Persuasion by Jane Austen

Part of the Austen in August event hosted by Roofbeamreader.net. (Master post link.)

4
Persuasion follows Anne Elliot, the second daughter of conceited baron, and the less beautiful daughter. It follows her life in the usual Austen style of dealing with her family as a socially over-concious body and her own personal life, with the usual period emphasis on her getting married or at least finding potential suitors.

Despite that rather vague and perhaps dull little analogy, I adored this book. For me, it was so very much like Pride and Prejudice in terms of Anne and Elizabeth being similar and the story itself even sharing some similarities. Now these comparisons are very general and it is definitely not the same story, but as a general feeling for the book, it is so much like Austen's most famous novel that I think any fans of that book could feel safe to pick up this one and enjoy it.

In contrast to Pride and Prejudice, Persuasion is probably darker. It isn't really a dark book, but some parts suggest a more cultured character who sees the poverty and suffering around her- at least more than I remember Elizabeth doing- and someone who is more directly affected by evil times and nefarious people.

It's a little predictable at times. Perhaps it's a familiarity with Austen's novels, or perhaps it was me comparing it to Pride and Prejudice, but whatever it happened to be, it made the book less of a surprise but nonetheless enjoyable. Frankly, I read Austen's books because I love how she writes and how she can so aptly draw me into a story which on the outside would, to me, perhaps seem superficial and not work minutes, let alone hours, of my time. But Austen succeeds in crafting masterpieces that I love reading.

And more so than the other books I've read, I think one can see the influence and reason for the title of this book. Persuasion is a central feature in this book from early on and it is through persuasion, coercion, subtlety and even deception that the main characters work and the consequence of these actions have a number of reprecussions throughout the entire book.

Another interesting theme in the book is that of the Navy. They feature as the primary source of love interests for the characters, and the scorn of those characters Austen designates as distasteful, but not antagonists. Reading up on it, it transpires that Austen's brothers were of the Navy themselves and so it for that reason that she included and made such an exploration of them here.

Despite my perhaps rambly yet short review, I do believe that this is a quite excellent Austen novel and is one that anyone who start with Pride and Prejudice should definitely check out! (At least for the sake of discussing with me, since I could be under a self-imposed illusion!)

A Clash of Kings by George R. R. Martin

Possible spoilers for book one but not this book, but they will be highlighted such that one can avoid them!

4
This book two in Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series and is an extremely long read (though I hear A Dance With Dragons is longer still). It is continuation of every and all events from book one and is just as hard-hitting and, in some ways, wonderfully deplorable. In my opinion, it is the better of the two since I was much more interested in events than in book one.

The plot in this series, for anyone who hasn't read the books, is a sprawling mess of utter chaos. The best analogy is to imagine a plate of spaghetti, and each string of spaghetti is a plot line and reading it is like trying to find the other end of the spaghetti WITHOUT yanking it out. It is utter madness sometimes. You seem to have your main plot and about 4 other sub-plots, per viewpoint. And then there are around 6 view points. So you have a grand total of around 30 plots which you have to try, in vain to keep straight. Early on in the book, it's even worse. I commend Martin for not just tying off the old plots and moving on, but the start of the book holds onto about half of the plots for about a third of the book, but still insists on bringing in more. What I'm saying is that these are highly confusing books a lot of the time, and sometimes you'd be reading something and only realise about 3 pages in which plot it pertains to.

This same issue is with the characters, though it is less pronounced. The back of the book lists every major and minor character of the major factions on the book, and I seriously believe that every one of them is important in some way. Finishing the book, I astounded myself with how many characters I managed to keep straight in my head. Admittedly, I just had to keep reading blind sometimes and hope this character wasn't too important.

It's a credit to Martin, I have to say, that despite being occasionally muddled I managed to know what was going on. How I think he does it is by defining everything with certain events of names. Practically all the characters have a defining a feature- some are "the Knight of X", they may be named "The [noun]" or they were involved in some conquest- and they will be the only ones associated with this. It's fantastically done when I think about it.

Anyway, down to specifics.

Once again, one of the things is disliked was the wanton brutality of the books, and the banalisation of rape and prostitution. I read some response Martin gave on these fronts (I'm not the only one who is disturbed by it) and he defends it by saying that it is historical and medieval England was like this. He doesn't like it any more than we do, but he has to right a realistic, truthful story. If that means it must be gritty and disturbing, so be it. I can accept that since he's right to be honest in his story, but I'm retaining the right to dislike it. It is too often brought up, in my opinion, and hate that the men are often so flippant about it. It doesn't usually detract from the story, but I think that if anyone has particular sensibilities or particular revulsion to these things, stop while you're ahead; since I expect it to get worse as the book continues and fighting grows. I wonder if I would have ever opted to read these books had I known they were so....so like this.

**** SPOILERS FOR BOOK ONE IN NEXT PARAGRAPHS UNTIL I SAY OTHERWISE!!! ****

I actually got more invested in various stories this time around. Last time, stories such as Jon Snow's, Sansa's or Arya's were just not at all interesting. However, at the end of book one, Arya has fled the castle, Sansa dislikes Joffrey (and, forgive me, has finally gotten some sense) while Jon has learnt that the Night's Watch are to go beyond the wall. In book one, I could read Jon's chapters easily enough for the same reasons I could read Catelyn's and Bran's: because despite not being terribly interesting, they were written and I liked the voice's. Also, they both had points were they were actually interesting. With Jon, I felt his story had so much potential to be interesting, but it just wasn't. I understand they had to train, set up loyalties and what not but there was wasted opportunity, in my opinion. There was always the feeling of a growing threat and it infuriated me that it was never realised story-wise.

Tyrion and Daenerys are both just as good though, if not better. Tyrion is whimsical and despite being a Lannister, I'm actually going to accuse him of having a great deal of sense and even a few morals. In some ways, he often strikes me as the most human of the characters and even though he has his weaknesses and short-comings (no pun intended), he is probably the only Lannister I would want to be King. I think he has the good sense to look past his own life and desires and do what is right for the kingdom as a whole.

Daenerys disappointed me a little since very little happened in her story besides a lot of wandering around, hopeless, and sitting about dreaming about her future. I think she had fewer chapters than last time as well so we didn't see her as much. But the dragons....man, do I love them! I squirm with happiness whenever they do anything and, at one point, it says how she was reclining in cushions with her dragons around her. Bliss, utter bliss.

There are two new views as well: Ser Davos, a Knight of Stannis, and Theon Greyjoy. Davos had a nice voice, and I did like him, but I was more interested in him because Melisandre and the magic (?) she suggested she had.  Theon is more interesting, but only because I hate him from the bottom of my heart. I feel sorry for him since he feels abandoned by his own family, but does he need to be such a debased and detestable individual? He has no value for women or anyone less than himself. In so many ways, he is just like a Lannister in his overwhelming idea of self worth and importance. And the things he does- the way he is- just disgusts me. The bit with Bran and Rickon...I just had to stop reading for a short while. I felt my heart stop; I stopped breathing in shock. I was just blown away at how much I could hate a character.

**** SPOILERS OVER ****


Overall, I was impressed with this book. If you read book one and were a bit dubious, I think this book will set your mind at ease that this is likely to be an enjoyable series and that you should definitely keep reading. I only warn you to expect to be reading this for a while; my copy was around 900 pages.

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

4
For those unaware of it, this a dystopian novel (in my mind similar to 1984) about a boy Alex (!) who, like many his age, is extremely violent and speaks with rather unintelligible slang. He's an anti-hero in many ways, but he isn't, actually, completely evil. In many ways, this book is also a very different kind of coming of age novel.

First off, I think it's important to get my warnings out of the way. Alex is a violent person, which can be gruesome, but most of us can move past that; but there is also sexual crime, perpetrated by him, in the book. There isn't a great detail, but it's something obvious in the story and he has a very objectifying perception of women.

There is also the "NadSat" talk. It's the slang that the teenagers use and has mainly Russian derivations, while others are just nods towards certain ideas or people. Starting the book, I really struggled with this. I got a dictionary up online to help understand what was happening since he'd speak normally for many a page, but then start using NadSat for almost every other word. It was taking me out of the story so I had to do something. Apparently the author didn't like the NadSat Dictionary idea since he wanted people to actually go away and look up the Russian stems, so that everyone might have a slightly different interpretation, but though I tried, it was too difficult.

As I often find with classics, the story didn't jump out at me so much as the ideas behind it; it was merely the podium on which the ideas had to stand in order to be seen. It isn't bad, though. There's three parts; '1' is life before jail, '2' is life in jail and during "treatment" while '3' is after jail and when he rejoins society. Basically, we get to know Alex and see him commit crimes, then we see his droogies (friends) turn on him so he goes to jail. here, he gets involved in Ludovico treatment- a treatment which breeds an aversion to an act by subjecting someone to unbearable sensations when seeing or thinking of the act. An association-aversion treatment. I'll leave the ending in case you decide to read, but you can sort of guess where it is heading (but I promise you couldn't guess it in it's entirety). Also, each part has 7 sections- appealing to my OCD. The idea was that 21 (culturally an age of maturity) is when Alex finally starts changing since I wouldn't call it maturity.

The main idea that leaps from this novel is the argument of whether it is better to do good things, but only because you have been conditioned for it, or to do as you wouldst, even if you do bad. Alex is turned into an acceptable citizen who will never be violent, never misuse someone, never commit a crime. He is the perfect denizen in the eyes of the Government since he costs no money, and goes about doing his own job. The Prison Chaplain is the main character we have against this. He says it is wrong to take away free will and that if one does bad things then it is acceptable only in the light that it is chosen. Everyone, I think, believes Free Will is paramount, but equally believes that it is wrong to cause or allow evil to fester. It's a hard question because it pits two ideas against one another, and in many ways comes down to the self versus the community. Ultimately though, I couldn't defend taking away Free Will. The right to choice is so fundamentally human and I can't bear elements of subjugation or oppression. Cured Alex is no longer a human because there is more powerful force controlling his ability to function. I think the novel veers you in that direction overall, so I am biased, but I don't think that undermines the argument at all.

There's other ideas present, but to a lesser extent. For example, there's the notion that merely having good taste does not make one good. Ask yourself what kind of music a criminal listens too. Contemporary mainstream, I imagine? Alex, he likes Classical Music. He describes it really beautifully until he starts imaging violent images and his adoration for it humanises him and is one of those things that makes you like him since, subliminally, I think we think someone who likes classical music can't be all bad. In fact, this idea is murmuring throughout the entire novel. Burgess is poetic in his writing, and reading him is no effort at all even if you don't exactly understand. He's written really beautifully, despite the subject matter. There's probably a notion of making bad things look good to fool the majority that you could argue, but that's one level of inference too far for me to be going.

I have some minor issues with the book. There's a noticeable lack of female characters in the book; when they are there they are merely plot devices, it seems. I didn't take this as sexist though, I think Burgess was just trying to draw the parallels to Alex and the Government. Though it doesn't say it, I get the feeling it is a very strong patriarchy- that Alex just isn't as discreet as his superiors. The only hint at this is when they are demonstrating the treatment to the officials and the beautiful woman walks off stage and Alex sees the hunger in the men's eyes.

NadSat is the other issue because, though I expected it, I didn't expect it quite so much so it took a small while to get used to.

Some good things I didn't mention too include how I found the book rather funny. One in particular was at the end of part two and the Chaplain says "God help the lot of us" after the treatment is found successful. He sees what no one else does: that the Government doesn't care who they use it on. He seems to have finally given up since no one can see this obvious fact; it just made me smile. I love Cassandra (Greek) characters. The characterisations are also marvellous considering the little time we see some of them, though perhaps a bit black and white.

This was a really enjoyable book. If you don't read classics (modern or otherwise) then I really recommend trying this one if your interested in trying to read more. It's a typical dystopian, and would probably appeal to fans of 1984, though they may see too many parallels with the two. Once again, a fantastic and pleasantly short read.

The Forest of Hands and Teeth by Carrie Ryan

4

This is a zombie apocalypse novel were bleak doesn't even cut it. The story is of Mary, a girl living in the last refuge of humanity ruled by The Sisters, and how she tries to live in this environment. Up until the zombies get into gear, this story is also very dystopian.

I just can’t write this without feeling depressed all over again (and slightly nervous). It’s truly a great story, and as someone who doesn’t like zombies, it credit to how easy it is to be drawn in. I never knew what to expect from the book: the cover gives nothing away and Mary herself is unpredictable because she constantly strives to fit in with society; all she really wants is to see the ocean since, to her, it is the only place truly untouched by the Unconsecrated.

At the start, the mechanics of the village are stiflingly dystopian. The Sisters rule with iron-clad authority and the Guardians are their hands. It appears to be a working society, but then Mary finds out some things, some by accident, and she begins to see the Sisters more as like occupying, brain-washing force than a force for God. She half-respects the sisters, especially Sister Tabitha, for their dedication, but it is something she doesn’t share. This kind of difference is what makes Mary so strange to the other villagers. Whereas they are happy to live, breed and help maintain human life, she wants more. She wants to be herself and not just a tool for humanity’s survival.

There were some really horrible moments in this book. The Zombie in red? My skin crawled every time she was mentioned. This one meant bad news whenever she was around, and seeing her destroy herself was even terrifying. And worse still: zombie children. This is a bit of a spoiler thing, but anyone who is thinking of reading this must know there are zombified children- even newborns. It made me sick to read, partly because I stick to books where children are safe even if deprived. But as ever, it was captivating.

Romance was kind of important in the book. The idea is that each girl in the village either marries and copulates or becomes a Sister: romance is only good luck. So when Mary finds love, it reiterates the oddity of our protagonist that I could I actually didn’t mind. For once, when I was told she’d loved him for a long time I didn’t groan since from what I already knew, it made sense. And it could have stayed that way, except a love triangle was introduced, and I kind of didn’t believe in Harry loving her. It struck me more as loyalty and friendship, which to him meant love. But not to Mary, and not to me. Travis was better in my mind because he understood her. As you may imagine, the love is going to cause a bit of pain.

I disliked three things, which are minor things depending on outlook. The first was the the pacing felt a bit odd. They’d be fighting and running for chapters, then they would just stop somewhere for ages. It felt a bit jumpy and annoying. But I get the constant moving; if they dwell, everything will catch up with them, literally and figuratively. I also disliked the battles themselves: at one point Mary just picks up an axe and starts swinging it a lot to kill loads of zombies. That sounds too simplistic to me, but I think that’s my fantasy roots showing through and wouldn’t bother most people. The final qualm and the biggest was that when our little group stops at one point, the men make the fire and the girls make the food. Earlier on, the men all took the weapons as well. Okay, the men were trained fighters unlike the women, but the feeling of sexism was kind of annoying. But I think Carrie realised this since it was written in a slightly clipped way, so I assume it was put in to conform to the society she made.

All in all, it was a good book. I was breathless reading it (seriously) and I had to stop sometimes to mentally prepare myself for whatever happened next. The use of the Sea also kept me reading: in these dire circumstances it was understandable why she had to believe this. (I actually have an analysis in my head of why she needed the sea, and why no-one else had dreams like her, but that would be too spoilery.) I imagine a lot of people have read this, but those who haven’t have been warned that this is a traumatic kind of book that has been superbly done.