Haha.

It is Literary Blog Hop time once again! Hosted by The Blue Bookcase, The Literary Blog Hop is an opportunity for literary book bloggers to answer literary questions about literature. It's all very literary.

This week's question is from Gilion at Rose City Reader. She poses the question:

Can literature be funny? What is your favorite humorous literary book?

The answer to this question for me is a resounding yes. However, in my mind there are two categories of humor. There is dumb humor, which can be quite hilarious but has no deeper meaning behind it except evoking a laugh.

Then there's this comic, which I think is just generally amusing...


Then there's intelligent humor - humor with a punch behind it. It's funny but it has a point to make. I think a literary character that exemplifies this humor is Mercutio of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. He is constantly making puns and jokes throughout the play, even as he lies dying ("Ask for me tomorrow, and you shall find me a grave man") but his jokes often have a barb of truth to them. Yes, he makes us laugh, but he also makes us pay attention.

Another example that I've recently discovered is my dear Mr. Charles Dickens, who I hated all through middle school and high school and finally picked up last month. I would find myself laughing aloud at Oliver Twist in public places, and then being appalled that I was laughing. Mr. Dickens was poking fun at poor, pure, innocent little Oliver and making light of the villains who made his life difficult, but he phrased those situations in such wry, subtle words that they seemed ridiculous even while being heart-wrenching. My favorite character was the pompous and awful Mr. Bumble, and my favorite quote is this passage about his wife crying -

But tears were not the things to find their way to Mr. Bumble's soul; his heart was waterproof. Like washable beaver hats that improve with rain, his nerves were rendered stouter and more vigorous, by showers of tears, which, being tokens of weakness, and so far tacit admissions of his own power, pleased and exalted him. He eyed his good lady with looks of great satisfaction, and begged, in an encouraging manner, that she should cry her hardest: the exercise being looked upon, by the faculty, as strongly conducive to health. 'It opens the lungs, washes the countenance, exercises the eyes, and softens down the temper,' said Mr. Bumble. 'So cry away.'

What a jerk, right? But very witty.

I also enjoyed this very true evaluation of a good sense of humor in The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton:

She had a sense of humor (chiefly proved by her laughing at HIS jokes).

Isn't that the truth? Anyway, my point is, literature can be funny, and I think it is often better for it. What about you? Any favorite funny literature?

The Age of Innocence: Book 2 and Review

This is going to be spoiler-tastic, but I'll put a brief review at the end of the write-up in case you haven't read the book and want to know my thoughts on it. If you haven't read this book you are definitely not going to want to read the next sentence, so close your eyes, okay?


I was BLOWN AWAY when I started reading Book 2 of The Age of Innocence. I hadn't read the book in a few days after finishing Book 1, and I was expecting Newland to waffle around and have some introspection before his wedding. My foolish, naive little heart thought that perhaps he would have another real heart-to-heart with May and tell her that she had been right, there was someone else, and that he was going to throw society out the window and be a bohemian and live in a shabby house for the rest of his life.

Okay, I didn't really think he would do that. This is Edith Wharton, here - has she ever let one of her characters off easy? But I hoped that he would. So I was very shocked when the first page of the second half had Newland fidgeting with the ring and waiting for his blushing bride to glide down the aisle. I think that is one of the more poignant moments in the book - that realization that even though he has changed his mind, he already made his choice. He loved himself and that immaterial concept of a good name far more than he loved Ellen Olenska. I don't think May had anything to do with his decision by that point.

Of course, he couldn't just let Ellen go at first. He has a few fleeting moments of perceived marital bliss during the honeymoon, but soon he realizes that his fears about May didn't go away with time - they magnified in their reality. She is sweet, she is accommodating, she is beautiful, and she will spend his life trying to please him. She is white bread, nourishing and good, but Ellen is like chocolate cake, bad for you but irresistible. (I'm eating right now, hence the cheesy food analogies).

Newland and Ellen begin to explore their relationship in a passionate but unphysical way. "A stolen kiss isn't what I want," he pleads with her. "He had known the love that is fed on caresses and feeds them; but this passion that was closer than his bones was not to be superficially satisfied." I think that is the real tragedy of the story. So many stories of unfaithfulness result from boredom, or lust, or stupidity. But Newland has found a spirit that is the same as his, and he can't have her. I almost burst into tears at this line - "Suddenly he felt something stiff and cold on his lashes, and perceived that he had been crying, and that the wind had frozen his tears." For some reason, the image of this somewhat reserved and self-possessed, albeit susceptible to forbidden emotions, vulnerable and crying just breaks my heart.

Shortly after that, the story skips years ahead to Newland in his old age. May has passed away - he has made no attempt to find Ellen. His son is marrying Fanny Beaufort, the daughter of a union that was a huge scandal in Newland's day, but which no one thinks twice about now. His son, Dallas, seems to understand instinctively everything about his parents' marriage and how Newland feels about Ellen, and he takes it all in stride. He reveals to Newland that his mother knew how he felt about Ellen the whole time. In some ways it makes me like her a little better - she has her one nasty moment, throwing a send-off party for Ellen and throwing the whole situation in both Ellen and Newland's faces with grace and a sweet smile. He also says that they are to meet with Ellen that afternoon.

And this part is the worst, because Newland has that opportunity to see her again. They are both free, and not so horribly old, and his feelings for her haven't changed. But he sits and starts thinking about the way she has lived and met people and done what she wanted in her freedom, and the way he has followed convention and lived the perfect life he always dreamed of, and how it was always flavorless, and he can't face her. So he turns and walks away.

Part of me wanted to scream, WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS? It seems like Newland kicks every fleeting chance he has at happiness out the door with a vengeance. But really, I think it was the only way the story could have ended. I do think that if he had gone through the door, he would have been surprised. I think she would have welcomed him and that maybe their relationship would have a chance at redemption. But I think that the way Newland lived his life had planted him in a different direction, and he could never grow toward Ellen. While he thought he stayed back because of how much she must have changed, really he had just cemented himself in following Society, and even though he knew things were different, he couldn't take that final step. He aligned his life with May's and was used to accepting life with wide, innocent eyes - he didn't want the bloom of life that Ellen would have brought him. And so he died, alone. (He didn't actually die).

END SPOILERISH SECTION --------> ENTER REVIEW SECTION

I loved this book. It was heart-breaking, but stunningly beautiful. I was correct in thinking that even though it moved slowly at the beginning, it would blossom into something that touched my heart. The book evokes some serious thoughts of what is worth sacrificing. Is a life without "the flower" a life worth living? Probably. But I'd rather not experiment to find out. I strongly recommend it to anyone, regardless of whether or not you usually read classics. It will start slowly, but I think you will love it.

Readability: A bit slow at first, with a few unfamiliar words. However, I think in general anyone could understand it.
Plot: 5 Captivating and heart-breaking.
Characters: 5 Well developed.
Aesthetics/literary merit: 5 I have a writer-crush on Edith Wharton. She is a stunning writer.
Personal response: 5 This is officially in my top five favorite books.
Overall: 5

Oh and also, the end of this book talks about Paris, which makes me nostalgic and even in more in love with it.

While we're on the subject of heart-break, I love this song (like everyone else on the planet right now). I'm actually pretty happy with my life right now, but I love these two heart-breaking things and I think they go well together. You should probably put it on repeat and read the end of this book and cry.

The Age of Innocence: Book 1

The Age of Innocence Read-along is hosted by Beth at Bookworm Meets Bookworm.

Edith Wharton's 1920 Pulitzer Prize winning novel is set in New York among the social elite. Newland Archer is a young man who becomes fortuitously engaged to the most beautiful, desirable girl in their circle, May Welland, after a short-lived and scandalous dalliance with a married woman. The only blight on his good fortune is the arrival of May's cousin, the Countess Olenska, a woman who has left her abusive husband and a trail of scandalous rumors behind her as she seeks for peace and acceptance among her relatives in New York. Her potential to cast a negative light on Newland's future family leads him to try and protect her, and as he spends time with her, he develops an interest in her.

I love The House of Mirth, so I had high expectations for this one. So far, they have been met, if not exceeded. Wharton's wry evaluations of society are marked and apt. The characters perform an elegant dance of propriety and small deceptions in order to keep appearances - "the persons of their world lived in an atmosphere of faint implications and pale delicacies." Newland himself is described as "at heart a dilettante, and thinking over a pleasure to come often gave him subtler satisfaction than its realisation." He loves the idea of participating in culture more than he loves culture for its own sake (although he is described as an avid book lover, which I appreciated). Society is his air and he doesn't know how to exist without it.

Ellen Olenska challenges this society. While she wants to be accepted by it, she doesn't follow its conventions. She lives in a shabby house in a bohemian part of town. She wears clothes that are beautiful but out of fashion, and arranges flowers in a way that is considered charming, but quite odd. (I don't think I would ever think to analyze someone's methods of floral arrangements, but I guess Society considers any aberration from Fashion to be worth taking note). Newland is shocked but allured by her. Even as he tells himself he is so grateful for May's poise and apparent perfection, he starts wondering how much of May is her own self and how much is of May is a product of their society. Does her perfection mean that she is nothing but a reflection of her upbringing? He starts to doubt the relationship. This is a long excerpt, but I absolutely love it so I'm going to include the whole thing:

What could he and she really know of each other, since it was his duty, as a "decent" fellow, to conceal his past from her, and hers, as a marriageable girl, to have no past to conceal? What if, for some one of the subtler reasons that would tell with both of them, they should tire of each other, misunderstand or irritate each other? He reviewed his friends' marriages - the supposedly happy ones - and saw none that answered, even remotely, to the passionate and tender comradeship which he pictured as his permanent relation with May Welland. He perceived that such a picture presupposed, on her part, the experience, the versatility, the freedom of judgment, which she had been carefully trained not to possess; and with a shiver of foreboding he saw his marriage becoming what most of the other marriages about him were: a dull association of material and social interests held together by ignorance on the one side and hypocrisy on the other.

Cold feet, anyone? But really - he suddenly has this moment of realizing that he can't have both his dreams of an intelligent, passionate companion and his dreams of remaining neatly in his societal niche. This is problem enough with just the cold feet, but throw in a still-married countess with a scandal staining her past who just so happens to allure him completely. As he mourns to himself the lack of innocence of the Countess, he can't help thinking, "he did not want May to have that kind of innocence, the innocence that seals the mind against imagination and the heart against experience!"

So Newland is stuck in his own self-made dilemma. Marry the girl who is everything he thought he ever wanted, who will be his perfect match in society, but who is maybe not equipped to really live, or run away with the tainted woman that awakens passion and kinship in his heart? I'm excited to find what happens next. I will say that this story has moved a little slower for me than I expected, but it was that way with The House of Mirth as well, slowly gaining momentum and emotion until it was unbearably tragic and beautiful. Part 2 will be posted on March 2!

I think I have a problem.

I am officially addicted to read-alongs and challenges. But it's better than being addicted to hard drugs, right? At least my addiction improves my mind. :) I am participating in two read-alongs for the month of February, and I am also joining the Battle of the Prizes, a challenge that I thought sounded intriguing last year and have therefore decided to join in this year.

First of all, the Oliver Twist Read-along, hosted by Allie at A Literary Odyssey. Originally, I planned to read Great Expectations for my 19th century classic in the Back to the Classics Challenge, but I had been dreading the Dickens and so I decided a read-along would be a better way to jump in. Here is the schedule:
February 8 - Book 1 (22 chapters)
February 17 - Book 2 (14 chapters)
February 28 - Book 3 (15 chapters)
I will say that I have already gotten started with this one and am absolutely loving it. Maybe I was too immature to enjoy Dickens the first time I tried to read him.

Secondly, I am participating in the Age of Innocence Read-along hosted by Beth at Bookworm Meets Bookworm. I am also reading this one for the Back to the Classics challenge (20th century classic) and it will fit in nicely with the Battle of the Prizes challenge as well. The post for Book 1 is on February 16 and Book 2 is on March 2. The House of Mirth is one of my most loved books so I am excited to read another novel by Edith Wharton.

Finally, I am joining in Rose City Reader's American version of Battle of the Prizes. There are two Pulitzer Prize winners on my TBR this year, as well as one National Book Award winner. I just need to find one more National Book Award and the challenge will be complete.
Pulitzers:
* The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton
* Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis
National Book Award:
* Paris Trout by Pete Dexter
And potentially, Let the Great World Spin by Colum McCann, The Corrections by Jonathan Franzen, or Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison.

Hooray! I have no self control!