The Silvered Heart

Not knowing anything about the legend of the Wicked Lady, except after reading the bonus material at the end of the book, I read this novel as if it were simply fiction. Well, the only thing I did know about that period in time in England was thanks to me having recently watched the film "Cromwell" (1970). This book, written from a royalist's perspective, of course has a different feel from that of the movie.
  I imagine one can enjoy the book only if one sympathises with the Lady Ferrers portrayed in the book. I did not sympathise with her. Her logic at all times felt bogus, her motivations childish, and despite her constant insistence at every new chapter of her life that she was now finally aware of how wrong she had been in the past, she never truly changes, she never truly learns anything. She is doomed to make the same fey mistakes over and over again. The way in which the story developed did feel like it would make for a classic Netflix film or series.
  Honestly, the most interesting part of the book was the bonus material. Those extra six pages on actual history were the most interesting and most enlightening.

Essays in Idleness

I just learnt that this is a classic, and that in Japan students often get questions on their exams about this book, but I did not find it very interesting. One can tell that Kenko was quite of a conservative mind—which is not a bad thing per se. But it appeared to me that he could not hide his contempt for people who did not stick to tradition. Suddenly Marcus Aurelius's Meditations came to my mind. In it Marcus Aurelius says that much of our dissatisfaction with other people's behaviour is due to our judment of their actions; that we should get rid of our judgment and that way we would be happy. I find myself siding with Marcus Aurelius. It is fine if Kenko, or anyone else, wants to stick to tradition, but one should not judge others because they do not behave the way we expect them to behave.

  There are other essays with which I disagree, like the one where Kenko basically says that there is no such thing as an intelligent woman. There was only one essay in which Kenko explicitly expressed misogynist thoughts. But finding those opinions in his book was still quite concerning.

  At some point, when I was trying to figure out why I was not agreeing with many of his thoughts I said to myself: "It must be because the book is so old." Except, Meditations is even older and there are many more things with which I agree in that book. I guess there are people that lived in the distant past whose opinions I like, and likewise others who lived in the distant past whose opinions I do not like. Maybe I should stop judging people just because they lived in the past. Maybe I should just stop judging people, period.
  Oh. I almost forgot. There are some good ideas in Essays in Idleness. Like: we should be humble and not be quick to show off the knowledge we have, that we should not procrastinate, that death is inevitable and therefore we should not waste our time. But there are other books that say the same things and are much better than this one. Starting with Marcus Aurelius's book.

War and Peace

 What a masterpiece. Even more, I think that anyone who might read this book will agree that it is a masterpiece. That being said, I will mention a few things that I believe could have improved my enjoyment of the novel. Amy Mandelker, the editor of the edition I read, said in the introduction that there is a way of thinking of War and Peace as having "three separate components—a philosophical essay, a family chronicle, and a historical novel about the Napoleonic wars" [1, p. xi]. I would agree with two of those components. In my opinion War and Peace can be divided into the following three different components: nonsensical rambling, a family chronicle, and a historical novel about the Napoleonic wars. Although I admit my opinion might betray my feelings about philosophy more generally.
  Perhaps the first thing one can admire about War and Peace is simply the astonishingly immense amount of knowledge and intellect that it is required to write a novel like this one. Not only did Leo Tolstoy must have had to research very deeply about the Napoleonic wars, he  must have also been a master of languages, and even if I disagree with his philosophical discourse, I do acknowledge he made some good points.
  The component I liked most was the family chronicle. All the couples I know in real life that are of a certain age (fifty years old or older) have separated from their spouse. Giving me little evidence that there might be a point in marriage at all. Tolstoy seems to be of a similar opinion, with several of his characters being in disappointing relationships. That is not what made me like the family chronicle so much. What I did like, however, was the vivid descriptions of the feelings that each of the characters experience in situations that have faithful equivalents in contemporary society. How easily one can convince oneself of one thing, and just how equally easy it is to suddenly change our mind about anything.
  That leaves the historical novel about the Napoleonic wars as my second favourite component. As we all know by now, I know nothing about the world. And I knew nothing about the Napoleonic wars prior to reading War and Peace. I did not know the Russians fought the French in 1805. I knew nothing of the European events in the years between 1805 and 1812. What I did know is that at some point in history the French invaded Russia but were defeated somewhere near Moscow, but never made it to Moscow. Well, I was wrong. The French did make it all the way to Moscow and captured the city! What?! I found the retelling of history by Tolstoy quite fair, as much as I can judge fairness knowing nothing about the topic. What I meant is that it seemed to me that Tolstoy did not appear to me as having a noticeable bias in favour of the Russians, at least not in the core of the text. He was much more critical of Napoleon in the epilogue. It might have been my general ignorance that made learning any and all bits of history very interesting to me.
  Now, I do not want to say much about the philosophical ideas in the text. Maybe I will just say that I believe that just because in mathematics or in science one can deal with knowledge in certain way that does not mean that those same ways can be applied to or have direct equivalents in history. I do, however, admire Tolstoy's keen interest not only in history but in mathematics, statistics, and science.
  With respect to the length of the novel, Amy Mandelker also says in the introduction that "Tolstoy cut down his novel and discarded hundreds of pages of drafts, including complete episodes in which, for example, Pierre adopts and travels with an orphan and saves the life of a young Italian count. Early drafts even contain an entire novella based on the exploits of this Count Poncini, who arranges Pierre's marriage and who is taken captive by Nikolai Rostov" [1, p. xv]. Well, I believe Tolstoy should have whittled down his novel even more. There were certain parts where he talks about the nature of historical thought that in their aggregate were too repetitive for my taste. But there were also passages, like the one where Nikolai Rostov goes hunting, that I simply did not enjoy reading, and I thought added virtually nothing to the novel. And the epilogue could have been omitted altogether.
  I know I may have appeared too critical of War and Peace. But if I was it was only because I enjoyed it so much. That may not make any sense. Except, maybe it does. I swear, you will not regret taking the time to read this book.

References.
  Both quotes above were taken from
[1]. Tolstoy, L. War and Peace. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Oxford University Press, 2010.