The Culture Enthusiast: classics club

Sense and Sensibility by Jane Austen

Books 6:09 PM

Like so many girls, I decided to read Sense and Sensibility after reading (and loving) Pride and Prejudice.

Unfortunately, the first time I read it, Sense and Sensibility felt like a bucket of cold water.

Sense and sensibility's sad tones and tricky situations took me by surprise. And don't get me started on the male characters. Willoughby, Edward and Col. Brandon are complex and troubled - not your average romantic-comedy hero as well.

But after a second reading I began appreciating the book more. You just can't go into it expecting a light hearted commedy. For that, go to Emma.

The title relates to the two main sisters, Marianne and Elinor, who have quite opposite dispositions. Marianne is extremely sentimental and romantic while Elinor is more rational and introspective.

Both of them will have to struggle to find love and happiness.

Something unique about Sense and Sensibility is how well the characters are constructed. Notice how we don’t actually hate the antagonists. I, for one, felt sympathy towards Lucy, Elinor’s rival. Lucy seems to be just like Elinor: a girl trying to figure out how she can successfully marry the love of her life.

The characters have this perfect mixture of flaw and virtue. At every scene we wonder who's being smart, Elinor or Marianne. Many times we can't help but to understand them and be on their sides, even when they sabotage themselves.

This is probably what makes the novel less entertaining, but also more complex and demanding.than Pride and Prejudice

Every Jane Austen novel is a lesson in relationships. But be prepared for a difficult lesson with Sense and Sensibility. In theory, we should balance both sides (sense and sensibility). Now, If the ending backs this up, if the ending is really a happy one, is up to the reader to decide.*

What do you think about Sense and Sensibility? How does it compare to other Jane Austen novels?

Images from FanPop. These are from a great movie adaptation with Emma Thompson and a young Kate Winslet. I recommend reading the book first before watching it, though. The movie focuses too much on the two sisters and doesn’t develop the motives of Col. Brandon, for instance, and even redeems Edward’s faults.

* You didn't ask me, but I'll tell you anyhow: I'm not sure how happy the ending is. But then again I hate that Willoughby. Every time I read his name I hear “will it be?”. Perhaps I'm a little Sensibility myself.

(This is the 3rd book in my Classics Club Challenge. Click here for the full list with the other books in this challenge, plus their reviews.)

Share |

Sonnets from the Portuguese by Elizabeth Barrett Browning

Books 9:56 AM

If you asked me to recommend a book of poetry, I’d recommend Sonnets from thePortuguese. Many times, poetry can be unintelligible and difficult to tackle – Sonnets from the Portuguese is neither.

They are written in a direct way which makes them easy to understand. They are about love, which is relatable.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning wrote these poems to her husband, the also poet, Robert Browning. The title has a double explanation. Elizabeth was dark complexioned so her husband used to call her “my Portuguese”. It is also a reference to the 16^th century Portuguese poet Camoens and his love Catherine.

You can read the poems as a documentation of her relationship with Robert Browning, but we can’t forget that they are poems written by a poet to another poet. So there’s a lot of richness in them also.

The first poem is to me one of the most interesting and sets the tone for the whole series. She is old and had been sick and bed-ridden for many years. While contemplating her "sweet, sad years", a mystic Shape pulls her by the hair and asks: "'Guess now who holds thee?' - 'Death,' I said. But, there,/ The silver answer rang, - 'Not Death, but Love.'"

Isn't it interesting how she presents love as a source of rejuvenation and life?

I said the other day Elizabeth was my new hero. Unlike so many writers who tend to focus on the negative in their lives, she brings her "melancholy years" to light only as a comparison to the happiness Robert Browning brought her.

The poems show both Robert and herself were an active part in her happiness. Her life was saved not only because of him, but because she loved him back. Imagine how easy it would be for a sick 40-year-old woman to simply dismiss him because he is a handsome 6 year-younger poet and her father didn’t approve of the marriage.

While reading the poems I was amazed at how she could be both physically fragile and interiorly strong.

When Elizabeth gave her husband the sonnets he said it was the best thing after Shakespeare’s sonnets. Robert was a poet himself so, if that compliment is not love I don’t know what is.

What do you think of the Brownings' story?

Image via The Omniscient Mussel

Share |

Very intimidating classics

Books 9:23 AM

Share |

Macbeth: brave gentleman and bloody villain

classics club 9:44 AM

I have to be honest here: Macbeth scared the hell out of me.

The witches, the ghosts, the brutal murders, the madness, the blood... Visualizing the three witches saying "Fair is foul and foul is fair" gave me goosebumps. I'm not sure which is more horrifying, the witches or the doublespeak.

Now, many of Shakespeare's plays have violence. Othello strangles Desdemona, Cornwall plucks out Gloucester's eyes in King Lear. Why is Macbeth much more shocking?

In King Lear and Othello, for example, we have a distinct separation between villains and heroes. Who's the villain in Macbeth?

In the beginning of the play, Macbeth is a brave soldier, a "worthy gentleman" in the eyes of the king. Along come three witches that say he'll become Thane of Cawdor and later on king. They also say Macbeth's friend, Banquo, will be the father of kings.

Macbeth and his wife then set out to murder the king and more and more they became the villains of the play. Who is the villain that made them fall, the witches?

They have no personal motivation to destroy Macbeth, so there's no way you can stop them - they're evil for evil's sake.

They didn't force Macbeth to do anything, they used much less convincing and manipulation than Iago, for example. Bottom line: he did all those terrible things knowing they were wrong because of his "vaulting ambition".

And ambition is a key word. Macbeth, like most Shakespeare’s plays, is open to misinterpretations solely because of the reversal of values we see in our modern culture.

It’s good to be ambitious, so we are told. The means justify the ends, we hear time and again. Many dictators act just like Macbeth.

Wanting to be king is not bad in itself, but killing people to get there is. Since Macbeth wanted to be king, it is too clear that he turned himself into a villain. No one else is responsible for it.

Following this train of thought we might conclude that he would also have the power to go back to being a good man. He could repent and stop murdering people, but that would mean abandoning his lust for power and abiding to two judgments: earthly and divine.

He had the option of going back, but he didn't. Not only because this is very difficult but because he still thought he could succeed. "And you all know security is mortal's chiefest enemy". Eventually he becomes so used to evil that all he has left is despair and the nihilistic notion that "life's but a walking shadow".

Macbeth being both the hero and the villain is something unique. Shakespeare seems to put Macbeth between the pagan world of Greek tragedies and the neo-pagan world of our contemporary culture.

Take Oedipus for example. Oedipus was also a murderer. But the poor guy had absolutely no choice. He killed his father and married his mother without knowing it. He thought he was defending himself and marrying a queen.

So why did he fall? Because the gods said so. The end of the play is the fulfillment of the oracle's prophecy.

And then there’s Macbeth. The witches didn't establish he would be king, they have little power over human events, they could be just as well lying. Macbeth knew murdering the king to get his place is wrong. Doing this doesn't go according to some pre-established divine plan, on the contrary, the murder goes against it.

Maybe this is why this play is so scary. We see just how easy it is for a brave and noble man to become a villain. Most Shakespeare plays show that the corruption of the best is the worst of all. Macbeth shows that the best can bring corruption to themselves.

What do you think of Macbeth? What called your attention the most?

This was the first book I read for the Classic's Club Reading Challenge. In November, I'll talk about Elizabeth Barret Browning's Sonnets from the Portuguese.

Share |