The Year In Reading 2014 and Onward to 2015

According to Goodreads — my only real authority on anything reading-wise — I read 64 books in 2014. My first thought upon seeing that was, “Bummer. I didn’t read the 100 I set out to read.”

My second thought was “Whoa! 64!”

I also made a pretty good dent in what I dub my Complete Works Of Project. Basically, I said I’d work my way through William Shakespeare, Stephen King, and Jane Austen. And work I did. I haven’t hit the end of Will and Steve, but I did read all of Jane’s Completed Works. (I still have to read her juvenalia and some of her incomplete works to say I’ve read everything…but that’s a project for a different time.)

Surely, having read so much last year, I must have an opinion on some things, yes?

Why yes I do.

Jane Austen
The woman is, of course, a bad ass. My faves are Northanger Abbey, Emma, and the quintessential
Pride and Prejudice. I also really enjoyed Persuasion, which is kind of like a baby P&P. Sense and Sensibility gets an ‘okay’ as far as I’m concerned.

I have to tell you, five outta six ain’t bad.

Jane’s Mistake Park

But, man Mansfield Park can go suck it. What a preachy load of preachiness. Everyone’s a jerk. When you’re cheering for the rival, there’s a problem.








Stephen King
I’ve read almost 40 King books at this point — including his two newest ones Revival and Mr. Mercedes. (See? Say you’re gonna read a living writer and they come out with multiple books in a year, just to make sure you can’t quite catch up…ever.)

Revival — what a dark bummer of a book. A great bildingsroman, but dark. Damn. Not even horrific. Just DARK.

Mr. Mercedes — more of a mystery/thriller kind of romp. Easily on par with J.K. Rowling’s new nom-de-plume Richard Galbraith stuff. So, not bad. Not great. But not bad.






William Shakespeare
All I’ll say is that I’m reading his early comedies right now and I’m trying not to hate him as a misogynistic butthead. And this is after coming off early histories….

Faves of 2014

The Martian by Andy Weir (badass survival on Mars)


The Legend of Sleepy Hollow by Washington Irving (surprisingly funnier than I anticipated)
The Secret Place by Tana French (the ultimate frenemy book)
What If? Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions  by Randall Munroe (non-fiction, crazy shit)

Not so Faves of 2014
Mansfield Park by Jane Austen (sorry, Jane, this one’s a stinker)
Writing with the Master by Tony Vanderwarker (the story of how John Grisham didn’t actually help a dude write a novel)

Now that 2014 is over and in the books (ha!) time for my goals for 2015.
1. Continue to plug away at William Shakespeare and Stephen King.
2. I’ve added in Virginia Woolf.
3. 56 books total for 2015 — not necessarily all Complete Works Of Project.

King Henry VI, Part 2King Henry VI, Part 2 by William Shakespeare
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

The Henry plays — and a great deal of Shakespeare’s history plays — were written prior to 1594. These are Shakespeare’s early attempts and a lot of critics have pointed out: it shows.

Henry VI, Pt 2, is definitely rough. There are a crap-ton of characters, some of whom only show up once for a couple lines and then disappear. In a production of these plays, a lot of these roles would be doubled-up. The result is a somewhat chaotic read, though I bet it’s much easier to follow on stage.

All I really have to say about this play is: Early Shakespeare is Still Shakespeare!

And I think Shakespeare might’ve missed his true calling: darkKill-Bill-style comedy.

Yes, I think Shakespeare and Quentin Tarantino should get together. Wait, scratch that. They’d never shut up so they’d never get anything done. Both are kind of long winded.

However! Jack Cade, the badass-but-not-too-bright leader of the rebels, who appears near the end of the play, is the epitome of a Tarantino talky-crazed bad guy. He makes decapitated heads kiss each other. He kills people for calling him the wrong name. He proclaims random laws. His scenes are straight out of Pulp Fiction. It’s a good thing Shakespeare didn’t have access to needles. (Or, maybe, a bad thing.)

Some of that shit was so disturbing I laughed out loud.

Do the nobles plot for an unreasonable amount of time? Yes.
Is it sometimes difficult to follow characters and their motivations? Sometimes. Yes.

But I liked it way more than I thought I would.

View all my reviews

The Original Pronunciation of Shakespeare

I’m trying to read Shakespeare’s works in the (generally) agreed upon order in which they were written. That means there’s a lot of histories up front. Right now, I’ve finished the Henry VI trilogy and am moving on to Richard III.

And, really, the only thing clear to me is Shakespeare’s historical presentations are quite questionable. There weren’t any archaeologists or disciplined historians back in the day. Most of the base material he used to produce these works are biased at the very least.

So, I find it ironic that English majors, historians, and armchair quarterbacks use such rigorous focus when studying the Bard.

For example, there have been several productions of Shakespeare’s plays in the past few years who have gone to a lot of trouble to recreate the original pronunciation of Shakespeare’s time period. Below, you’ll find a video featuring David Crystal, Honorary Professor of Linguistics at the University of Wales, presenting the methodology behind figuring out Shakespeare’s language.

But the real question is why do we even care about Shakespeare’s original pronunciation?

A couple different reasons off the top of my head:

1. Meaning. As Crystal points out in the video, the original pronunciation alters the meaning of the words themselves — you can see changes in jokes/puns. This is a real-life exploration of the evolution of language. And evolution of meaning affects:

2. History. It’s also pointed out in the video that Shakespeare’s language/dialect was the language/dialect of the first colonists of the United States. While the presenters of the video are focused exclusively on Shakespeare, it’s just a natural leap to assume the language (and possible meaning alterations) transfers to historical documents.

And that doesn’t even come close to the several ways of understanding the plays themselves, which these gentlemen do a much better job of explaining: