Sigmund Freud: The Interpretation of Dreams

• ISBN-13: 9781593082987
• Publisher: Barnes & Noble
• Publication date: 10/5/2005
• Pages: 592

Claiming he had discovered the "royal road to the unconscious," Sigmund Freud published The Interpretation of Dreams at the turn of the twentieth century, and thus laid the foundation for his innovative technique of psychoanalysis. Largely ignored at first, the book would eventually be considered Freud's most important work, one that, like Darwin's The Origin of Species, revolutionized the way human beings view themselves.
The raw material for The Interpretation of Dreams was provided by Freud himself. Spurred on by the death of his father, he began analyzing his own dreams, in the process recreating lost childhood memories and uncovering the roots of his own neuroses. He concluded that dreams were filled with latent meaning, their bizarre imagery and peculiar narratives concealing deep-seated, instinctual motives and desires. By revealing how the seemingly trivial nonsense of dreams reflects important personal issues in the dreamer's present and past life, Freud created a key that unlocked the vital secrets of the unconscious mind.
 
Everyone knows Freud whether they know they know Freud or not. The Oedipus Complex, anyone? Even though many of his theories are today disregarded by most psychologists, he still stands as one of the founders of the science. (I have a friend that would debate with me as to whether or not it's actually a science, but we'll leave that discussion for another day). A friend bought me this book for Christmas two years ago, not because either one of us has any interest in Freud or psychology, but because she knew of my quest to read all the Barnes and Noble classics. It's taken me this long to actually get around to reading it.
 This book is kind of fun and crazy. There were times that I was shocked at what he wrote, not believing publishing such explicit references to and discussions of masturbation was allowed at the time. There were times that I laughed. I have to agree with my friend as to the doubtfulness of the pseudo-science employed. Most of his interpretations of the dreams he relates seem well connected, but also completely thrown together. The things that make a dream a dream - disconnectedness, seemingly incomprehensible shifts in time and space, etc - mean that there are a wide variety of interpretations that can take place. Freud's conclusions seem wondrous once he draws them all together, and you nod your head at the possibility of it all, but then you realize that he has taken instances from days prior, from childhood, from whatever, and thrown them together in a formation that proves his own theory. It's highly amusing while at the same time it makes you shake your head. He claims that there can be wrong interpretations, but I just don't see how that's possible. He failed to convince me on that count.
 However, taking a step back from interpretation, he examines what causes the occurrences in a dream. That is the part that is interesting to me. He argues about the effect of somatic symptoms felt during sleep, the effect of the littlest events during the day versus events that occupy our minds, and various other aspects of the dream. Why do we dream of the most mundane things at times? Why do certain people show up in our dreams and no others? His theories on those points are fascinating, to be sure. He does make some assertions,  however, that are not easily proved unless he forces dream interpretations to say what he wants. He states that all dreams are wish fulfillment and that even when they don't seem like it, they actually are. Also that repression is caused by our disturbance at certain sexual impulses we felt in childhood. I don't think so. If only you could hear the sarcasm in my voice. I also don't have a weird fetish toward my father.
 The things I just mentioned have been largely disproved and so I don't feel the need to argue with the work. But those things definitely do cast a shadow over what you're reading as you can't quite take him seriously. There are times that I found my mind wondering as he repeated his statements over and over and over. The other problem I had was more with edition I had than writing: many of his quotes in German, Latin, and French were not translated. I could read the French, the German was a little harder, and the Latin incomprehensible. I would have appreciated more thorough work in that aspect.
 Overall: B-
 The low-ish grade is mostly for repetition and occasional incomprehensibility in writing and faulty conclusions. It is saved by its status as a classic, it's interesting moments, and it's contribution to psychoanalysis in its fledgling days. I wouldn't recommend it to everybody, but I think people who want to expand their minds should definitely pick it up.

Charlotte Brontë: Jane Eyre

• ISBN-13: 9781593081171
• Publisher: Barnes & Noble
• Publication date: 2/1/2005
• Pages: 592

Immediately recognized as a masterpiece when it was first published in 1847, Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre is an extraordinary coming-of-age story featuring one of the most independent and strong-willed female protagonists in all of literature. Poor and plain, Jane Eyre begins life as a lonely orphan in the household of her hateful aunt. Despite the oppression she endures at home, and the later torture of boarding school, Jane manages to emerge with her spirit and integrity unbroken. She becomes a governess at Thornfield Hall, where she finds herself falling in love with her employer—the dark, impassioned Mr. Rochester. But an explosive secret tears apart their relationship, forcing Jane to face poverty and isolation once again.

One of the world’s most beloved novels, Jane Eyre is a startlingly modern blend of passion, romance, mystery, and suspense.

My grandmother has been urging me to read this for a long time, as it's her favorite novel. And that's kind of saying something since my grandmother isn't a big reader of novels outside the trashy-romance genre or mystery genre. I've seen many adaptations of this story, including the most recent Michael Fassbender version (love that man), and so I knew what to expect out of the story. However, it still held some nice surprises.
 For example, I was surprised at the overt mysticism present throughout. In the Bertha Mason storyline and the supposed haunting of the Red Room at Gateshead and at Thornfield, one already had examples of the imagination of Charlotte. However, there were far more references to fairy activity and other mystical (or straight up mythical) goings-on. I was impressed, and seeing as how I might have to write a paper on this book, it caught my eye. There were lots of interesting things going on with the concepts of sanity and what one brings from travel, as well, but that's a subject for a full-blown analysis, not for a measly review. As the blurb on the back of the book says - it was indeed surprisingly modern.
 Jane Eyre was, in my opinion, the most dynamic character in the book although she was often described as plain and quiet. She has developed into one of my favorite literary characters: under her supposed docility lay a fiery spirit that was occasionally aroused. I wish I could be that way - quiet on the outside and powerful on the inside instead of being all-engines on all the time. Most people think Jane is boring, but she's anything but. Mr. Rochester was also far more excitable than I was expecting. For a male in a Victorian novel, he was very arduous. There was a lot more of cuddling going on than is depicted in any film. Witness my shock. Furthermore, St. John Rivers was ridiculously irritating and overbearing. What an ass. The other characters were generally bearable even if they weren't downright likeable. Mostly because any others were barely present.
 Is Jane Eyre the perfect romance as it has been discussed? Not at all. There are several moments that become acutely uncomfortable: the discussion between Jane and Mr. Rochester on the ride back from Milcote when she essentially refused to be his mistress, as she felt he was making her out to be; his rage when she decides to leave him. He was kind of a scary guy, overall. His love for her ends up being genuine, but the language he uses does stray into obsessive territory. That was one of my only complaints about the novel. That, and the occasional long-winded paragraphs about her surroundings. There might be a deeper meaning behind her musings, but for a general, not analytic reading, it was a little much at times.
 Bertha Mason is an interesting personage, and truly terrifying to me. A portrait of madness - when Jane describes her as a hyena with her swollen discolored face, it's...quite unnerving. Most movie versions depict her as perfectly normal looking woman that goes into fits of rage when Rochester is present, but the portrait we are painted goes beyond that. I was disturbed, and I attribute that to the author's mind and writing capability. The plot is so well-known, I don't feel like I need to comment on it at all. If you don't know, then go watch a movie, or better yet - pick up the book.
Overall: A
 It's a classic and it definitely keeps your attention firmly held. There is much more than meets your eye with this piece, and anyone who thinks differently is a fool; yet, it's also the quintessential romance as it has come to be known today. Every woman longs for that man whose willing to cast off society's bonds, who would go to any length to have her - but I think this novel questions, at the same time, if that's really the proper basis for a relationship? That's something to think about. I highly recommend this - cheers from Grandma.
 

Herman Melville: Moby-Dick

• ISBN-13: 9781411433656
• Publisher: Barnes & Noble
• Publication date: 6/1/2009
• Pages: 752

On a previous voyage, a mysterious white whale had ripped off the leg of a sea captain named Ahab. Now the crew of the Pequod, on a pursuit that features constant adventure and horrendous mishaps, must follow the mad Ahab into the abyss to satisfy his unslakable thirst for vengeance. Narrated by the cunningly observant crew member Ishmael, Moby-Dick is the tale of the hunt for the elusive, omnipotent, and ultimately mystifying white whale - Moby Dick. 
 On its surface, Moby-Dick is a vivid documentary of life aboard a nineteenth-century whaler, a virtual encyclopedia of whales and whaling, replete with facts, legends, and trivia that Melville had gleaned from personal experience and scores of sources. But as the quest for the whale becomes increasingly perilous, the tale works on allegorical levels, likening the whale to human greed, moral consequence, good, evil, and life itself. Who is good? The great white whale who, like Nature, asks nothing but to be left in peace? Or the bold Ahab who, like scientists, explorers, and philosophers, fearlessly probes the mysteries of the universe? Who is evil? The ferocious, man-killing sea monster? Or the revenge-obsessed madman who ignores his own better nature in his quest to kill the beast? 
 Scorned by critics upon its publication, Moby-Dick was publicly derided during its author's lifetime. Yet Melville's masterpiece has outlived its initial misunderstanding to become an American classic of unquestionably epic proportions.

 What to say about a book that has become such a mammoth in the minds of all? It's a gargantuan tale; a whale of a tale, if you will. Okay, I'll stop with the bad puns, but I still stand by the fact that this novel is a hefty read for multiple reasons. Reason 1: sheer size. Melville is fairly prolific as a writer, but his most well-known book is obviously Moby Dick, and it's a long read. Reason 2: it gets tedious. Here was I, never having read or studied the novel, only having seen references to it in film and other novels, thinking that it was a story about a man and a whale and the undying enmity between them. I had enough knowledge of the novel, though, to know that there were chapters of plain whaling information. What I thought was a fictional novel with tangents into whaling factoids actually turned out to be a novel primarily centered on the art and lifestyle of whaling, with a story about a crazy guy chasing a whale thrown in. My mistake. That being said, there is a ridiculous amount of information on that subject. I could not recount a fraction of the information thrown at me. I found myself occasionally doing that most reprehensible of acts - reading a paragraph mindlessly, only to realize at the end that I had no recollection of what I had just read. Unfortunate, but true.
 Because there was hardly a plot to speak of, I'll be equally brief. Ahab had his leg torn off by Moby Dick - he wants revenge. And that's pretty much the point of the novel. Other than go-to whaling manual, there is very little substance to the pot. I would actually say that the novel is more of an observation on the nature of man than it is a novel of fiction.
What to say of characterization? Well, there wasn't much of it. You get to know Ishmael the most, and that's in the initial chapters. More is revealed in his first encounters with Queequeg than at any other time. Even though he's the narrator, he's pretty much invisible to the reader through the rest of the novel. We get to know Queequeg a little, but since it's only through the eyes of Ishmael, it's not that much when all is said and done. We get portraits of the mates and the other harpooners, and a few miscellaneous members of the crew, but these are also brief, barely taking up a chapter (and the chapters are tiny - some don't even cover a page). Finally, we have Ahab. The only thing we really know about him is that he's bat-shit crazy, but he hides it well unless you talk about Moby Dick, then he's all crazy-guns blazing. His first mate Starbuck seems to have the most interaction with his crazy, and you really get to feel for Starbuck. However, the dialogue is often really compounded soliloquies in high-flown language, so you don't feel like you're reading a conversation at all.
 The ending of the novel is sort of anti-climactic. I hope I'm not shocking anyone when I say that both Ahab and the whale die, but the way it is described is not as violent or impressive as one would suppose. The sinking of the ship is far more traumatic, I think, than the culmination and (questionable) success of the hunt. I will give Melville props, though, for language - he is a deep thinker and has quite a few quotable passages. Again, as I've said before, we simply don't use the English language to its full capacity anymore.
 My final comment is that, as a soul-searching project, it has immense power for looking into the human psyche and questioning certain values. Melville is infinitely successful in making you sympathize with the whale and question assumptions. As the summary above states, it is indeed an allegorical tale that, putting the whaling information aside, made me think a little harder about the relationship between man and Nature.
 Overall: B-
Mostly because of disappointed expectations and occasional incomprehensibility. It gets a boost from Melville's writing chops. It had its moments of fun and was definitely interesting, but overall I was looking for more of a work of fiction and less of a whaling how-to.