Scan barcode
selfmythologies's reviews
299 reviews
Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë
4.0
[i wanted this to be short and it isnt, and its also super rambly and probably makes no sense, sorry]
okay, honestly, if i had to rate this by 'enjoyment during the reading process' it would have...very meager 3 stars? about halfway through, i could 100% understand the people who hate this book. now that im finished, i also understand the people who love it, and why it's a classic. while reading, i found myself wondering on which side i would end up; i couldnt figure it out. then i had a sort of epiphany about the narrative structure, which lead to a lot of thoughts, and now i find myself more inclined to the positive side.
Here's the thing: The reason this is so challenging is because the characters just arent likeable. As a reader you unwittingly search for someone to root for, and it caused me a great deal of irritation that every time i thought id formed an attachment to a character, they did something that disappointed me, or repulsed me, or made me lost interest in their fate for some other reason.
The thing is, this is part of what's so genius about this book. (if this seems to make no sense - bear with me!) It's only possible because of the POV. At first i didnt get (at all) why Bronte chose housekeeper Nelly as her narrator - I was promised a story of /passion/, and wouldnt that be best told, for intensity and authenticity, by one of the main characters? But, no, because only through the eyes of a bystanding character who can watch all of these people and tell their stories and yet never really exactly understand them, is it possible to be so confused about your judgements as a reader.
You constantly wonder; do I feel sorry for these people? Do I hate them? Do I feel indifferent? Somehow .....all of this at once? By the end of the book I was reluctant to impose any sort of moral judgement on any character because I was. so confused. I never really experienced this like that and to be honest it exhausted the hell out of me, but it's also brillant.
Why is it so important? Because these ever-changing opinions and judgements are the best way to ask questions, or rather, to plant the ideas for questions in a reader's mind. And Jesus are there many questions. Like:
Can capacity for love make up for being a despicable person? To what degree are we influenced by our upbringing? Is selflessness for a person still selfless if it hurts...the rest of the world? What makes a good person a good person? (and what makes a monster a monster?) Is wanting to break out of boundaries regardless of the consequences brave or is it selfish? What is the 'right' or better kind of love: passion without reason or empathy without passion? What *is* love, anyway?
You feel? :D
Most of these are related to the two aspects I find most interesting about this story; first, the vicious cycle of hate or revenge which also ties in to the nature vs nurture question: I think it's super important for this reason that the plot revolves around more than one generation because that makes you see the whole 'cycle' aspect of it, and it makes for some significant parallels. There's the whole thing with Heathcliff going from abused to abuser (and it's interesting (in a kind of really morbid way though) to think of how he actually seems to come to like Hareton by the end, probably because he sees himself in him, this kind of contradictory mix of anger/pride and self loathing that comes from being abused) Then there are the characters that grow up with love and care - the Lintons, young Cathy, but they face the problem of not having the resources to deal with the 'bad side' of human nature when faced with it. I just especially found the whole aspect of how easily children can be conditioned a certain way (especially negatively), super accurately portrayed, and how tragic it is that they dont even have the awareness that they have been wronged because they dont know any other way. The ending does show a bit of hope via Hareton and young Cathy, that genuine love and care may win over negative influences, after all.
The second aspect is what - in my eyes - has drawn so many people to the love story (and, i guess, made a lot of them romanticize it which.....is dangerous. But, I do get why it happens.) There is a contrast which runs through the entire book between the 'soft' personalities who are good hearted and....you know, sorta unproblematic but also sorta boring because of their mellowness (characterized by the Lintons), and on the other side the wildness, the unrestrictedness, the totality, the passion (characterized mainly by Heathcliff). And these two personalities also show two types of love. Love within, or beyond (societal/moral) boundaries? Catherine feels torn between the two in the choice between Heathcliff and Edgar Linton. The first is probably more healthy, the second (maybe) more fulfilling - but all sorts of intensity of passion also have a great potential for destructiveness (which.....is kind of what the entire second half is about). And Catherine, as much as she says she and Heathcliff are the same (which shows exactly that aspect of boundlessness, totality), she is not quite as willing to give up everything for their love as he is. Which....causes a lot of the trouble that happens afterwards. Actually all of it. So really, this problem of the way passion connects love and fulfillment and hate and destruction so closely together that they are perhaps even indistinguishable, is central to the book.
Bronte somehow manages to raise all these and many more questions in this novel, and problematizes all of the sides so that you get no easy answers.
(On a sidenote, yooo I love the fact that Heathcliff doesn't get what you call a 'redemption arc'. Because how boring would that have been. I also love how he defies being romanticized or easily put in the Tragic Hero category (even though people definitely did/do put him there, and his character does leave a lot of room for interpretation, but I feel like this does greatly simplify and misunderstand the way hes written), He does get humanized, sort of, at the end, but in a rather disturbing gothic kinda way. You go, Emily, that was super well done. In general, that mix of like realistic storytelling and these supernatural elements worked really well. It was definitely atmospheric. )
(also, second sidenote, the writing is great. I loved especially the descriptions of the scenery and how the tied in with the plot flawlessly. every word is on spot.)
so!! this was a very unusual book for me. and its not what i would call a favorite, because i dont....feel a close attachment to it, you know, the kind of /intensity/ you feel about favorite books. mostly because of the lack of character likeability, BUT its really kind of ironic because this is precisely what makes the story so outstanding and interesting. i do think it has a lot of potential for discussion and analysis and further thought, and it raises compelling questions, an im not sorry i read it.
i do recommend, but....with caution, maybe? its kind of an experiment. you wont know if youll like it and think its brillant, or it will frustrate the hell out of you, unless you try!
okay, honestly, if i had to rate this by 'enjoyment during the reading process' it would have...very meager 3 stars? about halfway through, i could 100% understand the people who hate this book. now that im finished, i also understand the people who love it, and why it's a classic. while reading, i found myself wondering on which side i would end up; i couldnt figure it out. then i had a sort of epiphany about the narrative structure, which lead to a lot of thoughts, and now i find myself more inclined to the positive side.
Here's the thing: The reason this is so challenging is because the characters just arent likeable. As a reader you unwittingly search for someone to root for, and it caused me a great deal of irritation that every time i thought id formed an attachment to a character, they did something that disappointed me, or repulsed me, or made me lost interest in their fate for some other reason.
The thing is, this is part of what's so genius about this book. (if this seems to make no sense - bear with me!) It's only possible because of the POV. At first i didnt get (at all) why Bronte chose housekeeper Nelly as her narrator - I was promised a story of /passion/, and wouldnt that be best told, for intensity and authenticity, by one of the main characters? But, no, because only through the eyes of a bystanding character who can watch all of these people and tell their stories and yet never really exactly understand them, is it possible to be so confused about your judgements as a reader.
You constantly wonder; do I feel sorry for these people? Do I hate them? Do I feel indifferent? Somehow .....all of this at once? By the end of the book I was reluctant to impose any sort of moral judgement on any character because I was. so confused. I never really experienced this like that and to be honest it exhausted the hell out of me, but it's also brillant.
Why is it so important? Because these ever-changing opinions and judgements are the best way to ask questions, or rather, to plant the ideas for questions in a reader's mind. And Jesus are there many questions. Like:
Can capacity for love make up for being a despicable person? To what degree are we influenced by our upbringing? Is selflessness for a person still selfless if it hurts...the rest of the world? What makes a good person a good person? (and what makes a monster a monster?) Is wanting to break out of boundaries regardless of the consequences brave or is it selfish? What is the 'right' or better kind of love: passion without reason or empathy without passion? What *is* love, anyway?
You feel? :D
Most of these are related to the two aspects I find most interesting about this story; first, the vicious cycle of hate or revenge which also ties in to the nature vs nurture question: I think it's super important for this reason that the plot revolves around more than one generation because that makes you see the whole 'cycle' aspect of it, and it makes for some significant parallels. There's the whole thing with Heathcliff going from abused to abuser (and it's interesting (in a kind of really morbid way though) to think of how he actually seems to come to like Hareton by the end, probably because he sees himself in him, this kind of contradictory mix of anger/pride and self loathing that comes from being abused) Then there are the characters that grow up with love and care - the Lintons, young Cathy, but they face the problem of not having the resources to deal with the 'bad side' of human nature when faced with it. I just especially found the whole aspect of how easily children can be conditioned a certain way (especially negatively), super accurately portrayed, and how tragic it is that they dont even have the awareness that they have been wronged because they dont know any other way. The ending does show a bit of hope via Hareton and young Cathy, that genuine love and care may win over negative influences, after all.
The second aspect is what - in my eyes - has drawn so many people to the love story (and, i guess, made a lot of them romanticize it which.....is dangerous. But, I do get why it happens.) There is a contrast which runs through the entire book between the 'soft' personalities who are good hearted and....you know, sorta unproblematic but also sorta boring because of their mellowness (characterized by the Lintons), and on the other side the wildness, the unrestrictedness, the totality, the passion (characterized mainly by Heathcliff). And these two personalities also show two types of love. Love within, or beyond (societal/moral) boundaries? Catherine feels torn between the two in the choice between Heathcliff and Edgar Linton. The first is probably more healthy, the second (maybe) more fulfilling - but all sorts of intensity of passion also have a great potential for destructiveness (which.....is kind of what the entire second half is about). And Catherine, as much as she says she and Heathcliff are the same (which shows exactly that aspect of boundlessness, totality), she is not quite as willing to give up everything for their love as he is. Which....causes a lot of the trouble that happens afterwards. Actually all of it. So really, this problem of the way passion connects love and fulfillment and hate and destruction so closely together that they are perhaps even indistinguishable, is central to the book.
Bronte somehow manages to raise all these and many more questions in this novel, and problematizes all of the sides so that you get no easy answers.
(On a sidenote, yooo I love the fact that Heathcliff doesn't get what you call a 'redemption arc'. Because how boring would that have been. I also love how he defies being romanticized or easily put in the Tragic Hero category (even though people definitely did/do put him there, and his character does leave a lot of room for interpretation, but I feel like this does greatly simplify and misunderstand the way hes written), He does get humanized, sort of, at the end, but in a rather disturbing gothic kinda way. You go, Emily, that was super well done. In general, that mix of like realistic storytelling and these supernatural elements worked really well. It was definitely atmospheric. )
(also, second sidenote, the writing is great. I loved especially the descriptions of the scenery and how the tied in with the plot flawlessly. every word is on spot.)
so!! this was a very unusual book for me. and its not what i would call a favorite, because i dont....feel a close attachment to it, you know, the kind of /intensity/ you feel about favorite books. mostly because of the lack of character likeability, BUT its really kind of ironic because this is precisely what makes the story so outstanding and interesting. i do think it has a lot of potential for discussion and analysis and further thought, and it raises compelling questions, an im not sorry i read it.
i do recommend, but....with caution, maybe? its kind of an experiment. you wont know if youll like it and think its brillant, or it will frustrate the hell out of you, unless you try!
The Fall of the House of Usher by Edgar Allan Poe
4.0
read for uni!
im always in for old gothic stuff so yee. if anything this made me want to read more of Poe's short stories. I feel like this won't be my favorite if I know more, but it's not bad!
im always in for old gothic stuff so yee. if anything this made me want to read more of Poe's short stories. I feel like this won't be my favorite if I know more, but it's not bad!
Der gestiefelte Kater by Ludwig Tieck
4.0
sneaked this in among my other reads today :D
with how much i love all things meta, youd expect i would like this, but i mean wow, i cant believe this was written in the 18th century. It reminds me so much of tons of modernist plays ive read. it's witty, sharp, confusing, reflective
i especially liked the character of the playwright/poet, and the question how much he altered the play according to the audience's reactions, (bc hes super affected by their rejection), what was planned from the beginning, or was it the actors who actually changed their own parts? Fab. also the constant demonstration of the narrow-mindedness of the audience, and the way the boundaries between reality & fiction dissolve more and more until the end
parts that i found incredibly hilarious without being able to say why: the scene where they discuss the play itself in the play (this was actually also perhaps the most interesting scene in general? bc at one point theyre like, 'the best part of the play is the audience' and the 'real' audience is like ???, so wild), and after the discussion one guy is like 'I don't even know about this play, I haven't even seen it'. and also this guy in the audience who's always spilling his pretentiousness and eventually they just KICK HIM OUT.
it's amazing and im definitely gonna reread it sometime :D
with how much i love all things meta, youd expect i would like this, but i mean wow, i cant believe this was written in the 18th century. It reminds me so much of tons of modernist plays ive read. it's witty, sharp, confusing, reflective
i especially liked the character of the playwright/poet, and the question how much he altered the play according to the audience's reactions, (bc hes super affected by their rejection), what was planned from the beginning, or was it the actors who actually changed their own parts? Fab. also the constant demonstration of the narrow-mindedness of the audience, and the way the boundaries between reality & fiction dissolve more and more until the end
parts that i found incredibly hilarious without being able to say why: the scene where they discuss the play itself in the play (this was actually also perhaps the most interesting scene in general? bc at one point theyre like, 'the best part of the play is the audience' and the 'real' audience is like ???, so wild), and after the discussion one guy is like 'I don't even know about this play, I haven't even seen it'. and also this guy in the audience who's always spilling his pretentiousness and eventually they just KICK HIM OUT.
it's amazing and im definitely gonna reread it sometime :D
The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
5.0
OKAY HERES THE REVIEW
Me and my pile of 5 star ratings lately :D but let's be real, i knew this book would be exactly my thing. and if you know even just a bit about me you also knew this book would be exactly my thing. my first impression was actually yup, this is gonna be a solid at least 4 stars', but I ended up loving it even more than that, and at the end it was a true favorite.
ok so first of all. i already wrote on tumblr that this whole story reminded me in its themes intensely of kierkegaard's 'either/or' which i once partly read for a seminar, and which is about the dicussion of two differing modes of living: by ethics, or by aesthetics. and in a way, this book is another variation of that discussion.
now it is one of the most quotable books i ever read, but it's funny because most of the aphorisms and 'wisdoms' come from lord henry, who is like the Mephisto of this story and should definitely not be any sort of role model lmao. but actually it's really interesting because-lord henry totally 100% has the aesthetic worldview. he judges things and people by how appealing they are, how much potential they have for being interesting . and he's not immoral, but amoral; he doesn't care about morality (unless its, well, interesting.) (the connection aesthetic - interesting was also part of kierkegaard's book actually!) the thing is, intersting things are often really horrible things. destroying someone's life is interesting. decay is interesting. art has so many subject matters that are intensely disturbing and for that exact reason, appealing.
but what happens if you see your entire life the way you judge art? well...see: this book.
the thing is that lord henry is actually quite relatable or at least completely understandable (or was for me), the moment you let go of your own sense of morality. or maybe that only works for people who already have an intense sense of aesthetics. i know quite a lot of people wouldnt be able to see things differently than with their sense of moral judgement, but i can, and its....disturbing.
one of my favorite scenes in the book is when dorian rejects sibyl vane quite violently and she commits suicide, and hes starting to have a bad conscience about it but henry convinces him to see it as ~she died in a truly romantic way~ and dorian kind of...romaticizes the entire thing to absolve himself from guilt, as if the entire story of him and the girl was just....a work of art, and he only needed to judge it by how appealing it is artistically? THAT IS SUCH INTERESTING STUFF HOLY SHIT.
i also like immensely how dorian doesn't turn completely ~evil~ but his consciene continues to plague him and he constantly tries to avoid it and push it down. (see his behaviour around the picture, the opium stuff, also the reason hes mad at basil in the first place is that basil is basically his voice of reason or his conscience and he knows he is right, it's the typical reaction of being mad at someone because subconsciously youre mad at yourself)
(by the way did freud know this novel?? he must have loved it. its so....freudian. its basically psychoanalysis 101)
(also silence for basil, pure cinnamon roll who deserved so much better, im so sorry for my poor darling)
and what i also love is that in the end, the book doesnt...tell you what to think about the topic. is it a warning against being immoral for the sake of beauty? can be totally read that way. but then the book itself is also a work of art, and the writing is incredibly...well...focused on beauty. (and by the way, the writing style is SO GOOD) also the preface and the fact that oscar wilde was part of the aesthetic movement. it is clear that this book also....loves showing beautiful things. and isnt the story in itself about something disturbing that is interesting artistically? (SO META.)
its that ambiguity that made me rethink about the book for a long time after i read it. it stayed with me because the conflict ethics vs aesthetics is kinda central to me as a person because i find both these approaches to life deeply important, and im always trying to find a balance between them. in the end life is nothing without beauty, but it also is without responsibility and being able to live with what you did. and whats necessary isnt always appealing / beautiful / interesting. and after all we need to differentiate between life and fiction...even if it would seem a fairytale not having to. at the same time, i also want my life to be as....artistic as possible, lmao. issues! :D
tl;dr read this because its damn well written and damn fascinating
Me and my pile of 5 star ratings lately :D but let's be real, i knew this book would be exactly my thing. and if you know even just a bit about me you also knew this book would be exactly my thing. my first impression was actually yup, this is gonna be a solid at least 4 stars', but I ended up loving it even more than that, and at the end it was a true favorite.
ok so first of all. i already wrote on tumblr that this whole story reminded me in its themes intensely of kierkegaard's 'either/or' which i once partly read for a seminar, and which is about the dicussion of two differing modes of living: by ethics, or by aesthetics. and in a way, this book is another variation of that discussion.
now it is one of the most quotable books i ever read, but it's funny because most of the aphorisms and 'wisdoms' come from lord henry, who is like the Mephisto of this story and should definitely not be any sort of role model lmao. but actually it's really interesting because-lord henry totally 100% has the aesthetic worldview. he judges things and people by how appealing they are, how much potential they have for being interesting . and he's not immoral, but amoral; he doesn't care about morality (unless its, well, interesting.) (the connection aesthetic - interesting was also part of kierkegaard's book actually!) the thing is, intersting things are often really horrible things. destroying someone's life is interesting. decay is interesting. art has so many subject matters that are intensely disturbing and for that exact reason, appealing.
but what happens if you see your entire life the way you judge art? well...see: this book.
the thing is that lord henry is actually quite relatable or at least completely understandable (or was for me), the moment you let go of your own sense of morality. or maybe that only works for people who already have an intense sense of aesthetics. i know quite a lot of people wouldnt be able to see things differently than with their sense of moral judgement, but i can, and its....disturbing.
one of my favorite scenes in the book is when dorian rejects sibyl vane quite violently and she commits suicide, and hes starting to have a bad conscience about it but henry convinces him to see it as ~she died in a truly romantic way~ and dorian kind of...romaticizes the entire thing to absolve himself from guilt, as if the entire story of him and the girl was just....a work of art, and he only needed to judge it by how appealing it is artistically? THAT IS SUCH INTERESTING STUFF HOLY SHIT.
i also like immensely how dorian doesn't turn completely ~evil~ but his consciene continues to plague him and he constantly tries to avoid it and push it down. (see his behaviour around the picture, the opium stuff, also the reason hes mad at basil in the first place is that basil is basically his voice of reason or his conscience and he knows he is right, it's the typical reaction of being mad at someone because subconsciously youre mad at yourself)
(by the way did freud know this novel?? he must have loved it. its so....freudian. its basically psychoanalysis 101)
(also silence for basil, pure cinnamon roll who deserved so much better, im so sorry for my poor darling)
and what i also love is that in the end, the book doesnt...tell you what to think about the topic. is it a warning against being immoral for the sake of beauty? can be totally read that way. but then the book itself is also a work of art, and the writing is incredibly...well...focused on beauty. (and by the way, the writing style is SO GOOD) also the preface and the fact that oscar wilde was part of the aesthetic movement. it is clear that this book also....loves showing beautiful things. and isnt the story in itself about something disturbing that is interesting artistically? (SO META.)
its that ambiguity that made me rethink about the book for a long time after i read it. it stayed with me because the conflict ethics vs aesthetics is kinda central to me as a person because i find both these approaches to life deeply important, and im always trying to find a balance between them. in the end life is nothing without beauty, but it also is without responsibility and being able to live with what you did. and whats necessary isnt always appealing / beautiful / interesting. and after all we need to differentiate between life and fiction...even if it would seem a fairytale not having to. at the same time, i also want my life to be as....artistic as possible, lmao. issues! :D
tl;dr read this because its damn well written and damn fascinating
The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne
3.0
i thought about it and i still dont actually know how to rate this... i dont really have any particular feelings about this book. it wasnt bad, but it wasnt special? the topic is interesting, and theres a lot of symbolism which i do generally like but its a bit too...in your face here. I don't like being constantly pointed at what things mean instead of it just being shown by the story. I quite liked Dimmesdale as a character, and the chapter thats about his Internal Tumult is my favorite. (especially because hawthorne didnt have all the writing techniques of the 20th century to portray internal conflict yet, so he had to do it all by external description and i think he pulled it off really well for that). Also the way Hester and Dimmesdale both deal with the same 'sin' in completely opposite ways and each faces their own hardships because of that - Hester is shunned by society and Dimmesdale by his own conscience. That was pretty cool.
So yeah. This isn't a 3 star rating of the 'I have very different conflicting opinions about this book' sort, but of the 'i dont really have any strong opinions'sort :D
So yeah. This isn't a 3 star rating of the 'I have very different conflicting opinions about this book' sort, but of the 'i dont really have any strong opinions'sort :D