Pages

Saturday, 7 February 2015

Comments from various quarters on Shirley

1/ The Language of Truth: Charlotte Bronte, The Woman Question and the Novel (Harriet Bjork):
- CB: major, if somewhat uneven artist, heretic, Chartist. 
- A woman whose mind contains nothing but "hunger, rebellion and rage" (Matthew Arnold). 
- Fire and fury, emotional involvement=> unhappy and therefore unjust (Thackeray). 
- Personal experience. Social awareness? 
- CB's concerned with the woman question as personal problem and social issue, but not a propagandist, and in the rights-of-women champion sense, not a feminist (Inga-Stina Ewbank). 
- John Gregory's A Father's Legacy to His Daughters=> female sphere, admonitions to women. 
Hannah Moore expresses the same ideas: the bold, independent spirit that is admired in boys must be suppressed in girls; girls "should acquire a submissive temper, and a forbearing spirit".
- Caroline's difficulties are solved by marriage. However, CB expresses in letters that matrimony's not the only alternative to despondency and decline.
- CB "does not claim equality in explicit terms, or emphasise that women themselves should make more active efforts to work for reform". 
- Education, work and self-help: affinities between CB and Hariet Martineau. 
- CB on Mrs Taylor, John Stuart Mill's friend: "hard, jealous heart, and nerves of bend leather", "a woman who had longed for power and had never felt affection". 
- Mother-worship in Shirley. 
- Jane Austen: heroines' progress towards self-knowledge and adjustment to society, characters confined to upper and middle classes, social order comparatively stable; "self-respecting domesticity is a woman's proper sphere". The "idle" ladies are "not interested in politics, philosophical abstractions or religious controversies", but "absorbed in points of conduct and etiquette". However, "the author expresses a serious moral outlook", depicting men and women as equals in intellect, morals and emotions.
CB: harsher and not so narrow.
- CB's tone: "often sardonic and bitter but never worldly-wise and cynical".
- Jane Eyre as a Cinderella story.
- Significance of dress in CB's novels.
- Shirley's "elegant carelessness" vs Caroline's "nice propriety".
- Shirley and Louis: combine masculine and feminine traits.
- "Shirley and Caroline adapt themselves to the female sphere after their time of protest".
- Ennui of Caroline and other ladies.
- Shirley: "reincarnation of good feudal values in the industrial epoch".
- "Despite her fairy-tale devices, her pseudo-scientific phrenological methods of character description and analysis, her utilisation of Providence to achieve effects which we often find sentimental and moralistic today, her fiction deals with real 'female difficulties'- economic, social and psychological".
- In CB's novels, women don't set out to compete with men in the sphere of intellect, but the author emphasises that the cultivation of the mind makes women more useful for society.
- Philanthropy and Mr Helstone's use of money. Prejudice against Miss Ainley.
- Juxtaposition of male and female social workers in Shirley.
- CB's heroines feel like they're outsiders and shadows.
- Shirley: the protest is voiced by 2 heroines and a 3rd-person narrator.
- Jane Eyre doesn't protest against domestic duties. Shirley does, in her criticism of Milton's Eve.
- "Caroline's yearning for ideal love and motherhood" vs "Mrs Yorke's masochistic acceptance of the situation of women". Mrs Yorke's anti-sentimental views.
Caroline's objection to the preference for female ignorance.
- Caroline: CB's most conventional heroine=> awkward that she cries out against the wrongs of women? Perhaps not. Her thoughts are "expressed in a subdued tone of youthful innocence and uncertainty".
- Caroline: features of "the sentimental heroine who learns to overcome her excessive sensibility and adapt herself to the duties of her sex in real life". But she's not a female Quixote.
- Marianne Dashwood, Jane Bennett, Anne Elliott...=> Jane Austen depicts woman's lot with profound psychological understanding but her novels don't make us feel the need for social reform as we feel it in the story about Caroline Helstone.
- Conventional attitudes in minor characters.
- The double marriage in the end counteracts the protest effect=> "discrepancy between the truth of life and the simplifications and illusions of fiction"=> "jarring note".
- Shirley and Caroline: can labour alone bring happiness?
- Shirley: love of freedom, critical view of the conventions of her time=> "makes a more daring exploration into the nature and role of woman than Caroline or the earlier heroines".
- Shirley and Caroline don't attempt to "ensnare" or "catch" a husband.

2/ The Feminine Political Novel in Victorian England (Barbara Leah Harman):
- CB: "I cannot write handling the topics of the day", "nor can I write a book for its moral".
- T. H. Lister: Women cannot enjoy at the same time "the immunities of weakness and the advantages of power".
=> Shirley's aware of "the threat that underlines the recommendation that women retain moral authority but refrain from engaging openly in public affairs".
- Caroline as a "superfluous" woman: Robert's house is self-efficient, she is unnecessary.
- Shirley's role-playing is more than an empty gesture=> she refuses to confine herself to the experiences of 1 sex or the other.
- Keen understanding of her own curious status=> difficult for us to place and identify Shirley.
- Shirley knows what men do and do not want: "she insists that Caroline not mix romance with work, not mix private motives with public ones, not mix women with men".
=> criticised.
- Self-restraint.
- "the issue of sex in an unexpected place".
- However, their invisibility (the night the mill's attacked) protects Shirley and Caroline from misinterpretation and gives them an edge in the unequal balance of power between men and women.
- Shirley "finds ways to exercise power, assert her agency, gain access to significant experience, even represent her feelings, while still preserving the distinction between public and private action...", "seeks action in covered performances, gains public experience through invisibility, finds knowledge in seeing without being seen, and self-expression in speaking without being understood".
- The novel moves from public to private concerns.
- Who is slave? Who is master?
Shirley proposes to Louis.
- CB "describes the pleasures of private sexual display and insists on their purity at the same time".

3/ Charlotte Bronte (Margaret Blom):
- Caroline's sterile life.
- Shirley and Caroline as idealised representations of Emily and Anne.
- "Deprived of power and totally unable to reform or even to alter the tyrannical system under which they suffer, these women are also betrayed by their own natures, which turn traitor against them and urge them into destructive conformity".
- "Men and women, like employer and employee, are locked in a vicious and useless struggle."
- Discrimination against women in the economic sphere.
- "... a woman's fate is determined by the economic system in which she has no power, because her desirability as a mate is dependent not on innate qualities but on a monetary worth that she is powerless to increase".
- Caroline "has nothing to think of but her hopeless passion".
- Stupid women who willingly accept the role men want them to play: e.g Hannah Sykes.
- For Caroline, a life without love is empty.
- Shirley's situation is more complicated.
CB "depicts Shirley as held prisoner in a psychological trap". She prefers a master.
- "Shirley is driven to accept the loss of selfhood entailed in marriage by her sexual desire, which ultimately triumphs over her desire for independence".
- The "happy ending does not mitigate the bleakness of the vision that informs the novel".
"The novel's depiction of frustration, terror, and hatred is too powerful to be outweighed by the brief, almost laconic, conclusion which describes the public victory celebration and the marriages of the protagonists".

4/ The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination (Sandra M. Gilbert& Susan Gubar):
- Gerard Manley Hopkins to R. W. Dixon: The artist's "most essential quality is masterly execution, which is a kind of male gift, and especially marks off men from women, the begetting of one's thought on paper, on verse, or whatever the matter is." He also notes "on better consideration it strikes me that the mastery I speak of is not so much in the mind as a puberty in the life of that quality. The male quality is the creative gift."
Robert Southey to CB: "Literature is not the business of a woman's life, and it cannot be."
- Anne Elliott (Persuasion) and Anne Finch: pens have always been in men's hands.
- A woman writer "must examine, assimilate, and transcend the extreme images of 'angel' and 'monster' which male authors have generated for her". She must kill them both.
- In the Middle Ages: "mankind's great teacher of purity"= Virgin Mary.
In the 19th century: "the eternal type of female purity was represented not by a madonna in heaven but by an angel in the house".
- Coventry Patmore's The Angel in the House.
- Mary Cave: the angel. Would have been unhappy with Mr Yorke as much as with Mr Helstone.
- "The man who offers stones instead of bread in return for the woman's love will receive as his punishment the rocks and stones cast by the other victims of his competitive egotism, the workers."
- Robert views all activity except business as "eating the bread of idleness"=> he necessarily despises women.
CB "implies through him and the other manufacturers that the work ethic of self-help means selfishness and sexism, and, linking the exploitation of the workers with the unemployment of women, she further indicates that the acquisitive mentality that treats both women and workers as property is directly related to disrespect for the natural resources of the nation".
- Shirley's "male mimicry".
- "What Shirley does is what Caroline would like to do: Caroline's secret hatred for the curates is gratified when Shirley angrily throws them out of her house after they are attacked by her dog; Caroline needs to move Helstone, and Shirley bends him to her will; Caroline wishes early in the novel that she could penetrate the business secrets of men, while Shirley reads the newspapers and letters of the civic leaders; Caroline wants to lighten Robert's financial burden and Shirley secures him a loan; Caroline tries to repress her desire for Robert, while Shirley gains his attention and proposal of marriage; Caroline has always known that he needs to be taught a lesson (consider her explication of Coriolanus) and Shirley gives it to him in the form of a humiliating rejection of his marriage proposal. Caroline wishes above all else for her long-lost mother and Shirley supplies her with just this person in the figure of Mrs Pryor".
However, Shirley "succumbs to Caroline's fate".
- It's the narrowness of the woman's lot that makes Caroline ill.
- The end: it's men who keep female minds fettered, so it's only they "who have the power to unlock the chains".
- Caroline's self-starvation is a hunger strike, a form of protest, a rejection of what society defines as nourishing.
- Shirley and Caroline become sisters, through Mrs Pryor, Shirley's surrogate mother and Caroline's biological mother.
Interesting bit: Shirley's father's name is Charles Cave Keeldar.
(Of course, at the end of the book they are married to the Moore brothers).
- Shirley becomes more reticent and discreet.
- "Shirley possesses all the accoutrements of the aristocratic hero, Louis Moore- like the young clerk William Crimsworth- is the male counterpart of a governess."
- Dissatisfied with the ending- the only happy ending for women in CB's society is marriage.
"... At least part of what makes the ending of Shirley seems so unreal is the way in which the plot metes out proper rewards and punishments to all the characters with an almost cynical excess of concession to narrative conventions."
e.g "Robert's indifference has made Caroline ill; he now wastes away at the hands of a woman who is said to starve him."
- Martin Yorke~ Henry Sympson: tools.
- Stress on Shirley's submission.

5/ Critical Essays on Charlotte Bronte (Barbara Timm Gates):
+ "Currer Bell's Shirley" (G. H. Lewes):
- Shirley's not a work of art, but "a portfolio of random sketches".
- The 2 heroes of the book "have both something sordid in their minds, and repulsive in their demeanour". Rochester's a lot more respectable.
- Criticises the characterisation and psychology: especially Mrs Pryor and Caroline.
- Several passages out of place: Caroline speaks like Currer Bell=> unnatural, unconvincing=> "an offence against art and against nature".
- No jealousy on Caroline's part?=> unconvincing.

+ "Public Themes and Private Lives: Social Criticism in Shirley" (Arnold Shapiro):
- Many critics are mistaken to say that Shirley lacks unity. The theme of selfishness, the lack of sympathy between people, connects everything in the novel: public (industrialists' behaviour towards workers, gentlefolk's behaviour towards governesses), private (Mr Helstone, Mr Yorke...)
=> "a world where utilitarianism is the official creed".
- Robert Moore, reflecting society's values (materialistic), is the embodiment of the social criticism of Shirley.
- Shirley and Louis: pride.
- Caroline: "symbol of all those victimised, of all people who are at the mercy of the selfish men..." 
=> in her story, "the social and private themes of Shirley [again] coalesce". 
=> CB offers her cure in individual, human terms. 
- Breakdown of pride between Shirley and Louis at the end. 
- The end of the war, the end of Robert's struggles, the end of selfishness=> love can prevail. 

Tuesday, 3 February 2015

Can we express disdain for a book we haven't read?

A man I know thinks that we shouldn't criticise/ disdain a book, in this case, Fifty Shades of Grey, before reading it. Which is true, generally- just think of all the people who refuse to read Lolita because they think that a book about paedophilia is immoral and disgusting, for example.
But how about something like 50 Shades?
Can we say "Life is too short to read 50 Shades" (disdain)*?
Or can we only say "I'm not interested in it"?
Do we have to read 50 Shades to make any comment on it, otherwise must remain absolutely silent?
How much do we have to read?
Do we have to read the whole trilogy? Or 1 book is enough?
Do we have to read the whole book? How about 100 pages? 50 pages? 20? 2?
How about a few quotes, a few passages?
(Can we tell bad writing from good writing based on sentences?**)
What do you think? Discuss!





*: Disdain for 50 Shades does not mean contempt for people who enjoy it. 
You may ask why not simply ignore it and mind our own business. Let's put that aside for a moment- it's not like I'm going around telling people that I hate 50 Shades. But considering that the film will come out this month, the ads are everywhere, the poster, the trailer, all the articles, all the hype, and some of my peers have asked me about it or even suggested reading it.., it's hard not to have some certain thoughts in mind, the same way I couldn't ignore Twilight, Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber..., going to class with people who loved them and constantly talked about them. 
**: Please have a look at this post: 
https://cassandraparkin.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/adventures-in-trash-fifty-things-that-annoy-me-about-fifty-shades-of-grey/

Tuesday, 27 January 2015

Misty Monday


I took these photos yesterday afternoon, with my recently bought smartphone. No filter. 
https://plus.google.com/photos/104156964467977244850/albums/6109112405744400705?authkey=CI2mss7UmfGD4QE
Victorian? 

Politics in Shirley

I haven't read The Professor, but Shirley is probably Charlotte Bronte's most political novel.
The novel, set at the beginning of the 19th century, focuses on Luddite attacks. The industrialist is represented by Robert Moore, who is initially determined not to give in at any cost and doesn't care what happens to his former workers after they're fired. The working class are generally seen as a group, especially the Luddites, but there's 1 individual- William Farren, a good, honest man put out of work. The author's views are clear. She disapproves of the Luddites' violent acts and portrays the leader of the 1st attack, Barraclough, as a drunken man, but at the same time sympathises with workers such as William Farren, and understands their anger. She sympathises with Robert Moore and sees the need of industrialisation, modernisation and technology development, but also makes him soften, repent his harsh attitude and find another job for Farren.
Her attitude is seen more clearly with the aid of some other characters. Mr Yorke, for instance, can be extreme and intolerant in his politics (interesting detail: he chooses to speak Yorkshire dialect though he can speak standard English and French), and bigoted in some matters, but after all he's good-natured, proud to those above him and kind to those below him, having sympathises with and always helping the working class. Shirley, 1 of the wealthy ones in the novel, helps others with her money. In short, Charlotte Bronte shows us the working class in their difficult times, their unemployment and poverty and suffering, their anger and desperation and thoughtless violent acts. The solution she offers, it seems, is that each person has to work, live a good, useful, honest life, and those more able should give a hand to help those less fortunate- Shirley does charities, Mr Helstone donates his own money to the church, Miss Ainley lives like a saint and places others' needs above her own, Mr Yorke helps the poor, etc. Apparently, it's easier to write about Luddites than about Chartists, while I would prefer to know her view on Chartists and their demands. 
The other political aspect, as one may expect, is about women. It's characteristic of Bronte. She rants about the limitation of choice for women, exemplified by the case of Mrs Pryor, who only has the choice between marriage and a governess's life, and suffers from both, until she works for Shirley. Charlotte Bronte depicts sexists, such as Joe Scott, or milder, Mr Helstone and Martin Yorke. She creates conformist female characters, such as Misses Sympson and Misses Nunnely, who think that what's strange must be wrong, what's unusual must be improper. 
Then she makes her characters speak. Caroline and Shirley discuss women's lives and job opportunities. Mrs Pryor speaks about her suffering as a governess and as a wife and tells Caroline that life is an illusion. The spinsters talk about their experience and unhappy unmarried life. Caroline dwells on the grief and solitary life of Mrs Pryor and her lack of choice, and the smallness of a woman's life. Rose Yorke rants about the "long, slow death" of all the women around her and yearns for something greater, fuller, more exciting out there. Mrs Yorke, a cynic, rants about the difficulties of being a mother and bringing up a bunch of children, and scolds Caroline for being a sentimentalist who knows nothing about the world. Caroline, who is generally timid, has an outburst before Mrs Yorke, which shows that, timid as she is, she has a strong will and a voice to defend herself. Shirley rants about men's misconceptions of women and misrepresentations of women in literature. Shirley ridicules Joe Scott for his sexism. Etc, etc. 
In all of these cases, we feel that it's also the author speaking, not only the characters. 
Then Mrs Yorke is silenced. Joe Scott is ridiculed. Martin Yorke yields. Mr Helstone the sexist sees Shirley as an exception, and follows her in her project. Mr Yorke, in a discussion on politics with Shirley, cannot respond to her arguments. Her characters win, she wins. 
I can't help thinking of Virginia Woolf, who writes that Charlotte Bronte "had more genius in her than Jane Austen; but if one reads them over and marks that jerk in them, that indignation, one sees that she will never get her genius expressed whole and entire. Her books will be deformed and twisted. She will write in a rage where she should write calmly. She will write foolishly where she should write wisely. She will write of herself where she should write of her characters. She is at war with her lot. How could she help but die young, cramped and thwarted?"
In short, from the aesthetic point of view, she puts all of her private feelings into this novel and lets them distort her art. 
From the political point of view, here she addresses the women's condition question further in Shirley than in other novels. In Jane Eyre and Villette, she mostly focuses on the life of a single person, here she elevates it, expands it, universalises it. Here, choosing the 3rd person's point of view, she explores the feelings of many girls and women, and writes about the smallness of a woman's life, the lack of opportunities, the limited choice, the suffering in the life of a governess or a wife when she has the misfortune of living with an unkind family or a bad husband, the solitary life of governesses and spinsters, the burden of a mother of many children, etc. In Jane Eyre, she, through Jane Eyre, argues that women have as much feeling as men; in Shirley, she indirectly argues that women have as much sense, as Shirley takes part in business and talks about politics just as men do. 
Shirley is, in my opinion, 1 of her weaker works, but it's interesting, and different. Here is a political novel by an author associated with Gothic novels and romance and bildungsroman. Here is something different. 

Monday, 26 January 2015

On Charlotte Bronte, and her heroines

Some writers, such as Chekhov, Turgenev, Jane Austen..., keep themselves detached, hidden from view. To quote them, one must always be careful- often, their personal opinions are not on the page. Some writers are also objective, presenting things and characters as they are without letting private feelings interfere with their art, but unlike the aforementioned, have too strong a personality to be invisible. Tolstoy is an example. Or Flaubert. And there are writers like Charlotte Bronte, whose overpowering personality can be felt on every page. She brings herself not only into the narrator, but sometimes makes characters her mouthpieces. We hear her, now and then, in Jane Eyre, in Lucy Snowe, in Shirley Keeldar, in Caroline Helstone, even in Rose Yorke, Mrs Pryor... We feel her presence everywhere, even in the descriptions of nature, for she tends to use nature to convey the emotions and passions of her characters that cannot be expressed with mere words, which very often seem to echo her own feelings.
And yet, in spite of all shortcomings, there are great compensations- no, great merits. Charlotte Bronte is no realist- her novels transport readers to a different world, a fascinating world created solely by her imagination. Charlotte Bronte doesn't patiently observe and record people's manners- rather, it seems like she creates characters out of her own mind, and breathes life into them. They might speak awkwardly, but their rich inner lives and the images the author depicts give them a convincingness, a vivid existence. I can see Jane Eyre before me. I can see Lucy Snowe. I can now see Shirley Keeldar and Caroline Helstone. Shirley is proof that even though in Jane and Lucy, Charlotte Bronte incorporates much of her own personality, experience and suffering, as a governess and as a teacher respectively, she can also write about characters that aren't images of herself. Caroline resembles Jane and Lucy in her quietness and introversion and love for literature, but we cannot find in her the strength and endurance of Jane and Lucy, because she's still young and inexperienced, still romantic, a bit naive, apparently unaware of the hardships of the world, which can be seen most clearly in her conversation with Mrs Yorke about a mother's life. Her insistence on becoming a governess as an escape from broken-heartedness, in an unready, unprepared state, shows both her innocence and her mental weakness- not only is she rather withdrawn, passive, even submissive, but she also lacks independence and strength and perhaps a rich inner world to deal with a disappointment in love. 1st she wants an escape. Later she gets seriously sick. Things like this don't happen to Jane Eyre and Lucy Snowe, who are more like stoics. At the same time, it feels like Caroline's life is empty, until Shirley appears. 
Shirley, like Jane and Lucy, is strong-willed, independent and self-determined. Like them, she loves literature and poetry and nature, and has a rich imagination. Like them, she voices Charlotte Bronte's indignation at the gender inequality of society. The similarity, I suppose, ends there. Her social position and wealth give her advantages and freedom, she can do anything as she pleases, including doing business, talking politics, making use of her money to help others. More than that, she has charm and vivacity, without any of the coquettishness and affectation of many girls in wealthy families. She has a man's name and a man's job, and takes no interest in "feminine" things such as dressing up, going to parties, being coquettish, etc. Charm doesn't sound like Bronte, nor does vivacity- the images we often have in mind, hearing Charlotte Bronte's name, are often of young women in black or grey, working hard to earn their own living, stoically accepting and enduring hardships, keeping feelings within themselves though sometimes they may have an outburst. But here we have Shirley, who is sociable and charming and well-liked and vivacious. She stands in contrast to Caroline's timidity and passivity, she influences people and galvanises them. The easiest example is Caroline, who changes and becomes more active, more open, because of Shirley and starts doing things she wouldn't do without Shirley. Shirley also influences Mr Helstone for instance, who generally doesn't have high opinions of women and who nevertheless follows her and takes part in her project. 
Some people may find Shirley too ideal and thus unrealistic, but she's not so perfect. She does have quite a temper and a few times seems a bit tempestuous, such as when she gets angry at Mrs Pryor after the attack of the mill, and later apologises. I think, there seem to be 2 persons within Shirley, she has another side in her, a childlike side. She can also be proud. 
In spite of all the drawbacks, the characters appear vividly. Charlotte Bronte even makes readers want to be friends with Caroline, or Shirley, or both. 
To get back to the point I tried to make at the beginning of this post, Charlotte Bronte's personality is all over the pages, I think we can feel fascinated by her novels when we are drawn to the author herself, her fascinating, overpowering personality, her Romantic soul, her refusal to stay within bounds (that is, we must accept her limitations and faults). When readers don't feel that way about Charlotte Bronte, I guess the novels don't give them much. 

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Aha! (Reading Daniel Deronda)

Some interesting bits in Daniel Deronda: 
"Some readers of this history will doubtless regard it as incredible that people should construct matrimonial prospects on the mere report that a bachelor of good fortune and possibilities was coming within reach, and will reject the statement as a mere outflow of gall: they will aver that neither they nor their first cousins have minds so unbridled; and that in fact this is not human nature, which would know that such speculations might turn out to be fallacious, and would therefore not entertain them. But, let it be observed, nothing is here narrated of human nature generally: the history in its present stage concerns only a few people in a corner of Wessex—whose reputation, however, was unimpeached, and who, I am in the proud position of being able to state, were all on visiting terms with persons of rank..." 
Pride and Prejudice! 
"My dear boy, you are too young to be taking momentous, decisive steps of that sort. This is a fancy which you have got into your head during an idle week or two: you must set to work at something and dismiss it. There is every reason against it. An engagement at your age would be totally rash and unjustifiable; and moreover, alliances between first cousins are undesirable. Make up your mind to a brief disappointment. Life is full of them. We have all got to be broken in; and this is a mild beginning for you." 
Mansfield Park! 
"Some beautiful girls who, like her, had read romances where even plain governesses are centres of attraction and are sought in marriage, might have solaced themselves a little by transporting such pictures into their own future; but even if Gwendolen's experience had led her to dwell on love-making and marriage as her elysium, her heart was too much oppressed by what was near to her, in both the past and the future, for her to project her anticipations very far off..." 
Jane Eyre! 

Sunday, 4 January 2015

Russian Literature Challenge 2014: wrap-up

http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/04/russian-literature-2014-im-participating.html

I managed 11 books, or 12 if Pnin counts. Level 3. 

1/ Notes from Underground (Fyodor Dostoyevsky) 
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/03/notes-from-underground-fragmentary.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/03/finish-reading-notes-from-underground.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/05/notes-from-underetasjen.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/05/dostoyevskys-underground-man-on-reason.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/bumping-back-on-notes-from-underground.html

2/ Chekhov's 40 Stories (Anton Chekhov) 
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/03/no-phone-journal-entry-4-with-thoughts.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/03/more-on-chekhovs-endings.html

3/ Fathers and Sons (Ivan Turgenev)
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/03/a-few-lines-on-ivan-turgenev.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-bazarov-1st-russian-literary-nihilist.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/03/on-virginia-woolf-on-turgenev.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/03/fathers-and-sons.html
I also read about half of A Hunter's Sketches: 
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/on-turgenev-and-some-other-russians.html

4/ Lev Tolstoy's Short Fiction- Norton Critical edition, which includes The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Family Happiness 
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/03/notes-on-death-of-ivan-ilyich.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/03/we-all-must-die.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/04/sevastopol-in-december-and-sevastopol.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/05/god-sees-truth-but-waits.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/05/3-pieces-by-tolstoy.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/master-and-man-tolstoy.html

5/ War and Peace (Lev Tolstoy)
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/lots-of-smiles.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/w-p-katerinas-3-smiles.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/lots-of-crying.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/more-on-smiles-in-war-and-peace.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/prince-vasily-kuragin.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-male-characters-in-war-and-peace.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/is-war-and-peace-novel.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/an-affair-and-duel.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/pierre-bezukhov-and-dolokhov.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/w-meaning-of-life.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/berg-vera-men-women.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/in-this-day-and-age.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/andrey-and-natasha.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-other-side-of-old-prince-bolkonsky.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/w-self-assurance-of-different-peoples.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/06/nikolay-marya-sonya-natasha.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/07/war-and-peace-volume-iii.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/07/3-deaths.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/07/blog-post.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-philosophical-part-in-war-and-peace.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/07/concluding-notes-on-war-and-peace.html

6/ Memoirs from the House of the Dead (Fyodor Dostoyevsky)
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/07/free-will-tolstoy-and-dostoyevsky.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/tyranny-and-force-of-habit.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/dostoyevskys-prison-reminds-me-of-my.html

7/ Nikolai Leskov: Selected Tales
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/we-need-to-talk-about-leskov.html

8/ Dead Souls (Nikolai Gogol)
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-dead-souls-of-dead-souls.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/12/dead-souls-our-hero-was-very-much.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/12/was-gogol-gay-simon-karlinsky-thinks-so.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/12/ivan-ivanovich-ivanova-characters-and.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/12/on-volume-2-of-dead-souls-gogol-and.html

9/ The Overcoat and Other Short Stories (Nikolai Gogol)- Dover Thrift edition, including "The Tale of How Ivan Ivanovich Quarrelled with Ivan Nikiforovich", "The Nose" and "The Overcoat"
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/12/4-gogol-stories.html

10/ A Hero of Our Time (Mikhail Lermontov)
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/12/a-hero-of-our-time.html

11/ Rudin (Ivan Turgenev)
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2015/01/rudin.html

12/ Pnin (Vladimir Nabokov)- if it counts
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/laughing-with-nabokov-at-dostoyevsky.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/nabokov-and-football.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-sadness-of-pnin.html
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/08/notesfromzembla-on-pnin.html

I also read the correspondence between Flaubert and Turgenev: 
http://thelittlewhiteattic.blogspot.com/2014/11/reading-flauberts-correspondence.html
Articles and essays I've read about Russian literature, such as those by Virginia Woolf, Nabokov, James Wood... are not included here. 

The Russian giants not only have vision, depth, complexity and genius but are also revolutionary and ahead of their time. Take Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground is 1 of the 1st existentialist works. Tolstoy's War and Peace is not seen as a novel but many postmodern novels, in the same way, also transcend genres such as The French Lieutenant's Woman, The Book of Daniel, etc. Gogol is absurd and modernist long before modernism, paving the way for authors such as Kafka. Chekhov's against conventions, against unrealistic conclusive endings. Lermontov successfully creates a mingling of voices and perspectives (whereas years later in England, Anne Bronte aims for the same effect in The Tenant of Wildfell Hall but goes for a poor method and structure- making the whole novel a letter and placing a diary in it). 
Overall, it has been a good year. None of these books disappointed. If I have to choose only 5 favourites among these, they are War and Peace, Dead Souls, Notes from Underground, A Hero of Our Time and Fathers and Sons (chosen with difficulty and lots of wavering- Pnin is left out because it's originally written in English). 
I'm also glad that after Nabokov, Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, I've discovered some other great writers of Russian literature. Especially grateful for Gogol and Lermontov. 
Looking forward to an interesting year with Norwegian literature*.



*: I don't have high expectations, but we'll see. Amaze me. 

Saturday, 3 January 2015

Rudin

I finished reading Turgenev's Rudin (trans. David McDuff) some time around Christmas- confused and busy, I didn't know what to write. Even now I don't know how to approach this novel and how to feel about it. 
The image of a superfluous man, an intelligent, sensitive man without a will, without determination, without a purpose, is more vivid and lively in Lermontov's A Hero of Our Time and Flaubert's Sentimental Education, but this comparison is probably unfair for Rudin. To dismiss it as a 1st novel, as something seems to be lacking, is perhaps also unfair for Turgenev. The fault is apparently mine, I don't get Rudin, and shouldn't write about it. 
1 of the issues I have is with the character of Rudin, who is meant to be an intelligent, well-educated, eloquent man, whose chief flaw is inaction, idleness. He lives off other people's money, achieves nothing and doesn't make use of his abilities. His intelligence and knowledge are seen very clearly in his discussions with the empty-headed Pigasov, especially when Rudin 1st appears in the novel, but lots of times, for me, he doesn't sound intellectual, but empty, pretentious, banal, mostly when he talks to Natalya. Or is that how Turgenev wants readers to see Rudin? What bothers me more: it's implied that Rudin with his passive, inactive tendency is set against Natalya, who is stronger in will. She urges him to work, to be useful. However, their last conversation, after the mother knows about their relationship, produces a different effect- because I see Rudin as not only inactive and idle but also pretentious and unreliable (he's not even certain of his feelings for Natalya), she's mistaken to expect much from him, and her surprise at his decision to submit shows naivete and something like an immature rebellion rather than a strong will or anything admirable. Her mother indeed underestimates her and fails to understand her, but she's not entirely wrong about Rudin. What does Natalya expect him to do? 
In any case, I should stop here. This post only proves what I already wrote at the beginning: I don't get Rudin. 

Note

I've just got back from Paris (my 5th time, yes). Hence the absence. Was there from 23/12 to 2/1, I'm suffering from post-vacation blues. It'll take some time to get back to normal. 
Anyway: 
HAPPY NEW YEAR, PEOPLE.