A Post: BBC's Bleak House (2005)

Alrighty. This may seem pathetic, but it's my life, so whatever. This past weekend I had the wonderful experience of having the entire place to myself (meaning J was out of town). And as much as we all love our loving partners, we also love when they go away and leave us to frolic amongst the sofas and bedsheets. Or I do, anyway. So after finishing a book, baking some bread, and doing some laundry, I decided that I needed a Netflix account, and quick. I managed to find plenty of shows to add to my queue, but felt like a little Charles Dickens was exactly what I needed in my life at that moment.

Without hesitation, I turned it on, watched two episodes and considered whether I could handle the incredibly slow pacing until the very end. I realized, however, that I had no freaking clue what was going on or who all these million of characters where in relation to whom. SO. I had to finish. I had to know what this stupid trial was all about that had random people just showing up and developing relationships. I had to know why Gillian Anderson was praised so much when it appeared that she only knew how to make one face every episode!?!? I had to know who all these characters were and what would happen and so two days were devoted to Bleak House and not much else.

I'll admit that I haven't read Bleak House because I swore Dickens off in college. I know, the horror! But I just didn't enjoy reading his work and felt that there were too many books for me to force myself to slog through another. However, after watching the series, and reading reviews, this is supposed to be his best work, and now I'm thinking I may or may not give it a chance at some point.

The series is great! Great cast (aside from Gillian Anderson's one face albeit really pretty one) and some creepy characters that I didn't want to have to see ever again. The picture was beautiful and mostly realistic for the period. It seems like it did the book justice; although, I can't say for sure since I haven't read the book.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone that's read the book or watched the series. If not, perhaps see if it's up your alley.. still streaming on Netflix!

Share on Facebook| Share on Twitter| Share on Pinterest

A Review: A Study in Scarlet by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

I initially picked up A Study in Scarlet to work towards my 50 titles pledge for Classics Club, but also used it to help me complete my goal of Peril the First for the RIP VII Challenge. I was ashamed to admit that I had never experienced Sherlock in literary form and thought it had been long enough.

Sherlock Holmes is called to the scene when I man is found dead in an abandoned home. His body, left without wounds that imply violence, is sprawled beneath the word rache (or revenge in German) painted in blood on the wall. Watson, Holmes's new roommate, is along for the ride and relates the situation as it unfolds.

I had mixed feelings about this one. While I can definitely say that Doyle is a talented writer and certainly had the smarts to invent such a character, I found the sudden change in narrative and the long, detailed excerpts a bit taxing.

We first encounter Holmes when he's introduced to Watson through a friend. Despite repeated attempts from said friend to warn Watson of the peculiarities of his new acquaintance, Watson decides that the financial benefits outweigh any weirdness on Holmes's part, and in he moves. Friend disappears. Watson is then swept into the whirlwind that is Holmes's life. He indicates the numerous visitors of all different backgrounds, the fact that Holmes practically never takes a moment to relax (except for the moments when he lounges on the couch and stares at the wall for hours), and that Holmes can literally deduce practically anything about an individual within the first 60 seconds of interaction. When Watson, a wounded ex-soldier and doctor, decides to accompany Holmes on his newest case, he's blown away by his ability to pull together the events of the case faster than any member of Scotland Yard.

The crime was put together pretty well. Motive and details were consistent and plausible in the crime-novel sense. However, I can't note particular inconsistencies or flaws at the moment; although, I did notice them while reading. I would have to say that my biggest issue with the novel was the sudden jump from the then present situation with the case to the back story of the murderer. The move from Victorian London to the unruly expanse of the Wild West atmosphere of Utah is completely unexpected and clumsily included. Moreover, it's clear that Doyle opposed the Mormons because he certainly doesn't portray them in a positive light once we do finally understand where he's going. While I won't divulge what does occur in the scenes that build the murderer's motive, I will admit that this section was far more interesting than reading Watson's internal dialogue and watching Holmes flit around like a school boy.

I won't say I was incredibly impressed with this one. I've heard that this isn't the best of the series, so I won't swear them off forever. It was clever, but I just never felt really engaged. It took my nearly two weeks to complete despite the fact that it's a mere 150 pages (with illustrations)! If you enjoy smart crime novels that just happen to be classics, I'd say give it a go. I'd also encourage you to do so if you enjoyed the recent BBC series, because I thought it was a great adaptation and enjoyed comparing the two.

3 of 50 completed for the Classics Club

Share on Facebook| Share on Twitter| Share on Pinterest

A Review: Dracula by Bram Stoker

(This is the copy I own. SO UGLY!) 

It is really wonderful how much resilience there is in human nature. Let any obstructing cause, no matter what, be removed in any way - even by death - and we fly back to first principles of hope and enjoyment. 

I finally finished the beast that is Dracula. While I didn't complete it by the end of RIP VII, I did manage to finish, and that's really saying something here. I know that most readers have already tackled Stoker's master work, so I was pretty late in jumping on the bandwagon. I also know that most of you guys said you liked it. A lot. I'm a little jealous. And also want some explanations. Because I just didn't get it.

The story is told through the perspectives of four characters in the form of letters and journal entries. J actually stopped me at one point (he attempted but FAILED to finish!) to ask if people seriously took their journals to heart like these folks did. Obviously, we were having a little laugh (because some of these entries just happened to go on for pages and pages and pages), but they had to be this long to tell the story (or did they?!?!). Anyway. The diary entries and phonograph recordings were long-winded and explain the story of, you guessed it, Count Dracula.

Let me also share that I have never seen a movie based on Dracula aside from Interview with the Vampire. I also haven't read any vampire stories (like Twilight) or watched any vampire related shows (I know there are quite the number at present). So. My knowledge of vampires was pretty much pathetic going in. To give you a sense, I only had a vague understanding of what they couldn't be around, you know: light, garlic and religious relics, and thought that Stoker would elucidate. Not so much the case. I still don't know too much about vampires, except that they are considered un-dead, which J explained to me a bit more in depth because I guess these creatures were also apart of his D&D games when he was younger. That's about it though.

So the daring four (actually there are six) face Dracula and then follow him here, there and everywhere. Seriously. If you haven't read it, I can't say much more, because although it's pretty much always DUH moments when a new development presents itself, saying too much would spoil the fun. So I'll leave it at that.

BEWARE! SPOILERS BELOW!

Let's talk about the fact that there was so much superfluous content to wade through.

Let's also talk about the fact that everything was obvious. So in your face obvious that I questioned the competence of the characters.

Women were also delicate flowers that needed protecting even though Mina Harker proved to be the smartest character of all. And don't give me that it's Victorian lit and it can't be done. *Brushes shoulders* and cites Wilkie "the bad ass" Collins. Yeah. (This fact didn't really bother me because I get the time period, but it did get me when male characters went ON AND ON AND ON about how women basically couldn't handle the situation YET completely controlled the situation.)

Van Helsing. What was up with that guy? And how did he know so much about the undead? And how did Jonathan Harker know him so well? Perhaps Stoker addresses this last question but I can't remember.

What I did enjoy:

Stoker created a very spooky atmosphere. The first 25 pages were the most thrilling of the entire work. Dracula's castle was creeptastic and wonderful. Jonathan visiting the basement took some real guts.

I enjoyed the fantasy element with the creation of Dracula and his ability to transform into objects and animals in order to do his bidding.

Otherwise, it just wasn't the book for me. I'm glad I read it and can add it to the list of books read for the Classics Club challenge I signed up for back in August.

Note: Today marks Bram Stoker's 165th birthday. Check out today's Google doodle! 

Share on Facebook| Share on Twitter| Share on Pinterest

A Review: The Flight of Gemma Hardy by Margot Livesey

Before I borrowed this title from the library, I'll admit I was drawn into a storyline set in Scotland. A cover description, that, in a hurried examination, seemed slightly similar to the story of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. Slightly is not even the word.

Yes, those things kind of got me. And so I read.

Gemma Hardy, daughter of an Icelandic fisherman and a Scottish mother, is left in the care of her doting uncle and witch-of-an-aunt, after accidents claim the lives of both her parents.  When Gemma's uncle drowns by falling through a crack in the ice one winter, her poor life is turned upside down.  Forced to relocate to a boarding school, hired on as a working girl to earn her keep, Gemma quickly learns to perform her chores quickly and quietly, without an attachment in the world.  Years later, Gemma finds an au pair position on a small estate and farm in the Orkneys. Affections are explored with a Mr. Sinclair, family mysteries unveiled, urging Gemma to flee without a penny. One hindrance after another leaves Gemma broken and desperate for work, unable to locate a single soul of charitable reputation, the author unearths questions of what it is to be good and Christian in the world. The audience travels distant shores, meets many interesting characters and roots for Gemma until the end.

When I initially finished the novel, I was pleased.  It was a simple and entertaining read. I had loved Jane Eyre, and felt that the author managed to retell the story in a manner that was fitting and tasteful.  Gemma is a likeable character, with a good (for the most part) head on her shoulders, determined to do things for herself (her largest goal being a pupil at university).  Unlike Jane, Gemma is much more independent, and rightly so, as Livesey's sets her story up throughout the late 50s and early 1960s. The author manages to capture a changing landscape. We hear stories of families recovering after substantial losses in two world wars, women going to work outside of the home and brief encounters with topics like lesbianism and sex that would have had lady Jane blushing something crimson - if not falling over completely. I really enjoyed the novel because of this spin on the adaptation. Even after she falls for Mr. Sinclair, a man 20 years her senior, she manages to break free and seek the answers she's always wanted, those of her family and origins and what her life might have offered if things had worked out differently. Even in the end, we see Gemma pursuing the plans she's mapped out for herself despite the turn of events.

While the characters were well drawn out and captivating, there was no one, in particular, that I was drawn to as much as Gemma. The landscapes of the two countries seemed to offer boundless possibilities on behalf of the writer, but was lacking, in my opinion.  While there were a few moments of beautiful description, this language was generally saved for details of the avian life that thrived around her (Gemma is fascinated by winged creatures).  I wanted the story to come alive a little more than it did. Furthermore, just like Jane's adoration for Rochester always dumbfounded me, I'll admit that Gemma and Mr. Sinclair didn't do it for me either. I'm hard to please.

To be fair, I did enjoy it and highly recommend it to any fan of the famous Jane Eyre.  I'll  also note that this is an exact retelling of Jane's story, but think mostly modern.. 60s modern, that is. This, for me, was a bit of a let down as I expected it to be a little more loosely based, but can't deny that I really did enjoy it.

Share on Facebook| Share on Twitter| Share on Pinterest