The Stranger

Of late, I eschewed literature especially a serious one for it brings saturnine moods. Content with my reading of Haurki Murakami, I have been intentionally trying to avoid any serious reading for a year or so. I mean no offense to Haruki Murakami but I no longer find myself of same temperament. I read “The Stranger” many years back and found it again by chance encounter with my old collection. The Stranger reminds me my all time favourite Doestovesky’s crime and punishment primarily owing to common existentialism theme of these novels. Meursault & Rodya are altogether too different characters. Doestovesky has portrayed a philosopher in Rodya albeit a troubled one. Rodya justifies everything by philosophizing that extraordinary people are beyond any moral codes but he thinks and feels everything and is oversensitive in nature. His internal chaos beautifully depicted by Doestovesky is a central theme of novel but Meursault is altogether different. It is his apathy which is essence of the novel. Meursault has no emotions. He says since we're all going to die, it's obvious that when and how don't matter. One of my literary friend often paraphrases Meursualt’s words “I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world”. Somewhere someone said, probably in Shawshank Redemption that hope is a good thing, probably the best. I felt that Meursualt's soul plunged into abysmal depths for it completely lost hope but we can't blame Camus. Afterall, Camus is not recommended for casual readers.

Notes from underground

Existentialism is common in works of Dostoevsky, Kafka and Camus. I feel Camus is very good. Dostoevsky and Kafka are difficult to understand. Nevertheless, of all these three existentialists, I like Dostoevsky the most. Dostoevsky’s works, as I perceive, are regarded belonging to two extremes, at the worst some may find it aegri somnia and at the best, people like me may declare it as ne plus ultra of literary field. Even talented people like D H Lawrence failed to understand that literature is not all about noble feelings and criticized him for sticking to basest human feelings. Lawrence remarked ‘He is rat, slithering along in hate’. Few others imputed Dostoevsky’s description of base feelings to his nostalgie de la boue. I have read almost all his major works and I recognize that these base feelings are real crisis of existence for Dostoevsky and as the consequence had been his idee fixe . I feel his greatness lies in his uncanny ability to plunge deep into human psyche while others in attempt fumble and flop and touch only at surface. Most of his works don’t fall into the conventional definition of novel. ‘Notes from underground’ also known as ‘Letters from under world’ is such a work. Protagonist’s inaugural words “I am a sick man, I am a spiteful man” draws a picture of mentally sick man rather than physical one. Although he further narrates ‘My liver is diseased’ yet his declaration ‘I am a sick man’ connotes his mental sickness. His further description of himself supports it. He is a egoistic man. I have observed that a sensitive and vulnerable person becomes egoistic .Our egoistic nature is guard against our vulnerable ness. I am sure a careful study of human nature will lead many of you to same conclusion. Protagonist too is oversensitive and vulnerable; At the one point he says ‘I, for instance, have a great deal of amour propre. I am as suspicious and prone to take offence as a humpback or a dwarf’. He broods over many trifles. He is so much concerned about trifles that these don’t seem to be a crisis of existence for him but a part of a normal way of his life. In this story protagonist is a man of many contradictions , a characteristic trait of many Dostoevsky’s characters .I am not surprised if his works were regarded as doubles. This work can’t be compared with his great works, namely,’ Brothers Karamazov’ and ‘Crime & Punishment’but this is worth reading. You’ll not feel soothing effect of good story rather you will feel agitated when you read this story. But I am sure this is not the reason anyone will avoid Dostoevsky’s works.

And Quiet Flows The Don

This novel contains all elements essential for a good piece of literature but its strong points are characterization of Grigory Melekhov and the beautiful depiction of the events on which Grigory's character develops from a countryside youth to a man devastated by war .Character of Grigory Melekhov represents the highest form of contradiction possible in any human being. while reading novel we wonder whether he is a good person , a true lover or just a philanderer.But at these times Sholokhov is not to be blamed ,we all are blameworthy for our conditioned attitude of dichotomy of life into good or bad. I should accept candidly that I am still in dilemma over Grigory's character. If I can count the number of his heroic deeds ,there are innumerable instances showing his villainous face .Once he remarks to Aksinya 'why Should I be afraid of him ?You're his wife ,it is for you to be afraid of him'.And Sholokhov describes all this with his wonderful imagination.At the few places his depiction has become so vivid that it seemed to me that author is drawing an exact picture of scene with accurate words. You surely will find many beautiful paragraphs in the novel .Here is just one of my favourite .. ' A tear was trickling between her first and middle fingers. A broken sunray gleamed on the transparent drop ,and dried its damp trace on her skin.......... Grigory could not endure tears ,he fidgeted impatiently ,ruthlessly brushed a brown ant from his trousers.' Aksinya's death reminded me few lines from Oscar Wilde's famous 'The ballad of reading gaol' where he says 'Yet each man kills the thing he loves, By each let this be heard ' It is very difficult for me to restrain my urge to write down more about novel yet I feel that will not be good for any one who wants to read novel for it'll spoil all the fun that comes with serendipity. Read all the four Parts.

Mayor Of Casterbridge

This novel too represents Thomas hardy's belief that destiny is more powerful than human efforts.In this novel portrayal of protagonist's destruction has been so effective that readers are shocked in the end.What is uncommon if Jude failed,there is always a chance of failure for a man choosing new path of life ? What if Guile's love was not reciprocated ,there is always a chance of it for silent love ? but Henchard fails because he was destined to die as a wretched ,poor,hopeless creature.Depiction of Henchrad's gradual destruction makes reader suffer with his sufferings.Everything goes against him ;first he is emotionally destitute person with the knowledge of Elizabeth not being his daughter then financial downfall with the bankruptcy and he had to work under his own erstwhile manager.Yet juggernaut of destiny does not stop here ,his destruction is yet to be completed with the end of all his hopes .One particular incident of his life and his affair with Lucetta come within public knowledge and ends all his popularity .In the end his last hope Jane also leaves him. Henchard's sufferings end only with his death. Is this Thomas Hardy's pessimism that there is no hope and forgiveness for humankind ? In real sense no ,Hardy was able to recognise what would be going through his reader's mind and everytime reverse happened .otherwise these stories would have been a simple optimistic stories lacking Hardy's all expertness.Men are always victims of fate ,is it punishment for going against morality or man-made laws ? In 'jude the obscure' Sue thinks this as the reason for the death of her children .Michael Henchard too is a sinner for selling his wife but I feel his punishment is much for his crime .Some people won't be agree with me .Anyway ,decide yourself by reading novel.Just one small advice that if you are an emotional person don't read this book for you'll be overwhelmed with the grief for many days.

Wuthering Heights

Wuthering Heights

No wonder if this novel reminded me Edgar Allan Poe’s stories especially ‘The fall of the house of the usher’ for it too is marked by the art of the single effect which is widely regarded as Poe’s contribution to modern story writing. Many years before publication of Allan Poe’s first story ,Bronte used similar techniques of few characters and completely isolated place for effective presentation of ‘evilness’. She maintains her firm grip on story from the very first scene where Lockwood meets Heathcliff ;A reader is appalled by Heathcliff’s cold behaviour towards former .He remarks to Lockwood ‘Thrushcross Grange is my own, sir. I should not allow anyone to inconvenience me if I could hinder it-Walk in’. His behaviour is so odd that this novel suits to be qualified as a compulsive page-turner. But this is just an introduction of evil that is going to be revealed to a reader through a dialogue between Lockwood and Mrs. Dean. As the story progresses a reader feels that haunting evilness has enveloped both the places Wuthering Heights and Thrushcross Grange and nothing is left uncorrupted by madman’s unsuccessful love. Heathcliff’s servant Joseph himself seems to be a symbol representing human vices. In his passion for Catherine, Heathcliff has crossed the fine line between madness and passion. After Catherine’s death he says ‘I pray one prayer-I repeat it till my tongue stiffens –Catherine ,may you not rest as long as I am living ! you said I killed you –haunt me ,then! The murdered do haunt their murderers. …Be with me always-take any form –drive me mad! Only do not leave me in this abyss ,where I can not find you’! I feel that Heathcliff’s passion for Catherine is not what we regard as a love .He is a beast in human-form.He is responsible for his son’s death (and in some way Catherine’s death too) but above all he is a sinner for rearing Hareton in such a way that he is more like a animal than human being.How a man like Heathcliff who is completely devoid of human virtues can be capable of loving anyone. It seemed to me that evilness amplified itself by getting the power through unfulfilled desire .Had it been the love,He would have been a better person atleast after Catherine’s death.Whatever his feelings may be ,novel is worth of reading .It is a pity that Emily Bronte has written only one novel.

Sons and Lovers

"Sonss And Lovers "(W H Lawrence)

'Well, are you coming now or later?' 'Are you going 'a'ready
for?' He lamented. 'You need not come if you don’t want; she said
And she went slowly away with her little girl whilst her son stood
watching her,cut to the heart to let her go, and yet unable to leave the
wakes. So mother dominates her child’s heart from beginning. This
is natural too.But this control is not weakened till mother’s
death. Mother’s love becomes bane of her son’s life. Mrs.
Morel despises her husband Walter .Walter Morel does not care for his
family. Scenes of altercation between husband and wife are common in
their house.She finds solace in her sons. Elder son William is very dear
to him. After William’s death younger son Paul becomes her entire
world. Son too is passionately fond of his mother. He falls in love with
Miriam. Their love is different from normal people’s love. I can't
fancy a young man talking to his lover about religion and God .Oh,
Morel only if you knew there were better things to do with girl you are in
love with and could enjoy life. I feel the reason for this platonic relationship between Paul and Miriam is Paul’s excessive love for his mother. Her son’s
affair upsets mother. She feels that her enire world is going to be
ruined. In young man’s life crisis begins here. Paul can’t
see his mother unhappy yet he is unable to stop meeting with Miriam and
later Clara. He is tormented by these inner conflicting desires. He
strives to win free from his mother’s possessive love. But in the
end mother’s possessive love proves stronger than any ties and Paul
comes back to his mother. After his mother's death he is left alone in
the world. Sons and Lovers is considered Lawrence’s best work. This
novel is widely known for being his semi autobiography and having Oedipus
complex as its central theme.

Brothers Karamazov

Brothers Karamazov (Fyodor Doestoveysky)

Russia’s evil genius Fyodor Dostoevsky makes a final attempt in the
Brothers Karamazov to solve all his lifelong philosophical and
psychological problems. And result is Brothers Karamazov ne plus ultra
of literary field. Whether it is his obscession God or quest for
positively perfect person , he has touched everything. First few
chapters are clearly marked by central point of his thoughts .Ivan
‘second Karamazov brother’ remarks ‘everything is
permitted if there is no God’ at the other point someone says
‘If there is no God ,we need to invent one’ . Very famous
legend of grand inquisitor shows writer’s profound philosophical
insight. Dostovesky’s quest for positively perfect person does not
end in prince Myshkin of Idiot. Alyosha is his new prince Myshkin . Though
Alyosha too is novice yet unlike Myshkin he does not seem to be
insane. While plumbing into the psyche, Doestoyevsky forgets to maintain continuity
of story but in the Brothers Karamazov different parts of story are
finely integrated into a structure. Even digressions add up to the
integrity of the main story. .In novel old Karamazov is murdered by his
illegitimate son. Dostoevsky’s father was murdered by his own surf.
I am a diehard admirer of Dostovesky but I too feel that his lietrature
lacks purpose or reason for behaviour of characters ,only few works have
logic for insane behaviour of characters otherwise prince Myshkin is
only reminds me a person fit for lunatic asylum. May be that I am not
talented enough to judge him. Albert Einstein said 'He gives me more than
any scientist, more than Gauss'
" Bothers Karamazov " is considered Doestoyevsky's best novel but I
my favourite is his Crime and Punishment.