The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgeral

I can see why this is an American classic. There's considerable more depth than I gave it credit for and there are so many angles that a person can dissect it, I think I could probably read it multiple times and still derive analytical enjoyment from the book.

That said, for personal reading/for my personal tastes, the only reason I wouldn't like this book is because it seems to follow all the typical conventions of American literature (and I'm making an extreme generalization) - subversion of the authority and the pursuit of the American dreams by abandoning tradition. Yes, Fitzgerald shows that this is impossible through Gatsby's multiple failures, but it's still that same theme. I suppose it makes sense because that's what America is all about, but sometimes, I wish that there was more American literature that would deal with other themes. I'm sure there are but of all the canonical works that "define" American literature, it's always about identity (as an American or an [insert ethnic group]-American) or about the subversion of authority because authority never knows what's good for the public. Eh, perhaps I'm being critical because in comparison to other types of literature (e.g. British Literature), the themes of American literature seem limited. Eh. Another argument for another day.

Going back to Gatsby, I liked it because it was a pretty short, easy read. Fitzgerald's writing style is really accessible but its simplicity doesn't take away from its depth. That's the kind of writing that you know is artful - and which is why I understand why it's read in like every other high school.

I'd recommend this book to others but I feel like it's such a typical book that people know of and have read that if anything, it'd be fun to read in a book club to re-examine what was already learned in high school. It doesn't go on my list of favorite books but it's definitely one that I enjoyed.

South of the Border West of the Sun by Haruki Murakami

This book was interesting in that it was different from Murakami's typical surrealist writing. There was no other-world manifestation of the mind and there was no implied resolution. This book was imbued with Lacanian (if that's a word) thought. I'm taking a Literary Theory class and we just went through Lacan and I can't help feeling that this book is completely influenced by his theories.

There's this constant sense of incomplete-ness and then there's the comparison between Shimamoto and Izumi - both who influence Hajime in many ways. They seemed to represent both sides of who he was - his better half (so to speak) and his darker side. I suppose a Freudian analysis could be done, but there's this sense that in the end, there is no self -  Hajime doesn't realize or can't realize who he is - he exists but that core of the self doesn't. There can only be some kind of relational way of creating the self and there is only some kind of resolution through his wife, Yukiko.

Anyway, it's all half-baked and I'd have to read it again to really flesh out these thoughts but it was a pretty interesting read, nonetheless.

I do like Murakami's style of writing - this one was less like his typical writing and had more philosophy (or literary theory if you want to make the distinction) embedded in it and I really enjoyed that.

*warning* SPOILER I think that a lot of people wouldn't like this story because there is a sense of incompleteness (which is completely intentional on Murakami's part) but most people don't like stories like that. There seems to be this almost-resolution, but in the end, something in Hajime's self pulls him back.

Anyway, I'm not sure if I'd recommend this book to other people - simply because it doesn't meet typical readers' expectations. I enjoyed it immensely but I always like Murakami's works.

Twelfth Night by Shakespeare

Obviously Shakespeare is awesome.

I thought the play was really good probably because I had to read it for a class and we analyzed it together and that class is awesome x10000.

The cool thing about this play is that it's a comedy and I feel that sometimes comedies explore the human condition with more depth than tragedies or other more serious forms of literature. It can do it and it can make the commentary that it does because it's funny. It's hard to get mad or offended when you're laughing.

The most interesting aspect of this play (for me) was the fact that everyone was wearing a sort of mask. They were playing a part - because they felt that they had to or because that's the role that society cast them. It's like one of those inception type things where they're playing a role in a play and in the role that they're playing, they take on the role of playing a role. Sort of.

Anyway, it's an interesting exploration because if one looks into why Olivia chooses to use the death of her brother and father as a tool to distance herself from men, namely Orsino (Why does she do that? She very clearly isn't in mourning.) and then why Viola, much in the same type of situation (recently lost her brother in a very traumatic shipwreck) takes the situation completely differently, the play suddenly contains that much more depth. Then there's the whole thing with who Viola can tell the truth because she's under the guise of Cesario while everyone else is caught up in intrigue (playing a joke on Malvolio) or other types of lies to buffer their current situation.

It's kind of how in our every day lives, in order to protect ourselves from the consequences of our actions, we veil the truth and in many ways, veil our true selves. We cannot be honest with each other (especially and ironically to the people closest to us) precisely because we don't want to injure others or face the consequences of our honesty. This also goes into an exploration of what it means to have true friends with whom one can be truly be themselves around. This is something that does not happen very often in life. Even if it does, some odd little thing called life happens and suddenly the relationship changes, people move, people change and life moves on.

Then there's the whole thing on love. How the heck does Orsino and Sebastian fall in love so quickly? I mean Orsino's kind of understandable, but Sebastian literally just follows Olivia to the chapel and they're married (without any kind of courting or anything).

So there's an exploration of love that one could do.

There's also the idea of class differences that one could explore, the role of the fool (Feste - interesting guy - made me realize that one must be pretty smart to be funny - and in this case, one must ironically be pretty clever to play the fool), Malvolio's character, Sir Toby's character, etc., etc.

And it's funny to boot. There's the classic misunderstandings because two people look alike, different things happen, the whole situational irony (where the audience and other characters know something that one character does not), and so forth.

As with Shakespeare, I'd hesitate to recommend the play to the average reader simply because Shakespeare isn't an easy read. There were tons of footnotes and little definitions in the version I read (from the Norton Anthology of English Literature, 8th edition) and it was a little cumbersome to read (though those notes were very helpful and at times essential to understanding the text). However, knowing the value of Shakespeare, if a person was interested, I would encourage them to read it.

English Restart: Advanced 2 by A. Richards and Christine Gibson

Although this book is tailored towards second language learners, I was recommended this book for its organization and what not.

As a book for English learners, I definitely feel that some of the sentence structures were too hard and some of the ways that the authors tried to simplify some of the concepts caused the sentences and the concepts to seem like they were harder than they actually were. Towards the end of the book, I found that the editing and the focus started to wane a little. However, the conclusion started to coherently wrap things together.

With that said, I think that conceptually, the book was well written and well thought out. The plot meanders in and out of its main point and even the main point is a little fuzzy. It has this philosophical take of "who are we? why are we here?" but sometimes it makes me wonder whether or not it was appropriate for a book whose purpose is to get the reader reacquainted with the English language.

Eh, overall, I wouldn't recommend it to most readers. It does make things interesting for second language learners but I think it gets too hard too quickly and it may discourage, rather than encourage readers. The philosophical aspects of it are interesting, but those points may be lost on an English-language learner because grammar becomes so essential to understanding.

Beowulf by Unknown Author, translated by Seamus Heaney

I really liked this epic poem. The translation was really good and the story is far more interesting than I had expected it to be. It could also be because when I read it for class, the discussion that came out of it was really really good. We looked at the inevitability of Beowulf's decision to fight the dragon (when he knew he was going to die, leaving his country vulnerable to attacks - the only reason there was peace was because of him), the various social conventions that guided the warriors' decision to fight and seek adventure/glory and the poet's commentary on such societal conventions.

There's an interesting idea of pride/humility with the various leaders that are mentioned throughout the poem. One thing to look at was whether or not Beowulf had pride. I would argue that he didn't until later because if he had any kind of hubris, the epic poem convention would have it so that he would have to fall to learn some kind of lesson - this never happened. I think he had pride when he went to go fight the dragon, which makes me wonder if the poet was saying something about how experiences brings about pride (which I think is true even today).

I think one of the coolest things about this poem is that you could relate it to today, if you wanted to. Some of the social conventions obviously don't apply (like it isn't a social norm to exact revenge on the killer of your brother/kinsman or to receive some kind of blood money so that you won't avenge the deceased - the poet has some interesting commentary on that).  Like the idea of selflessness is something that I think is implied even today. It is glorified in a way because so few people act on it. Interestingly enough, it was expected at the time, but I think because again, so few people actually lived it, that those who did act selflessly (or in the interest of their country rather than their own), it becomes a heroic quality. Well, I suppose if we were to talk about the loyalty of one's country and sacrifice, that's expected of our soldiers. I wonder if it really exists in the pure form that was expected of warriors in Beowulf's time.

Anyway, these kinds of works are generally pretty inaccessible to the general audience because people don't like to sit through poems and it's old. However since a modern translation exists and it was artfully done (not just some bland word for word translation that makes one feel like they're chewing on the remnants of something that was once good), I would recommend the poem to people. The story is actually pretty good. There's a lot that could be derived from it. I remember we had to read Grendel by John Gardner in high school and I think it would be interesting to read again since reading the original poem in translation.

The Importance of Being Ernest by Oscar Wilde

I liked this play. It's interesting how the humor of this play, written decades ago, still translates to today. I think the most difficult thing for me to do was read it imagining that all the characters were saying each line in complete seriousness. I couldn't do it for some of the lines because they were so ridiculous. Yet, that was Wilde's expectation in the production of the play.

I wonder if it's because of society today that takes nothing seriously and everything is in some way or another ironic that I couldn't read the play seriously.

At any rate, I really enjoyed it. I liked how Lady Bracknell said everything contrary to what was expected of her, yet those ironies were poignant because those things are often implied by high-class society but never explicitly stated. Wilde makes a scathing commentary on the upperclasses but he mixes it in with such ridiculous humor that it's easily missed. It's one of those things where if he were a comedian, he would pause while everyone would go "Ooh, burn!" However, in the play, the flow of the conversation doesn't allow for such reaction and the moment passes.

Brilliant in it's own way and when taking it apart as literature, it becomes even more interesting.

Rather than recommending this play to people though, I'd rather see the production. That's how plays are meant to be enjoyed and I would take a friend or recommend a friend to see the play.

Fifty Shades of Grey series by E L James

I can see why this book is a best seller. It has a compelling plot, deep characters and it appeals to a pretty wide audience, especially with all of the sex (so it also appeals to the people who like romance novels). Seriously. The first book did not need that many in-depth encounters, in my opinion. I suppose it could be justified because of Christian's background but eh. It felt unnecessary when I was reading it.

The writing itself was pretty bad. It was raw in an irritating way. A counterexample of raw in a good way would be S.E. Hintion's Outsiders. That's a good piece of fiction. Here, it's the bad kind of writing where the editors sucked both  at grammatical editing (small small details, but I picked up on it, which means that someone didn't do their job properly) and just overall plot editing. I hate reading a book where I feel like I can do a better job than the editors. This is the first time I've ever felt this way, which means it was pretty bad (one error, here or there is fine - it happens and I understand that, but there were several glaring errors). I don't know though, honestly, I got the books as a pdf from a friend and it kind of makes me wonder if the lack of quality is because it was some sort of pre-release version. I suppose I could buy or borrow the book and double-check, but I've decided I don't want to re-read this series.

James was also lacking in many ways but I think that she could've been salvaged by a good editor - hm, perhaps there's more to it than just her lack of experience in writing. Eh. I mean it takes writers time to get used to the story they've created and get used to the voice of their characters and understandably so. I think that's why it sometimes takes me some time to warm up to the writer - I know I've mentioned that with some writers. However, I think that here, the discomfort was a little too apparent - the choice in wording (or lack thereof - it gets better by the last book), certain types of grammatical structures (who the heck says "I've not"? Perhaps it's from a region in the States that I've never been to - I know it's used in England.. but it just struck me as an atypical sentence structure. If it was one of the characters that consistently used it, that'd be one thing, but all the freaking characters used it. That annoyed me.) and the flow of conversation was at times awkward. Very awkward. When a friend said she got a headache reading the first five chapters, I understand why.

That said, overall, I think James had a really good plot idea and one that sells. By the second book, I started to see why James inserted so many sexual encounters. It was one of the things that Christian needed to work out and the way it tied into Christian's emotional and mental state was a nice touch. I still think that the first book had too many. I suppose I'd have to reread it to analyze the necessity of all the sex scenes, but as I said before, I don't think I want to subject myself to the series, much less the first book again.

What I liked about the book though, is how the problems were resolved. There were a lot of emotional scenes that James was able to convey pretty well. As the series continued, the writing became simpler and more poignant. I also liked that all the characters were beautiful. The likelihood of that actually happening is pretty rare, but it helped work the imagination a little. :) And, as I said before, it appeals to the masses.

Overall, I'd have to say it was an easy read but lacking in any other kind of substance than the obvious. I think I'd recommend the book to women (womenfolk always love these kinds of stories) but I'd warn general readers of the explicit content.