously, I’m reading Utopia by Thomas More at the moment so it might be interesting to do a comparison.

For anyone who has read Gulliver’s Travels, can you offer any advice or let me know what to expect?  Should I do some research beforehand?

Okay,  a deep breath, and happy reading everyone!

Classics Club Spin #8

Oh, no.  When I saw it was spin time at the Classics Club, I stopped breathing. I’m swamped beneath a pile of books for online book groups AND courses. For one course, I’m actually required to read Dante’s Inferno and Vita Nuova three times in six weeks!  Help!  So the sane thing to do would be to let this spin pass, right?  …….. Are you kidding?  I wouldn’t miss it!

For my last spin I finished The Importance of Being Earnest (review still in progress) and Moonlight Readers spin book, Summer by Edith Wharton.  This time I’m not going to be attempting double spins, I promise!

As per usual, the rules for the spin are:

  1. Go to your blog.
  2. Pick twenty books that you’ve got left to read from your Classics Club list.
  3. Post that list, numbered 1 – 20, on your blog by next Monday.
  4. Monday morning, we’ll announce a number from 1 – 20.  Go to the list of twenty books you posted and select the book that corresponds to the number we announce.
  5. The challenge is to read that book by October 6th.

I used the random list organizer here to choose the 20 books from my master list.  So my list ended up looking like this:

  1. Ivanhoe (1820) – Sir Walter Scott
  2. Tevye the Dairyman and Motl the Cantor’s Son (1894) – Sholem Aleichem
  3. Twenty Years After (1845) – Alexandre Dumas
  4. Tom Sawyer (1876) – Mark Twain
  5. King Lear (1603 – 1606) – William Shakespeare
  6. 1984 (1949) – George Orwell
  7. Bondage of the Will (1525) – Martin Luther
  8. Henry V (1599) – William Shakespeare
  9. The Cherry Orchard (1904) – Anton Chekhov
  10. The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1831) – Victor Hugo
  11. Hamlet (1603 – 1604) – William Shakespeare
  12. Pensées (1669) – Blaise Pascal
  13. Gulliver’s Travels (1726) – Jonathan Swift
  14. The Time Machine (1895) – H.G. Wells
  15. The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy (1860) – Jacob Burckhardt
  16. Dead Souls (1842) – Nikolai Gogol
  17. Animal Farm (1945) – George Orwell
  18. L’Argent (1891) – Emile Zola
  19. The Interpretation of Dreams (1899) – Sigmund Freud
  20. The Prince (1513) – Niccolo Machiavelli
Five Books I’m Hesitant to Read
1.  The Interpretation of Dreams – Sigmund Freud (uh, why did I include this
           on my list???)
2.  The Prince – Niccolo Machiavelli (but it’s short so that’s not too bad)
3.  Ivanhoe – Walter Scott (only because it’s so long)
4.  ——
5.  ——
Five Books I Can’t Wait to Read
1.  Ivanhoe – Walter Scott (I’ve been wanting to read it for ages!)
2.  L’Argent – Émile Zola (I can’t wait to visit Zola again)
3.  The Cherry Orchard – Anton Chekhov (I think I’m hooked on Russian lit)
4.  Tevye the Dairyman and Moti the Cantor’s Son – Sholem Aleichem
           (looks like fun)
5.  King Lear – William Shakespeare (loved it the first time, what about the
            second?)

This list is a fantastic draw.  My only concern is the length of the book chosen. Reading anything extra in November is impossible, so that will only leave me one month to finish.  Ivanhoe, as much as I’m dying to read it, is probably not the best choice.

So now all I have to do is hold my breath, cross my fingers and wait.

Are you excited about this spin?  Which titles do you hope to see chosen?

Fathers and Sons by Ivan Turgenev

“Well, Piotr, not insight yet?” was the question asked on May the 20th, 1859, by a gentleman of a little over forty, in a dusty coat and checked trousers, who came out without his hat on to the low steps of the posting station at S—–.”

What sort of relationship do you have with your father?  Is it one of respect, deference, and honour, or do you think his ways too traditional, his thought process too archaic, and to keep a tentative understanding between you, do you have to employ a somewhat forced amiability, while underneath feeling an impatient scorn?

In Fathers and Sons, Turgenev examines the ideas of the new and old, progress and stagnation, and generational differences.  Yet while Turgenev portrays these conflicts within families and people, the themes echos the struggles that were occurring in Russia itself, between the common liberals and a nihilism movement that was growing and expanding at an alarming rate. Immediately the reader is tossed into the battle and while you expect to be buffeted to-and-fro between the two forces, one is surprised to find a more gently tossing, a disturbing reminder of how subtly, yet how pervasively this new philosophy could spread into the ideas and actions of the people.

Arkady Nikolaitch returns home from university with his good friend, Bazarov, a self-confessed nihilist, who issues a dripping contempt for most people around him.  Arkady maintains a good relationship with his father Nikolai Petrovitch and his uncle Pavel Petrovitch, yet through Bazarov’s influence he begins to question what he values about their antiquated thought and primitive ways.

With Bazarov’s nihilistic charm and new trendy ideas, his challenging of the status quo makes him a hero of the younger generation, while the older regard him either as dangerous, or rather like an unusual specimen that they can’t quite figure out.  Yet, in spite of renouncing life and its perceived useless order, we find that Bazarov is unable to escape it.  While visiting the house of a widowed woman, Anna Sergyevna Odintsov, he becomes enamoured of her, his emotion overriding his philosophy and eroding some of its immutable strength.

Ivan Turgenev hunting (1879)
Nikolai Dmitriev-Orenburgsky
source Wikipedia

Turgenev does a masterful job of having nature interplay with the characters, their ideas and emotional struggles.  For example, Bazarov is blind to the beauty around him  He merely uses nature, as he engages in his hobby of dissecting frogs,  pulling Nature itself apart to examine its inner workings.  He can only appreciate the slaughtered bits, but is unable to interact with the whole, Nature as life and beauty.

I don’t believe that Bazarov’s nihilism was a true nihilism.  He obviously wanted to reject the status quo and, in fact, had a quarrel with it, which is apparent in his simmering anger when he speaks about it.  He doesn’t just want to contradict it, he longs to disparage it.  His philosophy is a quasi-nihilism that supports his self-importance and that he uses more as a crutch. He is passionate about it but appears to use it merely as a play for power.  He has developed a philosophy, which is truly an anti-philosophy that prevents him from interacting with life itself.

While with Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky you often feel buffeted by the high emotion or deep philosophy, Turgenev’s approach is more gentle, lulling his ideas into the reader’s head with his pastoral description, and lyric pace.  Yet for being gentle, it is no less powerful.  Turgenev has conducted a true masterpiece!

Translated by Constance Garnett

 

“In these days the most useful thing we can do is to repudiate – and so we repudiate …”

(Note:  Nikolai Chernyshevsky wrote a response to Fathers and Sons with his What is To Be Done? and Dostoyevsky wrote a response to What Is To Be Done?in his Notes From the Underground.  Further explanation of this triple conversation is contained in the reviews below.)



Trilogy: