The Decameron of Boccaccio Final

I completely skimmed this book.

After reading halfway through it, of course. I believe that I'm covered by skimming it, because technically I finished it. (I even read the conclusion.) I just didn't read every single one of the 100 1/2 stories inside it. I say 100 and 1/2 because Boccaccio started the Fourth Day with a rant about how people need to stop telling him that he spends too much time with women. In this rant, he told a small story as an example, but he only told half of it and for all that I looked in the book - I never did find the other half. Which is annoying.

Outside of that, the book does say a lot about medieval attitudes, or at least the attitudes of the well off. There is, sadly, only one occurrence of a voice from the lower class and it is merely a bawdy old woman - servant - complaining about a man that told her that he knows more about virginity than she does. Which, as proven by the revelers, he did not. First, what was slightly surprising to me, in the medieval ages the clergy was seen as ridiculous. But you still must believe in God, God is great. But the friars, monks, and pope - all shameless sexual deviants - the lot of them. Women, too restrained by Boccaccio's standards. On the one hand, Boccaccio seemed to be arguing - especially in his conclusion - that women should be allowed to hear dirty stories and should give up pretending to be pure. At least, that was my reading of his message. Brown University's page points out that women were seen as having greater sexual desire, so perhaps this is why Boccaccio constantly pointed out that women enjoyed sex.

However, even though women should enjoy sex, they should not be unfaithful. Here is where patriarchy makes all men hypocrites. In his stories, men were to be praised for their successes in sleeping with other men's wives. But women, women were to be censured for sleeping with men other than their husbands. For example, in one tale - a monk meets with a woman who has a very stupid husband. He persuades her, very cleverly, to do away with her husband - tells her how - and then proceeds to enjoy her. At the end of the story, he is lauded by the revelers as being so clever. This doesn't mean that men weren't punished for their actions as well. The prince that steals away the neighboring kingdom's princess is killed in the process. The man who slanders another man's faithful wife to win a bet, is brought before a king and punished. But in each of these tales, the men go above and beyond in their attempts to win their desired goal. Love and money.

To be honest, although a good portion of the stories seemed repetitive, the book does provide a good insight into 14th century Italian life. The mention of other kingdoms, like England, was especially interesting. It was very easy to get a grasp on the Italian world view at the time - which existed of the Mediterranean, Turkey, and some other portions of Europe. The discussion of Muslims was interesting as well, though only one or two stories mentioned them. Mostly the women were considered looser, and in some cases a bit smarter, than the European women. Cleverness in all people was praised. If I could only read a selection of stories from The Decameron I would probably have enjoyed it more, but trying to read all 100 1/2 was just too much for me.

For my next book I'm starting the Code of the West by Zane Grey. I've heard that Zane Grey is fantastic, and I know he was once very popular, so I'm excited to finally start reading one of his novels. 'Til next time, may you all enjoy a very good book. (That is not The Decameron, unless you like that sort of thing.)

Arthur C. Clarke

Arthur C. Clarke is far too technical.

Okay, maybe I'm just a bit too much of a romantic in that I prefer a bit of story with my science fiction and writers like Edgar Rice Burroughs and H.G. Wells. Arthur C. Clarke's Sands of Mars, while entertaining in parts, made for a long read. For a book that I expected to finish in a week, I certainly didn't think I'd take almost three. But its done and I should back-track a little. As anyone following this knows, I took a break from the Decameron because its Medieval and dense. Having finished the Sands of Mars, I still have no desire to return to the book. Especially because Sands of Mars was technical and dense. What I'll probably do is start on the collection of Oscar Wilde's works that I have on the list. My plan is to read a day of the Decameron and then cool my brain off with one or two of Oscar Wilde's writings. (Maybe five if I'm working on the poems.) Otherwise I'm just going to have to abandon the book, and I'd really hate to do that so early in the project. (We'll see about later.) Because I'll be multi-tasking I will post about both books, but they will be treated separately. If that means two short posts on them once in a while then so be it.

But to stop digressing, let me talk about this book. The Sands of Mars was Arthur C. Clarke's first novel, written in the 1940s. The version I purchased was not the same as Joe's, which was published in 1952 and wouldn't have had the introductions that mine did. My version was published in the late '70s and contained two introductions from Clarke that explained the type of novel it was, apologized for the science in it, and explained that the science was based on what people thought at the time. Yes, from the introductions I probably should have been sufficiently warned that this book would be what it was. However, I went into it with a excited mind, ready to see what an, unknown to me, sci-fi writer would imagine about a colony on Mars.

The science was mildly absurd, I just want to point that out now. I'll get to it later. The book is about Martin Gibson, a famous science fiction author who is offered the chance to go to the new colony on Mars to introduce it to Earth. They say write what you know, right? Well, the first half of the book is dedicated to the trip to Mars and the second half is dedicated to Gibson's experiences there. As far as storyline, the book is a bit flat. But before I get into my criticisms, I would like to point out what Clarke did well. For one, there are his descriptions. Although on the technical side, Clarke didn't make the descriptions hard for readers to understand. Which I have to commend him for because that is a tough skill to master. In fact, it was very easy to imagine the ship he flew to Mars in, the planet, the colony, and even the plants there. (Yeah there were plants.) Like all science fiction, there are small pieces of foresight in the book that apply to today. For example, this article in USA Today about landing astronauts on Mars. Just like in his book where the Earth kept threatening to cut off funding to the Mars colony, funding is an issue for expeditions today. Also Clarke's main characters were relatively realistic, if not easy to relate with.

Other than that, the story is borderline cliche. If this wasn't a science-fiction, and Clarke didn't have the technical stuff I would be incredibly bored. In the story Gibson finds that he is actually traveling on a ship in which his son is crew, a son he never knew he had. Their relationship is a backdrop for the adjustment that Gibson is making to life on Mars. Its probably an attempt to make Gibson more relate-able but is really just a distraction for the bigger story of the secret project that the colonists are hiding from Earth. They turn the moon Phobos into a mini sun using nuclear reactions, by blowing it up without blowing it up? I'm not very good with physics but I'm pretty sure that's not how that works. Added on to this story's defunctionality is the constant foreshadowing that Clarke does throughout the book. Its like he doesn't think that the reader will remember what Gibson just discovered is important in the next few pages, so he decides to point out it is important immediately. Towards the end, when they just kept piling on top of each other, it got to the point of being annoying. And then after placing it in his reader's minds that it's an important point, he barely deals with it and spends only a sentence or two on the reveal. And although he details the most minute workings of a machine, he can't bother to detail a single important aspect that deals with the characters of the story.

But this is starting to turn into a rant so I am going to back off now.  Overall I was left with rather mixed feelings about the story. The ending, sad to say, disappointed me immensely. It didn't feel finished, but I can forgive that because colonizing never is and given the subject its acceptable. However, it felt flat, just flat. This book was flat, that is the best description I can think of for it. Flat. (Oh no, ranting is too easy... must stop... thinking about... flaws... Starting... over...)

I have mixed feelings about this book. I really think that's probably where I should leave it. I will point out that some of the ideas were really interesting. The science was awesome and although I know that Mars is nothing like what Clarke described, part of me kind of wishes it was. The book does speak to a desire to (to paraphrase Star Trek) seek out new life and new civilizations, go where no man has gone before. As for my ancestors, I'm definitely starting to see where I get my own love of science fiction. My brother's obsession with science and all things related makes a lot more sense after this book. I also feel slightly justified in my mixed feelings of Clarke's first novel. After all, there's only one Arthur C. Clarke in the list of books  compared to at least 8 Wells novels. ;P

Taking a Break from The Decameron

Part of me really wants to scream right now that I can't take it anymore. The Decameron is so dense and the medieval viewpoint of women is committing a full frontal assault on my modern sensibilities. So in order to stay sane, I'm going to take a week's break from the Decameron and use the time to read Arthur C. Clarke's Sands of Mars. I'll do my best not to drop the Decameron totally, but to be honest I don't know if I'll return to it.

But in light of not having a post chock full of information about Medieval Italy,  I thought I would finally produce the list of the books that my Great Grandfather owned. This list may be updated in the future, if I ever make it out to my grandparents house, but as of now it contains a full list of the books my mother owns and an almost complete list of the books owned by my Uncle Jimmy.

Obviously I'm a History student because anyone with knowledge of citations will see that I have completed the list using Turabians Chicago Style.(A style drilled into our skulls in history classes in college.) The meanings of the notations beside each item are listed below.

*A World of Great Stories. New York: Crown Publishers, 1947.
*Alfred Hitchcock Presents:  A Month of Mystery.  New York: Random House, 1969.
*Alfred Hitchcock Presents:  My Favorites in Suspense.  New York: Random House, 1959.
*Alfred Hitchcock Presents:  Stories That Scared Even Me.  New York: Random House, 1967.
*Allen, Hervey. Israfel: The Life and Times of Edgar Allen Poe. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, Inc., 1934.
Bailey, Alice A. Problems of Humanity. New York: Lucis Publishing Co., 1947.
°Baird, A.T. One-Hundred Cases for Survival after Death. New York: Bernard Ackerman, 1944.
*Balzac, Honoré De. Droll Stories. New York: Garden City Books, 1946.
°Beecroft, John, ed. Kipling: A Selection of his Stories and Poems. 2 vols. Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1956.
°____ and Howard Haycraft, eds. Ten Great Mysteries. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1959.
°Boccaccio, Giovanni. The Decameron of Boccaccio. Universal Classics.
-Bridges, William. Wild Animals of the World. Garden City: Publishing Inc., 1944.
°Burton, Richard F. trans. The Arabian Nights. New York: Blue Ribbon Books, 1941.
*Busch, Niven. The Hate Merchant. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1953.
*Cain, James M. The Postman Always Rings Twice. New York: Triangle Books, 1938.
°Cervantes, Miguel. Don Quixote. Edited by Richard Emery Roberts. Translated by P.A. Molluex and Charles Jarvis. New York: Book League of America, 1946.
°Clarke, Arthur C. Sands of Mars. Gnome Press, Inc., 1952.
°The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Illustrated by Rockwell Kent. New York: Doubleday and Co., 1936.
*Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man. New York: The Modern Library.
-Davies, C.T. The Horse: And How to Care For Him. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Publishing Company, 1911.
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor. Crime and Punishment. Translated by Constance Garnett. Illinois: Illustrated Modern Library, 1944.
_____. The Idiot. Vol. 2. Translated by Constance Garnett. Macmillian, 1916.
°_____. The Brothers Karamazov. Translated by Constance Garnett. Modern Library, 1929.
*Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York: Garden City Books, 1930.
-Ellison, Charles. The Fundamentals of Window Display. International Textbook Company, 1931.
*Forbes, Esther. Paul Revere and the World he Lived in. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1942.
George, W.L. Her Unwelcome Husband. Harper and Brothers, 1922.
Goodwin, Ernest. The Duchess of Siona. Illustrated by W.T. Benda. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1918.
°Grey, Zane. Code of the West. New York: P.F. Collier and Son, 1934.
*Gunther, John. Inside Africa. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955.
°Haley, Alex. Roots. Garden City: Doubleday, 1976.
*Haggard, Henry Rider. She. New York: Books Inc., 1886.
-Harrison, E.S. A Beginner Spanish Reader. Ginn and Co., 1917.
-_____. An Intermediate Spanish Reader. Ginn and Co., 1917.
*Hart, Frances Noyes. The Bellamy Trial. New York: Doubleday, Page and Company, 1927.
-Harte, Bret. Bret Harte’s Writings: Tales of the Argonauts and Other Sketches. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,1903.
-Hawks, Ellison. Bees Shown to the Child. New York: Platt and Peck Co.
*Hemingway, Ernest. Death in the Afternoon. New York: P.F. Collier and Son, 1938.
*____. For Whom the Bell Tolls.
*____. The Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1953.
*Hersey, John. The War Lover. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959.
Herzberg, Max J. Myths and their Meanings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1931.
*Hewlett, Maurice. The Forest Lovers. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1898.
-The Home Mechanic’s Handbook. New York: D. Van Nostrand Company Inc., 1945.
How and Why Wonder Book of Reptiles and Amphibians. Wonder Books Inc., 1960.
Hugo, Victor. The Hunchback of Notre Dame. 1914.
_____. Les Miserables. Translated by Lacelles Wraxall.
_____. Toilers of the Sea. New York: Hurst and Co., 1922.
°Jackson, Helen Hunt. Ramona. New York: Grossett and Dunlap, 1912.
*Joyce, James. Ulysses.
Lawrence, D.H. Sons and Lovers. Viking Press, 1963.
°Lee, Harper. To Kill a Mockingbird.
*London, Jack. The Cruise of the Snark.  New York: The Review of Reviews Company, 1917.
Lytton, Sir Edward Bulwer. The Last Days of Pompeii. Spencer Press, 1936.
Mailer, Norman. Barbary Shore. Rhinehart and Co., Inc., 1951.
Masterpieces of British Literature. Riverside Press, 1895.
Maugham, W. Somerset, ed. Tellers of Tales. New York: Doubleday, Doran, and Co., 1939.
*Maughan, A. W. Harry of Monmouth. New York: William Sloane Associates, 1956.
°Melville, Herman. Moby Dick. Spencer Press, 1936.
*Pasternak, Boris. Doctor Zhivago. New York: Pantheon Books, Inc., 1958.*Poe, Edgar Allen. Tales of Mystery and Imagination. Spencer Press, 1936.
-Queen, Ellery. Challenge to the Reader: An Anthology. New York: Blue Ribbon Books, 1940.
Shirer, William L. Berlin Diary. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1941.
°Sienkiewicz, Henryk. Quo Vadis. Translated by Jeremiah Curtain. Book League of America, 1925.
°Stevenson, Robert. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde/Kidnapped. Popular Classics Inc.,
*Susann, Jacqueline. Valley of the Dolls. New York: Bernard Geis Associates, 1966.
Tolstoy, Leo. War and Peace. Translated by Constance Garnett. New York: Illustrated Modern Library.
Verne, Jules. From the Earth to the Moon. New York: Lovell Brothers and Co.,
*____. The Lighthouse at the End of the World. New York: G. Howard Watt, 1924.
°_____. Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea. New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., 1911.
*Waltari, Mika. The Wanderer. Translated by Naomi Walford. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1951.
-Webling, W. Hastings. Fore!: The Call of the Links. H.M. Caldwell Co., 1909.*Wells, H.G. 7 Science Fiction Novels of H.G. Wells. New York: Dover Publications, 1950.
*____.  28 Science Fiction Stories of H.G. Wells. New York: Dover Publications, 1952.
°_____. Mr. Blettsworthy on Rampole Island. Illustrated by George Picken. Garden City: Doubleday, Doran and Co., 1928.
*____. The Croquet Player. New York:  The Viking Press, 1937.
*____. The Holy Terror. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1939.
_ ___. The Outline of History. 4 vols. Macmillion, 1920.
*____. Tono-Bungay. New York:  The Modern Library, 1935.
*____. Twelve Stories and a Dream. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1924.
White, E.B. and K.S. White. A Sub-Treasury of American Humor. New York: Coward-Mclann Inc., 1941.
°Wilde, Oscar. The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde.
Williams, H. P. Our Moon. Frederich Muller LTD, 1954.
Wren, Percival C. Beau Ideal. New York: Grossett and Dunlap, 1929.
_____. Beau Sabreur. New York: Grossett and Dunlap, 1929.
_____. Good Gestes. New York: Grossett and Dunlap, 1929.

*Indicates books owned by my Uncle. 

-Indicates books I believe I cannot find or will not read. 

°Indicates books I own already, have purchased, or can borrow from the library.  
Indicates books I've read

I didn't know, when I asked my Uncle about what books he had, that there would be so many H.G. Wells! But I'm excited because clearly a love of H.G. Wells runs in my family. 

 

The Decameron of Boccaccio

This is the book that made me realize I come from a long line of Catholics.

Having no knowledge of this book, I decided that I would start reading The Decameron with a little investigation of the book first. There is a fantastic page from  Brown University's Italian Studies Department that actually tells a lot about the history of the book. Between them and Wikipedia I set myself up with some good knowledge that I will now share with you. (Yes I know that Wikipedia is a disreputable source but I backed it up with academic knowledge so bleh!)

The Decameron was written by Giovanni Boccaccio from 1348-1351. The book is a collection of stories told by 10 individuals who escape the black plague together by fleeing to a country house owned by one of them. They entertain each other with stories to pass the time during the 10 days that they are together. Sound familiar? Well this is probably because there is a good chance that Chaucer took the format of his Canterbury tales from The Decameron. In fact, it is believed that Chaucer's Knight's Tale is pretty much lifted out of The Decameron. The book is a historical goldmine of 14th century Italian conceptions of Chivalry, Sex, Religion, and life in general. I am only a third of the way through it, mostly because it is somewhat boring, but so far I've read a few humorous stories.

Now when I found out all of this information I was not exactly thrilled that this was the next book on my list. But I really had no choice because I managed to check it out from my library. Unfortunately its not the same translation as the one my great grandparents owned, but its mainly the same book. I am so glad its not the same translation because theirs looked like it was slightly more difficult to comprehend. It's definitely better than the translation available from the Gutenberg Project. Their version was so flowery and filled with thees and thous that I couldn't get two sentences in without wanting to break the computer screen. My mom pointed out that the GP one is probably from the 1600s which would explain the language. This book is from the 1930s and fairly close to the age I believe my great grandparent's version is - there is no publishing date in it. It is translated by Richard Aldington and although I have no knowledge of medieval Italian, I think its a good translation.

Now onto what my tagline means. As I was reading this book I noted that it has a lot of religious connotation to it. Several stories are all about behaving properly in the eyes of God and the greatness of God and so on and so forth. I'm just gonna state, I'm an Atheist, and although I know that the Medieval period was religious and although I know that historically this is what it was like. I hated it. The constant He referred to in the stories was starting to get my temper chomping. And then I wrote myself a historical question about the rotten clergy - there was a lot of it - and why were they still religious despite the horrible plague and horrible clergy. That's when it clicked in my mind, all of these stories deal with Catholics. 'Cause well, Medieval Italy. Then my neurons chewed on that information and spit out some random answer to a question I was working on in the back of my mind. Why on Earth did any of my ancestors read this book? Was it just because it was a classic? (One I'd never heard of.) Or were they interested in medieval literature (only book on the shelf.) And then my neurons responded, oh wait. Catholics. My great grandfather's family was Catholic. They could have been reading the book because they enjoyed religious medieval stories. Or maybe it was done on a bet. A library initiative? Curiosity's sake? Or not even read at all. I don't really know and I have no way of finding out. But suddenly the religious stuff didn't bug me so much because I had a personal history with it. Now the book can mention He as much as it wants because I feel some stronger connection to my ancestors when I read it.

Just a note though, my Great Grandfather became a content Atheist later in his life.

That's all for today, next time I'll share some information with you about what a Sirocco wind is and which King Charles are they all talking about.

Mr. Blettsworthy on Rampole Island

Boy did Wells throw me for a loop with this one.

But before I get into that, let me start at the beginning. Yesterday, I finished Mr. Blettsworthy on Rampole Island while at work and thoroughly enjoyed the book. To the person who said that this book was a rewrite of The Island of Doctor Moreau I doubly say, liar!

But before I get into all of that, let me summarize this book for you. The book starts with the biography of Arnold Blettsworthy and traces him to Oxford. From there he gets in a fight with his friend and business partner Lyulph Graves over the betrayal of his Fiance. After falling into a deep depression over this betrayal, Arnold is told to go have an adventure at sea so he can rediscover himself and mature a little. While at sea, the steamship he's on breaks in the middle of a violent storm. He, an unwelcome passenger, is abandoned by the crew and almost murdered when the captain of the boat locks him into a cabin. After several days of sea, floating far away from land, Blettsworthy is picked up by the savages of Rampole Island. There he is deemed the Sacred Lunatic and is safe from the dreaded Reproof. He is forced to eat the Gift of Friends with the other islanders and is followed around by Chit who is the only man who can interpret the omens that come out of his crazed ramblings. For five years, Blettsworthy lives on the island, trying to avoid the machinations of Ardam - the warrior - and the hairless old men who try to pit him against Chit. War breaks out with another tribe further up the gorge and Blettsworthy rescues a woman who is escaping from Ardam. They make their escape in a canoe from the island and in the next second Blettsworthy is lying in bed in a flat in New York, being spoon fed by a woman named Ramona. Blettsworthy is informed then that, for five years, he has been insanely rambling about Rampole island, unable to see the real world about him. He was rescued by a science boat that came upon him. He's suffered from a strange case of split personality where a lesser personality has been living his life, while his dominant personality has been gallivanting around Rampole Island. Even better, Blettsworthy wakes just in time to go fight in World War I. He marries Ramona, who he did actually save from drowning, and they travel back to England. Blettsworthy voluntarily joins the war and within his first engagement is hit in the legs. One of his legs is amputated and he returns to England to recuperate. There he finds himself in the same ward as his good old friend Lyulph Graves, who he feels no animosity towards anymore. (What are friends over a foolish girl, right?) The last section of the book is dedicated to detailing Blettsworthy's settling down at home and his renewed relationship with Graves.

It took me three days, not consecutively, to finish this book and what a fantastic book it was. Wells did such a good job transitioning the reader, with Blettsworthy, from Rampole Island to New York that the reader experienced the same mental confusion. I actually had to stop reading at that point and look up and make sure of where I was. The language was beautiful and I will be jotting down several quotes from the latter half of the book that I simply loved. The descriptions made the whole world seem very realistic and I kept wanting to stop and look up places. Also there were quite a few twists in there that surprised me, something a book hasn't been able to do in a long time. Point in blank, I don't know who read it out of my ancestors but I hope they loved it as much as I did.

Having finished the book, I feel that I am right in believing that this was partially a response to World War I. The underlying question asked in the book is, What is the purpose of Civilization? Are the Civilized truly civilized or are they cannibalistic savages? Now, perhaps like IoDM, there is another underlying question about morality throughout this book as well. But even more prevalent is the concept of Identity. Throughout the book, Blettsworthy reminds himself that he is a Blettsworthy, specifically that he is Arnold Blettsworthy. During his time on Rampole Island, Blettsworthy is constantly struggling against the elders' desire for him to marry into the tribe - and thus become an islander and no longer Blettsworthy. Even his very parentage leads him to question his identity - is he like his Portuguese mix mother or like his English father? Identity plays a huge role in this novel.

After reading this book, I feel I have a slightly firmer grasp on the fall out of World War I. I wonder, when my Great Grandparents were born in the 1920s, did their parents believe that WWI had been the war to end all wars like Graves? Or did they feel, like Blettsworthy, that the world was Rampole Island? Unfortunately, I'll have no way of knowing.

I highly suggest that anyone, who can get their hands on it, should pick this book up and read it. The next book in my list will be the Decameron of Boccaccio, a medieval text written in the 1300s. My ancestors sure had some varied tastes.