@Shadowlander: fair enough on the difference of opinion, although I also thought Silas Marner (one of Eliot's SHORTEST novels and the only reason I read it, since I gave up on Middlemarch) was too long. Still, here are some other things to consider on Cities and Pimpernel. Orczy, a baroness, was biased toward the aristocracy; she didn’t like commoners unless they supported the Scarlet Pimpernel. Dickens, a commoner, portrayed good and bad people with complex motives, both English and French. Closer to reality, his novel shows a discerning mind and a large heart. In Eldorado, Orczy didn’t understand how men think, feel, and act either. I can’t believe blind passion and childish disobedience of a 25-year-old like Armand, who wrongly accuses cool-headed Englishmen of being cold fish. A man would have written a very different character.

@shastastwin: are my literary opinions misogynist? Maybe. But I'm 30+ and female, also with a master's degree in English. I loved Notre Dame and hated Moby Dick. So have you read any of Orczy's novels for yourself?

@shadowlander & wagga: thanks for the history lessons.

@shastastwin: are my literary opinions misogynist? Maybe. But I'm 30+ and female, also with a master's degree in English. I loved Notre Dame and hated Moby Dick. So have you read any of Orczy's novels for yourself?

A man would have written a very different character.

Not your opinions as a whole, 220. I merely meant that that particular statement was misogynist in that it assumes that there is something intrinsically both female and negative about writing melodramatic stories. It disparages bot only Orczy but all women (at least in my view), but I doubt that was your intent. The second quote seems to imply that a man would have done it better. Based on these statements, some of your opinions do seem mysoginist, or at the very least unfavorable toward women authors. I haven't seen that as a whole in your view on here, but in these instances it is apparent. (I'll admit to playing a devil's advocate to a certain extent here, and I apologize if I've come across as harsh or rude. That's not my intention at all.)

You say that Orczy's writing suffers because she doesn't understand men's thought processes (let's not assume every man is exactly the same, any more than we would for women) and that her story is flawed because of its disregard for the common people -- these points I can accept; the converse of the former is often said of men trying to write female characters. It's a debate (and for writers, a struggle) that's decades or centuries old. Personally, I tend to find that female writers have a firmer grip on characters as a whole as opposed to men.

No, I haven't read any of Orczy's books yet. I thought I had mentioned that in my previous post, but it looks like I forgot to do so. Both Pmpernel and Cities are on my to-read list at the moment. Perhaps I'll move them both up in light of this discussion.

Darcy: "I cannot boast of knowing more than half-a-dozen, in the whole range of my acquaintance, that are really accomplished."
Elizabeth: "You must comprehend a great deal in your idea of an accomplished woman."
Miss Bingley: "No one can be really esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half-deserved."
Darcy: "All this she must possess and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading."
Elizabeth: "I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women. I rather wonder now at your knowing any."
Darcy: "Are you so severe upon your own sex as to doubt the possibility of all this?"
Elizabeth: "I never saw such a woman. I never saw such capacity, and taste, and application, and elegance, as you describe united."

That particular statement was misogynist in that it assumes that there is something intrinsically both female and negative about writing melodramatic stories. It disparages not only Orczy but all women (at least in my view), but I doubt that was your intent. The second quote seems to imply that a man would have done it better. Based on these statements, some of your opinions do seem misogynist, or at the very least unfavorable toward women authors.

Maybe I am guilty of misogyny. But I don't consider this a bad thing. I'm just as hard on women as Elizabeth Bennet, and therefore just as demanding of men. Clearly we have different ideas about men – how they write, think, feel, and act. I’m old school. I like Clint Eastwood, Clint Walker, John Wayne, etc. So I expect more of men. I expect them to be cool, calm, and collected in every situation. Their heads must govern their hearts, in person and in print. Women are usually more emotional and romantic; their hearts too often govern their heads. A good example is The Quiet Man (1952) with John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara.

A man like Orczy’s Armand St. Just wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the American West. The beauty of the 1982 adaptation was that it got rid of the melodrama. Instead of an emotionally overwrought teenage lover, movie Armand acted like a real man. I never said that women write only melodrama. But I think they’re the only ones to write it, based on their romantic natures. Jane Austen and George Eliot are beautiful exceptions. Some contemporaries thought Eliot was a man in drag because, in their minds, she thought and wrote like a man.

Shadowlander
YouTube has some good adaptations of Two Cities. I’m watching one now.

“The powers that be are ordained by God” (Romans 13:1). Rebellion is sin. So I don’t support any form of rebellion against government. My thoughts on our own revolution are complex. Read “Jesus and Rome” and “The Yoke of Oppression” (2 parts) on my WordPress blog. Did France have an educated middle class like colonial America? All I see in her revolution are atheistic peasants murdering non-peasants. Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death!” He was willing to die for liberty. French revolutionaries said, “Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death!” In the name of liberty, they killed enemies and suppressed dissent. [In my “yoke” articles, American revolutionaries acted little better toward Tories.] True liberty, physical and spiritual, is not rebellion. So the “enlightened” West has a terrible history in this regard.

Maybe I am guilty of misogyny. But I don't consider this a bad thing. I'm just as hard on women as Elizabeth Bennet, and therefore just as demanding of men. Clearly we have different ideas about men – how they write, think, feel, and act. I’m old school. I like Clint Eastwood, Clint Walker, John Wayne, etc. So I expect more of men. I expect them to be cool, calm, and collected in every situation. Their heads must govern their hearts, in person and in print. Women are usually more emotional and romantic; their hearts too often govern their heads.

I must be a man, then. I think almost entirely with my head; while my heart sits in the backseat, moping after being told by my head to shut up. But on a serious note, the head/heart debate actually has nothing to do with gender, and all to do with MBTI personality types. T = thinking with your head. F = feeling/thinking with your heart. There are more male T's than females, and more female F's than males, giving rise to the gender stereotypes. But we female T's do exist, thank you very much. And the male F's are just as important as the male T's, and can be just as godly, even though they may not be your cup of tea. If anyone wants to discuss personality types, there's a whole thread dedicated to it here.

As for the books in question, I've not had the chance to read The Scarlet Pimpernel yet, though I do own a copy of it. Perhaps I should try reading a bit to see what I think of it.

I have read much of A Tale of Two Cities, but I've not finished it yet. So far, I think it's amazing. I love the characters, and the prose style is entertaining. Especially, of course, its famous opening chapter. I think it might be my favorite of Dickens' works so far, though I haven't read very many of his novels.

It's true that it doesn't go into all the action and details when it comes to the political events of the time... but does it have to in order to be a good novel? Exciting political events occur in every era, but that doesn't mean every book that takes place in those eras need focus on those events. They can be used as just a backdrop. And I got the impression Dickens wanted to use it more as a backdrop in this particular novel. Every era also has humans and relationships and interpersonal events. I think Dickens was more focused on that in A Tale of Two Cities.

~Izzy

The head/heart debate actually has nothing to do with gender, and all to do with MBTI personality types. T = thinking with your head. F = feeling/thinking with your heart. There are more male T's than females, and more female F's than males, giving rise to the gender stereotypes. But we female T's do exist, thank you very much. And the male F's are just as important as the male T's, and can be just as godly, even though they may not be your cup of tea.

You're right, but I still prefer male T's to male F's! And thanks for introducing me to the personality types thread. I took the test and posted my results there. I also love Two Cities (I have 50 pages left), for all the reasons you mentioned.

Tale of Two Cities -- My mother read this aloud to us for school. It was years ago, but i still remember parts of it very clearly. We all really enjoyed it. I think Dickens is best read aloud: makes it easier to understand, and perhaps unthickens the prose a little bit.

Scarlet Pimpernel -- Read this several years ago. I enjoyed it at the time, though i'm not sure i could stand to read it again. The unusual oaths might have been historically accurate, but it made it hard to take the book seriously.

“The powers that be are ordained by God” (Romans 13:1). Rebellion is sin. So I don’t support any form of rebellion against government. My thoughts on our own revolution are complex. Read “Jesus and Rome” and “The Yoke of Oppression” (2 parts) on my WordPress blog. Did France have an educated middle class like colonial America? All I see in her revolution are atheistic peasants murdering non-peasants. Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death!” He was willing to die for liberty. French revolutionaries said, “Liberty, equality, fraternity, or death!” In the name of liberty, they killed enemies and suppressed dissent. [In my “yoke” articles, American revolutionaries acted little better toward Tories.] True liberty, physical and spiritual, is not rebellion. So the “enlightened” West has a terrible history in this regard.

Our own Revolution is a pretty complex thing in relation to Romans 13:1-7. I believe that the Founders spent a great deal of time mulling over this and many other things. Most were godly men and did their best to instill God into the new governmental system they ultimately devised. Bear in mind that we did not attack Britain but remained largely in a defensive stance throughout the conflict (although I believe John Paul Jones did a little shore raiding on England's coast at some point). The gist of what the Founders believed they were doing right was in respecting and obeying the office of the government, and not so much the guy holding that office. There's fine distinctions to be made and unfortunately lots of spiritual contortionism, which is something I detest. The men who were there and took part are all dead now so it's not something we can discuss directly with them (for the time being).

As to the difference between the Rebels treatment of Tories and the French peasantry donning red caps and arresting and/or killing anyone that they thought was questionable, there were some differences. From my reading most of the volatile anti-Torie stuff was largely in the Southern colonies, where the Revolution gave neighbors who were long-standing enemies a reason to start shooting at each other. There were terrible things going on and no one will deny that. But what you didn't see were Patriots marching Tories onto the town green and lining them up for beheadings amidst a cheering crowd. When the Revolutionary War ended and the Tories were kind of left holding the bag the nascent US government put them on boats and sent them to various British holdings across the Atlantic and Canada. But no mass murders occurred. American society was much more religious back then than it is today and that played a part in it. And as a tidbit here you should be aware that the Founders left provisions in our Constitution to authorize us to rebel if the government ever got out of hand, so if that were to happen I think we're safely off the hook.

Pssst, a modly note that this Books topic is veering off to a History topic. You guys are more than welcome to open such a thread (the old one has been long-locked and is buried deep in the Spare Oom ), but please keep the conversation here related to books. Thank you kindly.

And thanks, Ithi, for pointing people to the Personality topic for that discussion.

Do any of you read biographies? I have read David Mitchell's(the comedian), Lee mack's and Jack whithall's. Jack whithall's and his fathers was rather funny because it had his father's scribblings in his sections. Saying that this part isn't true or some other comment.

I found this graphic googling "Scarlet Pimpernel 1982." Like every true Englishman, the Scarlet Pimpernel hates mushy sentimentality.

Regardless of gender and personality type … I want people to be warm, kind, and soft-hearted. But I don’t like excessive emotionalism or blind passion. I hate it when people lose their heads, which I consider weakness. They shouldn’t be silly romantics or wear their hearts on their sleeves either. This applies to literature, films, religion, politics, etc. “A fool vents all his feelings, but a wise man holds them back” (Proverbs 29:11). Amen!

We need a clear definition of melodrama, which I consider excessive emotionalism. Orczy loved to describe people’s feelings, especially when they’re guided by them in distress. Her novels have plenty of action too, but she described rational thought less often. I still gleaned an important spiritual lesson from one novel.

http://artsandculturereviews.wordpress. ... -and-wait/

Sir Walter Scott was the model for many people and movements, yet I see little emotionalism in his novels. The beauty of Austen’s novels is also that she describes so little emotion. Whenever her characters are guided by their emotions, they’re punished for it by circumstances.

American literature: I like The Scarlet Letter and The Red Badge of Courage, but I dislike romanticism in general. My favorite authors are Hemingway and Twain. I quit reading The Portrait of a Lady, due to James’ long descriptions.

Shadowlander: did you read my articles on "The Yoke of Oppression"? I referenced The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of Journalism (2006) and The British Americans: Loyalist Exiles in England (1972). Revolutionary violence against Tories occurred in the North, esp. Boston and Philadelphia. They began leaving America for England and Canada as early as 1775 and remained there throughout the war.

http://220lily.wordpress.com/?s=yoke+of+oppression

EDIT / UPDATE
I took the Blakeney Manor quiz and got Chauvelin!

http://www.blakeneymanor.com/test/sctest.html

I've read a few books on the Lewis and Clark expedition but most of them focused on what happened after they left as opposed to the circumstances of the Louisiana Purchase.

You should try their actual diary. It was in the days before standardized spelling. If it had just been that Clark wrote a word one way, and Lewis another, well, that still happens today But no, Clark would spell a word on Monday, and on Thursday he would spell it differently. That aside, it was well worth reading; I would like to go through it again. Regrettably, we lent that particular copy to someone and it never came back

I always felt like there ought to be at least one more preceding Betty Zane but it doesn't come with a series list, alas.

I had the same feeling, except worse, because I almost think that I read it once, but can't place my finger on it. I still like Rogue River Feud, Shadow on the Trail, and Light of Western Stars. And maybe 30,000 on the Hoof. I liked others when I first read them, but after too many by him I grew weary of the everlasting purpleness (to butcher an LM Montgomery quote).

220, I'm the same age as you, but don't have a degree in anything And I like both Dickens and Baroness Orczy. Isn't that an awful thing to admit to?
I can't say that I disagree with you on your assessment of her writing. The Pimpernel series was stereotypical, melodramatic and formulaic. And yet I enjoyed it, and all her other novels to some degree or other. (Yes, I have them all. She was my first "list" author to be completed. Hurray!)

I do feel that the SP's were not her best writing in some ways--fun and exciting, but not free from fault. One common theme that runs through her books is self-sacrifice--sometimes exhibited foolishly, but nevertheless the laying down of one's own hopes and desires in order to help others. My own favourites are Beau Brocade and Meadowsweet.

Dickens; oh dear, where to start? I think I'd best leave him alone for now, except to say that though he deals with some ugly subjects, he is able to relieve it with the humour. Out of the few movies that I've seen of his books (Oliver Twist, for one) that humour is lacking, and so the movie felt very gloomy and grey.

Wagga, I've just finished Estraville, so I'll try to give you a quick rundown of it when I post again.

Do any of you read biographies?

I do. I'm also fond of memoirs and autobiographies. I think the last biography I read was about Aaron Burr or Bass Reeves (unless it was Gracie by George Burns???--I bet you'd enjoy that one, ILF), but I just finished Chickens in the Road about the experiences of a blogger who moves to a farm in West Virginia.

But no, Clark would spell a word on Monday, and on Thursday he would spell it differently. That aside, it was well worth reading; I would like to go through it again.

Well, I have the same problem some days, so... It does sound like a good read.

According to my library website when I popped over to queue up some Lewis and Clark and Zane Grey, Betty Zane is the first of the Fort Henry Saga but then they disappointed me by not having any others. The third book is in the middle and is called The Spirit of the Border.

I just finished Prophet by R. J. Larson, which I'd seen blurbs for around the internet. None of them sparked my interest until the one for the third book, but I figured I ought to begin at the beginning and was pleasantly surprised by the story. None of the blurbs mentioned giant black horses that devour just about everything remotely edible and develop highly protective streaks--I'd have read this a lot sooner if I'd known about Pet. It's a fantasy novel from the prophet's perspective, and reminded me at times of Mara, Daughter of the Nile and Paul McCusker's Passages series.

aileth: You have an author list? You read all of one author's books at a time? I haven't tried that before, but it sounds interesting.

I finished Orczy's Eldorado this morning and I enjoyed it, even with the melodrama. Here's my favorite part.

If Chauvelin had exhibited the slightest sign of fear … Armand, blind with passion, driven to madness by agonising remorse more even than by rage, would have sprung at his enemy's throat and crushed the life out of him as he would out of a venomous beast. But the man's calm, his immobility, recalled St. Just to himself. Reason, that had almost yielded to passion again, found strength to drive the enemy back this time, to whisper a warning, an admonition, even a reminder. Enough harm, God knows, had been done by tempestuous passion already.

Dickens: I've read only Great Expectations. I've seen 2-3 adaptations, along with Oliver Twist (3 adaptations plus the musical), David Copperfield (1), and Our Mutual Friend (1). I loved the romance in the last one.

ILoveFauns: I've read a few biographies but I don't care for the genre. For nonfiction, I prefer reading about ideas and events.

I started Orczy’s The Elusive Pimpernel last night. Marguerite disturbs me. If she loves Percy as she says she does, then she’ll let him risk his life for others. Percy’s self-sacrifice for suffering humanity in France is his calling. Each time Marguerite selfishly tries to keep him from it by staying in England with her, she keeps him from being a man. If she were ever successful, he would eventually hate her for it – and she him. Each time she goes to France to be with Percy, all Marguerite does is GET IN THE WAY (as a hostage). The one exception is Eldorado, when she acts as a courier for Percy while he’s imprisoned in Paris.

The Disney film Third Man on the Mountain (1959) illustrates this point perfectly. Fearing for his life, Rudi’s mother tries to keep him from his calling as a guide for climbers in Switzerland, since this is how his father died. She forces Rudi to be a dishwasher instead. His girlfriend, however, knows that if Rudi is to be a man, then he must obey his calling, so she lets him go. Which woman truly loves Rudi? His girlfriend! Why can’t Marguerite see this and let Percy go?

Now I’m questioning portions of my article “Men don’t leave.” I wrote it last year for one blog and moved it to a different one yesterday. Third Man on the Mountain, which I saw a few weeks ago, changed my perspective.

http://artsandculturereviews.wordpress. ... ont-leave/

Going back to page 106 and, Bella, one of our sons was first hooked on Asimov's Foundation Series when he was in middle school. I'm not sure if he read all of them, but he loved what he did read.

And, if I may gladly say, y'all have urged me to read some of Ray Bradbury's books. Thanks for that encouragement!

And, aileth, from the same page, I adore the Paddington stories. Priceless, they are. There is an upcoming film based on that beloved bear to be released this Christmas. It does look darling.

Ahhh, the Mitford series, Mel! Those books are absolutely charming. I need a re-read!

Yes, IloveFauns, biographies/autobiographies is my favourite genre. Out of all the non-fiction we have, those take up a mighty good chunk. In fact, I need to allow more shelf space at our new home to allow for the overflow. If I had time now, I would begin to name a few of my (many) favourites. I will, however, mention those I am currently reading: Saving a Life by Charles and Janet Morris and William Wilberforce, a hero for humanity by Kevin Belmonte. Both thumbs up for each of these, although a caution that the former vulnerably deals from a faith viewpoint with the very difficult subject of suicide. I am also smack in the middle of Live Like a Narnian by Joe Rigney—very good stuff—and an unabridged, non-modern edition of The Pilgrim's Progress: great stuff! Just finished John Bunyan by Belmonte: fascinating!

I just read now that Andrew Peterson's final book in the Wingfeather Saga series, The Warden and the Wolf King has been named the Book of the Year by WORLD! Having read the first three within the past few years, I am itching to get my hands on the conclusion. Initially, I found the first book a bit to quirky to delve into, but each succeeding volume draws one in further, so here's to #4! Whoever reads it, please post here.