divineenchanter

[divineenchanter]

Crazy Rich Asians

I have been MIA on my blog for a while. And am now back, reading lots and will resume my blog!

Written by Kevin Kuo

Impression: fun and a wild frenetic ride.

This is a really fun trilogy. It starts out slowly as it builds up the key characters in the books, but then it explodes into a whirlwind of drama, chaos, more drama, conflict, controversy, and even more drama! From deluxe suites and houses in Singapore and Hong Kong, to impressive parties and decadent private jets, the novel covers very aptly and perhaps enviously, the lives of people who are just filthy filthy rich. And it is fun! Easy to read, very fast-paced narrative that introduces you to a wide variety of characters with quirky and annoying personalities. I didn't know what to expect when I started reading this, and happy to say it was a breath of fresh air. Highly recommend it to anyone!

[divineenchanter]

The Sword of Truth Series

Written: 1994-2007 by Terry Goodkind

Piece: Epic Fantasy

Context:

An epic fantasy series that originally spanned 11 books, but with recent inclusions now has 17. In light of the inclusions, reading just the original 11 allows you to preserve your appreciation of Terry’s earlier works and writing, in the setting of a storyline that did come to its completion at the end of book 11. This series centres around Richard Cypher, a farmer destined to become the “Seeker”, a figure that is mentioned frequently in prophecy and the “one” that will guide the New World to freedom. This series involves magic, evil, prophecies and plot twists, amongst allusions to religion and spirituality.

 Fantasy: The Basic Formula

It goes without saying that a lot of the epic fantasy series have some easily defined and recognisable characters (Lord of the Rings, Shannara, Wheel of Time, Riftwar, Thomas Covenant, Sword of Truth). First there is the wizard, whether that is Gandalf in LOTR, Dumbledore in HP, Moiraine in Wheel of Time or Zedd in Sword of Truth. This is the character that has wisdom beyond his/her years, has seen almost anything happen, and remembers things before times changed. Often quite powerful and able to hold his own against any obstacle. Next is the personal tragedy that befalls or has befallen the protagonist, often a parent or sibling killed at an early age/traumatic event. This personal tragedy leaves the character somewhat broken and part of their journey is about reconciling this event. Then we have the evil figure(s), quite often working for someone else; Saruman for Sauron, Darken Rahl for the Keeper or the Forsaken for the Dark One. Of course one can’t forget the beautiful or handsome love interest, the one that the protagonist just can’t do without and will risk everything in order to save. Arya for Aragorn, Min for Rand, Kahlan for Richard, it is the classic example of a love story that endangers everything and everyone. And then there is the protagonist themselves, quite often chosen by prophecy or fate to be the world’s resistance against all evil, the one whom the world’s destiny relies upon.

I think that one of the great appeals of big fantasy series is exactly the formula I have mentioned above. As readers, we generally like a good battle, where the protagonist wins their love interest despite the gravest of odds, and the ‘evil one’ remains banished/beaten. And generally speaking, epic fantasy series do give you a complete good ending, most of your characters will probably survive, and you feel happy that your character cheated their ending that prophecy foreshadowed. There is something to be said about most books and movies these days, we are a generation of viewers who like to see a happy ending (for the most part), we like our characters to be fulfilled and cherished. But at the back of our minds there is that voice that niggles at you, because deep down you know these endings are often too good to be true. However, these books are inspired by magic and the impossible, so perhaps it isn’t too much of a stretch to see our characters getting the win we imagined.

The Sword of Truth: Original or just another LOTR?

I hesitated in reading this series at first. Having read a lot of fantasy previously, as well as already watching the Legend of the Seeker (Sword of Truth TV series), I did wonder if I would get anything out of this series. How could it be any different to WOT or LOTR? Haven’t I seen it all? I decided to take the plunge and give it a shot. I figured that I could always stop after book one. A lot actually happens in book one (no spoilers) and it restored my faith in fantasy, to an extent. Some of the early characters I fell in love with quite quickly, some of which can be attributed to Terry Goodkind’s spellbinding storytelling. He sticks to this generic fantasy formula, but I actually had a lot of fun with these books. Unlike LOTR and WOT, where the world explodes into mayhem and heaps of characters, Goodkind’s plot resonates with each event from the previous book, and it is all very nicely woven into an intense finale in book eleven. What is different you might ask? His magic system is a little different, because some characters have special or unique abilities that help create balance in a world where magic wielders can easily take control. I will admit at times his writing is frustrating, it can take him most of the novel to build up to an event, and then everything sort of happens at once. But after reading the last book I realised that it actually works, that getting to the end was very satisfying and the way he writes is very clever. It was a nice change, and one that really weaves itself well into the story he is trying to tell.

So now you are probably asking, ‘why read it?’. One of Goodkind’s strengths is his character development. You learn a lot about the main characters, and even some of the peripheral ones too. You become attached or repulsed based on descriptions and anecdotes, woven into the plots quite seamlessly at times. Sure, the books can be quite slow at times, and that can be exasperatingly annoying, particularly when you want to read about how things pan out. But in the end, as I mentioned above, it all comes together. You meet some interesting characters. Sure, you could argue any book does that to a certain extent. But what is great about Goodkind’s characters is that they are quirky, unique, oracular, devastatingly evil or hopelessly blinded by love. For those who have read any of the books, Cara was my favourite. Nicci was a close second. Some of these characters just blow you out of the water and really keep you enchanted. That, to me, is the main reason why this series succeeded. When there are characters that you can’t wait to read about again, characters who make you nervous and happy, you know you are reading something that is worth persisting with.

 Good vs Evil: what if the Dark One triumphed?

I am not making any ground-breaking comments here when I say that books and movies almost always have a good ending. And by good, I mean a conclusion where the “bad” guy is defeated. The majority of people who read/watch want this kind of ending. You want to see your loving, silly and hopeless characters make it to the other end and get their victory. Something deep within us yearns for such an ending. I think part of the reason we crave victory for our “good” characters is that we have just spent countless hours following their trials and tribulations, and there is often nothing more dissatisfying than an ending where they don’t get their fairy tale finish. Of course, we often relate to some of the main characters ourselves. Some of us see ourselves as the gallant hero who rides into a maelstrom of mayhem and chaos, and somehow comes out the other end unscathed. Or perhaps the sweet, charming but timid heroine who reeks of purity and innocence. Whatever the case may be, we find ourselves seeking the characteristics that we feel belong with us, and those are the figures we become conjoined with. What would happen if the Dark One did win? Our favourite characters would suffer some ghastly fate, the world would become desolate or ruined, and we would be disappointed or sad because we didn’t get the ending we had hung out for. Is that a bad thing? Personally, I think it’s probably time a series really challenged this mould and gave us a dark finish. What keeps stories alive and mysterious is originality and new directions. Our imaginations have the capacity to be wondrous and bring to life riveting characters and spectacularly insane plots. This is one avenue in writing that has not yet been explored to much depth at all, and despite wanting a “good” ending, perhaps it is time for a shake-up of this fantasy model.

 Conclusion: Terry Goodkind’s ‘Sword of Truth’ series delivers a spellbinding tale of mystery, magic and intrigue, combined with treachery, evil and devastation. Playing true to the fantasy formula, we are enveloped in a world where evil is once again trying wreak havoc on the world, and it is up to our heroes and heroines to thwart evil’s plans for chaos and destruction. The strengths of this series revolve around the rich and well-introduced characters, and Goodkind’s capacity to develop figures we want to read about. While this series  provides us with the ending we crave and eagerly anticipate, it does make you wonder what it would have been like had the Dark One actually triumphed. Imagination can only do so much, and it is time writers explored that other darker side to explore the possibilities of a world where light doesn’t necessarily triumph. If nothing else, the shock will be heartfelt and resounding.

[divineenchanter]

Age of Innocence

Written: 1920 by Edith Wharton

Recommendation: 5/5

Context: A novel about the 19th century American upper class, their morals and indulgent lifestyles. It makes an ironic comment about the fact that from the exterior, the upper class appear polished and well-mannered, but on the interior the machinations are exactly the opposite. This novel was drawn from the famous painting A Little Girl by Sir Joshua Reynolds in 1785. In many respects it is a much milder book than Wharton’s earlier work The House of Mirth.

Introduction: This novel centres around Newland Archer, his girlfriend May Welland and her cousin, the Countess Ellen Olenska, in New York City. The basic premise for this novel is a tragic love story between Newland and May, and how their life decisions play out over the course of the book. While there are many themes explored in this story, I will be focusing on the more pressing matters related to the heart; that is, passion, and love. Fairytales, novels, movies, [everyone] loves a good love story, where the guy wins the girl’s heart and lives happily ever after. This book highlights the thrills and pangs of passionate love, and demonstrates an exploration of what it means to connect with someone. My review will untangle some of these emotional themes and attempt to challenge the way you think about love.

 Love: A Definition

It would be rather apposite in this review if I begin with the concept of love. If one does a Google search, you may find definitions pop up like “deep affection for someone” or “a strong feeling of affection” or even “an emotion of a strong attachment to someone”. It is pretty clear what all these definitions have in common: there is a strong feeling or attachment to something or someone, that is greater than just “liking”. And yet it isn’t something you can really quantify. For example, if Jimmy says to Sarah “I really love you” and Elayne says to Mark “I love you so much”, you haven’t really gotten an indication of how much they truly love one another. Yes, you could argue it is a “lot”, but there isn’t a number or value you can assign to this affirmation. So just like other feelings (anger, sadness) it is powerful and unable to be quantified. So why do novels, movies, playrights, even paintings, explore this theme again and again?

Well, evolution for thousands of years has exposed the underlying desire that [almost] everyone/everything has an urge to find a partner(s) and reproduce. The higher up the animal kingdom one travels, the more you begin to observe monogamy, the choosing of a single partner for life. Or at least one for a specified time period. More specifically, most people will feel a desire to find that special someone, that person who will be their other half, maybe for 5 years, maybe for 50. Love seems to be an emotion that trumps all others, like a furnace that keeps on burning hotter and hotter, or a chasm that seems deeper and darker the more one peers into its unfathomable depths. When you meet someone quite often you will assess their compatibility, their potential, their suitability, as a match for you as a partner. And quite often, they will be doing the same to you. Again, there is that underlying desire to find your “soulmate”, if you will, that person(s) who will complete you, challenge you, and hopefully complement you as well.

So it’s pretty clear that love plays a pivotal role in many people’s lives, and this has been the case for thousands and thousands of years. It’s a theme that gets explored repeatedly, because people either love or hate a good/bad love story, and will probably go down as an idea that never gets old. And this book is no different. Before I proceed into the themes this book explores, I want you to think about your definition of love, what it means to you, and if it’s something that sometimes completely turns your world upside down for no apparent or logical reason.

 Love: A Formality?

Imagine you are walking down the street and as you mind your own business you can’t help but notice that the young girl in the ice cream parlour is incredibly attractive. As you are watching her you are stumbling all over the place and crash into an old man with a walking stick. You are breathless and nervous, contemplating approaching this young girl and seeing if you can maybe get her number, take her to coffee, make a good impression to get a date or two. If things go smoothly you will get her to a few dates, get to know each other, jump over the line that says “friends forever” and move into the relationship zone. As the months progress you will become more close and familiar, and things may start to blossom into passionate, exhilarating love. You will be lost in a world of bliss and romance and you will feel renascent. Of course a couple of things may happen here. This trend will continue and in a few years you will either marry her/move in together. Or, perhaps this love will fade, for one or both of you, and you will struggle to make a decision as to what happens next. Sounds scary, tragic, depressing, yet the reality is you will either stay in love forever, or you will “fall out of love”, so to speak.

As the introduction to this book suggests, Archer faces a challenging love test with his girlfriend’s cousin, and indeed this becomes a very passionate and fiery affair. So much so that he begins to wonder about the issue I have just raised above. You have been in a relationship for a few months/years and feel the love is dissipating/dissolved. You know your partner is keen to make it official, to take it to that next step, and in your mind you are hesitating. Do you or don’t you? People often say that true love may only come once, that sometimes you meet your A, and if you pass up your A well you might meet your B, who isn’t as good as your A but definitely better than your C. Of course it’s also possible that you may not have met your soulmate yet, or that you actually have multiple soul mates. Either way, if you end up in this position you’re faced with a difficult and almost impossible position. And this book explores this idea, this idea that love can become a formality. That once a relationship progresses so far you have set the groundwork and is it really necessary? The answer to that question is going to vary probably as much as the cut of a diamond can vary. There is no single, correct answer. What I am going to challenge you to think about is what is love’s role in a relationship? 2000 years ago you could be married to someone, regardless of whether or not you loved them, and spent your entire lives together. Today, you can choose from millions of people, literally, yet one has to ask, have things really improved in that respect? Is true love still something people chase or has it started to fade into a myth, joining the ranks of Slenderman and the Yeti? The problem with so much choice is of you often don’t know which one to choose, and end up missing the obvious one right under your nose.

 Passion: The Fire

It is impossible to talk about love without exploring the full package that is, well, love. In addition to the emotional component, there is also the erotic/romantic element one needs to consider as well. What do I mean? Think of an aeroplane. Initially it takes a while to get started. But, once it’s airborne it can potentially go a long way, provided the engines keep burning the fuel. Love in a way is a similar beast, although potentially has a longer longevity. You can think of passion as a fire for love, a means for keeping it “burning”, if you will. Something that drives the strong feelings you have for someone. Love can also be thought of as something that requires maintenance. Neglect it for long enough and perhaps it does truly fade. Continue to “top it up” or “replenish” it from time to time and it keeps on burning. Passion is often described as “the flame to my love” and I think that is very apposite when you think about how strong love is. Just think about your friendships and relationships. From time to time you will want to talk or see someone, to renew that bond and keep it going. Love is no different. It’s a powerful, ever changing and exhilarating machine, and it runs on passion to keep it chugging along.

If you read this novel you will see this plays out in 2 very different ways between Archer and May, and Archer and Ellen. I found myself drawn into the intricate scenes between Archer and Ellen, sometimes feeling my heart race in anticipation of what was to come next, the suspense sometimes really was a nail-biter. And that didn’t disappoint to the end. In many ways it felt like I was in the shoes of Archer, faced with passion and an impossible decision. Because passion is incredibly powerful and alluring, so much so that it can drown out the rest of the world and throw your decisions and certainty into chaos. Some describe it as a “mayhem that sends your world spinning and tumbling into ash”. Certainly it can become all-consuming for a period of time. Yet it can be awfully pleasant and enjoyable as well, and that’s where the danger/lure lies. Unfortunately our dear Archer in this novel doesn’t know how to handle such strong feelings when they arise, and we watch as he acts impulsively, and dare I say, foolishly, at times. So what is Wharton trying to say? Love is a powerful and commanding entity, something most of us wish to find (and hopefully keep) should we be fortunate enough to ensnare it in our fingers. It gives a relationship a bite of zeal, something that makes things unpredictable yet addictive and rewarding. She isn’t saying a relationship can’t have passion to stay afloat, but she does challenge us to think about what it is we want from love. Do we just want to chug along and be content with mediocrity? Are we happy if things die down and just become monotonous? Is love everything people make it up to be?

 Conclusion: A gripping romantic novel of intrigue, suspense, sacrifice and tragedy, this book can really make you go the distance in terms of your convictions and preconceptions regarding love. Wharton creates an ending that can be viewed as either extremely romantic, or incredibly tragic, depending on which love story you think was the more successful and heart-wrenching. Exploring the wiles of a young man in terms of his struggle with love and passion, Wharton confronts our perceptions of relationships and our inner desires, and challenges us to think about what it is we want from love. You don’t need to be romantic to appreciate that inherently as humans we generally seek to find a soulmate(s) to join us in our journey that is life. The question is, how far will we venture into the tempest that is love?

[divineenchanter]

Hunger Games: The End of the Wizarding World?

Written: 2008 by Suzanne Collins

Recommendation: 4.5/5

Context: The Hunger Games is a recent fantasy series that offered readers in many ways what Harry Potter offered. A quick, easy read with adventure, romance, the "impossible", and a nasty, evil villain. And it spawned its own movie series as well, just to top it off. This series is not novel in its exploration of themes; the quest for right and wrong, seeking to win love back, the personal struggles our hero go through, these aren't new. In fact, a world with magic/the supernatural/the impossible is by no means unique, but it does start to raise the question. Are we reaching the end of the scope of fantasy?

I raise this question because I am an avid fantasy reader, and in the last decade some of the biggest, and arguably the ones that have had the most impact on this fantasy universe, have come to an end. Fantasy in the early days began with the Chronicles of Narnia (C S Lewis) and the Lord of the Rings (J R R Tolkien). Tolkien created this universe of magic, sorcery, evil, different races, and an impossible quest. It is fair to say that most fantasy series and novels to this day have expanded upon this world, adding different elements of course, but ultimately following the framework he set down in his four books. Since the induction of fantasy into the reading universe, there have been many "pivotal" series in the continuation of fantasy, but most of these have come to an end. These include the Wheel of Time (Robert Jordan/Brandon Sanderson), the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant (Stephen R Donaldson), Harry Potter (J K Rowling), the Riftwar Cycle (Raymond E Feist), the Three Worlds (Ian Irvine), Discworld (Terry Pratchett), the Sword of Truth (Terry Goodkind), Malazon Book of the Fallen (Steven Erikson) and Redwall (Brian Jacques).  

Still continuing is the epic Shannara series (Terry Brooks), currently 25 books in length and unfinished. Newer/ongoing series include Game of Thrones (George R R Martin), the Realm of the Elderlings (Robin Hobb), the Edge Chronicles (Paul Stewart/Chris Riddell) and the Dune Saga (Frank Herbert/Brian Herbert/Kevin J Anderson. There are several series I have left out, but the ones aforementioned are considered the pioneers/are quite popular today. Human imagination is said to be endless, and if one looks out over the horizon you can definitely see why that is the case. But the question has to be asked. Are we nearing the end of originality in the fantasy universe?  

The Impossible Quest

In just about every fantasy series, there are a few things that remain constant. Our protagonist is usually ill-equipped to deal with their task, a mentor or situation throws them into an outrageously impossible and dangerous quest, and their band of companions are usually either misfits, or completely over-powered. As the novel(s) progress, we meet a love interest (or several), watch the characters we love get betrayed or killed, witness our hero struggle against trials and eventually rise up, and at the end the "evil" one(s) meet defeat. These things alone don't qualify as fantasy, but rather are the bread and butter for any half decent series. Which brings me to my next point. If you skim through the authors and series I mentioned above, you will notice something quite peculiar (or rather, fantastic for avid fantasy readers). The series tend to be quite LONG. Wheel of Time is 15, Shannara will near 30, Riftwar was over 20, Sword of Truth was over 10. These authors spin this complex and rich story, and keep it going over many books. The characters change or grow, the worlds meet travesty and paradise, but the quest is often the same. And often remains relatively impossible.

So what is it about an "impossible" quest that makes a lot of people so excited? We all know that the Eagles should have dropped Frodo into the mountain in Lord of the Rings, that the Druids in Shannara should never have let their control over the Lands wane, that Thomas Covenant should have confronted and defeated Lord Foul the first time he visited the Land. Yet we follow these characters on a ridiculous mission, fighting magical beasts/countless enemies, using insane magic or weapons in their path. For many of us, it is this supernatural element that draws us in. The sane in this world recognise that magic doesn’t exist, that being able to use our minds to attack an enemy is purely fictitious. But in these series we can pretend for a moment, or several, and imagine that we are casting spells or turning invisible. Being able to envision a world where such things are possible, it often boggles the mind and is quite tempting, particularly when studies or work are knocking on the door for a bit more attention. We forget that these adventures are tremendous in their magnitude of outrageous, and that no matter how much we wish it to be true, the One Power will not suddenly become accessible in our mind.  

There is something to be said about contemplating the impossible. It shows that we as humans have the capacity to challenge what we believe existence to be, to challenge what "our world" is, and how it could be different. To ask ourselves, why can't I wield a wand and split my soul into 7 pieces? Why can't I be immortal? Why can't I make the earth crumble beneath my feet? But is there a limit to such an imagination? Could we have already explored the most likely ideas that have led to deep universes and stories?

The "Traditional" Protagonist vs the "Current" Protagonist

Many pundits for Game of Thrones like to rave about this idea of a "traditional versus current" protagonist. That is, in most fantasy series you can clearly identify the protagonist, because they are "good" or "moral" or "righteous", and they are chosen because they overcome their flaws. Conversely, in Game of Thrones we meet lots of different characters, many of whom could be said to be protagonists or antagonists, because they have flaws that are exploited and indulged. There is some truth to this statement. If we take Frodo for example, his flaws are nervousness, and eventually being taken over by the One Ring. Compare him to Daenerys Targaryen, the dragon lady in Game of Thrones who has been shown to be both "good" and "evil", and doesn't really fit in with the "traditional" model of a hero in a fantasy story. However, a lot of the big fantasy series have characters who are centred at the core of the series and yet have "bad" traits or do some terrible things. Take Rand al'Thor from Wheel of Time, or Richard Cypher from Sword of Truth. Both do terrible things for the women that they are in love with, and in the Game of Thrones world this would render them an antagonist.  

This concept of a protagonist who has "evil" or "bad" traits to make him/her human is not a novel idea, and has been around a long time. However, it is fair to make the observation that a lot of fantasy novels and series steer away from making their main characters "human", and that can be attributed to the nature of the genre. You read these books because you want to be taken away to a world where good and bad duke it out on the big stage, and do it with styles and lots of impossible things. Often the last thing you want to be reminded of is your weakness as a human, and that even your favourite heroes can be dark. You want to leave your world behind and get enveloped in this rich fairytale landscape of adventure and travel. Challenging your hero and their actions can often take away from this novelty, and it can be said that this is an important component in a fantasy novel. Yet this ties in with my question from earlier. If our characters can only be so much, if the capacity for them to entertain or challenge us can only be created insofar as much as our own imaginations can accept them, then how much further is left? How much further can we invent new heroes and villains before they have been done before, as some series are encountering now?

The Wizarding World

This brings me to my final consideration. The world itself. I have made allusions to these different fantasy worlds and elements previously, and some of you probably haven't understood all the references I have made thus far in my piece. A good place to start is races. Humans usually are the main focus in novels. Primarily because as people ourselves we find ourselves connecting with them, and able to feel "involved". Other common races include Elves, Dwarves, Trolls and Knomes. Creatures include faerie, dragons, witches, warlocks, goblins, vampires, and harpies, to name a few. Then of course we have the different types of "powers". In Harry Potter it was magic (usually using a wand), in Shannara magic was taught to the user, and there were items of power. Wheel of Time produced "the One Power", while Thomas Covenant and the Lord of the Rings both focused on a single ring that was capable of horrific power. If you skim through different fantasy series you quickly see that the hero is usually capable of something impossible, or has an item that grants them this impossible gift. Again, things like magic are not new and one must wonder if as readers we are starting to tire of this relatively over-used concept. Now let us look at the worlds themselves.

Putting all of these elements together, you end up with a land that is full of creatures, magic/powers, items of power, individuals who want to use or abuse such powers, and a world where everything seems possible.  Our hero has to navigate these incredibly dangerous lands and advance towards the "evil" one, just like you do on a chess board. Your goal is to defeat the King, and along the way you will be forced to make sacrifices, just like our heroes and companions do in their quests. Yet if you look at the all the elements I have mentioned, and consider the variations possible, you will quickly see that while these things seem novel and exciting, there is also a limit to how often we want to see them, no? The reason why Wheel of Time is seen as the "continuation" of Tolkien's world is that it created a new universe of fantasy, which hadn't been attempted before. The introduction of a magic-like power, but with some interesting twists that were only resolved in the final book, certainly reinstated the excitement that had plagued readers for decades after Lord of the Rings was published. Game of Thrones has attempted to do this but in a more realistic scenario, and has created a rich world of characters and plots that it is actually quite difficult to keep track of everyone and everything. However, it is also limited in that the elements themselves, such as the magic, is not new and seems very recycled. Which begs the question. Are we waiting for an author to put pen to paper and create a new universe not explored yet, something that will have the impact Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter both had? Or has the world of fantasy truly reached the end of the novelty, the end of what we find interesting?

Conclusion

I have raised a pretty contentious issue. And that is, just how far can our imagination go, and how much of a similar thing can we tolerate? The Hunger Games, if I had read no other fantasy, would have been a terrific read and would have definitely been something unique. But in light of fantasy that I have read previously, it fails to reach the mark that those other series set. Yes, it created its own world of adventure and betrayal, and the idea of a set of games for one victor was certainly refreshing, but the story itself and the characters were a lot less original, and more of the "normal" fantasy type, if you will. Reading the Hunger Games has made me consider what makes a fantasy series unique and enthralling, and how the progression of fantasy today is going to impact on future readers. The success of the more recent fantasy series (Game of Thrones and Hunger Games) can be attributed more to the creation of movies and television shows, as opposed to the writing, and that suggests that perhaps for fantasy to continue to enrapture readers it needs to adapt to the bigger screen. One series that will certainly challenge this idea is Shannara, which will soon be premiering. The Sword of Truth had a run a few years ago but sadly only made it to two seasons.  

I think as a reader, particularly if you read as frequently and widely as I do, that you are looking to be challenged, to encounter new ideas and worlds and styles. To find yourself in a new experience, questioning why you do or don't like it. And these things are facilitated or limited by our imagination. Has fantasy reached the boundaries of what is possible? I think there is still room to build on the universes explored by Tolkien, Jordan and Rowling, but we are still waiting for the next "big" instalment. I used the title "End of the Wizarding World" to provocate readers and consider that since Harry Potter, there hasn't been a big step in the fantasy world, and that as humans with the capacity to envision and imagine we want to see something new and breathtaking. The girl on fire was a blast, but I am waiting for the next Last Battle.

[divineenchanter]

For the Term of His Natural Life

Written: 1870 by Marcus Clarke

Recommendation: 4/5

Context: Marcus Clarke emigrated to Australia in his teens and worked on a farming station in Victoria. He began to write in his 20’s, and conducted research at several famous colonies and convict settlements. One of the penal settlements he visited was Port Arthur, which features for a good duration in this novel. The components he was most interested in entailed convict treatment, corporal punishment, and just how inhumane some of the treatments were at the time. He has published a few other books, but this novel is not only considered his most poignant and successful piece, but also a necessary part of Australian fiction. In many ways it represents the troubled history of the English convicts, and also dictates what early life was like in early colonisation of this great southland.

Introduction: This novel in many ways features a tragic hero who is wronged from the very beginning, and this creates a life of crime and misery for our unwilling protagonist. Featured adventitiously are themes of love, betrayal, cruelty and ultimately undying loyalty. There are wily villains in this confronting portrayal of early colonial life and this book certainly is not for the faint-hearted. In most novels, past or present, you expect a fulfilling and sanguine ending, replete with the “good guy” winning, or rather the “bad guy” losing. Unfortunately this tragic story is in every sense of the word a tragedy, and our protagonist suffers heavily throughout the novel. Due to the morality of the society in the 1800’s, publishing a novel with a “murderer” as a hero would not have been successfully accepted, so that is why this story ends as a tragedy. Many of the darker aspects of human nature are revealed in this novel, which will be my focus in this review.

 The Darker Side of Human Nature

Residing in all of us is an innate sense of darkness, a cauldron of unfulfilled desires and selfishness waiting to be unleashed. In many ways our everyday struggle as an individual and our search for ourselves focuses on whether or not we allow ourselves to entertain that darker side of us. You don’t have to be religious to realise that our capacity to commit evil, or a wrong action, is enormous. Whether it is just a simple lie, to stealing someone’s wife through adultery, the fact remains that with our ability to make our own decisions comes the potential to make “bad decisions”. So what constitutes a good or bad decision you might ask? Highly dependent on society and the morality of your chosen faith or culture. However, some things are inexplicably said to be “wrong”, regardless of these factors. Murder, stealing, adultery, to name a few. Within this novel there are certain instances where the darker side of human nature is revealed and set free, and with disastrous consequences.

The first aspect of this “darkness” that I am going to explore is a topic that is taboo in most cultures, and is always surrounded by a generalised perception of discomfort and disparagement. Cannibalism. The act of consuming the flesh of your own species, and in this case, of humans. One of the most famous features of the early days of pre-Australian settlement is the stories of Indigenous tribes on islands that would attack colonial settlers and consume the flesh of those they successfully killed, much to the disdain and horror of the colonialists. And this distaste has pervaded into our societies today, with most considering it the act that no human should ever commit, not ever. Clarke during the novel allows us to visualise and entertain the struggle that a group of escaped prisoners face when their rations begin to decrease. It starts with the unified agreement from all the escapees that they can do without considering such a temptation, that pushing on they may find something to continue to sustain their fatigue and hunger. 

But what Clarke shows us is just how quickly that darkness that sits in the back of our consciousness can so easily make such a terrible and taboo action seem justifiable. A man falls sick and collapses with weakness and the darkness in these men takes command. Of course each remaining man realises that for as long as their journey remains torturous and bleak, each of them is at risk of becoming the next victim. Survival of the fittest; their base animal instinct kicks in and to save themselves they sacrifice one another, and by the time there remains only one prisoner we realise what we have witnessed. Men who escaped together and promised loyalty turn on one another through horrifying acts of murder and betrayal. And at the end of it all, we come to the realisation that such evil can exist in everyone, and it can completely degrade a man’s character in the blink of an eye. This portion of the story reveals a very perturbing aspect of human nature: our propensity to seek out our salvation or continued existence, discarding everyone with us in the process if needed. One question which arises from such a situation (because a lot of us right now are sitting here thinking “I would never do that”) is what would it take for you to break your morals to survive? If Pandora’s Box inside you was opened, what would be the key to that darkness?

Another aspect I am going to briefly explore is cruelty, or rather, our ability to inflict harm onto another human being and obtain gratification from such an action. One of the most confronting concepts in this tragedy is the amount of punishment and forms that the convicts were forced to endure. Manual labour was of course the most common way of attempting to discipline a prisoner. Cast him in iron and set him to work, whether that was digging, coal mining, building, etc. You set him to a task in the boiling hot sun, worked him from sunrise to sunset, and barely let him rest or feed in the meanwhile. These men became hardened and tough, but also liable to cruelty and punishment for continually trying to escape or kill themselves. And in many ways you resonate with their suffering, because it is all encompassing at times and really hits you hard when you try to envision their life. I made mention of the punishments, so I might go into a little more detail about what I mean.

For those men who were obturate, obstreperous or tried to escape, they usually started with 50-100 lashings using a Cat o’ Nine Tails. The challenge the prisoners faced was enduring as many lashes as they could before making a noise; when they made a noise this was deemed as a concession of surrender to the pain. Of course, some of the prisoners experienced this type of punishment so often that more inhumane ways of disciplining them were required. These methods ranged from being denied sleep, working in pepper mines, to being strapped upside down and forced to breathe through a piece of wood, to name a few. The purpose behind these punishments was supposed to bring the prisoners back into line. But what we see through Clarke’s portrayal of the guards is cruelty, and how easily it manifests their actions. We witness the guards delighting in the torture of these convicts, the satisfaction of making convicts experience fear and degradation, the power that these men exerted over their prisoners. And this is confronting. When someone makes you angry, or betrays you, you feel this strong sense of hatred welling deep inside you, and sometimes it’s hard not to act on such a strong emotion. Clarke shows us using these guards that such emotions are natural, but it is our responsibility to control them. Because at the end of the day you need to ask yourself “what person am I? Is this who I want to be?”.

 Conclusion: This confronting and challenging novel epitomises the darkness that we also have inside us. Clarke continually pushes the boundaries to show us what it can take to break a man’s spirit, and sometimes how weak we can truly be. We all face the daily challenge of balancing our good vs evil thoughts and actions. Some days we are really “good”, some days we are really “bad”. And we see that in the portrayal of the characters in this novel, human beings just like us who are in desperate situations and who for the most part, abandoned their morals to survive. And I suppose an important lesson that Clarke shows us here is that when you give into this darkness and allow your morals to wash away, you become nothing more than a mindless animal, intent on survival. And these men who did survive, didn’t survive for very long because their actions had terrible consequences. 

But, just as we have a darkness lurking inside us, we also have a light, a magnanimous and benevolent presence that whispers and tries to keep us on the right path. Whether that is because of a higher power, our innate consciousness that creates a sense of right or wrong, or just a quirk in evolution, one thing is for certain. The ability to make decisions means that you can commit evil, but it also means that you can create goodness and morality as well. And while it can seem exceedingly difficult sometimes to make the “right” decisions, we need to remember that just as Pandora’s Box needs a key to open it, it also can be closed with that same key.

[divineenchanter]

The Scarlet Pimpernel (Omnibus)

Written: 1905 by Emma (Baronness) Orczy

Rating: 5/5

Context: The story was originally a play written in 1903 but was not successful in the theatre. It was considered old-fashioned but eventually went on to be quite a popular feature in London. Following the new success, Orczy published the novel and went on to become quite successful for a fun yet daunting and ultimately gripping story about the horrors of the French Revolution.

Introduction: The novel is set in 1792, during the beginning stages of the French Revolution. I will not reveal the identity of the Scarlet Pimpernel, because his identity is quite a fun revelation in the book. What I tell you is that the Scarlet Pimpernel is an English gentleman who seeks to save victims from the guillotine. During the French Revolution there was a movement to remove the “aristros” and this was achieved through various law reforms that allowed the “Committee of Public Safety” to charge anyone with suspected treason, and haul them before the guillotine. Notable individuals responsible for this movement included Danton and Robespierre, who feature in the novels to a lesser extent, but their actions and motions are very strong and resounding. Many high profile individuals faced such a terrifying fate, and the Scarlet Pimpernel and his gang became a symbol of hope. He opposed the frequent deaths at the hands of the guillotine, and while he couldn’t save everyone, he did his best to save those he felt were most wrongly indicted.

 The French Revolution

This book in many ways is an exciting read. It’s simple, swashbuckling, and enticing. You follow a hero, in every sense of the word, who puts his life at risk to save individuals he has never met or has no connection with. There are cool schemes to get out of traps, very clever machinations that are foiled and very elaborate plots that suck in the reader. Overall it’s a book based on adventure and heroism, with a backdrop of terror and death.

I guess one of the important features in the set of novels is the history of the French Revolution. This was a period where there was massive social and political upheaval in France between 1789 and 1799, before being continued by Napoleon Bonaparte and his expansion of the French Empire. The upshot of the monarchy was to overthrow the monarchy (Louis XVI was executed), create a republic and remove the aristocratic regime that currently existed in the time. The first year of the Revolution resulted in the storming of the Bastille, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and a march on Versailles to force the royal court back. During the Revolution there was the abolition of feudalism, political struggles and then the formation of the Republic. This was succeeded by the formation of a dictatorship by Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins who set up the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror, which lasted from 1793 to 1794. This period witnessed thousands of citizens executed by revolutionary tribunals who were suspected of treason or opposing the Revolution. In 1799 Napoleon Bonaparte took control and became the “hero” of the Revolution due to his successful military campaigns.

With this rough outline of the Revolution in mind, one can more distinctly appreciate the events that occur in the Scarlet Pimpernel, and the terror that existed in the society of France. One reason why this series of novels is so resounding is that it actually creates a scene of terror from the very start. You get this feeling of dread, terror and just downright mayhem if you are a citizen in France. Any day you can be arrested for suspicion of treason, and quickly sent to the guillotine without really much of a trial. And this is exactly what it was like during the Revolution. The revolutionary tribunals were set up to arrest those against the Revolution, but they were also used a mechanism for extirpating anyone that the tribunals felt was a threat or needed to be removed. And this gives you an insight into human nature; at our core we can be incredibly greedy individuals. That doesn’t have to only manifest as money or wealth. It can also include power. There is something about the intangible nature of controlling events and people that drives a lot of people to committing evil or wrong acts. If one looks at the Committee of Public Safety from an objective sense when reading the Scarlet Pimpernel, it’s actually very difficult to appreciate how it remained so strong. Of course the atmosphere of terror played a massive role. The people of France realised pretty quickly that if they supported the execution of some very unlucky citizens, then they may be able to continue their existence and not face the guillotine themselves.

 Heroism

I mentioned previously that the Scarlet Pimpernel was a hero, in every sense of the word. Most novels depict a courageous being who for the most part is good, but along the way you realise their vices, and the struggles they experience to rein them in and stay true to their path. That isn’t the case with this hero. The story is focused on his exploits and courageous acts that we actually don’t see him all the time, and when we do, he is that very figure we have always wanted. Resolute, determined, moral, confident, assuaged. The reason Orczy does this is because she is exploring the French Revolution, a time of tragedy and upset. You could quite easily avoid the guillotine one day, and watch your family perish the next. In a story like this, we don’t want a character with foils and downfalls. We want someone to stand up and lead the light into the darkness.

And that is what we are given. In many respects, it’s exactly what we want as well. Because Orczy reveals another interesting aspect of human nature. At heart, we all want to be saved. We all love a hero who appears at death’s door and springs a surprising escape. That touches us and makes us feel warm and fuzzy. Why? It really stems back from our entry into this world. We were cared for by our parent(s), and for a good portion of our life we remain sheltered under such a wing. Whenever something goes wrong, we look for that wing and crawl back under it. Or we await for that “saving angel” to lift us up out of our misery. So the Scarlet Pimpernel appeals to that soft and emotional side of us. We might deny that we ever feel such a thing, or that we ever need someone to give us a hand, but if you look deeply at yourself, you will find it hard to not find moments when someone stepping in to help you made you feel safe and secure.

The Scarlet Pimpernel didn’t save many lives. He didn’t stop the bloodshed. What he did was create hope and saved those he could save. Empowering people can be stronger than swooping in at the last minute, and Orczy does make us consider what is a true act of heroism? Is it the knight in shining armour appearing at the last moment to whisk you out of danger? Or is it providing you and everyone else with strength and resolution to take things in your own hands and make a change?

 Conclusion: The Scarlet Pimpernel became a light in the incessant darkness that for many was the French Revolution. Terror and murder reigned supreme, and the entry of such a hero helped to alleviate some of the mayhem and create some hope for individuals doomed to die. Aspects of human nature that this hero revealed are not exactly tangible at times, but they are pertinent to every individual, and exhibit a struggle we often undergo to find ourselves. Everyone likes a hero. But at some point we have to leave our heroes behind and become one for someone else. And that is an important lesson Orczy tries to teach us.

[divineenchanter]

Madame Bovary

Written: 1856 by Gustave Flaubert

Recommendation: 4.2/5

Context: The production of this novel actually landed Flaubert in an unfavourable position in his time, with plenty of criticism for exploring the adulterous affairs of a married woman. So much so that he was put on trial for his dramatic portrayal of Emma, although he was soon acquitted. His poignant and contentious issues were not received well, given that Christianity in his era was strong and deeply entrenched. That withstanding, his book became popular and renowned as a result of the trial, and the ideas he portrayed back then still are relevant today, particularly in a society that is struggling with issues of marriage, and what it means to explore passion.

Introduction: Emma is the main character in this novel, and I will loosely call her the “protagonist”, because as the novel progresses you can argue that she transitions from the protagonist into the antagonist. As the novel blurb will have no doubt told the eager reader, this book is about a young lady who marries a gentleman in a fine profession, only to slowly lose interest in her marriage. She seeks voluptuous affairs in an attempt to find passion but becomes licentious and deceitful, ultimately leading to her downfall. While Emma is a character that can appeal to many people at some stage of their struggle to find themselves, she does serve as an important warning for the dangers of unrestrained lust and passion.

  The Role of Marriage

For the purpose of this review, I am going to define marriage as the “union between a man and woman”, simply because this novel was written with a Christian background and it makes sense to discuss Emma’s tumultuous marriage in such terms.

The first issue is the definition of love. I have touched upon this in some of my other reviews, but I want to delve more deeply this time around, because I feel that this novel is asking some important questions about our ability to connect with others, and what actually constitutes “love”. If you look up the word in a dictionary, you will get phrases like “strong interest”, “deep affection” or “an attraction transcending just sex or desire”. Certainly there is an element of all of these components, and many would argue that you need all 3 for love to actually exist. I think the below quote by Aristotle best sums up the way I am going to explore such a notion of love:

“Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies”

For the most part, the relationship between Emma and her husband is exactly what this sentiment implores. She feels an attraction to her man and vice versa, and she is supportive and understanding. Their love transcends their physical attraction and they have a unique bond, one that can’t be visualised by science or our naked eyes. You can watch the way someone hugs or kisses their loved one, the way they caress their name, or the way they smile in their eyes when they walk into the room. But it’s more than that. As a lovebird will tell you (if you can catch one), they feel jittery at times. Nervous. Butterflies. Like the whole world has disappeared and this one person has completely consumed them. Everything blurs and becomes oblivious as they focus on that person that has become their centre of everything.

So how does this tie into marriage? I defined marriage earlier as a “union”. I want to focus more on this particularly word. A bond between two people. A pledge, of undying love, til the end of time. Or until the love wears off for some. It’s basically a summation of the way two people feel about each other. The last step, in a sense, of telling the world that they belong to one another and no one else. And with that bond comes an understanding. A sharing of that other person with no one else, a statement that in this lifetime that person is their chosen mate and has won their heart. It’s very difficult to break a marriage apart from the outside. This bond transcends any physical matter or substance. People talk about measuring hormone levels, and attributing that to “bouts of love or attraction”. But measuring this kind of bond isn’t quite as simple. It’s not tangible, it can’t be seen, it lasts during hormone changes and upsets, can even last through the most difficult of situations. It is a very powerful entity that is not easily entered into nor trifled with. I want you to keep this idea in mind when you read the next part of my review, which explores the adulterous relationships Emma begins, and the consequences that betraying a marriage can have on an individual.

  Adultery: The Beginning of the End?

Inherently in most people, regardless of whether or not they are religious (or for that matter Christian), there resides a desire to find that special someone. To find the one that completes them, emotionally and physically, and to explore the passion that is just waiting to be unleashed. You don’t need to be Christian to appreciate marriage, nor do you need to be Atheist to realise that passion can be beautiful, terrifying and blissful, all rolled into one. But therein lies a danger. We are humans. We have free will and the capacity to make decisions. And we love to give in to what our bodies or minds desire, and to sate them, so to speak. But where is the line? At what point do we stop and say enough is enough? At what point do we stop and exercise some restraint? This is the issue I want to highlight in Emma’s quest for finding the climax in her passion.

Emma finds herself in a difficult situation. Her husband is the one that brings the bread to the table, keeps the roof over their heads and provides stability for their child. He is devout and faithful. Yet she feels unfulfilled, with the sense that her passion has not been roused and she is missing out on an important quality in her life. Yet to leave her husband would result in desolation and poverty. But at the same time, she can’t keep ignoring that passion that is waiting to be kindled, that lust that needs to be sated. This is a moral, Christian girl I am talking about, but realistically it could be anyone. This isn’t an issue a Christian girl faces alone, nor is it an issue that a Buddhist or Atheist would necessarily be unfamiliar with either. Just as we inherently want to do good in the world and maybe find that someone, we are also inherently capable of making bad decisions and committing evil in this world. That is a consequence of free will and autonomy. By being able to make our decisions, we open ourselves up to the possibility of going down the wrong path.

Let’s go back to Emma. She meets a couple of young, attractive and appealing men who reach out to her lust, to that innate desire to be pleased and adored. And as she entertains such notions, she begins to find it harder and harder to resist their advances. She even begins to make her own, desperate to discover if they hold the key to satisfying her licentious desires. Her marriage bonds tug at her, but subconsciously she shuts them down, determined to unmask her passion and extract satiation for her body and soul. In many respects, it is fair to say she achieves this goal. The affairs provide her with excitement, exhilaration and sexual gratification. They take her to a new world where she can explore this newfound passion and hunger, and is able to leave her morality behind. Of course a part of her feels torn at first, but gradually she begins to justify it, finding faults with her husband and blaming him for her “mediocre” existence. Unfortunately we also witness the degradation of her character, and how she falls apart. Just like I mentioned earlier, the blurb for this book tells you she commits suicide so that should hardly come as a surprise. Flaubert uses the end of Emma to highlight that breaking the “moral code”, in this case the bonds of marriage, can have serious consequences. Yes, not all voluptuous affairs end in suicide. But he makes a very poignant and heartfelt point here. You commit to someone in marriage. You say “I do”. And you say it for life. When you turn your back on such a commitment, you open yourself up to unpleasant outcomes. Sure, the suicide was outrageous but we watch Emma slowly corrupt herself. She becomes licentious, deceitful, dishonourable and ultimately unfaithful. The very pillars of her marriage and conscience are broken down in an attempt to satisfy her lust and desire for a more passionate and exciting life. Unfortunately this ends badly, and it isn’t just her life that suffers.

So what does all of this mean? Do all affairs have to end badly? No. Does everyone have to become corrupt and immaterial? No. But there is a lesson here. Love can be all-consuming, a fiery tornado that smashes into your life and completely transforms your outlook on everything. You become responsible for someone else, you learn the meaning of sacrifice, and you begin to realise your own passions and desires sometimes need to be controlled. When you enter into the celebration that is marriage, you make a resounding statement to the rest of the world. But so does your partner. Your partner is just in love as you are with them, and they too are making this same acknowledgement. And that is something Flaubert wants us to remember. When we enter into a bond with someone else, we need to realise that when if we break it, we need to be ready to embrace the consequences to us, and to our partner. To enter into such a bond is monumental for most, if not all, people. For many, it is the pinnacle of their existence. To take that away from them or yourself, renders yourself vulnerable and viable to machinations of our deepest whims and desires. I mentioned before that free will can produce good or bad in this world. Desires don’t take a side. Just like a tornado doesn’t choose to attack a village versus an island, our desires don’t choose their victims. It’s when we give in to our desires, and commit sacrilege against what we once held dear that our decisions can turn unfortunate and ultimately tenebrous.

  Conclusion: Flaubert’s use of Emma creates a very poignant and embittered version of love, and what can go right (or wrong) when desires are exploited. We all seek to find out the meaning of our lives, and what it is that is going to give us the ultimate satisfaction and gratification. For many, marriage is that very pinnacle. But we need to be careful not to allow our passions and desires to govern our actions. It’s all too easy to fall down the tenebrous path, and before we know it we are too far down into the darkness. Passion is necessary, but it also needs to be controlled. Otherwise what is the use of free will? It’s our capacity to make decisions that can create evil, but it’s also the mechanism in which we can make something good. It is this balance that can define our adventure in life, and it is a struggle that we will always need to fight.

[divineenchanter]

The Mayor of Casterbridge

Written: 1886 by Thomas Hardy

Recommendation: 4.3/5

Context: Hardy and his wife lived for a fair while in Dorchester, and was renowned for publishing works that were divisive and affronting. During his time he became acquainted with old records in Dorsetshire. One particular chronicle spoke of a woman sold at an auction, and he devised his idea of the Casterbridge novel based on this spectacular situation. This novel centres on the theme of “cruel” fate, and creates the idea that fate operates through two channels: chance and irony. The exploration of the individual vs multitude is a very powerful construct used in this tragedy, a tragedy that ends with suggesting there is hope for humanity: character and love.

Introduction: Henchard is the main antagonist in this novel, and from the very beginning we are positioned to view his actions as cowardly and driven by greed. While other family members appear and disappear in this novel, it is the journey we take with Henchard that is truly remarkable and the saving point in this story. By the end of the novel we no longer regard Henchard as the antagonist; we have come to see his humanity and realise that his attempts for retribution and redemption are honourable. But we are also left we a bitter taste in our mouths; have we truly forgiven Henchard? This novel will challenge you to cast aside early perceptions and influences in a bid to fully understand the actions of a selfish but good man.

 “The Life and Death of a Man of Character”

This is the subtitle of the novel, but in actual fact a more aptly adjusted title would be “the story of one man’s fall and another’s rise”. Throughout the novel we basically have two opposites in the form of Michael Henchard and Donald Farfrae, two men who start from the bottom and make their way to the top. The juxtaposition is cleverly constructed because we witness one man rise from the auction of his wife, compared to that of the other who starts from a small family and through a humble beginning starts his legacy. Now is a good moment to pause, and point out that the reason I have mentioned both subtitles is that the way you interpret the actions of these two men during the novel leads you to an important realisation. The fortunes of Mr Henchard and Mr Farfrae slowly exchange as the novel progresses. It starts with Mr Henchard’s mistress, then his house and possessions, and finally his position as town mayor. And we begin to question the true motives of Mr Farfrae, and just how “noble” he truly is. Sure, when you compare the greed of Mr Henchard, it seems pretty straightforward. But you do an injustice to Mr Henchard if you don’t also take into account his actions of redemption, and that’s where this idea of “character” begins. One of the most poignant timepoints in the entire story is the moment Henchard realises his mistake with his wife, and takes a vow of alcohol sobriety, and builds a life of fortitude around that decision. His strength of character sees him rise to position of mayor, a place of responsibility and respect. And the author tells us that when you make a mistake you must learn from it, and rise again. So perhaps that is something we can all take away from Mr Henchard.

Now let’s hone in what a “man of character” actually means. People often perceive character as something that refers to someone who does good things or is nice, who does something that is morally right but may put them in an unfavourable position. They often say that a “true test” of character is not when it’s convenient but rather in an arduous or difficult time. In the case of Mr Henchard, we soon learn that he works hard to right his past misdemeanours. He becomes a well-respected man in the county, someone who is magnanimous and beneficent. And he does this all right after he sells his wife, to start again and right the wrongs of his past. One of his most generous acts is to care for the daughter of his ex-wife, even though he feels cold and indifferent towards her. This challenges his beliefs, his understanding of relationships, and ultimately it is a test of his character and how far he has come since that awful day involving the auction of his wife. For the most part, his character remains strong and we see that he has grown into his role as mayor. The challenge for us is to see how we can make that same step in our life, and to even ask ourselves if we could do that. Hardy allows us to see through the juxtaposition of Mr Farfrae and Mr Henchard that character can be perceived very differently, and while you are led to believe that Mr Farfrae, the charming lovely young Scotsman, is strong and moral, it is actually Mr Henchard who is the true hero of this story. It is an apt subtitle to say “Man of Character” given that Mr Henchard undergoes a difficult transformation into a man of respect. And that is the lesson for us. Often it’s easy to do the right thing when it suits us, or when people are watching. It’s far more difficult to do it when no one is looking or there to pat you on the back.

 Conclusion: Hardy’s Mr Henchard forces us to reconsider our own “character”, and the tough decisions we have had to make in the past. Mr Farfrae has the life we all would like to live: successful, beautiful wife, respected and comfortable. But sometimes you have to pierce the layer of superficiality to judge the character of a person, and sometimes what you find can be surprising. Such was the case in Mr Henchard, and such was the case in Mr Farfrae. Either of these men can be your hero. But for me it was Mr Henchard, the man who sold his wife and spent the rest of his life making amends for that action.

[divineenchanter]

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Written: 1831 by Victor Hugo

Recommendation: 4.5/5

Context: Victor Hugo spends a good deal of the novel describing in fine detail the architecture and design of the buildings in the city. This is because he wanted to illustrate the value of the gothic design, as contemporary designs and ideas sought to destroy this originality. Victor was a huge proponent of saving and preserving the medieval architecture in Paris, as he felt that this was a critical element in the identity of the French. He also explores several elements of Romanticism in this novel, and is very critical of the political system currently in power. Themes I will explore are determinism, revolution, and identity.

Introduction: As the title suggests, this book is centred on the great Cathedral itself. We are introduced to several important characters in the opening chapters, including the beautiful and alluring gypsy girl Esmeralda, the repulsive hunchback, the satirical playwright Gringoire, a satanic priest and a young captain. In many ways this story is a tragedy, and while I won’t spoil the ending in my review, I will say that Hugo’s portrayal of the hunchback does provoke us into feeling compassion for this tragic soul, almost to the point where we are willing to excuse his actions because he has been forsaken.

 Determinism

One of the most pivotal scenes in this novel is when the satanic priest (Frollo) watches a fly crash into a spider’s web. This actually serves as a very strong metaphor for the concept of free will and destiny. Determinism can be defined as ‘any action or event being ultimately decided by an external will or power’, thereby suggesting that humans have no free will and hence can’t be held accountable for their actions. So is this what Victor Hugo is arguing? That we, as humans, have no free will and everything boils down to what fate and destiny have in store? This spider web and the fly serve as the postulate, and are juxtaposed with the complex relationship between Frollo and Esmeralda, with the underlying notion that regardless of how events occur Frollo will get what he desires from the gyspy girl. The use of Frollo cleverly supports this argument, as just like the spider, he feels that if continues to weave traps he will eventually snare his prize.

If one thinks about the persona of Frollo though, and considers what free will actually allows an individual to accomplish, then you begin to realise that beneath this postulate of no free will = no responsibility is a much larger issue. Frollo resigns himself to destiny, believing that Esmeralda will fall into his clutches (a matter of when, not if) and we see that his character becomes corrupted and corrigible. Hugo pushes Frollo to the extremes of immorality and suggests that if we stop caring, that if we follow in the steps of Frollo and throw everything into the hands of fate, then we also throw away our ability to retain our sense of morality, and hence stop taking responsibility for our actions. This can be compared to the proles in 1984 by George Orwell who follow blindly in the doctrines of their Big Brother, and also have no sense of morality. What we are seeing by both these authors is a common theme: that free will governs our ability to make decisions based on morality and values, and when this is taken away individuals become corrupted and wicked. You could argue that they explore this to the extreme boundaries of morality, but even so, their message is pretty clear. As humans we have been granted free will, whether that be by a higher power or science, and when this is compromised the resulting individual is one bereft of judgement and perspicacity. Can you trust in fate and still hold onto yourself, without letting go and becoming consumed by your passions? Clearly this is not a black and white issue, so yes you could say that not everyone who blindly believes in destiny will suffer the same fate at Frollo. However, free will is an integral part of our role as humans, and the lesson Frollo serves to teach us is that this element is easily corrupted by passion and desire.

 Revolution

Victor Hugo was concerned by class differences that were present in his time, and made several references to illustrate his criticisms. The 1789 French Revolution removed the monarchy and established a constitutional monarchy that did not recognise the aristocracy or the privileges of the Church. This novel was written during the revolution in 1830, and there is one scene when the vagabonds attack Notre Dame (an allusion to the storming of the Bastille in 1789). There are many elements of revolution explored by Hugo. For instance, all of the main characters are established as orphans, to make the statement that the feudal system in place is failing and families are unable to care for their children. Additionally, Hugo is arguing that the family unit that was established under the previous kings apropos to the revolution in 1789 led to ‘one giant happy family’, and that with the removal of King Louis XI this notion has become dismantled and French society is darker and grimmer than before.

Does he have a solution for how this should change? No, but what he is saying is that while the removal of the monarchy granted individuals more free will and control, it also changed the safety of families and their ability to prosper and provide for one another. He is cognisant of the fact that there was a big divide in classes after the revolution of 1789, and suggests that the divide between Aristocrats and the Lower Class directly led to this issue. Gringoire’s play at the beginning of the book has allegorical figures that represent the nobility and peasants of the class divides, and implicates the issues in society arising from the changes in the medieval roots of Paris. We can see from the dark portrayal of Frollo, the satirical Gringoire and the tense relationship between the Captain’s Guard and people of the city that some things have deteriorated under the rule of Louis’ cousin, and this is in part responsible for the continued class struggles, which would ultimately lead to the second revolution.

Is there a message here for us, even today in a democratic society? If you think about it, in some ways class struggles remain today. We may not have nobility and aristocrats, but we still have the poor, the middle class and those at the top, the high earners and achievers. Our society may not be dark and despot like that which Victor Hugo describes in Paris, but in many ways our systems are similar, with discontent and calls for change constantly echoing the halls of our society. We may not have to worry about our leaders being executed or overthrown for poor judgement and decisions, but we must not take our political and social issues lightly either, because otherwise a return to a society that Hugo describes is certainly on the cards. The only difference between a revolution in 1830 and a revolution in 2020 is that we had a chance to learn from past mistakes. Maybe we should heed the lessons of previous power and class struggles.

 Identity

I am going to start this section by introducing Quasimodo, the hunchback. When we make his acquaintance he comes across as hideous, ostracised, a creature of the devil. He lives in the great Cathedral, the epicentre of this story, and is deaf with only one eye. For the majority of the novel he is shrouded in mystery and fear; we are positioned to question the hatred that people feel toward him, but to also appreciate the terror he instils in those who don’t understand him.

Identity is a common issue explored by authors and playwrights alike, designed to provoke feelings of understanding and confusion in the reader. It’s something we all struggle with, from our early days as a child, to our rebellion during our teenage years, then we think we find ourselves after school, before often reaching the “mid-life crisis” to finish things off. A powerful and often challenging notion that forces us to reconsider where we currently stand, and what we hold dear. This is why Quasimodo is employed. This is why a hideous, kind-hearted but forsaken being is employed to explore this popular notion. For most of the story we constantly find ourselves asking “who is Quasimodo”, “is he friend or foe”, “how will his love for Esmeralda play out”.

Underlying nature’s atrocity in the form of the hunchback are some very powerful attributes of human nature. Loyalty. One’s desire or need to provide assistance to a close friend or family member. And we see this in Quasimodo. He tenders his church bells in the Cathedral with devotion and dedication bordering on insanity, at times. But it is the introduction of Esmeralda that transforms his purpose. His tender movements, his sorrowful expressions, his willingness to help her hide, these are heart-wrenching moments in the book that evoke compassion and empathy in our stone cold hearts. For this narrative has portrayed Quasimodo as a beast and a monster, a being incapable of love or loyalty. And yet we watch as he falls in love with the young gypsy girl, and she ultimately breaks down this notion of a monster. So what is Hugo’s purpose? Is this going to be another Beauty and the Beast tale, where the hideous spawn of nature wins the beautiful perfect emblem of harmony? I won’t reveal how this plays out. But what you should consider is what loyalty actually means. How does it manifest itself in your life? For Quasimodo, his bells and “his” gypsy girl gave him meaning, gave him a reason to keep plodding along. Would you do the same for someone? Would you stand up and be a chivalrous knight, a champion for a cause, in the face of despair and hatred? For Hugo is making a point here. Loyalty is not unique; indeed, we could all argue that we are faithful to those who are close to us. But what really defines loyalty and chivalry is the ability to practice that devotion in the face of adversity. And that is what Victor challenges us to consider. Loyalty in the face of all things hopeless and ending. Because everyone needs a champion. And in some ways, Esmeralda was Quasimodo’s saving grace in his world of darkness.

In some of my other reviews I have explored the notion of love, and how this can become corrupted with lust, or lead to a consuming passion that produces a wicked or misguided individual. This time I am going to show you how the reverse can be true, how a pure and innocent manifestation of love can lead to a positive and beautiful change. One of the most clever and intricate aspects of the relationship between Esmeralda and Quasimodo is the hunchback’s innocent and often naïve understanding of love. He finds this gypsy girl irresistible, capricious but magnanimous, with a touch of mischief and beauty. He finds himself irrevocably drawn into a world of light, where he can see and touch hope. And this is associated with his sweet love for the gypsy girl, who for the most part remains oblivious to his submerged affections and endearment. Why is this important? Earlier I mentioned that this is pure, that perhaps this time the character driven by love doesn’t become corrupted. He does become consumed, however he uses this passion to protect and care for Esmeralda, and does his utmost best to rescue her from her plight. Yes, it is true that during the novel he commits a dark act and this would suggest he let his love for her overwhelm him. But it is the final act he performs in her name that creates this sense of purity and understanding. That not all individuals driven by love with commit actions that break their sense of morality, no matter what the cost. Obsession is powerful, and even Quasimodo finds himself consumed by his desire for Esmeralda by the end. Just like our other desires, we must find a way to control our passions and prevent them from consuming us. There us a quote at the end of the novel that reads “Oh – all that I have ever loved!”. In many ways this epitomises the consequences of a passion gone wrong, a vice left unchecked, an individual lost in their ways. But it also can be read in a positive light; that hope has been introduced into someone’s dark life and produced a revolutionary change, that understanding has become heightened.

Oscar Wilde famously intoned “Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead”.

The lesson here isn’t just that love is either good or bad. Nor is it that we need to control our passions and desires. It’s more than that; it’s about the power that love carries, and all those who are touched by such an entity will find irrevocably their understanding of their own passions will be greater. All of us experience love in one form or another, whether that is through lovers, friends or family. It’s powerful. It’s terrifying. It’s what we do with such an entity when it enters our life that can define us an individual.

 Conclusion: Victor Hugo’s Quasimodo is a challenging and provoking portrayal of human character, designed to make us question our own attributes and how we measure up. He makes a statement about society and the class struggles, and forces us to do the same. Fate and destiny are powerful concepts that must not be lost in the struggle for free will, for corruption and immorality can test that outcome. The most powerful piece of this writing is Hugo’s use of Frollo (consumed and wicked) juxtaposed with Quasimodo (imperfect yet innocent and loving) to teach us that love brings humility and compassion, and a life bereft of such an essence, really, is no life at all.

[divineenchanter]

1984

Written: 1949 by George Orwell

Recommendation: 5/5

Context: George Orwell worked as a British Police Officer in Burma and as part of his duties was required to travel to Spain, Germany and the Russian Soviet Union. During his time he witnessed political authority and how dangerous it truly could become. He feared a society where the Russian Soviet Union and Germany Nazis could reign supreme and control everything and everyone. He opposed political regimes and was a true supporter of democratic socialism. This novel is his projected fears of a totalitarian society gone rampant. As we know, the Berlin Wall was knocked down and the Allies victorious in WW2 and the Cold War, meaning that this envisioned society did not eventuate. However, the lessons Orwell portrays are still relevant to today.

 Introduction: This is a dystopian novel set in Airstrip One (Great Britain) where the world is constantly in war, everything and everyone is monitored by government surveillance and there is an Inner Party Elite that prosecute individuals who think or deviate away from the government teachings. Orwell uses the concept of ‘Big Brother’ to denote a figure of authority responsible for this totalitarian omnipotence. It is a confronting and challenging style of writing, as a dystopian society is one where everything is undesirable/frightening; the antithesis of utopia. For this review I am going to focus on two ideas Orwell explores: nationalism and censorship.

 Nationalism

Before embarking on the journey of teasing out Orwell’s ideas surrounding this entity, it is best to elucidate what Orwell’s definition of nationalism is. “The identification of oneself with a single nation/unit/group/tribe, placing it beyond good or evil and only acting to further its interests”. This is in contrast to patriotism, where one has pride for their nation and acts to defend it, but is not zealous in their approach. For the purposes of this review, it is suffice to say that Orwell mainly focused on exploring nationalism, in the context of a totalitarian society.

While Orwell predominantly focuses on the nation side of this concept, it is important to realise that this can extend to race, religion, ideology, etc. The basic hierarchy in this dystopian society is Big Brother > Inner Party > Outer Party > Proles (the people). In essence, there is one single organisation that is responsible for dictating the rights and lives of these individuals, an example of nationalism in its extreme. But it’s not just the dictatorship-style society that Orwell establishes, it’s the hate projected towards the “foreigners” in this society, individuals who are ostracised and blamed for the perpetual wars. The proles are brainwashed, if I may use this word, to believe that everything the Inner Party teaches is correct, and anything that deviates from this doctrine is seen as unacceptable. A direct analogy to the Nazi regime in Germany at this period of time, where a similar scenario was taking place involving concentration camps and a loss of democracy.

See novels that tackle the issue of nationalism often choose a strong, fiery character to portray the consequences of being zealous, and how this leads to corruption of that individual. Orwell instead chooses to use an entire political system to suggest that a regime like that of WW2 Germany would create a disaster come 1984, and warns of the dangers associated with individuals so bent on pushing their own nation forward they forget what is right and wrong. Winston, the main character of the story, challenges some of the thinking put forward by Big Brother, and Orwell introduces us to the system in place for dealing with those who step outside of this thinking. What does Orwell want us to get out of this story? A dictatorship has consequences for the freedom and liberality of all individuals. Such a regime threatens to destroy identity and replace it with doctrine and mindless following. His ultimate lesson is that an authoritarian state threatens everything an individual holds dear, and such a society is terrifying.

 Censorship

As most people are aware (at least in the Western world) the freedom of speech and expression is a basic human right. That means being able to say and portray what you think in any way that you choose, without fear of prosecution. As you can probably imagine, an authoritarian society where one government dictates everything you can do, feel and think is bereft of such a right, and in today’s times we call this censorship. Winston is a scribe for Big Brother, and his industrious task is to rewrite history and doctor photographs where necessary, so long as everything toes the “company line”. Sounds reminiscent of mainland China today, where elements such as Facebook are blocked, and only one political party is in the system.

So why does Orwell choose this theme to explore? Why force us to imagine a society where we can’t express ourselves freely? It’s because it’s something we do every day, usually without even considering the consequences. We take such a right for granted, given that there are populations even in our world today that still employ censorship. Many are glad that Orwell’s vision for 1984 did not come to pass, but I think it is fair to say that in places like China, Libya, Egypt and Russia this dystopian society is very much present, if not quite to the same manipulative-control sense. Certainly Orwell is making a statement here; if you take away an individual’s capacity to express themselves, then you open them up to indoctrination and propaganda, as they have no way to resist or argue. Moreover, he makes the statement that when an individual loses their ability to practice this right, it is easy to get drawn into the “consensus”, the “party line”. And we see that in this story, where individuals all plod along spouting the teachings of Big Brother, not even trying to question it like Winston does. And Orwell doesn’t stop here; one of the reasons he is a big proponent for a democracy is that you have more than one party. More than one party means offering a difference in opinion, encouraging people to engage, facilitating an environment where ideas can be broached and explored. A totalitarian society is effective in that you control everyone and anything, you dictate how things go, you make all the decisions, and everyone does as they are told. But humans are inquisitive and curious creatures, we challenge and question everything, we need to be able to express ourselves and make decisions for ourselves. And this is the point Orwell wants people to realise. A democratic society is not perfect by any means, but what it does is offer a medium for individuals to choose what they are most comfortable with and feel that they can practice freedom, without fear of being prosecuted or punished.

 Conclusion: It is easy to say that a totalitarian society is bad, given past examples in history support such a claim. But with these mistakes have come important lessons about identity, individuality, freedom of speech and expression, and ultimately the curiosity of us as people. George Orwell challenges us as individuals to read 1984 and imagine a dystopian society where everything is terrifying and controlled, and to appreciate that in our democratic society we are free of such restraints.

[divineenchanter]

The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha

Written: 1605 by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

Rating: 5/5

Context: Written in the Spanish Golden Age, this book explores the revival of chivalry and is a founding work of contemporary literature. It has connotations to some of the key events during Cervantes’ era such as the exile of the Muslim population from Spain and the tyrannical domination of a Catholic faith because of fear and persecution. Ultimately this is a book that is supposed to appeal to anyone who reads it, given that Cervantes has several messages that relate to different stages of life.

  Style of the Story

The style of this book is written in picaresque episodic form, an attempt to explore themes of chivalry, nationalism, Christian orthodoxy and even romance. I have dedicated a chapter on my blog just for this component because it in itself is a very important feature of the ideas Cervantes presents to us as the audience. This novel is a farce, that is, most of the adventures Don Quixote and his squire undertake are outrageous, improbable and extravagant. Indeed, there is an interplay throughout the book of realism and exaggeration (one must ask as they read how a character that is unrealistic can exist in a piece trying to enforce realism and truth). Moreover, both parts in the book are mainly just a collection of loosely connected episodes that ultimately facilitate Cervantes’ depiction of the issues he feels all individuals with face at some point in their lifetime. And something that is very prominent in the narrative of Quixote is that there is very little character development. I will give an example of what I mean. In the Count of Monte Cristo, we watch as our “hero” becomes consumed by his quest for revenge and commits tragedies to extract retribution, and there is a poignant moment in the novel when we realise that he has changed.

There was no such moment in Don Quixote for me. Sure, he eventually snaps out of his madness shortly before his death, but for the rest of the novel he is convinced that there are enchanters and evil in the lands and it is his role to usurp them and bring them to their knees. We don’t witness any such change in his character, nor do we expect to once the style of the story becomes apparent. And this is a technique that Cervantes is using to make us focus on the other themes he is trying to portray. I suppose the cleverest thing about the somewhat random collection of escapades that Don Quixote becomes involved in is the satirical undertone which establishes that while the story itself is not taking itself seriously, the intentions Cervantes is writing about should be. This style of writing is a deviation from what was back then considered narrow literary conventions, and is used to also criticise the lack-lustre approach of writers in the Golden Age, a matter that Cervantes addresses in the early stages of the novel. There are several reasons as to why this novel is considered the precursor of modern literature, and the adventurous style of writing is one that should be considered. It is fair to say that this piece of writing was unique in its approach in its time, and it is successful in breaking free of literary constraints.

  Values of the Golden Age: Chivalry, Justice, Honour and Love

Cervantes uses the portrayal of a madman to explore the lost values of the Golden Age, and the need for society to resurrect them. There are moments in the novel when he uses stories from the Bible to illustrate these values, with a particular story about the time before the fall of man when humans didn’t need to steal, lie or cheat. He goes on to justify the establishment of the order of knights, saying that they are needed to reinstate and uphold these lost values. But why is Cervantes making a comment about values like chivalry and honour? Aren’t these old-fashioned? There’s more to it than that. He uses this as an opportunity to establish that in any society that wants to function and create respect there needs to be a code of honour. That’s not to say there needs to be a knight in shining armour saving damsels in distress, but rather that each individual needs their code of honour. Don Quixote feels that these values have become lost, and only through his quest can he bring them back. One very clever way that this is accomplished is through the character of Dulcinea, the woman that Quixote has convinced himself he is in love with but who actually doesn’t exist. He forbids himself to entertain any impure thoughts, and is civil and respectable to all the women he meets. Whether it’s today’s society or that from the Golden Age, moral justice is a notion many entertain but ultimately consider too difficult or out of reach. Quixote carries this code of honour with him but finds that in the corrupt world of modernity, avarice, lust and pride predominate and make it hard for such scruples to be upheld. The concept of romantic love is all but lost, peasants are enslaved by tyrant lords and the ideals of feminism have barely been discovered and for the most part Quixote is unsuccessful in influencing others with his ideals.

And that’s exactly the point that Cervantes makes in this story. As humans we all have a conscience, an ability to make good and bad decisions, but we need some sort of code to stand by for such instances. For Quixote, it was the code of chivalry he obtained from his books, a desire to do good unto others in all instances. For Sanchez, it was looking out for his family and on the way keeping his master out of trouble. For us, it’s whatever we want it to be. Quixote talks about being remembered when he dies. Not for being a powerful knight, or saving the land, or even marrying Dulcinea. No. What he wants to be remembered for is bringing back chivalry into an age where people are more concerned with their next dollar than their next door neighbour, or the old man across the road begging for some spare change. We all have the potential to be knights in our life. Moral justice isn’t unique to the religious or to those who strive to be good people. It’s something that is possible for even those of us struggling to find our place in the world and adhering to our scruples. Don Quixote will always be remembered as a madman, but he will also be remembered for being a man who stood for justice and peace. It’s up to us to decide if we want to follow suit, or remain entrenched in the inflictions we struggle with every day. One thing is for certain. Chivalry isn’t old-fashioned or dead. It’s just waiting for the next knight to take it up again.

  Materialism and Frivolity

We live in a society that is focused on materialistic ideals and objects. People are always worried about what to buy for their night out, or what to add to their already overcrowded shelf, or what to buy for dad next week while they are out shopping. Funnily enough these same issues were present in the 1600’s, just on a different scale. Men did their best to secure large pieces of land, at the expense of others, and how many horses you owned was seen as a good indicator of how wealthy and powerful you were in your town. The portrayal of Quixote as an insane and crazy person is quite effective in allowing the reader to explore the adventures of a man who has no material interest in the world. His motives are pure as he follows his code of chivalry, seeking a personal journey of enlightenment and spiritual understanding. Cervantes shows us that becoming involved in the material desires of the world and pleasures of the flesh can consume and dominate our pursuit for meaning and happiness, but suggests that at some point in our lives we are confronted with the possibility that perhaps there is something more. It is often said that one should read Don Quixote three times in their life, and it is the third read, towards the end of our life, that we are meant to fully understand and comprehend the complexity of the realisation Quixote reaches in his journey.

The realisation that there is more to the world than the trivial pursuit of power, isn’t a novel idea. Far from it. But the notion that perhaps each of us is tasked with something greater is more difficult to grasp at times. Giving way to someone else, lending a hand even though it may harm us, defending the rights and honour of someone we don’t know, these are challenges Quixote faces in his adventures, and in a way so do we. It might be as simple as picking up the newspaper for the old lady next door, or carrying a box for someone to their car, but these acts are just as important as the big ones. I have talked in previous blog entries about the personal struggle we each undergo in our lives, but this is something different. This is about the search for the meaning of our life, the reason that we are here, the reason that we question our existence. Is our role in life to just work, form a family and pass on the tricks of the trade to the next generation? Most of us won’t be remembered for what we do. In fact, most of us won’t even leave a lasting footprint on this planet. Just as the tides come and go, or the passing of the yearly winter solstice, so will we one day pass on from this place. None of us are immortal or ageless. Our ideas might be, but we aren’t, and won’t ever be. So how do we reconcile with ourselves that our time is short, yet there is so much to do and get out of life?

When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? Perhaps to be too practical is madness. To surrender dreams — this may be madness. Too much sanity may be madness — and maddest of all: to see life as it is, and not as it should be!

I want to end this part with the above quote from Quixote. His advice is essentially two-fold. Pursue your dreams to their fullest and don’t get bogged down in the smaller details in life. Life is too short to worry about every little change or mishap. Have a plan, certainly, and let yourself be guided by deviations in the plan, just don’t forget there is a plan. Look ahead and remember why you are here. And remember to enjoy life as it comes. We all want to fulfil our purpose, our destiny, to sate those voices in our head that say “what’s next”. And that’s important. Just don’t let it consume you to the point that everything else becomes meaningless. Otherwise the line between sanity and fantasy becomes all too blurry.

Conclusion: Overall a very entertaining and fun story that will push you to consider the goals and adventures in your life. Plenty of life lessons regardless of what stage of life you are currently at.

[divineenchanter]

Le Morte D'Arthur

                                                                                                        Written: 1485

 Rating: 4/5

Context: This book is a collection of tales relating to the Arturian legend, with interpretations having been obtained from French and English texts. These texts predate the 1400s and this collection is considered the best-known version of this famous legend.

Chivalry

One underlying theme in this famous story about King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table is chivalry. A concept of morality and doing what is right and offering assistance to any who require it. It sounds like a novel idea but it truly is the undercurrent of the tragedy that is King Arthur. I’ve read a lot of classic literature in the past year, and this is actually a positive trait in humanity that is explored in great detail, in stark contrast to a lot of other classical pieces (Tenant from Wildfell Hall, Count of Monte Cristo) which focus on those traits that lead to ruin of a character. That’s not to say all these knights are virtuous and do no wrong (that comes later in my analysis). However, what one can take from the many tales of the various knights is that chivalry is something anyone can possess, but there is a balance that needs to be achieved and maintained between arrogance and humility.

We all struggle with our own achievements in the sense that when we accomplish something really good or difficult we feel this urge to tell people. And that has the potential lead to arrogance or a loss of humility. I guess the character that stands out most with regards to this problem is Sir Lancelot. He is quickly established as one of the most skilled and powerful knights to live the Arturian legend, and it is extraordinary to see him act humble in his achievements. While this issue probably seems obvious, what isn’t so obvious is that this often comes at a price.

Character

This price I referred to is something that every person has to confront. We all (or most anyway) aspire to be the best that we can be. But let’s take a look at that for a moment. The best. The best of (or what)? Generally we refer to the holistic sense of “the best”. Trying to develop one’s character. So what does society generally want in a person? Honesty? Integrity? Sincerity? Generosity? Loyalty? Morality? The list goes on. So most people will try to round themselves into this image that society desires. And for the most part everyone succeeds in developing some of these qualities. But what also becomes apparent to those who truly try to work on their character “flaws” is that no sooner have you “mastered” one quality than you realise you have become lacking in another. And so you create this to-and-fro situation where you are constantly working on your flaws and trying to stay a “good” person. And you can see this in the story of King Arthur. While Sir Mallory doesn’t specifically explore the development and fall of his characters in significant detail, what he does do is explore various traits in different characters and gives us an idea of how these traits become strong or weak.

I suppose you’re probably thinking that this is all too hard, why bother if we are going to find ourselves lacking in a trait we already thought we had mastered, etc. Well the good news is that everyone undergoes this struggle, and if you think about it, someone who is constantly trying to do good and trying to be a “better” person usually conducts themselves in such a manner that you may think they are perfect. They’re not but what their struggle allows them to do is recognise their weaknesses and find ways of reconciling this with their strengths. Does any one character in Le Morte truly reach this stage? I would say not, given that they face challenges surrounding women and power, two things that most men would say they struggle to resist. But I would say that in King Arthur and Sir Lancelot you meet two men that live up to the reputation and expectation a knight commands.

Vice vs Virtue

Now I want to focus on vice. Or more specifically, that one thing (or many) we all find hard to resist or control. Whether its lust, greed, pride, sloth or vanity or something else, we all have our own challenges that confront us on a regular basis. Sometimes we win. Sometimes we don’t. This is part of our challenge as human beings. Just as we are strong in some areas, we are weak in others and as I mentioned above we need to create a balance between these two. Now as you have probably already worked out one of the vices I have alluded to in the story of King Arthur is lust. And I have to say it is actually amazing how many of these knights in the story are confronted with lust and give in. But first a little backstory about the code of ethics in this era. This is written in the time of Christian values, and probably the most pertinent in my discussion is sex before marriage. The virtue of chastity. When you become sworn in as a knight in this story one of the very things you say you will uphold is the reputation of women and the virtue of chastity. Of course a lot of these knights go into battle, rescue damsels in distress or do good deeds and find themselves tempted with a beautiful young lady. And most give in. Not really surprising given a lot of people face this conundrum (I say conundrum for those whose are religious or prefer to delay sex until they are married) on a day to day basis. It’s fair to say that for a lot of people the issue of sex before marriage isn’t really an issue in the sense of a problem, but more about controlling their urge or need to satisfy their lust. But really you can take this one step further and apply this to any desire we have. The virtue that Sir Mallory is teasing out here is that of moderation. Not giving in every time we want something, or stopping instead of gorging until we can take in some no longer. And you see this with some of the knights. It’s fair to make the comment that for the most part Lancelot is virtuous, and resists the urge to sleep with the young ladies, particularly given most want his hand in marriage or at least a night with him given his fame and chivalrous code of honour.

Unfortunately Sir Mallory goes on to show that Lancelot’s desire for Queen Guinevere, the wife of King Arthur, eventually leads him to betray his code of honour and commits adultery. The point that Sir Mallory is making here is that we all have our vices, and it only takes a moment of weakness to break down our resolve or resistance. Being virtuous, working hard on character development, doing good deeds, acting as a “good” person are all noteworthy and admirable things a person can do. But it is the struggle we each have with our own vice that shapes our character. None of us are perfect and no matter how hard we try we are always going to have a vice that threatens to undermine everything we have worked hard towards. But that doesn’t mean we should give in to despair and give up. Rather it should be the thing that drives us to constantly strive to be the “best” that we can. Because as humans we have the ability to make decisions, and you always have a choice in your decisions, and it is our job to decide how much influence we want to have when we make a choice.

Betrayal

The final theme I am going to briefly discuss is what is arguably an antithesis to chivalry: betrayal. You can hardly go a page in this legend without coming across an instance or several of one knight betraying another. Whether it is for greed, lust or jealousy, we find that it is a commonplace occurrence. If you read a little between the lines here though, there are certain types of betrayal that Sir Mallory is really criticising with contempt. The first is that of loyalty to your family and liege. In this case he is directly referring to Mordred’s betrayal and killing of King Arthur, his father. Murdering the person who brought you into this world and raised you so that you might one day hold your own in life. There are a few acts that across societies in general are condemned, and this is one of them. The other instance is betrayal of a subject or vassal. On several occasions there are knights underneath their liege or king committing acts of treason or jealousy, and it is quite clear that Sir Mallory takes a very definitive stance against any such behaviour. But I want to look at something that may not be quite as obvious at first glance. Adultery is a big issue in this book, as discussed previously, and it itself is a betrayal. More so than anything else it is a direct betrayal of your partner. And while Sir Mallory brushes over this recurring theme in the Arthurian legend, it is quite apparent that the main reason why Camelot falls to pieces in the end is because of adultery. I say “brushed over” because he doesn’t condemn adultery in the same manner that he makes a stand against the other forms of betrayal.

Jealously and lust drive loyal knights, knights who have sworn to protect and serve each other, to performing acts of treason. You could call this a double standard by Sir Mallory, given that his interpretation of relationships back then is that the lord-vassal situation is far stronger than the husband-wife bonds. I could offer a reason as to why the love connections take a back seat in this book and I would say that it is because the nature of marriage was changing from connections and power in families to love and romance, and Sir Mallory felt that the liege relationship was of more significance in the rise and fall of King Arthur. So perhaps it is fair to say that the adultery is a symptom of this changing ideal, and not so much a betrayal in the true sense of the word.

Conclusion: If there is one thing to take away from this book it’s that as humans we are all going to do good and bad things. What defines us isn’t going to be how many good or bad things we do, but rather how we reconcile with ourselves how to manage the balance, and how to pick ourselves back up when we fall. 

[divineenchanter]

Do you identify yourself with Levin in some ways?

That is a very interesting question! In some ways yes. Certainly his polite and romantic manner with Kitty is something that I resonate with, particularly his reluctance to initially give up. I also feel that just the general manner in which he conducts himself is very polite and gentlemanly, and I suppose I fashion myself in such a manner, as opposed to the way that Vronsky operates. Once upon a time I would have said that I was shy and meek like Levin but now I am more self confident and aware of myself so in that respect I would say I am rather different. Certainly I felt more attached to Levin during the book than Vronsky, particularly because I felt that Vronsky was very intense and arrogant at times! What are your thoughts on these two characters?

[divineenchanter]

favourite book?

This is tough. I would say my favourite series of all time is the Wheel of Time, but my favourite single book is either the Count of Monte Cristo or Anna Karenina. How about you?

[divineenchanter]

fantasy recs?

Recs? Fantasy series I have read include Harry Potter, LOTR, WoT, Raymond E Feist, Shannara, Redwall, Thomas Covenant, etc

[divineenchanter]

a quest to...?

Become more cultured by challenging myself. I have always been a fast reader and used to read a lot of fantasy. I have decided to broaden my horizons and explore classic literature. 

[divineenchanter]

War and Peace

One of the most illuminating themes that Tolstoy explores is irrationality. Our motives for doing certain things against all logic and reason. He shows this in a few characters. I won't give away what happens should you one day choose to read this book (which I highly recommend that you do). But as you are aware the book focuses on the war between Alexander I and Napoleon and their generals. One of their generals has a big part in the story, and the reason he turns out to be a great leader isn't because he had big plans and strategies. Its because he adapted to the flow of events and just acted accordingly. He often made decisions that puzzled everyone, and he often made people angry. But his ability to do things spontaneously greatly highlights our ability to do things because we "feel it is the right thing to do" against the odds. 

  Another major theme is searching for your meaning, for desire, for a reason to exist. One of the big events in this book is the way the big Russian families change, and Tolstoy uses these members to explore what is essentially everyone's battle in life. Who am I? What am I doing in this life? What am I supposed to be doing? Who is the one for me? These are issues that most people will contemplate at some point in their life, and probably return to throughout to see if they have answered them. There is a character in this book that returns to these questions several times, and it is exhilarating and sometimes frustrating to see this character become happy for a while, only to become unhappy again. But Tolstoy is reiterating the idea that in your pursuit for happiness you should try different things, and if something doesn't work out then go onto the next one. This is by no means a unique issue, and indeed a lot of books will use characters to explore this issue. But Tolstoy does it in a way that is enlightening and challenging at the same time.

  Love. Something that a lot of authors use because people love to read about boy meeting girl, girl falls in love, boy woos girl, boy wins girl, and so on. Tolstoy does this but what he does is explore how constant reunions over time can produce some amazing chemistry between people. I won't spoil who gets married etc, but he shows how different life changing events can bring about a change in a person. In particular, looking at how the death of one close member to a person can suddenly lead to ignition of chemistry with someone that perhaps they would never have considered before. Or perhaps constantly wooing and chasing a girl for years and years suddenly brings you the realisation that you were missing the very person for you right under your nose the entire time. Jealousy is of course always a big part in these situations, and Tolstoy looks at that as well. How jealousy can change a man's character, how means and motives become corrupted with jealousy and hatred for someone who has stolen what you deem to be "yours". Truly this fits in with the theme before about the search for meaning in life. Also brings it home to all of us, who fall in love and perhaps watch those we love get taken by someone else.

  What book would be complete without some form or exploration of death? The one thing that unites everyone in life after birth. Death. The end of all things living. A book about war clearly has a lot of death. And Tolstoy doesn't disappoint in that aspect. But he actually focuses on a death closer to home in Russia, which makes things more interesting for some of the characters who have up until that point being rather free going and whimsical. Death forces all of us to consider where we are in life, have we accomplished what we sought out to do, have we made our lives meaningful, have we found that special someone and left a legacy behind. And this is a struggle that we all will go through at some point, if we haven't already. Its something that is constant and unchanging for us as people in this world. Tolstoy makes us realise in the book how easy it is to become caught up in life and forget that everything can change in the blink of an eye. It made me realise just how easy things can be turned upside down, and the implications this has for us as individuals.

  Forgiveness. Granting those who act against us peace for their actions and letting them move on. In multiple different scenarios over the course of this book Tolstoy allows us to see how some people can truly struggle with forgiveness, and what leads to them to eventually do so. There is a particular interaction in this book that leads to one character holding a grudge for a long time, and it is through a life changing event that they realise that it is time they granted that individual forgiveness for something that in the course of things has become irrelevant. That's not to say that everyone in the book earns forgiveness, but rather that it is in our nature to feel guilty and to want to make peace with people that are in our life. There are of course some instances in the book where people part ways and they remain "enemies" until the day they die, but it is the challenge in reconciling our differences that is part of our nature as humans.

  The last theme I am going to talk about is character. Or rather what defines a person as, well, a person. How rich you or powerful you are does not define you. And this is something Tolstoy makes clear about halfway through the book. He builds up some of the characters, and then he lets us pull them apart and realise just how superficial they truly are. Chasing women and money and being "powerful" because you get what you want reflects our desire to get what we want, but that doesn't make us unique or special. In fact it reflects a rather dark side of human nature in that sometimes we can be so driven by our passions we lose our sense of what is right and wrong. Of course Tolstoy uses some "pure" characters as well to show us how the reverse is also true. How compassion and empathy can truly create some wonderful relationships, how good deeds can reflect a man or woman's ability to put someone else first. But ultimately it is the balance between our good and dark sides that truly makes us who we are. Being able to do good actions is a defining moment for many people, but we also need to be able to reconcile our darker sides too. Characters who fail to recognise their darker motives often become consumed. The ones who thrive and make a difference are usually those realise their weaknesses and try to create balance in their life. It is a struggle all of us go through, and as humans we are prone to making mistakes. Making mistakes is natural. Learning from them is the tribulation we undergo every day.