The Good, The Bad, and the Irrational: A Reader Response From Elizabeth Champion

I have never felt more like I’m living in a blender then while reading Hitchhikers

Guide to the Galaxy; From the very first page onward, the reader is thrust into a

confusing mess of situations and events, with rapid-fire conversations super-

imposed over top of them. Oftentimes you feel like you’re inside someone’s dream

where events take place and don’t seem to connect to each other in any way. There

are many philosophers who try to tackle the absurdity of life along with the meaning

of existence; and this book, too seems to do so in a weird way. My favorite

philosopher is Albert Camus. He talks about the necessity of confronting your truths

and the absurdity of life. When Earth blows up, Arthur (the main character) is

temporarily sad but then moves on rather quickly because a whole slough of other

irrational and absurd things happens to him. Adams makes a joke out of almost

every situation Arthur is put into, and that was the hardest part of the book was the

sheer disregard for rational, human emotion. I had a very hard time getting through

this book because of that fact. It also just annoyed me that events infrequently had a

rational explanation, which is something you (the reader) expect from a “good”

novel. Maybe I also didn’t like it because it made me think about mortality and the

meaning of life more deeply. I typically don’t like to muse over really deep topics

such as this because they can consume you and eat your happiness. However, there

are occasional positive upswings in the plot and you can’t help but be amazed

alongside Arthur. For example, when he sees the universe or discovers the Earth was

really just a computer. Transient things that seemed so important to him at one time

(such as his house) became meaningless, so in a way it puts life into perspective. I

don’t necessarily think it is any sort of social commentary, but would love to hear an

argument for that (maybe the whole thing about how Politics are so messed up and

nonsensical in the universe)! I ultimately derived no meaning in this book

whatsoever. There was no plot and I felt like I was playing literary dodge ball the

whole time. I was more interested, after doing research, to learn that the book was

part of a comedic series of “Hitchhikers” radio shows, stage shows, and a T.V. series.

So maybe the reader is truly just supposed to take it at face value- a crappy comedy.

What do you think?

 

Elizabeth’s Readers Response to The Originals (nonfiction)

I’ve always wanted to read one of those self-help books. Not the weird ones about how to raise a normal child or how to maintain a healthy weight. The ones that sit on my parent’s bookshelves that I never actually see them read. The ones about leadership and being a business executive. I’ve always thought that, if it were really that simple to just read a book and have all the wonderful knowledge and experience of business executive, why isn’t everyone filthy rich? “Originals”, by Adam Grant, is curious because it addresses just that: the phenomenon behind being average. The cover is what initially drew my attention, but upon further review I thought it could be kind of a fun quick read. I was right. I just ATE up the information in the first three or four chapters. I stayed up until 1 AM last Saturday because I couldn’t put it down. Essentially, the book’s message comes across through a series of real life stories about modern day business leaders that challenged the status quo. One of the first stories was about the founders of Warby Parker, the very popular one for one eyeglasses online store. I call them “Apple” stories because they all seem to echo the same plot of a group of young (typically men) having an “AH-HA!” moment about something so simple that changes the way the world works forevermore. Amazon, Apple, Warby Parker, etc. But I find the fundamental point of the book fascinating; we so often settle for mediocrity because it never even occurs to challenge an accepted practice, or something that has been done the same seemingly fine way for years. It talks about the number of business people in a work place who have an idea but never voice it. And how the people that do voice there ideas are the ones that go down in history. Where does this fear come from? I think it’s scary to be an entrepreneur because there is always the fear of failure, but if it can be overcome magic happens. I found myself frequently (while reading this book) writing down lists of things I’d like to change if I “could.” But then I thought – I can change it. There’s nothing that says you can’t voice your idea. In fact, Adam Grant tells the readers about a CEO who fires employees for not challenging his ideas. I think that’s the way the world should operate. Education would change, the pace at which new ideas were pushed out of companies and think tanks and schools would increase greatly. I know this wasn’t a normal “literary” book, however I think it served a similar purpose as a literary book. It made me view the world a little differently, and I examined my behavior differently after reading it… Which I think is the shared purpose of all literature.

Click here to Reply or Forward

 

A Reader’s Response Post to All The Light We Cannot See

This book is set in a thought provoking time in history, and throughout it I

frequently found myself wondering how much research had to be

conducted to make this book historically and factually sound. From the

abundance of translated French words and phrases, to the German battle

jargon, it all seems spot on. That was my first observation that I felt

obligated to share.

The second is the way Doerr brilliantly crafts his book. It is one of those

books where the end is sort of revealed in the very fist chapter, and then

the rest of the book traces events that happen up to the opening chapter.

In that way I find it funny because it is a book about the creation of order

and reduction of entropy (WWII, purification) that is written out of order.

This kind of writing style is one of my favorites, and I appreciate a book

that holds up to it’s initial promise of excitement.

The book it multi-tiered and multi-layered, and appeals to a variety of

audiences. What I enjoy most about it is that I feel like it’s the kind of book

that I’ll pick up again in 10 years and have a completely different

perspective on. Tracing the lives of two teenagers during WWII, Marie-

Laure and a German orphan named Werner live to completely different

realities. The set up of the characters is fascinating to me because

watching Werner get recruited into the Hitler youth was the first time I ever

truly felt sympathy for how much purpose the Hitler youth seemed to give

to kids such a Werner. The reader knows all about the horrific things in

WWII, but I liked that the book chose to focus on real life struggles of

“normal” Europeans living through this war. Personally, I never thought

about what it must’ve been like to grow up in that era until this book. And it

is crafted in a way that makes you “root” for the both of them to make it out

alive. And my heartstrings were tugged on because of the realness of

family and relationships that can be shattered in an instant by the violence

of war.

Ultimately, the most prevalent symbol I thought of was the wooden houses.

The more the book progressed, the more Marie Laure’s model houses it

seemed began to mimic what cities and towns looked like in real life. Her

reality is shaped by things she can hear and smell and taste and feel, and

these wooden houses represent the vacancy of being sightless, and the

tragedy of the War.

 

Hamlet the Jihadist?: A Reader’s Response to Hamlet

Thus far in my reading of Hamlet, it is obvious that there are some very peculiar father son dynamics. This post will focus on the dynamic of revenge with Papa Hamlet and Son Hamlet. The play opens with the understanding that King Hamlet is dead, but we aren’t sure if it’s necessarily of natural causes. The new King, Hamlet’s uncle, has married Hamlet’s mother, and is happily reigning over his new kingdom while attempting to shove the memory of Hamlet’s father (quickly) under the rug. I believe that Hamlet is suspicious from the beginning of how his father died, and this could be due partially to Claudius’s haughty mannerisms in approaching the mourning process, or his fake condolences.

The first evidence of their strained relationship between Claudius and Hamlet can be seen when Hamlet says, in response to the King addressing him as a son, “A little more than kin, and less than kind!” (Act 1 Scene 2, 64-65) They’re both dancing around what they really would like to say to each other. King Claudius’s affection toward his new “son” seems really forced. It seems like he is just trying to get Hamlet to like him when Hamlet is clearly smarter than everyone standing in the throne room and highly suspicious of Claudius. I don’t think that I would like someone who A. Just married my mom after my dad just died and B. Is trying to persuade me to “just get over it” faster than I’d like to, either.

Furthermore, I think that Hamlet feels very lonely now that his father has just died and he doesn’t understand why his mother remarried so quickly. I believe he was actively searching for a cause for revenge because I don’t think it is possible to not feel anger or remorse after a loved one who you’re close to has just died. So, in my opinion, I would argue that Hamlet is now kind of like a scary Islamic Jihadist because he has motive to look for someone to blame and then take action (murder?). When Marcellus and Horatio inform Hamlet that they’ve seen his father’s ghost, he jumps on the opportunity to speak with his dead father and discover the truth. First of all, how are we positive that none of them are hallucinating this ghost because they’re so cold? It is a medical fact that your heart rate slows down when you get to be too cold, which leads to a lack of blood to your brain which in turn leads to hallucinations. Although King Hamlet’s death is rather suspicious, I believe that Hamlet just happens to be in the perfect storm of reason to seek revenge for his father, which is ultimately the central driver of this play. Do you think that Hamlet’s seeking revenge is just him seeking the truth or something predisposed?

 

Nature or Nurture?: A Reader’s Response to Wuthering Heights

Throughout this book, I continually found myself struggling with the idea of Heathcliff being a villain of his own doing or simply a product of his environment. From the very beginning, Mr. Lockwood is not welcomed warmly, and thus begins our introduction to Heathcliff as the antagonist. Right off the bat, Heathcliff strikes the reader as odd, cold, and dark. The reader knows there is a story behind his demeanor, and the first few chapters set up the story beautifully. This theme of darkness is prevalent in the entire book– and Brontë gives us a taste of this darkness early on.

Because this book is primarily narrated by Nelly and Mr. Lockwood, it is through their descriptions and interactions that we get to know the main characters– only sometimes through personal revelations like letters. Lockwood from the get-go describes Heathcliff as “exaggeratedly reserved” (p. 3), and donning a “universal scowl” (p.9) He doesn’t present himself as very agreeable or even nice. He is rude to the stranger, Mr. Lockwood, and even laughs at his misfortune when Lockwood was attacked by Heathcliff’s dogs. But as I came to know more about Heathcliff, I found myself desperately trying to justify his actions. I almost began to advocate for his “rebellion”.

At first, he strongly reminded me of a young Harry Potter. He was rescued off the streets of Liverpool by Mr. Earnshaw, a fair and even man. However, his new family members did not take to him at all at first. They treated him as an outsider, lesser. Specifically Hindley, who made a habit of abusing Heathcliff out of jealousy of his father’s high regard. Heathcliff was brought to a strange place with strange new people who didn’t exactly treat him kindly. To me, this was their biggest mistake that led to all of their eventual demise. Upon reflection, I assumed Heathcliff was not an evil mastermind he was simply a product of his hostile environment. That he was a victim of a series of unfortunate events, class standing, and circumstance.

For example, Heathcliff fell in love with Catherine, but after Catherine had the misfortune of getting bitten at Thrushcross Grange and was forced to remain there for several months, and Edgar began to court her, it all began to go downhill for Heathcliff’s dreams. His lack of class and circumstances beyond his control led to his being disappointed yet again. Catherine was his greatest defender against Hindley’s wrath, and when she was gone for so long, Hindley was hell bent on making Heathcliff feel inconsequential and treating him like a servant –he lived in misery. Which is a poor situation. But then he had his heart broken when Catherine was voicing her affection for Heathcliff to Nelly after she returned to Wuthering Heights, and he overheard the wrong part of her sentiments–especially the part about how it would “degrade her” to marry him. She was compelled to marry Edgar for his social status despite how much she loved Heathcliff. Another terrible event — and so Heathcliff’s revenge plot begins.

Three years pass, and Heathcliff (to me) turned from poor Harry Potter to a crazy revenge seeking maniac– but in the back of my mind I continued to be open to the idea that his ill intentions were not entirely his fault. Just an outcome of his unlucky life. Or maybe Heathcliff was just the ultimate example of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, my opinion on the subject of Heathcliff’s guilt or innocence quickly changed when he deliberately began to unravel the (relatively) stable lives of the characters as he turned crazy. He ruins the lives of strangers (Linton) out of spite, and causes a fight between Edgar and Catherine that Catherine never fully recovers from. His greed and determination to fulfill his selfish motives put me off. After he captured Linton for his own and forced young Catherine to marry him, I began to see him as despicable, and certainly his darkness had to run deeper than simply his being raised in a un-nurturing household. It had to be darkness from somewhere no one can understand. His actions no longer seemed rational or justifiable as the book progressed. He collected all of these people and places and objects that he thought would make him feel right with the world, but in the end he ended up alone and dead. So in a way, I believe he is a mixture of both his environment and the conscious he was born with. I don’t believe that the two categories of his evilness are mutually exclusive, and there is most likely some overlap to his core values and the one’s he was raised with.