The Paper Men | William Golding

I don't know what prompted me to read "The Paper Men", but a couple of days ago I decided to give the third Golding book on my shelf a try. After reading "Lord of the Flies" in high school (and enjoying it) and "Darkness Visible" earlier this year (and disliking it), I figured I'd give Golding another chance to redeem himself. He did not.

I dove into the book with no preconceptions, as I had no idea what it was about. Without spoilers, here is a brief synopsis:

Wilfrid Barclay, a 60 year old alcoholic author, is all washed up. He drinks like a fish and travels all over the world. He treats people in his life that are 'close' to him (which are few), like garbage and never really understands if he's living in a dream or a stupor, but for him, that is life. This book reminds me of "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", without the drug induced hallucinations (most here are alcohol related) and without pretty much everything that made the latter interesting.

Rick Tucker is an Associate Professor who follows Barclay around in his travels, attempting to get him to sign over biographical writes to him. He offers everything he has and has no sense of moral integrity, giving into all Barclay's degrading demands.

I have not delved into research enough to determine if the main character is based on Golding himself, largely because I don't really care. This character was so boring; events, while described very well from the point of view of a confused alcoholic, were altogether uninteresting. The point never quite hit the mark, and the novel circled the earth in uneventful ways to get at it.

Overall, stick clear of this book.

[No quotes - although due to absurdity of the main character, some were very witty. That being said, nothing was profound].

The Metamorphosis | Franz Kafka

What can one say to a short story which begins like this:

"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect." ?

I mean, really. This book is all about a young adult who wakes up and finds that he is a GIGANTIC insect. The story is about the trials and tribulations of said insect in coping with his family (who discover he's an insect), walking around in his room, eating, etc. And of course, it is also about his family (and servents) coping with having an insect for a son.

Now, it could have been made a little interesting by bringing almost anything from the outside world in (besides a boss and some tenants), but none of that exists. Nothing of a public reaction. Just an insect, inside a room, whilst people figure out to cope. While it was a fascinating concept, the book fell short of my expectations (which weren't that high).

I also have no quotes from this book besides the first line, as I did not feel compelled to write any down.

Frankenstein | Mary Shelley

It's hard to keep up with all the books on your shelf that were written after you were born, let alone all the books written by authors long since left this world. Frankenstein's first edition was written by Shelley in 1818, and it's a remarkable read, even if only to compare it to what the tale has become in modern time.

There is definitely the theme of who is the actual monster, the beast or the creator. But the book also questions science - if we are doing things just for the sake of doing them or actually for the betterment of society. Does one create something to massage his own ego and give himself a feeling of self worth, or does one create something with a noble purpose in mind? In a day where the cloning of animals has been conducted, coupled with a million other scientific breakthroughs arguably created to improve our society, but more aptly... bring fortune to companies who pay for the research.

Frankenstein delves deep into the life of Victor Frankenstein's monster, and his craving to be loved. When he doesn't get his way, he seeks revenge for his treatment on his creator. Does his creator deserve this, since he is unable to give his monster any type of affection? Or is the creature he created an abomination that could never be accepted by man?

The thing that jumped out at me most about this novel, is that Victor Frankenstein was a common man who's pursuit of knowledge took him to the point of no return. How many times have we wanted to take something back, but couldn't? Do you think the man who created the atomic bomb could take back what he did? I have read somewhere, that he would.

Anyhow, I would recommend this book to anyone who wishes to get a real glimpse of what today's society has turned into an abomination. This book is heartfelt and powerful and in my opinion, a lot more fluid a read than I would have expected from an 1818 text. Enjoy.

QUOTES:

"A human being in perfection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind, and never to allow passion or a transitory desire to disturb his tranquillity." 51, ln2

"The site of the awful and majestic in nature had indeed always the effect of solemnizing my mind, and causing me to forget the passing cares of life." 92 ln10

"For the first time, also, I felt what the duties of a creator towards his creature were, and that I ought to render him happy before I complained of his wickedness." 97 ln7

"To be a great and virtuous man appeared the highest honour that can befall a sensitive being; to be base and vicious, as many on record have been, appeared the lowest degradation, a condition more abject than that of the blind mole or harmless worm." 115 ln12

"Of what a strange nature is knowledge! It clings to the mind, when it has once seized on it, like a lichen on the rock." 116 ln12

"Increase of knowledge only discovered to me more clearly what a wretched outcast I was." 127 ln6

"The companions of our childhood always possess a certain power over our minds." 209 ln20