Tag Archives: Read Along

War and Peace: Check-In #2

February is over, which means it is time for another check in for Amy and my War and Peace Read Along.

warandpeace2013

Amy shared her thoughts earlier this week. And you can find the Mr. Linky to link to your own thoughts over there as well.

How are all of you doing? Are you still reading along? Are you still enjoying it, or has your enjoyment of this second part been less?

I admit I skimmed through most of the posts for this month, because I am not quite done with part II. I have 40 pages left. I am having a lot of trouble concentrating on this second part. Well, it’s not that I’m fighting against the will to put the book down. I am still interested, but I do not find it as captivating as the first part we read. I think there are three reasons:

The first is that I read the first part in one go, somewhere at the halfway point of January. By the time I was halfway through, the story had sucked me in and I really wanted to keep on reading. It was with difficulty that I put the book down by the end of part I. But then, I failed to pick it up again until a few days ago. All of the urgency I felt in the middle of January was gone. Worse, I had forgotten who most of these characters were and how they were related to one another. I am not sure if I have that all figured out still. Jason was good enough to point out that the who-is-who does not always matter so much, so I am trying not to worry about it. I tried googling some of the characters, but unfortunately found out some major spoilers, so I wouldn’t recommend that to anyone.

The second reason has to do with the battle scenes that are a heavy theme in this part of the book. I rather enjoyed witnessing the decisive chaos of the battle field, for all too often you imagine war as a planned endeavour. However, battle scenes in themselves are not all that interesting to me. In movies, I usually turn my brain off until I get to the end to find out who died/was wounded. Reading War and Peace, I am confronted with the fact that I cannot apply the same tactic to this book, even though part of me wants to. I think Tolstoy meant to show us that war is about more than the casualty loss at the end, or the winners and the losers, which means that as a reader you have to witness part of this war. I don’t know, perhaps I am reading into things. Perhaps I am trying to rationalise my reactions to this second part.

The third reason was something that Amy signalled in her post, which is the fact that the parts in which war happens are very male-centred, and we lose touch with all of the female characters. It is not that I cannot feel empathy for male characters, not at all. But I do think that I implicitly, almost without thinking, feel uncomfortable about stories that are set so definitely within an often imagined as male environment, with only male characters. Something inside me just.. I don’t know.Something withdraws from these scenes, almost to keep me from engaging too much. I wonder if it’s because over the decades, so many stories about wars and battlefields are told from  a male-centred perspective, with masculine ideals, that I do not subscribe to, that I am afraid to encounter the same here? Or perhaps it is just a matter of personal taste? I clearly have not figured this out yet..

For March we are reading Book 1, Part III. For those of you reading the ebook: Part III has 19 chapters.

Do you have a particular strategy to tackle these parts? I think I might just go for the read-in-one-go again, but this time finish part II and part III at the same time. Sometimes I feel this schedule is too slow to enable thorough engagement with the book, and at others time is moving too fast to actually keep with the schedule. So perhaps I should just take them as guidelines that will keep me reading when I most feel like giving up?

War and Peace: Check-In #1


warandpeace2012

We have a button! Made by the lovely Renay, I am very excited that I now get to have this in my sidebar for the upcoming year. Edit: And there’s another button available too, made by Jason Gignac. Oooh, now I have to choose which one to use!

warandpeace2013

Amy has had a post up for a few days discussing her experience with reading the first part. She also has a Mr. Linky where you can leave links to your first check in if you happen to have written one.

So, onto the book..

I wonder who else was daunted by all the French in the first few chapters? I remember opening my book and looking at the first page, and most of my excitement to start reading left me. I am starting to get used to it now, and the footnotes at the bottom of the page work alright (although I do find it annoying at times that my edition (Pevear & Volokhonsky) only gives the translation, which means that I have to switch back and forth between the footnote and the text to see the English sentences being spoken in between). I wonder if Tolstoy was trying to scare us? No, I know he was trying to portray the upper class as it functioned at the time, with its use of French (and according to my introduction, sometimes faulty French at that). But he did almost scare me away. It is good that I had this read along to push me into reading.

I admit I was surprised by how easily readable the story proved to be once I got past the first 20 pages or so. I finished the part we set ourselves for January within a day, and I frankly had a difficult time stopping. I am sticking to the schedule, but I might want to figure out a way in which I do not delve into the story for a day before leaving it aside for another month, because it might take away from my general involvement (and understanding) of the story.

I have to admit that I find I have very little to say about this part. The thing is, we are just getting to know these families, and I feel I know too little of them yet to have an opinion. However, I do think it was interesting to see how the lives we follow intertwine (I’m sure there’s more of that to follow), and seeing politics enter the scene through discussions. I think the scene that stood out to me most during this part was the way different family members handled Pierre inheriting everything from his father, it really cast a light on domestic politics, and made me reconsider my dislike/like of some people (strange how you try to pin people in place so soon).

How are you getting along with War and Peace thus far? Are you enjoying it, or are you finding that you have to force yourself through it?

Amy posted some questions in her post that I think might be interesting to look at for further discussion:

  1. Why are you reading War & Peace?
  2. What translation are you reading? Are you reading print, ebook, or audio?
  3. So far, is it different than you expected or the same?
  4. Do you have a favorite character? (lol just asking–I feel like I barely know these people)
  5. Do you have any other predictions or expectations for the rest of the book?
  6. What was your favorite part of the first section?
  7. What do you see as the biggest obstacle to finishing?

In February we plan to read Book I, Part 2 (for those reading on an ereader: part 2 has 21 chapters). I hope you will join us :)

*Sorry about posting late, work got a little crazy for a few weeks.

A Year-Long Read Along of War & Peace

wptop

I am not exactly sure how this happened, but one day the wonderful Amy mentioned that she would love to read Tolstoy’s War and Peace in 2013 and I said that I would happily join her. Today, we are announcing it to the world and making it official: 2013 is the year in which we will read War and Peace. We plan to read an installment of around hundred pages each month, which means that by the end of the year we will have tackled this major book that I admit intimidates me a little bit.

This is the schedule Amy and I came up with (but in case you hate it, it is all my fault as I tried to design it without actually owning the book yet). It is open to renegotiation or change if we encounter problems throughout the year, but right now it looks manageable:

Book I
part 1 by 31 Jan
part 2 by 28 Feb
part 3 by 31 Mar

Book II
part 1 by 31 March
part 2 by 30 Apr
part 3 & 4 by 31 May
part 5 by 30 Jun

Book III
part 1 by 31 Jul
part 2 by 31 Aug
part 3 by 30 Sep

Book IV
part 1 & 2 by 31 Oct
part 3 & 4 by 30 Nov

Epilogue
part 1 & 2 by 31 Dec

So why am I posting this besides the fact that by going public I feel like I am truly committing myself? Well, there are two reasons:

Firstly, we would love for you to join us! The more the merrier, and most of all, by having a group of readers we could offer each other support, discuss the book, and get to know each other better. Those all sound like good reasons to join, right? (or at least I hope they are!)

Second, Amy and I are both hesitant about the choice in translation and we would love to have your input! I know that a few years ago a new translation appeared by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky, but I remember that it wasn’t received well by some of the bloggers I followed at that time. Have any of you read it, and is there a translation you would recommend?

* I stole the image Amy used in her announcement post earlier today.

Cloud Atlas Buddy Read [Sections 5 & 6]

Cloud Atlas - David MitchellAmy, Jessica, Heather and I are reading Cloud Atlas together. Since seeing the trailer for the movie (to be released in October in the US; unfortunately I found out last week it will only be released mid-November over here) I have finally found the courage to tackle this book. It had been on my to-be-read list for forever, but I always felt too intimidated by it to actually start reading. Amy expressed a similar interest, and soon we found ourselves in the company of Jessica and Heather too. I am infinitely glad to be reading Cloud Atlas together with other awesome and smart bloggers. Especially since this book lends itself for discussion and group support so well.

Jessica previously posted on the first two sections of the book (the first halves of  ”The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing” & “Letters from Zedelghem”); Amy followed with a post on sections three and four (the first halves of “Half-Lives – The First Luisa Rey Mystery” & “The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish”). I fell behind on my reading and so last Saturday found me catching up with both sections 3 and four, as well as sections five and six. I admit that this chunk of reading time devoted to the book worked really well for me. I quickly got into a rhythm and I basically couldn’t stop reading. Where the first two sections left me a little hesitant about this book, sections 3, 5, and 6 too convinced me that this book is so clever and very-near-perfect.

Below you’ll find a discussion of sections five and six, meaning the first half of “An Orison of Somni-451″ and “Sloosha’s Crossin’ an’ Ev’rythin’ After”. Warning: Spoilers throughout the parts we’ve covered of the book thus far; i.e. up to page 325. We’d prefer it if any comments left of this post won’t spoil us for what’s to come as part of the book’s strength is, I think, discovering what it is about on our own.

An Orison of Sonmi-451

Next to Luisa Rey, this may be my favourite part of the book thus far. I love how through the interview between “the Archivist” and Sonmi 451 we slowly uncover her dystopian world and the role she has in it. Plus, she’s a very sympathetic character, taking the reader on a journey from the unknown to the known, just as she goes from naive, to learned, to what I assume will result in a full-fledged social criticism.

I’m starting to appreciate the intertextuality of this work more and more. Both in how each story is referred to, and judged, in the next and in how other texts, music, and movies are cross-referenced. I especially appreciate how each section is then found in the next in some other form of “story”: a diary, letters, a manuscript for a novel, and now a movie. I admit I was intrigued by that, even more so when it comes to the form in which the Orison of Sonmi reappears. Religion as text, meaningmaking as text, it all seems very appropriate and fitting for what this book as a whole is trying to do.

Another thing that stood out to me in this section is how it discusses individuality versus “group membership”. Sonmi comes from a line of similar clones, and because “purebloods” get to think of her as only part of a group and copies of each other without a soul, they are able to oppress her. But this worldview is challenged as Sonmi gets the chance to express her individuality. Yes, very interesting, and I think a theme that recurs throughout the novel.

Sloosha’s Crossin’ an’ Ev’rythin’ After

Okay, so I think the first thing we obviously need to discuss is the accent. Did it drive anyone else insane? Admittedly, it got better with time, and I appreciate the story enough to push myself to continue reading (and even enjoy it), but for the first 10 or twenty pages I just wanted the accent to go away. I even found myself thinking that I was very tempted to skip over the whole section. Whereas I appreciate the different styles of each section, and even liked how in Sonmi’s section ex becomes x in every word which gives a distinct ring to her vocabulary, the use of distinct vocabulary in Sloosha might have been toned down to make it a little easier on the eyes. Nevertheless, I find I have so much to say about this section.

Did anyone else feel a little puzzled about at what moment in time we were supposed to be? I was wondering if perhaps we were back to a time before section 1. In the end, of course, we learn that this is a world “after the fall”, i.e. time has progressed. With this, Mitchell gives us an almost cyclical worldview (enhanced by the suggested reincarnation narratives). I felt myself to confront, the apparently still inherent, supposition that as times move forward we do, i.e. “civilisation” does. Very well done, Mitchell. Even if it leaves me a little ashamed of my own hidden suppositions.

I also appreciated how this section again confronted collectivity vs. individuality, and the predicates of “civilised” vs. “savage”, “smart” vs. “nature”, etcetera. At the very end, for example, in the following discussion:

Questions was mozzyin’ me plaguesome. The fires o’ the Valleysmen an’ Prescients both are snuffed tonight, I speaked, so don’t that proof savages are stronger’n civ’lized people?

It ain’t savages what are stronger’n civ’lizeds, Meronym reck’ned, it’s big numbers what’re stronger’n small numbers. Smart gived us a plus back at Slopin’ Pond, but with ’nuff hands’n'minds that plus’ll be zeroed one day.

(…)

So, I asked ‘gain, is it better to be savage’n to be Civ’lized?

List’n, savages an’ Civ’lizeds ain’t divvied by tribes or b’liefs or mountain ranges nay, ev’ry human is both, yay. Old’uns’d got the Smart o’ gods but the savagery o’ jackals an’ that’s what tripped the Fall. Some savages what I knowed got a beautsome Civ’lized heart beatin’ in their ribs. Maybe some Kona. Not ’nuff to say-so their hole tribe, but who knows one day? One day.

I especially appreciated how Sloosha’s section intertwined the ideas of anthropology, knowledge of other people, making that knowledge available in a language these people cannot read themselves, and the intertwinement with colonisation and power. This to me adds to the cyclical feel of the story as Adam Ewing’s story is also one that confronts colonisation and “savageness” vs. “civilisation” narratives.

Was anyone surprised by what form Sonmi’s story took in this story? The form of belief for Zachry, the form of recorded life-narrative for Meronym. Very interesting. The first time I heard Zachry mention Sonmi as his God, I instantly thought of Sonmi 451, but I was never quite sure if we were meant to understand it as such before it was explained.

General Observations

Dis anyone go into section 6 thinking that now, finally, everything become clear? I kind of did. Of course, that hope was futile, but I did feel that so many lines came together in this section (though I’m still not sure how exactly they’re supposed to fit together).

So.. Cloud Atlas appeared in Sloosha’s Crossing:

“Souls cross the skies o’ time, Abbess’d say, like clouds crossin’ skies o’the world. Sonmi’s the east’n'west, Sonmi’s the map an’ the edges o’the map an’ býonder the edges.”

Another reincarnation hint, right?

I’d love to see some sort of table on who is reincarnated as who. We know that Frobisher, Luisa, Sonmi and Meronym share a birthmark. Is there anyone I missed (as there are 2 more sections I’m sure to have missed someone)? Are they really the same people? For I feel they develop as well (though I did feel a certain sympathy between the three ladies, but perhaps that’s my own reading-into-things). Also, I’m wondering if any of the other characters are somehow each other? How do we find out/are we supposed to find out/am I reading too much into this?

Generally, I think you can say this book scetches a pretty pessimist worldview of our life’s now, and historically. Power and domination, oppression and violence all play a big part in this story. And you just know that Meronym as quoted above “Old’uns’d got the Smart o’ gods but the savagery o’ jackals an’ that’s what tripped the Fall.” is talking about us. I also wonder if there’s environmental criticism in there, with the nuclear power plant, and the lands that are dead in the times of Sonmi and Zachry?

Now that we know how the stories relate to each other, each section finding the other “text” and commenting on it, I’m rather curious how it will work in the ascent of time. Perhaps the last paragraph of Sloosha’s Crossing provides a hint as they move back from Zachry to Sonmi? [Interesting how section 6 probably isn't going to be commented upon in the other texts, but is instead reviewed by the listeners Zachry is "yarning" to.] Do you think we’ll find out more about how all these stories interrelate, and the themes meant to be discovered? Or was Sloosha really the climax of the piece? I’m not sure how to view the upcoming sections, though I am curious about how all of these stories will end in itself.

Margaret Hale [North & South Read Along]

As we are entering week three of the North and South read along, I have been noticing more and more frustration with Margaret’s conduct and character. Now, I had planned to do a post on Margaret and “the role of women” in Gaskell’s novel from week one, but today I find myself rather hesitant. I’m not sure that in light of al the negative feelings surrounding Margaret of fellow read along participants I should spend a whole post pondering about her. Nevertheless, that is what I am going to do.

To be completely honest, I never really paid much attention to whether or not I liked Margaret before. She didn’t bother me, but she also never elicited great amounts of love in me. Knowing her story, knowing I was seeing the world mostly from her perspective, I did identify with her. I just never really pondered her before. Perhaps I was too busy, um, swooning over Mr. Thornton.

When I started paying more attention to Margaret due to other bloggers’ remarks, I saw two things that irritated me a little. First, Margaret bluntness. I admire her for it, in part, but she can also come across as rather unfeeling and unsocial.. If you think Elizabeth is harsh in rejecting Mr. Darcy’s first proposal in Pride and Prejudice, then you clearly haven’t read Margaret’s response to the first proposal of Mr. Thornton, which in a way, is so blunt and painful that it made me question Margaret’s judgement of the situation and Mr. Thornton himself. It also makes her come across as stuck-up and proud – too proud to consider Thornton in any way resembling a gentleman. Second, Margaret suffers from the female innocence and martyrdom complex that comes with a lot of Victorian fiction and that Violet, for example, has remarked upon in her reading of other works by Gaskell. Again, there are things to be admired about this part of Margaret’s character, but it also makes it hard to relate to her at times.

But now let me turn to what I appreciated in Margaret’s character in North and South. Something that I only really noticed rereading it this time around. Something that makes me lean very much towards the side of liking her, and appreciating what Gaskell has done with her. The fact that in many ways, Margaret subverts social expectations surrounding women. Of course, the whole thing comes accompanied with Victorian sentimentality and with Margaret as somewhat of a perfectly innocent role-model, and some ingrained feelings of superiority based on class, but it was the subversion that stood out to me during the past week.

This subversion expresses itself in a few ways. And really, the more I think about it the more I feel that it is one single interpretation of individual agency vs. institutional authority and expectation, which I mentioned last week. But I digress – let me return to Margaret and her role as a woman in North and South:

North and South - Elizabeth GaskellIn a way, Margaret’s very bluntness is the first indication I found of her role as subverting certain female expectations. For Margaret aims to speak the truth, and nothing but the truth, it seems. And in doing so, she voices her opinion in almost every company. She does not remain quiet when the men are talking of serious things. She does not contain her remarks to the strictly feminine sphere, but instead talks – and is shown to think things through – on the interrelated topics of industrialisation, working conditions, religious ideals, etcetera. She is intellectual as well as feminine in her feelings and (religious based) belief in charity and truth. Now, I am not extremely well-read in the classics, but the fact that she voices her opinions at all, and on these topics -as a woman- is not something I have come across very often.

It is through her bluntness, and her role as someone who perhaps does not so much like to argue, but does like being heard and having her say, that she takes on the most important role of mediator between the North and the South, between mill owner and employees, between her father and her mother even. She is, in the end, what enables some of these characters and settings to work together better.

We also learn that, faced with her mother’s death, Margaret is the one who shows strength of character, whereas both her father and her brother Frederick are lost in their own grief:

“Margaret went languidly about, assisting Dixon in her task of arranging the house. Her eyes were continually blinded by tears, but she had no time to give way to regular crying. The father and brother depended upon her; while they were giving way to grief, she must be working, planning, considering. Even the necessary arrangements for the funeral seemed to devolve upon her.”

Margaret is the character every one depends upon, and I find it remarkable that during the novel, her role as the one being able to keep herself together in situations of stress or grief is stressed again and again, while several men are shown to give way to sentimentality and weakness. I rather wonder if this is why Mr. Hale is shown to be so weak and uncourageous, that even his own wife protects him from the knowledge of her illness. If this is why Frederick, too, when he finally arrives, tries to help his sister, but also very much relies on her for advice and guidance and practicalities. In all of this, Margaret’s role is that of a caring angel, which is a little bit of a feminine stereotype I think, and she also gives way to sentimentality herself, but she nevertheless remains strong. And I wonder at it – because strength of character is so often a male characteristic.

It’s not that Margaret is perfect – which makes her a little bit more likeable to my mind than if she were painted as a prim and perfect girl – she surely has a lot of growth to look forward to. Margaret does not always enjoy being the one everyone relies upon (in case of being the bearer and messenger of secrets, in her friendship to Bessy Higgins, in taking up responsibility after her mother’s death. She has to learn that despite it being honourable to tell the truth, that bluntness isn’t always the best option, and that her opinions aren’t always right. She also has to let go of some of her pride and superiority: she tells Higgins that the south isn’t all that great, she has to face the fact that she told an untruth and did not have enough faith in God to rely on the truth (as she puts it herself), she has to face the fact that after rejecting Thornton as ungentlemanly he acts the perfect gentleman, and she has to face the fact that “shoppy people” aren’t always beings to shrink from.

Now that we’re on the topic of Margaret’s imperfections, can I remark on the whole “telling an untruth to safe her brother” thing? Because I rather think it is another example of her going against the grain of social expectation, or at least, seeking her own path of personal identity independent from other forces in society, except her faith and personal beliefs? Because when faced with the fact that she lied to the police officer, and upon realising that Thornton knows she has done so, it is the fact of the lying that saddens her – and she never even contemplates the social impropriety that she might be implicated in in the mind of Thornton. It is not sticking to her own ideals that comes to her mind, not the fact of how others might perceive her embrace, only how Thornton must feel now that he knows her to be not a 100% capable of keeping to her own ideals.

There is more to come of Margaret’s growth, more that makes me believe that Gaskell, while very much someone who seems to believe in a specific role for women, also claims personal agency, identity, the fact that women are rational individual humans instead of property. Without going into detail, there’s a quote to be found on that in the upcoming chapters:

“She had learnt, in those solemn hours of thought that she herself must one day answer for her own life, and what she had done with it; and she tried to settle that most difficult problem for women, how much was to be utterly merged in obedience to authority, and how much might be set apart for freedom in working.”

I think, if anything is to be the character arch of Margaret, it is this. This realisation that she is responsible for herself, that she – can – be relied upon to do so, and that in the end only she can make of her life what she wants it to be (even if what she wants to be is then again dependent upon social expectations – at least in part). This can be taken rather negatively, I feel, for social conditions do influence who people become, but it is also rather hopeful to read when read in the context of women’s role in Victorian society – this idea that women are fully individual humans capable of their own decisions and thoughts (while taking care of all the people dependent upon them). And I see it reflected in the other female characters too, apart from Fanny. Even in mama Hale, more so in mama Thornton, in Bessy, in Dixon, but yes – most of all in Margaret. And thinking about her that way, I feel kind of partial to Gaskell’s portrayal of her.