 Maybe I'll be the one person in the entire world that likes it. I don't know. That's where it's at. This is the best of books. This is the worst of books. I liked it. It was not what I expected. Welcome to part two of my classics vlog project. As I said in my first one, this is a two-parter. Part one was rereading old favorite classics to see if they are still my favorites. Part two is finding a new favorite classic. So these are not, these are books that I've never read before, but that I've always wanted to, that are all classics. And I'm hoping that among these I will find at least one, but hopefully more. I can add to my list of favorite classics. So the ones I'll be reading in this vlog are The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins, A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Persuasion by Jane Austen. Those are the books that I will be reading in this vlog and checking in with you about. As with my music books vlog and part one of my classics vlog, this will be a vlog in which I just check in as I finish books. This is not like a week in the life or anything. So see you for the first book. Finished Persuasion last night and I really, really enjoyed it. I was surprised, well I guess, well I was surprised, but I'm less surprised the more I think about it, at how sort of light in tone the book is. I have seen two adaptations of it, not the new one. I'm planning to watch that with my mom very soon, with the intention to roast it. Time's over, nothing but crap about it. But I have seen the old 1995 I think version of it, and then there was one done in the 2000s, I think like 2007 or so. And I like both. I don't remember the 90s one that well. I've seen the newer one a few times. Point being I am, I was familiar with the story already because of those adaptations. So I knew at the very least what probably was going to happen and probably some of the lines because the those kinds of British adaptations, like especially because you've seen two different ones and if they both did the same thing for certain things they're like, well that's probably because it's from the book. I knew how this would go, but from what I remember of the 90s one and then definitely for the 2000s one, it's a lot, it's much more dramatic and serious and melancholy. So I had always heard, I mean I thought that I would probably enjoy this one and I'd heard a lot of people say that this was their favorite Austin. And I just, I kind of, I didn't dread reading it. That's what's way too harsh. But I felt a little, a little bit of trepidation going into it because like I was afraid it would be a little more Bronte-esque, if you will. And it's quite light in tone. I mean it's probably a little more serious and also, again, sense and sensibility is a little bit darker in tone. So anyway, all that to say. The films of this that I've seen definitely lean more towards the melancholy than the book actually does. And what I find is actually true of Jane Austen in general is that adaptations, what they really, they really can't do unless you have like a voiceover narrator. They can't really include the narrator's voice, which is what you get when you read the Austin. And that's where a lot of the humor and sarcasm and social commentary is. So like the difference between reading Mansfield Park and watching an adaptation, even a very, very faithful adaptation of Mansfield Park is immense because if you're just seeing the events of Mansfield Park play out as they do, there is humor to be had, there is social commentary to be had, there is, there is wit, there is cleverness, etc. But most of that in Mansfield Park is voiced by the narrator, not by any character. And so if you watch Mansfield Park, I feel like people think Mansfield Park is very boring. And they don't like Fanny Price. And yeah. But if you read Mansfield Park, it is filled with the like quintessential Jane Austen wit and sarcasm and social commentary. It's just not Fanny saying any of that. So if you're, if you're filming it, and you're just showing the scenes of what Fanny is saying to other people and they're saying to her, it's stripped of its color a bit. So Persuasion, it is a little more melancholy, the very premises. If you don't know anything about Persuasion, I am kind of going into this assuming that you don't know what Persuasion is about at least a little bit. You don't. Persuasion I believe was also the last Austen, I think the last book that she wrote. And it is about like, it's like an older love story, or like an old love story about older people. So unlike Sense and Sensibility where Marianne is quite young, or Fanny Price is quite young, Emma is pretty young. This is about slightly older people, older for the time anyway. I mean, it's about a young woman who's like approaching 30, gasp. She's teetering on the edge of her grave, per the olden days. But so she had a romance already. It's kind of like if a previous Austen story had like ended badly, but then was given a second chance. So like in other Austen books, you know, the young woman meets the man that she loves and, you know, trouble and miscommunication ensue, but in the end, you know, they get together. So this already happened for Anne, except they didn't get together. Her family, well, not her family so much, but someone she regards as family, point being, they persuaded her to not marry him. And now many years later, she's again approaching 30, and she still loves him and has never forgotten him, has never married anyone else. And her family's kind of awful, not like, not evil, but they're kind of the worst. And so, you know, the man that she turned down X number of years ago comes back into her life. And that's what this book is about, is about can they find love again? Is there still a chance for them? Is he still interested in her? Can he ever forgive her? Does she still want him? So that's what this is about. And that is, it's more the 2007, I think it's 2007. That adaptation sticks out more in my mind. It's pretty foggy for me, the 90s one. But I remember that one being kind of sad too. It really kind of like focuses on all of the moments when Anne is being ignored by her family and snubbed by her family when she's like the quiet wallflower and everyone else is like going on about their life. And she's like, no, don't mind me, you guys do whatever. I don't even want to go. I don't even want to do anything. I don't want to participate. And she is that way in the book. But it's not such a downtrodden, pathetic, like priests don't even look at me. I'm so sad. Everything is so sad. He'll never love me, like trembling, afraid. I liked Anne a lot more in the book. I didn't dislike her in the film. But in the film, the 2007 one, she is so unassuming and such a wallflower to the point where I find it difficult to believe that Captain Wentworth would have even noticed her, which is, I guess, terrible to say. But you know, like, I mean, I appreciate a story that's like the shy girl that got noticed, but they do it to a point where it's, it's kind of extreme. And they make her so uncomfortable all the time where she's like, don't look at me, don't look at me like, whereas like, in the book, it's a more of a quiet confidence, which I really, really liked. Like, she's, she had the guy that she was in love with. She's pretty sure that she made a mistake in turning him down. But you know, time has moved on. And like all of us, millennials are like, like, I know what makes me happy at everything else. So she's like, I don't want to go to a party. I don't want to go to Bath, which is like the happen in town. She's like, I want to go to bed by nine, please. I like the countryside. I like my friends. I like my books. I like my piano. I don't want to go to the city with my all family. And so everyone around her being kind of the worst and like using her, like she's always does what's right and is always willing to like lend a helping hand and be used. She likes feeling useful. So like, she'll be like, no, it's okay. Like I'll stay behind. Like you guys go to the party and like, I'll look after the sick kid or whatever. And like, I don't know, in the movie, it comes off very like, just this like constant martyrdom. Whereas in the book, she's like, I really don't want to go. So like, it's fine. I'll stay home with the sick kid. I would rather stay home with the sick kid. It's fine. Really, it's fine. There's a point where there's something that's happened. And it's like, kind of nothing Jane Austen is ever that intense, but like, a little more of a dramatic moment. And you like, we kind of got to figure out what to do. And in this happens in the film too, where like, Anne has a suggestion for what they should do. And Captain Wentworth is like, yes, that's exactly what we should do. That's a good plan. Yes, let's do that. And it's, you know, it's like a moment of like, oh, he's clearly respect her opinion and respect it doesn't go unnoticed by him that she's like, good and clear headed about what to do. But still in the film, she's kind of like, murmuring. And it's like, only because he's so keyed into her that he's even heard what she's had to say and be like, yes, that's a good idea. We should do that. Whereas in the book, I don't know, like, you know, I guess it doesn't say that she's murmuring. It's it feels more like she's not like, you know, bossy. She's not gonna be like, this is what we're gonna do. But she's like, I think we should do this. And he's like, yeah, great idea. Let's do that. You know, like, she just doesn't she cut she's like, not super in your face. And she's not outspoken, like Lizzie. She's not in everybody's business like Emma. She's not flirting all the time like Marianne. These are all characters and other Jane Austen books, if you're not, if that's not clear. But she's, you know, she like, she knows her own mind, which is kind of like the theme of the book is like, she didn't know her own mind. It's like eight years ago, I think, when they were first eight or 10 years, whenever she was persuaded by other people. And now it's it's become this thing, you know, that she was persuadable. But she really doesn't seem like that type of person that much. And I think the movie, it kind of like gets that wrong a little bit, because the book even then comes out and says, you know, being persuadable isn't it's not this like black and white thing of like, well, that's always bad. She's like, I took the advice of a person I respect. And yet sure, like time proved that that was probably the wrong advice to take. I probably wouldn't give that advice to a young person now. But like, it wasn't crazy or wrong of me to take that advice either. I wasn't wrong to do that. So like, the, I feel like the movie goes out of its way to make her seem exactly kind of a person that would just be persuaded by the merriest show of like, of confidence, you know, where she'd be like, sure, whatever, whatever anyone else says, sure, whatever, anything, anything, just never me, never my idea. And she's not really like that. She's more quiet, but she's got a quiet confidence. And like, she does frequently do things that are like, against what her family would want now. And it's not like a big brash thing. And she's not again, like Lizzie, where she'd be like, in your face about it. She's like, yeah, no, I'm not going to do that. I'm going to go do my own thing. Okay, bye. Like, that's her vibe. And I like that. So I was going to say, I would like to see a new adaptation where she's a little more confident. Unfortunately. So it's like a monkey's paw, cursed monkey's paw type thing. Because in front of what I've seen of the trailers, the new persuasion movie, and it's not lack of her confidence. It's just a shit film. Or maybe I'll like it, maybe I'll be the one person in the entire world that likes it. I don't know. I'm probably going to watch it tonight. I'm going into it, one, expecting it to be bad. So like my, it doesn't, you know, it's not going to disappoint me, because I know it's bad. But also I'm hopeful that I'm able to find a measure of enjoyment because I'm approaching it like, like a Jane Austen, a night's tale. Let me explain. Like a night's tale is taking place in the Middle Ages and it's about jousting. But they use rock music because they want to kind of like, liken the nights of the day to rock stars. They're kind of like, those were kind of like the rock stars of their day. They were like a big deal that people like aspire to or thought were like really amazing. So they like, that's the kind of analogy they're trying to make with that. So like, you don't watch a night's tale and go like, they didn't have rock music in the Middle Ages. This is absurd because like, it's a stylistic choice that they're making to do that. So like from what I've seen of the trailers of The New Persuasion, I feel like it's not really going for a historical vibe. Like it's doing like what a night's tale did where it's like doing like a modern rom-com in everything other than the, the costumery and the like ostensibly the period that it takes place. But like, I'm going into it expecting and a night's tale treatment of an Austin basically. So like with that understanding, I will probably still think it's heinous. But I'm going, I'm going, basically I'm giving it everything it needs to possibly, possibly be enjoyable. And if after all that grace it still is terrible, then I, I can't help it. But anyway, the book I really liked and I don't know if it's my favorite Austin, but I don't know. I like Jane Austen but she's not like my favorite author or anything. So I think sense and sensibility is still my favorite. But I'm not sure. I did really like this. It ended a little abruptly, but I did like it and I would reread it. So a new favorite generally? Sure. Is it my favorite Austin? Not sure. Not sure. Sense and sensibility does benefit from having better adaptations, in my opinion. So anyway, success. Well, the movie probably won't be, but the book is finished Treasure Island, which is half in the sun. Treasure Island. And I'm disappointed. I mean the goal of this project is to find a new favorite and my shoulder is glowing. Okay, whatever. Whatever. And this is definitely not a new favorite. Like I didn't hate it by any means. Okay, the lighting is really bothering me. So yeah, it's definitely not a new favorite by any means. I wonder if part of it is that I know so or knew so much about it before I read it. I don't think so though, because I've definitely read other like Peter Pan. The first time I read Peter Pan, I had seen like the Disney's Peter Pan and the Mary Martin Peter Pan and Fighting Neverland. Had I watched it? Yeah, I think I'd already watched Fighting Neverland when I saw Peter or when I read Peter Pan the first time and I fucking love Peter Pan. So I don't, like I think I might have liked it slightly more if I didn't know, but I don't think it would have been an all-time favorite if I hadn't already known a lot of what happened. So like it's like Long John Silver as a character. Like I already know what his deal is. So like when I met that character, like I, I don't know, like I guess I could never really commit my heart to trusting that character because I already knew. So apology spoilers if you don't know anything about Long John Silver. Now you know there's something up with Long John Silver. But yeah, I don't know. The experience of reading this was more like, oh yeah, that guy. Oh, that's that name. Oh, this is that thing I know. Oh, this is that thing I know. I didn't really feel like swept away by it or that invested in it emotionally. It's also really, really fast. I know it's kind of for kids and it's an adventure story. But I don't know, like, okay, as long, as needlessly long as Katamana Cristo is, this is like the other end of the spectrum, like way too short. Like Katamana Cristo does not need to be as long as it is, but it certainly gives you time to like really sink in and feel like you're living life with Edmundontes and some of the other characters. Like you're really like in it with them like for days. Here I was like, are we already at Charter Island? Like I feel like two minutes ago we were at home and I'd never heard of pirates. So like, I don't know, I just didn't feel like I had enough time to like, and like, okay, so I guess full on spoilers. Okay, I already knew Long John Silver was was bad news. But that being said, like, I don't really feel like we spend that much time. Like certainly like your first impression of Long John Silver is a positive one. And then you know, the tables are turned, you're like, Oh, no, he's actually a bad guy. But I feel like the amount of time that you spend thinking he's good in the book is not that long. So it's not that shocking to find out Oh, no, he's actually bad. I feel like I've met him like a page ago. So like, surprising, but also I did not care yet. I had zero investment in this. So like, I don't yeah, like, I think it's good. I haven't I'm not writing any books during the project. I'll read them all at the end. I think I'd give it four stars. Do you're gonna have four stars? I think it's good. I could see why this became the classic that it became why it would be a fun adventure story, especially for a younger audience, which is who it was intended for, that it would, you know, fill you and I mean, like, back then we didn't have a bunch of films where like, swashbuckling buccaneer pirate adventures or anything like that going on. So this would be the only way that you get that. And I can see why you'd get swept away by it and be like, wow, this high seas adventure. The main character serves the same function that like Harry Potter and Frodo and every other self insert young characters like just a regular young boy that like a young boy reading this could be like, that could be me. I could get swept up in a pirate adventure. So like, I get that. But yeah, I just as I don't know, I just didn't really like leaving an impression on me. I did not feel swept away by it that much. I was not that invested in the characters. I wasn't surprised by anything. I was like, this is fine. Like it's it's well done. It's well crafted. The writing is very good. But it's just like, it's too short. Yeah, it's too short, I guess is the main problem. I feel like even though I already knew Long John's over with bad news, I would have still like felt more about that betrayal, you know, like lived vicariously through the main character for who for him that is like a big shocking revelation. And I think I would have felt that more with him even if I already knew and he didn't. If I had just like spent more time with him feeling like, like Long John Silver was a great guy and we just like had more time of them like bonding and stuff. I feel like it's really fast. It's really short. So yeah, definitely not a new favorite. Not a bad book. I don't hate it. I would say I like it. But I don't see myself really rereading this unless it would be like, well, I don't plan to have kids but to a child that is in my acquaintance. This edition of it is really cool. It's illustrated. Let me see if I can find a cool illustration to illustrate the illustrations. Oh, and like the parts like because the book is divided into parts, which like for such a short book like do we need four parts? That's the part divider. Show me a picture. Okay, so like here's here he is hearing all about Long John Silver. So yeah, like I get it. I think like why it's such a thing. But personally, I was like, it's fine. It's fine. The woman in white by Wilkie Collins. I am disappointed. I liked it a lot though. So don't get me wrong. I really did enjoy this quite a bit. But I'm disappointed because I expected to like it more than the Moonstone. The Moonstone was my Wilkie Collins that I have read before and have enjoyed. And in this vlog, this like pair of long projects and rereads and new reads, I'm, you know, rereading the Moonstone. And I expected to feel like, you know, you liked the Moonstone. But that was because you hadn't read the really good one yet. So I expected to be like, yeah, I expected to feel that way. That like, wow, you know, I Moonstone's great and I'll book the woman in white. That's where it's at. And I don't feel that way. I've read the Moonstone twice now. And I would definitely see myself reading the Moonstone again. I don't know that I would reread the woman in white. I mean, I would not, I'm not never. I'm not like, screw that once was, it's not like that. Like I liked it a lot. But I don't think, but I don't think it's as rereadable. I think the major thing that this has going for it is mystery. And I did already know because I've seen the both adaptations, I, there's more than two adaptations that I don't know about it, but the two adaptations that I'm aware of, of the woman in white, I've seen both. And I enjoyed those adaptations, which is why I expected to like the book. Because the Moonstone adaptations, I think are pretty good, but not that good. So like, I think I talked about that when I read Moonstone again, because I was like in the intro, I've watched the adaptations a bit, and been like, man, why did I like the book so much? Like the story's fine, but like, why did I like the book so much? And the book is just like way better than the adaptations. Part of it is because like, it'd be hard to, the thing that's missing is like in the narration. So in that sense, like, this is a lot more adaptable, like the adaptations of this are more interesting to watch. Which is why I expected the book to, I was like, well, the Moonstone as an adaptation is not that good, and the book is amazing. The adaptation of The Woman in White is amazing. So the book's got to be like, brilliant. And I mean, I think the book is good. I definitely do. I really, really do. And I get why it's well known and well, and et cetera. Like it's a good mystery. It really is. I already knew the answer to the mystery going into it, which isn't, you know, necessarily a bad thing. It is a bad thing if that's like the only thing I'm going for though. Because the Moonstone rereading it, I obviously knew the answer because I'd read it before and I'd seen the adaptation before. So like, reading it now again, I was like, I'm gonna know the answer to this mystery. But I still really enjoy the journey. In fact, the mystery is like the least interesting part of it, in my opinion. Like the answer to the mystery is like, okay, well, we get needed that resolved. But like, that's not nearly as interesting as everything else going on. Here, the mystery is the thing that's interesting. So once you know the answer to it, it's like the rest of it is, I don't, it's not. I also just, okay, I always felt annoyed. And I felt this way about both adaptations. And I, it's worse in the book. So there's two sisters. If you don't know anything about the woman in white, without spoilers, it's told in multiple different kind of narrators telling it, which is what the Moonstone does as well. I guess that's the thing with the Wookie Collins. And I like that. That's one of the most charming things about the Moonstone. But anyway, in the woman in white, we have these two sisters. They're half sisters. So like, one is the super wealthy, pretty one. The other one, it doesn't have any wealth, and is like the ugly one. But it's also the capable and clever and useful one. And then there's a, this artist that's hired to come in and tutor them in art. And then there's mysterious woman in white that has appeared to him, like, randomly on the road. And then, you know, sort of, we go from there. So there's, you know, obviously a lot that happens, but like, those are our main characters. And yeah. So the artist guy, he falls in love with the very, very pretty sister, with all the money, as far as he does. But he's like very good friends with her other sister, the useful one. And this distinction between the sisters in both the adaptations of it kind of always annoyed me. Like the character of Laura, Laura's the pretty sister, she was very much this damsel in distress character. And in both adaptations, I just like didn't get why the artist was in love with her. It felt very like she's really pretty. And now I'm smitten. And then she's a damsel. So I got to save her. And like, you know, meanwhile her sister, who's like, really smart, really capable, really useful, really, yeah, she's like, I like her a lot. And she's kind of the heroine, because a lot of it is told from her perspective, because she's the one that's actually like doing stuff, taking care of business. So I just felt like she was really underserved by the narrative. And that really bothered me. So reading it, it's even more that way between the two, where like one is the weak, beautiful damsel and the other is the useful one. And the description of the the useful sister, I don't I don't like that this is how I'm describing her. But also because I remember Laura's name because they say her name over and over again, like, oh, Laura and for Laura and where's Laura and I'm in love with Laura. I don't remember the useful sister's name because she's the one telling the story. So she doesn't think her own name very much. Anyway, yeah. So I just, yeah, the description of that sister in the book is even it's like, it's so harsh. It's like she like looks like a man and has a unibrow and is like just the ugliest woman ever. But like, she's really nice. And it's like, Jesus fucking Christ. Damn. So that bugged me. And then lay out throughout the narrative. It's just like, it annoyed me. I feel like it was written nowadays, like, he changes mind and he'd be like, I thought I was in love with a pretty sister but all along the useful one was there and that's actually what I'm in love with. And like, it doesn't really, ultimately matter like to me that that sister doesn't become a love interest like she doesn't need to to be happy. It's just I just feel like she's really like, I don't know, punished by the narrative. I don't like it. So versus in the Moonstone, the main female character is Verinder, whose first name Rachel, Rachel Verinder. First of all, her romance, the dude that she's, the dude that's in love with her and then she's seems to be in love with him. There's more between them. Like I get why they would be in love with each other or like the how they came to be in love with each other. That makes sense to me. It's more than just like, I saw her and she was so pretty and now I have to rescue her. She's also much more strong will. Like she's not, you know, out here slaying dragons or anything. But like, she shows a very kind of like old fashioned, feminine idea of like courage, like standing up for what she wants to do and like saying no when she feels that it's wrong to do something. Like she's very independent in an old fashioned way. So I really like Rachel Verinder in the Moonstone. And you know, the romance between them is fine. And the mystery like is fine. But all the other characters telling the story have these like very um, quirky points of view, which I think are so well done. And here it's, you know, mysterious and gothic and dark. And what is the answer to this mystery? We have to save Laura, Laura, Laura, Laura. And yeah, I just, it just kind of annoyed me. So I think it's well done. I think it's a good mystery. I do. And the atmosphere is done quite well and the suspense, especially because like the smart sister who's like, you know, putting information together and talking to people and investigating, she shows a lot of courage and I like her a lot. I just don't like that she's like not the heroine of the story kind of. I mean, I guess she is, but like not really. It's all about Laura. So yeah, that annoys me. So I, yeah, I like it. I like it. And I'm glad I read it. But I definitely like the Moonstone better. So yeah, the Moonstone is, in my opinion, really underrated. And if you're trying to choose between the two, I'm going to say you should read the Moonstone. Unpopular opinion, I guess. But the woman in white is, is good. But anyway, so that's that. Moving on. I just finished Tale of Two Cities and I did, I, it's not a new favorite. So like the goal of this blog project right is to find a new favorite classic. It's not a new favorite classic. I, which surprises me because I mean, well, everything I put on this list of stuff that I thought has the potential to be a new favorite classic. And I know this is one of Dickens most popular books. And I knew big because I think I've seen a few years ago I saw a stage play version of this story. So it's been a few years since I saw that. But like between having seen that play and then generally like this gets talked about, like it's just like in the zeitgeist, you know, like it was the best of times was the worst of times, like everyone knows that line, whether you've read the book or not. And I, I knew, like generally the character of Sidney and like what his deal is. I knew how it would end with respect to his character. So there's a lot of it that I already knew about going into it. And all those things made me think, I think I'm going to really like this. And I didn't, hey, hey, hey. And I didn't dislike it. I certainly do not want to give that impression. But I don't know, it was just missing something for me. I think it means a very vivid portrait of French Revolution era France of the, I mean, not just like in terms of, you know, what's literally happening, the blood and the violence and things like that. But just the sort of this feeling of terror and of hatred. Like I think he captures not that I would know it's not like I'm like, oh, yes, I was there for the French Revolution. And you know, Dickens, he nailed it. That's what it was like. I've been there. Like I have no idea obviously. Maybe it's if we could ask somebody who was really there for the French Revolution, they'd be like, he's full of shit. It was nothing like that. But as far as I can tell, it seems to be at the very least an evocative and vivid portrait of the French Revolution if whether accurate or not. But for me, I guess I don't, I already knew, but I don't want to spoil it in case you don't know. So the character of Sydney, I feel like what I knew about his character is still all I know. Or not just about his character, but his situation and like his storyline. I like broad, I didn't remember if the play had all the details and if it did, a lot of those have I had forgotten. But broad strokes, I knew Sydney's character and what his deal would be throughout this story and how that would go. And I was really excited. Excited feels like the wrong word. But that's one of the reasons that I thought that this book would work so well for me because I was like, well, what I just kind of generally vaguely know about Sydney, I find extremely compelling. So getting like the full on version, let's do it. I'm super here for that. And I feel like I still just got broad strokes. Like this book just feels very broad strokes. Like I don't feel like I know any of the characters. I feel like they're and they're not caricatures. They're not like, you know, completely 2d cardboard cutouts. I just don't feel like the novel like spends time with them. This novel has so much plot to get through and so much like events and revelations and the historical time period that we're talking about here, that I feel like the characters kind of get shafted. And the only character that I really do end up feeling something for is Sydney. But it's more just to do with how compelling that arc is where even if you read an outline of it, you would, as I basically went in, I was like, well, the outline of this I find compelling. And that's the limit of what I feel that you get in this. So by the end, like I was the most moved, of course, by Sydney. But I don't feel like I got more out of out of his story by reading the book. It was it was just really lacking in the character side of things for me, which surprises me. I guess, I mean, it is quite an action packed story more so than Dickens usually does, which is maybe also why I'm surprised I expected a Dickens book to give me all that character stuff. And it's just it's paced so weirdly, I feel like it's like both too slow and too fast, you know, like we like kind of have like three major points that we check in with. And we kind of like lollygag and take our time with some stuff there. But then we have these massive time skips and like, I don't know. Like I know it's partially probably the the result of how books like this were published back then serially. And you know, just generally old older shows of writing which are more arms length and don't really get in deep with characters the way that they do now. I know that going into it. And I still found it lacking with respect to characters. And that's what I came to this book for, I guess. If I had known going into it that I wouldn't be getting that, well, I may not have put it on this list of potential favorites. But it might have helped also to gauge my expectations for it. I expected the character stuff to be a lot more of a focal point in this. And I just don't feel that it was. And that's what was missing for me. The situation is is fraught and compelling and dramatic. So it kind of coasts on that kind of like without actually getting in deep with the characters just the nature of their situation is compelling. But it doesn't go deeper than that. Especially the character of Lucy. Lucy was like reminiscent to me of all those like those characters like in Count of Monte Cristo that I was talking about in my previous vlog project that rereading classics that like, you know, the female characters in Count of Monte Cristo or like Christine DiA and Phantom of the Opera. They're all this kind of these like wilting virtuous wallflowers that are like, like why do the men love them? Because they're beautiful because they're angelic. That's it. And then, you know, they faked a whole bunch. Which like is part of, you know, the older style of literature. It comes with the territory. I just, um, yeah, then then I, I was, I guess I wasn't surprised that I wouldn't get much character work out of Lucy. But I was like expecting to get some juicy character stuff from the men folk. And I didn't really feel that I got much out of them either. So I didn't hate it. I feel like I sound really harsh on this. I didn't hate it. I think it's, like I said, quite vivid and evocatively described. So if I'm not perspective is quite compelling. It's the character stuff. And that's my favorite part of reading is character work. So since that was so lacking for me, this is definitely not a new favorite. I'm glad I read it. I did enjoy it, but definitely not a new favorite, which is unfortunate. But yep, it's, it's good. It's good. I mean, I could see why it's so popular. What's so popular at the time continues to be quite popular. I think it could do with a new adaptation. I think the most recent adaptation that there's been is from the 80s. So I'm surprised it hasn't been done more recently. We've been doing, we've been seeing a lot of classics adapted recently. We've got Emma and Little Women and that's all I have to say. Maybe it's not that many. I feel like this is due for, due for an adaptation, particularly because of the nature of our own times right now, you know, but who up for intervolution. Oh, well, I guess I was thinking of Les Mis, the musical got a movie adaptation. Yeah, it's also, to be perfectly honest, because The Wisdom of Crowd by Joe Upper Cromby is so heavily inspired by the French Revolution. And because that does, you know, paint a vivid portrait of a time of turmoil, hatred, violence and madness, while also doing a ton of incredible character work that like having read that or reread that quite recently reading this now, where it's this evocative, violent, you know, reign of terror, but I'm not getting the character work alongside it that I'm like, it's missing. So it's weird to say that Joe Upper Cromby wrote me a better French Revolution than Charles Dickens when Dickens is actually writing about the French Revolution. But it's kind of how I feel about it. Anyway, um, yeah, that's yeah. Yeah, I'm disappointed. I mean, like, yeah, I haven't been doing star ratings to anything as I go, because it's just all secret. But I am thinking like four stars. It's, I mean, it's definitely not a five, but it was a five would be a new favorite. But because like three seems too low for like, I don't know, the some of the pros in it, I mean, those lines are iconic for a reason. The opening and the closing of this book, like, it had me tearing up. It's very well written. The prose is so good. And there are some great descriptions in here of the times and of characters. There's some bits of wit and wordplay, like, it's got some knockout stuff in it. But overall the package just like didn't wow me the way that I thought it would. So yeah, I think four or just what I feel is right, I guess. But yeah, that's, that's the one. That's the one. It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. This is the best of books. This is the worst books. Any hoosies. Um, yep. I think I've got three more to go. So check in with you real soon. Mrs. Dalloway. I really enjoyed this a lot more than I thought I would, which is weird, because yesterday I was like, well, every book on this list is a book that I think I'm going to love. That's why it's on this list. Yesterday is when I finished Taylor Jennings. So Mrs. Dalloway, I, um, my mind is going blank. Mrs. Dalloway, I think what it remotes reminded me of, which is like, I don't know, weird, is reading Sally Rooney, like normal people and conversations with friends. And Beautiful World, where are you? Because of the, I guess, the stream of consciousness part of it, which I guess is also what Virginia Woolf is known for slash, uh, lowkey invented. Did she invent it? I don't know if she's known for it. Um, so yeah, this all takes place over the course of one day. Mrs. Dalloway, um, in the, like post-World War I, is a richish lady who's throwing a party. So we get her thoughts, as well as some thoughts of the people that she's interacted with. And you know, all the classics that are on this list, um, of all the classics that are on this list of classics that like possible, future, favorite, whatever. Um, this is the least classic, which at least, I mean, I think of classics as being older than this. And this is old, but not nearly as old as the others. So like, I don't know what the official cutoff is for a classic, or even if there is one. But you know, Dickens is like, obviously classics. This is more on the modern end of things. So like, including it, I was like, what, I don't even know if I can include it, but I'm gonna. And two, it will be the most different from the others, because it'll be the most modern. And I've always been kind of not nervous, but like, I obviously know who Virginia Woolf is, but I've never read any Virginia Woolf before. And I don't know, something about what I'd heard made me think that it would be something that like, I might appreciate what it's done for literature and appreciate the place that it holds in the history of literary canon, but not enjoy it. And maybe I wouldn't like any other Virginia Woolf books enough, but I did really enjoy this a lot. The stream of consciousness, the way it's presented, the way that it like, to me very accurately reflects the way thoughts wander into both light and dark territories and back forward and to the past and all over the place, and how a lot of writing that I really love, and this does this a bit in the way that it's doing the stream of consciousness thing, but like Donna Tart's writing does this, Sally Rooney's writing does this, other writing does this. I can't think of anything right now, but where you like zero in on the details of a specific thing to the point where like, it's kind of like, I always come here to a photograph or like, you know, you have like a pencil on the table and you're like, that's no one looks at that and goes, oh, that's a photograph right there. But if you like zoom in really close and angle it right in the way the light hits it, suddenly it's art now, because like, you've zeroed into the details of it, and you're like the way the dust settled on this and the way the light catches it, and the way that you can see the wear on this side of it, and the shadow that it casts on the table, and like, now it's a piece of art. And so the way that like, Donna Tart does that in the Secret History, it's, and it's this kind of stream of consciousness thinking, we're like, as you're going through your day, you're like, nothing happened, right, you're just like walking around doing errands. But like, we have a story going on in our heads, and the way that you think about, you can have really mundane and really deep thoughts as you do that. And the variety of thoughts that you'll have inspired by whatever is around you, there's like a lot going on with that. So this story kind of does that. And I know that's not like what it's most famous for being about. But that's what struck me most about it is like, yeah, this is what it's like to be alive, is to have your mind erased from thing to thing to thing, and how arguments in your mind about things. And yeah, I just was like, this is just as an encapsulation of like, what the human experience is like, even if like the thoughts that I have are not like Mrs. Dalloway's, or indeed any of the characters, just the way of like, yeah, to be alive is to be thinking like this is what I liked most about it. It's, I know it's known for like themes of mental health, post traumatic stress, feminism, queerness. And that's all in there. And that's all well and good. That's just not the part about it that I was like most blown away by. Like that's all great. But the thing that made me go, wow, I really like this, is that it's just like, this is what it's like to be alive, to be a person existing in the world, even if my life is extremely different from Mrs. Dalloway's. So I just thought it was so well done. And I think that's what I like about reading Sally Rooney's books too, is like, that's what it's like to be alive. You just have these thoughts, sometimes you share them. So yeah, I really, really, really liked this, much more than I thought I would. I went in going like, well, at least I hope that I appreciate this. And I really like this, I like this a lot better than Tale of Two Cities. This is the exact opposite of Tale of Two Cities. Tale of Two Cities, I was like, this is a story where I don't feel any, like, I know the characters. This is just like all literally just characters where there's like basically no story. It is the first law classic. Yeah, so I really, really liked it. Also, I really like this cover. So I'm glad that I like because I hate it when good covers let me down. That's just the worst. So I don't have so much else to say about it, except that I really like it. And I can see why people wouldn't, people who are not character driven readers, people who don't want to stream a consciousness narrative, who want to plot. If you want to plot, it's not the book for you. But I often like plotless things. So as long as, like, if it's plotless, now the spotlight is shining on the other stuff, the character work, the sensory experience, things like that. So if you're not going to have a plot to distract us from that, you're going to have to really step it up on the characters. So like as long as the book is stepping it up and giving me great character work, I don't care. There's no plot. So anyway, that's my take on Mrs. Dalloway. I really enjoyed it. On to what I have left, which I think is too hard. I'm shooting this clip for the second time because I went to go edit my original clip and I had a hair sticking up, like covering my lip for the entire time. Um, yeah. I don't know if anyone else cares about that, but it drove me insane. So I was like, I literally could not with this clip. We're doing it again. Just making sure there's no hairs around my face this time because we were not doing it a third time. And if there is any hair as well, I'm just never going to talk about this book. Anyway, I'm actually here to talk about two books, Crime and Punishment and The All All Paper, because I finished Crime and Punishment and then real quick finished or read The All All Paper. And I don't have too much to say about this. We're doing them both at the same time. It was kind of incoherent in my Crime and Punishment original clip. So maybe just as well, um, then I have to film it again. I'm still so like, make sure there's no hairs. I liked it. It was not what I expected. I knew going into this, that it was a long Russian book that is about a guy that kills a lady. I was pretty sure what it was about and all that I knew about it, other than that I can expect it to be quite dark and sad and Russian. And I was mostly correct that that's like, at least at the outset, that's what it's about. And then, yeah, I didn't really, I couldn't, I always knew there had to be more to it because this is a long ass book. So it doesn't take that long to kill a lady. And I was pretty certain, again, that it's not like at all is building up to him killing her. I was fairly certain that that is like the opener or like that's the inciting incident. That's where we start things. So I, yeah, I was like, I don't know what else is gonna go on something. It's a long book. So yeah, I, I expected it weirdly to be darker, which despite being, I mean, it is a pretty dark book. It's about a guy that kills a lady. And it's messed up about it after. But nevertheless, I expected it to be darker than it actually is. And it is quite dark. Don't get me wrong, it is dark. Also want to shout out how much I like this cover. So I'm really glad that I like the book because I really like this edition of it. And if I hated the book, I would have to get rid of it. But it also quite happy something to do. I enjoyed it. It's not a new favorite. So in terms of this vlog project and the goal of this live project, it is a failure. But I did enjoy it. And I think, what do I think? I think it has a lot of interesting ideas. And I think the main character is an interesting vehicle through which to explore those ideas and the main characters, I don't know, moral position is one that's interesting to examine. And I was saying in my original clip, and I stand by this, which is why I'm saying it again, that it didn't feel that ground banking to me, but that's also because this is an older book. And so there is that when you read older books that are influential, if you go back and read them after reading everything that was influenced by them, it now feels like the derivative thing, even though all those other things were deriving their ideas from this original. I'm not saying everything in the world is inspired by crime and punishment. But some of the ideas it's talking about, right? So like the main characters, the main character sort of position is one of like, is it always wrong to murder? The answer is no. Is there a time that it is okay to murder possibly? And he is personally enamored of Napoleon. But like it's kind of reminiscent to me of Thanos from Avengers, you know, they're like, I'm killing for the greater good, or there's a ton of quotes in Abercrombie books that are like, you kill enough people, like where they kill, you kill a person, you're a murderer, but if you kill enough people, now you're a hero. That comedies that I cast, look here, I mentioned this in my first clip, and I still don't know where it's from. There's definitely a quote from something British that I think is a comedy where he's like, you know, I kill someone here, they stick me in jail, I kill someone overseas and they pin a medal on me or something like that. I might have been frying a lorry now that I think about it, but I don't remember where it's from. Point meaning, this is a conversation that has been had, and I don't know that it was like, that this conversation had not been had until the crime finished, but I seriously doubt that people have been debating whether or not it's right to kill people since first people were alive to be killed. So like that debate has been had, this was a slightly different twist on it. Seeing it through the perspective of somebody that doesn't actually really have any grand designs, it's more the potential possibility of the future. And like if he is ever to become a man worthy of legend and note, Annapoleon, it's weird that he's like idolizing Napoleon because he's Russian or whatever. If he's ever to become a man of note, then surely the killing of one insignificant person on the road to greatness, humanity and history would regard as justified or as valid or as a necessary sacrifice for the greater good. So he's like, well, if I am on the road to greatness, then surely that's a justified step for me to take. Because look at how many people Napoleon killed. He's a great man. Yeah, it's not that he's already got grand ideals. Thanos is like, my grand plan is to kill people. That is my great idea. Napoleon's going out here already in charge of armies wanting to conquer lands. He's already doing the greatness thing. This guy's like, well, someday I'm gonna be great. So I, in the meantime, need to bump off this old lady because she's getting in the way of my future greatness. Which like, that's not a very great position. And like, you get, like, he's not a very good character to sympathize with. Like, you read his perspective and you're like, like, this is an interesting idea that you have and it's interesting to read about, but like, fuck you. Um, and there's certainly other characters that feel the same way. So I think one of the most interesting things about reading this book is like, if the main character, I do not like the main character. I don't know that I'm meant to, although he does get a bit of a redemption arc. And I don't like that because I don't think we should be rooting for this main character. I don't think, um, we should be like hating this main character. I'm not like, appalled that he'd get a redemption arc because he's irredeemable. And that's not what I mean. I mean, like, I don't know that it's necessary for the story to have a redemption arc because usually you have a redemption arc because like, that's what the audience wants to see, you know? Because you're like, oh, he's done terrible things when we like him and we want to see, like, you know, Kylo Ren, like, apparently, like, people like Kylo Ren. Those movies are shit. Adam Driver did a great job. So people are like, we want to see him Loki in the Marvel. If we're just doing Marvel examples, then Lynn Loki. People want to see him redeem because they like him. I don't like this main character. I don't think I'm meant to. So I don't know why I'm getting a redemption arc because that doesn't make it a happy ending for me. I don't care about seeing good things happen to him. That's not interesting to me. And it doesn't really serve the narrative, in my opinion. Maybe I am supposed to think what he's doing is great and I should be rooting for him in which case I have questions. But I don't think that's the point of this book. And there's a lot of other characters that have a lot of interesting perspectives on whether they know or not what he has done. Some do, some don't. What would they have to say about their morals and about what he may or may not have done? Or because he has written an essay in this book, kind of espousing these ideals that's been published. So that gives the crazy opportunity for characters to be commenting on that position to him, even if they don't know that he's committed a murder. And the book certainly, you know, explores like, what is punishment? Like, actually, I don't know what the title of it is in Russian. Like what it actually, is the title in Russian literally Crime and Punishment? The Russian words for that? I actually have no idea. But certainly it explores the repercussions. So he goes into this thing that I'm justified in killing this lady per my manifesto. But then he's horrified by it and he does it and he's mad that he's horrified by it. And he's carrying around this paranoia and guilt and illness. And he's like, it's ruined his life. This doing of this killing that he believed he was totally AOK to do. And then he still kind of believes he's AOK to have done. So he's like, he's upset that he's killed her and he's upset that he's upset that he's killed her. And he's upset that it's upsetting other people around him that he's upset that he's killed this lady. It's like, there's a lot of upsetedness. And there's a lot of really interesting conversations with other characters, which is the part that I like the best. People that he interacts with or comes in contact with or his family. I really like his sister. I don't like the female character that he has kind of a relationship with that is this like martyr figure that through which he does kind of get some redemption. I'm just like, blah, blah, blah. But I like his sister a lot. She's got more pizzazz. She's not just the wilting martyr figure. Yeah, I just, I don't know. I, it's not, yeah, it's not what I expected. Because I feel, yeah, when I said that it's not as dark as I thought it would be, I expected to, well, I certainly didn't know that the main character would be like, I think it's right to kill sometimes and I'm going to go kill. I did not know that that was what was going on. I thought it was a situation of desperation. And then he carries around the guilt of it because of the like, I did it because it was necessary. But my god, I've killed someone kind of thing. And then like spiraling from there or something. And interestingly, that is what other characters in this book are like, okay, but you killed her because you had to, right? Like you need it. Like she, you needed the money. You're desperate. You needed food. You were desperate, right? Like that's why you killed her, right? And he's like, no. Like I'm kind of on the poor side, kind of strapped for cash. True. But like, no, I didn't mean to kill her. Not really. That's not why I did it. People are like, are you sure though? Like, are you sure it's not because you need to do it? He's like, really, it's not. That's not why I did it. So it's just like, the main character is such a weird dude. It's all I know how to say. So going into these situations, like it's kind of hard to, it's hard to root for him. And it's hard to understand where he's coming from. Because like, I don't think most people reading this book would hold his views. It is interesting to encounter his views and to grapple with his views and to see those play out in this story and to see other characters react to it. And certainly this book is filled with conversation outside of just the moral dilemma, if it is a dilemma of like, should you kill people? There's also just conversation that is relevant to like the time in which this was written. Utilitarianism and questions of faith and questions of like rationality and rational thinking and just like different modes of thinking that were prevalent at the time that he was kind of commenting on. And it certainly paints the portrait of humanity as like, deeply messy. So anybody out here being like, well, man is a rational animal. And it just has to, man just has to be put in a position where they live comfortably enough to where they can behave rationally. It's like, nope, I don't know that that's going to solve it. It's kind of like when people are like, you know how we used to think that the problem was that people didn't have access to information and then the internet was invented and they're like, yeah, that wasn't it. So it's an interesting book because it has so many interesting ideas in it and so many different characters espousing very interesting perspectives and doing morally interesting things. And I definitely don't root for the main character, but that's not like a, it's only becomes a problem for me when we started doing a redemption arc. And I'm like, no, just leave him unredeemed. It's fine. I don't need a redemption arc. I don't think that helps the story. I think that's the thing that bothered me. That's why this is not a new favorite because I was really enjoying it. And I was like, where is this going? Where are we going with this? And where we were going with it was a redemption arc. And I was like, well, that's not great. Just leave him crazy and unredeemed. It's fine. People who think this kind of way, I don't think they get redeemed. I think they just think this is fine. Yeah, so, yeah, crime and punishment. I enjoyed it. I really did. It has a lot to it. It's a meaty book. Food for thought, certainly. And it's not, yeah, it's not what I expected. All these years, the name, crime and punishment, and the vague, hazy images associated in my mind with what that would be are definitely not what it is. And it's funny how that happens. I feel like there's a lot. There was a, there's nothing to do with this, but it was a long time before I saw Gone with the Wind. But I had seen like the poster of Gone with the Wind many times. Because who hasn't? Maybe you haven't. I'm sorry if that's true. And just based on the poster and like the various glimpses of clips that are like in all those like the hundred best movies of all time, blah, blah, blah, blah. Like I had seen clips of like two seconds and the poster. And my idea of like what that movie would be like and who the female character that's on the poster, what she would be like, and what her personality is like based on just the poster. When I watched Gone with the Wind for the first time, I was shook if I was like, she's nothing like I thought. I turned to my mom and I was like, because my mom loves Gone with the Wind. And I was like, I thought that Scarlet O'Hara would be this like level headed, no nonsense, like practical survivor gal. And my mom just burst out laughing because she was like, this is like the literal opposite of, I mean Scarlet O'Hara is a survivor, that part I got right. But the rest could not be further from what Scarlet is like. So just like my image in my mind of what Gone with the Wind was until I saw it was very different from what it actually was. So like, same with crime and punishment. I just had very hazy images of kind of how this would go and the vibe of it and what that would be whenever I got around to reading it. And it is not really what it's like. But I enjoyed it. I don't like their redemption arc. That's the thing I think. I didn't even arrive at that conclusion of my original clip. I'm glad we're doing this. Thank you, hair that was probably in my mouth again. Yeah, that's the thing that kind of, it didn't kill it for me because I still like it. But it kind of killed it for me. And the yellow wallpaper, not too much to say about it, it's quite short. It's about a slow, not that slow because it's quite short, but relatively slow descent into madness because it's commenting on the treatment of mental health issues and mental illness and women in particular and their mental illness being disregarded and just the kind of horror of it. And I think it's done quite well and I did not expect it to be so, it's not funny. It's definitely not funny. But it is kind of sardonic a little bit in its tone, which I did not expect. And I quite enjoyed that aspect of it because I quite like sardonic things. But anyway, yeah, that's it. Those are all the classics that I was considering potentially adding to my role of favorites. And of the ones that I read for this project, books that I might actually consider new favorite classics are not the ones that I would have thought because I think Mrs. Dalloway and maybe Persuasion, maybe my new favorites from this project, which I, going into it, if I was going to guess, I don't remember if I did, I don't think I had any predictions, but if I had to, if I was going to be predicting, I would have guessed Tale of Two Cities and Crime and Punishment would be my favorites. And I liked, I liked Crime and Punishment but Tale of Two Cities. But yeah, they're not my new favorites. It's Dalloway and Persuasion. Those were my favorites from this project. But yeah, those are my thoughts. Let me know your thoughts about my thoughts in the comments down below, whatever you want to let me know. I post videos on Saturdays, other random times will be Saturdays, so like and subscribe to my Patreon if you feel so inclined, and I'll see you when I see you. Bye.