Pot of Poetry: From Lines to Fanny, by John Keats

It's Romantic month in Classics Club. When I first heard it, I instantly thought of him - Keats. For me, he is the definition of Romantic Poetry. His poems give some sort of peace and serenity to its reader.

Some months ago I believe, I stumbled upon his lines to Fanny. The first three lines were okay, but the fourth..

Touch has a memory. O say, love, say,
What can I do to kill it and be free
In my old liberty?

The idea that you can remember a touch, that not your brain, but your skin, your muscles, can remember a touch, is lovely. It's not only your brain that refuses to forget, but all parts if you, all parts that have experienced love.

But the next few lines are even more lovely.

When every fair one that I saw was fair
Enough to catch me in but half a snare,
Not keep me there:

The 'half a snare' part is brilliant. There are those times when you see people and you are physically or mentally or in some other way attracted to them. But because you have someone else that you love, they don't 'keep you there'. You don't fall for those people because you can't forget the one that truly has your heart entrapped.

What I really love about this poem, or just Keats in general, is the simplicity of the language, of the wording. It makes it sound so sincere, so innocent. You don't smell deception. In some Renaissance poems, sometimes you smell flattery in the air, maybe because the words are complicated, or because the poet forces the rhyme. Sometimes (not always, but sometimes) the poems don't 'flow' naturally, and you think that the poet is trying to deceive you. But this poem doesn't feel that way.

I am not good at explaining poetry. I think I can never do Keats justice whenever I talk about him. I must stop now before I talk more nonsense.

If I can find the time before the end of the month, I'd like to share something from Poe, another poet that I like.

Classics Club March Meme: Favourite Literary Period

It has been ages since the last time I participated on the Classics Club Monthly Meme. My fault. This month's question, however, intrigues me so much that I can't help but participating. The question is:

What is your favorite “classic” literary period and why?

How do I answer? It's funny how my reading preferences are scattered so much that I don't know any more the period that I love "the most". For example, I love Shakespeare, so, so much that I think I would prefer him to any other writer alive or dead. Having said that, I can't choose his period as my favourite period, because as much as I love Shakespeare, I know little (if nothing) about his contemporaries, such as Ben Johnson, Thomas Nashe, Robert Greene, or any other. I only know a bit more about Kit Marlowe (which I love, by the way) and about Sir Walter Raleigh (which I also love truly). If I'm allowed to widen the period a bit longer, I can only add Milton to the list, and I haven't even completed reading Paradise Regained.

So much for Shakespeare's period.

So to answer the question above, after considering all parties involved, I must say that I prefer Romanticism. Actually, the idea came from Fanda a long time ago. She noticed that I love stories from that period, such as Monte Cristo and D'Artagnan Romances. After thinking about it, I realise that probably she was right. Here's my argument.

If you see the list of authors on the left side of my blog, you'll notice that most of the names belong to Romantic writers. Not just that, most of my posts talk about them or their works. So statistically, I babble much about Romantic writers.

When we talk about Romanticism that I like, we don't talk about Romanticism in England, or France, or US, or Russia. I love them all. From England, my favourite poet of that period is the young John Keats, while Sir Walter Scott will do for the historical fiction stories. And we haven't even talked about Jane Austen and the Bronte Sisters. In France, as mentioned before, I'm very fond of Dumas. But he's not the only one. Victor Hugo is also a giant in France Romantic movement, and his name must not be forgotten when we talk about French Literature. Suddenly I remember that almost every book from French authors that I read comes from this period of literary history. Oh, US. Can't we just talk about Edgar now? Edgar Allen Poe is one of my favourite poet (although his creepy stories is not really my forte). One more country. I'm not an expert when it comes to Russian Literature, yet it is safe to say that I like Pushkin very much. His poems, translated into English, was my first contact to anything Russian, and his poem "I loved you" is like a chant that sticks in my mind.

So, it turns out that my favourite period of Literature is:

ROMANTICISM

I will tell you why.

In prose, Romanticism tends to go a bit wider than the story. It has the narrative that sort of flows through the pages, as if the writer were putting down anything that came to his/her mind at the moment, without caring too much about the story itself. It is less deliberate in its story-telling, it doesn't mind too much the symbolism (I might be wrong on this) as literature had been in the Renaissance, for example. The stories in Romanticism is more and more focused into "life as we know it", not too much centred on palaces or myths. In fact, people started to think about history - actual human history - instead of legends and ancient lores, and just usual, lowly people, as is the case in Dumas' D'Artagnan Romances and Walter Scott's Ivanhoe.

As is the case with prose, poetry in Romanticism is also less deliberate and more 'free' in rhyme and rhythm. The effect is the search for the perfect 'form' of poetry - people experimenting with rhymes and with forms. What I like is that they still retain the 'archaic'-ness of the previous age, and thus keep the magic of poetry intact, while giving it new spirit and fresh air.

In poetry, Romanticism cannot be separated from the word "Melancholy". Actually I found that out in a website. I've been looking for the right word all along, but at last the word 'melancholy' ended my search. Romantic poems are unique in their serenity and tranquillity. Poems like The Raven and Annabel Lee, along with Keats' Odes, sound almost like somebody whispering alone to the air. The simplicity of the diction must be noted too. While I love sophisticated words in Shakespeare's plays and poems, I find simple words in Romantic poems sweet, and somehow feel more sincere.

All above is just my opinion. I have warned you, I'm not even a Lit Student, so I might be very wrong. Feel free to comment and share your opinions too.

Classic Club June Meme: Opening Line

I've been missing several months of this meme, due to the lack of time and idea. But strangely (or not), an idea just crossed my mind the moment I read the theme for this month.

Sorry, it's not PnP. I know the novel has been very popular, and its first line most conspicuous that it's very hard to miss. I've been re-reading some parts of it lately and watched the film as well, but..

It's Sherlock Holmes. The first short-story collection entitled The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes begins with "Scandal in Bohemia". The story itself begins with this line:

"To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman."

It's unforgettable because I read it 10 years ago, in my school library, imagining that Sherlock's heart is impenetrable - if he has a heart. Even with "the woman", Irene Adler, it is still debatable whether it is Sherlock's heart, or mind, or pride that puts her so high in his esteem.

There. That's my favourite opening sentence, or at least the one I remember the most.

This Side of Paradise: Teenager's Philosophy?

This is the first time I read anything from F. Scott Fitzgerald. I won it in a spin, haha. And it has also been a long long time since I read anything like this. I read modern novels every once in a while, but most of them are detective/crime stories, and not “normal” slice of life stuff as This Side of Paradise happens to be.

I dragged myself through the first part of it. I must say that, it's kind of cool for me, like a cloudy day. No, I don't know what I'm talking about. I mean the story is monotonous, and I must say I don't care a bit for Amory Blaine. Perhaps the first part lacks thrill in it. But I kept going, because (1) I have to finish the book anyway, (2) there are many references to poetry, and I love poetry.

The second part, however, is more interesting. Actually I love to see how the character tries hard to find himself, to be, as the book say, a “personage” rather than “personality.” His philosophy flaws here and there, and he knows well of that, exclaiming now and then that he doesn't really know what he's talking about. It's a good way to describe the way young people think.

The ending is not a conclusion. Call me a child, but I love stories which end well. It doesn't necessarily mean happy, but at least well. A chaotic series of events ending with a conclusion. But although This Side of Paradise gives a conclusion philosophically, the plot doesn't satisfy me.

Being fond of adventurous stories, I must say that I don't enjoy the book as much as I enjoy Dumas of even Robin Hood Ballad. It doesn't mean I give up on Fitzgerald. I will still read the Great Gatsby sometime before May, and I do enjoy a change in my reading habits. Talking about modern writers, I still have Wilde and Thoreau (if it's counted as 'modern'), and I hope I will enjoy their works.

A Modern March: A Classic Club Event

Allie from A Literary Odyssey is hosting the event in March. The idea is reading books written by the Modernist.

Some of the big writers of the Modernist period were:

William Faulkner
Virginia Woolf
Ezra Pound
F. Scott Fitzgerald
Ernest Hemingway
Samuel Beckett
Gertrude Stein
e e cummings
T.S.Eliot
James Joyce

There are more, of course, but those are the heavy hitters of the period and those most closely associated with the movement.

Fortunately, I have This Side of Paradise by Fitzgerald that I need to read as a part of the Classic Club Spin reading event. Therefore by signing up for this event I shall have double reason to finish the book. 

Group Check-In #2: February 2013

Check-ins sometimes feel like a control management system of your reading progress. That's a good thing in a way, but feels like an inspection in other way. For a procrastinator like me, it's definitely a good thing to check my progress every now and then, and here it is:

I've read 16 (or 17) books from my list, most of them are parts of reading challenges. I need challenges for the same reason (apart from the thrill, of course): to get deadlines. Else I would read so slowly.

I keep changing and adding to my original list. It was first 50 books – no more, no less. But now, it increases into 55, and counting still. Reading Challenges and Reading Events make my list longer and longer, but I don't mind at all.

Right now I'm getting myself through Richard III by William Shakespeare while busying myself slowly with Adventures of Ellery Queen which seems to have a snail's progress. I also am trying my best to get through Spencer's Faerie Queene, with it's long long rhyming narrative and unusual spelling. Funny how easy it is with Shakespeare and how hard it is with Spencer.

One more thing, I get This Side of Paradise for my Classics' Spin. So, I'm reading it as well, trying to get it crossed from my list by March. I want to read Robinson Crusoe by then and I don't want to be distracted. 

Eight Strokes of the Clock: Eight Adventures and a Woman

This is my first time reading Lupin. I tried the first novel, but I didn't finish it, as long as I remember, or if I did, it didn't impress me so much. But I give Lupin another chance. In fact, I plan to read several of his adventures this year.

Unfortunately, I don't find the stories as very exciting. Some of them are good, but I don't find them thrilling enough. As I turned the pages, most of the time I only wanted the story to finish quickly, instead of enjoying every word of it.

Nevertheless, Eight Strokes of the Clock is by no means bad. Out of ten short stories related in the book, I find at least two of them very interesting. They are the story about the Lady with the Hatchet and Footprints in the Snow. The rest are so-so, and the final story I find too unrealistic and very dull. But maybe it's just me.

The main plot is about Prince Renine, another alias of Arsene Lupin, having 8 adventures and solving 8 mysteries with his lady friend, Hortense. She is fond of mystery, and of Renine, of course, and the more she becomes involved in his adventures, the more she loves them. Renine, also, grows fondness towards this lady, and as the term of their arrangement is coming to an end, he tries once more to get her attention, and to close their adventure with a finale - and possible sequel.

Even though I deeply love detective stories, I like them only as long as they are reasonable. If they choose to be unrealistic, they have to be good in other ways. Therefore the stories featuring nonsense instructions or bodies being chopped to pieces just for the murderer's fun (except when he is crazy) or super-smart locked rooms cases with too much trouble on the murderer's part don't entertain me. Sorry.

I'm not saying that those kind of stories exist in the book. I'm just stating that I don't like them. Hopefully the detective stories I plan to read this year won't feature too much of such stories.

Classic Club Spin: Let's Have Some Fun

Here's my choices for the coming Classic Club Spin. I make it in a hurry, considering this is Saturday. I'm always busier on weekends, you know, procrastinators' problem.

5 I don't really feel like reading:

Conrad - Secret Agent
Leblanc - The Hollow Needle
Queen – The Chinese Orange Mystery
Spencer - Faerie Queen
Carroll - Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

5 I really want to read:

James - Portrait of A Lady
Dickens - Tale of Two Cities
Sabatini - Scaramouche
Voltaire - Candide
Doyle - The White Company

5 I'm just neutral about

Pushkin - Eugine Onegin
Shakespeare – Lucrece
Fitzgerald - The Great Gatsby
Fitzgerald - This Side of Paradise
Wilde - Importance of Being Earnest

5 re-reads

Dickens - Christmas Carol
Dumas Jr. - Camille
Sabatini - Captain Blood
Verne - 20000 Under the Sea
Shakespeare - Sonnets

Problem, of course, I don't want the list to be so orderly. So, let's shuffle it a bit.

1. Eugine Onegin
2. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
3. Faerie Queen
4. The Chinese Orange Mystery
5. Secret Agent
6. Captain Blood
7. Tale of Two Cities
8. Scaramouche
9. Lucrece
10. The Great Gatsby
11. 20000 Under the Sea
12. Importance of Being Earnest
13. Portrait of A Lady
14. This Side of Paradise
15. Christmas Carol
16. Camille
17. The Hollow Needle
18. Shakespeare's Sonnets
19. Candide
20. The White Company

Let's have fun!

French February: A Classic Club Event

I know I might be a little late, but I want you to know that I'm joining. I've been very fond of French literatures, I don't even know why. I read more French thick books than English ones, I suppose, and I'm talking about the author, not the language. Sorry, I don't speak French. Not yet.

This is my plan for the month. I don't know whether I will be able to finish 4 French books, so I will try with 2 first. Both may or may not be Maurice LeBlanc, but I have so much of him to tackle down this year, so it'd be a good idea. Let's see.

Have a nice month..

Cyrano de Bergerac: Maybe the Love is Not At All Unrequited

It's a pity I neither speak nor read French. Had I known the language better, had I the ability to read it in the language it's originally written, perhaps I could have enjoyed it better.

It doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy it – I did. But the play is still a play, and it's hard to translate a play no matter what language you want to translate it into. I'm just hoping I don't miss much.

Cyrano de Bergerac is a soldier, duelist, and poet. He's brave and skilled in words as well as in sword. He somewhat reminds me of D'Artagnan, with the same level of obstinacy and playfulness. He enters the stage dramatically, starting only as a voice that demands one actor to descend. His adventure doesn't end there. He then engages in a duel with Valvert, and wins the game while composing a ballad. Hmm, charming. But the great amazing thing is him fighting five scores of men to save his friend, Lignière.

But that's not the main plot. Cyrano is in love with his cousin, Roxane, a charming and beautiful lady. But he has a problem. Cyrano thinks that he is ugly, with an enormous nose on his face. He sure has the skill with words, but he doesn't feel confident with his looks.

“Look well at me--then tell me, with what hope This vile protuberance can inspire my heart! I do not lull me with illusions--yet At times I'm weak: in evening hours dim I enter some fair pleasance, perfumed sweet; With my poor ugly devil of a nose I scent spring's essence--in the silver rays I see some knight--a lady on his arm, And think 'To saunter thus 'neath the moonshine, I were fain to have my lady, too, beside!' Thought soars to ecstasy. . .O sudden fall! --The shadow of my profile on the wall!”

Meanwhile, Roxane confesses to him that she's in love with a handsome soldier, Christian. Christian is exactly Cyrano's opposite – good-looking but not a good speaker.

Instead of begrudging Roxane's love or challenging Christian in a duel, Cyrano chooses to join forces with him. Cyrano expresses his love in words to Roxane while making her believe that it's actually Christian.

“Roxane shall never have a disillusion! Say, wilt thou that we woo her, double-handed? Wilt thou that we two woo her, both together? Feel'st thou, passing from my leather doublet, Through thy laced doublet, all my soul inspiring?...Will you complete me, and let me complete you? You march victorious,--I go in your shadow; Let me be wit for you, be you my beauty!”

Well, Cyrano might be wrong. Perhaps it's not always the outward look that matters. Perhaps he's not that ugly at all. Perhaps Love is sometimes blind. And perhaps, his love is not at all unrequited. But perhaps, Fate uses the phrase “too late” too much.

I like the play, though I prefer to read it in its original language. I like the hero too. Cyrano reminds me of the Three Musketeers plus D'Artagnan. There are duels, battle, valour, honour, fun, and a lot of nice things in the play. Although the play is not a comedy, it's not dark as well.

Historical Facts and Background:

• Cyrano de Bergerac was a real person, though the love story is entirely fictional
• The play is set in 17th Century France, and the battle involved is a part of Thirty Years' War between France and Spain. 

Classics Club January Meme: Best Book

What is the best book you’ve read so far for The Classics Club — and why? Be sure to link to the post where you discussed the book!

It will be Les Miserables. I'm so proud of myself that I actually finished the book and that I actually like it so much. Les Miserables is a good portrayal of people's living condition along with the ideas that they have in their minds. I love the way it is written as well. It feels like the book brings you here and there, through places and thoughts, sometimes abruptly and randomly but in time you start to see the connection between pieces.

Here's my analysis of the book, including volume-to-volume analysis.  

Les Miserables by Victor Hugo

The Two Gentlemen of Verona: The Main Plot Doesn't Really Matter

What matters most is of course the comedy. Yup, Speed and Launce get all the spotlight here, while the plot itself is not really amusing, at least for me.

Valentine and Proteus are two young gentlemen living in the Italian city of Verona (the same city where Romeo and Juliet lived). They are both close and loyal friends – at first. Proteus is in love with a girl named Julia who lives in town. Meanwhile, Valentine goes away to Milan to serve the duke there, and fall in love with his daughter, Silvia.

Being sent by his father, Proteus finds himself with his friend again in Milan. There the young man falls in love with Silvia too. He devises a plan to get rid of his competitors: Valentine, and another man named Thurio. Proteus tells the Duke that Valentine is planning to take Silvia away, and the poor man is banished shortly after.

Valentine Rescues Silvia in 'The Two Gentlemen of Verona' 
by Angelica Kaufmann

Silvia is not impressed. She abhors Proteus' betrayal and infidelity, and she openly says so to both Proteus and his new servant, Sebastian. Wait, why does Sebastian look very much like Julia? Silvia then goes away to Mantua to look for her lover in his exile. Proteus goes after her and tries to rape her. But Valentine interferes.

At the end, everyone's happy. That's why we call it a comedy.

But as I said before, I'm much more impressed by the witty comical scenes featuring the two clowns, Speed and Launce. Here are some of them:

SPEED. How now, Signior Launce! What news with your mastership?
LAUNCE. With my master's ship? Why, it is at sea.
SPEED. Well, your old vice still: mistake the word. What news, then, in your paper?
LAUNCE. The black'st news that ever thou heard'st.
SPEED. Why, man? how black?
LAUNCE. Why, as black as ink.

And more.

SPEED. What an ass art thou! I understand thee not.
LAUNCE. What a block art thou that thou canst not! My staff understands me.
SPEED. What thou say'st?
LAUNCE. Ay, and what I do too; look thee, I'll but lean, and my staff understands me.
SPEED. It stands under thee, indeed.
LAUNCE. Why, stand-under and under-stand is all one.

Well, I must say that this play doesn't really amuse me as much as other comedies, but it's pretty nice. I think they should make the No Fear Shakespeare version to make it easier to read, though. So many puns have lost their meanings nowadays, that it's so difficult to really understand them without help.  

Les Miserables Final Review: What Does Hugo Want to Say?

Let me first make a confession. I have watched Les Miserables 25^th Annyversary in Concert, yes, the musical. Is it necessary to say that I cried like a baby when I did so? It may be the music, or the lyrics, or maybe because I link every line to the novel, rich with its description and deep philosophy.

As I read Les Miserables, since I understood that Myriel is not the focus of the story, I have always asked myself: What does Hugo want to say? Why does he put so much details, sometimes even seem irrelevant with the main story at all? Why so much history and philosophy? I have put it somewhere in the volume-by-volume review of the novel that I don't think Jean is Hugo's center of thought during his writing Les Miserables. Something much greater lies there.

Myriel. He is a saint. Let's say he always tries to do what is right up to the point of his limit. Doesn't he say that it is men's duty to do the best that they can? He rains his kindness and fortune upon those who need it, not only upon those who he thinks deserve it. One of them is Jean Valjean. Myriel dies without knowing what actually happens to Jean. He doesn't live to see all the good things that Jean does thanks to his kindness towards the unfortunate man. Perhaps Hugo wants to say that we never know if the good things we have done to people will change their lives for good. Perhaps he wants to say that it's out of our business to think about that. We just need to do our best, and let things work the way they will.

Javert is a grand lesson about the limitation of the law of men. There are things that men cannot see, and cannot understand. There are things that simple sentences signed by a nation cannot solve. The law is good, and law helps to organise society. But that same law cannot be relied upon for everything in the world. Some condition allows human beings to go beyond the law they know. Is that the thing you want to say, Hugo?

The friends of the ABC are heroes of revolution. They have a dream of a better world, and they do everything that they can to make it happen. They believe the government must change, they think it will change everything. On the other hand, Hugo praises both Napoleon and Louis Philippe in his novel, saying that both are great man, and moreover, says that Louis Philippe is a good man. Does he try to say that everything has its goodness anyway, that no matter what kind of political government you believe in, you still can live peacefully with others? Or does he try to say that even great people and good people in the government, no matter of what type, can't really solve the problem of society?

One lesson that I will always remember from Jean Valjean is the importance of listening to the voice of your conscience. There are and will always be things in the “grey zone”, things we can't classify as true or false. But if listen to our conscience, no matter how hard the decision may be, we can always face ourselves without the feeling of guilt. Jean makes so many difficult choices in the novel: whether to save Champmathieu or not, whether to kill Javert or not, whether to save Marius or not, and he chooses well, so that when his death is near, he has nothing to fear, he has no regret.

Jean's experience also shows us that people can change – for better or worse. There's no such thing as 'too late' to be good. When you want to leave your past and live a new life, things won't be easy for you, but there is always a way. It doesn't depend on the society. It depends on you. Jean has done all that he could, despite the difficulties he has to face.

Eponine, Gavroche, and the two little boys on the street reminds us that there are people suffering so much pain out there. Have we ever stopped and think about them? Those miserable little people who always need help should be helped. Do we care? Well, Hugo did.

I haven't read anything so long as this since Monte Cristo, perhaps. Les Miserables will be one of my treasures from now on. I must confess that I need to read it more than once to grasp the full idea of it. There are so many things to contemplate on in this book. One day, perhaps, I will open the book again and re-read it.  

Here's my volume-to-volume review of Les Miserables:

Volume 1: Fantine

Volume 2: Cosette

Volume 3: Marius

Volume 4: Saint-Denis

Volume 5: Jean Valjean

Antony and Cleopatra: If This be Love Indeed...

Antony and Cleopatra's main theme is perhaps love. The death of Antony and his lover the queen of Egypt somehow resembles the typical love tragedy in Shakespeare and older stories, such as Romeo and Juliet, Pyramus and Thisbe, Othello, etc. But for me Antony and Cleopatra has its own uniqueness.

One of them is of course, the political theme in the play. The political theme is so intense that it blurs the theme of love at times. For example, Antony's marriage to Octavia is actually quite a shocking choice from the 'love' point of view, especially after his promise to Cleopatra. But his political motive prevails over his emotional feeling, and he chooses that path to strengthen his position in Rome. Cleopatra forgives Antony anyway.

The ups and downs of their relationship is also unique. They fight, and then they love again, and fight again, none of them loves better than the other. Their love is sometimes selfish, sometimes stupid, and it enriches the plot of the play.

I don't know if I will read the play again, given my dislike to tragedies (with few exceptions), but for me the play is entertaining enough. Here below is the list of my act-by-act review. Please enjoy.  

Act I - Act II - Act III - Act IV- Act V

Les Miserables, Vol IV: Different Shades of Love

The fourth volume of Les Miserables is about love. It talks much about love and little about anything else. My reading was not as joyful as the other volumes, perhaps because I read it with less concentration and speed than the previous volumes.

This volume feels a lot longer than the others I have read. Fifteen books! There are so many things worth noting, too many things that it's so difficult to determine what I should be talking about before anything else.

So I will talk just about love.

The first love is paternal love so intense and so deep that it becomes possessive and selfish. Jean's love for Cosette is undoubted. He refuses all luxury for himself but denies Cosette nothing. Cosette is his pearl and treasure. He is also very protective but kind to her. It's a pure fatherly love, like the love from God to His children – but a little bit too much. Jean, tasting love for the first time, begins to fear the possibility of not being loved any longer, as if love is divisible, as if love is a finite thing which amount will decrease when ir is given to more people. Also, because he well knows that he is Cosette's nobody, his fear becomes even bigger.

“ I have been first, the most wretched of men, and then the most unhappy, and I have traversed sixty years of life on my knees, I have suffered everything that man can suffer, I have grown old without having been young, I have lived without a family, without relatives, without friends, without life, without children, I have left my blood on every stone, on every bramble, on every mile-post, along every wall, I have been gentle, though others have been hard to me, and kind, although others have been malicious, I have become an honest man once more, in spite of everything, I have repented of the evil that I have done and have forgiven the evil that has been done to me, and at the moment when I receive my recompense, at the moment when it is all over, at the moment when I am just touching the goal, at the moment when I have what I desire, it is well, it is good, I have paid, I have earned it, all this is to take flight, all this will vanish, and I shall lose Cosette, and I shall lose my life, my joy, my soul, because it has pleased a great booby to come and lounge at the Luxembourg.”

This love materialises into series of inquiries, series of suspicion, and ends in hatred towards the rival: Marius. Happily, though, such hatred doesn't go further, because Jean thinks that Marius is going to die anyway, and his rivalry will end. It won't be so, will it?

Marius' love is another shade of affection. It's a gentle and warm love. It's amorous, but neither fierce nor ardent. The love in him is so deep that it overcomes lust, because lust is a lesser form of love.

“They touched each other, they gazed at each other, they clasped each other’s hands, they pressed close to each other; but there was a distance which they did not pass. Not that they respected it; they did not know of its existence. Marius was conscious of a barrier, Cosette’s innocence; and Cosette of a support, Marius’ loyalty. The first kiss had also been the last. Marius, since that time, had not gone further than to touch Cosette’s hand, or her kerchief, or a lock of her hair, with his lips. For him, Cosette was a perfume and not a woman. He inhaled her. She refused nothing, and he asked nothing. Cosette was happy, and Marius was satisfied.”

What I object, though, from Marius' love, is lack of determination in his part. Marius easily gives up to obstacles. As we can conclude form the last volume, Marius is a proud young man, and the same pride costs him his grandfather's blessing for his marriage. If he could just stay and say why he loves this lady so, his grandfather who loves him so much would surrender to his will. Also to choose death as an escape from his problems is not a very commendable thing to do. Marius is such a gentle person, and I like that, but he's not yet mature enough to be called a man.

The other shade is Eponine. She loves Marius dearly, and at least the does something to get him from Cosette. She fights for her love for Marius in a better determination than Marius, fighting for Cosette's. Eponine dies sacrificing herself for Marius' life, thus declaring herself as a better lover of the two. Marius loves as a scholar does, Eponine, as a knight.

“Promise to give me a kiss on my brow when I am dead.—I shall feel it... And by the way, Monsieur Marius, I believe that I was a little bit in love with you.”

The 4^th volume of Les Miserables is a volume of love. There are too many love to write completely here. There is love for the country, for the people, that materialises in civil war; Enjolras and his friends are agents of it. There is love of a boy to other children whom he hardly know, and yet love doesn't withhold its kindness. That boy is Gavroche.

I still hope that somehow the end will be happy. Let every man gets what he deserves, not by the law of men, but by the greater law, the law of love.

Julius Caesar: Melancholic Political Intrigue

The first Shakespeare's play that I choose to read is Julius Caesar. It's actually a re-read, since I have always loved it and since I have read it times before, paying more attention to the scenes that I love such as Antony's speech and Brutus' quarrel with Cassius.

Julius Caesar is one of the most well-known Shakespearean play. It is so interesting because it brings the audience of the play into fantastic thrill and anticipation of Caesar's murder.

When will Caesar Die?

Early in the play, that is Act 1 Scene 2, a soothsayer says to Caesar, “Beware the ides of march.” It's a prophecy that must come true in the play. Besides, everybody knows that he's going to die anyway. But one thing is still unclear – when.

Then Cassius appears, persuades Brutus to join the conspirators. He says yes, but not yet feels resolved about it. After thinking it through, and not without some doubt, Brutus makes his decision. The conspirators then meet in Brutus' house and plan to kill Caesar the next day at the Capitol. But the drama isn't over yet.

At Caesar's house, Calpurnia insists that Caesar should not go to the Capitol. The priests confirm her anxiety by saying that when they try to look for a sign, they cannot “find a heart within the beast”. At this point, I must confess, I always mutter, “Please Caesar, don't go.” Ceasar goes to the Capitol all the same, being provoked by one of the conspirators, Decius.

Even at this point, Shakespeare hasn't given up in his attempt to preserve Caesar's life. Artemidorus tries to warn Caesar, but fails. That's why we call the play a tragedy.

Rome without His Hart (or Heart)

The best part of the play, however, comes after Caesar's death. Mark Antony's meeting with the conspirators is one of the most interesting scenes in the play. I can safely say that he's trying to trick Brutus and his friends, but he is so touched by the death of Caesar that he sometimes talks off the topic.

“That I did love thee, Caesar, O, 'tis true!
If then thy spirit look upon us now,
Shall it not grieve thee dearer than thy death
To see thy Antony making his peace,
Shaking the bloody fingers of thy foes,
Most noble! In the presence of thy corse?
…
O world, thou wast the forest to this hart,
And this, indeed, O world, the heart of thee.”

As if those lines weren't enough to express his feelings, he speaks some more after he is left alone with Caesar's corpse.

“O, pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth,
That I am meek and gentle with these butchers!”

Antony then proves his words by giving a speech in Caesar's funeral, inflames people's hearts to drive the conspirators out of Rome. He also speedily fetch Octavius and talks upon political matters with him (and Lepidus). Antony, who has been very quiet before Caesar's death, suddenly proves himself to be a man of action.

Another interesting scene is Brutus' quarrel with Cassius. Brutus is more a scholar than a politician, at least from Cassius' point of view. He has his idealism, and lives up to it. That's something to be proud of, but it's not practical in that situation. Brutus accuses Cassius of corruption, and Cassius is enraged.

One thing to note, though, that during their conversation, Brutus again states his reason for killing Caesar.

“Remember March, the ides of March remember.
Did not great Julius bleed for justice' sake?
What villain touch'd his body, that did stab,
And not for justice?”

Meanwhile, we can see the signs of disagreement between Antony and Octavius.

“ANTONY. Octavius, lead your battle softly on,
Upon the left hand of the even field.
OCTAVIUS. Upon the right hand I, keep thou the left.
ANTONY. Why do you cross me in this exigent?
OCTAVIUS. I do not cross you, but I will do so.”

Aha! They don't fit each other after all. I must say I like better Cassius – Brutus' partnership than Antony – Octavius'. No offense, Octavius, but I like Julius and Antony better.

Overall, Julius Caesar is one of the best plays written by Shakespeare. For em personally, the language is not as hard as other plays (e.g: Romeo and Juliet and also Hamlet) and it's pretty fun to read. The lines are dramatic, the story is excellent, and there are so many things to talk about when you read the play.

I have written too much now. So, for those who join the Let's Read Play event, have fun with your reading, and share your experience with us. 

Classic Club November Meme: Intimidating Books

Huft. Intimidating books? Let's be honest. I classify intimidating into 2 categories: intimidating story and intimidating length. Let's look at each of them.

Intimidating Length:

Les Miserables

I really had no idea about its length when I first put it on my list. I mean, I thought it wouldn't be as scary as Monte Cristo. I was wrong. Taking up the book from my pile of to-read novels is really something. I finally took it for a read-along. I won't be able to read it otherwise. Fortunately, the book captivates my heart right at the first volume. Tedious as it is in certain parts, I find the book to be inspirational and touching. I'm reading the 4^th volume now, and I hope to finish it on December.

Candide

It's a long book indeed. Another fact: I have never read Voltaire before. The story also seems to be complicated. I think I will wait for another read-along before I pick that up.

Intimidating story:

Man in the Iron Mask

I hate sad endings. Those who know me well know too well of that fact. Accidentally (or not), I read the synopsis of it once. It frightens me to read such an ending for the four heroes I truly adore. I just can't. But I know I have to read it sooner or later.

Othello

Same thing applies. Othello, the one that loves “not wisely but too well” is very lovable. I watched the opera by Verdi and fell in love with him at the first sight. He has the manliness of a soldier and gentleness of a prince. Knowing how the story would end, I have put the story in my reading list without ever dared to touch it. That's why I pledged to read it in Classic Club's Project.

Those are the most intimidating books in my reading list. Let's hope I won't change my mind and actually read them and finish them all.

Les Miserables, Vol. III: The Known, the Unknown

Third volume of Les Miserables, two more to go. But that's not the point. I know. I'd like to share what I have experienced by reading Marius' story, because the third volume is mostly about him.

As usual, the volume starts with loads and loads of description. We see Marius at first as an ungrateful child. Knowing nothing about his father but mere gossips and misleading information from the grandpa, he concludes that his father is merely nothing. But things changes. After his father dies, Marius falls in love with his father and his ideology, no matter how old and outdated it may seem. His grandpa banishes him from him, but not without concern. But the proud little being waves the money his grandfather offers him and falls into misery.

Aside from Marius, we meet other new actors on the stage as well – Enjolras and his friends. Those youths are intelligent and idealistic, but not in line with Marius'. I like the description of these people, how they truly live to what they believe in – at least from Enjolras, and how they unite together with their similarities and differences. But that's all from them this far. More will be told of Enjolras and his friend in later volume.

Well, now we meet our old friends. By the grace or curse of chance, Marius falls in love with a young lady who usually walks with her father. Marius is madly in love with her, to the point of self-destruction. This lady is Cosette. And the father? Why, Jean of course.

As if fate had not been cruel enough, we meet other people as well – the corrupt Thernadier. He now lives a miserable life with his wife and daughters. But his misery doesn't make him humble as it does Jean, or make him wise as it does Marius. It makes him grow even more sinister. Why, he tries to rob Jean and almost kills him. I was really furious when I read that chapter.

There is also Javert. He's still there, lingering, still a good hand of the law. But not much is told about him, so I think it is not yet the time.

Reading this volume, I just pray for a happy ending. Is it possible? Is there any way to make them all happy? Jean, Cosette, Marius and Javert especially. Is there any chance for them to be happy at the end of the story?

The story is getting closer to its end. The gaps are filled. We are waiting for something to explode, a climax. I can't wait to read how things will end in Volume IV and V.  

Classic Club October Meme: Why are you reading the classics?

This month's question, I think, is a difficult one to answer. It's like being asked by someone you love, "Why do you love me?". How could one answer that kind of question and be correct?

Why, I will try to answer that anyway. I've been reading the classics since I knew English, or even before. When I was little, I amuse myself with historical stories, reading about great historical events such as the World War and about great people such as Alexander the Great. I heard the name Milton and Shakespeare every now and then, but I was not very good with English, and therefore I wasn't able to read any of those works.

One day, I went to a friend's house and she lent me a simplified version of Ivanhoe. That's the first contact I remember with classics. The next was Sherlock Holmes, being the first classic I read in not simplified or abridged version.

One thing led to another. Before I knew I'd been reading Rabindranath Tagore, Agatha Christie, jane Austen, and others. In high school, I read Shakespeare for the first time. The more I read the classic, the more I love it.

Actually I have tried to read novels other than classic. But maybe there are reasons for my prefering the classic to the others. Let's figure that out.

• I love history. I love mythology. Classics are full of that. Through the classics, I can imagine how life was in certain places and times in history. Also, the classics mention more mythology. The more I read, the more I know. I love to link new knowledge with old ones, and reading the classics give me just the right material to do so.
• I always think that it needs more than just 'good' to be able to survive for decades or even centuries. I believe that there must be something in the classics that makes people read them again and again.
• The deep philosophy inside those book always makes me happy. It broadens my mind and makes me see the world in different point of view. I can understand people's thoughts without being obliged to agree with them. I can see what lies beyond people's conducts, that not all bad deeds are bad by nature, that sometimes people just can't find the right way to do something, that sometimes tragedy is just an outcome of differences in opinions. Those book teach me respect towards people and their choices.
• The language is another matter. The vast vocabulary in classic novels captivates my heart. That's why I love poetry, that's why I love Shakespeare. I love to read how great people of the past make use of words in magnificent ways.

Even all those words cannot describe my motive in reading classics. I just simply love them. Love doesn't always need reasons. Perhaps it's just like Pablo Neruda's poem:

"I love you without knowing how, or when, or from where.
I love you straightforwardly, without complexities or pride;
so I love you because I know no other way than this."

Les Miserables, Vol. II: Love and Humility

That's how Jean describes his relationship with Cosette and the nuns. How does he get there?

We remember him as a wealthy and honourable ex-convict who then sacrificed all that he had for the life of another. He gave himself to authority, but then he remembered his promise to Fantine, about her little daughter. Thus he escaped to arrange Fantine's funeral and his wealth. That's how the first volume ends.

In the second volume, things get a little more complicated, let me say the word, boring, at the first book. The whole book talks about Napoleon, and because I was expecting Jean and Cosette, the details became so insufferable. I finally thought that maybe Hugo was a little fan of Napoleon. Was he?

The second book is our rendezvous with Jean. He is once more a prisoner. By a trick combined with generosity, he escapes and makes the authority believe that he is dead, while he has another thing in mind. Jean doesn't forget a promise he made to Fantine, that he would make sure of her daughter's welfare. So once he gets his freedom back, he heads to Montfermeil – Thernadier's place.

Thernadier inflames my heart with fury and rage. The old fox thinks only for his benefit, and null for others. He's like a hyena that feeds on people's corpses – others' misfortune. I can imagine how years in that den must have drained Cosette's spirit. The little child is poorer than a stray kitten. Even lost animals still have time for themselves, while Cosette has nothing. The poor child must

clean the house, serve in the inn, and fetch water in winter, all by herself. I don't know how Jean could show so much patience to the ravenous innkeeper. When he asks money from him to take Cosette, Jean pays without the slightest hesitation. I would have threatened him that unless he gave me Cosette, I would tell Javert about all the cruelty he treats Cosette with.

Everything is good enough now, but then, Javert reappears. He's like a ghost in the story, comes and comes again when he is least expected. Somebody should tell him to stop meddling with Jean's business. But then it's his duty. Jean is a fugitive once more. By grand luck or divine protection, he ends up in a convent, full of humble and simple nuns. There he stays while watching Cosette growing up. Then the second volume ends.

I begin to think that Les Miserables is about how a man learn so many things in his life. It's all about Jean's transformation from a lost and lonely wolf into an virtuous man. The Bishop taught him virtue, Cosette teaches him love, and the nuns teaches him humility, while his life as an ex-convict teaches him endurance. I begin to love the person as someone who is perfectly human, with many mental and spiritual battle inside his heart, but then tries to make best decisions possible. Jean is someone full of contemplation, someone who looks at the best of all things, hard though it may seem.

I'm ready to begin the third volume: Marius. No spoiler, please. I will be patient and read it chapter by chapter.