Showing posts with label classic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label classic. Show all posts
Another mini-review for you all today, this time focusing on Sylvia Plath's The Bell Jar. Known for being Plath's first and only novel, this book is semi-autobiographical and an absolute gem of a story.


Release Date: first published 1963
Publisher: Everyman’s Library
Category: Adult
Genre(s): Classic, contemporary, semi-autobiography
Pages: 229 (hardcover)
Format/Source: Hardcover, Borrowed from library
The Bell Jar is a classic of American literature, with over two million copies sold in this country. This extraordinary work chronicles the crack-up of Esther Greenwood: brilliant, beautiful, enormously talented, successful – but slowly going under, and maybe for the last time. Step by careful step, Sylvia Plath takes us with Esther through a painful month in New York as a contest-winning junior editor on a magazine, her increasingly strained relationships with her mother and the boy she dated in college, and eventually, devastatingly, into the madness itself. The reader is drawn into her breakdown with such intensity that her insanity becomes completely real and even rational, as probable and accessible an experience as going to the movies. Such deep penetration into the dark and harrowing corners of the psyche is rare in any novel. It points to the fact that “The Bell Jar” is a largely autobiographical work about Plath’s own summer of 1953, when she was a guest editor at Mademoiselle and went through a breakdown. It reveals so much about the sources of Sylvia Plath’s own tragedy that its publication was considered a landmark in literature.

★★★★

A deftly written, astonishingly raw portrait of one young woman's experience with mental illness. Truly deserving of the 'classic' label.

Before reading this, I'd wanted to get into Plath's work for a while but had never known just where to start. She was a writer whose name I'd heard and had my interest piqued by, but I'd never actively searched for anything of hers to read. My literature teacher had recommended her to me, but I didn't necessarily have any immediate reason to seek out her work.

Well, no longer. You can now count me among the most ardent of Sylvia Plath's fans. 

But how to go about writing this review? How to do this book justice?

The Bell Jar's heroine and greatest achievement, Esther Greenwood, is a mess of contradictions. And that's putting it lightly. But if I look at her from the right angle—as if she's some kind of fractured mirror—I can see an unmistakable reflection of myself. Esther wants bold new experiences and skills for herself, with a thousand different gorgeous career aspirations, and she dreams wildly and fiercely. Yet she finds herself crippled by indecision and self-doubt when the opportunities to realize those dreams appear before her. She refuses to recognize that self-doubt and ignores everything about herself that she hates most, which gradually causes her mind to turn against itself. She's intelligent and cynical and uncertain, trying to find her way in a world that wants to pack her into a neatly defined box. She's an incredibly complicated, emotional, observant, and unreliable narrator/protagonist. She's a very unstable core for a very unstable book. But she is, without a shadow of a doubt, a stunning character, and I think much of her fear and desperate ambition aligns with my own. Her yearning threatens to consume her (it very nearly does), and that's a feeling I can identify with.

Since I myself could relate to Esther's struggles on this level, I think the book's impact was doubly powerful. But I think many, many others will be able to take away just as much as I did. Not to sound like an overly pedantic literature teacher, but the book thoughtfully handles themes surrounding femininity, sexuality, transformation, and death, among others. (I especially loved how Esther's dynamic with her college boyfriend opens up the fields of gender roles and careers. Her boyfriend's revolting condescension toward her goals says it all, really.) Its exploration of broader topics is meaningful, defiant, and thought-provoking, and done in a way that feels like the book itself is learning with you rather than dictating to you.

Sylvia Plath's prose in The Bell Jar is startlingly lucid and so honest that it's nothing short of a shock to read. It has a frightening, effortless cadence and frankness to it that shows simultaneous disgust and love toward humanity. It's indubitably well-crafted in a literary sense, but it also allows Esther's sometimes-brutal voice to project directly into the reader's head, which is arresting and might take some getting used to. The figurative language throughout is vivid and gorgeous. To make a gross understatement, it leaves a lasting impression. It dances on the line between life and death. It's electric. 

Although Plath's breathtaking writing style and heroine stood out to most—as can be expected, because I'm very driven by prose and character as a reader—there are countless other aspects of this book that I could try and wax poetic about. The supporting characters, who are layered and strangely beautiful and quietly despicable. The plotline, which forges ever onward, exhibiting a quietly disturbing haze in some places and an almost violent kind of clarity in others. 

I really have to thank the literature honors project that led me to this book (if you're curious, I was doing a comparative analysis of The Bell Jar and Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451). I'm definitely planning on rereading The Bell Jar when I'm older; I think this is one of those books that will leave me with something new to consider every time I return to it. This is by no means intended to be a comfort book, as some of my reading material is, but it's found its way into my heart nevertheless. I loved it on first read—it's a strange and eye-opening creature, no question—and I feel that it, along with all of Plath's other work, is a special gift indeed to the literary canon.

Favorite Quotes

There are many, many more (I think I have a favorite line on just about every page), but I returned my copy to the library, so I had to pull some from Goodreads!
There is something demoralizing about watching two people get more and more crazy about each other, especially when you are the only extra person in the room. It's like watching Paris from an express caboose heading in the opposite direction—every second the city gets smaller and smaller, only you feel it's really you getting smaller and smaller and lonelier and lonelier, rushing away from all those lights and excitement at about a million miles an hour.
When they asked me what I wanted to be I said I didn’t know.

"Oh, sure you know," the photographer said.

"She wants," said Jay Cee wittily, "to be everything."
I saw my life branching out before me like the green fig tree in the story. From the tip of every branch, like a fat purple fig, a wonderful future beckoned and winked. One fig was a husband and a happy home and children, and another fig was a famous poet and another fig was a brilliant professor, and another fig was Ee Gee, the amazing editor, and another fig was Europe and Africa and South America, and another fig was Constantin and Socrates and Attila and a pack of other lovers with queer names and offbeat professions, and another fig was an Olympic lady crew champion, and beyond and above these figs were many more figs I couldn't quite make out. I saw myself sitting in the crotch of this fig tree, starving to death, just because I couldn't make up my mind which of the figs I would choose. I wanted each and every one of them, but choosing one meant losing all the rest, and, as I sat there, unable to decide, the figs began to wrinkle and go black, and, one by one, they plopped to the ground at my feet.
But when it came right down to it, the skin of my wrist looked so white and defenseless that I couldn't do it. It was as if what I wanted to kill wasn't in that skin or the thin blue pulse that jumped under my thumb, but somewhere else, deeper, more secret, and a whole lot harder to get.
I took a deep breath and listened to the old brag of my heart. I am, I am, I am.

Are you a Sylvia Plath fan? If so, what's your favorite work of hers? Alternatively: have you ever read a semi-autobiographical book? What was it like?

Read More
Pic from ovrelia.blogspot.com
Pygmalion is a 1912 play by George Bernard Shaw.
Professor of phonetics Henry Higgins makes a bet that he can train a bedraggled Cockney flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, to pass for a duchess at an ambassador's garden party by teaching her to assume a veneer of gentility, the most important element of which, he believes, is impeccable speech. The play is a sharp lampoon of the rigid British class system of the day and a commentary on women's independence.
In ancient Greek mythology, Pygmalion was the creator of a statue which came to life and was a popular subject for Victorian era English playwrights, including one of Shaw's influences, W. S. Gilbert, who wrote a successful play based on the story in 1871, called Pygmalion and Galatea. Shaw also would have been familiar with the burlesque version, Galatea, or Pygmalion Reversed. Shaw's play has been adapted numerous times, most notably as the musical My Fair Lady and the film of that name.
--From the Wikipedia article on Pygmalion
This was... well, interesting. I'd never heard of it before, and I'd never read a play other than Shakespeare. Needless to say, it was considerably quicker to read, and slightly confusing. The title is a reference to the Greek myth of Pygmalion, a sculptor who created a statue of a woman and promptly fell in love with it. With the help of Aphrodite, she came to life. (You can read the myth here.) The themes of the book are sort of parallel; a phonetician with a Holmes-like talent for knowing where people were raised by their accents who taught a poor flower girl to speak like a duchess treated her as his "creation" and not as an individual. Although the two clashed too much to fall in love, the flower girl eventually did rise somewhat in social class and remained the phonetician's friend

Henry Higgins was the "Pygmalion" in this play. He practiced the obscure profession of phonetics, and taught the wealthy to speak well for a living. Because of this, he was a bit of a snob. Higgins was also extremely moody and condescending. This was part of the reason why he treated Eliza (the flower girl) so unfairly, although in his eyes he "never gave her the slightest provocation". In my opinion, Pygmalion was basically the story of one very messed-up guy and his mistreatment and ultimate resolution with someone who at first appeared less powerful than he was. 

Various other important females in Higgins's life, like his housekeeper and his mother, entreated him to be more reasonable towards Eliza, but he seemed to be unwilling to accept any female advice. He only caved a little when spoken to by a man. Higgins had very strange ideals and outbursts throughout the play. Most modern people would roll their eyes and think, "Anger management problems~" very early on while reading. 

However, it's a pretty quick read and a creative premise. As a classic and free on the Kindle, I'd recommend it.
Read More
Picture from book-review-circle.com
The Time Machine is a science fiction novella by H. G. Wells, published in 1895 and later adapted into two feature films of the same name, as well as two television versions, and a large number of comic book adaptations. It indirectly inspired many more works of fiction in many media. This story is generally credited with the popularisation of the concept of time travel using a vehicle that allows an operator to travel purposefully and selectively. The term "time machine", coined by Wells, is now universally used to refer to such a vehicle. This work is an early example of the Dying Earth subgenre.
--Taken from the Wikipedia article on The Time Machine

The Time Machine was altogether a very abstruse narrative of one unnamed man's travels into the deep future. I read it on my Kindle, where it's free due to its classic status. 


The book was initially narrated in first person by an unnamed narrator. Then, however, the mood shifted as he (presumably) transcribed the Time Traveller's telling of his voyage on the Time Machine. The Time Traveller's name was never revealed.


It's an interesting portrayal of the future, where the Golden Age of Mankind has already passed, and the species is crumbling. The technological advances commonly seen in science fiction were absent, which was definitely refreshing after the slew of dystopian novels that have been plaguing me these days. Yeah, I know this book was written a realllly loong time ago, but the relieving effect remains the same. I mean, everything seems so clichéd these days that anything different is such a rush, you know?


It was a sort of unprecedented way to think of the demise of humans, and the ruined splendor of the aftermath of human folly. I know that I never thought of the end of the world the way it was delineated in The Time Machine.


I generally don't like science fiction classics (i.e., Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, etc. etc.) very much - I mean, they're deep and all, but the science fiction elements and the slow prose of old books just doesn't click for me. The Time Machine was actually okay... I mean, for such an old book. Yeah.


Okay, now before I start rambling, I should wrap up the review, right? So The Time Machine was a fairly quick read, for all its archaic terms that are inevitable with any classic book. I say go for it if you're okay with really deep thoughts and a slightly confusing setup. Plus, it's free!!! YAY
Read More
Pic from cclapcenter.com
Washington Square is a short novel by Henry James. Originally published in 1880 as a serial in Cornhill Magazine and Harper's New Monthly Magazine, it is a structurally simple tragicomedy that recounts the conflict between a dull but sweet daughter and her brilliant, domineering father. The plot of the novel is based upon a true story told to James by his close friend, British actress Fanny Kemble. The book is often compared to Jane Austen's work for the clarity and grace of its prose and its intense focus on family relationships. James was hardly a great admirer of Jane Austen, so he might not have regarded the comparison as flattering. In fact, James was not a great fan of Washington Square itself. He tried to read it over for inclusion in the New York Edition of his fiction (1907–1909) but found that he couldn't, and the novel was not included. Other readers, though, have sufficiently enjoyed the book to make it one of the more popular works of the Jamesian canon.
--Taken from the Wikipedia article on Washington Square

I've always loved Jane Austen, and Washington Square's similarity to her writing struck me immediately. However, perhaps because it was written by an American author and was written eight or nine decades later than the works of Austen, it is less difficult to read through - in short, a slightly quicker read than, say, Persuasion.

Unlike Jane Austen's heroines, Catherine Sloper was a totally bland MC. I didn't like her very much - what was really interesting was the relationship between Catherine and her father. Dr. Sloper was really unfair (it seems like I'm reading a lot of books featuring unfair parents nowadays), and I hated how he was so blindly prejudiced against Morris and Catherine's relationship from the very beginning.

Kinda hard to review a classic.... so anyway, it was pretty good, but JANE AUSTEN IS BETTER. SO GET OFF THE COMPUTER AND READ PRIDE AND PREJUDICE ALREADY!
Read More
Previous PostOlder Posts Home