June: A Victorian Celebration

So this month will be a start of 2 months journey of Victorian adventures through literature. I have always loved Victorian Era and all the elegance, mystery, and even the darkness of the era. I love the fashion, the language, the sarcasm in the language, the history, everything.

That's why I decided to join the celebration held by A Literary Odyssey and in this post I'd like to mention some of the books that I'll read during the next 2 months. I won't list too much, since I am not sure whether I can finish all of those, but if I can manage to finish the list before the end of July I'll add more to the list. Here they are:

• Carroll, Lewis – Alice's Adventure in Wonderland
• Dickens, Charles – The Tale of Two Cities
• James, Henry – Portrait of a Lady
• Stevenson, Robert Louis – Treasure Island
• Thackeray, William – Vanity Fair
• Wilde, Oscar – The Importance of Being Earnest

I plan to re-read some Sherlock Holmes too, but I won't put them on the list yet. So, happy Victorian reading for those who celebrate it.

The Count of Monte Cristo: Not Just Revenge

It is very hard for me to at last write about this particular novel. I don't know how to describe everything I want to say in the length of a proper blog post. This novel left a deep impression on me, since the story, the characters and the philosophy inside are very much of my liking.

Some would say the novel talks about revenge, some would say it's about love, but for me it's much, much, deeper than that. I see a young man at the beginning of the novel, a young, naïve, handsome man, who had no ambition whatsoever but to live a happy seaman life with a beautiful woman he loved. But as the story goes, and misfortune befell him, he grew older, and became more mature, and he tried to find happiness in his own way.

The story begins with Edmond Dantes, a young man, who was about to become a captain of a ship. He was about to marry a beautiful woman, Mercedes, and to lead a simple but happy life with her. But “the course of true love never did run smooth”. Edmond was falsely accused of committing a treason, and sent to Chateau d'If, a prison, for years without even understanding his crime (which he didn't commit).

“I knew a man who like you had fixed all his hopes of happiness upon a woman. He was young, he had an old father whom he loved, a betrothed bride whom he adored. He was about to marry her, when one of the caprices of fate, -- which would almost make us doubt the goodness of providence, if that providence did not afterwards reveal itself by proving that all is but a means of conducting to an end, -- one of those caprices deprived him of his mistress, of the future of which he had dreamed (for in his blindness he forgot he could only read the present), and cast him into a dungeon.”

There he met a noble Italian, an Abbe, that was very learned, clever, and experienced. So instead of living years of idleness, he started to study the things that would later proved to be very useful for him. He studied history, mathematics, languages, manners, chemistry, and so on. But he always wanted to escape from that place.

One day, the Abbe told him about a treasure buried in a small island called the Island of Monte Cristo. The Abbe gave him all the treasure there if he could escape, one day. And yes, he did, in a very peculiar, interesting and thrilling manner he escaped the cold and dreadful Chateau d'If.

In a short time, he was born anew. He was now rich, and free. He inquired all the things that happened while he was imprisoned and he found out that the people he loved were all in misfortune, while his enemies led a rich, respectable lives. The woman he loved had married someone else, his father died, and his master bankrupt. Filled with rage and disappointment, he swore revenge.

Some usually stress how well-thought the revenge was, how well-devised, how well-planned and well-executed. They are right. The revenge was horrible. Dantes actually tried to hurt only those who hurt him in the past, but as we know, such thing never happens. Everyone has a family, has people to love and people who love them. Dantes' enemies did as well. When he avenged his misfortunes, he hurt as well those innocent people, who deserved more good things in their lives; and Dantes didn't feel very good after he realised that fact.

Twice, the novel says, he overcame his doubt. No, twice he ignored his conscience's voice. "Triumph" he called his journey was, and yet he wanted to punish himself for doing it. The Avenging Angel of God, he thought he was. Was he? Would God be happy to see an innocent young man deprived of his honour and wealth or a young boy of his life? 

This novel is about all that. How a man thought that by revenge he would feel better, he would be satisfied, but he at last he realised that he only caused trouble, and felt remorse and guilt. This story is about a man who after looking for so long, at last found happiness, far from his dreadful past, in a way he didn't expect, in a way he never thought about. I love him, I love him, I love him.

"God has sustained me in my struggle with my enemies, and has given me this reward; he will not let me end my triumph in suffering; I wished to punish myself, but he has pardoned me."

I know this short article is not enough to describe my feelings towards the Count and his beautiful story. But be rest assured, I will write more on this subject. As the Count says, just “wait and hope”.

Weekend Quote #3

“To learn is not to know. There are the learners and the learned. Memory makes one, philosophy, the other.”

This is the quote I choose for this weekend. It is taken from The Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas. (I believe by the end of the month I will have Dumas dominate my tags).

The words above are spoken by Abbe Faria, and Italian gentleman who was imprisoned in Cateau d'If, just like our Edmond Dantes. He was a learned man, old and experienced. He made Dantes' imprisonment become rather a good fortune than misfortune.

Socrates and Plato

Personally I like the words because I think it is right. Firstly, “to learn is not to know”. Somebody may learn something for years without even knowing what it is he's learning. (Personal experience, I may say). But knowing means understanding the subject thoroughly, being able to see it as a whole, and see the linkage of everything on the subject.

For example, a doctor must know human body as a whole. He can see which part of the body connects to which part, what the meaning of some symptoms, etc. It would be different, of course, from something that a high-school student learn. He knows which part is which and what the functions of it, but he would find difficulty to see the connection of every part of the body and how it affects the body as a whole.

And so is knowledge. The learned has philosophy – a kind of wisdom gained by deep thinking, by meditation – while it only needs memory to learn.

That is my weekend quote for this week. What are yours? Feel free to share it in the linky below. (For more information, please see this post)

Character Thursday: Albert de Morcerf

Alright. I'd like to have someone from Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo. It's one of my favourites, and I always re-read it when I have the time.

But, I will not take the Count as this week's subject. First, because I believe that many will focus their attention to the Count when they read it, and some of my friends haven't read the book yet, so I hope that in future months I will read their opinions on the Count. Second, I'm afraid that, being too excited in describing every aspect of the Count's mysterious being, I would bore the readers with unending lines of words.

Rupert Friend, I think, would make a good
Albert de Morcerf. 

“You cannot imagine, mother, how beautiful I think you! You are, indeed, the most beautiful and most noble woman I ever saw!”

So now, I will content myself with a less mysterious and bizarre character, but who also has good personality in him: Albert de Morcerf, whose father is Monte Cristo's loathed enemy, but who is a good friend (at least I want to believe that it remains so) of the Count. Albert de Morcerf is introduced in the novel as an honourable, noble young man who pays a tourist visit to Italy. There after an 'accident' with Italian banditti, he proves to be a courageous young man, though impulsive in nature, something that must be forgiven, if one remembers that he's still young and inexperienced.

His bravery is evident in his dealing with the Italian banditti, when he was captured and taken prisoner in Catacombs of Saint Sebastian. Even after being threatened by the captain of bandits, Luigi Vampa, that he would be dead the next morning, Albert fell asleep, soundly, peacefully that night. Even the count and the captain were impressed.

His impulsive nature is shown in whole length of the novel. For example, when hearing about his father being put to suspicion he challenged his friend immediately to a duel. Lucky for him, though, his friend had more wisdom in the matter that their friendship remained unbroken. Not long after te same thing happened, this time towards Monte Cristo himself. Thankfully his quickness in anger is accompanied by his good nature of humility. He asked Monte Cristo for forgiveness and even asked him to remain, if not a friend, an acquaintance of his.

But were I to describe Albert in his most dominant characteristic, I would say "a devoted son". This applies only on the account of his mother, and not really on his father. I believe that he would even readily die for his mother. The fact is so evident that every line containing the word 'mother' in Albert's dialogue always contains the sense of filial duty and admiration.

This love is so great that he wouldn't do anything, anything at all that would hurt his mother's feelings. It doesn't mean that he is spoiled, or too dependant, because certainly he is not. You can read it in the book. But he could see that his mother had experienced much suffering, and pitied her for it. Her paleness, her agitation, for him all that made her more beautiful in his eyes.

That is all that I would say about him, because the more I write, the more I seem to leak out the story of The Count of Monte Cristo, which I believe, wouldn't be pleasant for those who haven't read it. But believe me, interesting as he is, Albert de Morcerf doesn't have the slightest chance to defeat the Count in tickling your curiousity.

---------------------------

Character Thursday
Adalah book blog hop di mana setiap blog memposting tokoh pilihan dalam buku yang sedang atau telah dibaca selama seminggu terakhir (judul atau genre buku bebas).- Kalian bisa menjelaskan mengapa kalian suka/benci tokoh itu, sekilas kepribadian si tokoh, atau peranannya dalam keseluruhan kisah.- Jangan lupa mencantumkan juga cover buku yang tokohnya kalian ambil.- Kalau buku itu sudah difilmkan, kalian juga bisa mencantumkan foto si tokoh dalam film, atau foto aktor/aktris yang kalian anggap cocok dengan kepribadian si tokoh.


Syarat Mengikuti :

1. Follow blog Fanda Classiclit sebagai host, bisa lewat Google Friend Connect (GFC) atau sign up via e-mail (ada di sidebar paling kanan). Dengan follow blog ini, kalian akan selalu tahu setiap kali blog ini mengadakan Character Thursday Blog Hop.
2. Letakkan button Character Thursday Blog Hop di posting kalian atau di sidebar blog, supaya follower kalian juga bisa menemukan blog hop ini. Kodenya bisa diambil di kotak di button.
3. Buat posting dengan menyertakan copy-paste “Character Thursday” dan “Syarat Mengikuti” ke dalam postingmu.
4. Isikan link (URL) posting kalian ke Linky di bawah ini. Cantumkan nama dengan format: Nama blogger @ nama blog, misalnya: Fanda @ Fanda Classiclit.
5. Jangan lupa kunjungi blog-blog peserta lain, dan temukan tokoh-tokoh pilihan mereka. Dengan begini, wawasan kita akan bertambah juga dengan buku-buku baru yang menarik

Coat-of-arms: Monte Cristo

For the first article, I'd like to start with Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo, and this time, the main character's coat-of-arms. Why? First because I remembered I studied the heraldic terms while reading Monte Cristo for the first time. Second, I've just realised that he had a coat! I mean, I read the story tens of times and I didn't pay so much attention to the detail until last week.

So, here is the description of his arms in French:

“aux armes de Monte-Cristo, armes représentant une montagne d'or, posant sur une mer d'azur, avec une croix de gueules au chef”

And the description in English:

“Monte Cristo arms, which were a mountain, or, on a sea azure, with a cross gules on the shield.”

Monte Cristo arms

I try to make a picture of it based on the blazon, but the description does not really state the background colour of the shield. So I leave the background in sable, or black, because I think it suits the Count more than argent. You can see it here.

Now I'd like to explain the meaning of the blazon above.

Or, gules, and azure means gold, red, and blue (but you know that already). The term “posant” literally means sit. It is usually used with animals, but in this case, it just means the mount is put on the sea. The term “chief” means the upper one third part of the shield. So the red cross is to be placed up there.

So in plain terms, the blazon of the arms of Monte Cristo literally means,

“a golden mount on blue sea with a red cross on the upper part of the shield”

That's all for now. Any question, critics, or advice is readily welcome. For more information please visit Heraldica.org.

Coat of Arms in Classic Literature

It has always been my intention to write on this subject. For readers who live in Europe and are well-acquaintanced with coat-of-arms, perhaps this sopic is not really interesting. But for readers who, like me, live far away from that part of the globe, the idea of coat-of-arms is something quite novel, and sometimes confusing.

Unfortunately (or rather, fortunately), many classic writers love to insert them in their writings, providing the reader with a character or a family's coat-of-arms, blazoned as it should be in description. It leaves its own trouble for the reader, of course, who are not accustomed to that idea, to decipher the meanings of the blazon.

Faced by such trouble, I spent my holiday few years ago studying the coat-of-arms. The purpose: to understand it whenever I encounter it in a book. Its complicated, of course, but the main idea is not really difficult, and with the help of Heraldica.org, a website that provides us with glossary, that task become more simple than expected.

I will not say that I'm an expert, because I'm not. I still have a lot to learn and coat-of-arms is a lot of things, not among those easy. But I will try to do my best.

What is coat-of-arms?

Coat-of-arms

Coat-of-arms is a symbol representing family, country, or organization. It gives information about the identity of the bearer. It's common in Europe, and the nobles in England, French, and Italy usually have one. Coat-of-arms appear in symbol of shields, decorated with pictures and colours, plus other things around, such as crest, motto, supporters, and so on. (I will add more details in futura articles if necessary.) The way it is described formally is called blazon.

I will make series of articles, containing one coat-of-arms from classic literature. I will try to blazon it, and provide readers with a picture that I think will resemble it. I will also explain the meaning of each term in the arms, and thus help readers to know more about it. Please wait for the articles. I will provide them shortly.

For more information regarding the coat-of-arms and its blazon, please visit heraldica.org.

Weekend Quote #2

'Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.'

This quote comes from Tolkien's Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship ot the Ring. Frodo said this after meeting an elf and asking him for counsel, but the elf said “both no and yes”. The elf replied that giving counsel is a serous matter, and a wise person should always be careful when giving one.

I agree with that. Giving counsel or advice is a serious business. If the person takes our advice and later it proves to be wrong, don't we have the share of responsibility in that mistake? It's sometimes better to give “both no and yes” answer, especially if the counsel is given for crucial decisions or other important issues. How?

Instead of saying “you should do this” or “you shouldn't do that”, we should let the person choose for himself. We can give the strenghts and weaknesses of each option possible, and weigh those options. Thus we can help him to make his own decision, instead of choosing for him. It's way better for both the advisor and the one asking for advice, don't you think?