Karin’s Comments (group member since Jan 15, 2015)

Karin’s comments from the On Paths Unknown group.

I'll definitely join and direct others toward the challenge as well. Thanks, Traveller!

I've only read 85; looks like I need to get reading! Yay! I absolutely love this challenge! Can I share it with my book club? :)

It definitely seems Gothic! The themes of wealth, fire, an almost lyrical madness, decay, a house (castle) isolated from the village and fortified by merrikat's Magic seem to fit right into the Gothic mood.

I'm also fascinated by the emphasis on food and eating. Merricat says "we eat the year away. We eat the spring and the summer and fall. We wait for something to grow and then we eat it." And, of course, Constance is a fabulous cook.

I love spooky stories and unreliable narrators! :)

Magdelanye wrote: "@karin....having to return a book your reading to the library before you are finished with it. ranks as one of the worst events in life. hope you are not in Vancouver and its not me who has so disa..."

Lol! It IS the worst, isn't it! It was pretty frustrating. But I think I'll just buy it on my Kindle, if it's not too much. And no, it wasn't you who stole my book ;). I'm down here in Utah.

Allen wrote: "Don't get me wrong, I like it. I think the group should read it. I'm adding it to my "to be finished later" list. One reason is, as Karin pointed out, the strong female character/s that kicked it o..."

I would totally love to hear your take on the old granny tales/granny magic from the Appalachians. How fascinating! I remember in the novel how-- I think it was the witch--disfigured her face to escape the castle. I was immediately reminded of Jessica Alba's character in Sin City 2 when she similarly disfigured her face as a type of escape (and before she took revenge on the bad guy, Roark). It seems in both cases beauty was a prison and that the heroine was empowered by ruining her face. Ouchie.

Traveller wrote: "I definitely think we should still read and discuss. But maybe on a longer term than we had intended. I'll still make the threads, and then people can come and comment if and when it suits them. :)"

Yes! I think that is a great idea! I think there is definitely lots to discuss.

I was actually loving it. I liked the nonlinear narrative, the fantasy, and the strong, interesting female characters. The writing is a little more ornate than I'm used to, but I thought it was beautiful in most places. The illustrations were fascinating and enriched the text.

I had to stop reading it because someone put a hold on it, and I had to return it the library a few days ago :(. I'm a slow reader these days anyway, so I didn't get as far as I'd like. But it's definitely still on my list of books I'd like to read!

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Yeah, that's been worrying me. Not too long ago, I heard a respirologist (maybe it was my bridge partner, I'll have to ask him) say that your lungs never really recover. A few days later, I heard t..."

I didn't even know he was sick until yesterday, and, I must admit, I'm pretty unfamiliar with COPD. I've always heard the lungs do recover. The whole thing seems very illogical.

Just as an interesting side note: Initially, NBC asked Gene Roddenberry to get rid of the “guy with the pointy ears” partly because they were worried about his “satanic” appearance. Luckily, Roddenberry refused to cut Spock.

Lol! An awesome picture for an awesome character and actor. I'll miss him in future Star Trek movies. Sigh.

Ruth wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Well, I'm not really in favor of pigeonholing myself,..."

Iam so glad to hear that, Traveller. I don't see you fitting in a pigeonholevere very comfortably. ;)"

Right, but genres are not conceptually solid enough to do any pigeonholing, right? ;)

Well, and another obvious parallel is sexuality. Controlling people's sexuality was key to the structure of many organized religions. It's obviously key to the structure of power in 1984 as well.

Ruth wrote: "Traveller, I heard an interview with the now former Mormon, and one thing he said I found really interesting is that without the three-hour service on Sunday, he and his family now go out into th..."

Mormons don't like tea either ;)

I'm sure Goodreads is not the place to discuss religion, but a person could draw parallels between 1984 and religion. I believe at one point O'Brian even says: "We are priests of power." I guess Orwell's overall message is be very careful of authority, whether religious or political.

I haven't been able to read much of the book yet, but, yes, Valente's prose is very rich and lush, almost like she is casting a spell. I'm reading it along side The Wide Sargasso Sea as well. In the Wide Sargasso Sea there is also descriptions of a beautiful garden inhabited by a "damaged" or "cursed" woman. The two novels are incredibly different, but I was interested in how both draw from the garden symbolism and how both women are cursed.

Traveller wrote: "I'm still busy getting through the torture bits, but thought it might be topical that many almost medieval forms of torture are still practiced today.

This is not a very academic site or list that..."

Not to digress (especially since I want to comment on Derek's brilliant thoughts) but the theme of torture is interesting.

I wonder why they spent months and months torturing Winston, when O'Brian could have just gone straight to the rats? And honestly, Winston didn't seem THAT important. Why didn't they just "vaporize" him?

Also, I can see Julia giving up quickly because she is more of a survivalist than Winston, but at the end of the book, she did have the big scar on her forehead. Maybe this means she fought harder than I originally thought.


Still, Winston may have loved her more than she loved him because he had lingering feelings for her at the end of the book (he kind of subconsciously followed her while she seemed immediately annoyed by him).

Traveller wrote: "Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Traveller wrote: "We ended with a bang and 1984 with a whimper. :( "

Well, I always figured Eliot probably had that right.

Possibly one reason why this nove..."

These are such fascinating issues about feminism in 1984. I'm still thinking them out for myself.

We've discussed before how cunning and confident Julia is, especially compared to the more lackluster Winston. But I wonder if Orwell was arguing that she was "masculinized" by the Party, and that her more "natural" state is to wear makeup and a "real" dress. Does that make sense? In other words, the confidence and otherwise "masculine" traits we find admirable in Julia aren't things Orwell admired in a woman? He admired her more when she was wearing makeup and being a "woman." And he does hint she is not as introspective as Winston--she couldn't even make it through "The Book," which we actually don't blame her--but Orwell probably would.

I also see how the prole woman is a positive figure. She is a symbol of hope, virility, and free expression. But she merely exists as a biological fact of nature untouched by the government. Like Julia, she is not depicted as especially aware of her self or deeply introspective. Sure, she is able to bear children, which is a good, thing, but it seems like that's the most important thing for Winston and Orwell.

I suppose I'm super sensitive of idealizing "motherhood" because I grew up in a religion that seemed to use it against me. In other words, the church said, "you don't need the priesthood because you are a mother, which is more noble, *wink wink." Unfortunately, the church power structure was not set up around the noble powers of motherhood but rather the power of priesthood, so I feel really left out.

I think so, too, Ruth, but I also think that if he really wanted to, he would find a way. He might just not be brave enough. He hopes someone will slip him a razor blade, but I think he knows that's not going to happen. I've been a little underwhelmed with Winston throughout the book. I'm surprised he put up as much of a fight as he did while being tortured.

Thanks for the great quotes, traveller! So many great ideas to think about!

Traveller, I love your example! It made me laugh! David Tomlinson and Angela Lansbury do look a little ...asymmetrical. Ha! I

You're probably right. Though I think it's still possible to describe even people who are being tortured with a little more sympathy than Orwell did. I wonder if he is a bit of a misanthrope?

I have a couple of sick kiddos, but I want to comment on some other things later.

Some of the descriptions of the people in the holding cell with Winston in Part III section 1 are pretty disgusting; he uses words such as "common place," "mean-looking," "grim," "enormous wreck of a woman." Orwell doesn't seem to have a high regard for the human race in general. Even his hero, Winston, is unappealing and ultimately fails. I wonder if Orwell blames society for giving up their humanity and individuality?

Ruth wrote: "Our command is "Thou art." (205)

I am suddenly reminded of Stranger in a Strange Land."

I haven't read Stranger in a Strange Land, but it's on my looonng list of books I want to read.

But the reference reminds me of several images in the 1984. The first, is the woman and child in the propaganda film. The second is when Winston remembers his mother throwing a protective arm around his sister. And the third, is when O'Brian "protectively" hugs Winston after a torture session, and Winston seems to love O'Brian. These successive images suggest to me that O'Brian has effectively usurped the life-giving "mother" role. In other words, the government has taken on a seemingly maternal role: provider, life-giver, and protector. Maybe a stretch?

While Orwell argues that the government in 1984 wants to take over the family, ironically, some of the most totalitarian regimes, including those under Hitler, Stalin, & Franco, and present day Iran were/are all strongly pro-family, right?

Traveller wrote: "The invention of print, however, made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television,[insert AND INTERNET]and the technical advance which made it possible to receive and transmit simultaneously on the same instrument, private life came to an end. "

Yep. You guys are way smarter than I am. In fact, the longer I explore Goodreads, the more I realize how hopelessly far behind I am in everything I want to read. If GR has a hierarchy, I am definitely on the lower rungs-- which brings up an interesting question: If Orwell were alive, how would he label Goodreads politically: utopian, capitalistic, communistic? ;).

I'm not sure Orwell is correct in thinking technology destroys privacy. I'm still thinking this out for myself, but in 1984, the telescreen "massifies" the people. Everyone watches the same channel and hears the same message from the government. But in 2015, the Internet and T.V. seems to depoliticize and privatize by keeping people indoors and isolated, right?

Also, Traveller brought up A Brave New World. Doesn't the dystopia in Brave New World seem more likely to happen than the dystopia in 1984? The whole "boot in the face" just seems a lot harder to maintain than hedonism? Maybe that's why Orwell set his story just 35 years into the future and Huxley set his story 500 years into the future :).