Friday, May 31, 2013

wives and daughters

***no worries, no spoilers… no big ones, anyway***

Two years ago, almost to the date, I graduated from high school. In celebration of said graduation, I received a lot of cash, checks, gift cards, chocolate… basically every form of currency you can think of (except salt, and sea shells—nobody gave me any of those). But here and there mixed in with the money were actual presents, most memorably a 4-foot-long bamboo shoot full of ants and a really, really scary looking book. Hallmark Valentine’s Day pink and a good two inches thick, Elizabeth Gaskell’s Wives and Daughters did not look like the sort of book I wanted to pick up for pre-college summer reading. At all.

So it sat on my bookshelf for two years, almost to the date, before I picked it up and just started reading. I, as a rule, ignore introductions to classics written by anyone other than the author (they often give things away) and, if possible, any summary of it on anything from the library website to the dust jacket (which tend to contain sentences like ‘[Title Character] is a woman who has an affair, loses her child, and then, in despair, throws herself under a train.’ thanks for ruining everything). O, that I had read the dust jacket of Wives and Daughters! Then I would have known that the author died about 4 chapters short of finishing the already-650-page-monstrosity! But I didn’t read the dust jacket until I was about 500 pages in, which is way too late to give up even if you know you’re going to be disappointed at the end.

Anyway. Aside from my frustration at making it through without totality of resolution, I enjoyed this novel. Elizabeth Gaskell tends to be shoved behind the curtain of her contemporaries (she lived and wrote after Jane Austen and slightly before the Bronte sisters and George Eliot), but her writing style is engaging and quietly witty, if not as pithy as Austen or quotable as Eliot.

Most of Gaskell’s success is not in the minutiae of wordsmithy. Rather, she does what terribly few authors even attempt to do, and paints reasonable, fully-fleshed portraits of women as they exist in normal life, and in relationships with other women not revolving around men. Think about it. How many female friendships do you see in literature where the driving concern in everybody’s conversation is not their respective love lives? Granted, Gaskell goes there eventually, but in 650 pages there’s a lot of room for discussion of other things.

I will admit right now: there is not much plot in this book. It’s all about these women and their relationships (which is why they could still publish it sans-last-four-chapters). I had planned to do a book-summary-like-post, but as that would be boring, instead have some disjointed reactions to the characters:

Molly Gibson, the protagonist, is probably the woman in literature whose personality is enough like mine that I feel like I ought to be like her, but far enough away from mine that this is an absolutely impossible endeavor. She’s altogether good; there is no other way to put it. She does nothing spectacularly heroic (hence, ‘enough like me’), but she is also perpetually gentle and never does anything spectacularly—or slightly—selfish, annoying, or, um, wrong (hence, ‘impossible endeavor’). You may be thinking, ‘But Katie! You said Gaskell’s portraits were reasonable!’ Okay, so maybe she’s a little flat. But she isn’t perfect… she is occasionally manipulative, often anxious, and always naïve. Still. I’d say impossible.

I think the book would have failed if not for Molly’s relationship with her stepsister, Cynthia. Cynthia is a brilliantly drawn character (no flatness whatsoever, and rather a lot of sarcasm for the 1830s), and the genuine/realistically rocky friendship that comes out of two 17-year-old girls thrown together does not seem forced or contrived. And they don’t just talk about boys all the time. I’m still amazed. Gaskell compares Molly and Cynthia to Una and Duessa, respectively, and I can’t tell you how thrilled I was not to have to look at the footnotes to understand what she was talking about! Yay pre-1700 English classes! #nerdjoy

The best part of Wives and Daughters, though, is Molly’s stepmother. Oh my goodness. She’s worse than Mrs. Bennett. She is somehow simultaneously vapid and conniving, careless and meddling, and (as you might expect from such a character) constantly contradicting herself. Out of the whole book, the only quote I felt compelled to record on my index card bookmark was regarding her:
Her words were always like ready-made clothes, and never fitted individual thoughts. 
Her speech is full of platitudes and half-lies. She is the perfect semi-modern evil stepmother. She is so insecure and manipulative that by the end you positively loathe her, even though you’re sure she’s useful for something. She’s shrewd and dresses well, at least.

So yes, there’s that. I would recommend reading it, if you don't mind the disappointing non-ending. It's fairly light, and the characters are interesting and relatable, but you can still appear super intellectual reading it in public... if only because it's old and nobody has ever heard of Elizabeth Gaskell.

What have I learned from this book?

  1. Don’t die 93% of the way through writing a novel. 
  2. Read the dust jacket if the book is over 200 pages long.
  3. A good book doesn’t need an exciting plot.
  4. Women don’t only talk about men, even in early 19th century literature. 
um, the end.

Monday, May 27, 2013

on the english language

As annoying and inefficient as it can be, I love the English language—it is my heart language. It is the language I think, speak, and pray. It is ‘the language of Shakespeare and Milton and The Bible,’ according to one Professor Henry Higgins.

Henry Higgins is my hero. I love him. When we read Pygmalion in 11th grade English class, and there were four of us and four parts to read, I always read Higgins’ part. He’s the paragon of total academic competency and utter social uselessness. He is the caricature of the person I sometimes fear I am. So, of course, there is much commentary in the play on human interaction, healthy relationship, character formation, &c. &c. And, of course, I am going to ignore all of that for now, because I’d rather rant about the problem of the English language. As George Bernard Shaw puts it in the preface,
The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it. They spell it so abominably that no man can teach himself what it sounds like. It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him. German and Spanish are accessible to foreigners: English is not accessible even to Englishmen. 
That is: there is something really flawed about the way we treat our language if we can grow up around and be taught by 98% native speakers and still speak & write at a level that would mark us as somewhat-less-than-fluent… or somewhat-less-than-literate?

I’ve been overly sensitive to language misuse all week, having emerged from the ‘University of Notre Dame English Major Bubble of Happiness and Good Grammar’ into the real world. Things like the sign outside the local psychic’s office advertising ‘Candles, Cards, and Incents,’ or my sister stuttering through conditionals like “If only I didn’t’ve… hadn’t’ve… didn’t not…” merit an eyeroll and probably a tongue-in-cheek text to a friend. Any misplacement of an apostrophe earns instant judgment. Any mispronunciation of a word provokes instant correction. And that does not just apply to my sister or some street sign written by a stranger. I can control it verbally, but in my head? It’s a good thing most of my acquaintances are not psychics, and I never met the sign-writer who is.

Perhaps my reading has not been too helpful. Between the acerbic Higgins and the decisive Claudia Kincaid, I am reading myself into characters, and projecting them onto myself. …So, yes, finally, after about 3 years of laziness and resistance to recommendations from multiple friends, I read From the Mixed-up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler. Yes, it is a children’s book. Yes, Claudia Kincaid might be the literary character most like myself I have ever read. I was struck to the core when I was reading her interactions with her younger brother:
‘Of all the sissy ways to run away and of all the sissy places to run away to…’ Jamie mumbled.
He didn’t mumble quite softly enough. Claudia turned on him, ‘Run away to? How can you run away and to? What kind of language is that?’ Claudia asked.
‘The American language,’ Jamie answered. 
Not only is this a perfect picture of how I respond to attempted insults (if they are not properly phrased, clearly the person insulting me is not intelligent enough to have an opinion that would impact me—so I shan’t waste time on the content of the statement when I could be parsing it instead), it answers my problem with as much sass as I could ever hope to pose it.

Leave the English language to the English. If I want to speak it properly, I’d be better off in York than New York, in Coventry than Cleveland. I can go on affecting the sort of archaic English that would effect an even snootier façade than I already have (and which uses ‘affect’ and ‘effect’ both as verbs, correctly, spiting every professor who disagrees with me). Or I can bow under ‘the American language.’ As Higgins says (not in Shaw’s depiction, but in the musical), there are ‘places where English completely disappears. In America, they haven't used it for years!’ Perhaps we oughtn’t to pretend we do.

And perhaps that’s the solution. If a spelling or grammar rule is useless to communicating effectively and efficiently, why do we stick by it? Why is asking my mother to ‘come to the store with Kristen and I’ any worse than asking her to ‘come to the store with Kristen and me,’ when clearly she knows exactly what I mean by the first? Why must I bother to comment on the ‘candies’ I like best, when discussing my favorite ‘candy’s’ is equally intelligible?

Pretty soon everybody would write like they speak, and they already speak according to the media they consume and the face they wish to put on to the world. To spell words the way we most often encounter them (and if that is in spoken language, to spell them the way we hear them) and parse our pronouns in whatever way comes fastest… that accomplishes the aim of grammar and spelling! It makes communication with other people who speak our language more natural, more uniform, and more intelligible. If the way we write is the way we speak, the people to whom we speak would be able to read our writing much more easily. You try to read a page of Shakespeare with the same speed and ease with which you read two pages of Facebook statuses. You can’t. He is using all of the rules of grammar and spelling—but his sentences are not natural to you. It is not your language.

Is English the language of Milton, Shakespeare, and the Bible?

The last one is questionable, but let’s say yes.

Do we speak English?

Maybe not.

So... if people write like they speak, and speak according to the media they consume and the face they wish to put on to the world, how do we propose to achieve any sort of consistency in the colloquially-born ‘American’ language? We can’t. The segments of the English language would stratify and soon become as foreign to each other as Chaucer and Nicki Minaj. Each slang would solidify into its own language. I think George Eliot caught the conundrum in Middlemarch, even then, 150 years ago:
All choice of words is slang. It marks a class… correct English is the slang of prigs who write history and essays. And the strongest slang of all is the slang of poets.
Perhaps the reason we pretend to have grammar and spelling rules is to prevent a second Tower of Babel. If we let them go, we would soon have not one but 20 American languages. Worse, we should be as clearly marked by and forever relegated to the language we were born into, not in the way a backwoods Southerner is now marked from a highbrow New Englander, but in the way a Russian-speaking peasant would have been marked and divided from a French-speaking aristocrat, living 5 miles apart from each other.

Maybe I ought to stop correcting my friends and acquaintances anyway. As long as we all recognize that my English is the correct one, you can deviate all you like…

Just kidding.

Did I mention I’m tutoring ESL this summer? I’ll be putting some effort forth to find the line of ‘grace and truth,’ as well as solidifying exactly what that ‘truth’ is. My great-uncle tutors ESL students in accents, and he has identified some weaknesses of mine as far as basic pronunciation goes—and goodness knows I like to end sentences with prepositions. So maybe I’ll end the summer speaking better English than I do now, and being more gracious to those who don’t. That would be nice.


PS- I am making good progress on the Unalterable List Of Katie's Goals Which Will Be Accomplished... and then some. Behold, the books I have completed since leaving school last Saturday (and please nobody tell my English professors that I do things like this willingly, or they might do silly things like ask me to read Wives and Daughters in 4 days):


Look for thoughts on that last book I mentioned, sometime later this week!

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

a summer-full of words

This summer, I came home from college to find my family in a new house, a new state, a new circle of people. And so, this summer, for lack of anything better to do, I think I shall be spending a lot of time studying.

...what?
The intellect is vagabond, and our system of education fosters restlessness. Our minds travel when our bodies are forced to stay at home. We imitate; and what is imitation but the travelling of the mind?
-Ralph Waldo Emerson 
It sounds abysmally boring, using my one break from school to study more, but I think I'll be better and less restless for it.

I like language, a lot. I won't be so pretentious as to say "I like languages" when I really only know one and two halves (and that, unfortunately, does not equate to "two"). Armed then with English, a bit of Latin, and a slightly bigger bit of Russian, I now begin my summer goals, most of which I think tend towards an end idea of understanding words/language/literature better.

Katie's Summer Goals
  • Shadow ESL classes at the community college
    • Gain the professor's respect enough that she lets me do something useful in class by the end of the semester
    •  Learn more about community college life by picking up "Community" as my summer bad habit of choice
  • Find a job that pays money
    • Take that job
    • Do not spend the money on frivolous things
  • Read books edifying to my intellect
    • Brideshead Revisited, Evelyn Waugh 
    • Spirit of the Liturgy, Joseph Ratzinger 
    • 1984, George Orwell 
    • Story of a Soul, Therese of Lisieux
    • Tale of Two Cities, Charles Dickens 
    • The Cost of Discipleship, Dietrich Bonhoeffer
    • Wives and Daughters, Elizabeth Gaskell
    • Every Good Endeavor, Tim Keller
    • Lolita, by Nabokov
    • Various poems by Державин, Ломоносов, & Пушкин
  • Read books not quite so edifying to my intellect
    • The Princess and Curdie, George Macdonald
    • Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card
    • Life of Pi, Yann Martel
    • Time and Again, by Jack Finney
    • Mark Twain short stories
  • Write some sort of reflection on my experiential and/or book learning at least once a week
  • Take three consecutive internet-free hours every day, exclusive of the hours when I'm working
  • Write a libretto for Braeden's oratorio of The Great Divorce
  • Sew myself an elf cloak

And that, dear internet, is what this blog must keep me accountable to. I must post at least once a week to comment on things I have been reading or doing, or maybe just thinking. There will probably also be some pretentious and/or snarky sonnets thrown in here too, because I have discovered just how fun those are to write.

I want to get moving. Sitting around at home does not suit me. My mind must travel far and fast to make up for my sedentary, stationary physical life.

And now, a picture of a squirrel: