Ok for the high brow crowd what books you are reading

[big nasty kcnut]

I'm reading The New American Revolution by tammy bruce. She is a great thinker and funny.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Buehler,

I have found The Wager to also be a great book. Facinating description of how these ships were virtually remade after a long voyage. It's amazing they made it past a single trip across the water. The press gangs were another story of how the empire forced men onto these ships due to a shortage of sailors.

[JohnnyHammersticks]

Originally Posted by Vladimir_Kyrilytch

I went big Mr. Hammersticks. I've always regarded your posts and sensibilities as elite so I have full confidence this recommendation will work out well. The Raider Crusader having high regard for it too just gets me more pumped, cause that guy also knows what time it is, as the youths say. Plus my Dad used to hype it up but I remember telling him if I'm gonna read something that long, it's gonna be The Possessed aka Demons by Dostoevksy (which I've since read) or it'll be War and Peace by Tolstoy (still working up to that one). So on your recommendation, I moved W&P down and I've got the Count in the mail now.

Unabridged version of course (I did notice you specified that) and I went full leather-bound, collector's edition. $40 isn't bad considering how many hours of entertainment and enlightenment and intrigue this will be worth. Here's a link to the version I bought. I think this version looks better than the Easton Press 1st Printing leather edition which is listed on ebay for $320 new or like $100 used.

Once I get a decent way into it I'll probably create a thread about this book in the media center, as I've been known to do (my Across the River and Into the Trees thread got like 14 replies so these are hit threads). I'll let you and Carr know when that day comes so you can get in there too! Cheers!

Turns out Vlad is alive and well, is about 1/3rd of the way through Count of Monte Cristo, and provided a very enjoyable, detailed review in my PMs. He hasn't been posting because he thought he was banned, but recently found out it was only temporary.

Bumping this thread in hopes that he'll copy & paste the review he provided me so that others who have read it can enjoy his highly-perceptive perspectives on it as much as I did.

[WilliamTheIrish]

Recently read Mind Hunters, the book that inspired the Netflix series. The world produces some insane people.

Then a quick read of No Country For Old Men.

Starting The Field Of Blood Violence In Congress and the Road to the Civil War

[Chiefshrink]

"The Democrat Party Hates America" by Mark Levin

[Vladimir_Kyrilytch]

Regarding Monte Cristo, I am about 300 pages into the approx 1,000 pages. I find the plot quite compelling and have often found it hard to put down to see what happens next. I also constantly look up historical and geographical and literary references, as well as all the words I don't know, so that makes it slow going. But still, 300 pages ain't nothing. I'd have finished most novels at that length.

This whole book is based on the premise that young Dantes', a very competent up-and-coming ship captain to-be gets back-stabbed with a false allegation and ends up going down hard on it, so hard that he ends up imprisoned in the Alcatraz of France. His term of imprisonment was pretty rough but was good reading how he ultimately plans an escape, then improvises another when opportunity arises.

My complaint to this point though is that we're supposed to see Dantes' as a naive and innocent young lad that gets falsely accused of what amounts to treason. But the dude knowingly captained his ship to Corsica and picked up a package from Napolean, who was there in exile, and was then going to deliver the package to an addressee in Paris. The book even mentions that Dantes' MET Napolean. So I say he really wasn't innocent. Napolean was deposed at this point, exiled, and the King was in power. He was essentially engaging in espionage and treason and he had to have known that! Sure, he says it was all to honor the dying wish of the previous captain, but he just had to know that his activities would be highly illegal according to the King actually in power. And so therefore, I say that Dantes' wasn't so innocent after all. Naive, sure. In over his head with that espionage stuff, absolutely. Didn't intend on committing a high crime. But you gotta know what you're getting into! My analogy would be if someone came up to you at the airport and said 'I'm dying but can you please take this package on your flight and deliver it to someone for me? Thanks!' The authorities aren't gonna buy that you didn't know there was a kilo of heroin in that package if/when you get caught with it, ya know?

So I don't have quite the sympathy for Dantes' that Dumas was probably intending. Not that he deserved what he got necessarily.

Currently, I'm at the part where a new character, a rich guy of some description, goes to the island only to find out that a bandit pirate type of legend is based there, and they blindfold him and take him into Dantes' opulent lair, and Dantes' (or shall I say Sinbad the Sailor) gives em a lavish meal and they do hashish. He's just waking up from that stupor now.

Overall, I had no idea Dumas was such a good writer. The prose, the diction, is very proper and precise. Nobody writes like this anymore. And he makes tons of historical references so at one point I started watching all the YouTubes I could about the Napoleonic period and Napolean's exile to Corsica, his return, his defeat at Waterloo, all that. I knew the broad strokes but it got me into the history a lot more. Now my movie list includes a Napolean biopic that I wouldn't have had interest in before, AND there's a big time new Napolean movie coming out soon that I'm now pumped for too, although with modernity I'm sure Napolean will be played by a hispanic woman in the new one. But worth keeping an eye on to be certain!

Another thing, you can tell Dumas (a Frenchman) didn't like the English by the way he clowns on the English when Dantes' is briefly disguised as an Englishman. The French and the Brits really aren't fans of one another and Dumas let's just a bit of that get into his writing which is hilarious.

I would give this 3.5 out of 4 stars so far. It's a helluva long read but it also jumps ahead in time quite a bit, so it's an epic. Faulkner and Hemingway are my two go-to writers along with Dostoevsky and I don't think any of the three spanned such a time period in their works as Dumas does with the Count of Monte Cristo. This thing is an epic.

Helluva recommendation by Mr. Hammersticks!

[PunkinDrublic]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Yeah, for sure **** the murderers. But also **** the mother****ers that were blatantly defrauding them as their guardians or whatever term they used. Jesus Christ. That made me hurt physically.

Almost done with this one. Can’t wait to see the movie next month.

[Vladimir_Kyrilytch]

Anyone else familiar with Monte Cristo? Raider Crusader I thought you've read this bad boy! You should if you haven't. Sure it's long but you gotta look at it like you would a TV Series like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones before it turned terrible. It's good entertainment that lasts a long time.

Now Mr. hammersticks, I have a complaint. It's minor enough but through 300 pages I think it sticks: Characterization. What can we really say about Dantés, about what kind of person he is, what his personality is like? We don't get that much. Maybe it's a limitation on 3rd person narration, but if you were describing Dantés to someone, could you say much about him?

We know just some basic stuff:

-highly competent sailor
-good natured, stand up guy
-Caring guy and loves his fiancee
-too trusting; naive. Assumes the best of people even when he shouldn't
-Fairly smart, the way he learned so much from his fellow prisoner and did all that undiscovered tunneling.

That's all we really get in these first 300 pages, and then when it flashes forward in time, some of that has totally changed. He's now cunning, ruthless, playing the long game, staying a step ahead of everyone. Feels like a totally different character when he's in Sinbad the Sailor mode than he was before.

Faulkner and Dostoevsky and even Hemingway put you into the head of their characters. They felt like real, often flawed, people. Dante's, far less so.

It was Shelby Foote that said that even a high school sophomore can write a surprisingly good description of a sunset, but the 2nd and 3rd levels of great fiction that a novelist must achieve are (1) being able to write characters that can stand up on their own two feet and (3) plot. Foote himself had characters that met that bar and I recommend checking him out.

I posit that Dumas had plot down really well, which is what makes this novel a classic. The suspense, the action, all on point. And his prose was elegant to the point that few literary figures could compare (only the best). I like all the historical references he throws in there - dude was very educated and well-researched. But I grade him down a little bit cause I don't think Dantés has great characterization.

My favorite character is M. Noiterer and I like Villefort, despite being the antagonist. Both those characters have some complexity and some mystery to them.

Do you agree or no about the characterization of Dante's?

Also I was talking to a coworker and she was telling me about her daughter being in ballet, a production of the Nutcracker. I said I can't claim to be much into ballet but I know Tchaikovsky composed that and Tchaikovsky is absolutely top notch. Then I googled to prove it and found that Dumas himself adapted the Nutcracker; basically he wrote it. Not sure what his source material was for the adaptation but some trivia for ya - he wrote Monte Cristo, he wrote 3 Musketeers, and he wrote the most famous ballet I can think of too! Talented cat.

More Monte Cristo discussion is needed!

[JohnnyHammersticks]

Originally Posted by Vladimir_Kyrilytch

Anyone else familiar with Monte Cristo? Raider Crusader I thought you've read this bad boy! You should if you haven't. Sure it's long but you gotta look at it like you would a TV Series like Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones before it turned terrible. It's good entertainment that lasts a long time.

Now Mr. hammersticks, I have a complaint. It's minor enough but through 300 pages I think it sticks: Characterization. What can we really say about Dantés, about what kind of person he is, what his personality is like? We don't get that much. Maybe it's a limitation on 3rd person narration, but if you were describing Dantés to someone, could you say much about him?

We know just some basic stuff:

-highly competent sailor
-good natured, stand up guy
-Caring guy and loves his fiancee
-too trusting; naive. Assumes the best of people even when he shouldn't
-Fairly smart, the way he learned so much from his fellow prisoner and did all that undiscovered tunneling.

That's all we really get in these first 300 pages, and then when it flashes forward in time, some of that has totally changed. He's now cunning, ruthless, playing the long game, staying a step ahead of everyone. Feels like a totally different character when he's in Sinbad the Sailor mode than he was before.

Faulkner and Dostoevsky and even Hemingway put you into the head of their characters. They felt like real, often flawed, people. Dante's, far less so.

It was Shelby Foote that said that even a high school sophomore can write a surprisingly good description of a sunset, but the 2nd and 3rd levels of great fiction that a novelist must achieve are (1) being able to write characters that can stand up on their own two feet and (3) plot. Foote himself had characters that met that bar and I recommend checking him out.

I posit that Dumas had plot down really well, which is what makes this novel a classic. The suspense, the action, all on point. And his prose was elegant to the point that few literary figures could compare (only the best). I like all the historical references he throws in there - dude was very educated and well-researched. But I grade him down a little bit cause I don't think Dantés has great characterization.

My favorite character is M. Noiterer and I like Villefort, despite being the antagonist. Both those characters have some complexity and some mystery to them.

Do you agree or no about the characterization of Dante's?

Also I was talking to a coworker and she was telling me about her daughter being in ballet, a production of the Nutcracker. I said I can't claim to be much into ballet but I know Tchaikovsky composed that and Tchaikovsky is absolutely top notch. Then I googled to prove it and found that Dumas himself adapted the Nutcracker; basically he wrote it. Not sure what his source material was for the adaptation but some trivia for ya - he wrote Monte Cristo, he wrote 3 Musketeers, and he wrote the most famous ballet I can think of too! Talented cat.

More Monte Cristo discussion is needed!

Wow, my apologies Vlad, don't know how I missed this! I agree that Dostoevsky did a better job of putting you inside the head of his characters. That's what I loved so much about Crime and Punishment. I felt like I was inside the head of Raskolnikov as the guilt from his crime drove him insane. It was fascinating, and there were times when I found it next to impossible to put the book down.

In terms of Monte Cristo specific to Dantés - at the beginning of the novel he's portrayed as a young, ambitious, and honest sailor who is well-liked by his colleagues and superiors. Dumas described him as being intelligent, brave, and loyal, and known for his strong sense of justice and morality. And yes, as you say, he's definitely naive and too trusting. Your comment about him not really being innocent was a perspective I had never really considered, but a very valid one based on the reasons you provided. I had never considered him as anything but naive and too trusting when it came to picking up the package and delivering it. You made me think, and look at it from an entirely new perspective!

Obviously, after Dantés was betrayed and imprisoned, he underwent a significant transformation. He became totally disillusioned with society and humanity, and developed a deep sense of bitterness and anger towards those who wronged him. He becomes obsessed with revenge and spent years plotting and scheming to exact his revenge on those who wronged him. I don't want to spoil it for you, but one of the reasons I loved Monte Cristo so much is that Dantés (or the Count) obviously had the financial means and the brainpower to immediately destroy all of those who wronged him, but instead he prolonged his vengeance to the point of brutally torturing his enemies. Way worse than just immediately killing them. His vengeance was completely humiliating and soul-crushing to his enemies!

But despite his desire for soul-crushing vengeance, and the extraordinary lengths he went to in order to exact it, Dantés - or the Count by this time - was obviously still a very charismatic and highly intelligent man who was able to win the respect and admiration of everyone around him. The movie actually does a great job portraying this. He adopted various personas and disguises convincingly, and he became very skilled at manipulating people and situations to achieve the vengeance that consumed him.

I'd say his personality is revealed by his thoughts and actions. He's a complex and nuanced guy. He has both admirable and questionable personality traits. He is driven by a strong sense of justice and a desire to right the wrongs that were done to him, but he is also willing to go to great lengths to achieve his goals, including using deception, manipulation, and even violence.

It's basically the tale of two people because of the changes he undergoes throughout the novel. He is intelligent, charismatic, and driven, but also bitter, vengeful, and willing to do whatever it takes to achieve his goals.