Friday, February 22, 2013

Judy Corbett's "Castles in the Air"

(Sorry the font is different, Blogger is being difficult. Please let me know if you are having trouble reading this post.)

      It is very rare that I have strong feelings of dislike for a book. Very rare.

     And this, my friends, is one of those rare moments.


     I read Judy Corbett's memoir, Castles in the Air for my Language and Composition class. The teacher let us pick our own memoirs and, for whatever reason, I chose Castles in the Air.


     Despite the unfortunate title, the book looked interesting enough. (And anyway don't they say not to judge a book by its cover?)  Castles in the Air is about Judy Corbett who, along with her fiancé, Peter, buys a run-down castle in Wales. She tells the story of the physical difficulties they faced in renovating the house as well as the emotional journey of taking on such a daunting project. Sounds harmless enough, right?


    Wrong.


     I went into the book with a positive attitude. After my teacher told me that the memoir would not be a challenging read, and after my parents and friends laughed at the embarrassing title, I had determined that I would like this book. No matter how easy to read or cheesy the book was, I would see the best in it.


     The first eight chapters were fine. While it was cheesy and not the most well-written of books, Corbett was a quirky, humorous narrator. It wasn't until chapter nine that I lost all respect for Judy Corbett. 


     In chapter nine, Peter proposes to Corbett, and mysteriously, the day after she and Peter decide to get married, a ghost begins to haunt the halls of their castle. The ghost's name is Margaret. Corbett feels Margaret's presence, she just knows that the ghost's name is Margaret. She also somehow knows that Margaret's main aim in life (afterlife?) is to make Peter's life miserable.


     At the same time Margaret appears, Corbett and Peter's relationship becomes strained. Corbett is always arguing with Peter, and at one point, she calls off the marriage. Now, why on earth, would a young couple who are way in over their heads renovating a giant crumbling castle, who are in tight money straits, and who are planning to get married ever fight? How could tension ever arise from such a situation?


     No idea. Obviously, if this couple were to fight, it must have been because one of them was possessed by a ghost.


     Yes, that's right. Corbett blames her problems with Peter on Margaret. She claims that she was possessed by Margaret; that the only reason why she and Peter fought was because Margaret had taken over. Corbett was a powerless victim.


     Now, I will admit, that we cannot know for sure whether Corbett was actually possessed by a ghost. The existence of  ghosts has never been completely proved or disproved. But whether or not Margaret exists or not is a moot point. Most likely, Margaret is a figment of Corbett's imagination, a manifestation of all her stress, which causes her to act unlike her usual self. However, if in fact, Margaret is a real ghost, why must all the blame be put on her? I was very frustrated that Corbett never once acknowledged the slight possibility that the problems she was having with Peter could have stemmed from something other than the supernatural.


     After reading about Margaret, I lost all respect for Corbett. And, as I read the rest of the book, Corbett's other flaws became glaringly apparent. Her abundance of cliched metaphors, her poor writing abilities, and her rudeness towards those who visited her and Peter's castle.


     I could go on for quite awhile about the issues I had with this memoir, but this post is long enough as it is. Margaret is just the most striking of many, many flaws. The main problem is that Corbett is not self-deprecating enough and her opinions are very one-sided. Nothing is ever her fault. She blames everything on a ghost or on the ignorance of others. At some points, she is just plain mean.  


     At the end of the memoir, she says that she is no longer bothered by people who critique the castle because those individuals "saw [her and Peter's] dream fulfillment as a mirror to their own failures."


     Okay, sure. I guess. Or maybe they just had a problem with the castle...


     I give Castles in the Air a mucus-y yellow-green rating. This book makes my stomach turn.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Diary of a Lit Nerd is Now on Twitter!

     Exciting news, friends!

     I've decided to become a twit and join tweeter! (Wait, that doesn't sound right...)

     Anyway, please follow me @amelia_bauer! I will be tweeting literary memes, blog post updates, pictures of books and other nerdy things, as well as words of wisdom.

     That's all for now. See you on Twitter!
  



 


Sunday, February 17, 2013

The Great Shakespearean Challenge: Day 27

     49 out of 1194 pages read

     Just a quick update.

     I'm making good progress through Part Two of King Henry VI, though I'm finding it less interesting than Part One. None of the characters have really reached out and grabbed me like Lord Talbot and Joan la Pucelle did in Part One. The only character that I have really liked in this play so far was the Duke of Gloster, that is, SPOILER ALERT! until he was murdered.

      I suppose the Duke of York is all right. I'm not sure whether Shakespeare wants me to like him or not, but I'm certainly rooting for him in his quest to overthrow King Henry VI. I'm sorry, but the king is a total loser. I mean come on, the guy faints when he finds out Gloster is dead. Take a look at this stage direction:

The "king" swoons

     Pathetic, right?

     Sure, someone very close to him died. Kings can be sad. But Kings really shouldn't be "swooning."

     Well, King Henry VI was a real person, and I do remember learning in my European History class that he was not the most authoritarian of kings, and was, rather, very sensitive and malleable. If that description is indeed true, then Shakespeare did a wonderful job capturing his personality.

Shakespeare showdown! King Lear vs. King Henry VI

     In other news, the book club at my school is reading Shakespeare's King Lear this quarter. Thus, I've found myself in a situation where I am reading two Shakespeare plays at once.

     Not that I really mind. Can't have too much Shakespeare.

     I've only read a few scene of King Lear, but so far I am really enjoying the play. I'm enjoying it more than King Henry VI, which is becoming a problem as I really need to read both, but I find myself preferring to read King Lear.

     That's all for now. Look forward to more posts about both  Part Two of King Henry VI as well as King Lear.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

The Great Shakespearean Challenge: Day 24

     35 out of 1194 pages read
Don't worry, the fire is fake.

     HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!
     (a little late)

     And what better way to spend this wonderful holiday then by reading Shakespeare? After all, we have good 'ole Will Shakespeare to blame for all those Romeo and Juliet cliches that run rampant in American pop culture.


     As promised in my previous post, I have much more to say about Part One of King VI. In addition to Lord Talbot, another character that really stood out to me was Joan of Arc. Both her character and Lord Talbot's character reveal what a profound impact context has on literature.

     Having been a student of the French language for five years, I've seen Christian Duguay's 1999 made-for-TV-movie, Joan of Arc at least twice (that and The Count of Monte Cristo seem to be the only movies French teachers are familiar with), Shakespeare's Joan la Pucelle is a far cry from Duguay's pious saint.

     Shakespeare's Joan is rude and audacious. She's a good fighter, but that's all she's got going for her. Unlike movie-Joan, who remains humble and virtuous, Shakespeare-Joan is depicted more as a witch than a saint.

     Joan's character is best shown in scene iv of act v. In this scene, Joan is about to be burnt at the stake when her shepard father comes to bid her goodbye. Joan denies that this man is her father, falsely claiming that she was born to nobility. Her father leaves in a rage, and when the English start to take her away to be executed, she pleads that should not kill her because she is "virtuous and holy; chosen from above." However, when this argument has little effect on the English, she changes her tactics completely, claiming that she is pregnant with the child of Dauhpin. But the English won't be swayed by this either, so Joan lists off the names of French generals, each time claiming that one of them is the father, changing the her mind every time the English reject her argument.

     Thus, Shakespeare's Joan is vain, self-serving and unscrupulous. She is a sharp contrast to Duguay's Joan, who looks up to the sky in complete submission, her lips parted in prayer as those deadly flames tear at her skirts.

     It would be tempting, very tempting, to make the feminist argument. After all, Shakespeare made a complete joke out of a woman who took on an unconventional role in society and fought for what she believed in at no matter what the cost. But I believe that Shakespeare's depiction of Joan la Pucelle is a reflection not of womankind, but rather, of the French.

     Published roughly half a century after the Hundred Years War, Part One of King Henry VI was written in a time when relations between France and England were still tense. This may be a historical play, but its also a propaganda piece. Take, for instance, the juxtaposition between Lord Talbot, the ideal English knight, and the flighty King Charles of France, who is portrayed by Shakespeare as a fool.

     At one point, King Charles and one of his dukes speak of how Joan la Pucelle will be made the patron saint of France. Thus, Joan can be seen as a symbol for France. Audacious, rude, unscrupulous; through Joan we see how Shakespeare and his countrymen viewed France.

     So what?

     Joan la Pucelle is a perfect example of why, as readers, we need to consider the context of the literature we are reading. Part One of King Henry VI is certainly not one hundred percent historically accurate. Shakespeare was biased towards France, partial towards England. It's at no fault to him; this is simply a result of the time period he lived in. And it certainly makes King Henry no less of a masterpiece. If anything, it just makes the play more interesting. The same is true of Elizabeth Gaskell's The Life of Charlotte Bronte.

     A book never stands alone. It is a living, breathing piece of the time period that conceived it. And it is this dynamic, far-reaching aspect of the written word which makes literature so much fun.

Thursday, February 7, 2013

The Great Shakespearean Challenge: Day 17

     30 out of 1194 pages read

     Two days ago, I finished reading King Henry the Sixth Part One, and all in all, I was pleasantly surprised.

     At first it was a tough read, as it was difficult to keep track of the various lords and dukes and their differing storylines. But as I became more familiar with the names and as the storylines began to converge, the play grew more interesting. By the time I got to act III or IV, I was completely sucked in.


     My favorite part of the play is act IV. It is in this act that we see the relationship between Lord Talbot and his son, John.

     Renowned commander of the English army, Lord Talbot is both fearsome and honorable. The French fear him so much that they run at the very sound of his name, but Talbot does not let this go to his head. He knows that without his men backing him up, he is only a "shadow of himself," thus revealing his humility.

     His son, John Talbot, is (if you'll allow me to use this awful cliche) a chip off the old block. In fact, John is so brave, so honorable, so self-sacrificing, that these qualities SPOILER ALERT! lead him to a noble, but premature, death.

     In Act IV, things are looking very bad for the English army. The French have them trapped, and the Duke of Somerset and the Duke of York are too busy arguing to bring Lord Talbot the reinforcements that he so desperately needs. Talbot knows he most likely will not make it out of this battle alive and, when he sees John, he tells his beloved son to flee the battlefield so that John will be able to perpetuate the family name and avenge his father's death. John, however, will have none of this.

     The tenderness between father and son in these scenes is heartbreaking. The situation itself is emotional enough, but Shakespeare's use of rhyme adds an entirely new dimension to the conversation.

Here is one of my favorite parts:

Lord Talbot: Shall all thy mother's hopes lie in one tomb?
John Talbot: Ay, rather than I'll shame my mother's womb.
Lord Talbot: Upon my blessing, I command thee go.
John Talbot: To fight I will, but not to flee the foe.
                                                                 (Act IV, scene v)

     There is just something so tragically poetic about the way John rhymes his own words with his father's. Perhaps it is symbolic of how John strives to be a great man like his father, and how he will follow his father even if it leads to his demise. His words echoes his father, just as his actions echo his father's actions. Both men urge the other to leave the battle, but both refuse to leave, as both would rather die than shame the Talbot name.

     Lord Talbot is easily my favorite character, and I am very sad that SPOILER ALERT! he dies alongside John in battle and therefore will not be making any appearances in parts two or three of King Henry VI. Unless, of course, someone pulls a Hamlet and starts seeing ghosts. But I kind of doubt that.

    Seeing that this post is getting lengthy, I'll end it here with the sincere suggestion that you read this play. I still have much more I want to say about part one of King Henry VI, so be ready for more posts on this particular topic.