Scan barcode
courtneydoss's reviews
785 reviews
The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas
4.0
I am only slightly exaggerating when I say that this book took me 42 million years to complete. I first began reading it in late 2019, then stopped, then started again, then stopped, on and on ad nauseum through the fall of the dinosaurs, on Noah's ark, through to the modern day where I finally, finally, finally was able to finish due to my unparalleled willpower and the fact that this book doesn't ACTUALLY suck.
D'Artagnan is hilarious. He is just so self-absorbed and ridiculous that I couldn't help but laugh at him. The way he tries to fight three separate musketeers within a handful of minutes - top notch comedy. Also, he's such a man whore. Madame Bonacieux, Milady, and poor, sweet Kitty? What a life he leads. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis are also cool AF, which is why the book is called The Three Musketeers and not D'Artagnan, though to be fair it is book one of the D'Artagnan Romances, so let's call it a draw.
Anyway, this story had a lot of action and drama, but I think the biggest fault that it had (which was mostly a fault of mine) is that I had no clue what the politics of the situation were all about. Oh, so we hate the Cardinal and everyone who likes him.....cool cool cool. But why? Regardless, Alexandre Dumas brought it with this book and though it is unlikely that I will ever read it again, at least I'll have a better appreciation for the movie!
D'Artagnan is hilarious. He is just so self-absorbed and ridiculous that I couldn't help but laugh at him. The way he tries to fight three separate musketeers within a handful of minutes - top notch comedy. Also, he's such a man whore. Madame Bonacieux, Milady, and poor, sweet Kitty? What a life he leads. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis are also cool AF, which is why the book is called The Three Musketeers and not D'Artagnan, though to be fair it is book one of the D'Artagnan Romances, so let's call it a draw.
Anyway, this story had a lot of action and drama, but I think the biggest fault that it had (which was mostly a fault of mine) is that I had no clue what the politics of the situation were all about. Oh, so we hate the Cardinal and everyone who likes him.....cool cool cool. But why? Regardless, Alexandre Dumas brought it with this book and though it is unlikely that I will ever read it again, at least I'll have a better appreciation for the movie!
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
5.0
December 3, 2020
Pride and Prejudice is the kind of book that feels like a hug from someone you love; familiar, comforting, warm. December is Jane Austen's birth month, so I'm reading all of her books, and this one by far is my favorite reread.
*******
June 6, 2019
Truthfully, this is far from my first time reading “Pride and Prejudice.” I very nearly finished it when assigned to read it in high school (much to Jane Austen’s credit, as I never finished a book assigned to me in those days) and read it fully twice more in early adulthood. Now, as I embark on a quest to familiarize myself with the classics by powering through a “100 Books To Read Before You Die” list, I have been given yet another opportunity to fall in love with Mr. Darcy.
There is not much to say about this book which hasn’t already been said. Two people who hate each other slowly falling in love is a tale as old as time. I just love it. The scene where Elizabeth rejects Mr. Darcy is just amazing. I can’t even.
Jane Austen does it again! There is a reason this is a classic. Read it, then read it again. You won’t be sorry.
Pride and Prejudice is the kind of book that feels like a hug from someone you love; familiar, comforting, warm. December is Jane Austen's birth month, so I'm reading all of her books, and this one by far is my favorite reread.
*******
June 6, 2019
Truthfully, this is far from my first time reading “Pride and Prejudice.” I very nearly finished it when assigned to read it in high school (much to Jane Austen’s credit, as I never finished a book assigned to me in those days) and read it fully twice more in early adulthood. Now, as I embark on a quest to familiarize myself with the classics by powering through a “100 Books To Read Before You Die” list, I have been given yet another opportunity to fall in love with Mr. Darcy.
There is not much to say about this book which hasn’t already been said. Two people who hate each other slowly falling in love is a tale as old as time. I just love it. The scene where Elizabeth rejects Mr. Darcy is just amazing. I can’t even.
Jane Austen does it again! There is a reason this is a classic. Read it, then read it again. You won’t be sorry.
Jane and the Twelve Days of Christmas by Stephanie Barron
3.0
A mystery set in a country estate during Christmas time, and Jane Austen as the detective that solves it? Sign me up.
Jane Austen as a detective is a vaguely ridiculous concept, and the writing isn't going to win any awards for brilliance, but after the first quarter of the book was waded through, the story actually became genuinely entertaining. Where the book gets derailed, again and again, is in the insistence of the writer to fill every page with Jane Austen trivia, and the audiobook stopping mid-paragraph to read the footnotes that punctuate each chapter. Stylistically, that is a flaw, but it shows that Stephanie Barron knew what the hell she was talking about when she discusses Jane Austen's known acquaintances, traditions of the time, and fashion of the era.
The mystery itself wasn't that bad, though it's pretty obvious who is involved, and the resolution was frustrating to say the least. It's not enough to solve the mystery; something must be done about it.
Regardless of the flaws in this book, I had fun reading it. In light of what's going on in the world right now, I wanted to spend my December reading things that were light and filled with holiday spirit where available. This book fit the bill nicely.
Jane Austen as a detective is a vaguely ridiculous concept, and the writing isn't going to win any awards for brilliance, but after the first quarter of the book was waded through, the story actually became genuinely entertaining. Where the book gets derailed, again and again, is in the insistence of the writer to fill every page with Jane Austen trivia, and the audiobook stopping mid-paragraph to read the footnotes that punctuate each chapter. Stylistically, that is a flaw, but it shows that Stephanie Barron knew what the hell she was talking about when she discusses Jane Austen's known acquaintances, traditions of the time, and fashion of the era.
The mystery itself wasn't that bad, though it's pretty obvious who is involved, and the resolution was frustrating to say the least. It's not enough to solve the mystery; something must be done about it.
Regardless of the flaws in this book, I had fun reading it. In light of what's going on in the world right now, I wanted to spend my December reading things that were light and filled with holiday spirit where available. This book fit the bill nicely.
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
3.0
"Robinson Crusoe" is an epic survivalist adventure wherein a shipwrecked European does whatever possible to make a life for himself on a deserted Caribbean island. The titular character, Robinson, defies his father's advice to stay home and be content with what he has, resulting in a few ill-fated voyages and ultimately ending with his isolation on an island for nearly 30 years. Whilst stranded on the island, Robinson faces the overwhelming challenge of survival with few resources and no other people to help him. It is a genre defining story, retaining its popularity for 300 years.
With that said, as a 300-year-old book, it does have a few issues; not the least of which is the rampant racism. While I won't waste too much time on this topic, for fear of sounding like a broken record, I will say that Robinson is greatly diminished as a character by his disgusting, imperialistic views. It is hard to like him when his response to meeting literally anybody on the island is the enslave them, no matter how grateful for the service Daniel Defoe portrays said people to be.
Beyond the obvious flaw of racism, Robinson can sometimes be a little hard to like. In the beginning of the novel, he is an impetuous young man who literally CANNOT take a hint. Like, seriously? How many times do you have to have terrible, terrible experiences while sailing before you stay out of the freaking ocean!? At a certain point, Robinson manages to make something of himself in Brazil (through, once again, enslaving people), and it is his hunger to get more slaves for free that urges him to leave it all behind for a long distance voyage to Africa. Proving that there is a God, he is halted in his progress by a terrible storm that overturns his ship and mercifully kills every other crew member, lest they have to listen to Robinson's ramblings for 30 years.
Robinson isn't all bad. I quite admired his resourcefulness, and his sheer power of will. He was desperate to survive, and tackled tasks that a lesser person would have probably just given up on right away. He exercised an admirable amount of patience through his commitment to trial and error, and made a life for himself that he was happily content with. That has to count for something.
The theme of being happy with what you have is prevalent throughout "Robinson Crusoe". It is the first piece of advice that he is given, and throughout it is something that Robinson grapples with. It is hard to be happy with your life when you're stuck in isolation on an island, but he tries his hardest. Throughout his thirty year stay on the island, he finds God and in that way finds a way to be content with all that he has. Only then is he gifted with more, in the form of companionship and eventually escape.
As I was reading, I noticed some similarities in the themes of "Robinson Crusoe" and "Moll Flanders". While one book centers around a desert island, and the other around a deceitful, money grubbing whore (literally), there is a commonality in their situations. Just as Robinson must struggle to survive in the wilderness, Moll must struggle to survive in the rough and tumble world of the city. While Robinson would certainly turn his nose up at the immorality of Miss Moll, I think that they are both, in a way, much the same in their circumstances. Moll is just as isolated by her circumstances as Robinson is, though Moll is technically surrounded by people. The difference is in their attitudes and reactions toward it, or perhaps more aptly, in Daniel Defoe's attitudes and reactions toward the two characters.
"Robinson Crusoe" is, undeniably, a classic. Although a bit dated, it is one of the few books ever written that has infiltrated the lexicon of pop culture to the level that 300-years-later we still know what it is about. Over three centuries, it has inspired countless men and women to create their own adaptations, using Daniel Defoe's greatest work as a launching pad for queries into the psychology of isolation, and the great battle of man versus nature. While not a personal favorite, I can appreciate the power that this singular novel has held over the imaginations of countless people since its release.
With that said, as a 300-year-old book, it does have a few issues; not the least of which is the rampant racism. While I won't waste too much time on this topic, for fear of sounding like a broken record, I will say that Robinson is greatly diminished as a character by his disgusting, imperialistic views. It is hard to like him when his response to meeting literally anybody on the island is the enslave them, no matter how grateful for the service Daniel Defoe portrays said people to be.
Beyond the obvious flaw of racism, Robinson can sometimes be a little hard to like. In the beginning of the novel, he is an impetuous young man who literally CANNOT take a hint. Like, seriously? How many times do you have to have terrible, terrible experiences while sailing before you stay out of the freaking ocean!? At a certain point, Robinson manages to make something of himself in Brazil (through, once again, enslaving people), and it is his hunger to get more slaves for free that urges him to leave it all behind for a long distance voyage to Africa. Proving that there is a God, he is halted in his progress by a terrible storm that overturns his ship and mercifully kills every other crew member, lest they have to listen to Robinson's ramblings for 30 years.
Robinson isn't all bad. I quite admired his resourcefulness, and his sheer power of will. He was desperate to survive, and tackled tasks that a lesser person would have probably just given up on right away. He exercised an admirable amount of patience through his commitment to trial and error, and made a life for himself that he was happily content with. That has to count for something.
The theme of being happy with what you have is prevalent throughout "Robinson Crusoe". It is the first piece of advice that he is given, and throughout it is something that Robinson grapples with. It is hard to be happy with your life when you're stuck in isolation on an island, but he tries his hardest. Throughout his thirty year stay on the island, he finds God and in that way finds a way to be content with all that he has. Only then is he gifted with more, in the form of companionship and eventually escape.
As I was reading, I noticed some similarities in the themes of "Robinson Crusoe" and "Moll Flanders". While one book centers around a desert island, and the other around a deceitful, money grubbing whore (literally), there is a commonality in their situations. Just as Robinson must struggle to survive in the wilderness, Moll must struggle to survive in the rough and tumble world of the city. While Robinson would certainly turn his nose up at the immorality of Miss Moll, I think that they are both, in a way, much the same in their circumstances. Moll is just as isolated by her circumstances as Robinson is, though Moll is technically surrounded by people. The difference is in their attitudes and reactions toward it, or perhaps more aptly, in Daniel Defoe's attitudes and reactions toward the two characters.
"Robinson Crusoe" is, undeniably, a classic. Although a bit dated, it is one of the few books ever written that has infiltrated the lexicon of pop culture to the level that 300-years-later we still know what it is about. Over three centuries, it has inspired countless men and women to create their own adaptations, using Daniel Defoe's greatest work as a launching pad for queries into the psychology of isolation, and the great battle of man versus nature. While not a personal favorite, I can appreciate the power that this singular novel has held over the imaginations of countless people since its release.
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
5.0
My review for this book is where I, yet again, reveal what an absolutely terrible student I was in high school. The Great Gatsby was assigned reading during my senior year, and yet I never actually got around to reading it. Sure, I knew enough about it to fake my way through whatever homework I had, but I definitely didn't read the entire book. I don't even know what my excuse was, beyond total laziness, as this book took me only a few hours to read. Teenage Courtney had something against doing homework, I suppose. So now, at the ripe old age of twenty-nine, I have finally discovered what's so great about Gatsby.
The Great Gatsby centers around a group of rich New Englanders living in the neighborhoods of East and West Egg during the height of the Roaring Twenties. Jay Gatsby, our titular character, is a nouveau riche playboy with a gigantic mansion and propensity for enormous parties. Oh, and he just so happens to live across the bay from his long lost love, Daisy Buchanan. Daisy is, unfortunately, married to a giant asshole named Tom, and so is not exactly free to hop on Gatsby's yacht and sail away into the sunset. Drama ensues from there, and we are left with a quietly tragic tale that has been referred to elsewhere as the great American novel.
I won't go so far as to agree with that assessment, but there is something undeniably American about a story that showcases the human consequences of confusing money with merit, and happiness with material possessions. More than that,though, F. Scott Fitzgerald uses this medium to capture the essence of a generation; the post WWI decadence and rampant gluttony that defined the era. It is an interesting time capsule, and thoroughly enjoyable. For that reason, I rated it highly. However, like all novels, there are some flaws, and I wanted to point them out.
First of all, there is a small but not insignificant amount of racism. Tom Buchanan is all but wearing a white sheet throughout, but he is supposed to be seen as a rather unsavory character so we can chalk that up to characterization. However, there are also some pretty negative anti-Semitic stuff to be found here, including the use of slurs, so be forewarned.
Secondly, there is a decidedly negative framing of the female characters in this novel. As a devoted fan-girl of flawed ladies in literature, I have to take a moment to defend the ladies of The Great Gatsby.
There are three main female characters within the novel: Daisy Buchanan, Jordan Baker, and Myrtle Wilson. All three of these ladies are seen as vapid, materialistic, and bitchy. The general consensus among people who have read this book is that these ladies suck, but I don't think that is necessarily fair, and here is why. Obviously, here be spoilers
Myrtle Wilson: I'll admit that Myrtle isn't exactly portrayed in her best light here. She is kind of obnoxious, and obviously there is the whole infidelity thing, but we aren't given enough of a backstory on her to see if that part of herself is at all excusable. Her husband, George Wilson, doesn't seem to be all that bad, but considering his reaction to learning of her infidelity is to lock her up like a dog who has gotten loose, I would argue that perhaps her infidelity is a symptom of marital unhappiness, and not the cause. Beyond the infidelity, the biggest flaw that Myrtle has is enjoying money. Seriously, the way she lavishes in her lover's gifts is shown to be some giant character flaw, as though literally anybody else in her position would do something different. I, for one, know that if I suddenly woke up with a boyfriend with loads of cash, and he willingly spent it on me without any prompting on my part, I'm not going to pretend to dislike the luxury of it all on principle. I don't think any reasonable person would turn their nose up to living like a rich person, and I think the negative framing of this element of Myrtle's life has more to do with the fact that she isn't rich, and therefore is a pretender (i.e. doesn't belong with Nick and his elitist friends), than that she is enjoying the nice things in life.
Jordan Baker: Oh, Jordan. You beautiful, flawed little thing. Jordan is the quintessential bitch of this novel. She is icy and disinterested, gossipy and deceptive. And yet, I find that I really liked her in the same way that I liked Estella from Great Expectations.. She is an ice queen to hide her unfathomable depths, and I. Am. Here. For. It!!! Although a spoiled rich girl who screams privilege with every word that comes out of her mouth, Jordan is a desperately insecure perfectionist who hides her vulnerability behind nonchalance. Rather than lose a single game of golf, she cheats because she cannot bear the idea that she could lose, or more than that, that she could be seen losing. Her reputation means everything to her; she needs other people's approval because she doesn't have the self-confidence she projects. She gossips to keep eyes and ears focused on others, because to bear the gaze of a critical eye is more than Jordan can take. In the end, when she is dumped by Nick for her presumed iciness regarding Myrtle's death, she tries to showcase her nonchalance with a lie, because she is hurt and doesn't want the person who hurt her to see it. While Nick judges the crap out of her for this (surprise, surprise), I don't think that it is a particularly terrible thing. From her side of things, the breakup must seem terribly abrupt and she doesn't owe Nick anything at that point. If a white lie about having another lover helps her to feel better about the fact that someone she really loved is dumping her without even a hint of warning, then I'm okay with it.
Daisy Buchanan: Daisy Buchanan is often thought to be unworthy of Gatsby's love, but I don't agree with that at all. I think that Daisy did what most people would have done in her place. Young and popular in her town, she fell in love with a handsome soldier who lied to her about his origins. He didn't give her the chance to reject him for not having money. He just lied to her, and then went off to better himself without explaining what he was doing. From her perspective, she was waiting for something that might not come to anything, and then she meets a guy that is everything Gatsby pretended to be, and she loves him too, so why not marry him. Still, at her wedding day, she considers leaving to go all in with Gatsby, but is convinced by family members to stick it out with Tom. After a few years and a daughter that she loves, Daisy is reunited with her long lost love and wrongs him by....not living up to his fantasy of her? By not lying to him when he asks her to proclaim that she never loved her husband? Neither of those things are reasonable expectations of her, and after she accidentally kills her husband's mistress she doesn't immediately run off with Gatsby and that's condemnable? Instead she talks it out with her husband and decides to run off with him. How is that different from if she decided to go with Gatsby? Either way she's running away from the crime. This way, though, she ends up with her daughter, who we see that she loves. She has nothing to do with Gatsby's death, either, because it is her husband that points Wilson in his direction, and there is no reason to assume that she even knew he did that. After her lover dies, is she supposed to drop everything and come back for his funeral, therefore alienating the man that she is stuck with? I don't think that she is automatically a bad person for choosing to stick with what is good for her and her daughter, lest we forget that she can't just make decisions based only on what she wants anymore.
Now that I've gone in depth about why I think the ladies of this novel have been misjudged, I'm going to spend a minute talking about how insufferable some of these men are. Don't get me wrong, I liked Gatsby and could see that Nick was not a terrible person, but neither of those men were judged with nearly the severity of the ladies, and so I'm going to spend some time calling them out.
First, Gatsby. Gatsby lied to Daisy about his financial situation, and left to go improve himself without ever telling her the truth about himself. He judged her to be so materialistic and vapid that he refused to even give her the choice to be other than his assumption of her. Additionally, he waltzes into the life that she made for herself after he essentially ghosted her and is upset to discover that she loved someone else. I mean, I get it. Love is not always reasonable. But for him to hold the fact that she moved on with someone else against her is petty and unreasonable. Daisy shouldn't be held to the standard of abstinence for five years while he figures his shit out. Clearly she still loved Gatsby, and that should have been enough.
Additionally, I think that Gatsby and Daisy were ill-fated anyway, because I think that both of them loved the other in a selfish way. Daisy saw Gatsby as an escape from her shitty marriage, and Gatsby saw Daisy as the manic-pixie-dream-girl upon which all of his hopes and dreams hung. He didn't see her for the flaws that she had. He didn't see her as a real person. He couldn't comprehend that she had grown and evolved in five years. You can see that he lives in a state of unreality by the way he looks at her daughter on the one opportunity he has to meet her. He is almost shocked to see that there is evidence of Daisy having lived her life instead of curling into a ball and waiting for him. I like Gatsby. I appreciate him as a tragic hero, I really do. But I don't think that it can be ignored that if such a person existed today, we'd be a little less excited about his behavior and a little more worried about his display of possessiveness.
Finally, Nick. Nick Carraway is self-righteous. There, I said it. He is a self-righteous, judgmental little butthead who sees himself as being so above-it-all while simultaneously being in the thick of it. He doesn't have any empathy for his supposed love, Jordan, and is totally comfortable with casual racism and domestic violence, as evidenced by his total chill reaction to Tom socking Myrtle in the face. Nick hangs out with these people because he wants to be them, while simultaneously feeling superior to them.
So anyway, I've wasted far too much time writing this review, so I'll wrap it up. But seriously, the girls were misjudged and the guys were put on a pedestal they didn't deserve to be on. *mic drop*
The Great Gatsby centers around a group of rich New Englanders living in the neighborhoods of East and West Egg during the height of the Roaring Twenties. Jay Gatsby, our titular character, is a nouveau riche playboy with a gigantic mansion and propensity for enormous parties. Oh, and he just so happens to live across the bay from his long lost love, Daisy Buchanan. Daisy is, unfortunately, married to a giant asshole named Tom, and so is not exactly free to hop on Gatsby's yacht and sail away into the sunset. Drama ensues from there, and we are left with a quietly tragic tale that has been referred to elsewhere as the great American novel.
I won't go so far as to agree with that assessment, but there is something undeniably American about a story that showcases the human consequences of confusing money with merit, and happiness with material possessions. More than that,though, F. Scott Fitzgerald uses this medium to capture the essence of a generation; the post WWI decadence and rampant gluttony that defined the era. It is an interesting time capsule, and thoroughly enjoyable. For that reason, I rated it highly. However, like all novels, there are some flaws, and I wanted to point them out.
First of all, there is a small but not insignificant amount of racism. Tom Buchanan is all but wearing a white sheet throughout, but he is supposed to be seen as a rather unsavory character so we can chalk that up to characterization. However, there are also some pretty negative anti-Semitic stuff to be found here, including the use of slurs, so be forewarned.
Secondly, there is a decidedly negative framing of the female characters in this novel. As a devoted fan-girl of flawed ladies in literature, I have to take a moment to defend the ladies of The Great Gatsby.
There are three main female characters within the novel: Daisy Buchanan, Jordan Baker, and Myrtle Wilson. All three of these ladies are seen as vapid, materialistic, and bitchy. The general consensus among people who have read this book is that these ladies suck, but I don't think that is necessarily fair, and here is why. Obviously, here be spoilers
Myrtle Wilson: I'll admit that Myrtle isn't exactly portrayed in her best light here. She is kind of obnoxious, and obviously there is the whole infidelity thing, but we aren't given enough of a backstory on her to see if that part of herself is at all excusable. Her husband, George Wilson, doesn't seem to be all that bad, but considering his reaction to learning of her infidelity is to lock her up like a dog who has gotten loose, I would argue that perhaps her infidelity is a symptom of marital unhappiness, and not the cause. Beyond the infidelity, the biggest flaw that Myrtle has is enjoying money. Seriously, the way she lavishes in her lover's gifts is shown to be some giant character flaw, as though literally anybody else in her position would do something different. I, for one, know that if I suddenly woke up with a boyfriend with loads of cash, and he willingly spent it on me without any prompting on my part, I'm not going to pretend to dislike the luxury of it all on principle. I don't think any reasonable person would turn their nose up to living like a rich person, and I think the negative framing of this element of Myrtle's life has more to do with the fact that she isn't rich, and therefore is a pretender (i.e. doesn't belong with Nick and his elitist friends), than that she is enjoying the nice things in life.
Jordan Baker: Oh, Jordan. You beautiful, flawed little thing. Jordan is the quintessential bitch of this novel. She is icy and disinterested, gossipy and deceptive. And yet, I find that I really liked her in the same way that I liked Estella from Great Expectations.. She is an ice queen to hide her unfathomable depths, and I. Am. Here. For. It!!! Although a spoiled rich girl who screams privilege with every word that comes out of her mouth, Jordan is a desperately insecure perfectionist who hides her vulnerability behind nonchalance. Rather than lose a single game of golf, she cheats because she cannot bear the idea that she could lose, or more than that, that she could be seen losing. Her reputation means everything to her; she needs other people's approval because she doesn't have the self-confidence she projects. She gossips to keep eyes and ears focused on others, because to bear the gaze of a critical eye is more than Jordan can take. In the end, when she is dumped by Nick for her presumed iciness regarding Myrtle's death, she tries to showcase her nonchalance with a lie, because she is hurt and doesn't want the person who hurt her to see it. While Nick judges the crap out of her for this (surprise, surprise), I don't think that it is a particularly terrible thing. From her side of things, the breakup must seem terribly abrupt and she doesn't owe Nick anything at that point. If a white lie about having another lover helps her to feel better about the fact that someone she really loved is dumping her without even a hint of warning, then I'm okay with it.
Daisy Buchanan: Daisy Buchanan is often thought to be unworthy of Gatsby's love, but I don't agree with that at all. I think that Daisy did what most people would have done in her place. Young and popular in her town, she fell in love with a handsome soldier who lied to her about his origins. He didn't give her the chance to reject him for not having money. He just lied to her, and then went off to better himself without explaining what he was doing. From her perspective, she was waiting for something that might not come to anything, and then she meets a guy that is everything Gatsby pretended to be, and she loves him too, so why not marry him. Still, at her wedding day, she considers leaving to go all in with Gatsby, but is convinced by family members to stick it out with Tom. After a few years and a daughter that she loves, Daisy is reunited with her long lost love and wrongs him by....not living up to his fantasy of her? By not lying to him when he asks her to proclaim that she never loved her husband? Neither of those things are reasonable expectations of her, and after she accidentally kills her husband's mistress she doesn't immediately run off with Gatsby and that's condemnable? Instead she talks it out with her husband and decides to run off with him. How is that different from if she decided to go with Gatsby? Either way she's running away from the crime. This way, though, she ends up with her daughter, who we see that she loves. She has nothing to do with Gatsby's death, either, because it is her husband that points Wilson in his direction, and there is no reason to assume that she even knew he did that. After her lover dies, is she supposed to drop everything and come back for his funeral, therefore alienating the man that she is stuck with? I don't think that she is automatically a bad person for choosing to stick with what is good for her and her daughter, lest we forget that she can't just make decisions based only on what she wants anymore.
Now that I've gone in depth about why I think the ladies of this novel have been misjudged, I'm going to spend a minute talking about how insufferable some of these men are. Don't get me wrong, I liked Gatsby and could see that Nick was not a terrible person, but neither of those men were judged with nearly the severity of the ladies, and so I'm going to spend some time calling them out.
First, Gatsby. Gatsby lied to Daisy about his financial situation, and left to go improve himself without ever telling her the truth about himself. He judged her to be so materialistic and vapid that he refused to even give her the choice to be other than his assumption of her. Additionally, he waltzes into the life that she made for herself after he essentially ghosted her and is upset to discover that she loved someone else. I mean, I get it. Love is not always reasonable. But for him to hold the fact that she moved on with someone else against her is petty and unreasonable. Daisy shouldn't be held to the standard of abstinence for five years while he figures his shit out. Clearly she still loved Gatsby, and that should have been enough.
Additionally, I think that Gatsby and Daisy were ill-fated anyway, because I think that both of them loved the other in a selfish way. Daisy saw Gatsby as an escape from her shitty marriage, and Gatsby saw Daisy as the manic-pixie-dream-girl upon which all of his hopes and dreams hung. He didn't see her for the flaws that she had. He didn't see her as a real person. He couldn't comprehend that she had grown and evolved in five years. You can see that he lives in a state of unreality by the way he looks at her daughter on the one opportunity he has to meet her. He is almost shocked to see that there is evidence of Daisy having lived her life instead of curling into a ball and waiting for him. I like Gatsby. I appreciate him as a tragic hero, I really do. But I don't think that it can be ignored that if such a person existed today, we'd be a little less excited about his behavior and a little more worried about his display of possessiveness.
Finally, Nick. Nick Carraway is self-righteous. There, I said it. He is a self-righteous, judgmental little butthead who sees himself as being so above-it-all while simultaneously being in the thick of it. He doesn't have any empathy for his supposed love, Jordan, and is totally comfortable with casual racism and domestic violence, as evidenced by his total chill reaction to Tom socking Myrtle in the face. Nick hangs out with these people because he wants to be them, while simultaneously feeling superior to them.
So anyway, I've wasted far too much time writing this review, so I'll wrap it up. But seriously, the girls were misjudged and the guys were put on a pedestal they didn't deserve to be on. *mic drop*
Breakfast at Tiffany's by Truman Capote
3.0
Somehow I have managed to make it almost 30-years without ever seeing Audrey Hepburn knock 'em dead as Holly Golightly in the film version of Breakfast at Tiffany's. Honestly, I'm such an uncultured swine that I haven't even seen My Fair Lady, and always sort of attributed the plot of that movie to Breakfast at Tiffany's. I know. For shame!
Breakfast at Tiffany's is a story about one man's fascination with his neighbor; the spirited young gal-about-town, Holly Golightly. Beautiful and charming, Holly is quite popular with the fellas, especially the rich ones, and our humble narrator gets a kick out of watching her comings and goings. Through a series of encounters, our narrator and Holly become friends, and through that friendship we are given a glimpse beneath the mask that Holly presents to the world.
As a character, Holly Golightly is one of those characters that I really liked, but also found incredibly problematic. On one hand, she is charming and funny. There are several one-liners in this novel that I highlighted just because they made me laugh. She is vivacious and carefree in a way that demands attention. It is not hard to picture all of the party-goers struggling to peel their eyes away from her charisma. On one hand, the adult in me shudders at the idea of being so irresponsible, but on the other hand I wish I could let go the way that Holly does.
Something that I've come to realize through the years is that what is likable in fiction is not the same as what is likable in reality. Holly Golightly would likely irritate the ever-living hell out of me, especially if I were her neighbor. All those late night parties, buzzing at me because she can't be trusted to keep track of her own key! Ugh. I would hate her with a passion. But in print, the way that she wraps all these gentlemen around her finger, and treats her "reds" with retail therapy at Tiffany's, and generally just enjoys a shallow existence is fun. It is fun to watch these fictional men fall all over themselves because there are no real hearts at stake. I can sit on the sidelines and say, "you go girl!" as she takes all their money because really no millionaires were harmed in the making of this book. I can love Holly in print, and I do love her, but I also recognize that she is so very, very flawed.
The main issue that I had with Holly is her outward racism. Like, not even at all subtle. She straight up uses the N-word. She treats her Latino boyfriend like a fetish, and she has no problem at all with courting a marriage with a literal Nazi. I understand that she has a back-country, hillbilly background that is doesn't exactly lend itself to being tolerant, and it was the 1940s, but jeez louise. Additionally, she has a major homophobia problem. She uses a gay slur repetitively throughout the novel, even though she admits to having some bisexual tendencies, and even if she doesn't mean it negatively most of the time, there are plenty of times where she weaponizes the word to imply something negative about another person.
This book is carried on Holly Golightly's back. She is the only character of note, beyond the narrator, but he is sort of a limp fish personified. He is not leading man material, and in no way stands up beside Holly's supernova star power. He is the creative sort, an outsider looking in, and I think that his inability to compare with Holly is 100% intentional on the part of Capote. In saying these things, I don't think that I am insulting Capote's characterization of him, but merely agreeing with it. That's not to say that I don't like the narrator, because I do. In fact, I think that in a way, I am him. Most people are him, because most of us aren't anything like Holly Golightly or her harem of successful and handsome men. Most of us are the person watching on the sidelines, hoping to absorb just a little bit of that special something that people like Holly have in spades.
At the end of the day, I had to give this book 3-stars because while Holly Golightly is a dynamite character with an expertly crafted personality, and Truman Capote is a talented writer, this book lacks the depth that makes it resonate at a higher level. However, I did enjoy it and might finally, finally check out the movie!
Breakfast at Tiffany's is a story about one man's fascination with his neighbor; the spirited young gal-about-town, Holly Golightly. Beautiful and charming, Holly is quite popular with the fellas, especially the rich ones, and our humble narrator gets a kick out of watching her comings and goings. Through a series of encounters, our narrator and Holly become friends, and through that friendship we are given a glimpse beneath the mask that Holly presents to the world.
As a character, Holly Golightly is one of those characters that I really liked, but also found incredibly problematic. On one hand, she is charming and funny. There are several one-liners in this novel that I highlighted just because they made me laugh. She is vivacious and carefree in a way that demands attention. It is not hard to picture all of the party-goers struggling to peel their eyes away from her charisma. On one hand, the adult in me shudders at the idea of being so irresponsible, but on the other hand I wish I could let go the way that Holly does.
Something that I've come to realize through the years is that what is likable in fiction is not the same as what is likable in reality. Holly Golightly would likely irritate the ever-living hell out of me, especially if I were her neighbor. All those late night parties, buzzing at me because she can't be trusted to keep track of her own key! Ugh. I would hate her with a passion. But in print, the way that she wraps all these gentlemen around her finger, and treats her "reds" with retail therapy at Tiffany's, and generally just enjoys a shallow existence is fun. It is fun to watch these fictional men fall all over themselves because there are no real hearts at stake. I can sit on the sidelines and say, "you go girl!" as she takes all their money because really no millionaires were harmed in the making of this book. I can love Holly in print, and I do love her, but I also recognize that she is so very, very flawed.
The main issue that I had with Holly is her outward racism. Like, not even at all subtle. She straight up uses the N-word. She treats her Latino boyfriend like a fetish, and she has no problem at all with courting a marriage with a literal Nazi. I understand that she has a back-country, hillbilly background that is doesn't exactly lend itself to being tolerant, and it was the 1940s, but jeez louise. Additionally, she has a major homophobia problem. She uses a gay slur repetitively throughout the novel, even though she admits to having some bisexual tendencies, and even if she doesn't mean it negatively most of the time, there are plenty of times where she weaponizes the word to imply something negative about another person.
This book is carried on Holly Golightly's back. She is the only character of note, beyond the narrator, but he is sort of a limp fish personified. He is not leading man material, and in no way stands up beside Holly's supernova star power. He is the creative sort, an outsider looking in, and I think that his inability to compare with Holly is 100% intentional on the part of Capote. In saying these things, I don't think that I am insulting Capote's characterization of him, but merely agreeing with it. That's not to say that I don't like the narrator, because I do. In fact, I think that in a way, I am him. Most people are him, because most of us aren't anything like Holly Golightly or her harem of successful and handsome men. Most of us are the person watching on the sidelines, hoping to absorb just a little bit of that special something that people like Holly have in spades.
At the end of the day, I had to give this book 3-stars because while Holly Golightly is a dynamite character with an expertly crafted personality, and Truman Capote is a talented writer, this book lacks the depth that makes it resonate at a higher level. However, I did enjoy it and might finally, finally check out the movie!
The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle
4.0
The first time I read this well-beloved Sherlock Holmes story, I was seventeen and more prone to reading about lovestruck vampires and wizarding schools than about 19th century detectives. The world of the supernatural has always been my favored literary escape, but I was looking to branch out into the world of classic literature in hopes of being more sophisticated and grown up . Predictably, I fell off the wagon fairly quickly due to the surprising lack of YA plot devices, but during my brief dive into the world of classics, The Hound of the Baskervilles served as a pleasantly effective intermediary between the worlds of my youth and the world of perceived maturity.
While rooted in the realistic version of 19th century England, The Hound of the Baskervilles includes elements of a vaguely supernatural gloom; a gloom that blends seamlessly with the palpable tension of a very real threat. Centering around a sparsely populated English moor, this adventure takes Sherlock and Watson out of their element and into the world of country superstition, ancestral legacy, and hidden dangers. The mystery is this: the most recent Baskervilles descendant has died, leaving behind evidence of foul play and a supernatural end courtesy of a long running curse. Inquiring minds want to know what happened, and more importantly, whether the remaining Baskervilles heir should be worried. Enter Sherlock and Watson, though the story is mostly investigated by Watson, whilst Sherlock goes off elsewhere to be brilliant alone.
Sherlock Holmes is the kind of character that you would probably absolutely abhor in real life. He is incredibly arrogant and patronizing, the epitome of "well, actually...," and would be insufferable in a social setting. In print, however, he is an entertaining example of the powers of deductive and inductive reasoning, and is softened into likeability by his devoted everyman assistant, Watson.
The mystery is solid, the red-herrings and clues well spaced, and the setting wonderful. Doyle really takes the reader out onto the moors, amidst the blinding fog, and makes you feel the delight and terror of our characters as they struggle to work it out. The book is incredibly short; a blessing when you're trying to fit a whole book into your busy life, and entertaining enough to justify the time spent. As the most famous of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, it also offers the added incentive of familiarizing you with what could possibly be a future Jeopardy question.
While rooted in the realistic version of 19th century England, The Hound of the Baskervilles includes elements of a vaguely supernatural gloom; a gloom that blends seamlessly with the palpable tension of a very real threat. Centering around a sparsely populated English moor, this adventure takes Sherlock and Watson out of their element and into the world of country superstition, ancestral legacy, and hidden dangers. The mystery is this: the most recent Baskervilles descendant has died, leaving behind evidence of foul play and a supernatural end courtesy of a long running curse. Inquiring minds want to know what happened, and more importantly, whether the remaining Baskervilles heir should be worried. Enter Sherlock and Watson, though the story is mostly investigated by Watson, whilst Sherlock goes off elsewhere to be brilliant alone.
Sherlock Holmes is the kind of character that you would probably absolutely abhor in real life. He is incredibly arrogant and patronizing, the epitome of "well, actually...," and would be insufferable in a social setting. In print, however, he is an entertaining example of the powers of deductive and inductive reasoning, and is softened into likeability by his devoted everyman assistant, Watson.
The mystery is solid, the red-herrings and clues well spaced, and the setting wonderful. Doyle really takes the reader out onto the moors, amidst the blinding fog, and makes you feel the delight and terror of our characters as they struggle to work it out. The book is incredibly short; a blessing when you're trying to fit a whole book into your busy life, and entertaining enough to justify the time spent. As the most famous of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, it also offers the added incentive of familiarizing you with what could possibly be a future Jeopardy question.