Well, but there was the whole Napoleon thing. If Napoleon hadn't left Elba when he did, the whole imprisonment might have been much, much shorter, and thus the bitter would not have been quite so acute.

Actually what is funny is seeing movie adaptations of the book, where they (necessarily) shorten and simplify -- one recent one made Albert into the Count's son, and Mercedes married (a combined Morcerf/Danglars character) quickly in order to hide the illegitimacy of her pregnancy. It made for a (not in the book but) very dramatic reveal at the end, which led to swordfighting, and I can't but approve of swordfighting.

I do get the sense that Monte Cristo started out as one thing, and morphed as Dumas was writing it into a thing where the Count became his ego-ideal. And that's why the ending is weak -- he didn't have the stones to kill his own ego-ideal; his ego-ideal couldn't end up alone and bitter; his ego-ideal couldn't get back together with someone who had married his enemy. Otherwise, I think it could have been a fascinating study of what revenge -- and expiation -- does to the soul; instead, it was a half-baked adventure, which was great fun, but not satisfying.

My author that I hate that everyone else should hate too: Thomas Hardy.

I know another staunch Hardy-hater. I'm thinking he's low on my list of authors to check out.

Unrelatedly, I still need to read Wuthering Heights. It's really short, isn't it? And I have this copy I got for, like, a dime. I should just read it, huh.

I read Wuthering Heights when I was around 15, and then again last year. It was like it was two completely different books. Do you like reading things through a rather unreliable narrator and having to take PoV considerations into your reading as you go along, P-C? WH is great for that.

ETA: I kind of liked Tess of the Durbyvilles. Not enough to read it twice, though.

Unrelatedly, I still need to read Wuthering Heights. It's really short, isn't it? And I have this copy I got for, like, a dime. I should just read it, huh.

Yes. Yes you should. It's wonderful.

Skip Skip Skip to my lou

so hey, I am reading the second Bridget Jones and while I've laughed out loud a couple of times, I find her neither charming nor compelling in this. It's been a couple of years since I read the first one. I remember her being overly-neurotic in that, but not on this same "every decision I make is bad" level. And her frineds, god, with friends like that, who needs enemies. bad advice, unhelpful distractions, and self-absorbtion. Am I misremembering what she was like in the first one?

I am also working my way through Tart Noir which has been on my shelves for a few years. Two different friends told me they didn't think I'd like it and so far I've liked about half the stories.

I am hoping to pick up some stuff that I like better this weekend. On tap is a Kate Shugak mystery and possibly some child development nonfiction.

Johnson wrote Rasselas in a week to pay for his mother's funeal expenses. Fortunately, his reputation rests not on his fiction, but on his nonfiction, particularly The Lives of the Poets and the dictionary. I don't think of Rasselas as a particularly successful book, but Johnson's essays can be brilliant.

I had a totally different view of Wuthering Heights when I read it in college, versus when I read it in high school.

I thought Heathcliff/Cathy was this amazing, romantic ideal when I was in high school.

In college, I thought it was fucked up and overblown and unhealthy as hell (the Heathcliff/Cathy saga).

I hated The Flounder by Gunter Grass. I have blocked a lot of the "why" out of my brain, since it was taking up too much space, but I almost stopped talking to the friend that had recommended it. Unpleasant throughout. Don't like reading through gritted teeth.

Cereal.

Do you like reading things through a rather unreliable narrator and having to take PoV considerations into your reading as you go along, P-C? WH is great for that.

Also great for that (and possibly mentioned recently, I can't be sure) is The Good Soldier by Ford Maddox Ford. This is when narrator POV really began to intrigue me.

Nutty, I called the plot twist of the most recent movie after the first fifteen minutes. It was a neat twist, though, and worked with the story as presented. It just wasn't "The Count of Monte Cristo". Which is exactly the complaint many folks had about "Troy." I need to work on my "this is a movie, that's a book" separation issues.

Anyway--

"Otherwise, I think it could have been a fascinating study of what revenge -- and expiation -- does to the soul"

I think we saw elements of the Count realizing he was overreacting in places, and I think at the very, very end he confesses to being weary of revenge. Would such a book as you're proposing have been written in that day and age? Honor was all, and I'm not sure that any audience of the time would put up with the Count suddenly going "My quest is wrong!" and still be able to have any respect for him.