Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy (28 down 72 to go)

(translation by Constance Garnett)

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. ~ Opening line

This is the first time I’ve read Anna Karenina or Tolstoy. The novel is realist fiction, third-person narrative, and in spite of the title, tells the tales of two distinct, but intricately connected individuals: Anna Karenina and Konstantin Levin. It takes place in 19th century Czarist Russia. Dostoevsky called Anna Karenina “flawless as a work of art”.

My rating: 4 1/2 of 5 stars

 

This was my second read of a Russian author, so I was a bit less intimidated, but not much – Tolstoy after all. However, just like Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, I found Anna Karenina easy to read, powerful, and enjoyable. This novel has so many themes, so many characters, and evokes so many thoughts and emotions, I scarcely know where to begin. When I finished, I thought it had a rather disappointing ending. But after thinking it over a few days, I have come to appreciate the brilliance of it.

SPOILER ALERT: This review contains a spoiler.

I have one criticism though; I think it is poorly titled. There are two main characters: Anna and Konstantin Levin. The story is equally about both. They only meet once, and then rather briefly, but their lives are intertwined with numerous mutual friends, acquaintances, and relations. More importantly, their lives are stunning contrasts.

Anna’s story is tragic…monumentally tragic, while Levin’s is triumphant. In fact, that would be a splendid title: Triumph and Tragedy, as it is line with the Russian penchant for two nouns and a conjunction: Crime and Punishment, War and Peace, Ham and Eggs (just ensuring you are paying attention) etc.

The triumph and tragedy is woven into numerous themes and sub-plots involving love, patriotism, politics, economics, tradition, revolution, religion, and even horse racing.

The main theme as I see it: the contrast between Anna and Levin. There are also numerous characters, but I will only name a few to keep this review simple. Anyone that has read the Russian authors probably understands that keeping the characters straight can be a challenge, as there are often numerous characters (note after reading two, I am now an expert), with numerous name variations. Over the course of the novel, you eventually catch on. In a review of a few paragraphs, I think I would just confuse things to name too many.

Anna is the socialite wife of a wealthy Petersburg government official, and mother of a young son. She is beautiful, compassionate, caring, and pious. Early in the novel, she travels to Moscow to visit her brother Prince Stepan (Stiva) Arkadyevich Oblonsky. Anna comes in attempt to save his marriage after Stiva’s affair with his children’s governess. Anna persuades her sister-in-law, Princess Darya (Dolly) Alexandrovna Oblonskaya to forgive and be reconciled. Prior to Anna’s arrival this seemed hopeless, but Anna’s graciousness has its way and the marriage is spared. In these few pages, the reader grows to love Anna. During her time in Moscow Anna meets young Count Vronsky. He is immediately smitten with Anna and makes no attempt to hide his adoration. Prior to meeting Anna, Vronsky appeared to be courting Dolly’s sister Princess Ekaterina (Kitty) Alexandrovna Shcherbatskaya, but he was only toying with her even before meeting Anna. At an important ball, Vronsky snubs Kitty and dances with Anna. The love he has for Anna is obvious to everyone and Kitty is heartbroken and humiliated. Anna feels a twinge of guilt, but convinces herself it was only an innocent flirtation, and she will return to Petersburg, never to see Vronsky again, and it simply won’t matter. However, Vronsky relentlessly pursues Anna, and follows her to Petersburg. Slowly, patiently, charmingly, he wins her heart. In these pages the reader, this reader at least, grows to despise Vronsky. Immediately after they consummate their relationship, Anna breaks down in tears knowing she is ruined, but without repentance.

Konstantin "Kostya" Dmitrievich Levin is a family friend of Stiva and Dolly, a wealthy country landowner, and in love with Kitty. Prior to Kitty’s heartbreak, Levin proposed to Kitty, but she refused him. She was not unkind as she does care for Levin, but she was certain Vronsky would propose soon, and her heart was set on the Count. There is a good deal that transpires in between, but Levin eventually renews his offer to Kitty, and this time she accepts. The two are deliriously happy together. Levin however, is a man of deep thought and inner turmoil. He has debates with himself and others about the role of classes in Russia’s economy, particularly agriculture, as he is a wealthy landowner, making his living off the backs of the peasantry. He is also agnostic. He was raised in a Christian home and church, and knows the precepts, but does not accept them. He is a man of strong ethics and struggles with the hypocrisy of enduring the rites of the church required for his marriage, but manages to get through them out of love for Kitty. In spite of his lack of faith, Levin is a man that always tries to do right. One day, a conversation with a peasant leads him to an epiphany. Levin’s thoughts:

Fyodor says that Kirillov lives for his belly. That’s comprehensible and rational. All of us rational beings can’t do anything else but live for our belly. And all of a sudden the same Fyodor says that one mustn’t live for one’s belly, but must live for truth, for God, and at a hint I understand him! I and millions of men, men who lived ages ago and men living now – peasants, the poor in spirit and the learned, who have thought and written about it, in their obscure words saying the same thing – we are all agreed about this one thing: what we must live for and what is good. I and all men have only one firm, incontestable, clear knowledge, and that knowledge cannot be explained by the reason – it is outside it, and has no causes and can have no effects. If goodness has causes, it is not goodness; if it has effects, a reward, it is not goodness either. So goodness is outside the chain of cause and effect. And yet I know it, and we all know it. What could be a greater miracle than that?

And a bit later: 

What did this mean? It meant he had been living rightly, but thinking wrongly.

That’s essentially the end of the novel.

However, I need to back up to cover Anna's ruin. She leaves her husband and son, though with no divorce. Anna, Vronsky, and their daughter attempt to live a normal life, like a normal family, though she his mistress. This works to an extent while they live abroad, but not really. They both yearn for Russia and move back. Anna is not accepted in decent society, while Vronsky enjoys a rising political career and place in society. Anna resents him and suspects Vronsky of having other lovers, or at least of wishing for other lovers. In my opinion, she is slowly losing her mind. In despair, she takes her life to make Vronsky love her, and to punish him for his neglect.

I’ve only scratched the surface. There are many ironic contrasts. Like the difference between Anna’s husband on learning of her affair and Levin’s reaction when he becomes aware of a young aristocrat paying too much attention to Kitty. Anna’s husband is willing to let the affair continue, as long as she is discreet and thus protects his image. Levin however, protects his marriage fiercely, throwing the scoundrel out of the house, even though it is slightly bad form. Bravo Levin. There is the contrast between Anna’s lack of love for her children and Levin’s love for his. A contrast between conservative Moscow and progressive Petersburg. A contrast between Anna’s decision to take her life, and Levin’s to live. Because during a moment of inner turmoil, he contemplates suicide.

I find the principal contrast to be this. Anna was outwardly pious, but at the critical moment, she abandoned what she knew was right to satisfy her own desires. Levin was always conscientious to do the right thing, even though he had no faith or religion to demand he do so. In the end, he was saved and Anna was ruined. It was heartbreaking and powerful.

Quotations:

Vronsky’s principles for his life: 

one must pay a cardsharper, but need not pay a tailor; that one must never tell a lie to a man, but one may to a woman; that one must never cheat anyone, but one may a husband; that one must never pardon an insult, but one may give one and so on.

Levin in a panicked state when Kitty is in labor: 

Lord have mercy on us! Pardon us! Aid us!

Levin’s first glimpse of his newborn son: 

...there at the foot of the bed, in the deft hands of Lizaveta Petrovna, like a flickering light in a lamp, lay the life of a human creature, which had never existed before, and which would now with the same right, with the same importance to itself, live and create in its own image.

Anna contemplating suicide: 

And death rose clearly vividly before her mind as the sole means of bringing back love for her in his heart, of punishing him and of gaining the victory in that strife which the evil spirit in possession of her heart was waging with him.

Levin contemplating suicide: 

And Levin a happy father and husband, in perfect health, was several times so near suicide that he hid the cord that he might not be tempted to hang himself, and was afraid to go out with his gun for fear of shooting himself. But Levin did not shoot himself, and did not hang himself, he went on living.

Levin, seeking answers to life’s questions in great thinkers and philosophers: 

He was in the position of a man seeking food in toy shops and tool shops.

Film Rendition: Many renditions to choose from. I opted for the 1948 version, starring Vivian Leigh. That casting was the best part of the film. When reading, I pictured Anna very much like Vivian Leigh who gave a superb performance. Apart from casting, the movie was disappointing. The novel is filled with numerous complex characters, and the film hardly touched on any save Anna. It barely told Levin's story at all. I also viewed the 1967 Russian produced version. It was more faithful to the book, and all of the casting, except Levin, matched my ideas of the characters. The movie was dubbed in English, which is always a little awkward and distracting. The cinematography and soundtrack were perplexing at times, but still a pretty decent portrayal. Back to the Vivien Leigh version a moment...it was ironic that Vivien Leigh played the lead, as my next novel is Gone with the Wind...and there really is only one film rendering of that, also starring Leigh. The roles are not that different, as in both, the character pursues a hopeless love to her own unhappiness.

.

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain (27 down 73 to go)

You don’t know about me, without you have read a book by the name of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.” but that ain’t no matter. ~ Huckleberry Finn

I’ve read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn at least once before, maybe twice. It is a realist novel, satire, and the first-person narrative of Huck Finn regarding his adventures on the Mississippi River, early to middle 19th Century. 

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

 

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is one of the first books I read for pleasure, not a school assignment. I had just read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, but I think that was assigned. I enjoyed it so much, that I followed with Huck Finn. This is appropriate, since that is the correct chronological order, and the order in which they were written and published.

For the remainder of this review, I will refer to the novels as Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, and to the characters as Tom and Huck.

I enjoy Tom Sawyer more than Huckleberry Finn, probably because I identify with Tom more than Huck. I had a pretty care free childhood, lived on a lake, spent summers roaming, swimming, fishing, camping, etc. Unlike Huck, I had a safe and wholesome home life. So, as I say, I enjoy Tom Sawyer more, but Huck Finn is a wonderful tale as well, and generally considered Twain's greatest work.

However, that is hotly debated. The American Library Association ranked Huckleberry Finn number 5 on their list of the 100 most-challenged books between 1990 and 1999.

I believe most of the objection is over the extensive use of the “N-word” I believe a secondary, and related objection, is the portrayal of African-Americans as ignorant through the person of the runaway slave Jim.

I can’t defend either objection. Twain wrote about a time and culture that he knew very well…his own. There are portions of human history and American history that are abhorrent. I don’t believe we should rewrite the portions we find distasteful, nor should we ignore them. Twain wrote about the way things were. Some of those things were horrible. I think it’s helpful to keep a record.

Speaking of a record, for the record, Twain was an ardent abolitionist. He once wrote: "Our Civil War was a blot on our history, but not as great a blot as the buying and selling of Negro souls."

Jim was ignorant, with good excuse. How could he not be? But for all Jim’s ignorance, Huck was every bit as ignorant: ignorant of the evil of slavery. So ignorant that his conscience burdened him with his dreadful sin of helping a slave escape.

In fact, I believe this was Twain’s intent. To show the awful ignorance that was once so prevalent. When you read Huck Finn, you grow to love Huck. He is innocence. He has a heart of gold. Yet, this innocent pure heart believes he is committing a dreadful sin, worthy of Hell-fire in his own words, for helping a slave to escape.

But the reader knows, he is doing a truly heroic thing.

Besides the theme of racism and bigotry, the novel paints a quaint picture of life on the Mississippi. Most of the story is Huck and Jim’s journey down river. Why would they be going south? Well for one thing, that’s the way the river runs, but for the more pertinent reason, you’ll have to read for yourself. They encounter iconic southern families, a country feud, and a pair of scoundrels: the King and the Duke. Thankfully, the great adventurer Tom Sawyer enters the tale. Jim is captured, and Tom develops a plan to free Jim. Tom makes the plan unnecessarily complicated, for style points demanded by the books of adventure he’s read. He’s a bit like Don Quixote is Tom.

If I had time, I’d read Tom Sawyer now, but with the exception of Huck Finn, I am in a daunting section of my list, filled with 1000 page novels. I recently took more than a month each for Don Quixote and The Brothers Karamazov. Now I’ve got Anna Karenina, and Gone With the Wind.

Quotations:

You can’t pray a lie—I found that out. ~ Huck

All right then, I’ll go to hell—and tore it up. ~ Huck as he decides NOT to turn in the runaway slave Jim.

But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because Aunt Sally she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me and I can’t stand it. I been there before. THE END, YOURS TRULY, HUCK FINN.

Film Rendition: There were many to choose from. I picked the 1960 version with Eddie Hodges as Huck. I'm certain this was not the best version available. It was not very true to the book, leaving Tom Sawyer out entirely. I don't recommend it.

.

The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky (26 down 74 to go)

(translation by Constance Garnett)

Alyosha smiled softly “God will conquer!” he thought.

This is the first time I’ve read The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky, or any of the Russian authors. It is a philosophic novel told mostly in third-person narrative regarding the lives of the Karamazov brothers in 19th Century Russia. 

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

 

I had almost no expectations, other than perhaps it would be a challenging read. I like that – having no expectations. It was a pleasant surprise and not nearly as challenging as I anticipated.

SPOILER ALERT: This review contains a minor spoiler.

It started a bit slow, as Dostoevsky first introduces you to all of the principal characters, without really beginning the story. The principal principals, if you can believe it, are the Karamazov brothers: the eldest Dimitri (Mitya) is half-brother of Ivan (Vanya) and Alexi (Alyosha). I’ve hinted here, at one of the problems English readers will have with Russian stories. The characters are referred to by several name variations. Alexei has seven variations, and it isn’t always obvious to whom a newly introduced variation refers.

The story takes place in 19th century Russia. The brothers were not raised together and barely know each other until adulthood. Of course, they each have their unique personality, but Alyosha is easily the most likeable – indeed loveable. In fact, and in spite of my lukewarm feelings about The Great Gatsby, I would describe Alyosha in much the same way that Nick described Gatsby: 

...if personality is an unbroken series of successful gestures, then there was something gorgeous about him, some heightened sensitivity to the promises of life.

But, it would be better to offer Dostoevsky’s description of Alyosha. 

He was simply an early lover of humanity.

And

...he was fond of people: he seemed throughout his life to put implicit trust in people: yet no one ever looked on him as a simpleton or naïve person. There was something about him which made one feel at once (and it was so all his life afterwards) that he did not care to be a judge of others---that he would never take it upon himself to criticize and would never condemn any one for anything.

My review could easily become an ode to Alyosha, though I should mention a few other things.

Such as their father Fyodor, he was a pig. He is also murdered, and it’s hard to feel too bad about it. The family is embroiled in the investigation and trial, as one of the brothers is the only suspect.

But forget that for a second, because I want to tell you more about Alyosha. One of the most beautiful moments in the story: Alyosha, a man of faith, has a long conversation with his agnostic brother Ivan. Ivan recites a “poem” he has written, "The Grand Inquisitor". It's not really poetry, but more of a parable giving Ivan's view of corrupt religion. Christ returns to earth, is sanctioned, imprisoned, and threatened with execution by the Roman Church. The church inquisitor states that Christ’s gift of freedom to humanity was the worst thing for them, and the church was working to bring humanity back into subservience, if not slavery. In the end, the inquisitor decides to let Christ go. Christ listens to the long rebuke, makes no reply, and when released Christ…

approached the old man in silence and softly kissed him on his bloodless aged lips.

Ivan concludes his poem and he and Alyosha debate its merit. It is for the most part friendly, but Alyosha is clearly saddened by his brother’s worldview and Ivan is intentionally goading Alyosha. Ivan asks at the end…will you renounce me for that?

Alyosha got up, went to him and softly kissed him on the lips.

Spiritum Christi Alyosha, Amen!

There is a murder, a trial, and a love triangle. There's sweet young Lise, a crippled girl who's in love with Alyosha...or not so sweet. I admit I don't get Lise. There are a couple of pompous Poles, a German doctor, competing lawyers, a stinking corpse, a corpse that doesn't stink, and a dog. I already mentioned one of the critical chapters, "The Grand Inquisitor". And then, there is Father Zosima, Alyosha's teacher, at the Russian Orthodox monastery. On his deathbed, he gives a long admonition, the antithesis to Ivan's worldview. Next to Alyosha, Father Zosima is my favorite character. Finally, there is a secondary plot line of some schoolboys who befriend Alyosha, which gives the story a hopeful ending.

Quotations:

It’s the great mystery of human life that old grief passes gradually into quiet, tender joy. ~ Father Zosima

Fathers and teachers, I ponder, What is hell? I maintain that it is the suffering of being unable to love. ~ Father Zosima

They aim at justice, but denying Christ, they will end by flooding the earth with blood. ~ Father Zosima

.

Don Quixote: The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha by Miguel de Cervantes (25 down, 75 to go)

A crazy man his life he passed...But in his senses died at last 

This the second time I’ve read Don Quixote. I am not certain how to categorize it. It was written in the early 17th century, so a bit late for medieval literature and a bit early for enlightenment. It coincides with English Renaissance, but of course it is not English. It is also too late for what is conventionally considered the Romantic Era, but I would say that may be where it fits best. Of course, it may be appropriate to say it is a reference unto itself. Don Quixote is one of the earliest novels ever written, and according to the World Library, “the best literary work ever written”. 

In spite of all that…

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

 

To be fair, I am told much is lost in translation. I once discussed this important novel with a Spaniard, and his praise for the book bordered on reverence. He told me that it is full of word play, puns, and allusions that simply do not translate. It may well be true.

I’m sorry but, translation difficulty notwithstanding, I don't get it. I know people who idolize Don Quixote (the character). I don’t get that either. To me, he is just nuts.

OK, not truly JUST nuts. He has some admirable qualities, but I just don’t see him as such a worthy character. Amusing? Yes. Fascinating even? Yes, but not heroic and not one to idolize.

SPOILER ALERT: This review contains a spoiler. I usually try to avoid spoilers, but I can't review this without writing about how it all ends. 

Don Quixote is an epic tale regarding the adventures of Spanish nobleman, Alonso Quixada, or Don (a Spanish title of nobility or prestige) Quixote, who reads romantic stories of knights of a bygone age, and fancies himself a great and glorious knight errant, destined to revive the age of chivalry. 

He is an idealist, you might even say he is THE idealist. And for that, I’ll give him credit. He had the courage of his convictions. I think that is admirable to a point, but not necessarily heroic.

John Adams, 2nd U.S. President said: 

Reason holds the helm, but passions are the gales.

And now, I’ll be so bold as to offer commentary on President Adams’ words of wisdom, and I do think them profoundly wise. Reason without passion is impotent; passion without reason is reckless. In my humble opinion, Don Quixote was passionate, but out of his senses (not reasonable), and therefore reckless with his life. The gales of his madness blew him many leagues, but there was no one holding the helm. To me, Don Quixote’s was a life wasted.

A portion of his epitaph: 

A crazy man his life he passedBut in his senses died at last

Of course, this is just my impression of the main character. It says nothing of the quality of the story. I’m not sure why this is considered such a great novel, but since my judgment is almost certainly hampered by translation, I’ll make no further judgment. 

Don Quixote’s faithful squire Sancho Panza is an amusing character. His devotion to his master is touching and his devotion to food, wine, sleep, and comfort makes for many instances of comic relief. There is delightful dialogue between Sancho and Don Quixote, and some wildly comic situations caused by Don Quixote’s delusion, but all in all, I’m glad to put this one back on the shelf.

Quotations:

…it will be labor in vain for you to urge me to resist what heaven wills, fate ordains, reason requires, and, above all, my own inclination favors; for knowing as I do the countless toils that are the accompaniments of knight-errantry, I know too, the infinite blessings that are attained by it; I know that the path of virtue is very narrow, and the road of vice broad and spacious; I know their ends and goals are different, for the broad and easy road of vice ends in death, and the narrow and toilsome one of virtue in life, and not transitory life, but in that which has no end… ~ Don Quixote

…it must be that some of your worship’s shrewdness sticks to me; land that, of itself, is barren and dry, will come to yield good fruit if you dung it and till it; what I mean is that your worship’s conversation has been the dung that has fallen on the barren soil of my dry wit… ~ Sancho Panza

…when Sancho tried to talk fine and attempted polite language, he wound up by toppling over from the summit of his simplicity into the abyss of his ignorance… ~ Don Quixote

Our guest has broken out on our hand, said Don Lorenzo to himself at this point; but, for all that, he is a glorious madman, and I should be a dull blockhead to doubt it. ~ A Nobleman’s observation of Don Quixote

Full epitaph:

A doughty gentleman lies here

A stranger all his life to fear
Nor in his death could Death prevail
In that last hour to make him quail
He for the world but little cared
And at his feats the world was scared
A crazy man his life he passed
But in his senses died at last

.

Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West by Cormac McCarthy (24 down, 76 to go)

He was treated with a certain deference as one who had got onto terms with life beyond what his years could account for. ~ Narrative regarding the Kid

 

This is the first time I’ve read Blood Meridian or Cormac McCarthy. The novel is a post-modern, epic western, told in third-person narrative regarding the life of the Kid, who is never named. It is set in the American Southwest and Mexico in the mid-19th century – the Wild West. And it is truly wild.

 

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

 

I have mixed emotions about Blood Meridian. It is so horrifically violent I can't quite say I enjoyed it, but it was fascinating. It seemed to me an antithesis of romantic western fiction and film. There were no good guys, no handsome cowboys with straight white teeth, little honor, no innocence.

 

Indeed, the only possible innocence is lost early when the main character, known only as the Kid, leaves home as a teenager in the 1840s. His home life was not idyllic to begin with, but he soon experiences greater hardship and suffering. He copes as best he can, often violently and with little regard for others. He eventually lands with the Glanton Gang, a historical group of ruthless Indian fighters, scalp and bounty hunters that massacred Apaches, and others, in the American Southwest and Mexico.

 

The Kid encounters a number of characters, some probably mapped to historical persons. The leader of the pseudo military unit is Captain Glanton, a ruthless pragmatic. Second in command is Judge Holden, usually referred to simply as the Judge. He is certainly no longer a legitimate judge, if ever, and is second in command not by any formal arrangement, but merely by the dominance of his personality. He is highly educated, philosophical and quick witted. At times, he is almost playful and gentle, and at others utterly ruthless and despicable. The gang hunts Apaches for bounty, paid mostly by ravished Mexican villages. This wasn't political correctness on McCarthy's part, portraying the natives as innocent victims. The Apaches are depicted just as savagely as Glanton's gang. The gang though grows more and more violent and at times massacres without cause or hope of reward. When members of the gang are injured and unable to ride, they are left behind without hesitation. The only compassion being means to end their own lives quickly, or assistance with the task.

 

The Judge is without a doubt the most complex member of the gang. He is nearly a giant and completely hairless. I hate to admit it, but he is almost likeable at times - almost. He is eloquent, intelligent, takes pleasure in observing the devices of nature, amused by human folly, and shows keen insight on the motivations and thoughts of others. In one emblematic discourse, he contends that war and violence are the natural and proper conditions of mankind. He has little direct interaction with the Kid, but seems to study him intently. 

 

The reader finds himself empathizing with the Kid, no doubt McCarthy's design. I felt sorry for the Kid, sensing he was very much a victim. Though he was brutal at times, he was less depraved than most of the gang.

 

Eventually, the gang is destroyed and scattered. The Kid wanders the west and makes something close to an honest living. Decades after his Glanton Gang days, he encounters the Judge in a saloon. They are perhaps the only surviving members of the gang. They have a terse discussion. The Kid, now referred to as the Man, makes no attempt to hide his contempt for the Judge. The story ends with the Judge dancing naked in the saloon. 

 

He apparently enjoys being naked and appears so at various times throughout the novel.

 

I've often thought the romantic notions and perceptions of the Wild West are probably far from the truth. I imagine it was a filthy, stinking, drunken, lawless place where the strong preyed upon the weak. I'm no historian, but I think McCarthy's portrayal likely comes much closer to the truth. It would be a depressing validation of the Judge's philosophy, if not for two additional truths: conflict would not forever rule the west and the wild was eventually tamed.

 

Excerpts:

 

It makes no difference what men think of war. As well ask men what they think of stone. ~ The Judge

 

There is no such joy in the tavern as upon the road thereto. ~ Unnamed bar patron

 

.

Atonement by Ian McEwan (23 down, 77 to go)

This is the first time I've read Atonement or Ian McEwan. It is the first-person narrative of Briony Tallis, a 13-year-old child in an upper-class British family, beginning in 1935. Published in 2001, I believe by definition it is post-modern, but it reads more like a modernist novel.

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

 

Like many novels, Atonement started a bit slow as the characters were developed, but by the time the principal conflict was revealed I was captivated. The conflict: a gross injustice, had me thinking I would dislike this novel as there seemed little hope of setting things right, but I clung to the clue in the title and hoped for satisfaction. But of course, a novel of such acclaim could not be so simple or predictable. The innocent are falsely accused, punished, and never fully exonerated, while the guilty go free and prosper. All of which would ordinarily cause me to hate the story, but credit the author, somehow McEwan does a masterful job of confusing my emotions, and creating an unexpected ending that left me somewhat relieved, though not entirely satisfied. It's simply too complex to explain, so I'll spare the spoiler.

The story revolves around the upper class Tallis family, beginning at their estate somewhere in England, 1935 and principally around Briony, the youngest of the Tallis children. Briony is a 13-year-old aspiring writer. One of the most surprising parts of the story is how likeable Briony is, in spite of being the cause of the great injustice. She realizes her fault – her crime, too late to prevent the catastrophic results. The story is her atonement, which is imperfect; justice is never truly served. Perhaps that is the charm. In my experience injustice is seldom set completely right. I think that is part of the masterpiece. McEwan resisted the obvious plot, the vindication of the pure, the downfall of the evil. Most often, when the natural laws of right and wrong are violated, there are scars that endure. McEwan forsook happily ever after, for more authentic consequences, but still with a sense of hope and triumph.

Briony might even be called the heroine, in spite of the fact that she is responsible for the miscarriage of justice. She is never hateable, often pitiable, and ultimately admirable.

I found one particular nuance of the story wonderfully vindicating – for myself. Briony's first attempt at publication receives a rejection from the publishing company, that elaborately advises her writing shows talent, but that she should abandon stream of consciousness style, for something more narrative. AMEN! It's an opinion I know, but I've made it clear in this blog how much I dislike stream of consciousness writing. It was nice to find someone, even an imaginary publisher, who agrees.

Film Rendition: 2007 version starring James McAvoy and Keira Knightly is a very faithful portrayal...until the very end. In the novel, the author leaves a little doubt in the reader's mind about two possible endings, and which is true. Though, neither is truly true; it's a nuance of the book that is hard to describe. Anyway, the film leaves no doubt and that was a bit disappointing. Otherwise very good. It also starred three different actresses as Briony at three different ages, including Vanessa Redgrave as the aged Briony.

.