Lol, I love it, because I ended up reading them to the munchkins. I still the series overall and the films but... I don't understand why it was passed as a children's series, as there's so much abuse towards children, which is bizarre...
Mind you, I often mix up even my kids' names. But I don't recall even saying Hi and Welcome to the forum to you, @Caitlin D Burnside. Great name! I am from my little farm in Wisconsin.
I just finished reading two of James Patterson books; Lion and Lamb and The Summer House. I liked both of those books. Now I have just started reading a book by Minka Kent titled, Imaginary Strangers, and it seems to be pretty good so far.
I'm another one who reads a lot of James Patterson's books. I like his style of writing but the stories are not really credible and his attention to detail is a bit off. For instance, most professional people have two phones, one for work calls and a separate one for personal calls. Surely a detective investigating a crime scene wouldn't have his young son sending messages giving details of his day? Would a kidnapper provide his victim with everything they needed to effect an escape? This is what happened in the last book I read....all very convenient! One the subject of Harry Potter....something which concerns me is the abuse of animals. I can only suppose that J.K. Rowling is not an animal lover herself and so sees nothing wrong with her cavalier attitude to their suffering. It's good to see that so many people continue to read books and there are many new authors trying their hand at writing. Depending on the television for entertainment is bad for your mind.
I just started The Perfect Predator about using bacteriophages to treat antibiotic resistant infections.
I recently read "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" (1886) by Robert Louis Stevenson. I wanted to read it because it was short and a classic work of Gothic fiction. I read the Penguin Classics paperback edition (2003). It was kind of a complicated novella. Dr Jekyll (an apparently "respectable" man) rejects the standard materialistic explanations of life. He creates a potion to separate the good and evil aspects of a person, and it transforms him into Mr. Hyde. Mr. Hyde is a dwarfish, ugly, deformed, ape-like, angry man, a primitive throwback to an earlier stage in human evolutionary history and a reflection of the evil impulses within Dr. Jekyll himself. Mr. Hyde's ugliness and deformity are sensed by people around him, but they cannot say exactly what the deformity and ugliness consist of. People hate Mr. Hyde on sight. Dr. Jekyll says that the potion is "neutral." It reflects the inner state of the user. Dr. Jekyll has been unsuccessfully dealing with his desire to do unspecified evil things. He is also a bit of a megalomaniac. On one of Mr. Hyde's excursions into the city, he runs into and tramples on a little girl. Witnesses threaten to ruin Mr Hyde's reputation if he doesn't pay. He pays the blackmail money to keep the witnesses quiet. Mr. Utterson learns that Mr. Hyde has access to Dr.Jekyll's mansion through the rear entrance/exit. Mr. Utterson decides to unlock the mystery of the relationship between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. On a later excursion into the city, Mr. Hyde murders Sir Danvers Carew, a high-status person and client of Mr. Utterson, a lawyer. The description of the incident implies that Sir Danvers Carew is a closeted homosexual who propositioned Mr. Hyde. Mr Utterson is also a lawyer for Dr. Jekyll. Early on Mr. Utterson assumes that Dr. Jekyll's bizarre behavior is being caused by syphilis or masturbation sickness. Ultimately Dr. Lanyon (a former friend of Dr. Jekyll's), Mr. utterson (his lawyer), and Poole (a servant of Jekyll's), learn that Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyll are the same person. Dr. Lanyon witnesses the actual transformation of Mr. Hyde into Dr Jekyll, an experience so extreme that Dr. Lanyon says that he must die soon. He does die a few days later. However it's not clear exactly why Dr. Lanyon feels that he "must die" after witnessing this transformation. Maybe the story just "requires" this extreme reaction. As time goes on, Dr. Jekyll transforms into Mr. Hyde even without the potion every time he feels weak or tired, and he needs more and more potion every time to return to Dr. Jekyll. He runs out of the potion and can't recreate the original formula. He commits suicide rather than live permanently as Mr. Hyde. The novella has a lot in common with "Frankenstein" (1818) by Mary Shelley. In both books, an obsessed, irresponsible scientist transgresses the laws of God or Nature and creates a monster that wreaks havoc and indirectly kills its creator. And it has a lot in common with the movie "Altered States" (1980) starring William Hurt in which a scientist combines sensory deprivation & hallucinogenic drugs to unlock different states of consciousness. These experiments cause him to devolve into earlier stages of human evolution. And it has a lot in common with the novel "Psycho" (1959) by Robert Bloch. Norman's "mother" personality murders Milton Arbogast and Mary Crane. Is Norman Bates "responsible" for these murders ? And it has a lot in common with the short story "The Metamorphosis" by Franz Kafka (1915). Gregor Samsa wakes up and realizes slowly that he has been transformed into some kind of beetle overnight. His family eventually kills him and goes on without him which is depicted as completely normal and beneficial to the family. Dr. Jekyll's mansion symbolizes his mind. The front is clean and respectable, but the back is dirty and run down. Major THEMES of the story: evil frequently lurks behind a respectable facade. Respectability is a mere facade. Man has a dual nature. The oppressiveness of having to constantly worry about one's "reputation" and the need to present the "correct" facade. Humans cannot escape the "doom and burden" of life. IRONY is also prominent: Mr. Hyde (despite his evil nature) cares about his reputation and doesn't want it damaged. Mr. Utterson and servant Poole keep thinking that Mr. Hyde and Dr. Jekyll are separate people.
I recently finished reading "Psycho" by Robert Bloch (1959). I read "The Overlook Press" edition (paperback, 2020). It was interesting to see how the novel differed from Hitchcock's 1960 movie. In the novel, Sam explains to Lila what really happened (in the movie the psychiatrist does this); Norman Bates is fat, wears glasses, hates all women; Mary Crane is much darker. She is resentful, bitter, hates her boss and his wealthy clients. She steals the $40,000 with no sense of regret. She concocts this bizarre scheme to escape justice and live happily ever after. She plans to lie to her fiance (Sam Loomis) and pressure her sister Lila into lying for her. After a disturbing conversation between herself and Norman Bates, she decides that she has made a mistake (was temporarily crazy) and plans to go back and give the money back. But it's too late. She has aroused Norman's desire and his "mother" murders her. Lila (Mary's sister) is also depicted more darkly than in the movie. She is (at times) portrayed as impulsive, liable to stereotype people, psychotic (out of touch with reality), hysterical, hair-triggered, impatient, relying on her emotions instead of her intellect, etc. She says that hardware is "trivial" and stereotypes Sam and Sheriff Chambers as having a "slow, cautious, conservative, small-town outlook." Major themes of the novel are: can we really know someone? Aren't we all somewhat insane? We shouldn't stereotype people. Is Norman "responsible" for the actions of "mother" (one of his three personalities) ? People know things that aren't true. People base decisions on incomplete or unreliable investigations, knowledge. How do we know things ? Does "magic" count as knowledge ? Thinking with your emotions is not a good idea. Do spiritualism, occultism, metaphysics (some of Norman's interests) lead to truth ? Epistemology is a major issue in the novel. The novel is filled with IRONY. Mary feels better after talking to Norman Bates. Mary feels that FATE (does fate control our lives?) is responsible for her meeting Norman Bates and her decision to give the money back. Norman thinks that he has a mild metal illness. Norman says that he must "face facts," but that is something that he has been avoiding for years. Norman says that his "mother" is dangerously psychotic. Sheriff Jud Chambers says that Norman is not a murderer. Norman is outraged that Sam and Lila are lying to him. Norman says that his "mother" is locked up in the fruit cellar, but we know that she "lives" in Norman's mind. Some things I found a bit difficult to believe: Norman has the mental toughness and determination to poison his mother and Joe Considine, but he has a mental breakdown as he watches them suffer as they die. As he writes the fake suicide note, he decides to become his mother because he couldn't stand her loss. Norman sees Joe and his mother in bed together and this triggers him to murder them both. Why ? No explanation is given. The novel has a humanistic ethos and a lot of philosophy. Norman Bates is not executed for murdering Arbogast and Mary Crane. He is incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital. His final disposition is not disclosed. This was a pretty good novel, much richer and more thought-provoking than the movie. Next I'm reading "Renaissance: Masterpieces of Art" by Julia Biggs (2019) from Flame Tree Publishing that I got from Edward R. Hamilton for a small price. These "Masterpieces of Art" books are short (127 pages). After about 30 pages of text, the rest are pictures by the artist or art movement accompanied by short descriptions.
I finished reading "The Midwich Cuckoos" by John Wyndham (1957). I read The Modern Library paperback edition (2022). It has a good introduction by Kelly Link which vastly reduces the likelihood that a reader will misunderstand the novel. It was a very interesting science fiction-horror novel and posed a lot of philosophical questions. The main one: how does humankind deal a slow-moving invasion by an alien species (a different race) that looks very similar to us ? An alien spaceship ship lands in Midwich England, and aliens render everyone unconscious and impregnate ("rape" would be a more appropriate word) all the females of child-bearing age, xenogenesis. The children have unusual mental powers. The aliens can force any human to do whatever they want. They will inevitably completely eliminate humans from the Earth or completely dominate and enslave them. Or the aliens will have to be killed before they can mature and achieve even more power. The alien children grow twice as fast as humans and see the world and life as a Darwinian struggle to survive, the "law of the jungle." They have no qualms about killing and manipulating humans to get what they need. The children are telepathically linked together like "the Borg" (which this novel may have inspired) from Star Trek. But in the novel the linkage is divided by gender: all the boys are linked together, and all the girls are linked together. Unlike in the movie, the alien children cannot read the minds of humans. A major theme: can Christianity deal with a threat of this type ? It cannot. A "Christian" response would mean total extinction or permanent slavery of the human race by the aliens. Miss Lamb (presumably representing Jesus, Christianity) is raped-impregnated by the aliens. She wants the people of Midwich to "teach" the aliens "gentleness" and "love" (187). Christianity as a worldview-practice is raped by the aliens' presence and behavior. Ironically a "Christian" solution is found, but not the one she had in mind. Did God rape the Virgin Mary? A major character (Gordon Zellaby, the "sage" of Midwich) considers himself to be a "rationalist," but he spouts a considerable amount of mumbo-jumbo. He doesn't believe in human evolution and thinks that species appeared on Earth "fully formed" and that a "team" of evil "inventors" created life on Earth. He poses a question: is humanitarianism a type of decadence (202) ?
Wow. Interesting reading all. I don't generally read fiction but if I have time, I may pick one. Thanks
I have just finished reading a book by Val McDermit. I have read several of her books but this one was very disturbing. It featured a man who tortured men to death. The author described the torture in great detail and in the first person. What does that say about her? Was she acting out a fantasy through her writing?
I just finished reading Don't Tell A Soul by Jessica Huntley. Currently reading A Woman In the Window by A.J.Finn.
I recently read "The Croquet Player" by H.G. Wells (1937). I read the "Bison Frontiers of Imagination" series edition from University of Nebraska Press published in 2004 with an introduction by John Huntington. It is a very thought-provoking novella, well worth reading. WARNING: Everything beyond this point is one big SPOILER. Georgie Frobisher (the protagonist) is an "extremely sheltered," "dependent," somewhat "effeminate," 33 year-old British man who lives with the wealthy aunt who raised him, and (he says) one of the "best" croquet players alive and a "first-rate" archer. He has "an ineffective will" and prefers "not to make important decisions." His "comfortable" life consists mostly of following his aunt around wherever she goes and playing croquet. He and his aunt are the "floating cream of humanity" and non-thinkers. He has no interest in any of the important issues of his time, 1936. THEME: Is the author criticizing the British upper class through this character ? At a resort, he meets Dr. Finchatton, a "sensitive" man who earlier had been working "too hard" and thinking and feeling "too much." He tells Georgie about the "disturbing experiences" he has had since he moved to Cainsmarsh in the countryside. Dr. Finchatton says that Cainsmarsh is "haunted" and a land of "brooding strangeness." He began to have insomnia and "evil dreams." Sleeplessness caused him to hallucinate menacing images. He suspects malignant behavior of those around him. He says that he discovered "habitual fear" in some of the other Cainsmarsh residents. He becomes more and more afraid, and his nightmares and hallucinations become exceptionally horrible. THEME: Is Dr. Finchatton expressing a veiled anxiety about the disturbing events of 1936 ? Dr Finchatton visits Vicar Old Rawdon at the "Cross in Slackness" church in Cainsmarsh to discuss his strange experiences. The Vicar says that an "evil" force infects Cainsmarsh and it's people. The Vicar (it turns out) is severely mentally ill and can provide no help to Dr. Finchatton. The Vicar hates change because change damages faith. He savagely denounces science, Catholicism, immorality, immodesty. The Vicar erupts into a storm of jumbled "preposterous nonsense." Change apparently drove him insane. Like Finchatton, the Vicar is also "sensitive." THEME : Fear, psychosis, anxiety are contagious. Obsession-fanaticism is the "infection" of Cainsmarsh. Dr. Finchatton visits the Reverend Mortover (whom the Vicar despises) at Marsh Havering nearby. The Reverend is as insane as the Vicar. He blames diabolism and the Reformation for the problems at Cainsmarsh and says that it needs an "exorcism." After these discussions, Dr Finchatton understands that religious disagreements can lead to homicide. He says that "endemic panic" is the "contagion" at Cainsmarsh. Dr. Finchatton then visits the archaeologist at the Eastfolk museum for answers. He shows Dr. Finchatton a complete skull of a primitive man recently dug up in Cainsmarsh and says that this area has been inhabited for hundreds of thousands of years. Dr. Finchatton becomes obsessed by this skull. He doesn't want to see similarities between humans and other animals. The archaeologist says the problems in Cainsmarsh are psychological and metaphysical in nature. THEME: The growth of knowledge in the late 19th and early 20th centuries led to an increase in anxiety. "Sensitive" people liable to "haunted" in Cainsmarsh, i e. anywhere. The archaeologist suggests that Dr. Finchatton see a psychiatrist, Dr. Norbert. Dr. Norbert told Dr. Finchatton to see the world around him "unfeelingly," to disengage his emotions, to adopt "rational insensitivity" as a way of seeing things, to not be controlled by his emotions. THEME: Rationality vs emotionality. How should we see the world? Dr. Finchatton finishes telling his story to Georgie Frobisher. Georgie Frobisher then meets Dr. Norbert who has been waiting nearby. He immediately dislikes ("a violent antipathy") him, sees him as death, and says that he looks like a corpse. Georgie says that he acts as though he were "God Almighty." He sees Dr. Norbert as someone who views Dr. Finchatton and himself as "rabbits" to "dissected." THEME: Psychiatrist Norbert represents the possible death of Georgie's views, lifestyle. Are psychiatrists and scientists the new gods, replacing priests ? Dr . Norbert informs Georgie that Cainsmarsh does not exist, that Dr. Finchatton created this "myth," "fable" because he is "troubled beyond reason" and overwhelmed by frightening realities. So he transformed these painful realities into a "fairy tale" to make them easier to deal with. THEME: Do people turn to fantasy when reality is too painful ? Dr. Norbert says that "endemic panic" is infecting many people these days and it is growing. Dr. Norbert acknowledges that he too was 'infected" with the mind-virus plague, but he was able to cure himself. He says that an increase in knowledge in the last several decades has unmoored some people more than others. THEME: Does the increase in scientific knowledge make people unhappy ? Too much knowledge causes suffering, a Lovecraftian idea. Dr. Norbert claims that: civilization and progress are a "delusion"; mankind is still "invincibly bestial, envious, malicious, greedy"; the world of "gods" and "rainbow promises" was "artificial" and "fictitious"; religion can no more provide reassurance; nature drives people victimized by extreme trauma insane. THEME: Have humans made moral progress ? Are we still bestial apes ? Dr. Norbert says that we must adapt our minds to "a new scale." Georgie says that Dr. Norbert is "raving" and in a "frenzy" and compares him to a deranged religious fanatic. Georgie feels that he (a "decent" person) shouldn't have to listen to this kind of speech. THEME: Does Georgie Frobisher represent apathetic people and the defenses they adopt ? Georgie wants to be told "exactly" what to do and sees the demand that he "think" as "too much," too hard. Dr. Norbert asks Georgie why croquet "matters" if the world is "in ruins about you ?" Georgie decides to go back to back to his aunt, croquet, his non-thinking life. Georgie was on auto-pilot and wants to stay that way. THEME: How do we respond in a time of crisis ? Do we give up, change the life we have to address the crisis ? Are custom and tradition the enemies of making the world a better place ? In the afterword, John Huntington writes that: in 1936, the great depression was ongoing, and the fascists were "threatening war about the globe"; the novella attacks British complacency; Dr. Norbert is also "infected" by obsession- fanaticism; all explanations are "contaminated" by 'infection"; the novella depicts religious authority figures as inadequate; Dr. Norbert's "bullying rationality" becomes "totalitarian and oppressive"; the "real meaning" of the novella may be" the strains and horrors of contemporary history"; etc.