logo
Wrong email address or username
Wrong email address or username
Incorrect verification code
back to top
Search tags: aa-literary
Load new posts () and activity
Like Reblog Comment
review 2018-04-25 14:21
Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society - Mary Ann Shaffer

When Juliet Ashton receives a letter from Dawsey Adams on Guernsey she thinks it a friendly and welcome piece of correspondence. She writes back, unaware that doing so will spark an idea to circumvent her writer’s block, set up many new correspondences, introduce her to The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (and discover the reason for its name), lead her to new friends and to discover what life was like under German occupation. When she visits the island little does she realise that her life will never be the same again.

 

Don’t be fooled by thinking that a book composed of letters won’t be engaging or interesting. This book is  both and then some. From the first letter this reader was caught up in the lives of Juliet, Sidney, Dawsey and the other Guernsey residents. It may be that some find the writing style difficult to engage with. Usually I’m all for not struggling with a novel. In this instance I’d recommend persevering. Soon the reading letters instead of chapters becomes second nature.

 

The epistolary technique works in such a way that the reader is left with the feeling that they are intimately involved with the characters; that they have become true friends. The style of the book requires some filling in of gaps, reading responses to unseen questions but it soon feels as if this is the only way the story could be told. Each character is defined by their letters. Their style of writing, of relating incidents and histories is laid out in each correspondence. They are rounded out by portrayals and discussions in other letters so that a full picture can be formed. There are characters that never write letters who become integral to the story, Elizabeth being the main one. She is the one that ties the characters together, that helps bridge any gap between Juliet and the islanders.

 

The story goes much deeper than a literary society and writer’s block. It is story of the German occupation of Guernsey, an insight into what life was like cut off from the outside world. It is a story of friendship, both old and new, of loyalty and of love.

The moment I turned the last page I wanted to immediately return to the beginning, so loath was I to leave the characters behind. A warm, moving, funny, all-encompassing novel.

 

Highly recommended.

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
text 2018-04-23 01:10
Frye on Dickens and Scott
The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance (The Charles Eliot Norton Lectures) - Northrop Frye

I'm enjoying this.  Because the contents are actually lectures given at Harvard, I'm wishing I could hear Frye's delivery.  I suspect there may be some significant sarcasm.  Some of his other lectures are available on YouTube, so I may try to find some time this coming week to watch them.

 

As expected, however, the hours on the rock saw this past week provoked serious response from my tendonitis.  Although I was able to do a tiny bit of work in the studio this morning, by noon I was all but paralyzed with the pain.  It's impossible even to hold a book, and any time at the keyboard is sporadic at best, punctuated by breaks to clutch a bag of frozen rice to my arm.

 

One passage in this book merited the extra effort to make note of it here:

 

[Sir Walter] Scott came finally to be regarded as too much of a romancer to be worthy of close study.  [Charles] Dickens fared rather better: he too was darkly suspected of being a mere entertainer, but he had obvious social concerns, and besides, he wrote Hard Times, a novel so dull that he must surely have had some worthy nonliterary motive for producing it.

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
text 2018-04-19 19:42
I slept on it, and I think I'm more angry than disappointed.

A long, ranty follow-up to earlier post here regarding whether to be disappointed or angry.

 

And in part this is prompted also by Elentarri's comment to that earlier post, an excerpt from which I quote here:

 

. . . if someone was bright enough to get into university they were supposed to be intelligent enough to do a lot of self-study. The professor was only there to provide a few hours of entertainment in class every week and provide course material/mark exams, which was the proof the rest of the world required that the students were doing work.    (Elentarri's Book Blog)

 

In many respects, I completely concur; certainly my graduate classes were often like this, with little or no guidance from the professors, even though a couple of them did nothing much more than talk, talk, talk about nonsense unrelated to the course material.  One even refused to answer questions, and when I finally demanded that he at least address the reading we were doing and which we all agreed none of us understood, he laughed at me and said "Welcome to grad school!" before launching on another tangent.  He didn't like it when my evaluation of the course was highly critical of him.

 

Another prof in another graduate class lost complete control of the situation to the point that one student physically threatened me and I in turn accused the prof of encouraging the abuse.  I found out later he was terrified I would report the situation and he'd lose his job.  He admitted to me -- and to the rest of the class after I had walked out -- that he had let things go too far. . . because he found it entertaining.

 

But those were graduate classes, and they were "seminar" formats where there was supposed to be discussion and even debate as contrasted to more typical teaching formats where students did the assigned reading, then came to a class session where the professor led the instructive process.

 

My gripe is with the undergraduate experience, where professors failed to provide guidance and/or information that was specifically asked for.

 

I was expected to meet with my advisor for the honors thesis at least a few times during the six months or so I researched and then wrote the actual paper.  As I wrote in the earlier post, her area of specialization was women's history, not women's writing or literature or anything like that.  She pretty much admitted she knew nothing about my subject and was as much interested in learning what I had to say as she was in actually helping me write it.  She did recommend one book for me, and it provided some very useful information, but that was the sum total of her contribution. At one point prior to my actually writing the thesis, I gave her my bibliography.  She had few comments.

 

My other two readers were from the English department, but I only met with one of them once, to go over the basic premise of the project.  She, too, admitted to knowing absolutely nothing about romance fiction.  When I asked if she had any suggestions for areas I could add to my research, she offered nothing.  She did not ask many questions about what research I had already done or what references I had consulted.

 

All three of these full professors -- two were then or had been recently heads of their departments -- knew that I was very much a non-traditional student: In addition to being over 50, I had come back to college after a 25 year hiatus, I had a minimum of humanities background, and I had in fact taken exactly one literature course.

 

Everything I knew about literary criticism theory I had in fact learned on my own.  There had been absolutely none in that single class, which was titled Contemporary Women Authors (most of whose works we read in translation).  The focus in that class was on the woman's experience as depicted in the writing, and not on how it was written or where any of the individual novels/stories fit into the general literary landscape.  Whether the professor simply presumed we had already learned all that stuff in prior classes, I don't know.  The whole subject was one of those unknown unknowns as far as I was concerned: I didn't know enough about lit crit theory to know what I didn't know.

 

So I went ahead and wrote the thesis.  I gave the first "final" version to my advisor for review.  She had virtually no comments, criticisms, or suggestions.  I then distributed copies to the other members of my committee, and prepared for my defense.

 

I knew, of course, that I was defending more than just the paper I had written: I was really defending the entire genre of romance fiction as it had been defined -- or redefined -- as a powerful segment of popular fiction, of feminist literature, of women's financial empowerment.  I had laid out some of that in the paper itself, and I already had a traditional publisher interested in a book-length version.  So I went into the conference room probably over-prepared for the defense.

 

Well, probably didn't come close to describing it.  I'm pretty sure all three of them had actually read the thing, but their questions about the paper led me to believe they hadn't understood any of what I had written.  I remember one question in particular was about the difference between a romance novel and a television soap opera.  The simple answer, of course, was that one ends at "The End" and the other never ends, but that didn't seem to be enough.  "Happily Ever After" is guaranteed in a romance novel; there is no "ever after" in a soap opera.  And on and on, until I realized the question was actually intended to confirm the bias that romance novels are the same as soap operas, and that both serve to entertain poorly educated women who don't work outside the home and have nothing better to do with their lives.

 

But the thesis was ultimately accepted as written with a few minor adjustments.  I got my degree with honors, and the following fall I started the graduate program.  The book length version of Half Heaven, Half Heartache got put on hold for a whole lot of reasons (not least among which was my own lack of confidence in it).  A few years later, Pamela Regis came out with her The Natural History of the Romance Novel and I set HH-HH aside more or less permanently.  I couldn't afford to buy Regis's book, but I figured it said everything I had intended to say anyway.

 

When I finally did acquire a copy a few years ago, I discovered quite the opposite.  I also discovered how incomplete certain aspects of my own original research had been.  I went back to Christopher Vogler's book, I went back to his co-written work Memo from the Story Department, then I began with the Joseph Campbell source material for those two books.  What I wasn't finding was the basic theory of Story that I wanted, and that was essentially missing also from HH-HH.

 

In what I read of Regis, I found no references to Campbell or Vogler, but I did find some to Northrop Frye.  I was vaguely familiar with the name, but that was it.  Quick research informed me that Campbell's work had predated Frye's, so I continued to expect my reading of Campbell to provide that bedrock.

 

It wasn't there.  And though I eventually gave up on both of the Campbell works to which I had access, I didn't retain any expectation that they contained it.

 

In amongst this, and because my time was constrained by art shows and so on, I began rereading Stephen King's On Writing.  I enjoyed the memoir part, the struggles with poverty, the family issues, the shock of sudden financial success, and so on.  I still haven't finished all the actual text on writing.  But something in there, something in the respect King gave to his own popular fiction writing, kept the other fires flickering in the back of my brain.

 

So I picked up the first of the two Frye books I had purchased (used) from Amazon.

 

And there, in the first few pages, was a theory of Story. 

 

I returned to my research on Frye.  And that's what aroused my disappointment first and now real anger.

 

Frye is often considered one of the leading literary theorists of the twentieth century. Not one single professor with whom I discussed HH-HH ever mentioned him.  None of his works were in my bibliography.  He's not referenced in the text.

 

It is one thing, as Elentarri states, for professors to grant their students freedom for self-directed study.  None of the professors I consulted with during the six months or so that I spent on the thesis really had enough information to be able to help me find specific research material; many of the works I did use were unfamiliar to them.  And certainly none of them had ever read a romance novel.

 

But I had specifically asked for help.  I knew I was in uncharted waters, and I made no secret of my ignorance.  I trusted those individuals to at least steer me in the right direction.  Instead, they simply let me drift.

 

What might have happened if just one of those professors suggested I look at the literary theories of Northrop Frye (a Canadian)?  What if just one of them had suggested I look at the literary theories of F. R. Leavis (an Englishman who was mentored by Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, who also mentored Daphne DuMaurier)?

 

I feel almost as if I'm starting over, from scratch.  That's a disappointment.  The feeling that I shouldn't have had to is what makes me angry.

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
text 2018-04-18 20:27
Reading progress update: I've read 333 out of 333 pages.
Circe - Madeline Miller

I´m not impressed.

 

[Source]

 

It´s the second book written by Madeline Miller I have read and contrary to everyone else (there are tons of five star reviews on goodreads), this book didn´t work for me. It´s not a boring story, it´s just completely bland and uninteresting.

 

 

Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
text 2018-04-18 06:07
A very different take from Campbell
The Secular Scripture: A Study of the Structure of Romance (The Charles Eliot Norton Lectures) - Northrop Frye

I purchased this some months ago, and frankly I expected it to be far more dry and academic than the Joseph Campbell works.  So far, though I've really just started, it's far superior.  I'm feeling much more enthusiastic.

More posts
Your Dashboard view:
Need help?