Showing posts with label The Cozy Book Corner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Cozy Book Corner. Show all posts

Monday, February 27, 2017

The Cozy Book Corner No. 12: Dystopian Fiction and Its Current Relevance, Part I



Welcome to my Monday 
bookish feature!

In each weekly post, I explore 
my thoughts on several 
book-related topics.




https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18079524-it-can-t-happen-here



The disastrous, pernicious effects of the 2016 election results are being felt by everyone in this country, although some refuse to acknowledge them as being, in fact, just that: pernicious. 

Donald J. Trump, who so obviously and thoroughly used to enjoy telling his reality show participants, "You're fired!" (yes, the glee was evident on his face) is now the president of this great country. From "The Apprentice" and "Celebrity Apprentice" to the White House....how insane is that?! However, Trump has always shown his true colors. He's a classic narcissist who loves power and control. Now, unfortunately, he has it. Totally. I say "totally" because it's very evident that few in the GOP are opposing him. Perhaps, and hopefully, that situation will soon change, especially if solid proof emerges of Trump's ties with Putin. 

Unbelievably, this country is now being led by a man who has a personality disorder, a man who tolerates no opposition, a man who attacks the media simply because they are reporting the truth about his own "fake news", his own "alternative facts".

I am totally amazed that these things are happening in these United States of America. 

In the wake of the sweeping chaos created by "The Trump Tsunami", I've discovered that the popularity of dystopian novels such as Brave New World and 1984 has soared. Indeed, this has been pointed out in several articles on the Web, such as the one by Madeline Raynor at EW, published on January 31, 2017. In this article, titled "Classic dystopian novels' popularity surges in Trump's America", Raynor names the novels that are selling out on Amazon, as a result of the madness we're seeing coming from the White House.

The Number One spot is held by George Orwell's 1984. While this novel is a satirical look at socialist, and not fascist, totalitarianism, the main theme is that "Big Brother is watching you", and thus, one cannot express one's views freely. This is a salient feature of all dictatorships, be they of the Left or the Right. Views opposing those of the reigning regime are stifled, silenced. 

We have certainly seen the stifling of opposition by the Trump administration, and very recently, too. Respected journalistic entities such as CNN and "The New York Times" were recently banned by Trump sycophant Sean Spicer from an informal White House briefing, known as a "gaggle". Trump considers CNN and "The New York Times", as well as other so-called "liberal" (translation: objective) news media, to be purveyors of "fake news", for the simple reason that they criticize his policies. In his paranoid egotism however, he perceives them as merely being personally  "antagonistic" toward him. Conservative news media were, however, invited to attend the briefing, precisely because they support his policies, whether or not they are unfair and cruel. This points to a stifling of opposing views, and an endorsement of those views that line up with the Trump administration's take on reality. 

The second book mentioned in the Raynor article is It Can't Happen Here, by Sinclair Lewis, which I have just purchased from Amazon. The Goodreads synopsis reads, in part, as follows: "A cautionary tale about the fragility of democracy, it is an alarming, eerily timeless look at how fascism could take hold in America. Written during the Great Depression, when the country was largely oblivious to Hitler’s aggression, it juxtaposes sharp political satire with the chillingly realistic rise of a president who becomes a dictator to save the nation from welfare cheats, sex, crime, and a liberal press. Called “a message to thinking Americans” by the Springfield Republican when it was published in 1935, It Can’t Happen Here is a shockingly prescient novel that remains as fresh and contemporary as today’s news."

From the quote above, it seems chillingly evident that Lewis actually wrote a prophetic novel, as his main character bears a frightening, and very close resemblance, to Donald Trump. Indeed, one reviewer on Goodreads, Michael Finocchiaro, pointed out, in his review of Lewis's novel, that " all the bookshops there had Roth's The Plot Against America and It Can't Happen Here by Sinclair Lewis." (He's referring to bookstores in London.) You can check out his entire review in the link below.

What strikes me the most about the Goodreads synopsis is this part of the quote: "....with the chillingly realistic rise of a president who becomes a dictator to save the nation from welfare cheats, sex, crime, and a liberal press." This sounds too similar to Trump's agenda for comfort. While Trump has not concentrated his so-called "reforms" on sex, the other parts of this quote do indeed sound eerily like some of his campaign promises. He, too, wants to get rid of "welfare cheats", as well as "crime" (in the person of illegal immigrants), and "a liberal press." Bingo! Lewis must have had a crystal ball hidden somewhere in his closet.

Here's another incredibly prescient, highly relevant quote, this one directly from Lewis's novel: "I know the Press only too well. Almost all editors hide away in spider-dens, men without thought of Family or Public Interest or the humble delights of jaunts out-of-doors, plotting how they can put over their lies, and advance their own positions and fill their greedy pocketbooks by calumniating Statesmen who have given their all for the common good and who are vulnerable because they stand out in the fierce Light that beats around the Throne. Zero Hour, Berzelius Windrip.”

I got chills up my spine as I read this. It sounds remarkably like Trump's attacks on the American press. The tone of paranoia and even contempt is very much the same. This is truly amazing, as this novel was first published in 1935. Yet, here we are, in 2017, seeing it become a reality!

In third place on Raynor's list is Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley. First published in 1932, this novel envisions a world in which there are no nations, but a World State in which everyone is "happy", due to the use of drugs, brainwashing, and genetic engineering. The year in which the events in the novel take place is 2540 AD. I don't think, however, that such a dire situation would actually become a reality in this country, at least, with Trump at the helm. He's just too much of a nationalist for this scenario to actually become real. Future presidents, though, could bring us closer to this horrible future. But at present, perhaps this book doesn't represent much of a prophetic warning to Americans.

In fourth place in Raynor's article is The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Ashwood. In this novel, which I have been wanting to read for some time now, there's a totalitarian state that actually assigns certain fertile women -- known as "handmaids" to certain men, for the express purpose of having children with them, as fertility rates are very low in this future society.

Although the above scenario sounds like a nightmare, as sex is totally divorced from love and family, and engaged in only as "a duty to humanity", I really don't see this as ever happening in this country, or anywhere else in the world, for that matter. First of all, something would have to cause fertility rates to fall. Then, the whole structure of our society would have to be drastically modified in order to force fertile women to have sex with men they neither love nor wish to commit to. What kind of something could have such an effect on world fertility rates? Besides, we Americans have always been averse to theocracies such as the one depicted in this novel. Surely our constitution would ensure that this type of government never took hold here. Right? Right? On the other hand, I don't know.... The Alt-Right now seems to have come into its own, alarmingly enough. And Christian Fundamentalism is unfortunately pretty much aligned with the extreme right-wing values of this group, as well as those of the Tea Party. So one does have to wonder.....

Of the four novels mentioned above, I think the one that most closely predicts, and mirrors, our present situation is It Can't Happen Here. In light of current events, this title is also most ironic, because, sadly, it IS happening here. Raynor even references a Salon article by Malcolm Harris, published on September 29, 2015, and titled, "It really can happen here: The novel that foreshadowed Trump's authoritarian appeal". There's a very telling quote from this article in Raynor's own. In it, Harris states: “With his careful mix of plainspoken honesty and reactionary delusion, Trump is following an old rhetorical playbook, one defined and employed successfully in the 1936 presidential campaign of Senator Berzelius ‘Buzz’ Windrip.” Indeed!

There's another dystopian novel I'd like to point out, although perhaps it doesn't completely mimic what's currently going on in the chaotic tangle that is the Trump White House. It's Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. In this incredibly powerful novel, which I've read and reviewed (I have not read the ones mentioned above), books are completely forbidden, in the interests of keeping the masses happy and numbed to anything that would create dissension. There are firemen in the book, but their task, instead of saving lives, is that of rooting out hidden book collections, for the purpose of burning them.

Given Trump's penchant for attacking those who disagree with him, who knows but that this might actually happen in the not-so-distant future, except not quite in the way envisioned by Bradbury. In fact, this unbalanced man might go as far as to seize total control of the Internet, as well as of all publications, whether magazines, newspapers, printed books, and ebooks. It sounds like a totally nightmarish scenario, but we thought someone like Trump would only remain a fictional character in a novel written back in the 1930s by one Sinclair Lewis.....

As this is a topic of high current relevance, I will have to continue exploring it in a subsequent post next week. I hope to bring up more dystopian novels that contain totalitarian elements, and thus, are currently MUST READS.


Online Links






What are your thoughts 
on this topic?
Please leave a comment
and let me know!







Monday, November 7, 2016

The Cozy Book Corner No. 11: Writers' Choices of Top Ten Greatest Books of All Time



Welcome to my Monday 
bookish feature!

In each weekly post, I explore 
my thoughts on several 
book-related topics.





My email provider, Compuserve.com (actually associated with AOL), has a home page containing links to many interesting -- as well as not so interesting -- articles. The ones I find most interesting are those dealing with either scientific research or psychological data. However, just the other day I came across one dealing with a literary topic. Specifically, it concerned a writers' list of the top 10 greatest books of all time. 

The first thing I noticed about this list was that there were actually TWO lists of "Top 10 Books" mentioned in the article. The first one was for 20th-century authors, while the second one was for 19th-century authors. This seemed too arbitrary to me. If any list of "greatest books of all time" is to be compiled, then why limit it only to the last two centuries? Weren't there other great books written in previous centuries?

It turned out that these lists were excerpts from the book, The Top Ten: Writers Pick Their Favorite Books, by J. Peder Zane. This book is available for purchase on Amazon; the article discusses the two lists mentioned. 

According to the article, as well as the Amazon synopsis, one hundred twenty-five of today's greatest writers were asked to submit titles. Writers such as Norman Mailer and Joyce Carol Oates are mentioned among the 125 names. 

I seriously think that compiling such lists is an exercise in futility, because personal biases cannot be ruled out, especially where writers are concerned.

I was appalled and surprised to see Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita at the very top of the list of "greatest" 20th-century literary works. Then there's the 'definitive' list, titled, "The Top Top Ten List". I have excerpted it below. The novel Lolita is in fourth place on this list. (The list can be viewed by opening the Amazon preview reader for this book, clicking on "Table of Contents", and then clicking on the title below.)

The Top Top Ten List 
(from The Top Ten: Writers Pick Their Favorite Books, by J. Peder Zane)

1.)  Anna Karenina, by Leo Tolstoy
2.)  Madame Bovary, by Gustave Flaubert
3.)  War and Peace, by Leo Tolstoy
4.)  Lolita, by Vladimir Nabokov
5.) The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain
6.)   Hamlet, by William Shakespeare
7.)   The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald
8.)   In Search of Lost Time, by Marcel Proust
9.)   The Stories of Anton Chekhov
10.) Middlemarch, by George Eliot   

While I have never read the Nabokov novel, I have for a long time had a cursory knowledge of it. In the interests of fairness, I therefore looked up the Wikipedia article on it. Such articles always contain a plot synopsis of the novels in question. 

The plot of this novel involves pedophilia. There's no doubt about it. The male protagonist, who has the ridiculous name, Humbert Humbert, is a middle-aged literary scholar who becomes totally infatuated with a 12-year-old girl, whom he privately nicknames "Lolita". One disgusting scene briefly described in the novel involves Humbert secretly ejaculating in his pants while Lolita is sitting on his lap. 

In short, this novel is merely a reprehensible glorification of pedophilia, an act that is considered a crime in today's society. I fail to see the logic in lauding this novel on the one hand, and vigorously criticizing the Catholic Church's attempts to cover up its own cases of pedophilia by its priests. But this is probably what some of these writers have done, although perhaps unwittingly.

For some strange reason, erotica is considered by many writers to be a legitimate form of literature. Why this should be so is a total mystery to me. Reducing human behavior to sexuality, and portraying this in so-called 'literature' actually reduces such behavior to an animalistic level. Humans are more than mere animals. Erotica is nothing more or less than literary pornography. Why, then, should it be so highly valued?

Going back to the "definitive list", there are also some very obvious omissions. I must ask, where are the novels of Hemingway and Steinbeck, for instance? Surely books such as A Farewell to Arms and The Grapes of Wrath should have been included on this list of all lists. While I must admit to not having read either of these novels, they have a very strong reputation among literary critics.   

Further compounding the problem is the fact that there is very little diversity on this list. Where, for instance, are the novels of The Harlem Renaissance? Surely Their Eyes Were Watching God, by Zora Neale Hurston, should have been included. What about The Color Purple, by Alice Walker, and Beloved, by Toni Morrison? What about Black Boy, by Richard Wright? And there's only ONE female writer included on this so-called 'definitive' list -- George Eliot, who, at first glance, appears to be a male. And what happened to Austen, and the Brontë  sisters?

Speaking of female writers, why haven't there been any novels by women dealing with the female experience? Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary are examples of the misogynistic portrayal of women as unfaithful, manipulative, and shallow, and both novels end in tragedy for these female characters. Why include novels that obviously denigrate women? I did try to read the Tolstoy novel a couple of years ago, and could not finish it, as it was just too repugnant to me. As for the Flaubert novel, I have read the Wikipedia synopsis, and totally detest the stereotypical depiction of the central, female character.   

Since Shakespeare and Eliot have been included on this "Top Top Ten" list, I would have to ask about the non-inclusion of other great British writers, such as Thomas Hardy, Joseph Conrad, and Anthony Trollope. Or are they not considered "great"? 

There are SO many omissions on this so-called "Top Top Ten List" it's totally incredible. Many Nobel Prize winners are totally missing, which is unpardonable. Hemingway won the Nobel in 1954, for The Old Man and the Sea, while Steinbeck won it in 1962, "for his realistic and imaginative writings, combining as they do sympathetic humour and keen social perception". Where is Hermann Hesse? This German writer won the Nobel Prize in 1946, for his masterpiece titled Magister Ludi, also known as The Glass Bead Game. Another writer of note is William Faulkner, who received the 1949 Nobel "for his powerful and artistically unique contribution to the modern American novel". I've read Faulkner's Light In August; surely it should have been mentioned on the "Top Top Ten" list. Why, oh, why, weren't any of these novels and writers included on this 'definitive' list? (The quotes above are from the website nobelprize.org; please see links below.)

There are several more glaring omissions: fantasy and science fiction writers are not represented on the "Top Top Ten" list. What about Kurt Vonnegut? How about J.R.R. Tolkien, Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, Robert Heinlein, and Arthur C. Clarke? Surely these writers deserve to be considered "great"! They have each written masterpieces, and not just one each, but several. Certainly Slaughterhouse Five, Fahrenheit 451, The Lord of the Rings, The Foundation Trilogy, Stranger In A Strange Land, and 2001: A Space Odyssey should have made this list.   

I see nothing wrong with each individual writer making up their own list, but I do object to the choices for the 'definitive' list. Also, I think it's very arbitrary to have ONLY TEN books on this list. Why only ten? There are literally hundreds of brilliant writers across the centuries. It seems to me that a definitive list of ONE HUNDRED greatest books would be MUCH more appropriate. If that sounds like too many, then perhaps fifty would be fine. But certainly not only ten.

In short,  it seems much more in the interests of fairness and objectivity to me to pick the 50, or 100 greatest books based on a compilation of the lists of these 125 writers. Surely THAT many writers should be able to agree on at least 50 greatest literary works!

I know this post sounds like a review of a book that I haven't even read. It's just that, on the very surface, there are obviously some very objectionable things going on, and I'm sure I'll find more when I actually read the book, if I ever do. If I end up reading it, I would then also like to search out other books with similar lists, to see what other compilers have to say on the subject. As far as Zane and his interviewed writers go, they are by no means the last word on this subject. While it's true that writers can judge the quality of other writers' work, again, they can be just as biased as any of the most highly respected literary critics, or, ironically, any of us readers, for that matter.



Online Links
 (Amazon link)



What are your thoughts 
on this topic?
Please leave a comment
and let me know!