I've been taking refuge in an old literary fandom (going back to my mid-teens), and it is true that some books become part of who we are in a way that is hard to describe. Hugo's Notre Dame de Paris is one of them: I fell heavily for the young tragic hero/anti-hero, subconsciously recognising one of my own kind. In wanting to rescue him, I want to stand up for all of us. And Gore Vidal's Julian broke my heart, too, because Jules was a real-life character and I feel we are still living with the fall-out from his death.
I love novels that I feel I can walk around in and explore.
I must admit not to have read either of those books, but I would like to in the future (when the degree is done and dusted).
So far on my degree course, I have reacted best to the Shakespeare plays. I understood Hamlet's betrayal by his mother and murderous uncle, plus the unseating of Othello by Iago. Also hot-headed Romeo slugging it out with Tibault on the hot streets of Verona.
I have had more problems with the Brontes. I could understand the issues of emancipation and the ridiculous control of the patriarchy, in 'Jane. Eyre' but didn't empathise with the protagonist. Ditto Catherine Earnshaw of 'Wuthering Heights'- who I wanted to slap.
They were enchanted by such thundering beacons of macho sadism. However, it is very much of its day and as far as lit theory goes, I am not a New Historicist or a radical Deconstructionist; if I can't empathise with the character, I can lose interest. I gave up on. Ibsen's 'A Doll's House' because Nora drove me batty ( pardon the pun); understood the female/gender politics behind it, but found Nora too hystrionic.
I love Wuthering Heights. Catherine Earnshaw isn't the protagonist, though: it's an ensemble piece. She and Heathcliff are destructive individuals with no positives, who have to be out of the way for the next generation to thrive. I liked Edgar – sweet, kind, long-suffering, and a good father. A man with his own library is as appealing as a man with his own laboratory.
Re Catherine Earnshaw - sorry, I didn't mean that she waa the protagonist, I should have made a clearer distinction between the two sentences. I definitely agree re a man with his own library being appealing!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2016-08-18 11:24 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2016-08-18 01:49 pm (UTC)From:So very true!
Date: 2016-08-20 10:36 pm (UTC)From:I love novels that I feel I can walk around in and explore.
RE: So very true!
Date: 2016-08-20 11:37 pm (UTC)From:So far on my degree course, I have reacted best to the Shakespeare plays. I understood Hamlet's betrayal by his mother and murderous uncle, plus the unseating of Othello by Iago. Also hot-headed Romeo slugging it out with Tibault on the hot streets of Verona.
I have had more problems with the Brontes. I could understand the issues of emancipation and the ridiculous control of the patriarchy, in 'Jane. Eyre' but didn't empathise with the protagonist. Ditto Catherine Earnshaw of 'Wuthering Heights'- who I wanted to slap.
They were enchanted by such thundering beacons of macho sadism. However, it is very much of its day and as far as lit theory goes, I am not a New Historicist or a radical Deconstructionist; if I can't empathise with the character, I can lose interest. I gave up on. Ibsen's 'A Doll's House' because Nora drove me batty ( pardon the pun); understood the female/gender politics behind it, but found Nora too hystrionic.
RE: So very true!
Date: 2016-08-20 11:56 pm (UTC)From:RE: So very true!
Date: 2016-08-21 12:57 am (UTC)From:RE: So very true!
Date: 2016-08-21 12:23 pm (UTC)From: