the dilletante's guide to sounding well read

as many of you may know from reading meeg's 'too much information', he and i have been having this ongoing conversation about books that everyone claims to have read, but no one has actually read them. these are the books that i feel come up at some dinner party or something and everyone throws their opinion in about them. suddenly, you find yourself looking at these people and making bets with yourself about how few of them have ever even seen the book, much less read it. so, i've come up with a list of books that i think everyone claims to have read, but probably has not, and i am here to provide a brief cliff-note like discussion of them so that next time you find yourself at that dinner party people will be thinking that you are one of the few who has ACTUALLY read the book.

1. The Stranger by Albert Camus- now, the reason i've picked this one is because a) it's one of my personal faves and b) i think that it's a good entre into any discussion being had about existentialism. the story is about a man named meursault (which no one will remember- i've read the book a dozen times and i just had to look up his name). the book primarily deals with the theme of morality and guilt. through this weird and random series of events (having to do with a jilted lover, a neighbor, a knife fight, and the glare of the sun on the beach) meursault ends up shooting an arab man (this would be a good time to mention the cure song, 'killing an arab'. this way you not only sound well read at your dinner party, but cool as well). much of the novel takes place during meursault's trial and while he sits in his cell awaiting execution for his crime. to really discuss the novel in a way that makes it seem as if you've read it when you haven't, you must discuss the emphasis placed on meursault's actions at his mother's funeral at the beginning of the book. this is not only discussed at length at the start of the novel, but it is a primary focus of the trial (the prosecution feeling that his lack of emotion at his own mother's funeral showing his absolute lack of compassion and his true nature).

when discussing the meaning of The Stranger, rather than the text, it's key to discuss the fact that it is a book about the absurd. for Camus (and most of his characters) there is no truth other than the truth that they experience themselves (only the visceral is true- this is why the only thing that is really of consequence in the murder is the fact that it was ultimately caused by the sunlight shining in his eyes). to truly discuss Camus (when talking about The Stranger or pretty much any of his other works) you really must discuss his notions of morality. yes, he was a believer in the absurd, and most of his works revolved around this idea- but, more importantly, he believed in morality in the absense of divinity. this is what most people seem to miss out on when talking about Camus. there are those who say that he was agnostic, others say he was an athiest. he spent little time actually discussing this. we do know that he didn't subscribe to any particular religious beliefs. regardless of this, he believed that we are all responsible for our actions not because God has told us what to do or not to do, but because we are the ones who control our destiny and are responsible for our actions.

now, you can take this in any direction that you like. you're at your dinner party and you've shown that you know the basic plot line, the underlying philosophical themes and now you can start a discussion about morality (which is what Albert would have wanted). those around you will now not only think you've read The Stranger, but will think that you have a handle of Camus' particular brand of existentialist thought.

2. The Bell Jar by Syliva Plath- ahh, every teenage angsty girl's bedside bible. for some reason i feel like most men haven't read this book (and even half of the women who said that they read it as kids really didn't read the whole thing). our main character is ester greenwood, who is from suburban boston. at the beginning of the novel she goes to new york to work for a magazine (if i remember correctly it's nothing but an internship- whatever the case, it's a temporary assignement). i also forget what magazine it is- it might not even be mentioned, come to think of it, but the implication is that it's a prominent one, something like vogue or bazzar. she is totally entreanced by new york, by the people she meets (especially these two young womawn, on opposite sides of the spectrum- one whose hedonism and "modern" ideas about what is acceptable really appeal to ester, and another whose piety and restraint ester identifies with). it is also in new york that she acquires her benefactor (benefactress?), philomena, who is a successful writer.

the real meat of the story comes when ester goes home after her time in new york. new york was a lot for her to cope with, and it has left her pretty drained. she applies for a scholarship to do a writing course, but is rejected. her whole idea of self has revolved around her academic career (and here begin the real and undeniable parallels to plath's own life). now that she finds herself facing that which she dreads most (living the suburban life as wife and mother- the standard issue role for women of the day) she starts to become very depressed. her mother sends her off to see a psychiatrist, who gives her electoshock therapy (never a good sign). ester hates this analyst and refuses to go back. her mother assumes that this is because she's now ok, but in fact, ester's mental state is deteriorating. she tries a number of times to kill herself, and finally (in the most dramatic parallel to plath's own life) leaves a note that says she's going out for a bit, climbs under the house with a bottle of pills that had been given to her for her insomnia and takes them all. it is quite a while before she is found, but she is still alive. she is sent to another 'institution' and this time meets a therapist whom she likes. she is again treated with electroshock therapy (which is administered correctly this time) and says in the narrative that she feels that this has lifted 'the bell jar' of her depression that she had been trapped under. it's a good time to note here that this stay in the institution is paid for by her aforementioned benefactress. the novel ends with what is assumed to be ester's final interview at the hospital, the one that will determine if she is ready to leave. the interview is never revealled, and the novel ends with ester entering the room to speak with her doctor about her being discharged.

i really do think that, as the novel itself is really not that complex a narrative, the most important thing for any dilletante discussing this book at some dinner party is the fact that so much of it is a direct parallel to sylvia plath's life. sylvia herself did crawl underneath her parent's house and take a bunch of sleeping pills. she was found something like four days later, and was on the verge of death. ester's own identity being wrapped up in her academic pursuits also parallels plath's life, as plath was scholar who studied in england (where she would meet her husband, ted hughes). famously, plath did take her own life, having published only 'the bell jar' and the collection of poems, 'the colossus' in her lifetime. she did leave behind another collection of poems, 'ariel' (arguably her greatest work) which was edited and published by her estranged husband, the poet ted hughes.

3. The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas- this is one of those books that everyone claims to have read as there are so many film versions. problem with this is that there is only one version that is even remotely faithful to the actual novel. that version is the 1,000 hour gerard depardieu (sp?) version. it is one of my favorites, but the plot is infinitley complex. the story begins with our hero, edmond dantes, who is a sailor on board a merchant ship. he is engaged to the love of his life, mercedes. somehow this gentle soul makes many enemies (most of them are envious of his postion, some hate him because they think that he has knowledge that would incriminate them). the captain of his ship has a missive that he gives to dantes directly before his death that involves rescuing napoleon from elba and restoring him to power. his chief rival, mondego (who is jealous of dantes' relationship with the captain and who is also in love with mercedes), finds out what is in the letter (dantes is unaware of what it says), and reports him to the very influential villefort. problem is, the letter was written by villefort's estranged father. a number of other people are dragged into the conspiracy and dantes is sent away to the prison, chateau d'if (from which no one has ever escaped). dantes has no idea why he is being sent there and his close friends and family (mercedes, his father, and his benefactor) also have no idea why he's really been sent there. dantes has done nothing wrong and he is imprisoned to save or advance the reputations of a number of his 'enemies'.

while in prison (he remains there for many years) he meets a man named the abbe faria. they begin a close friendship while they try to dig their way out of the prison. the abbe is a very learned man and teaches dantes many things (including the art of warfare, how to read, many languages, and more besides). after many years of digging, they realize that they have dug the tunnel to an inside wall and all hope of escape is lost. before his death the abbe tells dantes of this vast treasure on the island of monte cristo. he makes dantes memorize the map and they come up with a plan that will allow the young(ish) man to escape. on the night that the abbe dies, dantes enters his cell through the tunnell they have dug out and places the abbe's body in dantes' own cell. dantes then returns and climbs into the abbe's body bag. assuming that the body is that of the abbe, the guards throw it out into the ocean. dantes cuts himself loose with a knife that he had fashioned and floats along until he is rescued by a group of pirates. he spends time working on the boat in return for passage to the island of monte cristo. when he arrives there he finds the treasure that the abbe told him about. he gathers some money and prepares his revenge.

his travelling companions take him back to marsailles where he rents a large boat and returns to monte cristo. he spends 9 years in marsailles, now calling himself 'the count of monte cristo', and plots his revenge agaist those who had him imprisoned. his ordeal in prison has made him unrecognizable and he easily gets away with pretending to be someone else.

he spends years methodically rewarding those who were faithful to him and punishing those who were not (he takes away that which those who betrayed him hold most dear. he takes away mondego's money and mercedes- who ended up marrying him. he exposes villefort's bonapartist roots, etc).

one of the most important things to discuss when talking about the count of monte cristo is the anger and resentment that builds while he is in prison and the fact that it takes him decades to come to the realization that revenge didn't really make him any happier. in the end he lets mercedes and her son go without any sort of retribution and dantes runs away with his slave girl who he has fallen in love with.

a good way to tell if someone hasn't read the book and only seen the movie is to ask a) if mondego's son is actually the son of dantes and b) if mercedes and dantes end up together. if they say yes to either of these questions they HAVE NOT read the book, they have only seen the movie. hollywood decided that it was a happier ending if all ended well with dantes and mercedes. alas, dumas felt differently and all of the surviving parties (and those who aren't in prison) go their separate ways. it's not a hollywood happy ending, but it is a happy ending nonetheless.

it's quite a long book, and it's very complex in terms of plot and the sheer number of characters, but it's certainly worth a read.

4. Lolita by Vladamir Nabokov- ok, everyone's seen the film (i hope). i must say that it's a pretty good representation of the novel (as Nabokov was contstanly on set and advised Kubrick throughout filming). This is one of my favorite novels and i must recommend it to anyone who hasn't read it. the main thing that i want to point out about this book/film is that the film doesn't do humbert humbert justice. yes, humbert is a pedophile who is in love with a 12 year old girl, but what the film doesn't properly convey is that humbert is actually a sympathetic character (in as much as pedophiles can be). lolita is not the innocent child that the film portrays her to be (she does show her true colors towards the end of the film, but it's clear throughout the book that she's a little vixen and he falls prey to her sexual advances). it's obvious throughout the book that she knows what she's doing. she seduces humbert in no uncertain terms. he tries to resist for quite a long time until finally giving into his natural (albeit deviant) tendencies). even when humbert essentially kidnaps lolita and takes her on the long and winding road trip lolita is constantly sleeping with another older gentleman, quilty. she eventually escapes humbert to go and live with quilty. in a jealous rage humbert kills quilty and is sent to jail for it.

when discussing the book, the most interesting points are those that i have mentioned- humbert as a sympathetic character. a deviant who does what he can to avoid his natural tendencies, but ultimately is too weak to resist them. another good talking point is the 'innocent' lolita. did she know what she was doing? i, for one, say that she knew what she was doing from the start. in a discussion setting this could easily lead to a debate about pedophilia and how it manifests itself. how much temptation can a pedophile take? is it his fault that he is a pedophile? the questions are endless.

beyond all of these questions and debates, it is undeniable that this book has the most amazing opening of any book that i have ever read. it is sheer genius. the book is worth reading for the opening alone...

"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palette to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.
Did she have a precursor? She did, indeed she did. In point of fact, there might have been no Lolita at all had I not loved, one summer, a certain initial girl-child. In a princedom by the sea. Oh when? About as many years before Lolita was born as my age was that summer. You can always count on a murderer for a fancy prose style.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, exhibit number one is what the seraphs, the misinformed, simple, noble-winged seraphs, envied. Look at this tangle of thorns."

5. Darkness at Noon by Arthur Koestler- i fucking hate this book, but i felt like i should probably discuss it. the novel is set during the stalinist purges and moscow show trials. it's the story of one of the men who helped create the regeim who is then persecuted for no reason in particular (in a very stalinist fashion). it actually does a really good job of conveying the fear and uncertainty of the era. as it was published while the whole stalin being a bastard thing was still going on koestler had to escape to england to avoid persecution.

if you know anything about stalinist russia, you pretty much know the story. man who is high up in government, stalin (who isn't named) becomes paranoid that he's up to something, he's tried, imprissoned, and undergoes horrible torture, etc. it really is a good portrait of the horrors that took place while stalin was in power.

now, for the reasons that i hate this book. firstly, there are a couple of female characters, but they are reduced to personalityless pieces of meat. there is one scene in particular during which the protagonist doesn't even mention the woman's name or face, he is simply fixed on her legs and on her as a sex object. in fact, all of the women in the novel are nothing but sex objects. they are nameless, faceless, and meaningless other than their value as objects of sexual attraction. the other reason why i hate this book (and the bastard who wrote it) stems from the time he spent in exile in england. he was quite famous in england, as his book is considered one of the greatest books of all time. years after his death a young man decided to write a biography on koestler. it was known that koestler was friends with a former candidate for prime minister, a one mr. foot. at one point in his interview with mr. foot and his wife the interviewer was left alone with mrs. foot. she took the opportunity to inform the interviewer that arthur koestler had raped her years before. naturally, the interviewer was shocked and asked if he could publish this information. mrs. foot gave him permission to do so. as soon as this information became public, women came out of the woodwork claiming that koestler had raped them, too. these were all respectable, society women who would have no reason to lie about this, and it was well documented that koestler spent time with all of these women. in the end it came out that he had raped dozens of women in the time that he was in england. i only learned of this fact after i had read the novel. when i went back and read it again it became clear that these women had to be telling the truth. in all of koestler's work women are nothing but sex objects. apparently, he not only wrote about this fact, but he lived his life as if it were true.

in any discussion of this novel one must, of course, discuss the stalinist purges and how awful they were, but must also discuss the horrors of koestler's personal life. discussion of this novel can and will inevitably lead to many questions. here are a few to get you started...

can a novel truly represent reality if only one sex is represented?

should his treatment of women in 'darkness at noon' affect the general opinion of the book?

can an artist's work and the artist's life be separated? should we judge the art alone or should we take his personal life into consideration when judging the work of art?

so so so so... there are my 5 books and discussion topics. love them or hate them, this should give you plenty to talk about at your next dinner party (and be pretty convincing if you want people to not only think you've read the books, but that you've given them lots of thought as well).

enjoy!!