This collection contains the eponymous Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, as well as some ~new to me~ short storStevenson is under-appreciated. There, I said it!
This collection contains the eponymous Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, as well as some ~new to me~ short stories. Stevenson referred to the stories within these pages as his Christmas Crawlers because they were unsettling stories published around Christmas time.
The other tales in this edition are: The Body Snatcher & Olalla. This edition also has an excerpt from an essay of Stevenson's titled "A Chapter on Dreams" that goes into his creative process, and offers unique insights into his exploration of the duality of man expressed in all three of these tales, specifically with Olalla and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The edition ends with an essay by a scholar titled "Diagnosing Mr. Hyde". It goes into the legal ramifications and psychological manifestations and the worldwide impact this singular story has had on literature, legality and psychology as a whole.
Of these Christmas crawlers, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde is the only one to gain long lasting success and readership. As I've already read Jekyll & Hyde previously, I'm going to link to my original review, and add addendums to this one. I will focus most of this review on the other stories and excerpts.
Jekyll & Hyde Link to original review This edition added to my knowledge of this work as previously I had only listened to the wonderful audible performance by Richard Armitage. Listening to the cadence of the language is one way to appreciate a work, but seeing it in print and drinking in the sentence structure, the word choice, is a different experience. Layering these two modes together is intoxicating in a way that I sometimes think only I feel.
Stevenson is a master of the mystery. I can see how this story would shatter the beliefs of readers in the 1800's. No one would have seen the plot twist coming, and the sensationalism of the denouement led to the evergreen status these characters have today.
This edition had valuable footnotes and I learned a lot about how Stevenson plotted this work, shedding light on little things i missed before.
This story is about secrets, the danger of them, the allure of them. The plot turned on a secret, a word, a question. We are told of various accounts of Hydes antics, often late at night. But we never question WHY the person who interacted with Hyde was out late at night. Why was respectable Carew, approaching a strange man at midnight beside the river? Why was Enfield out strolling from the back of the beyond in the middle of the night when he witnessed Hydes brutality? These are questions this edition put to me. Stevenson was showing that all of these characters had a secret other life, and perhaps Jekyll & Hydes predicament is not as preposterous and rare as we might like to think. Possibly, there are many people hiding dark depths.
The introduction also proposed various reasons for Utterson's concern about the Jekyll/Hyde relationship. I learned a lot of historical context that I missed on my first read. The prevalence of blackmailing, specifically blackmailing gay men (and sometimes men who weren't gay; the accusation of homosexuality was enough to successfully blackmail someone) was high. This was a suspicion that readers of the times would have picked up on, the subtext is clear. It explains Utterson's preoccupation with seeing Hyde's face. The introduction pointed out the probability that Utterson was afraid Hyde was a bastard child of Jekyll's. That was why Utterson was so interested in seeing Hyde's face, and so relieved when he saw no passing resemblance to Jekyll.
The introduction also pointed out that the signs of syphilis were congruent with Hydes disfigurement & Jekyll's later isolation and "sickness", all things I never considered upon my first read.
The Body Snatcher
Plot Somewhat based on real events and real people, this short story is fascinating and for its historical context alone. The tale begins with a set up reminiscent to Jekyll & Hyde. Four men are drinking and conversing one night, when a man walks in that one of them, Fettes, recognizes. Fettes is the town drunk and despot, and all anyone really knows about him other than his appetite for drink is that he at one point trained to be a doctor. The newcomer is also a doctor, but he is dressed in lavish clothing and appears the picture of polite society. Seeing this well dressed ghost from his past, Fettes is startled into sobriety. He refuses him entry, and what follows are cryptic whispered words.
"Have you seen it again?" "I do not wish to know the roof that shelters you."
After this, we are told the story of a shared past marred by disgrace, presumably while the four men gather around the fire place and long shadows cast around the room.
History If you haven't guessed by now based on the title, and the revelation that the two parties involved are doctors, I'll clue you in. This story is about resurrection men. Resurrection men are what people who STOLE BODIES FOR MEDICAL SCIENCE AND RESEARCH were called. In this time period there wasn't a great protocol for obtaining cadavers for medical schools. The law stipulated that those who had been hanged for murder would have their bodies donated to science, but that was about it. As you can imagine, there were not enough bodies to go around, and making matters worse, the bodies only went to accredited schools. There were plenty of non accredited schools operating also at this time. The solution for professors and students was grave robbing.
Stevenson's original readers would have recognized the relevance to current events and would have been even more horrified by the story. While Fettes & Wolfe are fictional, their teacher is Robert Knox, an infamous anatomy teacher deposed in 1828 when it was discovered he was purchasing cadavers from murderers Burke and Hare. Burke was hanged in 1829, and ironically his body was donated to a medical school. His skeleton still remains on display in an anatomy museum. After these events, the Act of 1832 stated that all bodies that died in workhouses would be donated to medical science. Improvement, or degradation? It is easy to see which is which. Classism at its best.
Knox, Burke, and Hare are characters in this story, but Stevenson veers from fact and focuses more on the relationship between Fettes and Wolfe. We learn that they were both students under Knox, and had dealings with Burke and Hare, purchasing cadavers. They were told to turn a blind eye, and though they may have suspected foul play, they never questioned anything aloud.
Eventually this moral ambiguity begins to bleed into Fettes personal life. He, like Jekyll and Hyde, appears to enjoy the duality of good and evil. He eventually learns that he doesn't care how he gets the corpses, it is the price he pays to better society in the long run. He is confronted with the reality of this frame of mind when he recognizes a woman he has laughed withe the same day her corpse is delivered to the dissecting room. He decides to ignore this, and only shares his suspicions with Wolfe. This decision to turn a blind eye to wrong doing carries him along a path the leads to further confrontations with Wolfe.
"'We medicals have a better way than that,' said Fettes. 'When we dislike a dear friend of ours, we disect him.'"
I thought this short story read much more clinical, much more in line with Jekyll & Hyde, than it did with Olalla. The reveal at the end of The Body Snatcher was horrific. It sent chills through me, and made me harken back to earlier clues in the story with dark foreboding. This truly is a Christmas crawling, a shilling shocker!
Olalla
"I begin to think I shall have strange experiences"
Olalla hangs on the tongue like a favorite wine– it's intoxicating. A favorite passage of mine illuminates the sensuality of the name: "I had seen her – Olalla! And the stone crags answered, Olalla! and the dumb, unfathomable azure answered, Olalla!"
Plot This is a story about blood purity (the goal of rich families striving to keep their bloodlines pure through inbreeding), analyzed through the lens of pathologic vampirism.
It is written in the traditional gothic fiction format: a recovering soldier journeys to a dilapidated mansion in the ruins of Spain, to take a room while he recovers from blood loss (oh the irony). The only inhabitants of this ruined mansion are a beautiful but vacant woman, her son who appears to have some level of intellectual disability, and her daughter. There is a creepy yet beautiful painting of a woman that closely resembles both the mother and the daughter.
"is it me you love, friend or the race that made me?"
While he stays at the mansion, he sees the mother and son often, but the daughter stays hidden. One day he stumbles across her, and instantly they are both in love. But the daughter refuses him, and what follows is the revelation that the mother is a monster. But what kind of monster?
This was the last story I read and at this point it is clear to me that Stevenson was very interested in heredity and the passing along of psychological disturbances, and the duality of man, the battle between good and evil. With Olalla the focus is atavism. The ruinous state of the mansion, the sickness that breeds within its walls is reflected in the remaining family members.
Olalla is decadently lyrical, darkly romantic in a way that The Body Snatcher and Jekyl & Hyde are not. While Jekyl and Hyde is the better story, Olalla is rich with lines that dripped with sensuality. The pomegranates and the golden eyes, the windswept mountains, the love that is felt but not acted on. The passions!
"she glowed in the deep shadow of the gallery, a gem of color; her eyes took hold upon mine and clung there, and bound us together like the joining of hands; and the moments we thus stood face to face, drinking each other in, were sacramental and the wedding of souls."
History/Literary Impact
In terms of vampire fiction, Carmilla came first, likely influencing Olalla. Olalla predated Dracula, and likely influenced it. it is so interesting to look at a specific sub-genre and see how the staples developed over time. Unlike Carmilla and Dracula, Stevenson never explicitly states Olalla's mother is a vampire. Instead we are lead to believe that she is simply sick and reverting to some animalistic state of being due to the impurity of her blood; the reason why she tries to suck the main characters blood is because she desires clean blood, untouched by the impurities of decades of inbreeding.
Olalla is a different beast than the two other works in this collection, but thematically it carries the same weight, the same question of human natures duality, the threat and presence of good and evil co-mingling in the same "clay continent".
This short story approaches this idea more from the lens of heredity and "bad blood" and less from the psychological, moral aspect (though I suppose you could says Olalla's "bad blood" is a kind of psychological transference, transferring the sick behavior down the family line, an effect of misplaced morals, but I digress.)...more
Though a bit slow at the start, the plot picked up around the 25% mark and never slowed down. It was impossible for me to put this down, and I finisheThough a bit slow at the start, the plot picked up around the 25% mark and never slowed down. It was impossible for me to put this down, and I finished it within 24 hours of starting it. This was a marvel, a spine tingling, shriek inducing good time.
The Hacienda did many things that I love. I am a lover of all things gothic. This novel is an ode to Shirley Jackson, a wail against colonialism, and a dirge to all the genre fiction that gate keeps these stories for white voices and faces; most importantly, it sings to those under represented faces, finally welcome in spaces they always should have been found in.
If you want to read a novel nuanced with themes of colonialism, oppressive religion, colorism, casta, Limpieza de sangre (blood purity), placed in a uniquely and under-explored setting, examined through the lens of horror, please read this!
The road we stood on led to nowhere but parting.
The novel opens at the close, with one of our main characters, Padre Andres, lamenting over his lost love. From here, we switch back and forth between the perspectives of Beatriz, the new wife of a wealthy haciendado, and Andres. Their paths intertwine, leading them on a harrowing path that will come to an end, as the prologue indicates. But what we don’t know is how the two come to be separated, how the grow to love one another, and what darkness they face.
The darkness is deep in this novel. When Beatriz arrives at her new home, her husbands familial seat of San Isidro, she is met with disdain by both her new servants, her sister in law, and the house its self. From the moment she steps foot in the home, she senses a loathing, emanating from the very walls of the home. The loathing quickly becomes hatred, and Beatriz’s new home begins to feel less like a new beginning, and more like an ending. A home that would become a tomb.
But I knew with a cold certainty, one that hung around my clavicles with the dread weight of a prophecy, that if I did not get help, I would die.
I love this aspect of exploring the feelings of homes in relation to the history that they share with people. Homes see joyous moments and they see violence. They experience deaths and at times births. What do these moments do to the fabric of a home? Do passionate emotions imprint on a home, leaving a wound, instilling an infection? For me the way that the home absorbs these emotions and echoes them back reflect on the way humans themselves experience emotions. In much the same way that The Haunting of Hill House could be read as both a strict haunted house story, and a psychological tale of one woman’s fragile mental state, The Hacienda could be read as a terrifying haunting, or the shared psychosis of two individuals. Cañas leans into this, if briefly, before diverting us back to her main objective: this is a haunted house story, this is a story of how people can be haunted by the things they have done, and perhaps even more frighteningly (As is the case with Rodolfo), how humans can feel nothing in the face of the evil that they have done.
Most of this can be read as commentary on the impacts of colonialism, but there is also great context to be taken in relation to sexism, and feminism. Cañas asks us to face the impact that colonialism has had on Mexico. When groups take, and take, and take, and leave nothing but desolation and poverty what good remains? When Spain colonized Mexico this effectively happened. Mexican culture was destroyed and stamped out. Diseases (notice the prominence of typhus and measles referenced in The Hacienda) proliferated due to spread from invaders. The colonizers did not see themselves as invaders, they didn’t see the negative impacts of their actions. They only saw the resources and money to be gained. Similarly, with relationships where one partner has power (Rodolfo has power over Beatriz because of his status as a man and because of imbalanced power dynamics in relationships in the 1800’s, he has power over his sister because of his gender, he has power over his servants because of his status as a wealthy landowner and their employer) there is always someone who is being disenfranchised.
The horror in this was well done. I loved the bubbling hysteria of the house, the peals of inappropriate laughter, the sickening stomach-turning hallucinations of corpses twitching to life and skeletons buried in places they should not be.
It’s obvious that Cañas is studied in classic horror literature, I saw glimpses of Edgar Allen Poe, imprints of Rebecca It doesn’t feel cheap. It feels like a nod of appreciation, and acclimation. It feels all it’s own.
This novel is set in 1823, shortly after the Mexican War of Independence. This time period plays a role in the characters world view. Beatriz’s father was an insurgent, eventually taken and murdered in the night. Andres used the church as a means to hide himself, and to escape the treachery of war. The dread of the Inquisition hangs heavy over the characters, still a threat even in its absence.
Originally when I began reading I thought that Andres references to hiding within the walls of the church and the priesthood was due to either him being gay, or perhaps due to his not wanting to fight in the war, perhaps he was afraid of death or injury, etc. I thought it was really fun that his reasons for hiding were a bit more...spooky. This isn't much of a spoiler as it becomes evident fairly early on.
I enjoyed learning about this bit of Mexican history. It has been a long time since I read anything regarding the Mexican War of Independence and the Inquisition. The historical aspect of this work is wonderful, despite obvious embellishments as needed for the stories plot.
I saw this compared to Mexican Gothic, and that comparison rankles me. Where Mexican Gothic was crude, The Hacienda was honed. The only similarities for me are their cultural impacts, the setting and the gothic elements. The Hacienda feels like it should have the popularity that Mexican Gothic did.
The writing was a smidge heavy handed at times, but hey, I feel like I'm guilty of this myself more often than not so I'll give it a pass. The writing itself was frequently lush, sultry, divine and haunting in a way that made me both swoon and shudder at the same time. And if that isn't an accomplishment, I don't know what is. Examples of swoon and shudder worthy prose below:
The language was silky, sinuous as the copal that curled around him in thick plumes.
Candlelight danced on the high points of Andrés’s face like sunlight on water; incantations wove through the smoke with the lazy grace of a water snake.
Reliant on my uncle’s charity, on my sour aunt’s thin goodwill, I had nothing. I wore castoffs from my cousins, I was not allowed to study or go out, for fear my presence would lower the esteem of the Valenzuela name in the eyes of the other criollos and peninsulares. I was a body without a voice, a shadow melting into the walls of a too-crowded house.
This line: Our relationship was founded on one thing and one thing only: my world was a dark, windowless room, and he was a door.
combined with this line later in the story: He was Janus-faced, my husband. A creature of rage and violence on one side, a serene, gilded prince on the other.
Made my little literature loving, mythology inclined heart clap.
She looked as if she were made from expensive white sugar, the likes of which I had only ever seen in Guadalajara. Unreal as a phantom lilting pale on a riverbank. I had seen women like her in Guadalajara, pious, wealthy women with hands as soft as a lamb’s spring coat, utterly incapable of working. Such people could not survive long in the country.
Whenever it did, I was sure that his spun-sugar wife would flee back to the comforts of the capital, typhus or no.
Mamá’s family cared about limpieza de sangre,” I said, letting the spite of a long-nursed wound rake over these final words. Cleanliness of blood. The Valenzuelas cherished that poisonous criollo obsession with casta, the belief that any non-peninsular heritage spoiled what was desirable and pure. “They disowned her for marrying a mestizo.”...more
The premise is this: We're in a haunted mock-Ikea like store called ORSK. The morning shift keep coming There is no denying that this is a weird one.
The premise is this: We're in a haunted mock-Ikea like store called ORSK. The morning shift keep coming into find the store disheveled and they blame evening shift ( I enjoyed this bit because this is so true to life in all professions, morning shift and evening shift frequently blame each other or leave work for the following shift). The day shift begins to think something weird is going on, so the manager Basil (i just love this name) decides to recruit two of his trusty employees to do a sting overnight. But his trusty picks flake on him and so he picks Amy (who kind of hates him and wants to transfer to a different store) and Ruth Ann who is old and doesn't have any friends outside of work, because work is her life. From here the story gets progressively weirder.
However, it starts off pretty mundane and I thought the opening was the strongest. I liked the glimpse into the life of retail workers, the satirical approach to consumerism and work culture. The mundanity was interesting, and this prospect of supernatural happenings was intriguing, but I didn't like the direction Grady took in the end. I liked the idea of exploring consumerism and work culture through horror, but the way Grady approached it was a bit too weird for me.
There were moments that made me chuckle. I didn't like the middle, but I thought it came back together in the end. The characters were interesting but felt shallow and lacking, partially due to us mostly experiencing things through Amy's perspective.
I listened to the audiobook, and while I didn't hate it, it has some problems. The in between bits narrating the different aspects of the furniture on display wasn't informative for the context of the story. I understand that in the physical copy it does help with understanding the elements of the furniture in relation to the story, but I just didn't care.
Grady Hendrix has a unique style that differentiates him from others in the genre. His writing style is distinct. I like his later works, especially The Southern Book Club's Guide to Slaying Vampires, but Horrorstor is a mixed bag. I wouldn't read it again, but I'm not mad that I picked it up....more
The Pickwick Papers is the first published work by Charles Dickens. Its' success skyrocketed Dickens to the forefront of English Literature at a time The Pickwick Papers is the first published work by Charles Dickens. Its' success skyrocketed Dickens to the forefront of English Literature at a time when England was hungry for new authors. It was originally serialized as monthly installments, with the first coming out in March of 1836, and the last completing in late 1837.
At the time of publication society in England was at a bit of an intellectual impasse, they wanted new literature, but they weren’t quite ready for anything difficult, they wanted something comforting and relatable, hence the decision made by publishers to create a monthly serial of stories surrounding a “nimrod” gentlemen's club in England. It would be something to look forward to, something that readers would relish returning to. But with that being said, Dickens had to be careful to slip in his on political and social agenda without overwhelming the reader (Especially in the beginning stages, as new readers are typically as fickle as newborn babies). Later, with his readers trust cemented, Dickens could more brashly dip his toes into subjects that deeply distressed him
Dickens didn’t dream of The Pickwick Papers being a novel until the work was well under way, and as such the beginning half of the work reads as a miscellany of non linear stories. It isn’t until halfway when Dickens finally begins to thread together a tale with a common event - Bardell v. Pickwick.
This is a work that wears many hats. It is at times a farce, a comedy, a satire, a scathing reproach of english ideals, a drama, a love story (in as much as a love story can be written by an inexperienced young man), a gentleman’s club, a coming of age story, an adventure, a supernatural ghost story, a fantasy, a philosophical ramble and a fever dream. Dickens tries them all on, and interchanges them as he likes. He tries on different motifs and twists them to his will, endlessly surprising readers of old and of new. This was a great beginning for Dickens because it allowed him to try on various styles, themes and genres, often at the same time. We could begin a chapter on a note of innocent farce and end on a note of humble introspection. TPWP was where he found himself as a writer, what worked and didn't work.
The Pickwick Papers was originally presented as an archive of actual stories from an actual club, edited by a narrator named Boz (a pen name chosen by Dickens, and first used in his “Sketches by Boz” that originally turned the progenitors of TPWP to Dickens). Englanders were enticed by these seemingly ~real~ fictional events. The mystique behind what was true and what was false allowed Dickens to really satirize his readers without causing offense, instead it incited a desire for change.
In fact, many things did change from the time of the first chapters publication to the last chapters culmination. We get the beginnings here of things we come now to recognize as “Dickensian”; Ie, a focus on social injustices through satire and other lenses, the horror of debtors prisons (look up Marshalsea & The Fleet if you want a deep dive into this), and the incongruous nature of the legal system. All of these topics come up again at some point in his other works.
We also get to see inklings of his works to come, such as a chapter so similar to A Christmas Carol and his other Christmas works that I hesitate to reveal much (i’ll just say that if you’re in a Christmas mood, please return to chapter 27 & 28). We get to see phrases that we associate now with Dickens such as “humbug”used as an insult to Mr. Pickwick in chapter one.
Many of the events in TPWP were influenced by Dickens on life. His time growing up in a debtors prison reflects Pickwick's experience in The Fleet Prison. We see a lot of Dickens in his characters, chiefly in Pickwick, the perpetual recorder– Dickens spent most of his own early life as a journalist recording other people's adventures (And oftener misadventures.) These experiences shaped him and culminated in his fierce reprisal towards social injustices.
There is a reason Dickens and Pickwick are still celebrated today. TPWP is an honest look at 1800’s England, a study of both culture, landscapes and history. Many of the jokes within are lost on readers today, and require the use of footnotes, but at the time they were both amusing as they were intelligent.
Though a success, it had its struggles: The original illustrator killed himself, the replacement illustrator had production issues, a death in Dickens' family delayed publication and sales diminished during these hardships.
In the introduction to my edition of The Pickwick Papers, the editor calls it a "messy masterpiece" and I think I have to agree with that statement. Like many early successes, Dickens came to regret the cult following TPWP gained in England, as he had long since moved on to more thematically deep and structurally sound works. TPWP felt immature to him in comparison. As such, in subsequent editions Dickens made copious changes and added to his ever growing list of errata. In my edition, many of Dickens' errata have been reverted.
Conclusion For my own experience, I have to admit that I at times felt like reading this was a slog. But I lend that more to the speed at which i read it, compared to the speed that I should have read it. I would recommend taking your time reading this one, and if possible reading it along the original publication schedule. The pacing can be inconsistent, and especially in the beginning the chapters can feel disjointed. Certain characters all but disappear, possibly due to Dickens' losing interest (Where exactly did Tupman and Snodgrass get off to?)
Women were only in the book as objects of romantic conquest and seemed to do little more than look pretty and faint frequently. Though, I do have to admit to having a guilty pleasure for jokes about predatory widows now thanks to Mr. Weller.
At the same time, I did find this to become a cozy read, and I was sad to close it when it was over. I spent many a cozy evening falling asleep with TPWP in my hands. I did enjoy these characters and their ridiculous antics, and this window into 1800 England felt like stepping through to another world. Dickens is masterful at turning motifs upside down and his fantastical chapters were my favorite (see chapters 14, 22, 28, 48). If you want to read about chairs turning into men, goblins chastising drunks in cemeteries, and old mail carts coming alive at night, look no further than these chapters. I genuinely laughed out loud in almost every chapter at some shenanigan or other, and for that I really have to commend Dickens.
And as Pickwick says at the end, reflecting both the author and the readers thoughts: "I shall never regret having devoted the greater part of two years to mixing with different varieties and shades of human character, frivolous as my pursuit of novelty may have appeared to many."
"Let us leave our old friend in one of those moments of unmixed happiness, of which, if we seek them, there are ever some to cheer our transitory existence here. There are dark shadows on the earth, but its lights are stronger in the contrast. Some men, like bats or owls, have better eyes for the darkness than for the light; we, who have no such optical powers, are better pleased to take our last parting look at the visionary companions of many solitary hours, when the brief sunshine of the world is blazing full upon them."
"It is the fate of most men who mingle with the world and attain even the prime of life, to make many real friends, and lose them in the course of nature. It is the fate of all authors or chroniclers to create imaginary friends, and lose them in the course of art."
This is my first time reading anything by Tolstoy, and so I was hesitant, afraid it would be too dense or difficult to parse through. That wasn’t the This is my first time reading anything by Tolstoy, and so I was hesitant, afraid it would be too dense or difficult to parse through. That wasn’t the case. Childhood, Boyhood, Youth is easy to read, the prose is rich and in some places comforting. Despite being written over one hundred and fifty years ago, it is remarkably relatable. This novel deals with issues of identity, spirituality, emotions, sexuality, classism, poverty and gender roles in 1800’s Russian society.
Childhood, Boyhood, Youth was the first work written by Tolstoy, and as a result it is flawed, but it is also beautiful. Each part was written about different stages of life, and was intended to culminate in the fourth movement Manhood. Unfortunately, the tetralogy was left unfinished, and so the impact of the story as whole is less effective. As a result, CBY is best dissected as a study of its parts, and not as the sum of its parts. For me, I found Boyhood to be the most well written, with Childhood coming in second, and Youth in a very firm last. CBY is a study of memories, emotions and identity that leave the reader with a sense they are watching the narrator grow up. It recalls images of our own childhoods, and the events that shaped us into who we are now.
First works are always interesting to read, because it shows you the authors roots, their beginnings, and with Tolstoy this is no difference. Already at this early stage in his career, it is clear he is a talented writer, but not yet adept at plot and characterization (Especially with his female characters). In some parts it feels clumsy, especially when the first person narration suddenly shifts without preamble –or arguably, necessity. As I have not read any other Tolstoy, I can’t compare this (yet) to his later works.
In this novel, we are following Nikolay Irtenev as he grows up in Russia. This story is mostly fiction, but it is heavily influenced by Tolstoy’s own life, and it’s hard to tell how much of what Nikolay experience is fiction and truth. Many of the characters share names of Tolstoy’s family members and friends. The narrator, Nikolay, is one of Tolstoy’s brothers names.
Tolstoy structured all three parts with brief chapters, leaving little pockets of memories for us to reflect on. It leaves the reader with the sense that they are peering into the narrators past, looking in on crucial moments that shaped him. Why is the narrator the way he is? Well, Tolstoy lays it all out on the page for us. It felt somewhat like that scene in Harry Potter and The Half-blood Prince when Harry uses the pensieve to view Dumbledore & Snape’s memories. (Yes, I can relate everything back to HP, it’s a problem I have)
Nikolay in childhood is curious, imaginative. Nikolay in boyhood is labile, anxious, and confused. Nikolay in youth is... well... prideful, pompous, and totally lost, whether he recognizes it or not. While it makes for a difficult read, weren’t most of us like this as we were young? Don’t we all look back on our past selves and think, ‘goodness, what was I thinking? Why did I act that way?’ Haven’t we all at one point or another wanted to reclaim that childhood innocence we once had?
CBY stands the test of time because the issues Nikolay faces –– identity, classism, gender roles, sexuality, parental expectations –– are all relatable today. Many of the situations he ends up in made me recall something similar from my own past. It’s remarkable to me that Tolstoy found a way for readers to find common ground with him, despite the barriers of time and culture.
While I had some issues with CBY, it gets a lot of things right.
What Tolstoy gets right with this first work is a depth of character emotions, that while frustrating, feel real, and relatable despite the passage of time. Nikolay may not always make sound choices, but his emotional response is written with a fresh honesty. Tolstoy doesn’t sugar coat Nikolay’s actions, he doesn’t force readers to like Nikolay. And for the most part, I didn’t like Nikolay, and I’m okay with that. He felt real because of his flaws. However, with a coming of age novel it helps to have a character with some redeeming factors... and Nikolay didn’t have any of that for me. I think that if he had finished the series, perhaps Nikolay would have been redeemed, but as for the ending of youth? We see none of that character progression. It feels regressive.
Overall, I enjoyed my reading of this novel. I enjoyed Childhood and Boyhood far more than Youth, and I wish that the series had been completed. I do think this is a valuable look at a writers beginning, especially for those interested in Tolstoy. As for me, I am reading through all of Tolstoy’s works, and starting with his humble beginnings will hopefully make my experience reading his greater works (War and Peace & Anna Karenina) more powerful. However, I don’t think this is a novel I would read again.
Last Note: One can glean some insight into how Manhood may have ended, by looking at Tolstoy’s own life. After failing at University, Tolstoy gets his life together, begins writing, and becomes a success. A similar fate may have been meant for Nikolay.
Chopin was alienated for writing this. She was a pariah. The book was burned, it was taboo, it was sin. Chopin published it anyway. She was a widow, wiChopin was alienated for writing this. She was a pariah. The book was burned, it was taboo, it was sin. Chopin published it anyway. She was a widow, with children, and her options for making money were limited. She tried her hand at writing.
And she failed. And in her failure, a depression rose that according to some, killed her. But now, as is often the case, the story is taught in schools, is referenced in literature, is revered– but just as often, it is still hated.
I love a polarizing read!
The Awakening contains: Brave depictions of female sexuality & desire (in 1899!!!)
A journey to self discovery and defying social norms and gender roles.
Lush, melancholy and sensuous descriptions of Southern Louisiana! — I’ve never considered visiting, but reading this story has sparked a desire in me to take a little coastal Louisiana road trip.
The Awakening begins with glimmers of marital distaste:
"He reproached his wife with her inattention, her habitual neglect of the children. If it was not a mother’s place to look after children, whose on earth was it? He himself had his hands full with his brokerage business. He could not be in two places at once; making a living for his family on the street, and staying at home to see that no harm befell them. He talked in a monotonous, insistent way."
With moments like these, it is easy to see why Edna Pontellier and her husband are not happily married.
“She’s got some sort of notion in her head concerning the eternal rights of women; and-you understand-we meet in the morning at the breakfast table.”
The thing you must keep in mind while reading this is that it was published in 1899. 1899!
Divorce was not feasible then. Infidelity was a different beast then than it is now.
I did some research, because what is a reader without diving down deep rabbit holes and learning obscure facts about far flung topics.
At the time, Louisiana was predominantly Catholic. According to the catechisms, divorce is a sin that defies the natural order. At that time, divorce was so rare that it was almost myth. If someone did obtain a divorce, they would not be able to remarry under the catholic church.
And even if divorce was obtained, what was a woman to do? She would likely be shunned by society. Prostitution is an option, but that leads to even more shame. Would she be able to even see her children? Her children would be social pariahs, born of a woman that had both disavowed social norms and taken up with what would easily be perceived as unforgivable sin.
Women had few options.
Marriage was hardly a choice. You must marry, and for the most part, you married young. Before you really knew the world, before you really knew yourself. This is what happens to Edna Pontellier.
Chopin herself recognizes this when she writes:
"The trouble is,” sighed the Doctor, grasping her meaning intuitively, “that youth is given up to illusions. It seems to be a provision of Nature; a decoy to secure mothers for the race. And Nature takes no account of moral consequences, of arbitrary conditions which we create, and which we feel obliged to maintain at any cost.”
The entire novel is about the social, religious and moral shackles that society had placed on women. Edna turns twenty eight during the course of this novel. She finds herself questioning everything, her role, her dissatisfaction with her marriage, her guilt over not enjoying motherhoods responsibilities, her desire to be alone, to be free— to have her own life, her own desires, her own ambitions, outside of motherhood and being a housewife.
"She thought of Leonce and the children. They were a part of her life. But they need not have thought that they could possess her, body and soul."
The desire to be alone, to forge your own path, is an important theme in the Awakening. Edna struggles to reconcile this desire with her identity as a mother and wife, but ultimately, her true inner self becomes her guiding force. She does what she wants, when she wants. She loves who she loves.
"Why,” went on Edna, clasping her knees and looking up into Mademoiselle’s twisted face, “do you suppose a woman knows why she loves? Does she select? Does she say to herself: ‘Go to! Here is a distinguished statesman with presidential possibilities; I shall proceed to fall in love with him.’ Or, ‘I shall set my heart upon this musician, whose fame is on every tongue?’ Or, ‘This financier, who controls the world’s money markets?’
But no sojourn for self discovery is free of mistakes... and bad decisions.
Edna makes a lot of mistakes. She falls helplessly in love with a man she is not married to. A man that deserts her, because goodness do the men think they can make all the decisions for Edna. Even Robert does not grant Edna the opportunity for agency.
Then comes Alcee Arobin, a man that Edna feels lust for, but not love.
Bodily Autonomy is a theme here as well, with Edna finding her way towards making decisions with her body. She is able to take agency over her body and fate, and escape the oppression that hounded her.
The other thing to keep in mind while reading this is that: Chopin is not writing any of these characters to divine sympathy. I don't feel we are supposed to be sympathetic to any of them. I've seen a lot of reviews complaining about how selfish and unlikable Edna is. FINE, but an unlikeable narrator does not make an unlikeable story. Perhaps we should despise the social systems that cause women like Edna to have been placed in these positions. And while we are at it, Edna's decision in the end seems rather selfless to me. It saves her children from scandal, and provides the illusion that it could have been accidental. Is this choice a kindness, or is it an injury? I don't know. Chopin gives us morally grey characters and situations to ponder over.
It is not surprising that this book was reviled in 1899. It was everything that Catholic Louisiana society hated: Scandal, female agency, brazen descriptions of a woman's sexuality. And it is no wonder it is still despised by some today: A woman who shows little love towards her children is hard to stomach. But I ask, where is the same hatred towards her husband? Because he often neglects his family as well. He treats them as something to be possessed. Not something to be loved.
I love literature like this. For me, The Awakening stands with Charlotte Perkins Gilman's novella The Yellow Wall-paper and Other Stories, and Shirley Jackson's novel The Haunting of Hill House. It is another example of great literature with feminist leanings, but it also speaks of madness: Is Edna mad because she doesn't conform to society? Or if society mad for shackling her to oppressive expectations? Does her society cause her to become mad? OR, is she saner then she ever was?
Another classic I missed in school down! ✅ Though, I have to admit, I don’t think I would have enjoyed or appreciated this as a sophomore in high school. Sometimes, missing out on a book for a time is a small mercy....more
Our actions belong to us until they are past, and then they belong to history, shaping the present.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive insaOur actions belong to us until they are past, and then they belong to history, shaping the present.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first drive insane.
From the introduction by Amy Mandelker -- "What was the book about? Was it a historical novel about the Napoleonic invasion of Russia? Was it a family chronicle about the Rostovs and Bolkonskys? Was it a social satire? A standard critical line emerged that divided War and Peace into three separate components – a philosophical essay, a family chronicle, and a historical novel about the Napoleonic wars." It is all of these things and more, and I would even argue as Henry James said, that it was a "loose, baggy monster." James meant that as an insult, but I honestly think it fits in the best way. This is a monster, its loose and fluid and Tolstoy flows from character to character, stringing along the threads of fate in a way that feels loose, but not FIXED. Not forced. Everything feels as if it was meant to be. It could not have been otherwise. History is a monster. Fate can be monstrous.
It's very hard to write a concise review for such an impactful novel, so I'm not even going to try. This is going to be a loose baggy monster of a review and I'm not even sorry about it. I just want to get my thoughts on the page.
Read War and Peace for yourself, and you will probably find yourself in similar straits.
The thing about this behemoth work is that it makes the reader contemplate everything that matters.
Life and death, predetermination and free will, history and theater, love and loss, grief and trauma, hatred and brotherhood. This book encomposses so many different facets of our world and is still relevant today, in 2021, hundreds of years after publication. This reading experience has been such a whirlwind of emotions. I’ve felt affection, fear and awe. It was breathtaking. This book is life changing.
I am so glad and proud that I read this, and I am shocked that I loved it as much as I did. The writing is gorgeous and lush, and there is theatre in all of the minute moments of life. There is peace in war, there is war in peace. Tolstoy writes love as a battlefield and the battlefield as a reprieve from daily life.
I loved ~most~ of the characters, Natasha, Andrei and Pierre, Petya and Ilya. Nikolai was my least favorite main character, but Pierre was surprisingly my least favorite to read about (Though I did like his character, I just found his chapters to be somewhat boring at times). I loved the different shades of morality Tolstoy plays with. All of the characters follow similar cyclic journeys, continually falling back into the same patterns, much in the way we do in real life. Humans are fallible and forgetful and preternaturally inquisitive. The questions of morality, fate, life and death are ever present. Sometimes the answer is religion and sometimes it is not. Sometimes people put their faith in false idols and historical figures. Sometimes we fall apart and come back together, as do the beautifully complex characters in this work.
In particular, Natasha's character arc is so transformative in that she mirrors the same rise and fall and ultimate rebirth of Russia in the wake of the napoleonic wars. She is endlessly romantic and driven by her emotions and her childhood naivety. She loses her light and then finds it again.
I loved the way that Tolstoy describes Moscow before the war, during the french occupation, and after the burning and abandonment of Moscow. I loved the high society ballroom scenes in Petersburg and comparing those to bivouacking scenes in the sea of cannon fire.
I feel like I’ve learned so much about history while reading this work, and I feel enriched by it.
I loved the diversity and emersion of language and culture in this work, the importance of the french language and the change in russian attitudes towards french ideals. At first they admire the french, mimicking their fashion, only speaking their language, honoring Napoleon's genius. Later they abhor everything, and those found speaking french are thought to be traitors and are condemned. Despite all this, I loved seeing the way Tolstoy showed that despite the war, despite the killing, both sides are brothers, fellow humans.
The only thing I really did not like was the second epilogue. The first epilogue was a beautiful portrait of family life, and I loved ending with Andrei’s sons own battle with fate and freedom. I wish that had been the true ending - not the second epilogue.
Quotes that I adored (AKA the part where i highlighted the whole book)
From book 2 part 5 chapter 22: “It seemed to her that everything that had once been, must now be different.”
‘Consider me your friend and if you want help, advice, or simply to open your heart to someone–not now but when your mind is clearer–– think of me!’ He took her hand and kissed it ‘I shall be happy if it’s in my power...’
‘Stop, stop! You have your whole life before you,’ said he to her.
‘Before me? No! All is over for me,’ she replied with shame and self-abasement.
‘All over? he repeated. ‘If I were not myself, but the handsomest, cleverest, and best man in the world, and were free, I would this moment ask on my knees for your hand and your love!
I never leave off loving you. And one couldn't love more, but this is something special . . .
“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
“The whole world is divided for me into two parts: one is she, and there is all happiness, hope, light; the other is where she is not, and there is dejection and darkness...”
“Everything I know, I know because of love.”
“Speech is silver but silence is golden.”
“the same question arose in every soul: "For what, for whom, must I kill and be killed?"
“Life is too long to say anything definitely; always say perhaps.”
“Though the doctors treated him, let his blood, and gave him medications to drink, he nevertheless recovered." (I loved seeing how much tolstoy really didn't trust medicine, to him everything only needed a spiritual cure)
“When a man sees a dying animal, horror comes over him: that which he himself is, his essence, is obviously being annihilated before his eyes--is ceasing to be. But when the dying one is a person, and a beloved person, then, besides a sense of horror at the annihilation of life, there is a feeling of severance and a spiritual wound which, like a physical wound, sometimes kills and sometimes heals, but always hurts and fears any external, irritating touch.”
“He felt like a man who, after straining his eyes to peer into the remote distance, finds what he was seeking at his very feet. All his life he had been looking over the heads of those around him, while he had only to look before him without straining his eyes."
“Looking into Napoleon's eyes, Prince Andrei thought about the insignificance of grandeur, about the insignificance of life, the meaning of which no one could understand, and about the still greater insignificance of death, the meaning of which no one among the living could understand or explain.”...more
One of my all time favorites to read after Christmas, in anticipation of the New Year. A Doll's House is as transformative, empowering and relevant toOne of my all time favorites to read after Christmas, in anticipation of the New Year. A Doll's House is as transformative, empowering and relevant today as it was in 1879....more
Note: this review is disordered and long, my love for this novel couldn't be contai"The course of true love never did run true." - William Shakespeare
Note: this review is disordered and long, my love for this novel couldn't be contained in a few measly words. I guess you could say I gave this review the Miss Bates treatment. For the sake of clarity, I believe this to be a satirical commentary on marital obligation, gender roles and class expectations with the added bonus of a delightful regency romance and coming of age tossed in for good measure.
Emma is the story of a willfully ignorant woman, Emma Woodhouse. She has been raised to be prideful and to be in charge of her own desires. She has not been made to submit to anyone, or any man. She is rich, elegant and has control of her own fortune and future. Unlike most Austen heroines, Emma is not besotted with the inevitable fate of making a match to secure her fortune – her fortune and social status have been secured by the simple act of her birth.
Emma is comedy of errors (or of manners, the definition is trivial), centered around Emma's frequently well intended, but often ill advised, attempts to matchmake those around her. She is raw and messy and forever meddling into the lives of her friends in Highbury, with all the goodwill of securing felicitous – and of course advantageous – matches for her female friends. In short, Emma is kind of a brat, but she is a FUN brat. Emma jumps from one conclusion to another and molds her interactions to fit what ever match she has decided is FATED to happen. Her friends will fall in love, and she will make it so! When Emma is oblivious to the reality of things, Knightley swoops in and drags Emma back down to earth. Knightly is the voice of reason, and Emma is the voice of delusion. Austen also uses Knightley as a herald of things to come. His observations often serve as foreshadowing, so when he clues Emma into something he's observed, readers can be sure to take note.
She is unique in that despite the regency period which she lives, she feels no obligation to marry for advancement, or even the inclination to marry for love. As an Austen character she is even more singular; She has no impending fate of becoming a governess, of being ripped from her ancestral home, or of marital obligation. Jane Fairfax is the quintessential Austen heroine and a foil for Emma. Jane is essentially destitute, destined to become a governess shant she marry a rich man in want of a wife soon. Where Jane is standoffish and Cold, Emma is loud and warm, bubbling with her approbation, FREQUENTLY when she doesn't really mean it. Where as Jane appears to readers as real, Emma reads as fake and two faced. In the end, this is reversed when we realizes Jane was hiding all along the reality of her situation and her feelings, where as Emma was always honest with herself – Except when it comes to Mr. Knightley. So why do readers continue to dislike Emma, but revere Jane?
Emma appears to be widely disliked despite the fact her personality is realistic for a 20 something rich, undoubtedly sheltered woman devoted to her eccentric father. As a reader, this garners my sympathy. She has been made what she is, and through the course of the novel she overcomes her pride and her preconceived notions.
Furthermore, Emma displays character traits similar to one of Austen's most beloved heroines, Elizabeth Bennett. Elizabeth is praised for her individuality and disposition towards marriage, but Emma is mocked. This disparity in reverence surprises me. Austen took a heroine in which no one but herself would like. Well, I seem to like her just fine. I enjoy reading a flawed character who grows. Emma redeems herself in the end.
This theme of redemption and of coming into one's own follows through the course of the novel with many of the characters, not just Emma. Harriet Smith finally learns to listen to her own desires, and stops caring for the opinions of others. Frank apologizes for his pretty, empty words and redeems himself with his actions.
Harriet is of unknown birth but most likely the illegitimate child of some one or other. Regardless, Emma focuses on her likely high birth and wishes to increase her social standing DESPITE her low rank and uncertain birth. Emma is quick to overlook Harriet's place in society but so QUICK to judge Robert Martin. Emma is a feminist novel in a time where other novelists wrote primarily of the marriage plot in relation to the expectations of class. Emma shirks those rules and argues that marrying above your class IS possible – As long as this doesn’t apply to Mr. Knightley. This seems odd and inconsistent until we realize that Emma simply doesn’t want Mr. Knightley to marry anyone –– but her.
The romance is swoon worthy. Something about the whole friends to lovers plot device gets me every time. Knightley and Emma's dynamic was satisfying and exciting. He is a man of action, unlike Frank Churchill who sits on pretty words. Knightley even goes so far as to forsake Donwell Abbey and move into Emma's ancestral home, Hartfield, so that she will not have to leave her self proclaimed invalid father. This reversion of gender roles and expectations was something I did not expect to find in a novel written during this time period.
Emma is rife with witty insights and is even more delectable upon a second read through, when you are already aware of how things will end. The effort that Austen went through the sprinkle in hints of romances and deceits is delicious. From the charades that Elton gives Emma, to the puzzles and conundrums that they engage in while at Boxhill and other engagements, Austen gives us much to muse over. In a way, Emma is set up as a mystery, and that's one of the reasons this novel engaged me so much. It was thrilling to pick up on the little hints that Emma so easily breezed by or completely misunderstood.
HIGHLIGHTS: Mr. Woodhouse as comic relief – his inane fear of the damp and travel, his odd whimsy and his hypochondriac tendencies. My favorite scenes involved Mr. Woodhouse. He did not fail to make me laugh. Mr. Perry’s word is as good as gold, yet we never hear first hand from the man.
This is a skillful urban gothic tale, imbued with suspense and misdirection, set in the bleak backdrop of London. This is one of the first gothic workThis is a skillful urban gothic tale, imbued with suspense and misdirection, set in the bleak backdrop of London. This is one of the first gothic works set in an urban setting; its perpetually fog-covered London backdrop set the stage for writers like Oscar Wilde and Arthur Conan Doyle It also influenced early science fiction writers like H.G Wells.
Modern readers think they know the story of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, and while the twist is widely known to those that haven't actually read the story, the mechanics of the work are not. Because I knew the twist, I wasn't sure if I would enjoy the story: I was wrong. If you haven't read Stevenson's strange case because of similar fears, put those fears to bed and sit up with Jekyll and Hyde. This story is short but powerful, a tale that you can finish in an hour but hold with you for a lifetime.
Plot The story is told through the eyes of the lawyer, Mr. Utterson. His good friend, the upstanding Dr. Jekyll has entrusted him with his will. Mr. Utterson is baffled that Jekyll has left all of his fortune and belongings to a mysterious Mr. Hyde. While this at first bothers Mr. Utterson due to the strangeness of the request, his suspicions become enflamed when he learns more about the character of Mr. Hyde.
It offended him both as a lawyer and as a lover of the sane and customary sides of life. It was worse when it began to be clothed with detstable attributes; and out of the shifting, insubstantial mists that had so long baffled his eye, there leaped up the sudden, definite presentment of a fiend."
The more he learns, the more he becomes wrapped up in saving Jekyll's reputation, and ousting Hyde from his life. These suspicions and secrets lead to a revelation that shocked and chilled its first readers.
The story is told through various testimonies from ancillary characters that have observed Mr. Hyde's wrongdoings. Utterson takes all of these testimonies as truth. I liked that Stevenson approached the story this way, as it added a layer of mystery to Hyde, making him almost a creature of legend, echoing what he has become in not only the literary canon, but the worlds subconscious as a whole. Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde have tendrils that far reach the bounds of literature; the story effected and changed how psychology was viewed, how morality could be explained. The us vs them became the us versus ourselves. Inner and outer worlds collided. Stevenson did what all great literature has the power to do: he made his audience challenge their entire world view: what was true and what was not? Could the kindly doctor also hide within a darkness, a malice and disregard so strong it could burn everything it touched? And if this was true, what does that say about everyone else?
Character Utterson reminded me a lot of Lockwood from Wuthering Heights. Both characters operate as outsiders, inserting themselves into the story. When the story is at a close, you don't remember these characters, you remember their obsession.
We all know by now that Jekyll & Hyde are one and the same, representing good and evil. The problem with this, as Stevenson teases out through the narrative, is that one person cannot be all good and all evil. You cannot separate those two warring parts of the self (as Jekyll tried to do). A person can be a mixture of both, and ignoring this is detrimental. There is also a moral lesson in this, in that giving yourself up to darkness, to ill morality, leads to ruination of the soul.
Quotes/Idiosyncrasies/Misc
"Is it the mere radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent. The last, I think; for O my poor old Henry Jekyll, if ever I read Satan's signature upon a face, it is on that of your new friend."
"my mind misgives me he is in deep waters!" what I would GIVE to use this as an epigraph one day. I have a document of quotes for just such an occasion, and this one makes the cut.
"Ay, I must put my shoulder to the wheel– if Jekyll will but let me,"
"It was a wild, cold, seasonable night of March, with a pale moon, lying on her back as though the wind had tilted her, and a flying wrack of the most diaphanous and lawny texture."
"Ah, it's an ill-conscience that's such an enemy to rest!" An interesting revelation, but true all the same.
If you like witticism and cutting remarks, Stevenson is fluent in this language: "about as emotional as a bagpipe"
This is the apotheosis of the work, the quote that lends both irony and foreshadowing to the story, for it is a lie. None of them hold this as a rule, unless it is a rule that is meant to be broken. Curiosity is dangerous. The first question of the story sets the motion of the plot. "You start a question, and it's like starting a stone. You sit quietly on top of a hill; and away the stones goes, starting others; and presently some bland old bird (the last you would have thought of) is knocked on the head in his own back garden and the family have to change their name. No sir, I make it a rule of mine: the more it looks like Queer Street, the less I ask."
Conclusion All of this is is to say– Is the case of Jekyll & Hyde so strange? The method (the powders, the scientific reaction) is strange, but the case itself is not. Good people hide dark things, everyone has secrets, and not everyone has the best intentions. Stevenson's tale illuminates the darkness hiding in the most unlikely places. This is a classic battle between good and evil, a parable as old as the story of Genesis, reaching forward in time, to the labyrinthine streets of London, wreaking havoc on readers in a bygone era, and wreaking still more havoc on readers today.
Stevensons work is valuable to me because these characters and this story changed the fabric of the traditional gothic story, it began asking questions of psychology and morality that needed to be considered, and it did all of this while spinning a yarn that is as tantalizing as it is mesmerizing.
Sometimes I read a work that makes me feel like the author must have been under the influence of some kind of magic, this is one of them....more
Loading...
