Fables and Fairy Tales by Leo Tolstoy (1886)

A selection of instructional short works collected or written by the famous Russian author.

Book Review: Fables and Fairy Tales by Leo Tolstoy is a bit of an oddity, but a good oddity. These are indeed fables and fairy tales, mostly aimed at children, all embodying a moral lesson. Unlike Aesop, Tolstoy doesn't include an actual moral at the end, leaving that for the reader to decipher. Since many of these pieces were included in primers to help students learn to read, the moral should be relatively simple, but a good number of these contain ideas worth pondering. A piece of advice in the middle of one tale is: "tell your sons that the elder will receive the entire inheritance, and the younger will receive nothing; then they will be equal." Of course, the younger son ends up better off than the older. But "The Snake" has a disturbingly nihilist conclusion, surely baffling to children. In another a hungry peasant eats roll after roll, and after finally eating a single pretzel is no longer hungry -- he realizes he should've eaten the pretzel first! Who says Tolstoy has no sense of humor? While all these stories were new to me, most seemed familiar. For example, Tolstoy uses the metaphor of many birds caught in a net for the adage, "if we do not hang together we will surely hang separately." In another, two hedgehogs find a way to duplicate the success of the tortoise with the hare. All in all, these Fables and Fairy Tales express Tolstoy's philosophy of doing good no matter the cost, which can be difficult for those who concern themselves with superficial notions of fairness, of right and wrong. In a longer piece we learn: "For life there is neither time nor space. The life of a moment and the life of thousands of years, your life and the lives of all creatures, seen and unseen, is one." This is for children? Finally, in "The Three Questions," the answers are: the most important time is now, the most important person is the one you're with, and the most important act is to do good to that person. Fables and Fairy Tales may be the shortest of Tolstoy's works, and at 130 some pages will be certainly the easiest way, even if you re-read, to honestly claim that you've read Tolstoy.  [4★]

FilmLit: Doctor Who - The Unquiet Dead (2005)

The Doctor and Rose Tyler venture back to Victorian Cardiff to team up with Charles Dickens.

Television Review: "The Unquiet Dead" sees the Ninth Doctor (Christopher Eccleston), Rose Tyler, and their good friend Charles Dickens take on spooky, smoky, zombie phantasms on Christmas Eve in 1869. I'm not saying Doctor Who is anything more than fun escapist fare, as with myriad other fandoms (to each their own). I do, however, appreciate the show's little efforts to take it one step better, as with the episodes recruiting famous English writers such as Agatha Christie, William Shakespeare, and here, Dickens. We first see him in "The Unquiet Dead" backstage, depressed at spending his Christmas Eve traveling on a reading tour. Dickens is brilliantly personified by Simon Callow (perhaps best known for Four Weddings and a Funeral). Callow's Dickens will be stuck in my head forever whenever I hear the name. Although at first put off by his brash manner, Dickens quickly warms to the Doctor's unfeigned enthusiasm for and flattery of his work. The plot centers around a funeral parlor which aliens (this is Doctor Who, after all) are using as a portal to enter our world through the "restless dear departed." A seance (Dickens, a known debunker of psychic phenomena, is at first skeptical) is used to contact the aliens. Initially, it seems that all will be resolved well and happily, but soon all goes bonkers (this is Doctor Who, after all). Of course Dickens, genius that he is, plays a key role in addressing the alien menace (and quotes Shakespeare). "The Unquiet Dead" is a more than usually excellent episode -- with a healthy dose of in-jokes and literary references for the initiated. Extra added bonus: the missing ending of The Mystery of Edwin Drood is revealed.  🐢

Thoughts About Reading ... #3

Random thoughts ... some more random than others. Over the course of a day or three, a lot of thoughts fly through my steel-sieve mind; these are just the ones that got stuck.

First, I'll tell you somethin' for nothin' -- perfection is overrated. The sooner we accept that, the happier we'll be. Aiming to be better, doing the best you can, even trying for perfection, all good habits. But if we expect perfection (in ourselves or others) we should also expect disappointment. Besides, perfection is boring: bumps and dents and a barnacle or two are just what make life interesting. And tolerable. Before you think I'm auditioning to be a self-help writer, here's where I'm going with this: let's not expect perfection from authors, even our favorite writers. Lets be tolerant of a few weak spots, give authors the room they need to experiment, to try new things. Give writers the freedom to fail. Even the greatest writers have flaws; let's concede that there are few perfect books. Artists need to reach for something they can't quite grasp. If we judge too harshly, the alternative is repetition, the same old thing, and the disappearance of daring. A little tolerance goes a long way.

Next: Don't mess with my reading! The last thing I want is sanitized fiction. I don't want anyone shutting down an author who dares write a hateful character. The word of the day is "problematic." Tell me a book or author is "problematic," and I'll still have to decide for myself: no one's doing my thinking for me. I have to reach my own wrong opinions. I want a few bigots, jerks, some nasty jokers, and few generally ignorant idiots in my books. We can't ignore the bad elements of life and we can't fight bigotry and prejudice if we don't identify it. Every year during "Banned Books Week" we hear about all the books that people were told not to read because they were "problematic." Social media bullying is the new "Banned Books Week." Everybody who discriminates (including railing against some hapless author) thinks they're doing it for a good reason. Next time you hear a book is "problematic," don't let that stop you if it's a book you want to read. You may learn there's a vast chasm between representation and endorsement, and context is everything. Today some readers are more interested in finding some trivial way in which a book is less culturally sensitive than they judge it should be, than in trying to learn what the book is saying. Some are competing to be the most culturally sensitive -- the world is culturally insensitive and that's going to creep into books. I really don't want either Big Brother or those who are "more sensitive than thou," to be the mama bird that predigests my reading for me. Whew! Rant over.

Finally, I want to mention that rare intersection of the Venn diagram that is educational and entertaining, which is The Cartoon History of the Universe by Larry Gonick. The series is up to three volumes now (hey, it's big subject). I've read the first two volumes and learned more than I'd like to admit. Graphic history is cool. Gonick has published graphic histories in a variety of areas; if the others are anything like what I've read, they're awesome. These books are perfect for teenagers (older teenagers for parents who turn a blind eye to the world we live in) and all adults. But even more than simply imparting knowledge, graphic histories also have the potential for inspiring interest, passion even, in the subject matter and learning in general. One good graphic history could turn you, or your aimless, unmotivated, slacker child, into a college-bound future scientist of the world. Go for it!  🐢

Chicks Dig Time Lords by Lynne M. Thomas (2010)

A series of essays by women about the BBC television series, Doctor Who, describing what the good Doctor has meant to them.

Book Review: Chicks Dig Time Lords is the light, pop-culture book one might grab at the library as reading material for down-time during a Doctor Who holiday binge. It's also the kind of book to convince me that I'm not a real fan as I have zip interest in attending conventions, cosplay, creating fan fiction, fretting about the fan base, or even leaving the house much. This is a book by and for the fandom and folks somehow connected with the show (e.g., an actor's sister). Most of the women (more than half are from North America, though there is an Australian!) are lifelong fans of the show, and the contents include interviews and a cartoon (there're even suggestions for good convention food). Most of the writers began watching the "classic" episodes with the older Doctors -- many of the American viewers first encountered the Fourth Doctor, y'know, the one with the wild curly hair, perpetually bewildered expression, and a scarf always long enough to trip over. Chicks Dig Time Lords is all in good fun, attempting to balance the traditional audience skew toward male fans. Most of the articles are light and amusing except one that (among other fault finding) castigates the Doctor for rarely kissing men and a female character for "only" being a medical doctor. Sorry, my standards aren't that high. And sorry again, although tempted, I'm not going to apply the Bechdel Test to every episode of the show -- Doctor Who is too slender a reed to bear such weight; the series makes a reasonable effort at political correctness. Soon we'll have a (much overdue) female Doctor. Plus, Catherine Tate was on the show, so that's good enough for me. Chicks Dig Time Lords is now outdated, as it ends with the Tenth (and so far, the best -- he of the "quicksilver charm and fantastic hair") Doctor. Actually, I only finished reading (it got a little repetitious) so I could write this review in good conscience. Entertaining and diverting, but without much substance. Not bad, but not necessary. Just for fun. Best aimed at die-hard (seriously die-hard) fans and scholars only; this collection could be of use to pop-culture academics studying fan bases and related phenomena. But I did learn at least two things: fans of professional sports are just as much a fandom as geek fans, and the Doctor Who fandom is definitely bigger on the inside.  [3★]

The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafon (2008)

An author of cheap, sensational crime novels in 1920s Barcelona is recruited to write a book for a wealthy, satanic stranger.

Book Review: The Angel's Game is a story of ... just about everything. There's no way I can reduce this to just a story of family or love, of books or writing, of philosophy or mystery. The beautifully written pages contain all of that and more; many readers will be drawn to the author's understanding of the love and power of books and writing. There's also a secret library! Zafon's detailed descriptions took me into the streets of Barcelona; I was there, sometimes forgetting it was a historical novel as it seemed to have been written in the 1930s. The plot is slow and deliberately paced, careful and precise. When I needed to I could stop reading The Angel's Game, but I always wanted to come back to it, wanted to learn what would happen, and never guessed what was next. There's a love story, but the book's real heart is the relationship between the protagonist and a young girl who becomes his assistant: with love, respect, hurt, humor, compassion. A lesser writer would have added a romantic relationship, but Zafon refuses and the book is stronger for it. I also liked the connection between our hero and an elderly bookshop owner. There are several discussions about religion here, making the reader wonder: what if the devil decided he wanted his own book, his own bible (since the winners write the history books). Speaking of religion, one character is not-too-subtly named Cristina -- hmm. The second half of the book gradually picks up steam, with occasional bumps and surprises along the way. The last few chapters become just like the protagonist's cheap crime novels: lots of gun play and violence. The ending will be a test of how successful the novel is for the individual reader. For me it didn't quite work (too much "ick"), but certainly didn't ruin the rest of the novel for me. The English translation by Lucia Graves was very good. The Angel's Game doesn't answer all the questions it raises (at least one confusing minor plot point), it's that kind of a book, but it's well worth the read. I haven't read Zafon's immensely popular The Shadow of the Wind, but now I'll have to get to it.  [4★]

Jane Austen at Home by Lucy Worsley (2017)

A new biography of a little-known, early 19th Century woman writer from southern England.

Book Review: Jane Austen at Home is a casual and quirky new biography of everyone's favorite writer from Steventon. Informal and comfortable, it doesn't read like an academic treatise although it has the requisite notes and sourcing. Instead, it's more like a chat with a freind over tea, telling about a book she read recently, certain not to miss any of the gossipy (and racy) bits. Usually biographers who refer to their subject by first name annoy me no end, but in Worsley's writing it's natural and unaffected. The author stresses a number of points she believes are necessary to understanding Austen. Worsley emphasizes the difference between the free spirited Georgians of Austen's time, and the prim nature of the later Victorians. It's unclear whether this is merely a generational change (our parents' times being different than ours), or whether the culture actually transformed. She also notes that Austen was a Tory, a status quo conservative (openly contradicting the premise of the recent Jane Austen: the Secret Radical (2016) by Helena Kelly). Austen wrote of the classes above her own, the class of which she barely touched, but sometimes viewed, the bottom fringe. The financial difficulties and insecurities of Austen's own life, shines a clear light on the painful trials that faced Austen's heroines if without the safety of a good marriage or wealthy family. Although Austen wrote heartbreakingly of Charlotte Lucas and her willingness to endure an imperfect marriage to satisfy a desire for her own house, Austen was unwilling to make the same sacrifice. One of Worsley's great strengths is finding parallels to Austen's life in her novels or in the writings of neighboring contemporaries. Although Jane Austen at Home has some focus on Austen's houses and homes, domestic life and duties, it wasn't obtrusive and more seemed to signal that this book wasn't an exegesis of Austen's novels (though she knows the novels backward and forward).

Worsley has called herself "an entry-level historian," and admits that hers is a very personal take on Austen's life: "This is, unashamedly, the story of my Jane, every word of it written with love," who is "a better version of myself," in "a personal, not a definitive, interpretation of her life." She is more than willing to explore insignificant tangents, to speculate wildly and guess without evidence about instances and incidents in Austen's life. Departures and digression are frequent and Worsley is more than willing to go off on a frolic and detour. All information about Austen's life passes through her biases, with contemporary witnesses becoming "ungrateful" rather than reliable when their statements deviate from the author's preferences. Worsley's opinions carry equal weight with the facts (when Jane's words disagree with her interpretation, then "Jane was joking." She's also more than willing to avoid the high horse in her colorful informality: a highwayman "must have looked rather like Adam Ant"; Austen's letters are full of "bitterness, bitchiness and regret"; a relative wins "Legacy Bingo"; another relative "could be pain" (location of said pain not provided); her brother had been "sucking up to important people." Her own biases and pandering to her followers round out Worsley's take on Austen's life. She's correct: we all find and believe in our own personal version of Jane (see Helena Kelly, above).

For all you potential biographers out there, I'll tell you something for nothing. For those unfamiliar a nice map of the south of England (mainly Hampshire) would be quite helpful in clarifying Austen's story (without the awkward Googling).

Lucy Worsley is a celebrity, a BBC presenter, with loyal following -- it's easy to feel we know her and the book reflects her tone. Jane Austen at Home is a fun, engaging, and idiosyncratic take on Austen's life. For Austen fans it's like gossiping with another Janeite. For serious Austen readers, however, Claire Tomalin's 1997 biography might be a better place to start, with this one being a second or third supplement. Engaging, readable, and quirky, but not definitive.  [3★]

The Letters of Sylvia Plath: Volume I, 1940-1956 (2017)

Plath put as much effort into her correspondence as her other writing, she's witty, engaging, energetic -- a true writer, she wanted the recipients to enjoy her letters.

Book Review: The Letters of Sylvia Plath is a chunker, a monster, a brick, a beast, massive ... literally a "tome." Sylvia Plath, in those pre-Twitter and texting days, wrote a lot of letters (future generations will not have the pleasure of reading letters collections). More than 1,390 letters. You've already read some of this book if you've ever read a biography of Sylvia Plath; these letters are what her biographers have been quoting at us for years. Many previously appeared in the 500 page volume, Letters Home (1975), edited by Plath's devoted mother, Aurelia Schober Plath, which I read previously. This volume is only the first (the second is expected in 2018), clocking in just shy of 1400 pages, and this brobdingnagian volume will mostly appeal only to biographers and the most pious Plath fans. I count myself in the latter group (Plath and Emily Dickinson are two of America's best poets, not just best female poets).

No, I haven't read the whole of The Letters of Sylvia Plath, perhaps never will. I've been paging through and reading randomly for about a month now, but already two fascinating themes have emerged. First is how, paradoxically, Plath is wonderfully confident of her mother's love and interest in the tiniest of details, but her need for her mother's approval is also nakedly apparent. So much focus has been placed on Plath's relationship with her too-soon departed father (per her most famous poem, "Daddy"), but her relationship with her mother could be a lifetime study (thanks to this recent overdose of evidentiary material). Second, Plath is surprisingly open, frank, and confident in her letters with her boyfriends. Perhaps I have a mistaken image of the times. With further reading, I'm looking forward to further revelations and insights. Plath was diligent and hard working. She was intelligent, ambitious, talented beyond belief, and funny; those qualities come through in the letters. So much personality. Aurelia Plath was a single mother, uncommon in those days, with two children. Coming from limited means, money was always an issue. Plath worked hard for scholarships and literary prizes -- they were not only a much needed validation, the money was necessary to exist in her elite academic circle (Smith College, University of Cambridge). She needed the money, even simply to buy a sweater.

In addition to the letters, there are photos, facsimiles, poems, and drawings. The footnotes and index are amazing, extensive and thorough -- for scholars half the research is already complete. The Letters of Sylvia Plath is a class act, professional, expert, and always well done. Worthy of Plath's legacy.  [5★]