Violet from Still Life With Books came up with this fantastic idea for a pressure-free reading group concentrating on the Victorian Era.

All you need is a Tumblr account to be able to post to the group’s blog. Have a look at the site!

There really aren’t any rules and THIS post highlights what you have to do to be a part of the group.

I’ve tried posting my very first post to the group’s blog this morning but I can’t get Tumblr to work properly and so I decided to post it to my blog and post a link over there.

Neo-Victorian Novels

I know that this reading group is concerned with the Victorian era, but I decided to stray a little outside the field. The following topic will still be connected to the Victorian era, fear not. I’d like to talk a little bit about neo-Victorian Literature, a topic that was the basis of my Master’s thesis in university. The reason I chose this topic for my final written exam was my love for Sarah Waters. Anyone familiar with her lesbian Victorian romps know that they are set in the Victorian period. The following is taken more or less taken directly out my thesis’ text and was shortened to the main points.

What exactly makes a work ‘neo-Victorian’? Any novel written after the Victorian period, which is generally marked by scholars as having a duration of 64 years, namely beginning in 1837 with the crowning of Queen Victoria and ending 1901 with her death? Or is it any novel that is set in the Victorian times, even though written by a modern writer? Or is it just any novel with typically Victorian topics?

Scholar Mark Llewellyn asked himself the very same questions in his essay on what exactly the neo-Victorian Studies are about. He later defines neo-Victorian fiction as follows:

“[N]eo-Victorian fiction [are] those works which are consciously set in the Victorian period […] or which desire to re-write the historical narrative of that period by representing marginalised voices, new histories of sexuality, post-colonial viewpoints and other generally ‘different’ versions of the Victorian.”

In this definition of his, he makes a clear reference to the method of re-writing or ‘writing back’, the terms coined by Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin in their book called The Empire Writes Back. For post-colonialists, the process of writing back is the way in which the colonized answer back to their colonizers, either by making use of what we perceive as canon works of the English literary history and re-writing them or by creating a work of their own. Either way, the purpose of this ‘writing back’ process is that the oppressed colonized peoples want to liberate themselves from the colonizer’s power by making themselves heard. The colonized try to give themselves a voice in their own works and they attempt to reclaim a little bit of their past, which has been overshadowed by the process of colonization. Such works include the re-writing of Charles Dickens’ major novel Great Expectations by Peter Carey in his own novel Jack Maggs. Another very famous example is the rewriting of Charlotte Bronte’s Jane Eyre by Jean Rhys in her novel Wide Sargasso Sea, which gives a voice to the marginalised Bertha Mason, the woman in the attic.

Scholar Jeanette King argues that those novels by female neo-Victorian writers aim at giving a different place in society to its female characters – that of the agent, rather than the victim. According to King, many neo-Victorian novels give a broader impression of the Victorian woman’s life than just that of the ‘Angel in the House’. Those novels by female neo-Victorian writers would show that a Victorian woman’s life was just as diverse as that of a woman in the 21st century. The predominantly male-oriented Victorian society would be reflected in a new light, with women at its centre.

So what exactly is ‘Neo-Victorianism’ then? It seems to be the active use of a Victorian setting with all its riches and characters by today’s writers. It is their aim to explore, in their writing, something that the Victorians themselves have neglected to acknowledge, such as the existence of female homosexuals. Female neo-Victorian writers made it their priority to give a voice to the Victorian women and to show their life to be as diverse as a man’s was supposed to be. Women are thus given a centre-place in history, one which they have been denied before.

I have now compiled a list of well-known neo-Victorian novels. Note that this list isn’t compete. There are so many neo-Victorian novels out there that I couldn’t possibly list all of them. I don’t even know all of them and I doubt that I really could. This list is just to give a little overview of what kinds of novels are classified as ‘neo-Victorian’:

• Sarah Waters, Tipping The Velvet, Affinity, Fingersmith
• A.S. Byatt, Possession
• Angela Carter, Nights at the Circus
• Julian Barnes, Arthur & George
• J. G. Farrell, The Siege of Krishnapur
• John Fowles, The French Lieutenant’s Woman
• Matthew Kneale, English Passengers
• Margaret Atwwod, Alias Grace
  
• Dan Simmons, Drood
• Peter Carey, Jack Maggs, Oscar and Lucinda
• Jean Rhys, Wide Sargasso Sea
• Alan Moore, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

For further information, take a look at the following links:

The Neo-Victorian Journal with some very interesting essays

This GoodReads thread lists a lot of neo-Victorian novels, suggested by GoodReads Users

The Little Professor’s ‘Rules for Writing Neo-Victorian Novels’

The Victorian Web has dedicated a whole section to the ever growing Neo-Victorians

So, here we go!

1. Favorite childhood book?
The Secret Garden by Frances Hdogson Burnett

2. What are you reading right now?
I’m still reading Natasha Solomon’s Mr. Rosenblum’s List, but I have also started (and nearly finished) Anne Fortier’s Juliet.

3. What books do you have on request at the library?
None, actually. The local library here has about 5 English books (might be a little exaggerated on my part, there are maybe 10 around) and the newest book is, I’d think, from 1980. I’ll be moving soon and I hope that’ll give me the chance to visit a decent library.

4. Bad book habit?
Buying more books than I can actually read.

5. What do you currently have checked out at the library?
None, see No. 3

6. Do you have an e-reader?
I don’t and even though, at first, I wanted one, I have now reconsidered. I quite like the feeling of an actual book in my hands and I prefer that to a piece of technology.

7. Do you prefer to read one book at a time, or several at once?
Normally, I make it a rule to only read one book at a time. But sometimes, at the moment would be a good example, I need a break from a certain book and start another one instead.

8. Have your reading habits changed since starting a blog?
Not really. Before I started the blog, I read more classics due to still being a literature student. At the moment, I’m focusing very much on contemporary writers and their works, neglecting the classics a little bit. I’m hoping to change that, now that I joined Violet’s non-pressure Victorian Reading Group. Go and check it out!

9. Least favorite book you read this year (so far?)
If I really look at the whole eight months that have already passed, my answer would have to be A. S. Byatt’s Possession, which I had to read again for my exams. I haven’t really read any ‘bad’ books recently.

10. Favorite book you’ve read this year?
This is a really mean question. But if I have to pinpoint one book, it would be Abraham Verghese’s Cutting for Stone, an epic reading pleasure.

11. How often do you read out of your comfort zone?
At the moment, hardly ever. But that’s not really by conscious choice, it just so happened that most of the books I bought were ones I have wanted to read for quite a while now.

12. What is your reading comfort zone?
Contemporary literature, mostly British, but also American, African, German, Indian…

13. Can you read on the bus?
Usually yes, unless it’s too noisy. Most of my reading at the moment is done on train journeys though.

14. Favorite place to read?
My bed or the couch, snuggled under a warm blanket with a cup of tea next to me.

15. What is your policy on book lending?
I don’t really like lending. Whenever I lended a book to someone, it was such a hassle to get it back. But then again, I don’t really borrow books, I tend to be a buyer.

16. Do you ever dog-ear books?
Never. I cringe when I see my sister do it, especially with the books she took from my shelf.

17. Do you ever write in the margins of your books?
I used to do it with university books, but I don’t do it with my ‘private’ ones.

18. Not even with text books?
You don’t want to take a look at my text books. Good luck finding the text underneath all the scribble. My geography book back in school was full of notes passed between my best friend and me. Thank God the teachers never checked the books.

19. What is your favorite language to read in?
English. Even though I’m German, I always preferred to read in English and I still do.

20. What makes you love a book?
It has to have a great plot, excellent writing and characters I can relate to. If a book makes me cry because it’s so sad or laugh because it’s so funny, then it’s a good book and I will love it.

21. What will inspire you to recommend a book?
If it’s a book I love, then I’ll want others to read it and see if they share my opinion.

22. Favorite genre?
Novels and short stories

23. Genre you rarely read (but wish you did?)
Poetry. So many people out there relish poetry. I simply cannot relate to it.

24. Favorite biography?
I love Elizabeth Gaskell’s The Life of Charlotte Bronte.

25. Have you ever read a self-help book?
Not once, no. Any you would recommend?

26. Favorite cookbook?
I can’t cook. I don’t even own any.

27. Most inspirational book you’ve read this year (fiction or non-fiction)?
Inspirational? Cutting for Stone by Abraham Verghese. Such a brilliant book, full of tragedy and yet, so full of hope.

28. Favorite reading snack?
I just need a good cup of tea. No crumbs that get stuck in-between pages.

29. Name a case in which hype ruined your reading experience.
Sarah Waters’ The Little Stranger. I read it when it was shortlisted for the Booker 2009. I love Sarah Waters, you might even say I worship at her altar. She inspired my Master’s thesis and she shaped me and my life forever. I was so hyped up by reviews I had read that I was all the more disappointed when her last novel wasn’t all I had hoped for.

30. How often do you agree with critics about a book?
Can’t tell. I don’t really let myself be influenced by any critics. I’d like to form my own opinion. Even though it sometimes happens that I get swept up by the hype for a certain book (see No. 29).

31. How do you feel about giving bad/negative reviews?
I try to give constructive criticism and as long as I achieve that, I don’t feel bad at all. I wouldn’t rant about a book if I didn’t have arguments to back up my review, so my feeling would never be unjustified.

32. If you could read in a foreign language, which language would you chose?
I so badly want to be able to read and speak Italian. One of these days, I’ll get round to learning it.

33. Most intimidating book you’ve ever read?
Ulysses by James Joyce. It was simply epic.

34. Most intimidating book you’re too nervous to begin?
Proust’s In Search of Lost Time

35. Favorite Poet?
If I have to name one, it would be Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

36. How many books do you usually have checked out of the library at any given time?
None, as I don’t really use the library.

37. How often have you returned book to the library unread?
Ok, enough with the library questions…

38. Favorite fictional character?
I’d really love to be Thursday Next (books by Jasper Fforde). How cool would it be to jump around in your favourite books? Another character I really fell in love with was little Oskar from Jonathan Safran Foer’s Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.

39. Favorite fictional villain?
Count Fosco in Wilkie Collins’ The Woman in White.

40. Books I’m most likely to bring on vacation?
Anything I’m reading at that moment or can’t wait to read. No particular author or genre in mind.

41. The longest I’ve gone without reading.
Maybe two weeks because I was on holiday and was so busy looking at things that I simply couldn’t find the time.

42. Name a book that you could/would not finish.
The White Boy Shuffle by Paul Beatty. I couldn’t tell you anything about it as I gave up after one chapter.

43. What distracts you easily when you’re reading?
Other people around me talking. I like it all to be really quiet. Plus, I’m really curious – I love to eavesdrop.

44. Favorite film adaptation of a novel?
North and South, turned into a four-part series by the BBC in 2004. The adaptation is so gorgeous, and it has Richard Armitage in it. My best friend and I regularly obsess over it/him and I swear, we know the entire dialogue by heart. Some others that deserve honorouble mentions: Pride and Prejudice (BBC, 1995 with Colin Firth!), Bleak House (BBC, 2005) and Cranford (BBC, 2007). As you might be able to tell, I love BBC adaptation. I actually like to collect them on DVD.

45. Most disappointing film adaptation?
The Woman in White (BBC, 1997). The plot was so altered, it was HORRIBLE. So, hands off!

46. The most money I’ve ever spent in the bookstore at one time?
I don’t usually spend that much at the same time, I would have too bad a conscience. I like to do it in parts, even though that’s quite silly. If you buy one book each day of the week, you might as well buy them all together on one day. I seem to like cheating myself a little.

47. How often do you skim a book before reading it?
I rarely skim. It has happened though that I have read the last page first.

48. What would cause you to stop reading a book half-way through?
Being totally bored and having a feeling of ‘this book is so pointless’.

49. Do you like to keep your books organized?
I have them all organised by alphabet. It’s a challenge as you have to rearrange the shelves every single time a new book joins the pile.

50. Do you prefer to keep books or give them away once you’ve read them?
I’m such a keeper. What can I say, I want my own library.

51. Are there any books you’ve been avoiding?
Nope. Anything goes.

52. Name a book that made you angry.
I still remember the fuss I made after reading the first book by Lemony Snicket. It’s supposed to be for children, but I thought it was so horrible that I decided to ban the book should I ever have any children of my own.

53. A book you didn’t expect to like but did?
Me and Mr Darcy by Alexandra Potter. When getting it, I thought it would be chick lit at its worst, but I read it in one session because I couldn’t stop.

54. A book that you expected to like but didn’t?
Possession by A.S. Byatt. I thought the Booker judges couldn’t be completely wrong.

55. Favorite guilt-free, pleasure reading?
Nora Roberts – I love her books. They are all very predictable, work all with the same scheme, but if I want to read a book that is light and won’t require a lot of analysing, it’s always Nora Roberts. Plus, the male characters she normally describes are drop-dead gorgeous.

I graduated from Uni at the beginning of May and afterwards I felt like I needed a real break – away from blogging and writing. Just me and my books, that’s what I wanted. I got so much reading done, books that had been sitting on my shelves for months, just waiting to finally be read. One great book after another – and now I’m having trouble to decide which one to review first.

Alongside the ‘me-time’ that I desperately needed after an exhausting exam period, there was also the fact that my laptop died on me. I had a desktop standing around at home which I readily used to check my mails and do the necessary things, but somehow writing blog posts, or anything else for that matter, seemed impossible. It took me a while to find the right laptop for me and then, of course, laptops aren’t the cheepest bit of technology. I could get my parents to ‘sponsor’ me a little and yesterday, I finally bought my shiny new toy. I really hope this one’ll last as long as the last one, not sure I could fork out that much money again so soon.

After graduation I had started a three-month-internship, which hadn’t been all I had hoped it would be. I really don’t mind complicated bosses, I get along with them just fine. But the boss I had to deal with there was one of the silliest kind. He was unreasonable in all of his actions, so that after the three months ended, I left without wanting to stay on full-time. Currently, I’m back at my parents, looking for a job. I really hope the right one will be out there for me.

Well, I really hope my disappearance will be forgiven and you will join me again in some healthy book discussion.

How about we start right away with the first part in my series of mini-reviews. I couldn’t possibly review (in depth) every single book that I have read over the last three months – it would take me forever. I’m no good with backlogs, you know. So I decided to give a short comment about what I thought of the book, leaving out the blurb (which you can, of course, always find on the world wide web) and I’ll give a rating. I’m hoping that’ll suffice.

I decided to start with the books that I came to love and which have now been added to my list of favourites.

Abraham Verghese – Cutting for Stone

Wow, just wow. I know the blogosphere warned me that this would be a read I would never forget, but I didn’t think everyone would be so spot on. This book had it all – family history, drama, humour, raw emotions, a brilliant plot. This book made me cry – and if a book manages to do that, it has to be written in such a way that I can identify with the characters and fell their loss as deeply as if it were my own. I cared about the characters and their fate. I got so deeply engrossed in the story that I felt sad when the novel ended and there was nothing left to come. If you haven’t read Abraham Verghese’s novel Cutting for Stone, then do so now! It will be a book you’ll never forget.

My Rating: 5 stars out of 5

Paolo Giordano – The Solitude of Prime Numbers

It took me a single afternoon to read the whole novel. Normally, I’d say that it’s somewhat of a bad sign if you can rush through a novel like that, but it was different with Paolo Giordano’s novel The Solitude of Prime Numbers. I was sitting outside in the sun and whenever I wanted to stop reading, I felt that I couldn’t. I had to read on to find out what happened next. I was so much a part of the characters’ lives that I cared about them and had to know what else was thrown their way. The plot was great, the characters were excellently drawn and the writing was flawless. I don’t want to give away anything of the plot, but I assure you that this, too, will be a novel you won’t easily forget. It might just be as hard for you to stop reading.

My Rating: 5 stars out of 5

Suzanne Collins – The Hunger Games Trilogy

I finally jumped on the bandwagon and started The Hunger Games – Trilogy. I was a little sceptical at first. I started the first book and thought that the style of writing and the point of view it was told from took a little getting used to. What I had to remind myself of time and again was that it was intended for YA-readers and originally not for the likes of me. But the story developed and all of a sudden, I was a part of Panem and Katniss was my best friend and I wanted to know what happened to her and yes, I admit it, who she ended up with. I rooted for Peeta all along. I won’t give away any spoilers for the last part. I’ll just say that it nicely rounded up the trilogy and that none of the three books was a disappointment – I loved them all. If you haven’t jumped on the wagon, do so now -  it’s a safe ride and you’re in good company.

My Rating: 5 stars out of 5

Donna Tartt – The Secret History

It’s been a while since I read this, so I’m struggling a little to write a coherent mini-review. I just go by the impressions and feelings I have when thinking of this book. It was epic – in many ways. Its relative length, its big pool of characters, its complex story (even though, thinking about it, the plot as such isn’t that complicated. I’m having a hard time expressing myself properly). What I really liked about the book was its diversity – the characters were all so different that every single one of them had something likeable about them. Even if you preferred one over the other, there wasn’t a single character that I absolutely loathed. The book brilliantly shows how people can cope differently with life and with guilt. The writing was excellent. Yet another novel that I recommend you read as quickly as possible.

My Rating: 5 stars out of 5

That was part 1 of my series of mini-reviews. As I’ve read a couple more books, the second part shall follow in a couple of days.

Thank you for your attention, tuning out now.

Sebastian Barry, The Secret Scripture, published by Faber and Faber, 2008, 312 pages.

What the Blurb Says:

Nearing her hundredth birthday, and still living in the mental hospital where she was commited as a young woman, Roseanne looks back on the tragedies and passions of her life through her secret journals. Growing up in rural Ireland in the 1930s, her adolescence is marked by civil war and a turbulent family life. When she marries Tom McNulty, she believes she has found love and security – only for a terrible misunderstanding, born of prejudice and deception, to threaten her fragile happiness.

What I have to say:

It’s been almost a week since I finished The Secret Scripture and I’m still not quite sure I’m overly happy with the rating I’m going to give. I wasn’t absolutely overwhelmed by the novel, but I wasn’t  underwhelmed either. I was utterly impressed by Barry’s style of writing and I found myself sympathetic towards the characters. And yet, a little nagging feeling inside of me keeps telling me that I didn’t love the novel as much as I loved others. But I’m running ahead of myself.

The story of The Secret Scritpure is deeply embedded in its Irish context and makes numerous references to the difficulties between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which belongs to the UK. The IRA is mentioned frequently and some of the references are hard to figure out if one only has a limited knowledge of Irish history. I would’t say that you can’t understand the novel if you don’t grasp those references, far from it, but understanding and acknowledging them gives another dimension to the story.

The plot is divided between two time streams (1930s and 2006/2007), but it’s never hard to figure out in which time period you find yourself. It’s rather helpful to the story as one can compare two opposing eras and their societies.

The two narrators of the story – Roseanne McNulty and Dr. William Grene – characterise each other in their respective journals. I found this style of narration to be quite clever as you learn a lot more about the characters as if the narration was just one-sided. This form of narrating also points out the memory loss that 100-year-old Roseanne is suffering from. There are clear discrepancies in Roseanne’s account of her life and Dr. Grene is the one to point them out. Furthermore, the form in which both narrate their stories – their diaries – shows that it’s a very intimate account of their emotions. I quite liked that because I always felt as if the characters were very honest in what they were saying. As a reader, you feel yourself absolutely drawn into the story.

“Dear reader! Dear reader, if you are gentle and good, I wish I could clasp your hand. I wish – all manner of impossible things. Although I do not have you, I have other things. There are moments when I am pierced through by an inexplicable joy, as if, in having nothing, I have the world. As if, in reaching this room, I have found the anteroom to paradise, and soon will find the opening, and walk forward like a woman rewarded for my pains, into those green fields, and folded farms. So green the grass is burning!” (Roseanne, 24)

One of the most important topics the novel deals with is madness – what is it that makes someone mad? Why would one commit a person into an asylum? Is Roseanne really mad or was she falsely commited? These are the things that psychiatrist Dr. Grene tries to find out. He feels himself drawn into Roseanne’s story and he is fascinated by the old woman who has never lost hope despite having been in an asylum for about 70 years.

Another important theme is that of memory and its loss. Roseanne has lived for so long that she cannot remember certain details of her life. Sometimes, she can’t even remember her own name. This part of the story gives it a certain tragic and sad atmosphere because, as a reader, you are witness to the loss of her own identity.

“I must admit there are ‘memories’ in my head that are curious even to me. I would not like to have to say this to Dr. Grene. Memory, I must suppose, if it is neglected becomes like a box room, or a lumber room in an old house, the contents jumbled about, maybe not only from neglect but also from too much haphazard searching in them, and things to boot thrown in that don’t belong there.” (Roseanne, 208/209)

The two characters, Roseanne and Dr. Grene, are absolutely loveable and you can’t help but fall a little in love with the strong and upbeat old lady. All those years in the asylum and all the things she had to go through before she was commited haven’t gotten her down and you have to admire her strength. Dr. Grene seems to be the analytical and neutral doctor, but you soon get to see that he is enthralled by Roseanne and you soon wonder whether it’s not him who’s losing his mind a little.

“Sligo made me and Sligo undid me, but then I should have given up much sooner than I did being made or undone by human towns, and looked to myself alone. The terror and hurt in my story happened because when I was young I thought others were the authors of my fortune or misfortune; I did not know that a person could hold up a wall made up of imaginary bricks and mortar against the horrors and cruel, dark tricks of time that assail us, and be the author therefore of themselves.” (Roseanne, 3/4)

What I enjoyed most about the story was the absolutely unexpected and huge twist at the end. I have to admit that I really love a twist in a story, especially when I really don’t see it coming. And let me tell you, I didn’t this time. Even though, in retrospect, I have to say that I shouldn’t have been surprised.

The only thing that somehow put me off The Secret Scripture a little were the sometimes very long-winding descriptions and reveries. The novel is more character-driven than plot-driven and the mellowness of the plot bored me sometimes.

Overall, the book and it’s language were very good and there wasn’t a single second when I didn’t enjoy the book. But the sometimes very long-winding descriptions made me take a point off the rating. I would absolutely recommend the novel, if only you read it for the very beautiful and imaginative language. And you should read the novel to get to know Roseanne McNulty – she will be a lady you won’t easily forget.

My Rating: 4 stars out of 5.

If you’ve reviewed the book as well and would like me to link to your blog, then leave a link to your review in the comments and I’ll add it to the post!

Other Opinions:

Lakeside Musing

Wilkie Collins, The Woman in White, published by Penguin, 1994 [1859], 569 pages.

Wilkie Collins, The Moonstone, published by Penguin, 1994 [1868], 464 pages.

What the Blurbs Say:

The Woman in White

The Woman in White famously opens with Walter Hartright’s eerie encounter on a moonlit London road. Engaged as a drawing master to the beautiful Laura Fairlie, Walter is drawn into the sinister intrigues of Sir Percival Glyde and his ‘charming’ friend Count Fosco, who has a taste for white mice, vanilla bonbons and poison. Pursuing questions of identity and insanity along the paths and corridors of English country houses and the madhouse, The Woman in White is the first and most influential of the Victorian genre that combined Gothic horror with psychological realism.

The Moonstone

The Moonstone, a priceless yellow diamond, is looted from an indian temple and maliciously bequeathed to Rachel Verinder. On her eighteenth birthday, her friend and suitor Franklin Blake brings the gift to her. That very night, it is stolen again. No one is above suspicion, as the idiosynchratic Sergeant Cuff and Franklin piece together a puzzling series of events as mystifying as an opium dream and as deceptive as the nearby Shivering Sand.

What I have to say:

I had met the name ‘Wilkie Collins’ many a time during my studies and yet it took me a while to get round to reading one of his works. The Woman in White was first and I was so stunned by how brilliant it was that The Moonstone followed suit.

The Woman in White has it all – it’s funny, it’s mysterious, it’s full of suspense, it has great characters and the writing is brilliant. Wilkie Collins’ book not only manages to shock with its content, but also with its frank writing.

“She had not heard my entrance into the room; and I allowed myself the luxury of admiring her for a few moments, before I moved one of the chairs near me, as the least embarrassing means of attracting her attention. She turned towards me immediately. The easy elegance of every movement of her limbs and body as soon as she began to advance from the far end of the room, set me in a flutter of expectation to see her face clearly. She left the window—and I said to myself, The lady is dark. She moved forward a few steps—and I said to myself, The lady is young. She approached nearer—and I said to myself (with a sense of surprise which words fail me to express), The lady is ugly!” (48)

Who would have thought the sentence “The lady is ugly!” could ever be found in Victorian literature. I was taken aback when reading this part of the novel. After my first surprise, I decided that I loved the novel and Wilkie Collins. An author who, despite the strictness of society that he lives in, describes a female protagonist in this way, deserves to be admired.

Of course, as one quickly realises, Marian, who is supposedly ugly, is far from that. She has the biggest and warmest heart and she is what one would maybe call a ‘New Woman’. She is very honest, direct and independent and I loved that about her character. I could easily identify with her, which is normally not that easy with characters in Victorian novels, given the huge time gap to the period.

The same type of woman can be found in The Moonstone – Rachel Verinder. Even though she isn’t as independent and fierce as Marian is, she is still a very admirable character. She tries to protect the man that she loves with all her might even though it breaks her heart in the process. Thus, Collins portrays her as a very strong female character.

The Moonstone is widely regarded as one of the very first detective novels for its depiction of Sergeant Cuff. He could be seen as a second Sherlock Holmes – he is smart, a little mysterious and he has a spleen: roses.

I didn’t enjoy The Moonstone quite as much as The Woman in White, even though the premises of both books are similar: mystery, subtle humour, great characters, great writing and Collins as their author. And yet, The Woman in White managed to pull me in more than The Moonstone did. I can’t even put my finger on what it was exactly. Most people prefer The Moonstone over The Woman in White, but I just like to go against the swim against the current. But this doesn’t mean that I wouldn’t recommend The Moonstone. Both books are brilliant and should be read!

I, for one, love independent and strong female charaters and if you do as well, then you will find women to identify with in Collins’ novels. If you also happen to like mystery, subtle irony and great writing and you don’t mind chunky books, then you might just find that you love Collins as much as I do. I have yet to read more of him, but I’m certain that I will get round to that eventually.

My ratings:

The Woman in White: 5 stars out of 5
The Moonstone: 4 stars out of 5.

If you’ve reviewed the book as well and would like me to link to your blog, then leave a link to your review in the comments and I’ll add it to the post!

Other Opinions:

Helen Reads Novels (The Woman in White)
If you can read this (The Woman in White)
Nymeth (The Woman in White)
Nymeth (The Moonstone)

Now on to bookish bits.

I’ve read so many reviews about Bradley’s books and all of them were raving. So how could I resist any longer? Why yes, I went out and bought the first book. You shall see how I liked it.

Alan Bradley, The Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie, published by Bantnam Books, 2009, 373 pages.

What the Blurb Says:

It is the summer of 1950 – and at the once-grand mansion of Buckshaw, young Flavia de Luce, an aspiring chemist with a passion for poison, is intrigued by a series of inexplicable events: A dead bird is found on the doorstep, a postage stamp bizarrely pinned to its beak. Then, hours later, Flavia finds a man lying in the cucumber patch and watches him as he takes his dying breath. For Flavia, who is both appalled and delighted, life begins in earnest when murder comes to Buckshaw. “This was by far the most interesting thing that had ever happened to me in my entire life.”

What I have to say:

I’m in love, head over heels in love, with Flavia de Luce. I wish I were her. I wish she was real and my best friend.

This book has it all – mystery, crime, humour, knowledge, a brilliant protagonist, a great cast of minor characters, brilliant writing and – most importantly – it has my attention.

“What intrigued me more than anything was finding out the way in which everything, all of creation – all of it! – was held together by invisible chemical bonds, and I found a strange, inexplicable comfort in knowing that somewhere, even though we couldn’t see it in our own world, there was real stability.” (10)

Flavia is an absolutely special character, one I could easily identify and sympathise with, even though she is only 11 years old. Not once did I find myself annoyed by her, quite the contrary: her character made me smile and laugh. I wished to be a little bit like her – that is a great compliment for a book’s protagonist. Even though she wants to be treated like a grown-up and behaves like one, that little bit of naive behaviour she has makes her so charming. I loved that she was so smart, and then again not knowledgeable. She is only 11 and Bradley did a great job at portraying her like that, clever and yet innocent.

“It’s a fact of life that a girl can tell in a flash if another girl likes her. Feely says that there is a broken telephone connection between men and women, and we can never know which one of us rang off. [...] Between girls there is a silent and unending flow of invisible signals, like the high-frequency wireless messages between the shore and the ships at sea.” (85)

Bradley’s book is so full of references to science, literature, history and popular culture that I found myself tracing all the clues he left. I love this about books – I can find myself reading and thinking: I knew this! I simply enjoy it – it might be why I love the Gilmore Girls.

This book was simply impeccable – I can’t find anything wrong with it. I’ll wait a little until I start the second part, I wish the savour the moment a little longer.

If you haven’t read it already, then do read it, as quickly as possible!

My rating: 5 stars out of 5

If you’ve reviewed the book as well and would like me to link to your blog, then leave a link to your review in the comments and I’ll add it to the post!

Other Opinions:

If you can read this

P.L. Travers, Mary Poppins, published by Harcourt Books, 1997 [1934], 210 pages.

What the Blurb Says:

A blast of wind, a house-rattling bang, and Mary Poppins arrives at Number Seventeen Cherry-Tree Lane. Quicker than she can close her umbrella, she takes charge of the Banks children – Jane, Michael, and the twins – and changes their lives forever.

Unlike other nannies, Mary Poppins makes the most ordinary events extraordinary. She slides up banisters, pulls all manner of wonders out of her empty carpetbag, and banishes fear or sadness with a no-nonsense “Spit-Spot.” Who else can lead the children on one magical adventure after another and still gently tuck them in at the end of the day? No one other than the beloved nanny Mary Poppins.

What I have to say:

I had been warned by several people that I would find the book very different from the sugar-coated film version with Julie Andrews. But boy, I had no idea they would be so very right!

The protagonist in both, book and film, Mary Poppins, is so incredibly vain, selfish, rude and self-absorbed that her character was put into such an enormous sugar bowl for the Disney version that I’m surprised Julie Andrews survived that. In the book, Mary Poppins keeps on checking her appearance in any mirror available and the author frequently comments on how great she looks and what kind of brilliant clothing she wears. She comes across as a highly unlikeable character. Maybe I’m too old for children’s books, but I simply do not find her appealing as either a person or a nanny.

Whenever she is with the Banks children, she is so rude that you, as a reader, cannot fathom why on earth they would be sorry to see her go.

“Jane and Michael looked across Mary Poppins at each other. They said nothing for they had learnt that it was better not to argue with Mary Poppins, no matter how odd anything seemed. [...] The bus roared on, wildly lurching and bounding. Mary Poppins sat between them, offended and silent [...].” (47)

What appeals to the Banks children is the extraordinary events they are drawn into alongside Mary Poppins. This is probably what would appeal to most children – a little bit of magic in one’s life, who wouldn’t enjoy that? The book only shows a small fraction of the adventures that are depicted in the film and many adventures out of the book are left out.

“But Mary Poppins’ eyes were fixed upon him, and Michael suddenly discovered that you could not look at Mary Poppins and disobey her. There was something strange and extraordinary about her – something that was frightening and at the same time most exciting.” (12)

One of the chapters that I particularly liked was the story of the Banks twins, John and Barbara, who do not appear at all in the film version. That chapter deals with the imagination little children still possess and which they lose in a way once they grow up. That chapter laments the fact that grown-ups are incapable of imagining.

But unfortunately, not all chapters were just as pleasing. One of the chapters, titled ‘Bad Tuesday’, feels in some ways unsuitable for children. It deals mostly with Michael, who disobeys rules and has to be punished for it. But his punishment (which I won’t let you in on in case you want to read the book) feels so threatening that I’m not sure it’s the right way to punish little children.

Overall, the book had its perks, but it also had many downfalls. Some stories, such as the one about the twins, I enjoyed and some things, such as Mary Poppins herself, I hated.

I cannot help it, I’ve grown up with the Disney version and I think I’d like to remember Mary Poppins like that and not like her original character in the book, even though I am now well-aware of how different both are. I just love living in my bubble, it’s very comfortable in there.

I do recommend the book – I guess Mary Poppins is such a children’s classic that if you have the time, you should read it (big print, not that long, easy to read). But if you only know the Disney version (and might just love it as much as I do), then don’t feel as disappointed as I have. You have been warned.

My rating: 2.5 stars out of 5

If you’ve reviewed the book as well and would like me to link to your blog, then leave a link to your review in the comments and I’ll add it to the post!

Kazuo Ishiguro, The Remains of the Day, published by faber and faber, 1999 [1989], 258 pages.

What the Blurb Says:

In the summer of 1956, Stevens, the ageing butler of Darlington Hall, embarks on a leisurly holiday that will take him deep into the countryside and into his past…

A contemporary classic, The Remains of the Day is Kazuo Ishiguro’s beautiful and haunting evocation of life between the wars in a Great English House, of lost causes and lost love.

What I have to say:

It’s been over a week since I finished the book and I still don’t quite know what to make of it. I’ll probably regret writing this review later once I realise how much I adore this book after all. But nevermind, here we go:

Oh, before I start, I think I can make this review part of Nymeth’s 1930s challenge. The narrative is divided between two memory streams – the present, which is 1956, and the past, which is in the 1930s. It depicts quite well the dealings that led to World War II.

All of the memories are triggered by certain scenes, which then again trigger other memories, so the structure is very convoluted and complex, and yet it’s never too hard to find where in the story you are. The structure is very similar to Ishiguro’s other novels, so if you’ve read other books by him, you should be quite familiar with his writing style.

The protagonist Stevens is probably the reason why I’m struggling so hard to come to terms with this book. He is a butler and he lives for his profession. Nothing can shake him out of the strict set of rules he has learnt from infancy and he seems, on the surface, to be very cold-hearted and conservative. This reflects in his writing and I found it hard to connect with him.

“I had been rather pleased with my witticism when it had first come into my head, and I must confess I was slightly disappointed, I suppose, because I have been devoting some time and effort over recent months to improve my skill in this very area. That is to say I have been endeavouring to add this skill to my professional armoury so as to fulfil with confidence all Mr. Faraday’s expectations with respect to bantering. ” (138).

Stevens only sees fulfilment in being a dignified butler and is so trapped in his own values that he doesn’t really see what is happening around him – his employer Lord Darlington is a supporter of the Nazis and the housekeeper Miss Kenton is in love with him. At the end of the novel, one should assume that with all the memories brought back to him, he would regret some of the decisions he made in his life, but there is no regret, there is only hope to maintain the same dignity as a butler. I just think that I had a hard time warming up to Stevens because he felt so distant, removed and cold.

“It is sometimes said that butlers only truly exist in England.  Other countries, whatever title is actually used, have only manservants. I tend to believe this is true. Continentals are unable to be butlers because they are as a breed incapable of the emotional restraint which only the English race is capable of.” (44)

Kazuo’s strength, which he also portrays in this novel, is to depict the ‘memory’s fragile power’, a coin termed by  psychologist Daniel Schacter. His protagonist Stevens has a hard time coming to terms with his own identity, which is closely connected with his memories. He is so caught up in his profession that he has completely lost all of his essence. Being a butler has left him without any emotion or compassion and it feels as if he’s obsessed with his profession. He is often unsure whether he remembers something correctly, which shows how fragmented his memories and identity are. I have to give it to Ishiguro – he knows how to depict a character unsure of himself.

Nevertheless, I had a hard time connectiong with the protagonist, even though the writing style of the book is brilliant. I recommend this book to everyone, just because I’m a huge fan of Ishiguro’s novels and I think everyone should read his novels. Is that a good enough reason?

My rating: 3.5 stars out of 5.

If you’ve reviewed the book as well and would like me to link to your blog, then leave a link to your review in the comments and I’ll add it to the post!

Colm Tóibín, Brooklyn, published by Penguin, 2010 [2009], 252 pages.

What the Blurb Says:

It is Ireland in the 1950s and for Eilis Lacey, as for so many young Irish girls, opportunities are scarce. So when her sister arranges for her to emigrate to New York, Eilis knows she must go, leaving behind her family and home for the first time.

Arriving in a crowded lodging house in Brooklyn, Eilis can only be reminded of what she has sacrificed. She is far from home – and homesick. Then, just as she takes tentative steps towards friendship, and perhaps something more, Eilis receives news which sends her back to Ireland. here she will be confronted by a terrible dilemma – a devastating choice between duty and one great love.

What I have to say:

I absolutely enjoyed Brooklyn. Tóibín manages to write such an engaging novel and I certainly felt absolutely drawn towards Eilis and her destiny.

Eilis is such a very charming and warm-hearted protagonist, whose independence I absolutely admired. You have to imagine that this is Ireland in the 1950s and not the 21st century. And yet, Eilis, who has never left home before, goes on the long voyage to an unknown country, to live and work with unknown people. She masters all of the challenges life throws at her and she does all that with so much warmth and grace that I absolutely wanted to be Eilis.

Tóibín’s depiction of homesickness is absolutely spot-on. As someone who has spent time away from her family and friends in a different country (I’ve studied in the UK for a while), I could completely understand Eilis’  feelings of displacement and discomfort. It takes her a little while to adept and settle in, but that never stops her from yearning for Ireland and her family.

“She considered writing to him now, asking him if he too had felt like this, as though he had been shut away somewhere and was trapped in a place where there was nothing. It was like hell, she thought, because she could see no end to it, and to the feeling that came with it, but the torment was strange, it was all in her mind, it was like the arrival of night if you knew that you would never see anyhting in daylight again.” (70)

I personally have the dream of living in New York at some point in my life and Brooklyn has only served to further that dream. Even though it feels as if Brooklyn is a little microcosm and New York is so far removed from where Eilis lives, works and studies, as a reader you know that the big world is out there and only waiting for Eilis to discover it.

Tóibín’s writing style is clear-cut, but that doesn’t make it boring. Far from it, I felt as if his language utterly drew me into the story and I felt so gripped that I could hardly stop reading.

I really recommend this novel to everyone – it’s a read you won’t forget.

My rating: 5 stars out of 5

Other Opinions:

Lovely Treez

If you’ve reviewed the book as well and would like me to link to your blog, then leave a link to your review in the comments and I’ll add it to the post!

Anyway, now on to my review:

A.S. Byatt is an English novelist, whose book Possession won the Booker Prize in 1990. Her most recent novel The Children’s Book was once again shortlisted for the Booker Prize in 2009. I first came into contact with Byatt in a class on Neo-Victorian fiction and then I had to re-read and work with Possession as part of my MA thesis.

I’d like to share my thoughts about Possession with you today.

A.S. Byatt, Possession – A Romance, published by Vintage, 1991 [1990], 511 pages.

What the Blurb Says:

Possession is a tour de force of wit and scholarship. Two young academics are researching the lives of – respectively – The Browningesque mid-Victorian poet Randolph Henry Ash and his contemporary, Christabel Lamotte. As they delve deeper into the turbulant lives of the two poets from London to the north Yorkshire coast, from spiritualist séances to the fairy-haunted far west of Brittany, a bizarre and haunting counterpointing and correspondence of passions and ideas begins to emerge. An astonishingly rich and exhilirating blend of mystery, romance, comedy, Victoriana and modern university novel – Possession reaches ist climax on a storm-tossed night in the churchyard where Ash and his secret are buried.

What I have to say:

Most readers have this love-hate-relationship with Byatt: you either adore her writing or you really don’t like it. I have to say I belong into the latter category.

I’ve only read Possession and one of her short stories, but neither could really please me. Possession felt so long-winded, complex and boring that I had a hard time getting through it.

It really astonished me that I reacted to the book in this way, seeing as the topic should really please me. It’s about academic work, something I’ve done for the past 4 years. It describes the world I’ve been living and breathing for so long. So why couldn’t I connect to any of the characters? The contemporary protagonists Maud and Roland are, for me, no likeable characters. Maud is so cold and remote that I couldn’t connect to her. Roland’s life is such a mess that I caught myself being annoyed by him complaining.

Even though the novel contains things I normally absolutely enjoy and love in books – neo-Victorian/Victorian setting, mystery, academic studies – there were also many things I youldn’t connect with. One of the most prominent, apart from the characters, was the poetry. I’ve never been a big fan of poetry and I’ve always had a hard time finding a connection with poems. I have yet to find a poet whose work I can say I love. The endless letters and poems in the book were just too much for me – too many letters and too many poems. The language in the poems is absolutely elaborate, I have to give Byatt that. She has a way with words. Just the fact that all of these poems have been invented by her and not just copied show that she’s a brilliant writer. And yet, her writing just doesn’t seem for me.

Overall, I personally would recommend the book, just so you can make up your own mind whether you like it or not. But I’d warn you that you might, possibly, feel as disappointed with it as I did.

What about you? Byatt – love or hate?

My rating: 1 of 5 stars

If you’ve reviewed the book as well and would like me to link to your blog, then leave a link to your review in the comments and I’ll add it to the post!