User Profile

This book really spoke to me in a number of ways. Let me start with a few quotes that demonstrate some of the themes and goals of this book.

"Am I a woman? Am I nonbinary? To be honest, I'm not sure. ...I consider this ambiguousness a gift of its own. There is value in the in-between and uncategorized, even in a culture that rewards certainty." p 5

[On how slave-holders morally justified slavery] "This process is often referred to as 'dehumanization,' but the language of 'less than human' suggests that other life-forms are perhaps deserving of mistreatment, another false binary. Human exceptionalism--the myth that nature is there to be dominated, that the human species is superior--has alienated humans from nature, literally paving the way for the destruction of our companions." p 17

"People often justify the protection of swamps and other wetlands based on their 'ecosystem services,' the quantifiable monetary value of their utility. But queerness teaches us that someone or something need not be productive--or reproductive, as it were--to be valued, respected, or loved." pp 57-58

"Linnaeus's work was organized around inherent qualities in each species that differentiated them into discrete taxonomic units. But focusing on these kinds of difference led to an overemphasis on the individual and an underappreciation for the ecological web that gives rise to and supports a species. No species exists or evolves in a vacuum." p 84

"While it may not seem polite to compare intersex or otherwise queer people to eels, the mindset of reading comparisons to animals as insulting comes from the same body of logic--as I hope I've established elsewhere in this book--that positions certain people beneath others and animals and nature beneath people. To reckon with this, we must recast these comparisons entirely. To see your own biology mirrored in the body of a mysterious, metamorphosing, magnetotactic being is magic." pp 178-179

The philosophy and broad examination of science in this book is woven amid, and developed by, many fascinating details about the likes of crows, fungi, cicadas, lichen, eels and ants, as well as ponderings on the author's own life. This is a valuable and fascinating book that I would recommend to anyone.

This was my second time reading this. However, the first time was when I was in junior high school, more than 40 years ago, and all that I had remembered was that I liked it. I still like it.

Jane is a very compelling character, and the writing is quite good. It is interesting that, reading it with my best attempt at a mindset appropriate for when it was written, it is clearly a very feminist novel, though reading it from a 21st century perspective there are many aspects that are problematic from a feminist perspective. It is also interesting to contrast the startling (for the time) feminism of the book, and its criticism of the abuse of children, with the fact that it is in most other respects very socially conventional--indeed, conservative. Brontë must have been a complex person.

Rochester...I frankly do not see quite what his appeal to Jane was about. He is perhaps the most problematic character in the book for me (or he may be tied with St John for that distinction). I find it mostly impossible to like him, but while I don't personally get his appeal for Jane, I also didn't find her attraction to him completely unbelievable.

So, I would have to say that my favorite parts of the novel were parts that did not involve Rochester. Still, enjoyable overall--even the parts with Rochester.

I picked up this book to read at this time as a sort of reaction. I had recently attempted to read a novel which was so poorly written that I could not manage to finish it, though the plot and the characters interested me. I felt the need to cleanse my reading palette, and this book, which has been sitting unread on my shelf for years, seemed like it would do the trick. Indeed, it did.

This book succeeded in restoring my pleasure in reading, despite the fact that, really, neither the plot nor the characters interested me much. There are many factors which can affect my enjoyment of a novel. Plot and characters are frequently among the important factors. However, as time goes by I come to realize more and more that there are three basic elements which are most likely to contribute to my satisfaction with a novel.

The first is good writing. At the most basic level I mean writing with correct grammar, accurate word usage and so on (and of course, if a character is being portrayed who does not have the best grammar or vocabulary, then it is “correct” and “accurate” for their dialogue to reflect that). I also don’t believe that there is a single, canonical set of rules that must be followed in English. As long as the grammar and word usage are appropriate and self-consistent for whatever dialect and time period the book is written in, that is all that I ask. One can certainly ask for much more from good writing—an engaging style, effective description, careful word choice—but the basics of grammar and word use are essential.

The second element I desire is that the book make me think. Ideally, it will present a new idea or a new way of looking at something that truly engages my mind. This need not be something of monumental importance. It can be something rather trivial, as long as it gives me something to ponder.

The third element is the physical experience of reading the book. Is it comfortable to hold? Can I read it without breaking the spine? Is the printing sharp enough and large enough for reading to not be a strain?

This is already probably the longest review I have written, and I have barely said a thing about the book. Forgive me. This is because I have little to say about it, and most of what I have to say requires the explanation above. Yes, the writing (and in this case, the translation) fully satisfied my immediate need for a well-written novel. For that, alone, it would have been worth reading. It also made me think (and will likely remain in my head for a while), even though the questions it raises are not of great interest to me. And it is physically delightful. It is a slim, high quality, mass market (or pocket) Vintage edition from the 1950s. I wish that books like this were still being made. More reason to haunt used bookstores…

I have mixed feelings about this book. As a general statement, I can say that I prefer novels to short stories. And more often than not when I encounter a book in which the author has tried to cobble a collection of short stories into a novel, I am just annoyed by the conceit. Here I must grant, however, that Silverberg did probably the best work of such a job that I have encountered. I still felt, unmistakably, that I was reading a collection of stories, not a novel, but I would have to say that the short story which insinuates itself in the cracks between the others, and bookends them, is one of my two favorite stories in the book.

Most of the stories I found to be good, but not great. For me, the other highlight, besides the stitching story, was “Calintane Explains”. I in no way regret having read this book (twice now, though I had no specific memories from having read it some forty years ago), but I am glad that the next book in the series is an actual novel!