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.

Elizabeth Gaskell's "The Life of Charlotte Bronte"

     Jane Eyre is one of my favorite books, and ever since reading it, I was curious to learn more about the novel's author. And Elizabeth Gaskell's The Life of Charlotte Bronte did not disappoint.

     At the time they were published, Bronte's novels sparked great praise as well as great criticism. They were considered too "coarse" to have been written by a woman, and when it was found out that a woman was, indeed, the mysterious "Currer Bell" who wrote Jane Eyre, Shirley, and later, Villette;  Bronte was attacked personally.

     Written by a friend of Bronte, The Life provides an interesting point of view. The book was written in part to defend the "coarseness" of Bronte's writing. Gaskell speaks directly to the reader, begging him/her to separate Charlotte Bronte the daughter and sister, from Currer Bell, the author.

     It is for this reason that Gaskell, at times, bends the truth to portray Bronte in the most socially acceptable way possible. But Bronte is not entirely shut out. The majority of the book is of letters written by Bronte.

     However, to get the most out of this book, it would be advisable to read a copy with good footnotes. I read the Barnes & Noble edition of the book with the notes and introduction written by Anne Taranto. The notes and introduction were almost as interesting as the book itself, however (to be nitpicky) there were a couple typos in the end-notes.

     While the historical accuracy of some of the content may be slightly skewed, this is in no way a fault. Through Gaskell's strong, ever-present voice, the reader gains a sense of Gaskell's character as well as Bronte's. Gaskell appeals to the reader's pity, presenting an emotional, rather than factual, account of Bronte's life.

     It is so crucial to get a copy of The Life with notes because the most interesting aspect of the book is what Gaskell has left out or skewed. The fact in and of itself that Gaskell had to write the book to defend Bronte's good name provides a fascinating insight into the way society viewed women writers during the 19th century.

     Overall, I give Elizabeth Gaskell's The Life of Charlotte Bronte a creamy beige rating. It is a long, dense biography, and is the type of book that may only be interesting to selective groups of people. Before reading it, I would suggest being somewhat familiar with Charlotte Bronte's work (and perhaps even that of Emily and Anne Bronte).

     But overall, The Life is most definitely a worthwhile read.