greed is good

Eugénie Grandet is Balzac's novel on greed and wealth, exposed both on a familial level and on a geographic level (city v. country). Monsieur Grandet hoards his money and lives a miserly life, depriving his wife and daughter of everyday comforts. Balzac's continuous writing style became a little bit irritating because it was hard to know when to stop and reflect on major events in the story and really digest what's happening. Another thing that bothered me (and deliberately so) was Eugenie and her mother's complete ignorance as to the concealed bank upstairs in their home. They two women are often referred to as religious and pastoral and this being the roots of their ignorance. Monsieur Grandet, on the other hand, travels and knows what life is like outside of the town of Saumur. He's religious by title but isn't devout like the rest of his family.

One of the points I am still breaking down is the status of Eugenie at the end of the book. She's lost the love of her life and her family, but has inherited a huge fortune. This money has become more of a blessing than a curse, because she is only seen for her money and to her it is of no consolation. She pays off Charles' debts and marries Cruchot but on the condition that he never have her physically. Her life is pious but unfulfilling. I think her final decisions show that she is a woman of strength. She wants to live a completely honest life, and if that means she must give up all relations so be it.

Furthermore, the last line of the book reads, "Neither big Nanor nor Cornoiller is sharp enough to understand the world's corruptions." Nanon ends up the happiest character in the book. Her life of being a maid is over, she is finally recognized for her attractiveness and worth and gets married, and lives off of Eugenie's fortune. She has it made, but she is also uncapable of understanding much of what goes on around her. Because of this ignorance, she has no concept of money or greed and yet she is the "richest" of them all.

frankenstein!

In the opening of the book, the description of seeing a huge figure off in the distance, moving rapidly against a barren icy backdrop--really freaked me out. But that was also the scariest point in the book for me. Dr. Frankenstein's monster was an intelligent, gentle creature, who, after being shunned by his creator and society decides to take revenge. He was lonely. He wanted a female partner or some kind of companionship. He read books under trees and ate nuts and berries. I had an image in my head of this beast sipping from a teacup with his pinkie finger extended. He read Goethe's Werther, did suicidal thoughts ever run through his mind?


It's interesting to read how Frankenstein's creature is described in the book, compared to the monster image of "Frankenstein" today. The book made him seem pretty scary, 8 feet tall, made up of mismatched body parts...not at all green or with bolts.


I found this book easy and enjoyable to read, but at times the runaway victor and the pursuits of the monster became a little overblown.

thoughts on emma

This was my first time reading Emma. Knowing that it was based on one of my all-time favorite movies (Clueless), it became a little bit of a distraction because I would try to connect the characters and events in the book to the movie (and not the one starring Gwyneth Paltrow). I can see why this Jane Austen classic is still popular today. First, the life of high society has always been popular in entertainment for the masses. We have an obsession with the wealthy lifestyles ("The Hills," anyone?) and like to critique their habits while envying all the stuff they own. Emma's character is complex but I think there are many "Emmas" in life and I happen to know a few. They are kind, well-meaning, but also a little shortsighted and can misunderstand the bigger picture. She's loveable but she has her flaws, and female readers love to point them out because that's what women do.

I think there's an undercurrent of feminism in Emma's psyche. She pledges to remain unmarried and sees her sister's marriage and family as unfortunate. (Austen refers to her sister as Mrs. John Knightley, including his first name reinforces this stripped-down individuality that Emma fears). Despite all these early sentiments, Emma ends up marrying Mr. Knightley. Were all of her earlier concerns just ignorance? And why was her ignorance so attractive to Mr.Knightley? Maybe her blunders were attractive to him in a very "damsel-in-distress" kind of way. But in the end, their union was sealed in "perfect happiness."

Adolphe and Ellenore, Two People I Never Want to Meet

Adolphe is a guy with really low self esteem, and he can act like an asshole to compensate. That is how he met Ellenore. He saw another man who was happily with another woman and thought "I want that happiness. I want to be like him. I want a woman to make me happy." Enter Ellenore. She's older, in a relationship, has kids, and is very attractive. He courts her, she likes him back. "Happiness! Joy! She likes me!" Adolphe thinks everything is great, but really its because her love validates himself. He doesn't really love her back for who she is. He just loves to be loved. But being with her and seeing all the sacrifices she has made for him (giving up her kids!! hello! red flag!!) doesn't warm his heart, he just grows discontented. Discontented and needy. He can't get out of the relationship because without her, he doesn't amount to much. Just a guy with a short resume who took to long to get out of a bad relationship, and to him that fate seems worse than staying with someone who truly does love him.


Ellenore is quite the risk-taker. She's also needy, but controlling as well. She completely committed herself to Adolphe by leaving the Comte and abandoning her children. Adolphe is indebted to her- now he can't possibly leave her! She's given up so much! And he does stay with her til the end. Ellenore knows he doesn't love her back, "You think what you feel is love, but it is only pity" (81). So in the end, she dies with her unrequited love, and Adolphe feels really horrible about the entire situation. He did pity her, and conversely pittied himself for feeling that way.


PS I really liked this book cover. Instead of some beautiful Ellenore weeping, or a semi-attractive Adolphe, the distance between the two walking really captures the essence of their relationship.

Learn How to End It: The "Platonic" Relationship

Girls, we all know the type.

You're nice to them at first, they're nice in return but maybe a little on the weird side. Or you find out you have some things in common. Discuss. Maybe even invite them to your party, open up a little more. Infatuation. You really like them, but you can't. You just can't. It's impossible for one reason or another- maybe you're in another relationship or he lives really far away. He could be too many years older or years younger. But you indulge yourself a little. You cut out time in your schedule. I mean, what the heck it can't really hurt, can it? The relationship is platonic, right? It never really is...and you both know that.

In "When Harry Met Sally," Harry argues that no male/female relationship can ever be platonic because sex will always get in the way. Here's the conversation that ensues:

Harry Burns: Because no man can be friends with a woman that he finds attractive. He always wants to have sex with her.
Sally Albright: So, you're saying that a man can be friends with a woman he finds unattractive?
Harry Burns: No. You pretty much want to nail 'em too.
Sally Albright: What if THEY don't want to have sex with YOU?
Harry Burns: Doesn't matter because the sex thing is already out there so the friendship is ultimately doomed and that is the end of the story.
Sally Albright: Well, I guess we're not going to be friends then.
Harry Burns: I guess not.
Sally Albright: That's too bad. You were the only person I knew in New York.

The relationship between Werther and Lotte was doomed from the start. (Well, from the moment Werther is warned that she is both beautiful and engaged. Sorry, dude). Sure they had fun together, partied, exchanged gifts and read to each other (real selling point). But Lotte especially should have had the common sense and the guts to just end it. She was lucky that Albert wasn't a jealous husband who wasn't running after Werther with a shotgun. She had that going for her. And, it seemed that she was pretty responsible, taking care of her younger siblings after her mother passed away. Doesn't she know a thing or two about fairness? Because she wasn't being fair to Werther. He killed himself over her for christs sake. She also wasn't being fair to Albert, her devoted and successful husband. Or to herself! She has to live with guilt for the rest of her life. So, word of advice-- tell him it's just not gonna happen.




"A Reading from Werther by Goethe" by Wilhelm Amberg, 1870

Dilbert on Free Will

Foucalt: The body of the condemned

Which is more humane: punishment of the body, or of the soul?

Once the horrific visualizations of the opening paragraphs began to fade from my mind, I was able to think clearly about this matter. Michel Foucault recounts execution scenes more terrifying than a Japanese horror film, yet in the end I think these public displays are less dehumanizing than the latter. Burning and quartering aside, the punishment for the crime results in a death that does not take months, or years detatched from society.

The descripton of the prison on page 6, known as the "House of young prisoners in Paris," is reminescent of a military camp. The prisoners wake early, pray, work, eat, ATTEND SCHOOL, PLAY, and then work and eat once again before bed. This doesn't sound half bad, compared to the brutal alternative. However, the execution methods improved and the guillotine was invented as a more humane and ethical alternative. The guillotine offered a swift, clean death. Modern-day electric chairs and lethal injections also promise similar results. Conversely, prisons have become meccas for gang violence, rape, and suicide (often the result of solitary confinement). Everyday you must battle both interior and external demons, building up a wall around you to survive. Being put through these conditions for possibly a life sentence, absent from the lives of those you care about seems a stricter punishment than death.