A Separate Peace by John Knowles

Well, it took me three months, but I did finally finish this book.  And it took me another month to actually write something about it. Our reading project has ended with a whimper and definitely not a big finish.  But, hey, we had fun anyway.  Ernie still had Midnight's Children to finish which he cannot get through and we were both going to read Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, I think, but I just can't face it.  So, anyway, on to my thoughts on A Separate Peace.............

Another book that is on reading lists in schools everywhere still, I guess?  I can't begin to tell you why.  But we have kind of come full circle, what with starting with Lord of the Flies and then ending up with A Separate Peace.  Both are about priviliged, private school boys who act impulsively and there are consequences.  I have to believe I am way too old and of the wrong gender to get anything out of this book.  I certainly wouldn't call it great.  If I were an adolescent male today I still don't think I would get this book. 

Basically it is about a group of American, upper middle class types at a private school during the early 1940's.  The guys allegedly have the spectre of having to go off to war hanging over their heads, but really?  When has anyone in this country with money ever had to serve in a war against his will?  Please.  There is always a way around it for the rich and less than patriotic.  So, this is their last big hurrah as kids having fun before the cold, cruel world intrudes on their idyllic existence. Blah, blah, blah.  The main kid, Gene, idolizes this other kid, Phineas, (I kid you not on the name) and then basically SPOILER ALERT is responsible for Phineas's death.  And his motivation is left ambivilent -- was he just unable to control his wild urges? Was he trying to save Phineas from the life he would have faced in the bad, bad world?  Was he jealous and acting out of malice?  Who knows?  And what's more, can't say I cared. I didn't really find anything to like about these characters in the first place and I certainly didn't feel any kind of kinship.  Here's a sample of their charming personalities "Phineas vaulted across the room to his cot, yanked back the spread and groaned. 'Oh Christ, it's not made up.  What is all this crap about no maids?'"  Indeed, what is all that crap?

So, I really didn't care for this book, couldn't relate to it and didn't get anything great out of it.  We've asked before, but anyone who read this book in school and thought it was taught well or there was some point to it being taught, please chime in. 

I FOUND SOMETHING YOU SHOULD READ!

The Postman Always Rings Twice by James M. Cain.  Really!

Now here is a book you can really sink your teeth into.  And I’m not just saying that because when I picked up my copy I saw it had only 110 pages.  Wahoo!  It doesn’t need any more than that to tell the story it tells and you certainly can’t say that for many of these other books we have read.  It is sleek, it is taut, it is a really good book!   

You may be familiar with the movie versions – there was one back in 1946 and then they tried it again in 1981 with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange.  I saw the earlier version and it made no impression on me.  Considering the year of that version I can’t imagine they really did justice to the book which was “banned in Boston for its explosive mixture of violence and eroticism” but is pretty tame by today’s standards.  So if you are looking for a cheap thrill this isn’t the book for you.  But if you are looking for a good story with elements of morality, suspense, and karma you might want to give this one a try.

I don’t want to spoil too much of the story if you are not familiar with it, suffice it to say it is about a drifter, Frank Chambers, who happens into a diner/gas station run by a husband and wife, Nick and Cora Papadakis, who need a hired hand.  Cora and Frank begin an affair and then try to figure out how to be together.  Frank’s preference would be to just take off but that is not what Cora has in mind and together they plot to be rid of Nick. 

I’d also like to mention that the book has got nothing to do with the mail. The title has often been the subject of debate and is open to interpretation.  It probably refers to, back in the day, if the postman had something important (COD package, registered mail, etc.) to deliver and did not catch you home on his first delivery attempt (when he rang once) he would often try again doubling back on his route as a matter of course (where he would hope to get you on the second ring).  So don’t worry, Frank (and Cora) get theirs.  But finding out how is the most fun.

Next week......Oh who knows!  We are down to our last few books!  Ernie is working on "Midnight's Children" by Salman Rushdie.  I need to start "Under the Net" by Iris Murdoch. Then all we have left is "A Separate Peace" and "Atlas Shrugged."  Who will finish what when?  It's a good question!

Lord Jim by Joseph Conrad

After two years of training he went to sea, and entering the regions so well known to his imagination, found them strangely barren of adventure.   That pretty much sums up Lord Jim.

Once again we read a tangled web of words by Joseph Conrad that somehow landed on a list of greatest 20^th Century novels.  Once again, we wonder why.  It barely made it, being published in 1900 (I’m really being petty here) and isn’t that technically still in the 19^th Century?  What I’m trying to say is that it does not belong on our list at all and should be barred for any reason we can find.  What a terrible book.

The sad thing is that there really is a great story buried under the bad writing.  Jim, as a young man, goes to the sea thinking he is looking for adventure.  Through a series of minor events, he shows us that he is not suited for the life of honor that he dreams of and that he is basically a coward.  During a crisis at sea, he commits an act so cowardly that the shame of it follows him the rest of his life.  As he runs from his past, taking one anonymous job after another, he finally winds up in a situation that offers him absolution but demands the ultimate sacrifice. 

From start to finish it’s a great story about the forces of good and evil at battle for a man’s soul.  Yet Conrad tells it in a bizarre fashion that both belittles the story’s impact and confuses the reader.  Initially, the tale is told in a straight narrative that is overly wordy and not necessarily chronological.  Perhaps this was just his style of writing as his Heart of Darkness suffered from the same technique.  Heart of Darkness also suffered for having a lackluster central character named Marlowe who just had to show up in Lord Jim, not only as a minor player, but as a second narrator.   This is bad enough, but then Marlowe starts telling about stuff that he didn’t see himself but got third hand from someone else.  You can imagine how murky the details get.  I was confused by who was telling the story, who the story was about and what was actually happening.  It’s much like sitting around with older relatives that you don’t know that well as they tell tales about people you’ve never heard of.  They’ve told the stories so many times that they assume you are familiar with the details and they leave out key points.  At times, it’s just annoying.

Conrad’s story structure is unusual.  He takes great care in detailing the most mundane facets of life while glossing over the exciting elements.  There is no suspense and at the end he could have easily said, “And by the way, Jim died” achieved the same results, and saved some paper.  I have read other books from this era that were written in a style far different from today but were far more readable, understandable and enjoyable than Lord Jim.

I bought Lord Jim at a used bookstore for two dollars and the person who had it before me had written all sorts of deep, philosophical notes in the margins in what looks like preparation for a major book report.  It was amusing reading how one person attempted to contrive deep meaning out of Conrad’s vague writing.

Joseph Conrad lived an incredible life and before I decide to put myself through reading any more of his work, I would like to read a biography about the man…but certainly not an autobiography.

Next time…Sandra finds something you should actually read!!!

The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles

On the cover of this book is this quote from the New Republic: 

It stands head and shoulders above most other novels published…since World War II. 

Ellen Degeneres was going on about those dots in quotes on her show once, saying regardless of all the good things a quote says you have no idea what they have left out with that ellipsis.  Her thoughts were you could always insert a “my ass” and make the quote entirely unflattering to the subject of the quote.  While grammatically that doesn’t work here, I can certainly appreciate the sentiment.

The Sheltering Sky was published in 1949  and has its share of well written scenes.  Another story about bored, privileged individuals (this time they are American) who live with such despair they must go to extremes to feel alive.  There is a couple, Port and Kit Moresby, and their friend, Tunner who have taken off on a whim to tour North Africa while World War II is raging in Europe.  Not the best idea anyone every had you might think and you’d be right.  

There’s some weird dynamic going on with the husband and wife who never share a hotel room or much of the way of trip activities, but internally go on about how much they love the other.  They’ve apparently invited Tunner along to help keep things with each other at arms’ length.  They visit some rather uncivilized places with less than stellar hotel accommodations, the food is questionable and the locals are not interested in having meaningful experiences with these foreigners any more than these foreigners are interested in finding out what makes the natives tick.  Also, the thought never seems to occur to these idiot Americans that what they are doing is foolhardy and dangerous. Horrendous things happen.    I don’t know what the point of any of it is exactly.

It isn’t a bad story, it did keep my interest, but it didn’t do anything for me either.  As far as the title there is a lot of talk about the sky, imagery about it being something that blocks out something beyond it.  The sky is the layer between Port and the unknown beyond.  Or something.  There is a lot of ridiculous, dramatic philosophizing going on in this book that I can’t make heads or tails of.  One  example:

And just as she was unable to shake off the dread that was always with her, he was unable to break out of the cage into which he had shut himself, the cage he had built long ago to save himself from love.

Say what?  And better yet, show me something in the story, tell me something that happens in this story, to back any of this up.  Somehow we are supposed to get the idea that these are two wounded souls struggling for some inner peace, to find some clarity in life, blah, blah, blah.  I just found most of it to be pretentious blither blather.

They made a movie of this one too, which I’m not sure I would waste my time on either.  Especially when one of the taglines refers to this story as some sort of erotic journey.  What happens in the second part of this book is hardly erotic, unless you consider being raped and held captive erotic.   My advice on the book and the movie both – don’t bother.

Next week:  Ernie reads another book by Joseph Conrad, Lord Jim.

A High Wind in Jamaica

A High Wind in Jamaica, by Richard Hughes,  may be the worst book I read in the last year.  It is a long, pompous, disjointed, boring story about a group of children in the 1800’s who wind up on one of the last pirate ships roaming the Caribbean.   While I thought this would open up all sorts of possibilities for adventure or at least entertainment, it offered neither.  I know I’ve said it before but don’t write an adventure unless you put some adventure into the story.  It is truly horrible.

None of the story happens to the children or to the pirates on purpose.  It all seems rather accidental.  While that may mirror real life, it gives the book less of a plot than a feeling of “This happened…and then this happened…and then something else happened…here’s another thing happening…the end.”

As for the characters, the children are all rather dismal and the author doesn’t give any of them enough personality to really tell them apart from one another.  The pirates come off as complete idiots but I don’t know if that was the author’s intent or not.  Hughes tries to give some insight into the minds of children but it seems obvious to me that he has none to give.  The editor’s preface says that Hughes had no children at the time of the writing and seems to think that actually helped with his writing process.  (He had also never been to Jamaica until sometime after writing the book.)  I assume Hughes had never heard the expression “Write what you know.”

The dialogue is dull and confusing and the exposition is immediately forgettable.  It took Hughes three years to write A High Wind in Jamaica.  As it is one of the shorter books in our list, I cannot fathom what took him so long.   It’s one of the few books that made me think “I could write a better story than this.”  Yet, I don’t.

A High Wind in Jamaica was controversial when published in 1929 as it seemed to contradict the notion of the inherent goodness and decency of British children.  Murder, (implied) sex and corruption are all pressed onto the children with little ill effect to most, although one of them might be pregnant and is most likely insane by the end.  I imagine it was quite shocking in its day.  If that’s what made it a good book back then, I can only say it did not age well.

The editor also says, It is edifying to compare A High Wind in Jamaica with two other modern books about children, J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye and William Golding’s Lord of the Flies.  Yes, for me it is.  I say don’t read any of them.  Go read Treasure Island instead.

Next week…Sandra read's The Sheltering Sky

The French Lieutenant's Woman by John Fowles

I can’t say this was a terrible book, parts of it were interesting, but I will say it seems a pretty pointless book as far as I could tell.  I have read one other book by John Fowles , The Collector, and if you care to read something by him I recommend that book much more highly than I would this one.  I remember it as being rather well written and a compelling story.  In this book, Fowles insists on a number of pretentious devices.  The first one, starting each chapter with a quotation from another literary source was at times puzzling and more often just annoying.  The second device was inserting himself into the story as the author of the story.  He makes a couple of appearances and writes and rewrites what happens in the story.  I found no reason for this, but I’m sure he thought he was being clever or something.  I did not find it so.

One of the themes of the book also seems pretty heavy-handed in that there is some point about English gentlemen in the Victorian age and how the lives they lead are becoming obsolete.  There is a need for them to adapt to the changes that are happening around them if they are going to survive and thrive.  The “hero” of the story, Charles Smithson, is an amateur paleontologist, interested in fossils.  Get it?  Yeah.  He also is very interested in Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, again really subtle.

The French Lieutenant is a sailor who ends up in England
after a shipwreck and never actually appears in the
story at all.

The “heroine” of the story, I guess is, the title character, Sarah Woodruff.  I really hate to overuse the word annoying so let’s see what else I might come up with to describe her – irritating, disturbing, pathetic.   That is a good start.  I’m so annoyed by her as a character I don’t feel the need to put myself through providing more details about her here-- if you are that interested read the book. 

I remember when this book was made into a movie with Meryl Streep.I think it was kind of a hit.  I can’t imagine the movie being in anyway good if it follows the book closely.  Don’t know, haven’t seen it and don’t intend to.  I can remember being annoyed with Meryl Streep for two movies I’d never seen (this one and Sophie’s Choice came out about the same time I think) mostly because the trailers had her looking unbearably long-suffering.  Two more pathetic characters you could not hope to find but at least in Sophie’s case she had very good reason – surviving the Holocaust, having a crazy boyfriend, etc.  The FLW bit gets really old, really fast. 

 Okay, so maybe I need to reassess my statement at the beginning of this post.  I can’t recommend you read it or even find a reason why it would be on the list at all.  Even though it was 93 on Radcliffe’s Rival list, Kipling’s Kim (95) and Lewis’s Main Street (99) are far superior to this one.

Next week:  Ernie finishes his personal reading list with A High Wind in Jamaica

We're back..........

Ernie finally finishes The Magnificent Ambersons by Booth Tarkington

…I can’t step out into those streets without wondering what every soul I meet is thinking of me and of my family…

That line pretty much sums up The Magnificent Ambersons.  George Amberson Minafer grows from a spoiled brat to a self centered young man who wants love, success and happiness just like everyone else.  But he wants the right kind of love, success and happiness, nothing common or too emotional.  He doesn’t care for anyone else but he obsesses about what they think of him.

That’s one of the greatest puzzles of human vanity, dear; and I don’t pretend to know the answer.  In all my life, the most arrogant people that I’ve known have been the most sensitive.

Booth Tarkington writes about a world where a lot happens but the Amberson/Minafer families seem to either ignore the world or are far too concerned with what others think about them to pay any real attention to the change going on all around. 

George’s troubles start when Eugene Morgan returns to town after a long absence to open an automobile factory.  Eugene’s daughter captures George’s eye and his heart (what there is of it) while George’s mother and aunt, both admirers of Mr. Morgan from way back when, renew their friendships. Soon, innuendo and gossip trump loyalty and trust.  The family starts to crack from desperate greed.  The strain brings on illness and death.  As the situation worsens, George forces issues beyond retreat or repair.  To save the family, George destroys all chances of happiness for anyone.

Spoiler alert…the family doesn’t make it anyway.  In the end, financially ruined, turned away by the one person he almost loved, his family dying off; George still manages to hold his head high until suffering the cruelest fate possible. He and the Ambersons have been forgotten by the town.

Tarkington won the 1918 Pulitzer Prize for The Magnificent Ambersons and his writing is excellent.  Despite not caring for one single character in this book, I kept reading because the story itself was just that good.  The characters are all very well presented and Tarkington captures the flood of emotions that pour out of almost every scene.

The Stutz Bearcat is probably the most famous car built in Indianapolis, Indiana.  This 1914 model is currently at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Museum.

Interesting to me, Booth Tarkinton writes about the early automobile industry in Indiana.  The car is seen as the catalyst for change, not only in the Ambersons’ lives but for the town and ultimately the world.  But at the time of writing, the auto industry was cutting edge technology.  Fortunes were made and lost in the early Twentieth Century and Tarkington uses this contemporary boom skillfully.  Reading almost one hundred years later, it doesn’t feel dated in any way.

As a side note, Orson Welles produced a critically accepted film based on The Magnificent Ambersons.  In one of the few times that I have seen a film while in the middle of reading the book, I have to say the film was incredibly disappointing.

Read the book! Skip the movie

Next week:  Sandra finally finishes The French Lieutenant's Woman by John Fowles.

We have seven books left to read to finish our goal of reading 75 books that were on the list of 100 greatest novels of the 20th Century.  Will we make it by the end of the year?  Probably not, but that is the goal!