My Brother and my Daughter have expressed the desire to engage in dialog on various and miscellaneous literary subjects. Following is an email from Barry, in this reguard, to start the thread unraveling. In the comments section I will post the dialog thus far.
Anyone else that wants to join us, jump into the fray via comments.
Phil,
I watched the movie Jane Eyre(2006 BBC) aproximately 5 hours, and liked it. Stuck right to the book. Any comment on my Jane Eyre thoughts? I'm just talking about things I noticed or thought about while reading. I won't try to have an academic/literary discussion (I find most over done, predictable, and over discussed)-- probably because I've spent the last 25 years analyzing such literature. I won't put Jane Eyre on the top of my book heap, but I love the "political/social standing" side-stepping that went on with women authors. If you haven't read Frankenstein by Mary Shelly and To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, you must. Both women authors test and challenge the authority and standing in a man's world and the morally devastiating effects of pursing a life centered around ignorance and social hubris. The first (if you haven't read her) is a gothic romance in that same era as Jane and the other is an indepth look at prejudices of all kinds during the depression in Maycomb, Alabama, as seen through the eyes of a 6-10 year old girl. If I had to pick two classic pieces of literature that were my favorites, these two would be 1 and 2. I know you are consumed with reading old favorites like Griffin etc., as I am, and your literature with Great Books, but take a break and try these two. Frankenstein is British Classical Literature definitively, and To Kill a Mockingbird is truly American Literature ( a Purlitzer Prize winner, by the way). I can truly say that To Kill... influenced my "human philosophy" more than any other piece of literature. I must tell you that I am not enthralled with Griffin's Men in Blue (Badge of Honor) series. Maybe the next one will be better. I'm having a difficult time finding it though. It has almost the identical title as one of his Brotherhood series: Special Ops and Special Operations. Every library and used book store I go to always throws up the Brotherhood book. Oh, well. No matter. It's not crucial. I started Winds of War anyway (nothing fascinates me more than World War II). Write back soon. I've given you a lot in which to respond.
See ya,
Barry
I watched the movie Jane Eyre(2006 BBC) aproximately 5 hours, and liked it. Stuck right to the book. Any comment on my Jane Eyre thoughts? I'm just talking about things I noticed or thought about while reading. I won't try to have an academic/literary discussion (I find most over done, predictable, and over discussed)-- probably because I've spent the last 25 years analyzing such literature. I won't put Jane Eyre on the top of my book heap, but I love the "political/social standing" side-stepping that went on with women authors. If you haven't read Frankenstein by Mary Shelly and To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, you must. Both women authors test and challenge the authority and standing in a man's world and the morally devastiating effects of pursing a life centered around ignorance and social hubris. The first (if you haven't read her) is a gothic romance in that same era as Jane and the other is an indepth look at prejudices of all kinds during the depression in Maycomb, Alabama, as seen through the eyes of a 6-10 year old girl. If I had to pick two classic pieces of literature that were my favorites, these two would be 1 and 2. I know you are consumed with reading old favorites like Griffin etc., as I am, and your literature with Great Books, but take a break and try these two. Frankenstein is British Classical Literature definitively, and To Kill a Mockingbird is truly American Literature ( a Purlitzer Prize winner, by the way). I can truly say that To Kill... influenced my "human philosophy" more than any other piece of literature. I must tell you that I am not enthralled with Griffin's Men in Blue (Badge of Honor) series. Maybe the next one will be better. I'm having a difficult time finding it though. It has almost the identical title as one of his Brotherhood series: Special Ops and Special Operations. Every library and used book store I go to always throws up the Brotherhood book. Oh, well. No matter. It's not crucial. I started Winds of War anyway (nothing fascinates me more than World War II). Write back soon. I've given you a lot in which to respond.
See ya,
Barry
posted by Rex at 10:32 PM
7 Comments:
Barry,
Thanks for the great email, I just love this correspondence!
Whew, you did propose a lot of thought.
I'll just skim my replies to the various topics you brought forth and follow up more details tonight and over the next few days.
Jane Eyre: As I have stated, previously, I liked it from many points of view: Its social commentary of the age, Class Structure in general, Women’s position within the Class Structure, basic human moral conviction within individuals, and structured religious institutional mores. Each of these, as well as others, could be investigated and discussed separately within the total content of the novel’s scope. All that can/could be discussed may not have had any intent by the author. Other critics’, supposedly expert, opinions are not necessarily any more valid than our own, but they do open avenues of thought and stimulus for debate. I'll try to propose some of my own thoughts and opinions in later correspondence. Keeping in mind: one does view the world through perception, not as it is (Hume?)!
Frankenstein, by Marry Shelly: We spent over a month reading the book, discussing and viewing three different film adaptations. It too was/is chock full of moral issues and can be parsed into an infinite number of insights and perceptions. I’ll try to elaborate later.
To Kill a Mockingbird: I have read it too, and seen the movie, both back at the time they were first, the early to mid fifties, released. The both were number one best sellers and must have won some Academy Awards and/or nominations. I would have to re-read it to discuss it from a literary/critical point of view. From a recreational point of view I remember it as very entertaining though. I’ll put it on my “Books to read/re-read” list too.
Griffin: I’m currently about a third of the way through the third volume of the four; I still like it too, the series MAW. I don't think I will even try the police series.
Winds of War: wow, Herman Wouk! I thought you had already read that one; one of the greats of all time, in combination with War and Remembrance. There was a great TV Mini Series for both W of W & W & R that is probably available on DVD. If you read those two, then you have to read both his: The Hope, and The Glory too.
We are just beginning a new anthology for our reading group, catch my blog later tonight to get the details on that.
This is all I have time for tonight, I’ll write more tomorrow,
Philip
Barry,
A Jane Eyre Comment:
"...side stepping done with women authors": Jane Eyre was originally published as, Jane Eyre An Autobiography, edited by Currer Bell. It was only after it was revealed that Currer Bell was, in fact, Charlotte Bronte, a woman, that a woman author even had a chance to publish a book; let alone for it to be accepted by the public as worthy of reading! For this alone, Jane Eyre marks a seminal work in world literature!
Just one of my many opinions, that are subject to change by logical discourse, or just forgetting what I previously may have thought,
Philip
Barry, Kim:
Regarding Frankenstein: one of the issues, that could be debated, relative to moral, or ethical, societal standards, for “then” and for “now”, is the re-creation of human life, “then”; as opposed to Cloning, or Stem Cell growth, or Organ Transplants, or Organ Farming, “now”.
I think a good debater could make convincing arguments from the: “then or now”, or the “for or against”, or the “Religious” or “Secular”, points of view.
I find her (Shelly’s) conception of this issue, at such an early stage of scientific development, and from a woman, amazingly prescient.
How about yourself: which points of view do you think would be easiest argued: “fore” or “against” either “then” or “now”, religious or secular? And; could the religious and secular communities ever share a common point of view?
Philip
Ray: if you are reading this, jump in!
Phil, I'm not sure that the "recreation of human life" was an issue in Frankenstien, so it would be hard for me to argue on one side or the other. I believe that Shelly, in the popular genre of the period, used this "gothic romance" as nothing more than a macbre plot line for society's need to understand the mysteries of nature both physical and emotional. The horrors of a monster by her and the horrors of man's darker side by Poe (gothic literature) were very popular at the time and that by itself made books sell. If I conceded that in "real life" the search for answers to the mysteries of nature (cloning and stem cell research) were relevant to Frankenstein, then I would admit that the "issue" could be argued. However, I believe Shelly chose to show through Victor's "obsession" with bringing "animation" to a physical creation of dead body parts, it was obsession to any one physical, selfish effort (at the exclusion of what was most important in Life, "love," that caused his downfall. Love is all that the Monster ever demanded from his creator, Victor, and he would not give it. That confused the monster because he understood the "Creation" from his Bible teaching from Safie and (forgot his name). So he was tortured by HIS OBSESSION (monster) for violating nature and refusing to Love. Look at his childhood. He was loved, he was given everything, he was doted upon and loved back genuinely. When he left for Ingolstadt and began his study, he devoted his whole being to the research, did not communicate forever with his family, and forsook his friendship with Clerval. All of his family, consequently, was systematically taken from him by the monster in him (selfishness and pride). When I read the words of the monster to Victor after pleading for him to love him, he said: "I will be with you on your wedding night." Those words still give me chills. He could have stopped the whole mess, if he would have loved OR given him a lover as hideous as he was. Victor started another creation and "Aborted" it half way through" because he did not want to create another of His kind that he could not control and release "Hell upon the earth". Maybe we could debate abortion here as a justification from Victor's point of view, anyway. Well, I'm done babbling. Shake your head fromm side to side and say: "What?" and write back with something like: "Are we reading the same book?" See ya,
Barry
PS
You may forward this to Kim if you like. Might as well have both of you think I'm a dumb ass.
Barry,
Your argument relative to the monster "just wanting love" is quite valid; it was the consensus of our reading group too. However: I do not agree that this was a popular topic at the time Frankenstein was written; Marry Shelley is generally given credit for starting the fantasy/science fiction genre. She, in fact, wrote Frankenstein as a competition amongst her husband, Percy Basshe Shelley, and some other writers, Lord Byron, whilst on vacation in a summer villa somewhere in Europe (Switzerland ?). Their location may have inspired the story theme and plot locale. It was so good that she later published it. I believe that some critics claimed her husband actually wrote it, which is not generally accepted.
There are several avenues of speculation that can be considered as to inspiration for her story. Most, really good, writers do not just write an entertaining story, for recreational reading, although most readers do take them that way, but they are proposing or exposing some important message to the world and or their peers. I believe this is the case here. This was the age of enlightenment, relative to scientific development, and I imagine that amongst the intelligentsia there was quite a bit of speculation about it.
I'm not claiming to be correct here: I'm just expressing my perception of the book from my peculiar world view and collected perceptions.
Enthusiastically,
Philip
Philip: It's Ray! Wow, reading the enclosed articles is emotionally,philosophically educationally and last but not least theologically stimulating beyond discription. It absolutely frieghtens me to view the enormous variety of insight available just on one small aspect of mankinds desire to spread thought or ideas governing our existence. I truly wish I might be able to participate in such profound expressions of concepts.Some constraints I have, both natural and self imposed might appear to create artifical barriers at this time but I will continue to monitor your site and offer from time to time minor comments on your immediate discussions. Regarding Shelly's "Frankenstein" I believe your charaterization of ideas expressed by her, most closely resemble and reflect my perceptions. I love the concept that the "creative mind often provides for unlimited boundaries". Sometimes I think we like to scare the hell out of others and sometimes we like to offer plausible alternatives to life as being and having been lived.With great thanks and sincere appreciation for the opportunity to participate not to mention the time of relection I will attempt to give on the ideas expressed by our cohorts I am Ray Kindly excuse the spelling!!!! Maybe even the thought process?
Welcome to the fray, Ray; I'm a poet and don't know it:) LOL.
Philip
Post a Comment
<< Home