Deal Me in Challenge: The Boarded Window by Ambrose Bierce (1891)

Card Drawn:

Spooky.

I encountered Ambrose Bierce for the first time during last year's "Dead Me in Challenge" with An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge and it turned out to be one of the finest short-stories that I have ever read. Talk about a "twist" ending! Unfortunately, I did not end up writing any review on it but Bierce immediately became a permanent fixture on my radar. It is difficult for me to describe his unique style but he often relishes in dark imagery and creates an imposing sense of dread but I would be hard pressed to call him a horror writer in the same vein as, say, Stephen King. His cynicism and ominous depiction of death crops up in a lot of his stories so it makes sense that many would consider him as a horror writer but perhaps it would be more accurate to classify his writing as psychological horror that has more in common with H.P. Lovecraft's 'weird fiction.' Having fought in the American Civil War and being wounded, a lot of Bierce's stories usually revolve around the horrors of war although The Boarded Window is a little different. Here, we get a grim depiction of isolated frontier life with elements of the supernatural. So, indeed, one can certainly read this particular story as "horror" but it must be reiterated that this is not always the case in Ambrose Bierce's work.

As a ghost story, The Boarded Window is steeped in mysticism and ambiguity. With the expansion of the American frontier, many settlers found themselves living in remote areas, far removed from civilization. The unnamed narrator relates a story passed down from his grandfather about a man named Murlock who settled in these parts many years ago and became isolated from the community by moving deeper into the forest with his wife. We are never given any explanation as to why they become social outcasts, nor do we get the wife's perspective at any point. He seems wholly dependent on her and yet she seems entirely compliant to give into his desire to become hermits. Very odd. She eventually dies of an illness and then Murlock becomes even more of a recluse in his grief. He then gets super creepy, locking himself up in the cabin with his dead wife's corpse by boarding up the windows (wink, wink) to literally shut out the external world but this particular act also serves as a metaphor for his own psychological imprisonment. Paralyzed by such immense loss, he wallows in despair and stubbornly refuses to let go of the past. The ending threw me for a loop and I am still not sure what to make of it. During one of Murolock's emotional breakdowns as he is clutching his wife's corpse in agonizing grief, she mysteriously disappears and a vicious panther breaks through the window and kills him. So, yeah, very weird. Does this really happen or is he suffering from some kind of hallucination? Bierce purposefully leaves the ending shrouded in ambiguity although I found the whole encounter with the panther to be rather silly, which greatly diminished the quality of an otherwise decent story. 

 

Deal Me in Challenge: I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream by Harlan Ellison

Card Drawn:

Shhhhhhhhhh....

There is weird science-fiction and then there is Harlan Ellison who writes some of the weirdest stuff that I have ever encountered in fiction. The best way that I can possibly describe his writing is a mix between H.P. Lovecraft and Philip K. Dick; a sci-fi/horror hybrid that is terrifyingly bizarre. Written in 1967, I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream has become a sort of dystopian cult classic, so, naturally, I was curious to see what all the hype was all about. Suffice it to say, I was left quite disappointed. Despite the mind-bending premise, Ellison's writing style and narrative execution leave much to be desired. 

In a post-apocalyptic world, the human population has been wiped out by a giant supercomputer and the last five remaining people on Earth are imprisoned for eternity in this subterranean maze of torture. Considering that this story was written at the height of the Cold-War, Ellison's channels the fears of advancing technology and the creation of A.I.'s that would eventually exceed human intelligence, become sentient beings and turn on their creators. Although this kind of post-apocalyptic story might seem overly familiar these days, Ellison's nightmarish vision of the future must have surely been quite shocking for reader's in the 1960's. Personally, it feels dated and I'm not sure if more 'contemporary' readers will get much out of it. Indeed, the actual story itself often feels campy and weird for weird's sake. I'm not quite sold on its revered status but Ellison should certainly be recognized for his astounding imagination and influence on other writers (especially in the science fiction genre) is unprecedented. I just wish he was a better writer.

Deal Me in Challenge: Mountain Victory by William Faulkner

Card Drawn:

I am not sure that this is the picturesque mountain Faulkner had in mind but it will do.

Faulkner's Mountain Victory is the longest short-story that I have ever read in recent memory. Yes, I am well aware that this statement is an oxymoron but with eleven mini chapters, this story is a borderline novella. Based entirely on the title, I picked it at random from his Collected Stories, thinking that the premise might revolve around a bunch of southern rednecks engaged in a dramatic battle atop a giant mountain. Surprisingly, my initial presumption was not too far off although a violent confrontation does occur at the end of the story. The title is misleading and slightly ironic since there is no real victory here, only irreparable loss on both sides. 

I was expecting Faulkner's usual stream-of-consciousness but the story is quite straight-forward to follow although confusion does arise at times since he provides very little context and the southern dialect is difficult to comprehend. Moreover, the nonchalant and repetitive use of the word "nigger" is appropriated by Faulkner, augmenting the verisimilitude of the historical period. Taking place at the end of the American Civil War, a wounded Confederate soldier named Weddel and his black servant Jubal are both on their way back home to Mississippi after four years of fighting against the Union. On their journey, they decide make a pit stop at a remote cabin located on a mountain in Tennessee and encounter some unruly folk who want to kill them on sight (think 'Deliverance' but set in the late 1860's). My question is: Why not go around the mountain and avoid the hostile mountain people? This made no sense to me whatsoever but I suppose if Faulkner did this, his exploration of the central conflict between the Old South and New South would cease to exist. Additionally, core themes such as traditional values and war would also be less resonant. My knowledge of the American history is limited to say the least but I could also not figure out why the roughneck Tennessee family were so antagonistic towards Weddel since he fought for the south. Anyways, he foolishly decides to stay the night much to Jubal's chagrin, urging his master that they should just leave because these isolated mountain people cannot be trusted. It is interesting to note that even though Jubal is now a 'free slave', he is still remains subservient to Weddel. Jubal has every reason to suspect that their ungracious hosts but Weddel stubbornly refuses even after Jubal is poisoned with spiked moonshine. Weddel is clueless that the war has changed the South forever and thinks that he can return to the way things used to be. Faulkner often describes him as "quizzical" and "sardonic" which further exemplifies his fragmented sense of self. The war might be over but that does not mean it is over for everyone. Weddel must learn this fact the hard way although Faulkner's story meanders far too long before finally arriving at this crucial point. 

Overall, this was a decent story with so much potential but falls flat. We never get a real sense of these characters since Faulkner keeps the reader at a distance. Faulkner has written some excellent short-stories like A Rose for Emily and Dry September but Mountain Victory is rather forgettable.

The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison

“Lonely was much better than alone.”

Note: I found this review in my drafts that I wrote back in 2012. It is terrible and goes way off tangent, which might explain why I decided not to post it. Oh well, feel free to poke fun at my mediocrity. I do plan on re-reading this novel at some point and can hopefully offer an insightful review when it is more fresh in my mind.

I had to read Beloved for an introductory English course during my first year of university but it didn't register with me at all. I have no discerning memory of the novel but do recall the broken narrative causing me problems, ultimately leading me to dismiss it as worthless drivel. Suffice it to say, my ignorance concerning literature was reprehensible back then. Something tells me that I would be able to appreciate Beloved a lot more if I were to pick it again for a second time. Putting aside my earlier preconceptions, I decided give Toni Morrison another chance with The Bluest Eye and much to my surprise, it was fantastic. Personally, this  is one of the best debuts of any author that I have come across in a long time--a stylistic tour-de-force, thought-provoking and an emotional powerhouse that is downright harrowing. There are no sunshine and rainbows in this novel, just sadness and anger. My first reaction after finishing it was to curl up into a ball and cry myself to sleep. I don't mind reading depressing or bleak stories but this one really did a number on me.

It has become a recurring pattern that many African-American writers are concerned with the issues of race -- no doubt, a very complex subject that includes anything from the exploration of black identity, discrimination, cultural imperialism, gender, the list goes on. Toni Morrison is no exception here but as far as I am concerned, she is far ahead of so many authors who explore what it means to be black in America and the challenges faced when living within a dominant white society through her inimitable, intelligent, unique and profound way of writing. She didn't win the Nobel Prize in literature for nothing.

On a side note, I remember watching an interview with Morrison on the Colbert Report in which she stated that she didn't want to be labeled as an African-American writer but simply as an American writer. This statement generated some interesting discussion on issues of race: Why is it that an American white author (or whatever culture for that matter, just using the prototypical example here) is never referred to as a "White American-Writer" whereas a black author is almost always pigeon-holed into the category of an "African-American Writer?" Racial discrimination is so ingrained in our society that we often don't pay much attention to it and just accept it as the norm. Although we have come a long way since the civil rights movement, racism (especially towards blacks) is alive and well. Just take a look at recent events involving racial profiling and police brutality that have left many innocent black men dead. Racism will never go away as long as there human beings walking the Earth. That is why it is important to celebrate authors like Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, Austin Clarke, Alice Walker, Ernest J. Gaines,  George Elliot Clarke and of course, Toni Morrison herself--writers who aren't afraid to tackle the controversial issue of race relations -- creating social awareness, challenging white hegemony, opposing black oppression, attempting to find a way to reduce the level of social stratification, striving towards establishing a more egalitarian society by not using violence in retaliation but using the power of literature to spark discussion and even perhaps influence social change by transmitting their ideas into the public stratosphere. 

Here I am rambling on and still haven't said anything about the novel itself. Any attempt at  writing a proper review at this particular juncture will not do this novel justice. All I can really say is that this is a novel by Toni Morrison, so you can't go wrong. Just make sure you keep some tissues handy. 

Deal Me in Challenge: Canadian Experience by Austin Clarke

Card Drawn:

(Another heart! I'm on a roll!)

R.I.P. 1934-2016

2016 has been a cursed year with Donald Trump being elected president and so many deaths of notable figures such as David Bowie, Prince, Alan Rickman, the list goes on. Just the other day, Alan Thicke passed away. I can't help thinking who might be next to kick the bucket before the year is done. Although, it is probably safe to say that Kirk Douglas has nothing to worry about. He'll outlive us all. Anyways, we also lost another big name this year and a towering figure in Canadian literature  (albeit, tragically, he is lesser known to those outside of Canada): Mr. Austin Clarke. Before him, there were not many established Black-Canadian writers and he basically paved the way for other writers of color such as Dionne Brand, Rohinton Mistry, George Eliot Clarke (not related despite sharing the last name) and many others to become recognized on the literary scene. Austin Clarke's death marks a tremendous loss in Canadian literature, leaving huge shoes to fill for anyone brave enough to pick up the torch. I really regret passing up the opportunity to see him speak or give a reading in Toronto (his home city) but his memory will live on through his excellent written works, and one of them is this short-story: Canadian Experience.

There is much to say about this thematically rich and heart-breaking story so please bear with me. First off, one notices almost immediately, that Clarke is unabashed in his anti-multicultural stance. Canada prides itself on its open immigration policies and multiculturalism but Clarke is adamant to expose these false misconceptions. The immigrant is not welcomed to this country with open arms and warm embraces. Rather, systematic barriers are set in place to exclude these "outsiders" from centers of wealth and the dominant culture. Social mobility is limited or increasingly difficult and for immigrants like George, the protagonist of the story, his dreams of achieving prosperity in Canada are shattered because he is a black foreigner in this country. George has lofty ambitions to make it big in Toronto but the cultural mosaic marginalizes black men. John Porter's "vertical mosaic" is an important intertext and reveals the intersection between culture and class. Hierarchy is based on class and ethnicity; thus, opportunities are circumscribed to the impoverished lower classes. George is black and his poverty is an indictment of this cultural mosaic. His dreams were thwarted before he even stepped foot in this country.

Secondly, pay attention to laughter in this story. This is a bleak and depressing story and there is nothing funny about George's situation but why is he always laughing? For Clarke, this "laughter" has metaphorical implications. The immigrant's forgetfulness turns to laughter, it is a marker of subjugation (powerlessness, colonization), an involuntary "tick" that represents the immigrant failing to accommodate to a hostile society. This is a country that would rather have immigrants laugh than protest; a fatalistic expression of resignation. The loss of self that has become fractured by cultural alienation is inextricably linked to George's blackness. Race is accountable to his failure since class and heritage determine success. He blames himself for his own failures and cannot shake off the slave mentality, which eventually leads to the tragic ending. I am not spoiling anything here since it soon becomes clear that there is only one way this story can possibly end. 

For anyone who has ever visited Toronto and experienced our horrible transit system (TTC), Clarke does an excellent job of portraying the underground subway as a a literal and figurative hell akin to Dante's Inferno. Clarke is cynical about the "Canadian Dream" that seduces the immigrant and ultimately, destroys them because of these problematic class hierarchies. This story is far from an enjoyable read but it is incredibly enlightening, offering a unique perspective of the black Canadian experience that one does not often come across in literature.

Deal Me in Challenge: Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut

Card Drawn:

Shall we show

the people the meaning of the word dance? 

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Kurt Vonnegut is one of the great literary satirists of the 20th century. He walks a fine line between ironic humor and downright condemnation . Indeed, there is something almost Swiftian in his juvenalian satire, offering a scathing critique of government and egalitarianism. Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron is set in a chilling dystopian world that seems all too plausible. Can social equality really exist? Marx thought so, but in this story, Vonnegut contradicts such idealism: social inequality is necessary for society to function since the alternative route will inevitably lead to government oppression or communism. The opening paragraph is quite explicit in Vonnegut's satire on the fallacies of social stratification:

"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."

Ironically, the only way to promote social equality is for the government to impose it on society and these "Amendments" made to the constitution are not meant to increase individual freedoms but rather to limit them. People are given "handicaps" (for example, radio transmitters that deliver white noise to reduce brain activity along with heavy canvas bags that literally and figuratively represent enslavement) in order to ensure equality, preventing individual free-will. Here, the U.S. constitution that famously states, "All Men are Created Equal" is revised and taken literally. However, if everyone is created "equal before God and the law" then society ceases to be productive, falling into stagnation. The government no longer operates to protect the interests of society but becomes an oppressive regime. Is this society truly free if the "Handicapper General" rules with an iron fist? We later discover that Diana Moon Glampers (such a cool name) holds this high-ranking position and maintains order through shocking violence ("unceasing vigilance"). Vonnegut is so skilled at conflating humor and deadly serious social commentary through his satire. 

I won't dive too much into the plot since it would ruin the fun of discovering this wonderful story on your own, but one particular aspect of this story that struck me was Vonnegut's use of grotesque imagery. He paints a sinister world that is comically distorted, and I personally found his dystopian vision to be simultaneously ludicrous and disturbing.


I read this story as a Hobbesian allegory taken to the extreme. Since human beings are inherently corrupt and driven towards competition with one another over finite goods, the "the state of nature" is inevitably war. We suspect that others cannot be trusted and even if people are not fighting, the mere possibility of war is always there. Sure, we can all band together but will inevitably end up at war within the group since we suffer from self-interest. Thus, in order to maintain order, a "Leviathan" figure is needed who exists outside the realm of society to adjudicate conflict (in this case, Diana Moon Glampers represents the absolute monarch). According to Hobbes, it is not individual freedom that men desire but security and we authorize or intend to give up those freedoms in order to live better. There is an inextricable link between equality and fear and the Leviathan is the only one who has absolute power--behavior is kept in check by fear. We tacitly consent to the rules, giving up our rights for safety. This "social contract" to the Body Politic is supposed to structure society and prevent chaos. Of course, the freedom to flourish within these constraints is limited or nearly impossible. Ironically, Vonnegut blatantly repudiates Hobbes, showing society's downfall if we relinquish our freedoms to achieve equality.

Deal Me in Challenge: The Last Question by Isaac Asimov

So, according to the math, I have exactly 17 days to complete the Deal in Challenge for 2016. No doubt, an impossible feat considering the upcoming deadline and my penchant for procrastination but after all, there is a reason why this blog is called Literature Frenzy! It is high-time to jump into turbo mode and read voraciously, entering a ravenous statue of delirium where only literature can satisfy my insatiable appetite! Muahahahahhahahaha!! 

*ahem*

Anyways, I do intend to power-through this challenge and read every single short story or poem from my list. However, with such limited time constraints, it would be impractical to hammer out a full-length review for each one. Perhaps a few short sentences will suffice? Maybe. It all depends on how long it takes me to run out of gas or if these delusions of grandeur blow up in my face. Either way, I surely hope Jay from Bibliophilopolis hosts this challenge again next year so that I can redeem myself. That is enough dilly dallying, let's get this show on the road with the first short story picked randomly from the deck, which turned out to be (as if the title of the post or bold image did not already give it away but let's all pretend it is a surprise)...

The Last Question by Isaac Asimov! 

Entropy. The end of the universe. Isaac Asimov, you damn genius! My mind is blown right now and The Last Question is easily one of the best, if not, the best short-story that I have read in my entire life. Please, I encourage everyone to take 10-15 minutes out of their day (or however long it might take you) and read this story here. You won't regret it. Afterwards, if you feel up to it, come back and let me know what you think in the comments section. I would love to get a discussion going since this story is bound to spark some interesting reactions and interpretations. The debate between science and religion has always been a contested issue and here, Asimov puts forth a potential theory that is controversial as much as it is fascinating. On a side note, he also considered this story to be his personal favorite out of the almost everything he ever wrote and that is saying something since this dude was an extremely prolific writer throughout his lifetime. 

As a science-fiction fan, I am kicking myself for not reading Asimov sooner (I did start  his Foundation Trilogy during my youth but never finished it so that hardly counts) because as this story clearly demonstrates, he deserves to be recognized as one of the great writers of our time, regardless of genre. In addition to his literary ambitions, Asimov was also a highly respected scientist (biochemistry) and his scientific background unequivocally informs his writing. Yet, he doesn't alienate the reader with technical jargon; rather, his expansive knowledge of science influences his unique imagination that is beyond anything that I have ever encountered in literature other than perhaps Philip K. Dick who was surely influenced by Asimov. Both authors are capable of coming up with some of the most mind-boggling stories and concepts but it is difficult for me to say at this point as to who deserves the crown as the reigning king of science-fiction without reading more of Asimov's work. Based solely on this one story, it is safe to say that P.K.D. might have some competition. 

Although some people might find Asimov's writing to be cold and detached, which reflects his empirical 'scientific' approach to story-telling, one should not completely overlook the subtle irony and humor that underlies a lot of his work. Indeed, one can make the argument that this particular story is satirical, offering a critique on humanity's pride to fully comprehend the universe. The juxtaposition between ontology and epistemology is brought to the forefront and Asimov demands from the reader to ask those big existential questions after reading this story. He cleverly emphasizes the fact that humans are flawed; we will never have the answers to everything. Rather, we can only continue to ask more questions and must learn our limits. No matter how advanced our technology becomes, we cannot stop the universe from expanding but what happens after trillions and trillions of years later when space and time cease to exist? Asimov has a hypothesis and it is truly out-of-this-world. 

Russian Literature Challenge 2017

I keep telling myself that 2017 will be different. A fresh start, new goals. Let's see if I can actually follow through and complete a reading challenge this year. Russian Literature has always intimidated me but after reading Crime and Punishment a few years back and having my mind blown (instantly jumping into my arbitrary "Top 10 novels of all-time list"), I have been interested in reading more works by Russian authors. Here is the perfect opportunity to do so. Thank you Keely from we went outside and saw the stars for hosting the challenge. All we have to do is read but here is how it works:

Like with many challenges there will be four levels (going to make it interesting and name them after my favourite Russian writers):

• Level One (Tolstoy): 1-3 books 

• Level Two (Chekov): 4-6 books 

• Level Three (Dostoevsky): 7-11 books

• Level Four (Turgenev): 12+ books

Let's face it, it will be quite the accomplishment if I manage to finish level 1. Here are some titles that have piqued my interest (subject to change):

• Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky
• The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky
• Various short stories by Dostoevsky
• Collected Short Stories by Anton Chekhov 
• Short Stories by Tolstoy
• Anna Karenina by Tolstoy
• Plays by Chekhov? Turgenev?
• Eugene Onegin by Pushkin
• We by Yevgeny Zamyatin
• The Collected Tales of Nikolai Gogol

I got this...right?

Back to the Classics 2017!

 

Yikes, where did 2016 go? Talk about a wild ride. I have made several resolutions for the new year, which includes reading more and getting back into writing reviews. In the attempt to resurrect my blog from the ashes, I shall be participating in the Back to the Classics Challenge hosted by Books and Chocolate.

Here's how it works:

The challenge will be exactly the same as last year, 12 classic books, but with slightly different categories. You do not have to read 12 books to participate in this s

• Complete six categories, and you get one entry in the drawing

• Complete nine categories, and you get two entries in the drawing

• Complete all twelve categories, and you get three entries in the drawing

And here are the categories for the 2016 Back to the Classics Challenge:

1.  A 19th Century Classic - any book published between 1800 and 1899.

2.  A 20th Century Classic - any book published between 1900 and 1967. Just like last year, all books MUST have been published at least 50 years ago to qualify. The only exception is books written at least 50 years ago, but published later, such as posthumous publications.

3.  A classic by a woman author. 

4.  A classic in translation.  Any book originally written published in a language other than your native language. Feel free to read the book in your language or the original language. (You can also read books in translation for any of the other categories).

5.  A classic published before 1800. Plays and epic poems are acceptable in this category also.

6.  An romance classic. I'm pretty flexible here about the definition of romance. It can have a happy ending or a sad ending, as long as there is a strong romantic element to the plot.

7.  A Gothic or horror classic. For a good definition of what makes a book Gothic, and an excellent list of possible reads, please see this list on Goodreads. 

8.  A classic with a number in the title. Examples include A Tale of Two Cities, Three Men in a Boat, The Nine Tailors, Henry V, Fahrenheit 451, etc.

9.  A classic about an animal or which includes the name of an animal in the title.  It an actual animal or a metaphor, or just the name. Examples include To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice and Men, The Metamorphosis, White Fang, etc. 

10. A classic set in a place you'd like to visit. It can be real or imaginary: The Wizard of Oz, Down and Out in Paris and London, Death on the Nile, etc.

11. An award-winning classic. It could be the Newbery award, the Prix Goncourt, the Pulitzer Prize, the James Tait Award, etc. Any award, just mention in your blog post what award your choice received.

12. A Russian Classic. 2017 will be the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, so read a classic by any Russian author. 

And now, the rest of the rules:

• All books must be read in 2017. Books started before January 1, 2017 do not qualify. All reviews must be linked to this challenge by December 31, 2017. I'll post links each category the first week of January which will be featured on a sidebar on this blog for the entire year. 

• You must also post a wrap-up review and link it to the challenge no later than December 31, 2017. Please include links within your final wrap-up to that I can easily confirm all your categories. 

• All books must have been written at least 50 years ago; therefore, books must have been written by 1967 to qualify for this challenge. The ONLY exceptions are books published posthumously.

• E-books and audiobooks are eligible! You may also count books that you read for other challenges.

• Books may NOT cross over within this challenge. You must read a different book for EACH category, or it doesn't count.

• Children's classics are acceptable, but please, no more than 3 total for the challenge.

• If you do not have a blog, you may link to reviews on Goodreads or any other publicly accessible online format. 

• The deadline to sign up for the challenge is March 1, 2017. After that, I will close the link and you'll have to wait until the next year! Please include a link to your original sign-up post, not your blog URL. 

• You do NOT have to list all the books you're going to read for the challenge in your sign-up post, but it's more fun if you do! Of course, you can change your list any time. Books may also be read in any order. 

• The winner will be announced on this blog the first week of January, 2018. All qualifying participants will receive one or more entries, depending on the number of categories completed. One winner will be selected at random for all qualifying entries. The winner will receive a gift certificate in the amount of $30 (US currency) from either Amazon.com OR $30 worth of books from The Book Depository. The winner MUST live in a country that will receive shipments from one or the other. For a list of countries that receive shipments from The Book Depository, click here. 

This sounds way too fun to pass up. I am still in the process of figuring out what to read for the challenge but here are just a few titles that will likely make the final cut:

• Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift  
• Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan
• Oroonoko by Aphra Behn
• The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky
• Notes from the Underground by Dostoevsky   
• Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte  
• The Adventures of Augie March by Saul Bellow 
• Selected Stories by Anton Chekhov 
• Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston