The Three Musketeers by Dumas

The Three Musketeers by Dumas started off great; a young man with a chip on his shoulder dreams of becoming one of the king's musketeers. Lucky for him, short-tempers were in fashion. One by one he meets the Three Musketeers and separately offends them so deeply each challenges our young hero to a duel to the death. Through a series of events he wins their affection and loyalty. Without a doubt the first 100 pages of this book were some of the funniest I have ever read. Of course, with an author like Dumas 100 pages in means you're just getting started. Little did I know what I was getting into.

I read a book about writing stories once which suggested that you start at the beginning, then write your conclusion, and then figure out what in the world you're going to do to fill in all those extra pages in the middle. I think Dumas might have read the same book. This book seriously dragged in the middle, but amazingly it ends as good as it begins. My favorite scene involved the villain who had been locked in a prison by her brother-in-law convincing a Puritan prison guard to set her free and then kill her enemy. No easy task. It took Dumas over 10 chapters to do it. 10 chapters in a prison cell with an evil genius, used to getting her way through seduction, trying to figure out how to control a man immune to her wiles. And she does! Convincingly so. Brilliant writing... it made the entire book worth it.

To say that the middle dragged is not entirely accurate. In fact, most of the book was very entertaining and surprising; it just suffered from the high hopes generated by its opening pages. Reflecting on the story now I genuinely enjoyed the entire work; it just took 300 pages for me to get over how my initial disappointment, that's all.

Before reading the Three Musketeers I had heard that Dumas' readers often wonder if he has any idea where he's going with the story. This book was no exception. That's part of what made the middle so difficult. You think you know who the villain is, then he disappears. Then a new villain comes on the scene, but he is untouchable by any of the Musketeers, and it is clear that that's not going to change. Finally, a person you thought was completely inconsequential is slowly (slowwwwly) shown to be the corrupter of all that is good and pleasing. This made the book frustrating. I couldn't figure out who to hate. Once the villain is finally revealed, however, nothing is left but pure vitriolic delight.

This book is light historical fiction. It is set in the historical world with caricatures of major figures blending fact with fiction to ridicule some and honor the genius of others; but mostly to ridicule. I imagine for his contemporaries it is something like when Gerald Ford was portrayed in the Pink Panther movies and a buffoon who cared more about the scores of football games than then destruction of civilization. No doubt there were several layers of humor along these lines that could have made the arduous middle more of a delight. Perhaps when I have mastered the nuances of French history I will give it another go.

Les Misérables

Les Misérables is a story written by the French novelist Victor Hugo in 1862. It is set in the years following the French Revolution, and details the story of a released convict from the day of his release until his death. It is a tale of redemption, justice, politics, history, and love. The reason I note in the title that I read the "Unabridged" version is not to tout my sense of accomplishment at completing such a massive work (though there may be a little of that,) but so that those who have read the shorter version or seen the play will not wonder why I touch on themes and ideas they don't remember from their interaction with the story.

The story begins with a lengthy section about a devout priest who practiced in a remote village in France. Hugo goes through great lengths to explore his piety and humility so when the main character comes on the scene we are not surprised by his radical personal change. This portion of the book, completely though necessarily ignored in the abridged versions, was perhaps the most touching and devastating of the entire work. Touching because Hugo captured in this priest the life and love of a man imitating Christ with all his being. It was devastating for the same reason. He exposes both the fragility and incomprehensible power of a virtuous life in this lovely character; a character responsible for all the joy and heartache that takes place in the story once he is off the scene, though he participates in none of it. All of the change and constancy that takes place in every character can be traced back to this single man and the life he lived, though he is barely fit for mention in the versions most read today.

All the same, I do not think I would recommend the unabridged version to anyone, unless they had a special interest in either French history, or the history of the sewage system in Paris: he writes voluminously about each. About every three or four sections (out of 48) the reader finds a lengthy hiatus in the story exploring a particular battle, the language of street urchins, or the peculiar way an isolated group of royalists choose to speak about the latest revolutions going around. I went into this work looking for understanding about the French Revolution; I got that and a whole lot more. If the reader does not bear a similar interest I recommend the abridged version.

Enough people are familiar with the story that I will not detail it here. I will just offer a simple reaction: this book may have ruined reading for me forever, it's that good. Where can I go to read something of this quality again? Hugo wrote at a peculiar time in history when political and social philosophy was at a zenith and yet Christianity, while heavily critiqued and criticized, was still seen to have inestimable value. There is no dark underbelly to this story castigating religion in its entirety placing it upon the same dunghill as alchemy and superstition; there are no subtle (and ignorant) jabs suggesting that one day science and reason will lead us to the perfect society. Hugo inspects both the good and the bad of the Christian faith and finds much more gold than dross.

Two chapters, the two longest chapters in the book, I believe, were devoted to introspection by two of the chief characters when they had to make a life changing decision. In these chapters the characters find their systems challenged to the utmost, and each is tempted to abandon his course. In the first instance the Christian virtue of self-sacrifice is put to the test. Never before have I read such a penetrating and revealing account of the inner workings of a human soul when temptation is at its worst. Hugo demonstrates with elegance the axiom that only the virtuous truly understand the nature of evil, for in resisting they must face all its wiles, trickery, and cunning. The man who gives in knows not the strength of his opponent as the one who fights to the death. In the second instance a loyal ward of the state discovers that human law is unfit to answer all the questions of justice. In this the reader perceives the beauty of the law of Christ and the inadequacy of the laws of men as the first man overcomes his temptation and the second gives in. The story alone is enough to make the heart sing, but these two chapters challenged my mind and imagination to see anew the glory of faithfulness and humility, of true Christian love, compared to all human virtue.

Volumes more could be written about this work but I will refrain. This story has deeply affected me. I would love to hear how it has affected you.

Ivanhoe by Sir Walter Scott

Ivanhoe was written by Sir Walter Scott in 1819. It is set in 12th century England when king Richard was returning from the crusades and prince John was attempting to usurp his throne. Ivanhoe is perhaps the best knight that served under Richard in their attempts to win back the Promised Land.

I almost didn't make it through this one. Scott opens every scene with a superfluity of detail near excessive enough to thwart even my most valiant attempts to endure this work. Couple that with his propensity towards arduous language (words like superfluity) and the fight was near to great for this brave knight. But hail, the foe is vanquished. If in patience you attend to my discourse I will distribute the spoils forthwith.

Ivanhoe is historical fiction. Scott shows his mastery of the time through his knowledge of people, places, customs, prejudices, clothes and even language. If his descriptive language was not difficult enough, all the dialog in the book is written in old English, complete with thees, thous, and thuss, that took quite an adjustment on my part.

By chapter 4 I nearly gave up. Until this point the story was boring, I had no sense where it was headed, and the title character had yet to be introduced. Today they tell you stories should start off with a bang. A conversation between a swine herder and a jester with no context besides the excessive detail about their clothes and personal affects was hardly the bang I was looking for. I don't say this to dissuade you from this book, but to prepare the reader for a difficult beginning.

By the time I came to terms with his writing and dialog the story picked up. Ivanhoe is story about knights and damsels in distress, concealed identities, battles, and a nation ill at ease with its own identity. It has the tenor of a fantasy novel without all the magic and dwarfs and hobbits. Notwithstanding, its characters are exceptional; from the bowman Locksley who can hit a switch from 100 paces to the mysterious Black Knight whose power in battle is beyond renown. Scott's interweaving of history with the legends of the time is masterful and well worth it.

Occasionally a book has a scene that fully exploits and demonstrates the power of the written word over other media. I recall one such scene in Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities where a fight broke out between two woman that was so masterfully portrayed it could not be done justice in film. This book, too, had one such moment; in this case between a Jewish girl and a Templar knight. In his attempt to rape her she threatens to cast herself from the castle wall. She then expounds on the true meaning of virtue. The knight cannot help but change in her presence. To say more would spoil the work, but rarely is virtue so eloquently described while showing its insurmountable power against those who are without. There is mighty strength in purity and honest virtue, strength we often forget in our attempts to justify ourselves against a licentious world. Scott understood this power well and nobly embodied it in the form of the weak Jewish beauty who conquered the passions of the Templar knight.

Highly recommended for the stout of heart.

The Darksword Trilogy: Volume 1

I recently decided that my reading was a bit haphazard. After completing a list of must-read of books I was left to my own devices trying to discover profitable reading material from the vast storehouse of literature. That was frustrating, to say the least. Too much to read, no context to appreciate what I was reading. After a few attempts I decided to limit myself to a particular era and supplement my reading with history, philosophy and poetry from the same era. After contemplating this for all of two minutes I settled on the French Revolution. History has always been a murky subject for me, but this was the fog among the murkiness; I couldn't make heads or tails of this event. Couple that with its enormous influence on the rest of European history, my ignorance of this era left me feeling historically inadequate; a feeling, I'm sure you agree, that is quite despicable and disheartening.

Sadly, there is no standard list of "books you must read to understand the French Revolution." Consequently, for now, I have limited myself to books written between 1770 and 1820. Happily, I have found this era full of great works that are not too ancient to be difficult to read or understand. On the side, I began reading a book on European history to give me a context for this literature. Most of this historical material I have read before for my coursework, but it is much more engaging when I don't have to read 100 pages a day for an assignment.

To the book at hand: Clearly The Darksword Trilogy is not from the 18th century. For some time now I have considered writing a fantasy novel. I have a robust pre-history that is ever expanding, a wonderful set of characters (in my opinion) and a basic plot for at least one book. One problem. I almost never read fantasy. I love Lewis and Tolkien but I have yet to enjoy other fantasy authors, not that I have tried all that hard. Discerning this weakness my friend Steve Fitz. has taken it upon himself to recommend fantasy novels for me to read for my education in the subject. He has gone through great travail, at my behest, procuring a wide range of authors and styles for me to read to give me an understanding of the genre and its readers. As I did not want to be overcome by this pursuit, I have committed to read 1 fantasy book for every 3 literary novels I consume. (Steve, for his part, has allowed me to recommend 1 piece of literature for every 3 of his books he reads. Lord of the Flies is the first for him.)  Forging the Darksword was my first in this pact.

As I doubt many of my readers will be interested in this particular work I will make my comments brief. The writing was mediocre. The author's use of metaphors reminded me of Max Payne. Remember those great one-liners? "The night was cold, cold like a gun." In this book every breeze, bush, and bucket of water was personified, which became very grating over time. All the dialogue was broken up with enumerable details of body position, facial contortions, lip licking, breathing style and sweat rate. Come on! Just let the people talk for once! That being said, the story was decent, and the characters, while not believable in the least, were fun. I did learn a lot about conduits, life magic, and the differences between warlocks, mages, druids, and sorcerers. All important information.

The true frusteration of this book was that the author resolved almost nothing in the end. The climax was the death of a relatively minor villan with no change in situation for any of the major characters. If I enjoyed the book this would entice me to read on, but as it stands I doubt I will pick up any more of this author's books anytime soon, if ever.

Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

We have this story all wrong. Frankenstein is the creator, not the monster. He is a college student, not a mad scientist. There is no hunchback named Igor. There is no lightning. Whatever we think we know about Frankenstein, we have it wrong.

Despite its awful adaptations in movies, cartoons and parodies, this is a fantastic story. It is gripping from start to finish (especially if you are a bit nerdy), it explores the glories and the dangers of putting our hopes in science and society, and, perhaps best of all, it is not too long. I have also been able to strike up conversations about this work in multiple venues, something I have yet to accomplish with any other piece of literature. I couldn't be happier with it.

Frankenstein, as a young man, represents the best society has to offer. He is brilliant, a family man, and in love. He goes to school and immediately finds he has a knack for the natural sciences.He excels in his studies and, after great labor, he discovers the secret to life. Instead of creating something small he decides to create something grand, something like a man but better: bigger, stronger, smarter. Yes smarter. The monster actually becomes quite articulate. Our good friend Frankenstein made but one teensy mistake, he made him hideously ugly. Not on purpose, he intended him to be superior in every way. Unfortunately for the monster (perhaps he would have a name if he were not so ugly) his hideousness was his undoing. Not even the good Christians in the book could accept him. Then again, they were French.

All of this is only the beginning to a marvelous tale. If your burned out on Twilight and Harry Potter and can't find anything else to suite your fancy, give Frankenstein a try.

Early Fantasy Book

George MacDonald is probably best known today for his influence on C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien. For that reason I decided to give this work a shot. Phantastes is a about a man who enters into fairy land (yes, with actual fairies that live in flowers and such) and the things that happened to him there. I was disappointed, but not entirely.

Right from the start I was reminded of Carrol's "Alice in Wonderland" because the plot was practically non-existent and dreamlike. Luckily, by the end of the book, most of the random elements found their place in the stories resolution. That helped, but, like Carrol, he seemed to exult in the inexplicable and random to the frustration of the reader. This might be partially explained away as an attempt at allegory, but the allegory was all too hidden for the casual reader like myself (and everyone else I found online who read the book) to explain what was happening. Where the allegory was clear the story shined, but this was all too infrequent.

MacDonad's style itself was a bit distressing at first because his sentences could easily go on for half a page. Early on I found myself often reading and rereading single sentences to remind myself of the subject. By about a third of the way through this was no longer necessary as I had happily adapted. I say happily because these elaborate sentences were full of description and beauty that greatly aided this tale. It was not difficult to be swept away by his imagery even when it was difficult to know what was happening or where the story was going.

The most impressive part of the book took place in a library where the hero was reading several books. In this portion of the book the hero retold stories he had just read, stories that only barely touched on the rest of the book as it progressed, if at all. (Random!!!) Nevertheless, the second story, which made up the longest chapter in the book, was perhaps the best short story I have ever read. It showed me that the author was well aware of elements like plot, characterization, subtlety, tension and resolution, even if he chose not to use them in the larger story. In some ways this mini-story foreshadowed the hero's journey to come, but it stood well on its own and could be removed from this book with no damage done.

This book was MacDonald's first attempt at fantasy writing, and I have been told that his book Lilith, written many years later, was the fruit to this seed. Perhaps I will give it a try before too long as I would sincerely like to appreciate this author who inspired so many I love.

I read this book on my ipod as well, and continue to love the experience.

Emma by Jane Austin in ebook

Emma is the third Jane Austen book I've read. I enjoyed Pride and Prejudice, loved Mansfield Park, and Emma was a joy from start to finish. I can see why this is one of her most recommended works.

To begin with, the characters were fantastic. Emma is beautiful and precocious; and she knows it. In a word, the perfect heroine. There's the narcissistic but loving father (if you can fit those together in your mind), the suave but eminently perplexing suitor, the wise brother-in-law, the naive younger friend, and on it goes. For those who know the genre these characters alone offer significant opportunity for misunderstanding,  anxiety, and ultimate happiness. What more could one want from a romance?

Austin's writing is some of the best I've seen. As I have developed a taste for literature my senses are continually awakened to new forms of beauty in writing and story. What I love about Austen is that the more I bring to the table the more she has to offers me as a reader. Every time I read one of her books I feel it is her best. I now believe that this has more to do with me than the works themselves. Her writing is like fine chocolate. Any fool can enjoy it but only one with refined taste can appreciate its purity, subtlety and the care that produced it. I look forward to improving my skills as a reader so I can enjoy her next work even more.

On another note, Emma is my first attempt at reading an ebook. A few months back I got an ipod touch with my laptop, replacing one that had been stolen. The device is ridiculously useful and I keep it on my person the way most people do there cell phones. I have long known that I could read ebooks on the ipod touch, but I was so convinced that I would loath the experience I never took it up. I was happily mistaken. While you lose the effect of paper and ink you also lose the weight. Apple's commitment to a slim and light device is much appreciated. Now I can read anywhere without remembering to grab my current book or get a light when things get dark. If I finish a book while I am out I have a few more already downloaded I can dive right into. The reading does not get tedious like I expected and even has some advantages. You can manipulate the font, color and brightness of the screen to perfectly suite your tastes. I am currently reading my books on a light blue screen with black, bolded letters, dimly lit (the screen, not me). Gone are the days of sitting in my uncomfortable couch instead of my comfy chair to get better lighting. Gone are the days of keeping a dictionary or computer close by so I can look up words I want to learn. Now I can just switch to the built in dictionary, look up the word, and switch back. Brilliant.

And, best of all, since most of the books I read are past the copyright date, everything I have wanted to read on it is free. This may be better than when McDonald's introduced the dollar menu.

by Neil Postman

In this book Neil Postman helps to expound the meaning of the expression, "the medium is the message," or, as he rephrases, "the medium is the metaphor". While I have long pondered the inherent meaning behind the forms of media we use to communicate and how those mediums affect our communication, Postman has brought much needed clarity and insight to my own musings on this subject.

Anyone who is an avid reader and movie goer should know that some elements that work well in writing do not always work well in a motion picture. In my own experience I have also noticed the limitations of drama and preaching as I seek to communicate the gospel during my yo-yo shows.

Every medium has both advantages and disadvantages when it comes to communication. A sermon can be useful for thorough examination of a text or detailed argumentation (though they are rarely used for this anymore). A skit cannot. On the other hand, a well done dramatization can implement metaphor and story with a terseness and power that words alone can rarely match.

Postman takes this truth as the foundation for his basic argument and builds upon it. Every form of communication has a bent towards a certain set of ideas that are convenient for that medium to express. The ideas that are easiest to express will become the most important ideas for a culture. This argument becomes clearest in his discussion of the news media. Before the advent of the telegraph information could only travel as fast as an individual could carry it. This meant that public discourse in news papers tended to be more local while major "world" events could be more thoroughly analyzed. This sounds backwards to us because we tend to think that more information would lead to better analysis, but the opposite is the case. Today we are bombarded by so much "news" information that has little or nothing to do with us at all that we have no time to thoughtfully consider the great events of our time. Consider this past election. Many of the best and most important things that were said never got any coverage or analysis at all because they could not be summarized in a 45 second clip in the evening news. In a media environment that favors short, fast, fresh, we have no time to think about what is happening, and just barely enough time to react so we can answer a question in a pole to make more news to respond to. Our debates today are not about polices but about looking pretty and not looking stupid. In contrast Postman describes a debate between Lincoln and Douglas in 1858. "Their arrangement provided that Douglas would speak first, for one hour; Lincoln would take an hour and a half to reply; Douglas, a half hour to rebut Lincoln's reply." And this was a short debate. How much time do we give our politicians to tell us their answers to the current world crises? Two minutes, maybe three. Unlike the audiences in 1858 we are not ready to handle the real issues and so we do a little dance instead until someone misses a step.

Postman argues that television has done this to us. It is a medium that favors fast, brief, exciting communication, while shunning long thorough analysis. Consequently the fast and fresh information has become all that is important to us while we have lost our ability to think critically. Have you tried having a political conversation with someone you disagree with lately? How often does it resort to name calling and baseless arguments about associations? Have you ever had a thoughtful discussion about a real issue. If you have you are one of the lucky ones.

Postman also delves into the effect of television on education. Sesame Street was originally an experiment to see if education can be entertaining. They discovered that indeed it can. What they failed to see is that Sesame Street also taught us that education should be entertaining. Unfortunately entertainment can only handle certain kinds of discourse and learning so we end up crippling ourselves instead of simply making learning more fun. Anything that cannot be learned through entertainment is pushed to the side while we count to 10 in Spanish.

The insights of this book, which I have only pointed out a few, are profound and its implications vast. How much more does this apply to the internet than televison (the book was written in 1985). I will have to get his work "Informing ourselves to death" to find out. This book has certainly sparked a curiosity in me concerning this line of discussion. I would like to pursue it further.

I always enjoy reading books that I remember watching as cartoons or movies when I was a kid. It is fun to consider the differences between them and why those differences exist. The motion picture is a vastly different medium than print and, even with CG, there are somethings that just work better in writing (and vice-versa).

One element that is difficult to reproduce in film is the internal dialogue of the characters. Camera angles and facial expressions can go a long way to revealing a character's internal state, but the detail pales in comparison to a three page internal conversation as a character wrestles with what is happening around them. This happens often in the Alice books as she wonders whether her change in size and haphazard memory might mean that she has suddenly become someone else. Children's books seldom deal with personal identity crises, but this is a major theme in Wonderland albeit jettisoned by the film adaptations.

Both books were dreams and, overall, this didn't work for me. Character's would appear and disappear, scenes and scenery would inexplicably alter and, especially in Wonderland, there was almost no progression of story to speak of. Yes, she does chase the white rabbit, but when she finally catches up with him nothing really happens. Carroll constantly fills your mind with questions that drive the plot forward, but in the end he never answers them. And these are not life's imponderable questions either. They are the types of questions an author could answer if he chose. Sometimes it felt like he delighted in tormenting the reader.

All that's not to say that the books were not enjoyable. Carroll had a knack for word games and poking fun at the arbitrariness of language and etiquette. His portrayal of Alice, the young girl who thinks she knows what it means to be an adult, feels authentic and is never strained or cutesy. He weaves famous verse and nursery rhyme throughout the books (some of which he wrote himself, only to become classics later) adding to its classic appeal. It was clear that Carroll was both a lover of language and a critic of it, whether poetical, logical, or plain, and this love-hate relationship added fun and life to his works.

The Idiot is the second book I have read by Dostoyevsky. This book is dialogue driven, at times confusing (in a good way), and insightful. To say that it does not rely heavily on action (swords fights, conquest... movement) would be an understatement. Part two (of four) in particular takes place almost entirely in one room around a man recovering from an illness. People come in and talk, they leave talking and then more people come in and discuss what had been talked about. Knowing how difficult dialouge can be, it was rather impressive. Then again, how much talking can one really take?

The book is set in Russia among mid-to-upper-class folk, their families and acquaintances. The culture felt very much like what you might find in Dickens or Austen. When I said the book was hard to follow it was usually due to the aristocratic subtleties of the characters that the author would not explain in the moment, instead leaving the reader (and the main character) to wonder what was going on. I often wondered whether or not I had missed an important detail, only to have the entire matter explained to me later. Usually it is clear when authors are leading you along like this, but Dostoyevsky did a good job keeping mysteries alive and in the front of your mind without if feeling like some authorial trick. Quite impressive.

The most disappointing part about this book was the ending. Having read Crime and Punishment I expected something grandiose and compelling, instead I was greeted with tragedy; and not the good tragedy either where two stupid love sick teens kill themselves. No, in this story bad things happen to characters you actually like. And they don't get resolved. I could happily accept this if I could grasp some overarching meaning, but I will have to do some reading about the book before I can come to that. Crime and Punishment had a very clear purpose that was painted beautifully in the end. The Idiot was more troubling.