As I sit here writing my first Reading Blog I’m mildly freaked out because I put “Marry The Night” on by Lady Gaga and just realized the first book I’m reviewing is The Meaning of Night. Kind of spooked.
Anyway. The Meaning of Night is by Michael Cox. It was a very tough read but I definitely count it as one of my favorites. I have too many favorites….
Cox loves Victorian Fiction and chose to write his first novel in the same style and he definitely succeeded. The story is about a man named Edward Glyver and it starts out with, “After killing the red-haired man, I took myself off to Quinn’s for an oyster supper.” Glyver has just killed a man in practice for killing someone who he considers to be his enemy. He felt that he needed a trial kill in order to know if he could actually murder someone. The entire novel is written in the style of a confession, and in fact states that on the cover.
There is an “Editor’s Preface” at the beginning that starts out stating, “The following work, printed here for the first time, is one of the lost curiosities of nineteenth-century literature. It is a strange concoction, being a kind of confession, often shocking in its frank, conscienceless brutality and explicit sexuality that also has a strongly novelistic flavor.” It leads you to believe that what you are reading could in fact be true; perhaps exaggerated at times, but fact. There are footnotes throughout that sometimes lead to further confusion. One chapter is titled Vocat and the footnote says, “He calls’. The significance of the title of this section is not altogether clear. Ed.” As if during the “analyzing” of this recovered confession they could not understand why Edward would have used this title. Another contribution was that one of the characters is Phoebus Rainsford Daunt (1819-54) who is a poet who has 13 published works. He is the antagonist of the story and is the only real character. I have yet to try and find any of Daunt’s works and read them but if I do I will try and mention them in any later posts.
I had never read a novel written like this before and it was quit a trip! If you have any sort of love for Victorian Fiction (Dickens anyone?), or the era in general, then I highly suggest this book. It was not nearly as difficult as say A Tale of Two Cities but it was a harder book to get into initially. Ultimately though, the mystery, love, and beautiful descriptions are definitely worth it. My favorite passage/quote (which I will shorten slightly) would have to be, “Do not ask my why I loved Miss Carteret. How can such an instantaneous passion be explained? She seemed beautiful to my eyes, certainly, more beautiful than anyone I had known in my life…I knew from direct experience that she could claim musical ability well above the common. These accomplishments – and no doubt others of which I was yet unaware – were worthy of admiration and respect…but I did not love her for them. I loved her because – because I loved her; because I could not help succumbing to this irresistible contagion of the heart. I loved her because choice was denied me by some greater force. I loved her because it was my fate to do so.”
I next read The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean which is non-fiction and sort of a memoir about Orlean. The movie Adaptation is about the book actually if anyone has seen it or is interested. Any who. I am not entirely sure how I feel about this one. It was not a bad book. It was written well and does have a lot of interesting elements to it. It just isn’t for me.
The jist of it is that Susan Orlean, a journalist, was in Florida and had read a newspaper article about a man named John Laroche and three Seminole men who had been arrested with rare orchids that had been stolen out of the Florida swamp called the Fakahatchee. She was curious about it and set out to kind of write a book about him. It is full of facts about Orchids, the people who collect them, and Florida history. It’s rich with history and facts. Maybe because I really am not in interested in Florida or Orchids I found it boring. But if you’ve ever found yourself fascinated by the intricate flower then definitely pick this up. Even if you just have a love of flowers, and maybe some history, then try it out.
I have always heard that Orchids were considered to be a “sexual” flower and this book confirmed it. Apparently Victorian women were forbidden from owning orchids because the shape of the flower was considered too sexually suggestive for their shy constitutions. That’s pretty much a direct quote so the page number is 75 if anyone is interested. I have to laugh at this though because this made men the primary collectors of Orchids in the 1800s and the women couldn’t own them because they looked like Vaginas. How this makes any sense, you know considering women have vaginas and all, I have no idea.
The last book for this post is called The Romance Reader by Pearl Abraham. I had not so much as read the back cover of this book when I got it. So I had no idea what to expect, but I was not disappointed. It is about a girl named Rachel who is the daughter of a Rabbi and the oldest of seven siblings. I can’t seem to stop thinking about this book and I’m not really even sure why. The writing was not anything unique and the characters were as real as any other good book I’ve read, but it still sticks with me. The culture sticks with me. The author herself grew up in a Hasidic community which is extremely Orthodox Judaism.
Because I’m not really sure how to talk about this book I’ll use some of the passages that I dog-eared. For this first one Rachel tried to go to the library and get a library card while her father was gone, but she got caught. Her father has come into her room to talk to her, “I’m afraid. He never raises his voice or hits me; I don’t know what to expect. In his hand he holds the first book of Isaiah. He opens the book and reads, his voice hard, harder than I’ve ever heard it. It is the prophets warning to the people of Judea. The words speak of destruction, pestilence, and plague. They speak of the sin of assimilation, of trying to be like other nations, of wanting to be liked by them, and of never succeeding.
‘A Jew,’ Father says, looking at me, translating for me, ‘is never liked by other nations. A Jew reads only Jewish books and must remain separate.’” (I’m mildly freaked out again because “Judas” by Gaga is now playing…)
This next one is from when Rachel, her parents, and a few of her younger siblings went to Seagate (a gated beach place) and found a secluded area to swim. Her father and brother, Levi, went off since they are male and left the females. I’ve shortened the passage some. “I lift my skirt higher and go in deeper. A wave comes, and the bottom of my underpants gets cold and wet with warning. I want to get all wet. Wet, my clothes will stick so hard it will be like going naked. I can peel them off and let myself float away to the middle of the Atlantic…Without clothes on, I will be naked Eve in the garden before sin…
‘Rachel, you’re old enough not to lift your skirt up like that,’ Ma says, ‘You’re old enough to know better.’ She’s speaking softly, as if the sun has quieted her.
‘There’s no one here to see me,’ I say.
‘God always sees,’ she says.
‘God sees underneath my clothes too. He sees me naked.’
‘That has nothing to do with it. You know that,’ Her voice is harder. ‘It’s a matter of modesty. A girl who can lift her skirt like that is a pruste meude.’ … Father and Levi come back with their hair wet and their clothes dry…It is obvious that they removed all their clothes and went in for a good swim. But they’re men, and they’re not ashamed of their bodies. They are not the sinning Eves we are.”
Apparently the Yiddish word for “like” is the same as “love” and Rachel wonders what, and if, there is a difference.
This last one comes from when Rachel is reading a book. “There are questions the characters in this novel ask that I’ve never heard asked. Is there a God? Would a God allow so much suffering? The two boys each want what the other has. It’s always this way, I think. You want what you don’t have. If I know that, can I just live with what I have?”
I think I favor this book because I found the culture astonishing. That women can be treated the way they are just appalls me, and yet the majority of them, with the exception of those like Rachel, just go along with it because it is all they know. I could not believe that, once married, the women has to shave their hair off and from that moment on they could wear a wig instead but wig or not their hair must be covered by a kerchief. I can not understand this. But I loved Rachel and I loved learning about a culture that was written as straight facts. It was very enjoyable.
So there it is! My first one. I hope it was not too dry, too boring. If you have ANYTHING to say please comment. I appreciate any sort of feedback. I'm working on the next batch of books now.
FDA reveals bigger, graphic warning labels for cigarette packages
I am appalled by this piece of news. I can not believe that the FDA is being allowed to put such awful things on something so simple as a cigarette pack. I understand that their motive and intention is to get people to quit but then why aren't they putting other graphic images elsewhere? Why aren't there pictures of the consequences of drinking posted on cans and bottles, or even just the cases? I'm not saying I would support that either but it seems very unfair to single out smokers.
"'President Obama is committed to protecting our nation's children and the American people from the dangers of tobacco use. These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an FDA statement. 'These labels will encourage smokers to quit and prevent children from smoking. President Obama wants to make tobacco-related death and disease part of the nation's past, and not our future.'" I do not agree with any portion of this statement. Why isn't Obama committed to stopping drunk driving or helping alcoholics quit? Their addiction is just as serious, if not more so, as a smokers. There might be no such thing as "second-hand drinking" but growing up with an alcoholic parent, or two, is just as harmful as living with a smoker. Especially if Alcoholism runs in the family. I also don't believe that the labels will encourage smokers to quit, nor will it prevent children from smoking. First of all no one wants to see these images and I've heard of several studies that concluded that showing people drastic images made no difference than just telling them what the affects are. Second, kids are going to smoke no matter what. There are always going to be people who make smoking look cool whether its a neighbor, a peer, a parent, or whomever. Because of this there are always going to be kids who want to try it. My feeling is that it doesn't matter if the entire pack of cigarettes is covered in images and warnings, a 12 year old, or a 16 year old is still going to try it if their curious.
"Thomas Glynn, director of cancer science and trends for the the American Cancer Society, said the old labels have been virtually invisible because they're small and have been around for so long. He said people have become immune and don't really "see" them anymore, but the new labels will be hard to ignore and will help focus attention on the problem." I'm curious, again, why nothing is being implemented toward the cases, bottles, and kegs of alcohol that are available. I'm 90% sure that they all have some sort of warning and I guarantee its just as non-noticeable as the labeling on cigarette packs.
Glynn also says that, "The labels are not just for smokers, the labels are for anyone interested in public health." I don't want to see these labels. I have been a non-smoker for approximately the last 3 years and these pictures are disturbing to me. I don't want to see them. Even if all my friends manage to quit and all of them are non-smokers I don't want to see them when I walk into a 7-Eleven or conveniencestore. I shouldn't have to.
R.J. Reynolds is a maker of many best-selling brands of cigarettes and says that the new requirements violate the First and Fifth Amendments. He also states that "the government is not warning consumers about smoking risks -- it is telling consumers, 'Don't buy or use this product.'" Which I must agree with. What happened to a the Government allowing the PEOPLE to make their own decisions? Shouldn't they in a sense be thanking smokers for fueling the economy?
Apparently 39 other countries have picture warnings on their cigarette packs. I'm not really against having picture warnings, but the sheer size of them is very disturbing. As Philip Morris' letter said, "the sheer size of the warnings violates the First Amendment."
I feel like in many other areas our rights are violated but this is the most recent occurrence and it disgusts me. I have no problem with campaigns for tobacco users to quit but they need to be done tastefully. My concern is that smokers are going to be so disgusted and pissed off by these new requirements that its not going to deter them from quiting at all. Instead they'll buy stylish ways to store their cigarettes or just plain tune them out. That is not going to be successful at all.
I am appalled by this piece of news. I can not believe that the FDA is being allowed to put such awful things on something so simple as a cigarette pack. I understand that their motive and intention is to get people to quit but then why aren't they putting other graphic images elsewhere? Why aren't there pictures of the consequences of drinking posted on cans and bottles, or even just the cases? I'm not saying I would support that either but it seems very unfair to single out smokers.
"'President Obama is committed to protecting our nation's children and the American people from the dangers of tobacco use. These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking and they will help," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in an FDA statement. 'These labels will encourage smokers to quit and prevent children from smoking. President Obama wants to make tobacco-related death and disease part of the nation's past, and not our future.'" I do not agree with any portion of this statement. Why isn't Obama committed to stopping drunk driving or helping alcoholics quit? Their addiction is just as serious, if not more so, as a smokers. There might be no such thing as "second-hand drinking" but growing up with an alcoholic parent, or two, is just as harmful as living with a smoker. Especially if Alcoholism runs in the family. I also don't believe that the labels will encourage smokers to quit, nor will it prevent children from smoking. First of all no one wants to see these images and I've heard of several studies that concluded that showing people drastic images made no difference than just telling them what the affects are. Second, kids are going to smoke no matter what. There are always going to be people who make smoking look cool whether its a neighbor, a peer, a parent, or whomever. Because of this there are always going to be kids who want to try it. My feeling is that it doesn't matter if the entire pack of cigarettes is covered in images and warnings, a 12 year old, or a 16 year old is still going to try it if their curious.
"Thomas Glynn, director of cancer science and trends for the the American Cancer Society, said the old labels have been virtually invisible because they're small and have been around for so long. He said people have become immune and don't really "see" them anymore, but the new labels will be hard to ignore and will help focus attention on the problem." I'm curious, again, why nothing is being implemented toward the cases, bottles, and kegs of alcohol that are available. I'm 90% sure that they all have some sort of warning and I guarantee its just as non-noticeable as the labeling on cigarette packs.
Glynn also says that, "The labels are not just for smokers, the labels are for anyone interested in public health." I don't want to see these labels. I have been a non-smoker for approximately the last 3 years and these pictures are disturbing to me. I don't want to see them. Even if all my friends manage to quit and all of them are non-smokers I don't want to see them when I walk into a 7-Eleven or conveniencestore. I shouldn't have to.
R.J. Reynolds is a maker of many best-selling brands of cigarettes and says that the new requirements violate the First and Fifth Amendments. He also states that "the government is not warning consumers about smoking risks -- it is telling consumers, 'Don't buy or use this product.'" Which I must agree with. What happened to a the Government allowing the PEOPLE to make their own decisions? Shouldn't they in a sense be thanking smokers for fueling the economy?
Apparently 39 other countries have picture warnings on their cigarette packs. I'm not really against having picture warnings, but the sheer size of them is very disturbing. As Philip Morris' letter said, "the sheer size of the warnings violates the First Amendment."
I feel like in many other areas our rights are violated but this is the most recent occurrence and it disgusts me. I have no problem with campaigns for tobacco users to quit but they need to be done tastefully. My concern is that smokers are going to be so disgusted and pissed off by these new requirements that its not going to deter them from quiting at all. Instead they'll buy stylish ways to store their cigarettes or just plain tune them out. That is not going to be successful at all.