From the introduction:
“Obviously this novel demonstrated new interests on the part of the author. It appeared in a period of innovation. Novelists in Britain, America, and Europe were experimenting with problem novels. Mrs. Gaskell’s sombre novels were supplanting Dickens’ more humourous accounts of family and class relations–but even Dickens had turned from his early Pickwick style to the darker tones of Hard Times–a novel about industrial strikes, drunkenness, and family breakdown. In the 1860s Turgenev and Flaubert, Meredith and Melville were opening new avenues in their fiction. Mrs. Leprohon’s 1868 story reflects the changing concerns of contemporary novelists.”

Other useful links:
the Wikipedia entry for Rosanna Leprohon

My thoughts:
Armand Durand was quite distinct from Antoinette de Mirecourt. Where the latter novel had a rather tight plot contained within a relatively short period of time and with no extraneous subplots, this one is meandering, biographical, and takes place over the course of two generations. As well, Antoinette was more in the style of the previous century whereas Armand Durand has a stronger sense of realism. I quite liked this novel with all of its character studies set against the backdrop of Quebec society. Armand is likable, Delima is annoying, but not as annoying as Mrs. Martel. Armand’s marrying the wrong girl followed by the right girl after the first girl made him a widower reminded me a bit of David Copperfield, though Armand never loved his first wife and the reasons why Delima was unsuitable were far different. The only difficulty I had with the characters was with Paul fils. It seems so odd for him to suddenly turn so jealous of Armand so as to manipulate his dying father to cut Armand out of the will and to try to fix it so that their father would die without seeing Armand again. It’s such a cruel thing to do and there was no real reason for it (I mean it’s not like Paul senior favoured Armand and neglected his other son). Though interesting, the little subplot about Genevieve and de Chevandier was a little strange. It was like a setup for a further story that was later dropped. I couldn’t help but think that may have been due to the original serialisation—in fact this could be a cause of much of the unevenness of the novel.

My thoughts:
This novel was a bit of a mixed bag for me. I started reading it at a time when I was looking for something fairly light-hearted. The murder element didn’t deter me because from the description it didn’t appear that we would get too attached to Mr. Carson before his untimely demise. I was, however, quite surprised to find nearly the first third of the book to be depressing and distressing as characters we’ve come to care about dropped off like flies, and all for the simple want of food, shelter, and adequate medical care (which alas, is still with us today). After the dismal beginning, however, the story followed along the lines I had initially been expecting and I ended up enjoying it quite a bit.

As a social commentary, I imagine it would have come across like gangbusters at the time, with an empathetic understanding of working class life and how intimate with utter poverty it really is. You wouldn’t find this in Jane Austen or, I think (I haven’t read ‘em all) George Eliot. And though Dickens often covers the same territory, his mechanism is satire rather than strict realism.

And then just for pleasure, we get a bit of a sensation novel in the last half, though it’s not as sensational as, say, a Wilkie Collins or R. D. Blackmore—Gaskell’s penchant for realism comes into play there too. A good novel for fans of nineteenth century literature (especially if you’re looking for something shorter than the typical Collins or Dickens).

Other useful links:
the Wikipedia article on World of Wonders
the Wikipedia article on the Deptford Trilogy
the Wikipedia article on Robertson Davies
the Wikipedia article on Robert-Houdin

My thoughts:
Again, I started this book with some misgivings. I’m one of those people who hate clowns and carnival sideshows and I was afraid that this book would be too much in a setting I couldn’t stand. Sigh. I ought to have known better by now & trusted Mr Davies not to disappoint. I loved this book too, and yes, I read it all in one sitting some months ago, and am only now getting around to blogging about it.

We’re presented with another framed story, first the old comfortable shoes of Dunstan Ramsay, then the autobiography of Magnus Eisengrim né Paul Dempster. We finally find out what happened to the third boy affected by that fateful stone in the snowball. Davies is such a great storyteller, you’re drawn in right away and he takes you on a trip through all the elements that made Dempster into Eisengrim but he doesn’t stop there. Like Nicholas Nickleby, World of Wonders is populated with a great cast of actors, and of course Liesl. Oh yeah, and what was it the Brazen Head said about the death of Boy Staunton? We find that out too…

Today, Leacock’s pointed satire of the privileged class, and their social abuses and pretences, retains every ounce of its freshness and bite. An undisputed comic masterpiece, Arcadian Adventures with the Idle Rich reveals a depth of compassionate criticism rare in Leacock’s writings.”

Other useful links:
the Wikipedia article on Stephen Leacock
a biographical sketch on Stephen Leacock at the National Library of Canada’s website
recent article in The Winnipeg Free Press about the Leacock family

My thoughts:
Honestly, I was expecting this to be funnier than it was. I mean so much is made of Stephen Leacock and his humour, I was kind of expecting a Canadian P.G. Wodehouse or something. So in that sense it was a little disappointing.

However, there was plenty of really good satire that still rings true today. And there were many times when I did laugh out loud at the absurdities portrayed and the amusing way Leacock words things. It’s remarkable how little changes. What Leacock satirized in 1914 (following closely in the footsteps of Dickens) is the same kind of stuff pilloried by the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Rick Mercer (sans topical current events–Leacock takes more of a timeless approach).

As I understand this is really a sister volume to Sunshine Sketches, I’m looking forward to reading that and getting a sense of the whole picture.

It would be difficult to give examples or describe it because just stating it outright takes all the humour out. Anyway, as with most good satire, it’s sad at the same time as it’s funny–because it’s so close to reality.

I decided that after two Anglophone men, it might be nice to change it up a bit, so Book #3 will be Children of My Heart by Gabrielle Roy (in translation of course–my French is pretty terrible). This book won the GG for French literature in 1977.

I’ve started a bookring for this book. If you’re interested in joining, PM me.

Other useful links:
the Wikipedia article on Gabrielle Roy
La maison Gabrielle-Roy au 375, rue Deschambault à Saint-Boniface

My thoughts:
Only two chapters in, and I’m loving it. It’s kind of like James Herriot’s stories, except the focus is on children instead of animals, & the narrator could be Esther from Bleak House (she taught school before going to Mr J’s right?)–so far anyway. The narrator’s character isn’t really developed yet.

Very tender and sweet. Just the right thing after the two previous books, which were quite serious.

The quotes from the critics call it: ‘poignant’, ‘intense’, ‘rare’, elegaic’, ‘graceful’, ‘filled with a homely wisdom’, ‘healing’, ‘tender’, ‘warm’, ‘charming’. So far, I’d agree with them.

Other useful links:
the Wikipedia article on Morley Callaghan

My thoughts:
As mentioned in my forum posts, I found Callaghan’s style to be similar to that of Hemingway, whose stories I’m currently listening to on CD. I’m reading Bleak House too, and the contemplation of charity is to the fore in that book as well. I’m sure this book would have been more controversial and certainly timely during the Depression when it was written. Isn’t Father Dowling doing what he’s supposed to be? And this is a scandal because he’s relating with prostitutes. Of course there is irony in the fact that Jesus was criticised in exactly the same way for doing the same thing. It’s interesting to see how little has changed with regard to how women go from being respectable to being prostitutes. It’s not like girls set out to have prostitution as a career, right? Only now, instead of having the option to get out of it if a job or assistance presents itself, many are further trapped by drug addiction. As for Father Dowling, how much of a fool is he? Was he kind of crazy to begin with? Certainly obsessive.

This book would be a good one for a bookclub. There’s lots of meat for discussion, both about the characters & their situations as well as social issues, then and now. Callaghan himself leaves it up to the reader to determine what the story means and how its lessons (if there are any) might be applied in real life. There are questions about the meaning of charity, about the role of institutions (the church, the powerful, the law, the social activists) in the desperation of and assistance towards the poor and dispossesed, about love (carnal, practical, idealistic, spiritual), about women in society…

The novel itself was straight-forward (short too) without anything extraneous–including exposition by the author. Just the facts, ma’am. I generally like a book with more curly-cues (Dickens, anyone?).

I can see why Morley Callaghan is considered such a good writer, and I’m looking forward to more.