#and I don't differentiate between classics and modern books

[she-ra-ra-skirt]

Showing my British roots here.

I read Macbeth and Hamlet which I quite liked and enjoyed.

I read Lord of the Flies which I hated and had zero interest in.

I read Sons and Lovers and found it utterly depressing but it really, really stuck in my mind. Especially when the woman it locked out of the house and is in the night garden, where the air is heavy and still and loaded with the scent of flowers. I hated her husband so much!

I read Jane Eyre and hated it as it's a struggle to read, and as a woman, I saw it through the eyes of the female protagonist and thought she was an absolute idiot.

I read Heart of Darkness and had no idea what it was about and thought it was a trip down the Congo, not a delve into man's inner psyche.

I read In Cold Blood by Truman Capote and absolutely loved it and will remember it forever.

I found a lot of it really hard to read due to the language used and the age of the books / plays etc and if I struggled with the words, I couldn't take in the plot at all.

I adore reading and read Brave New World for fun and ended it with an 'oh wooooow, that was sooo cool'

I've read loads of books for English classes but can't remember them all. I do remember I loved analysing the books afterwards and writing essays about them and seeing the meaning beyond the words. So yeah, it really helped me with my love of reading and I'm back into reading again now as an adult.

I straight up do not trust you if you did not enjoy a single book you had to read for English class. I know they assigned some real stuffy stinkers and the curriculum varies across districts but not one? Not The Outsiders? Not The Picture of Dorian Gray? Not Fahrenheit 451? Not even Frankenstein? Damn. That’s crazy.

[schizoid-hikikomori]

There was more discussion of the schizoid personality in mid 20th century works with the collective fascination with existentialism.

The post-war world inspired art and conversation about what it meant to be alive and be human, whether there is any meaning at all.

Books like No Longer Human by Osamu Dazai and The Stranger by Albert Camus strongly carry the tone of the period of which they were published in. There is no meaning, life is absurd, there is no happy ending.

A book on the schizophrenic personality was published in 1960, titled The Divided Self by R.D. Laing. The schizoid personality at this time and into the 80s when it was added to the DSM was seen as an extension of schizophrenia. Before it was added to the DSM, szpd was considered a broader diagnosis that included conditions described as "nonpsychotic schizophrenia-type illness", consistent with the detachment from the world around you and a flat affect, paired with little emotional expression.

Perhaps most famously, schizoid personality disorder was referenced in a song by King Crimson, released in 1969, titled "21st Century Schizoid Man". The song is about the growing desensitization with violence and war and the idea that people in the future will be schizoid. Not literally, of course, but the overall idea that soon we won't at all be fazed by suffering. Again, another product of the post war world. I also think it's a good song.

The discussion around the schizoid personality both in psychology and in the world has noticeably diminished since then, but it has remained a diagnosis in both the ICD and the DSM.

Because of the lack of discussion it has led to people misunderstanding the disorder, making false equivalences to other disorders, and looking at it only on the surface list of diagnostic criteria.

The DSM diagnostic criteria is primarily based on external observations. This is why individuals with other disorders think they have something when they don't—they either misdiagnose themselves or their professional misdiagnoses them.

There are studies and books that differentiate between these shallow lists, but most people do not spend the time to inform themselves.

Just another reminder of self reflection, and to look at older writing that better resonates with the schizoid experience. I find that more classical and gothic literature speaks to this experience better than most modern writing ever does.

[mediaevalmusereads]

Dracula. By Bram Stoker. Dover Thrift Edition, 2000 (originally 1897).

Rating: 4.5/5 stars

Genre: Gorhic, horror

Series: N/A

Summary: When Jonathan Harker visits Transylvania to help Count Dracula with the purchase of a London house, he makes a series of horrific discoveries about his client. Soon afterwards, various bizarre incidents unfold in England: an apparently unmanned ship is wrecked off the coast of Whitby; a young woman discovers strange puncture marks on her neck; and the inmate of a lunatic asylum raves about the 'Master' and his imminent arrival.

***Full review below.***

CONTENT WARNINGS: disturbing imagery, blood, animal cruelty, racism

OVERVIEW: This was my book club's pick for June 2024. I've read Dracula before, but it was a while ago, so I loved having the opportunity to revisit an old favorite. It reminded me not only why Dracula was so influential, but why I fell in love with Gothic storytelling in the first place. It gets 4.5 stars from me for no other reason than it being a classic that I adore.

WRITING: Stoker's writing is interesting in that it makes use of a lot of scientific language, blending it with the supernatural to create an atmosphere that is sometimes dark and ancient, sometimes modern and philosophical. I love the way Stoker blends these modes and champions characters who are smart and have an open mind (though that openness is lacking when it comes to things like gender and racial dynamics).

I also appreciated the way Stoker tries to differentiate between character voices. Though not every character sounds unique, there is a difference in how Mina writes versus how Dr. Seward writes versus how Van Helsing speaks. It makes the book as a whole feel more polyvocal, which in turn enhances the sense that the story is made from pieces of diaries and newspaper excerpts.

PLOT: The plot of this book follows a number of English characters as they try to defeat a powerful vampire known as Count Dracula. The story is told from a number of perspectives in the form of diary entries and occasional newspaper clippings and memoranda, all of which detail the strange occurrences surrounding the Count.

This book is less of a spooky horror and more of a classic Gothic novel. That isn't to say that there aren't some disturbing images, but if you go in expecting a lot of blood, gore, and jumpscares, you might be disappointed. Instead what we have is the gradual realization that there is a vampire in England, and after some bizarre occurrences and a tragic death, our protagonists team up to defeat the monstrous Count once and for all.

I love the Gothic flavor of this plot and the way Stoker plays with folk belief and superstition in the age of science and advancing medical knowledge. I also just generally love Stoker's descriptions and some of the absolute weirdness that pervades the novel, from fly-eating lunatics to bats and wolves acting unlike themselves.

If I had any criticism, I would say that there are places where the pace seems a bit slow, but I don't know if it's slow because Stoker actually wrote it that way or my perception is off because I'm familiar with the story.

TL;DR: Dracula is a classic and influential novel for a reason. With evocative supernatural imagery, a clever multivovalic narration style, and a Gothic flavor that is sure to delight lovers of the genre, this book stands out and is worthy of its place in vampire lore.

CHARACTERS: There are a lot of characters in this book, so I'll try to keep things brief.

Jonathan Harker, our first narrator, is relatable as an average working class man who gets caught up in the world of the supernatural. He seems rather brave and sweet, as evidenced by his devotion to his wife, Mina, and his heart always seems to be in the right place.

Dr. Seward, the head of a psychiatric institution, is sympathetic in that he has to watch the girl he loves suffer. I really did feel bad for him and admired the way he stepped up to lend his expertise, even though the situation has little to do with him personally.

Mina, Jonathan's wife, is just so great. Everyone seems to adore her and I love that her intelligence is constantly praised. Stoker isn't without bias, however; there are numerous instances when Mina is said to have the "brain of a man" or is described as a woman in opposition to a man. The gender essentialism is sure to make some readers uncomfortable, but it's not particularly surprising given the date of this novel.

Characters who do not get POV sections are still charming in their own ways. I liked that Van Helsing was eager to assist people he didn't know and constantly championed having an open mind. Renfield was interesting and his fly-eating helped create some nice parallels with vampirism itself. Lucy, who has a couple of POV sections, sounded sweet and it's a shame that so many adaptations portray her as overly sexual when in reality, she's a victim who just wants to make people happy.

Most of my criticisms regarding character lay with weird gender politics and racial prejudice. I've already described the gender stuff in my discussion of Mina above. The racial dynamics, while not overwhelming, are present enough to be noticeable. Stoker describes a number of Romani and Romaniam peoples as superstitious, which in itself might not sound horrible, but does play into some negative stereotypes. Again, these dynamics are not so present that they distract from the main storyline, but they are on the fringes and shape the way we understand Stoker's world.

[cornerstorebitch]

I don't think anyone's told gen z that people still write literary fiction and now they compare the latest ripoff dystopia to the handmaid's tale or their steamy enemies to lovers romance to Romeo and Juliet lol. There's this weird new assumption that reading's inherently intellectual so ppl draw a line between modern genre fiction and "classics" as if 20th century folk weren't reading thrillers and pulp and being able to differentiate them from Dickens

i had never considered that but it does explain a lot about how certain people view books and reading. i also think you hit the nail on the head with reading being assumed to be inherently intellectual - idk about The Wider World of Youths but here on tinkle dot net there’s this attitude about things in a general sort of way where if it’s not easily / immediately accessible to every single person then it’s bad and probably. idk ableist or something lol