Catching up on the classics

Those who know me well know that if I'm not working, sound asleep, or playing World of Warcraft (or some other roleplayer), I have my nose buried in a book. Yup, I even read in the toilet. I'm a nerd, so I delve into any sci-fi or fantasy book I can get my greedy little paws on. I've read countless Star Trek books (of course), Ursula Le Quin's Earthsea trilogy, Anne McCaffrey's The Harper Hall of Pern, pretty much everything I've found of Isaac Asimov's (my beloved got me the Foundation series, and I'm loving it). I'd like to think I don't have to mention the quintessential nerd text, The Lord of the Rings (which I read before the movies came out).

Every now and then, though, I get to feeling a bit egotistical and elitist, and I grab myself a copy of a classic that otherwise might not have been on my reading list. Let's face it, most people who have read any of the classics did so because one of their teachers told them to in Year 11 or 12, and much of the population only knows of classics because of movies that have been based on them (though kudos to Peter Jackson for such a sexy rendition of Lord of the Rings - marvellous casting).

Sometimes what you get from a classic isn't what you expect. I read Frankenstein: many of the movies make Frankenstein's monster out to be insensible, and others to be a perfect gentle giant. In fact, he was neither. He was gentle to an extent, at first, and articulate having learned speech from a family he watched in secret. He became embittered by his experience of being feared by all who saw him (including his beloved family when he finally approached them) and with cruel but intelligent planning, plucked all those his creator loved from life. Frankly, visiting the original story was greatly refreshing, having seen all the interpretations jumping far from the tale and then copying one another.

I'm currently reading A Tale of Two Cities and Moby Dick. Stuff you hear the famous first lines of, or vague references to, but not much more unless you seek out... you guessed it - the movies. (I've yet to see Patrick Stewart's protrayal of Captain Ahab, but I have every trust in his ability as an actor). I'll keep you posted (if I remember) when I've read enough of each of these books to form an opinion. Meanwhile, I'll blather about what I've read from start to finish.

I feel compelled to throw in a word for Gulliver's Travels. Like most, I grew up with the simplified children's versions of the story. Later, I saw the mini-series they made, starring Ted Danson. He did a descent job of it, at that. Again, the book in its original form was far more rich and detailed. To be sure, Lilliput and various other lands full of giants or midgets were there. What got left out of most of the interpretations, however, was the political element. Swift was essentially spewing hate at the British legal system and humanity in general, through satire and wrapping it in fantasy. If you haven't read it, and you don't mind a spoiler, Gulliver had no loving reunion with his wife and son. Too long had he spent with the wise and gentle Houyhnhnm to be comfortable in his own skin, or as a Yahoo (the Houyhnhn's name for humans). As such, he was uncomfortable with physical contact with his wife, poor soul. If you care, the term 'yahoo' for describing a lout can trace its origins thus.

Well, that's what a drink or two and a wee bit of inspiration gets you. Hope I didn't bore you like a crusty old teacher.