"The Winter's Tale" by William Shakespeare

Last night a friend of mine remarked on how amazing she found the fact that I loved Shakespeare despite English not being my first language. It got me to thinking about how this great affection for Shakespeare had begun. I was lucky that the first couple of works of his that I had been introduced to, at the time when I knew next to nothing about literature, were some of the works that today I still cherish as some of his best: "Twelfth Night," "Much Ado About Nothing," and "The Two Gentlemen of Verona." These are all comedies, and I like them because they show off what I consider to be what Shakespeare does best: clever dialogues, lively characters, and compelling love stories.

My least favorite of Shakespeare plays were ones about war and conspiracy. Two months ago I read "The Merchant of Venice" and it reminded me why I had ever started liking him in the first place--the comedies always have a higher place in my heart. This month I read "The Winter's Tale" which was categorized as a "Romance," along with "Pericles," "Cymbeline," and "The Tempest." It was written later in his career, and was consistently entertaining. The story is about a jealous king who accuses his queen of having an affair with his friend, ending up destroying that friendship and losing his wife and child. The main themes are guilt and forgiveness--can a man be cleansed of his crime if he washed it with guilt, and is it ever too late to forgive others and to forgive oneself?

Nothing extremely tragic really happens in this play. It is a beautiful little tale, rather lighthearted. While I don't consider it once of the Bard's best, I found it a great fun to read. It also seems like a good play to see on stage. There are very few of Shakespeare plays that I don't think people have to read before going to see it, and this is one of them. What a joy it would be to sit back and watch this story unfold in front of you--somebody produce this in Portland soon, please!

My non-fiction bookshelf

I have recently added a few books to my non-fiction, must-seriously-read bookshelf. I have been reading one chapter from each book per week, and hoping to continue to do so until I finish them all. These books have been interesting and challenging in various ways, and I want to share them with you now.

“The American Pageant” by Thomas Bailey
The first edition of this book was published in 1956. My copy is the second edition, published in 1961. It is an American history textbook, much like what we used in high school―some of you might have used it in high school. Because I didn't pay much attention in my history class, I have to spend the time now to catch up on what I've been missing. (I'm totally serious, up until now I knew next to nothing about the New World, and how this country came about. I really didn't pay any attention.) This book, though old, is very well written and enjoyable. Even though a lot of details are omitted, it is unbiased and doesn't embellish the dark side of the truth. I am convinced that even if you got an A in history, there is no way that you would have remembered everything you learned back then. So if you want to brush up on your history, this is a good one. There are newer editions in which other authors added chapters on the later eras that Bailey didn't cover, and they are expensive, but you might be able to grab an old edition for cheaper prizes. (Mine ends with the 60s.)

“A People's History of the United States: 1492 – Present” by Howard Zinn
This is a great supplementary text to Bailey's. I've been reading the two books side-by-side. Zinn's text omits the key facts and focuses more on the deeper context. The second chapter, for example, is about the nature slavery and racism as was apparent in the way black slaves were treated during the early years of the US. Zinn's writing is insightful, and he cold-heartedly captures the brutal truths. It is depressing to read but it will make you understand and remember the history.

“Social Theory” by Jonathan Joseph
Last year I took a course called “Modern Marxist Theory” out of which I didn't get much. The subject was too difficult―I was not well prepared for it―and the texts too far beyond my level. This book, however, discusses the works of the same theorists taught in the class, and explains a lot of the things I didn't understand before in a much clearer way than the stuff I read in class. Mind you it is still pretty challenging, but it is a fairly good introductory guide for those who are interested in theory/philosophy/sociology. It is really helping me to prepare for my future education. The eight chapters of the book discuss Marx, Engels, Gramsci, Durkheim, Weber, the Frankfurt school, and Foucault.

"Possible Side Effects" by Augusten Burroughs

I wouldn't consider Augusten Burroughs one of my favorite writers, but he is one of the contemporary writers whose works I follow. And by follow I don't mean that I read all of his works as soon as they come out; what I mean is that I am in touch with what he has published, and do choose to read his work when I have the time, or when I feel like reading something that isn't too serious. I have read two of his autobiographies, "Running with Scissors" and "Dry." The former I found intriguing in a disturbing and compelling way; the latter I thought was enjoyable though a bit too contrived and overwritten at times. I also read his collection of stories/essays entitled "Magical Thinking," which was thoroughly entertaining, though some of his jokes were simply in bad taste. (Saying that he was responsible for the return of Elizabeth Smart to her family, jeering about her being raped, for example.)

I spent the last couple of months reading "Possible Side Effects," another collection of essays, and found it to be worse than any of the books mentioned above. I thought the stories were neither interesting nor funny. The jokes were so dumb you would laugh more watching sitcoms on CW. I remember very few occasions when I actually laughed or chuckled while reading this book. Mostly I just found his narrative infuriatingly obnoxious.

Burroughs is often compared to David Sedaris; their styles are somewhat similar, although I would say Burroughs's is much darker. I prefer Sedaris, because I find him overall more intelligent; his comedy derives from his witty view on uncommon and oftentimes unfortunate situations. I also find that Sedaris has a more intellectual approach to writing; Burroughs writing often sounds like a dictated manuscript of a stand-up comedy show.

But to judge Burroughs by comparing him to Sedaris would be unfair. Any criticisms I have for "Possible Side Effects" come from my experience reading the book alone. I kept waiting for a good story, or a good joke, but what I found were mostly pointless, badly written stories that neither entertain nor offer anything for me to think about. When I read "Running with Scissors," I thought Burroughs had an original voice, and I admired his courage to tread on such dark and risky territories. I don't find that in this book; even his unique voice lost its authenticity and sounds more like an imitation of a bitchy, stereotypical gay guy. I still believe that Burroughs has something to contribute to the literary world, but I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone who had never been exposed to him before--they may never want to read any more of him.

"Moonlight" by Harold Pinter

They call Harold Pinter one of the most prominent playwrights in our time. He is English--born in East London in the 30s--and gained popularity late in the 50s. I thought it was about time I started reading some of his works. I went to the library and picked up a few titles, one of which is "Moonlight," which is one of his later play.

I enjoyed the process of reading it. It was fun exploring these characters, and I found the dialogues intriguing. However, this is one of those eccentric plays wherein you have to be in a particular mood, or be a particular kind of reader/audience, to truly like it. It consists of seven characters: a dying father, his wife, his two sons, his daughter, his mistress, and his friend. The dying father recalls the memories of the people he loves, the two sons talk to each other in code to avoid confronting the issue, and the daughter is probably dead.

I often say that a good production can make a play good or bad. It is difficult, and I think wrong, to make a final judgment on any theatrical work. What I don't like on the page may be fantastic on stage, if it is interpreted by people who understand it in a certain way that I don't. I can say that what I find on the pages of this play does not amount to much; it was a fun read, and interesting at times, but I don't see how as a whole it conveys any strong message. I don't see the premise that drives it forward, and it doesn't leave me with any long-lasting impression. Does that make it a bad play? I don't know.

One of my most favorite things about going to the theater is seeing a play about which I know nothing of. It is nice to sit back and be told a story. If "Moonlight" were playing in my area, I might go see it and bring a friend or two. But as a work of literature, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

And I mean no disrespect to Pinter. After all, he is one of the most prominent playwrights in our time, and who am I to judge him?

"Antony and Cleopatra" by William Shakespeare

My friends, you might have thought that I have been slacking off. And you are right, I have been. The holiday season and the graduate school application process had been overwhelming me so that all the other things in my life had to be put aside. But now it's time to get back in the game.

While I have neglected blogging, I have not neglected my reading all that much. The Shakespeare play I chose to read last month as "Antony and Cleopatra," which I didn't finish until January 1st. What is there to say about this play? It takes place after the events in "Julius Caesar." It is a tragedy about how Marc Antony's affair with Cleopatra weakens his military image, which then leads to his downfall. To be honest, I didn't find the play even a little bit compelling. In fact I thought it was a bore. After reading a lot of his plays you begin to see the repetitiveness in Shakespeare's style. With powerful performances from the actors, this play could be moving in the theater. But on the page it's just bland. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood to read it.

I need to take a break from the historical plays for a while. This month I'll read a comedy, or perhaps a romance.