"Coriolanus" by William Shakespeare

"Coriolanus" is said to be the most political of all Shakespeare plays. it is about a great Roman war hero who knows his way around the battlefield but not into the hearts of his own people. Refusing to soften his image and conform to social customs, he turns the people against him and causes his own downfall.

The image of a politician is perhaps even more important that what he and his party stands for. We live in a culture full of celebrities and false idols. What the play shows, which remains true until today, is that one's good deeds are not enough; one has to magnify and display them for all to see. Politicians lie, whether or not they want to, because they have to; they will do whatever it takes to be liked because they can achieve nothing without. Coriolanus is willing to not be liked, unable to foresee that being liked is necessary for him to keep his position. As the play goes to show, he cannot continue to serve Rome because he refuses to comply with the people's will.

The play is not one of the best cases of character studies. While Coriolanus is well-developed enough, he pales in comparison to other Shakespeare tragic heroes. He has many great fiery moments, but the tenderer, more humane ones are not sufficiently explored. Aufidius, the main villain, is inconsistent and shallow, and never quite grows into a well-rounded person. The most interesting character is Volumnia, the mother of Coriolanus, who raises him to be a war hero and later persuades him to reconcile with Rome after everybody else had failed. Through Volumnia Shakespeare once again shows his value of women and his ability to create strong female characters that triumph over men.

I enjoyed reading this play a lot more than the previous tragedies based on Roman histories, including "Julius Caesar" and "Antony & Cleopatra." It moves at a fast pace and focuses only on the main story line (no clowns or whores here). This play is not nearly as well-known as it should be, but it is one that, I believe, will always be relevant.

NO SHAKESPEARE THIS MONTH!!!

I'm so sorry to say that I won't be reading and writing about a Shakespeare play this month.

In September I made a decision that I was going to start reading one Shakespeare play every month. I knew then that it was a promise that I would like to try to keep for the rest of my life, or at least for a few years, but that it was the promise I wouldn't always be able to keep. I knew that eventually life would get in the way, and that I wouldn't always be able to make time for it.

Well, the time has come. This is the first of six months that I won't be able to read a play. I have too much going on in my life, and I find that it would do more harm than good to force myself to do this--I said "force" because I'm really not in the mood for it, and Shakespeare is most enjoyable for me when I'm REALLY in the mood. I started reading "Coriolanus" a few days ago and felt like I needed to stop. And so I did.

I am acknowledging the fact that there is something missing from this month. I won't make up for it by reading two plays next month; I am simply acknowledging it and moving on, and will try my best to not let this happen again. But if it does, I'm sure it'll be for good reasons, and that I will be able to forgive myself.

"Henry V" by William Shakespeare

Not only did I not post my February Shakespeare entry on time, I didn't even finish reading the play until a few days into March. This is unacceptable, but at least I'm still keeping up with the reading-one-every-month thing, which is good. I'll try to be more on time this month.

I chose to read "Henry V," a history, and was quite impressed by it. While I found all the history plays so far to be dreadfully boring, this one turned out to be a lot of fun to read--very brief and entertaining. I was curious to learn more about Hal--my favorite character from the two Henry IV plays--as he becomes king in this one. The reckless young man that he was had turned out to be a valiant king, very decisive and persistent, both in the ways of war and love. The play chronicles the events of the Battle of Agincourt, and ends with his courtship of Princess Katherine of France.

It seems to me, perhaps because of my knowledge of and affection for the character from the Henry IV plays, that Hal, now known as King Henry, isn't completely a mature man that he appears to be. Within the kingly guise there still exists the young man who had needed his father's approval and tried to prove his mettle. The scene in which the disguised Henry is arguing with common soldiers, for example, shows his playfulness often seen in his youth.

I still didn't care for the comical moments that were supposed to offer a relief in the serious play, but here, due to their brevity, they didn't bother me so much. Falstaff, the major comic figure in the prequels, didn't make an appearance here, but his absence is strongly felt. It is a wonder why Shakespeare chooses to leave him out, although it is clear that his importance is very much on the Bard's mind. During the few times that Falstaff is mentioned, it is in relations to Henry's reckless behaviors in his youth. When his death is announced, it recalls the memory of the scene in "Henry IV Part II" in which Henry coldheartedly denies his friendship. I had hoped for a scene wherein Henry reflects on his past friendship with Falstaff or responds to the news of his death, but that never happened. Instead, the few mentions of the character are sufficient to recreate Falstaff as a tragic figure that haunts the story throughout. Being fond of the young Henry, I constantly felt the presence of his past self as well as his estranged friendship with Falstaff. I believe it was out of duty that he disowned his old friend, and that, while believing he was doing the right thing, he still felt the absence of his friend and his past, much like Charles Kane and Rosebud.

The play isn't as well constructed and dramatized as many others, but there is a certain pleasure new to me that derives from following Hal as he gets older. It makes reading these history plays a more meaningful experience than it would otherwise have been. Unfortunately, Hal will no longer make an appearance, as "Henry VI Part I" begins with his funeral. I want to recommend this play, because it is the first History that I actually enjoy, but I fear it wouldn't mean anything to those who haven't read the prequels. Therefore I will leave you with this: sometimes it takes efforts to reach a certain kind of pleasure. Read the plays, or do as you will.

"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!

"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.

Essays!

I read some really interesting essays this month. There isn't much to say about them except that they are brilliant.

1. "The Essay on Criticism" by Alexander Pope, written in verse. Pope discusses different kinds of critics and criticism with a lot of humor. It is funny and insightful, and the message still current despite the age of the work. As always I have a harder time reading poetry than prose, but it didn't take long to get used to. The work itself is also not very long. Trust me it is a joy to read.

2. "The Uncanny" by Sigmund Freud. After reading the introductory guide to Freud a while back, I planned to start reading his works and came across this one. It discusses what it is about works of art that we find uncanny, combining literary studies with psychology. Parts of it are thoughtful and intriguing, parts of it redundant. But it is also a lot of fun to read.

3. "The Philosophy of Composition" by Edgar Allan Poe. This is an essay about writing which is included in a book called "Great Writers on the Art of Fiction" (James Daley, ed.). Poe talks about the importance of structures in writing, and how he puts together his famous poem, "The Raven." I recommend reading the essay, read the poem, then reread the essay.

4. Numerous essays from "Shakespeare After All." This is my new favorite book, written by Majorie Garber, who is an English professor and a Queer theorist. This book is a collection of essays based on every single one of Shakespeare canonized plays. I have read a few of these essays and they really are wonderful. Highly recommended.

"Will in the World" by Stephen Greenblatt

It is difficult for me to write about books that aren't fictional. But I have recently finished reading Stephen Greenblatt's "Will in the World," which I found so fascinating and thoroughly entertaining that I can't leave it out of my blog.

Greenblatt is best know as one of the founders of the New Historicism movement, and as a scholar of Renaissance Studies and Shakespeare Studies. He had edited numerous anthologies that I use in my studies, including "The Norton Shakespeare," from which I read the Bard's plays every month. In this book, he illustrates perhaps as vivid a portrait of Shakespeare as can possibly be illustrated, using a wide range of existing documents regarding Shakespeare and England of the time. The task was possible, luckily, because the Elizabethan society happened to be a record-keeping one, so that while we have very few known facts about Shakespeare, a highly educated and probably conjecture can be formed. Greenblatt's research is impressive, and while what he writes about Shakespeare can be challenged, the information is still a valid knowledge about the literary and theatrical world, as well as the lives of the English people. The book discusses the reign of Elizabeth and James; the politics surrounded social classes, religion, witchcraft, and the theater; The Bard's possibly homosexual relationship with Lord Southamton; and how the different elements in Shakespeare's lives--his father's obscure faith, England's famous figures, the death of his son, and the Bard's aging process--contribute to the plots and the characters in his plays.

But the book isn't merely about history. Greenblatt draws many connections between Shakespeare's texts to those of others, offering insights into how art and society inform each other. There are thoroughly studies of "Measure for Measure," "Hamlet," and "King Lear," and many more, which guarantee to change the way we read these plays for the better. Despite being highly informative, I really enjoy this book and highly recommend it to anybody who is interested in Shakespeare and Renaissance history.

"The Merchant of Venice" by William Shakespeare

The past two months I read two of Shakespeare's history plays, "Henry IV Part I and II." History plays, as I have noted, are not my cup of tea. And since I can only manage to read one of his work a month, it is a bummer when I read one and don't enjoy it. After finishing "Henry IV Part II" I knew that I had to read something fun this month, a comedy, perhaps. I ended up with "The Merchant of Venice."

Antonio is the Merchant of Venice, but the story is not any more about him than it is about his friend Bassanio and the antagonist Shylock. Much in the same way that "Julius Caesar" is more about Brutus, and the Henry IV plays about Prince Hal. Bassanio is in love with an heiress Portia, and he needs money to cover his traveling expenditure in order to woo her. His friend Antonio is unable to help him, having lost his fortunes at sea. Bassanio then turns to Shylock the Jew for money with Antonio guaranteeing the loan. The condition is that if Bassanio fails to repay the debt in time, Shylock wiill cut out a pound of Antonio's flesh. Meanwhile, Shylock's daughter Jessica falls in love with Lorenzo, a friend of Antonio and Bassanio, and runs away with him. This further intensifies Shylock's hatred for Christians and results in his malice toward Antonio.

Shylock is painted as a evil character, but he has every reason to be. In Shakespeare's time Jews are strongly discriminated against. Shakespeare himself has made many racist remarks about Jews in several of his plays, which reflects the politics of the time. In the play, Shylock is even more poorly treated than his servant. There is always a tone of disdain when anybody talks to him, and not a single person expresses compassion toward his social condition. While his malice toward Antonio seems outrageously violence, it is not without a cause. For Antonio, despite his love for his friend and his willingness to die in the name of justice, has spat on Shylock for being a Jew. To modern readers, this hardly makes him seem a sympathetic character. Instead it is perhaps Shylock for who most moves the readers.

However, true to his style, Shakespeare allows his villain to speak for himself. One of the most remarkable things about the play is that, while the whole world of the play seems completely ignorant of its own racism, Shylock is offered this speech:

I am a Jew. Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that. If a jew wrong a Christian, what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian wrong a jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction. (Act 3 Scene 1)

He alone has the wisdom to see that all humans are equal, despite how inferior the Christians think of him. They deserve to be treated by him the same way that he is treated by them.

Another great aspect of the play is its representation of women. The women in the play are smarter than their men, and seemingly to hold a higher card in every situation. Portia designs a riddle that only her true love can solve it and win her for a bride. She shows herself from a start as a woman with a brain, outsmarting her princely suitors. Afterward it is she who comes up with the charade to save Antonio and to test her husband's love.

This play is absolutely remarkable, and in my opinion one of the Bard's best comedies. It is witty and thoroughly entertaining. I don't find the fool, Shylock's old servant Lancelot, as annoying as the fools in other plays; his contribution to the play is just the right amount. The last scene, in which Portia and Nerissa reveals their secret charade to their husbands, is one of the most delightful scenes of Shakespeare comedies. Despite its rather corrupted morals, this play is a wonderful work of literature.

Shakespeare's "Henry IV Part II"

Henry IV Part II is (obviously) the sequel to Henry IV Part I, continuing the story of the king after his triumph over conspirators. The king is now old and sick, and distrustful of the ability of his oldest son, Prince Harry "Hal", to succeed him.

There isn't much to the story, which makes this play such a pain to read. The introduction in my edition offers some really interesting information. One is that Shakespeare probably split the history of this kind into two parts because he realized, as he was working on the first one, that he did not have enough room. This play, then, is what was left over from the first, which makes it hardly surprising that there isn't much left to be told. It spends a lot of time showing the popular character from the prequel, Sir John Falstaff, who apparently was the crowds' favorite. As for me, I found all of Falstaff's scenes annoying. They don't move the story forward, and they are boring as hell to read. Once again, this is probably something that will be fun to see on stage, but that would also imply that the audience is very well equipped with the Elizabethan language and references. If I were to stage this play, these scenes would be heavily edited.

Some of the best scenes in the play are the ones with the dying king as he converses with his sons. These are beautifully written, and they remind us of the Shakespeare that we know and love. Other than that I find very little to enjoy in this play. It does no justice to the prequel, and is better left for a day when there really isn't anything else to read--perhaps after you finish reading the rest of the canon.

This and That

It feels like a long time since I last blogged. I have obviously ignored my blogging schedule--I can't believe I couldn't even stick to it for a month. I guess I will just have to play it by ear from now on.

I've been reading a lot, and that's all that counts, right? There surely will be a post about Charles Dickens's "Hard Times" in the near future--I've been reading it and really loving it.

This month I'm planning to read Shakespeare's "Henry IV Part II" and Ben Jonson's "Volpone." I haven't read any of Jonson's works, but this one is on my study list so I'll attend to it.

Lastly, before I graduated from college I thought of how sick I was of Portland. The truth is that I was sick of my life, which consigned me to very few parts of Portland. Yesterday I went for an hour-long walk while listening to Stephen Greenblatt's "Will in the World," and fell in love with this city all over again. There are many beautiful neighborhoods, interesting shops, and some gorgeous houses in the southeast side. There is so much of Portland that I have yet to know, and I'm sure I will only love this place more once I get to know those parts. I'm planning to go on these walks regularly, while listening to some book, of course, and hopefully I will have some beautiful photographs to post

Shakespeare's "Henry IV Part I"

Every month I (try to) read and blog about at least one Shakespeare play. This month's play is The History of Henry the Fourth.

"Henry IV Part I" is the first history play of Shakespeare that I have ever read. (I know--it surprises me too.) The story is about those who conspire against him, and those who rise up to fight against the conspirators.

I expected to be bored, and was pleasantly surprised by how funny and entertaining the play was. It had so many farcical scenes that it read almost like a comedy, with a memorable character like Sir John Falstaff, who was just ridiculous. I was also captivated by Prince Harry "Hal", who gave up his careless ways to prove to his father that he was a deserving heir to the throne. While there was a good scene between Henry and his son, the play wasn't really about their relationship; while the conspiracy was the central plot, it wasn't elaborated and well executed (unlike, for example, the conspiracy in "Julius Caesar"). Henry was accused by his conspirators of breaking the promises he had given them, of forgetting those who had helped him to the throne, but his character was neither honored or condemned. The play, then, was not about the moral behind the story. I don't know what it is that history plays are meant to be, but nowadays when I go see a play that I haven't read before, it is simply to sit back and be told a story, and I can imagine this play being quite interesting on stage despite lacking the elements that might have made it a great work of literature.

(Did anyone notice how I just talked about literature in past tense?)

This and That

After reading a lot of old stuff, I'm feeling the need to take a break and read something newer. Over the past couple of months it's been about Shakespeare, Ovid, Balzac, Proust, Forster...I'm tired. So, here is the list of newer novels I'm hoping to read this summer:

Alice Walker's "Color Purple."
Toni Morrison's "Sula."
Nella Larsen's "Quicksand."

They are all written by African-American women, so I think this could make for an interesting study. But, knowing me, I'm probably going to start feeling like reading old, British things again soon after.

Upon writing the above I realized that I just finished E.M. Forster's amazing novel called "A Room with a View." I will write more about it soon.

Shakespeare's "As You Like It"

While I think Shakespeare is the best writer in all of English literature, I do not in any way think that he is flawless. Some of his works are, what should I call them, sloppy. "As You Like It" is one of them. It is like a mixed tape your friend made for you; if you listen to the songs individually, they're great, but together, not so much. Likewise, this play has many great qualities--some endearing characters, clever dialogues, complex speeches--but at times it seems clumsily put together. Some of the great scenes are not-so-seamlessly sewed together with off-stage actions that move the story forward while saving time, making the play feel rushed and the author lazy. It would have perhaps been more beneficial to the play had there been fewer characters--many of them are disposable anyway.

The most important element in the play, it seems, is the plot, and Shakespeare seems to enjoy contriving this complicated puzzle. We don't see the characters coming to any form of self-realization and growing from it; those who do change do it off stage (e.g. Oliver the evil brother and Duke Frederick the other evil brother). The epilogue is unnecessary; its only value is in being the only epilogue assigned to a female character in the period (albeit the actor is no longer in character when he gives it).

Having said that, there are many captivating moments, usually having to do with the relationship between Rosalind and Celia. I also love the character Adam, who has some good scenes in the first act. There are three songs, two of which--"Under the Greenwood Tree" and "Blow, Blow, Thou Winter Wind"--are beautifully written. Certain oddities, such as the relationship between Oliver and disguised Rosalind, or the references to Greek mythology, would make good paper topics. Despite not being as well crafted, the play is still very much intriguing and highly entertaining. It is perhaps more fun to discuss than some of his better ones.

Quick Update

I'm currently working on Balzac's "Father Goriot," which I'm enjoying immensely. But I think I'm going to have to bring my French lit. studies to an end sooner than I thought, probably right after I'm done with this novel. The reason is that I miss Shakespeare so much. I fancy reading his plays back to back to back and I can hardly wait to get to them. I will have to save the rest of the French works that I planned to read for later.

That's all for today.

French Literature

Usually when I have a lot of time, like during school breaks, I like to come up with some sort of a theme focus my studies on. Somehow French literature is my theme for the beginning of this summer break. I'm not sure exactly how it happened, but it happened unintentionally, and is turning out to be a lot of fun. One of my professors loaned me a copy of Baudelaire's "Les Fleurs du Mal" a little while back, which I have been reading ever since. And I just started reading Proust's "Swann's Way," which is the first of his "In Search of Lost Times" series. I went to a friend's going away party two nights ago, and he was giving away some books. One of the books I took was Balzac's "Père Goriot," which is also French. So I decided that I should just spend the next couple of weeks reading these works, as well as some essays by Derrida and Foucault, just to get a solid French experience before I move on.

Also I'm planning to continue studying French this summer. That will start...any day now.

Afterwards I'll be reading a lot of Shakespeare and some 19th century British novels as well as some epic poems. I feel so motivated; hopefully this motivation won't go away too soon.

Another post about Shakespeare!

It's the weekend before the finals, hence I am compelled to procrastinate and update my blog instead of doing homework.

Drama is a form of literature; that's how I justify writing about play performances here. This blog, I just realized, should have been called "Lit. for Lunch." That sounds so much better than "Books for Lunch." And it makes more sense. A book is a thing, with no value in and of itself. It's what inside it, the literature, that makes it divine. But this is no time to change the name; I am here to talk about Shakespeare.

"Much Ado About Nothing" is one of my most favorite plays of Shakespeare because of its humor and witticism. But the reason it is very near and dear to my heart is because it was the first Shakespeare play I have ever read. I was but a sophomore in high school; and it was then that I started this love affair with the Bard and his works.

A few weeks ago I went to see a very small production of the play. It was the first time I had experienced the text in years since I was in a production of it in high school. I was completely enamored by the production, and I fell in love with the play once again. I gained insights into the heart of the play that I didn't before at a younger age. More than anything the play is about deception, and from it derives the comedy, tragedy, and irony that orchestrate the story. Lies can bring people together in matrimony, or it can destroy our honor and ruin our life. Such a theme is universal and timeless; it is certainly the reason the play could retain its popularity for so long.

The Re-Theatre's "Much Ado About Nothing"

And few weeks later I went to see another variation of the play done by the same company. This production uses the structure of "Much Ado" to construct a new story, and give birth to a very refreshing and hysterically hilarious performance. By using the same theme and updating the characters and other surroundings, it reaffirms the idea that, in any time and place, the essential truth about human beings remains the same. And by capturing that truth in art can artists offer insights into our souls, and create a work that not only speaks to us but gives us a better understanding of ourselves and makes us a better person in some way.

Obviously I could go on and on about Shakespeare, but I will stop now.

The Tempest

A few days ago I read Shakespeare's "The Tempest" for the first time; it was my way of taking a little break from preparing for the finals. The play isn't one of his best, in my opinion, but it certainly is entertaining and very well crafted. Shakespeare is great fun once you get used to the language, and to looking at the marginal notes and footnotes. A lot of times I feel that my edition (edited by Professor Stephen Greenblatt) offers too many explanations, which could be annoying at times. Oftentimes it is better to just read the text and take whatever meanings you get from it rather than looking at every explanation.

I'm planning to read a lot of Shakespeare plays this summer. It is good to study something important while at the same time having a whole lot of fun. I used to think that no matter how much I loved Shakespeare I could never make it my field of study; I wasn't so much interested in the historical context or the Shakespearean scholarship in general. But now I think I am. I've been spending some time studying the British monarchy and the rein of Queen Elizabeth I; I have also been attending a lot of theatrical performances. This has helped me in many ways to enjoy the works; the history provides insights into the context of the plays, and the theater helps to enhance my vision of the texts. And being older and more literate also helps.

The Classics

For many reasons I think everybody should read the classics. But the term "classic" itself is pretty problematic. It's just as problematic as the term "masterpiece." How should something be defined as a classic? I don't think there's one right answer. In any case, I have read several works this summer that I consider to be classical. And here they are:



Macbeth by William Shakespeare. I have read and loved many of Shakespeare's plays. Macbeth, however, wasn't one of them. I thought it was far from being one of his best. But to be fair, I much prefer his comedies to tragedies.



To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf. I thought this one was beautifully written. I was completely enamored by it. Woolf is famous for playing around with streams of consciousness, and for being the suicidal genius portrayed by Nicole Kidman in The Hours. It took me a bit of effort to get into the text, but once I was there I never wanted to leave.



A Doll House by Henrik Ibsen. Ibsen is one of the masters of drama, and a revolutionary one of his time. This particular work discussed the inequality of gender roles with complex characters.



The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald. This one has definitely become one of my favorite novels. Sometimes you read something and it feels as if it was written for you and you enjoy every page of it. This is one of those novels for me.



The Turn of the Screw by Henry James. This is a gothic novel. I thought the plot was thin, the characters not well developed, and the writing style unpolished. Like Shelly's Frankenstein--which I also don't like--this novella seems to indulge in its spooky elements and ignore the other aspects that would make the work a good work of literature like, I don't know, plot and characters? Needless to say I did not like this one.



Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. I thought it was beautifully written, almost like music. It moves so subtly and has this melancholic tone all the way throughout. I simply loved it. I also recommend Wharton's short story called Roman Fever.