4: Things Fall Apart

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."

Chinua Achebe's novel is a social comment on the threat that European imperialist tendencies posed to the African tribal system and African culture around the turn of the nineteenth century. The story is set in southern Nigeria in a villiage named Umuofia, where the protagonist Okonkwo has risen to a high status in his clan.

Achebe himself lived in Nigeria as a child of a Protestant missionary. He was educated in the European tradition, but later realized the hypocrisy of imperialism. He decided to become a writer so that he could inform the world that African people did have a culture and an identity long before white men arrived. Achebe rejected his Christian name Albert and adopted his indigenous one, Chinua. His masterpiece Things Fall Apart is a response to the point of view established in books such as Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, which showcased Africa as a primal and culture-less area of the world that needed the help of European colonizers.

The story is set in the 1890s and focuses on the clash between Nigeria's white colonizers and the traditional culture of the native Igbo people. In the first half of the story, Achebe does an excellent job of showing the reader many of the complex social customs of the tribal African peoples. Its a story about being caught between resisting and embracing change.

Okonkwo, the main character, is unwilling to change. From the start, Okonkwo's greatest flaw is that he is afraid of appearing weak and unaccomplished as he perceived his father to be. Thus, Okonkwo acts rashly and often without thinking referring action to reason. For him, manliness is key and it is associated with aggression. He is unwilling to show any emotion and is stoic to a fault. This equation of manliness with rashness, anger, and violence eventually brings about his own destruction, and his method out of this world is far from manly. Both the white colonizers and Okonkwo are unwilling to compromise, and in the end there is only room for one of them.

Achebe showcases the European white man's complete lack of respect for native customs or culture. Europeans thought they had the right to impose their belief system and religion on an unsuspecting peoples. The racist perspective is shown through Reverend James Brown who has no respect for the native culture and through the District Commissioner who wants to write a book entitled The Pacification of the Primitive Tribe of the Lower Niger. Okonkwo's whole story (which encompasses this novel) would make a good paragraph according to the Commissioner. However, Achebe also shows that white man is not completely ruthless with the character of Mr. Brown. He was the missionary who strove to compromise with the natives instead of resorting to violence. He won over converts because he is willing to listen and understand indigenous customs.

Yet the portrayal of imperialists is mainly accurate in that they were willing to undermine a people just to earn profit and pride. Early in the novel, the arrival of white men is foreshadowed by the arrival of locusts. "At last the locusts did descend. They settled on every tree and on every blade of grass... Mighty tree branches broke way under them, and the whole country became the brown-earth color of the vast, hungry swarm." Just as the locusts broke trees and transformed the country, so did the missionaries and imperialists change the nature of the African tribes.

Achebe's writing style is excellent. The original text is in English, but he incorporates the words and traditions of the Nigerian tribal peoples so neatly that the reader feels immersed in the African culture. I think I shall make a point of it to read No Longer at Ease and Arrow of God, which are the accompanying books in the African trilogy. With this book and my recent visit to the theater to see Disney's The Lion King, I have just been surrounded by African culture and realizing that it is far more interesting than I ever gave it credit. I am intrigued to learn more.

Achebe's goal was to critique the portrait of Africa that was painted by the European writers of the colonial period. He greatly succeeded. He also had the advantage of looking back at the events as history and making comments on it when public opinion did oppose the actions of imperialists. He shows us the past to remind us that imposing influence on others threatens to extinguish tradition and a rich, vibrant culture.

"The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peaceably with his religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. Now he has won our brothers, and our clan can no longer act like one. He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart."

3: Of Mice and Men

"A few miles south of Soledad, the Salinas River drops in close to the hillside bank and runs deep and green."

Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men is the most powerful short novel I have ever read. In about 100 pages, he touches on so many of life's trials and tribulations that one cannot help but be impressed. The novella follows the story of two California migrant workers, George and Lennie. The two men move place to place in search of work and entertain a continuous desire to own a small stake of land. Steinbeck explores the plight of these two desperately poor wanders and sets their story against the backdrop of Depression-era America. The economic conditions victimized workers like George and Lennie.

Yet these two men are different than the other migrant workers in a significant way. While the other workers lead a solitary, lonely life, Lennie and George are fortunate enough to have one another, to have another person in the world who actually cares about their well-being. Steinbeck romanticizes this friendship of two men traveling together by characterizing the relationship with compassion, guidance, protection, devotion, and a shared dream of an idyllic farm life.

George and Lennie are interesting characters who break the traditional roles of protagonists. Lennie is a rather static character, as he undergoes no significant changes or development throughout the novel. To the end he is still the physically large but mentally disabled man who loves soft things, is blindly devoted to George, and holds on to a nearly impossible dream. George is more dynamic in that while he never strays from protecting Lennie, he realizes that the world is unfortunately designed to prey on the weak. George is faced with an impossible situation and chooses the lesser of two evils by mercifully killing his best friend. Lennie's death means not only the loss of George's closest companion, but also the death of his optimistic dream.

What instantly drew me in to the story were Steinbeck's amazing descriptions of setting. Normally I read through books without expending too much effort on imagining the settings, but Steinbeck's depictions of time and place are so rich that I let my imagination run free. For example: "On one side of the river the golden  foothill slopes curve up to the strong and rocky Gabilan mountains, but on the valley side the water is lined with trees-willows fresh and green with every spring, carrying in their lower leaf junctures the debris of the winter's flooding; and sicamores with mottled, white, recumbent limbs and branches that arch over the pool." This author really knows how to describe a scene and draw in the reader instantaneously.

Steinbeck wrote Of Mice and Men as a "playable novel," written in novel form but set so that it can be played as it stands. And he indeed accomplishes this goal. The description of setting at the beginning of each part could stand as stage directions and the dialogue could easily be turned into a script. In fact, I was envisioning the story taking place on a stage as I was reading.

The book portrays women in a negative light. The only female character that is involved in the action is Curley's wife, who is never even given a name. She represents the temptation of female sexuality in a male-dominated world. Steinbeck seems to be saying that women are merely troublemakers who bring problems and ruin to men. Curley's wife is a temptress who George sees as a trap into a brawl with her husband.

Lennie has a kind soul but he is completely unaware of his strength and ends up accidentally killing the things he wants to pet. The dead mouse in Lennie's pocket at the beginning of the story is a symbol of the end that awaits weak unsuspecting creatures. The same fate befalls the small puppy, Curley's wife, and eventually Lennie himself, for Lennie's childlike mental capabilities render him as helpless s a mouse. Just as Candy's dog was mercifully shot, George ends up killing Lennie out of mercy, submitting him to a far less painful death than the other men had planned.

Steinbeck shows through his masterpiece that we live in a predatory world where the strong prey on the weak and where people are persecuted for mental, physical, and racial differences. George and Lennie only want to live with one another's interest in mind and to  protect one another. Yet the world is too harsh a place to sustain their ideal friendship and Lennie and George are tragically separated. By the end, the two friends lost a dream far greater than themselves.

2: Anna Karenina

"All happy families are alike each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

Yesterday I finished Tolstoy's 940 page masterpiece about the interconnection of love, adultery, faith, happiness, social expectations and duty. Now it is going to be impossible for me to say everything I would like to about the novel. After all it was nearly 1000 pages long! I was quite overwhelmed at the beginning when I realized I was reading TOLSTOY. Aka one of the greatest writers of all time, and probably the best Russian writer ever. I was worried about the level of understanding, but Anna Karenina actually reads quite easily (although this may be partly due to translation).

Ok, so I guess I'll start by talking about the characters. Obviously, the book takes its title from Anna, a gorgeous and dignified wife of a passionless Russian aristocrat (Alexei Karenin). But interestingly, the book has a co-protagonist who balances out the story of Anna. This is Levin, the socially awkward landowner who finds fulfillment not in the intellectual high society, but in the simple life of farming and his quest for faith. Many literary experts believe that Levin is actually Tolstoy's self-portrait. The thoughts and many of the events in Levin's life (such as the lost shirt on the wedding day, making jam with his family, his wife and child getting caught in a thunderstorm, and a proposal by writing the first initials of words) are the same as in Tolstoy's life.

Most people know Anna Karenina as a story of adultery. It is certainly that, but also so much more. The story starts when Anna's brother Stiva cheats on his wife Dolly with the governess. Stiva calls Anna to Moscow where she meets the handsome, passionate Vronsky. Her meeting with Vronsky transforms into an extramarital affair that drives the plot of the book. Right off the bat, you can see the double standard in the treatment of male and female adultery. Stiva is not looked down upon for being unfaithful to his wife. Rather he is endowed with many lovable characteristics and considered very highly in society despite not having a moral basis for his actions. As soon as Anna is unfaithful to Karenin, however, society turns its back and people who once "loved" her began to scorn her for her actions.

This ties in another interesting theme. It turns out that in the world of late 19th century Russia, adultery is more of a social issue than a religious one. Who knew? Karenin is not worried that Anna broke her marriage vows but rather fears what people will think of him as a man and does not want to compromise his reputation. It is because of this coldness and constant worry of appearance that Karenin is a much less sympathetic character than the adultress. While there are a couple of highly religious characters in the book, one turns out to have questionable motivations and the other is a quack who believes in a French psychic. Tolstoy seems to be telling his characters and us that a person's guilt is for God, and not man, to decide.

Anna is a fabulous person (even if whiny and paranoid at the end), and has been described as "an adultress with a moral sense." Certainly she is more moral than her husband because she is honest with Karenin and does not keep her affair concealed. She is constant in her unwillingness to live a lie. Anna just has the need and want for passionate love and refuses to abide by public opinion and meaningless social conventions. She is willing to give up her husband, her son Serozha, and her good repute in order to pursue a love that allows her to feel something. It is as Vronsky's passionate love for Anna begins to dwindle that she starts contemplating suicide (even though his passion cools as he is upset at losing his freedom, we still get the sense that his is head over heals for her).

In historical context, it can be said that Anna Karenina is set during a time period of fading traditions and social change. And this is where my Western Civ AP knowledge comes in handy! In 1861, the czar liberated the serfs. This has a major impact on Levin and his farm as he has to reevaluate the relationship between himself as landowners and his workers. The peasants are mostly unwilling to changes their ways as shown in their refusal to use newer, more efficient farming methods. Women's rights is also a highly discussed topic during dinners and balls. In Russia at this time there seems to be a heavy European influence among the intellectual individuals and high society. All of the "corrupt" characters spend a lot of the time speaking in French. Anna and Vronsky vacation in Italy.

Tolstoy seems to be making the point that modernization and Westernization are actually bad for Russia. Levin is put off when he overhears Dolly correcting her children to speak French. Both Vronsky and Anna have a dream about a dirty bearded peasant speaking French and are quite frightened (symbolizing the negative influence of Europeanization?). The intellectuals spend all of their time speaking in French and debating in the European style, but nothing is actually accomplished, and Levin finds his farm and peasants far more satisfying than their urban counterparts.

No symbol is more poignant in the novel than the railroad. Anna and Vronsky first meet at a railway when a peasant man is killed by a train. Anna's own suicide is accomplished by throwing herself under a train. The railroad comes to symbolize a fast rate of something harmful, such as the rapid changes and modernizations. It also speaks of how Anna "derails" her familial, social, and physical life in the course of the novel.

As the novel went on, I realized that Anna and Levin became more incessant whiners. As in, "I can't leave him because I can't leave my son, but I can't live like this because I love  Vronsky and my husband is just a stuck up despicable man even though he didn't do anything wrong and how I despise this position I am in and how I despise my husband and whatever will I do???" Or Levin's, "I love Kitty but she refused my marriage proposal so she must not love me or maybe she just was infatuated with Vronksy and I actually do have a chance but I can't bring myself to talk to her because I am too shy and I don't want to face more rejection and the humiliation I already put up with, but look how beautiful she is and whatever will I do???" Yep a couple of whiny protagonists if you ask me. But I also realized that this was the author's way of letting us know the characters better.

Tolstoy mastered the art of "interior monologue," which is basically having the characters converse with themselves. This is actually key in Anna Karenina, because much of what is actually said is superfluous, and we realize the character's motivations and emotions only through their interior monologue, which is essentially a more sophisticated stream of consciousness. This is especially important since Karenina's society is one where thoughts are suppressed and kept secretive.

For example, we need to know what Anna is thinking in the carriage ride before her untimely death. She gets extremely paranoid that Vronsky no longer loves her. She thinks to herself, "My love grows more and more passionate and demanding and his dwindles and dwindles, and that is why we are growing apart. And there's nothing one can do about it. He is everything in the world to me, and I demand that he should give himself up to me more and more completely. And he wants more and more to get away from me... If only I could be anything but his mistress... But I can't and I don't want to be anything else... if, no longer loving me, he is kind and affectionate out of duty... that is a thousand times worse than hatred.... Life is pulling us apart and I am the cause of his unhappiness and he of mine, and it is impossible to change either him or me... Why not put out the candle when there is nothing more to look at, when it is disgusting to look at... There, right into the middle, and I shall punish him..." Without her interior monologue the reader does not realize all that she is going through and what leads her to commit suicide (including the pessimistic philosophical stuff about people hating one another that i didn't include). Otherwise it would just look like another pathetic woman who sacrificed herself for love. Similarly, we would have no way of comprehending Levin's strange actions during the birth of his child.

Death is everywhere. A peasant is killed by an oncoming train. Anna nearly dies in childbirth. Levin loses his brother Nickolai to a long, sickening disease and starts to wonder what the purpose of life is when humans are only here for such a short time. Levin contemplates suicide but is strong enough to keep living. Unfortunately Anna is not as strong and kills herself. But Tolstoy proposes that faith can save us and help us to lead meaningful lives. Anna, who loses her faith by committing adultery, destroys her family and endures a miserable ending. Levin, who searches for faith, creates a family and becomes happy. In a sense, Anna's life loses meaning while Levin's attains meaning.

Tolstoy shows the reader that life is meant to be lived and enjoyed, not repressed by duties. We all have the need for passionate love. But the simplest life is the most gratifying. Levin find faith after listening to one of the peasants.

"My life, my whole life, independently of anything that may happen to me, every moment of it, is no longer meaningless as it was before, but has an incontestable meaning of goodness, with which I have he power to invest it."

1: The Tempest by William Shakespeare

This is the first comedy I have ever read by my good old friend Willie. The school curriculum seems to have more appreciation for his myriad of tragedies.

Let me tell you that The Tempest was not what I expected. First of all, the title makes it sound like it would be a tragedy, but the actual storm occurs in the first scene of the play before any of the true action occurs.

It is a story of revenge, but unlike Hamlet or Iago, Prospero feels not the need to kill the ones who wronged him. Rather, he just requires that they are sorry for usurping his dukedom in Milan.

It is likely that Shakespeare drew his inspiration for The Tempest from a shipwreck in the Bermudas. He lived during a time of exploration and colonization. The island that Prospero lives on is mysterious and magical and filled with spirits and monsters. This may reflect the sense of uncertainty and mystery that Europeans felt about the Americas and islands in the Caribbean. Shakespeare was also likely influenced by an essay called On Cannibalism. The character of Caliban, the "monstrous" and at the same time weak native, may have a link with cannibalism. He is definitely portrayed as the savage native, while Prospero is the European colonizer who comes from abroad and takes the island away from the native. The idea of a "savage" native permeated the perspective of European colonizers who justified their conquests by claiming to bring civilization to these peoples.

It was also interesting to see how Shakespeare instilled himself into the character of Prospero. Just as Prospero controls all of the people on the island, so does a playwright control all the actions and words of his characters. Prospero's schemes, spells, and manipulations all work towards the happy conclusion much like a dramatist creates the events of a play to reach the end. Like Shakespeare, Prospero's source of magic is his books.

The Tempest also develops the theme of a great magician giving up his art. By the end of the play, Prospero realizes that he is going to soon die and wants to give up his magic and return to Milan. "But this rough magic/I here abjure, and when I have required/Some heavenly music, which even now I do... I'll break my staff/Bury it certain fathoms in the earth/And deeper than ever did plummet sound/I'll drown my book" (Act 5 Scene 1 Lines 50-57). Here too, Shakespeare seems to be likening himself to Prospero. The Tempest was one of Shakespeare's last plays, and he must have realized he was going to die soon and created the character of Prospero as a mirror image of himself.

I had no idea that Aldous Huxley drew his inspiration from this particular Shakespearean play when Miranda exclaims, "Oh wonder!/How many goodly creatures are there here!/How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,/That has such people in 't!" (Act 5 Scene 1 Lines 183-186). And even back then sarcasm surrounded these words, as she said them about the backstabbing Antonio, Sebastian, and Alonso. Shakespeare and Huxley both make a reader wonder, is civilization really so wonderful?

Haha and to have both the names Ariel and Sebastian in the same play? I was having some serious The Little Mermaid flashes. Not that this is a bad thing, however!

The Challenge: 100 Books in 1 Year

This year I am enrolled in AP English Literature and I have to prepare myself for the AP exam coming in May. Since the beginning of the school year I have been reading books off the AP list.

Then, last week, I read a Sparknotes post by a contributer (yes I am an avid Sparkler) which laid out her challenge to read 100 novels in 1 year. And I was inspired!

So I am going to blog about all the books I complete after January 1, 2011 until New Year's eve on December 31, 2011. I have 12 months, 52 weeks, or 365 days to finish 100 books. That's averaging around two books per week.

There is no monetary prize that I will be rewarded for completing the challenge. Rather, I am doing this for my own personal satisfaction and knowledge of literature. Oh, did I mention that most of the books I'll be reading will probably be "classics?"

You'll be getting my perspective on each of these novels/plays as I go through, and this blog is mainly for me to keep track since no one else will likely subscribe. But here I go, off into the world of blogging in the hopes of completing my challenge to myself.