Wuthering Heights

If you really want to make progress in reading Wuthering Heights, I can personally recommend getting stuck in a hospital for several hours with no other form of entertainment close at hand. If you are experiencing bouts of dizziness, however, I recommend the LARGE PRINT version.

Obviously, I wasn't reading this classic for fun (book club tyranny prevailed), but I'm trying to look at it as though I were. I spent about a third of Emily Bronte's book, trying to get the Monty Python semaphore version out of my head, then I spent a third of it, really entranced (YES! I can't believe I'm saying that) and then I spent the last ten or so pages thinking that Heathcliff sure was taking a long time to die. Oh, did I give something away?

This was my third reading of the supposed tragic story of Catherine and Heathcliff on the moors. The first reading doesn't count since it was in high school. The second reading was for a college class and it was interesting to reread the marginalia that I felt compelled to add at the time. I wrote things like "boo" or "Lockwood is an idiot." Really useful bits of information.

Lockwood IS an idiot, though. I never liked that he is used to frame the story. I don't care that he's supposed to be our way into hearing the story of the foundling Heathcliff who grows up to be a nasty human being, consummed by his obsession with an equally nasty woman. Why have the old housekeeper retell the story instead of simply telling the story? I suppose that's just some 19th century construct, but I digress. I'm trying to look at this not as a classic, but as a straight story. Did I enjoy it? Would I recommend it?

The short answer is still what it was after the first two readings: no. I do not like any of the characters, I don't like that they all turn out nasty just because they were treated poorly. I'm not saying I like my characters to be like the Disney version of Cinderella, where no matter how mistreated they start off, they remain sweet and get their happy rewards, but still, can there exist one person who compels me to care about their fate? I did like some of the book. I thought it was interesting to see the character of the weakling young Linton--who had seemed as if he might be able to break the cycle of evil between the two houses--turn increasingly awful. He might be the character I liked the least, but he was nicely written. I kept trying to see something good in Heathcliff--honestly, you want to like him--but I suppose Bronte was turning the James Dean, bad boy ideal on it's head (um, I know that seems anachronistic). The brooding, handsome stranger who turns out to be the hero? Nope, not in this book. Heathcliff really has no redeeming qualities, unless you count loyalty.

This is considered a love story. The back of my Signet classic reads: There are few more convincing, less sentimental accounts of passionate love...Well, it's certainly not sentimental, and I guess it is passionate, but the passion is driven by hate. I suspect that so few people read this anymore that it's simply gained a reputation as a true love story by hearsay. All people know is that Cathy and Heathcliff loved each other passionately and were kept apart by status and money. Yeah, whatever. Read Romeo and Juliet. Read Sense and Sensibility, if you must, or Cold Mountain. Or...well, you get the point. There's lots of tragic love out there with characters who are better people when they are together as a couple, and not worse.

If you listen to singer Kate Bush's lyrical summary, you'd think that love beyond the grave was a good thing in this book. If you manage to get through the book (because, for instance, you're trapped in a sterile environment for many hours), you realize that it's really a story of how to make the most of your awful circumstances so that you can really poison the world of those around you. Excellent!

Frankly, the semaphore version is a lot more entertaining.

The Lost Books of the Odyssey

Have you felt guilty for not wanting to tackle The Odyssey? Is it too confusing, or dull, but you feel like an idiot for admitting that and then you're at a cocktail party and it's all talk about the Trojan war (and you don't even know where Troy was located)? You've got the basic story, maybe something you picked up in high school, but wouldn't you like to say something witty (without having to do the work)? Well, Zachary Mason comes to your rescue with an amusing overview (and underview) of Homer's Odyssey, Well, sort of. Don't take it as gospel truth on how things happened over Odysseus' 20 years of fighting and traveling.

Like any collection of shorts, The Lost Books of the Odyssey is uneven, but then, I suppose, The Odyssey itself was disjointed, given that it originated in the oral tradition. What Zachary Mason has done here is tell the side stories he imagines--or amuses himself imagining-- as part of Odysseus' battle at Troy and his long voyage home. Sometimes he tweaks the events, sometimes he tells a new story. So Achilles was unbeatable (thanks to his mom dipping him in the river Styx)? Well, in Mason's version, it was because he was a Golem, created by Odysseus under threat of death. Agamemnon insisted that Odysseus convince Achilles to fight the Trojans or the king would slaughter Odysseus' family. When, to his horror, Odysseus discovers that the great hero had died some time ago (snake bite to the vulnerable heel), Odysseus brings a mud figure to life instead. All goes well, and no one suspects (even though this Achilles seems a bit indiscriminate as to whom he kills), until the Golem falls in love, of sorts, and starts to go a bit gaga.

This is the sort of humor Mason brings in. Odysseus is wily and brave--in most of these--though sometimes he's a bit cowardly--it's not like he wanted to go to war in the first place--but doesn't want to admit to it. He disguises himself as poet a la Homer in "The Iliad of Odysseus" and invents songs about the "hero" Odysseus. These become increasingly popular, songs with titles like "Feint Toward the Heart and Slash the Hamstring." When he returns to Ithaca--as king--Odysseus is 'most generous when [bards] had my songs word-perfect."

My favorite story might be "The Second Assassin" in which Mason imagines that Agamemnon's court is so steeped in bureaucracy that his order to have Odysseus killed (heroes are trouble to a weak king) ends up going to the bravest, strongest man in the kingdom. That is, Odysseus receives news that he must kill Odysseus. Odysseus read [the orders], his face closed, and thanked the messenger, commenting that the intended victim was in for a suprise, and that he was morally certain that no problems would arise on his end. Then, as required, Odysseus sends back regular updates on his progress with the assasination ("I walk among people who know him anbd his habits"). Mason has a lot of fun with this one.

We find out the origin of Circe the witch, we meet the Cyclops and hear his side of the story, we meet a few other characters, seemingly unimportant to the original. Some stories are better than others, though I think with even only a passing knowledge of The Odyssey, this book would be entertaining. You probably do get a lot more out of it if you really know the original story.
In the end, we see the aged Odysseus, setting out again, as Tennyson so well captures in his beautiful poem Ulysses. Only this time, the left-over Ithacans--ancient sailors, still spoiling for adventure--discover that the city of Troy has been turned into a sort of theme park. The old men enjoy themselves actually, free of the demands of a 10-year war that made them miss so much originally. Odysseus even manages to exorcise some demons there. Now he can die a happy man.

Zachary Mason has done what I bet a lot of people have imagined. Wouldn't it be great to take a classic and rewrite it so that it's fun? Or fill in the missing parts, reimagine the bits you didn't like originally. After all, The Odyssey has great bones. Think of the potential.

The Monster in the Box

As a reading teacher and the parent of a picky middle grade reader, I understand the comfort of series. You don't want to try too hard with a book; you want what's familiar, but with a little zest thrown in. Sometimes you just need that kind of book. Well, this explains why I picked up Ruth Rendell's latest Inspector Wexford mystery, The Monster in the Box. Rendell has won all sorts of awards and I will say some of her non-Wexford books are satisfyingly and disturbingly creepy. I have also found myself--in the past--mildly fascinated by the character of Inspector Wexford, mainly because I kept trying to figure out how a woman could write in the voice of such an old-fashioned, innocently sexist man. I'm going to assume that the fact that Rendell can do so is part of the reason she wins so many awards.

The last Wexford book that I read had a preposterous plot point. Something like a bunch of white British women believing they were pregnant--not in the usual way, mind you--and giving birth to black babies. It had something to do with modern day slavery. I don't know. It was silly and it made me throw my hands up in disgust. Fast-forward a year or so and that old comfort of a series with familiar characters pulled me in and I picked up The Monster in the Box. This didn't have too silly a plot, but it was...well...it was boring, frankly. Not what I'm looking for in a mystery. Wexford is getting old, though he's old in all the books. He spends this one reminiscing about his past loves (sort of) and, oh yes, that creepy guy he could never pin a murder on even though the guy looked at him funny when he was investigating his first case.
Surprise! Creepy guy shows up again. Surprise! It all ties in with someone else's non-case, and happy endings are had by all. Actually, no, things end fairly badly for all involved, but it sure takes a long time to get there.

I was talking the other day about the problem of crime series. How do you avoid repeating yourself? Do you age your character or not? And, really, how much crime can happen in a small town (Yes, I'm talking about you, Archer Mayor, in Brattleboro, Vermont)? Husband Ben says author Stephen Hunter seems to choose what kind of book he wants to write and then throws his character in somehow. Okay, that could work. Other authors end up with a character absurdly old because the series tries to be contemporary, but in the first book, the character was a veteran of the KOREAN war (or, frankly, the Vietnam war, which is also dated at this point).

Rendell doesn't seem to bring Wexford too far into the present day. He's "modern" but doesn't know how to use a computer. Times have changed in his town, but, on the other hand, there's a LOT of talk about use of a CD Walkman. I guess she gets some credit for keeping it all to the early 1990s, and the writing is okay, but this isn't the one to read if you're looking for an entry into a decent, quiet series. I'm not sure what to suggest because mysteries don't really differentiate themselves by title. Try something earlier, but don't get too hooked because then you'll find yourself taking The Monster in the Box off the shelf like you're visiting an old friend and next thing you know, you'll be snoring quietly by the fire.