How To Love Lit Podcast

Frankenstein - Episode #2 - The narrative framework and the birth of the monster! Hi, I’m Christy Shriver. And I’m Garry Shriver- and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast. This is our second episode in our discussion of Mary Shelley and her great work, Frankenstein. Last week we spent almost the entire time talking sbout Mary Shelley’s fascinating life, and we didn’t even get past the age of 18. That’s true, although I will say, we covered the the Title, subtitle and quote on the title page- that’s something. And if you didn’t listen to last week’s, you should go back and listen to it- because Shelley’s life is absolutely fascinating and really deserves thoughtful consideration especially if you want to take her work seriously, and I believe you really should. But today, without further ado, we do want to jump right into the book and talk about the letters as well as chapters 1-5 taking us all the way to the creation of the monster. Well, as we jump in- I have to make a confession. When I read the book, which I did for the first time since the quarantine started, I completed skipped over the letters by Robert Walton in the beginning. I didn’t even understand they were there until I got the very end of the book and there was this new character. Yes- that’s completely common- and in some sense- totally fine. You definitely can start any book with chapter one and be just fine. The letters at the beginning are part of what we call a framing device for the story- one way to think of it is like a frame around a story. One great example from movie world is Princess Bride, a movie everyone should see- the story is a grandfather telling a nighttime story to his grandson and then he opens the book, we change scenes are introduced to the the action sequence. Shelley does a similar thing except she complicates it one layer further. Her’s is a multi-strand narrative that metaphorically has been called a Russian doll structure. If you look on our Instagram feed or the web page you’ll see what I’m talking about. Like a Russian doll, we have a story within a story within a story. So, the first frame narrative is about this guy named Robert Walton who is writing his sister, Margaret Seville letters and narrating his experiences as he tries to find this Northwest passage across the north pole. In his letters, we see a little bit about who this guy is as a person, then as we get into the Frankenstein narrative at large what we’ll understand (for me the second time I read the book, honestly) - is that he, in some ways, is a lot like Victor Frankenstein, our protagonist.: he has this scientific and seemingly noble objective- a conquest that will be his contribution to the world. He’s ambitious; he says this “you cannot contest the inestimable benefit which I shall confer on all mankind to the last generation, by discovering a passage near the pole to those countries.” We also see that he’s willing to go all in – paying ANY price- because in doing the world this awesome service- he will be the recipient of great glory. He says this, “I preferred glory to every enticement.” So look for this connection when we read about Frankensten in a bit. In that way, both are on their scientific ventures track. Another connection that we’re going to see is that he’s a lonely guy. And loneliness is a thing to notice- isolation is a huge idea we want to keep an eye out. And this is one of those things that is a direct reflection of Mary Shelley’s own life. I heard one scholar say that the book Frankenstein is very much a “meditation on isolation’ which is different from just being alone. And I’ll get back to that- but Walton feels this isolation because he’s out here at the end of the world with a mission his men are losing interest in. He says this, “I bitterly feel the want of a friend”…and it won’t be long after he confesses this before in walks our darling Dr. Victor Frankenstein, a like-minded driven, scientifically minded man of about the same age- theyre both in their 20s. And this is where Victor Frankenstein is going to tell him this story that is the second narrative. But before we jump in to that, I did want to ask a question? Is there any reason for writing to Margaret, a woman, or a sister? Is this where the feminism starts? I’m glad you asked- and that brings me to my final point about the letters- there is a lot in this book in regard to gender roles, gender politics- that sort of thing- and Shelley really cleverly weaves a lot and even here- I do think it’s interesting that like Dr. Frankenstein (we will find out very shortly) Robert has a female friend that is something of an anchor for him so to speak- (albeit a sister and not a romantic partner), but there’s something even more interesting and subtle- and I think this is the last thing I want to bring up about the letters. So, the sister’s name is Margaret Walton Saville = those initials are MWS- Mary Wollenscroft Shelley- the first letter is dated December 11th 17--- the last

Frankenstein-Episode #1 - Meet Mary Shelley and her classic gothic novel! Hi, I’m Chisty Shriver And I’m Garry Shriver- and today we are starting our discussion of one of the most beloved if not THE most beloved gothic novel in the world. Of course, we were always going to analyze this book, but I have to admit that we moved up the timetable because we’ve had such a large number of requests. In fact, I have to admit, for us this has been THE most requested book for us to discuss. The second most requested, if you’re wondering is The Great Gatsby, which we’re doing in the fall, so if you have a request- never hesitate to connect with us. We’re always willing to take requests. Now on to the world’s most celebrated female/teenager writers!- Christy, do you have ANY idea why this book is so popular. There are a lot of potential reasons, and we’ll get into all of those as we go through the book, but one BASIC reason, in my mind, is that people like to be scared- fake-scared- and so for all of its philosophy, criticism, deep penetrating themes- as we think through these we can also be scared- but not really scared- and perhaps on that ost basic level, it is one of the classics that we can read but also enjoy the same kind of enjoyment we see people going crazy today with horror movies or in our country- although not everywhere but with the phenomenon that is Halloween. And I have to make a disclaimer here- I do NOT like to be scared- and I know ethis will make me unpopular but Halloween is my least favorite holiday. I don’t like to be scared AT ALL, Stranger Things and Scooby Doo is about as scary as I’m willing to go- and I think that’s scary. I tried to watch Nightmare on Elm St when I was a kid, and had to give it up. My daughters, BTW, either inherieted this from me or were just raised to share this fear. I have a funny story- one time, their father and I went out to see a movie and left them with a baby sitter- who for whatever reason, thought they’d enjoy watching Chucky. They were 4 and 6 at the time. When we got home, my girls were SO horrified, to this day we talke about it. We had to cover Lizzy’s eyes when we went past a chucky poster (which were all overt he place bevause chucky 2 was coming out). If anyone said Chucky someone was destined to cry- they were absolutely terrorized. It’s funny now…sort of…but here’s how it ties into Frankenstein and the genius of mary shelly. Why were the girls scared of Chucky? Because they had baby dolls- and I’ve never seen the movie, but I assume in this movie a baby doll becomes a killer= that’s the horror of it- And on the top layer of this book is the most basic gift of Shelley because that’s what Mary Shelley is able to do for her audience- she KNOWS what everyone is scared of- and she taps into that- but in that safe sort of movie way that you can walk away from and laugh about later. Of course, being fun doesn’t get you into legendary- and Mary Shelley attained legendary status even during he on life time- and the reasons for THAT go so so much deeper, and obviously we want to explore every bit of that, but before we do that- I think it’s worth just mentioning for a second how popular this book, or really this character/ legend/ this idea has really become. There is a sense in that, mary shelley did not create the Frankenstein and his monster in the same sense that Joe Ruby and Ken Spears created Scooby Doo- she gave birth to him, but his mythology has FAR outgrown anything conceived by Frankenstein alone- in some sense it is still alive and evolving into something that honestly, I think she would probably like- and I’ll tell you what I think that later as well, but Garry, tell us just a little bit about the immensity of this mythology… Mary Shelley did write a book that today we would said went “viral” and took off in ways she couldn’t have created if she had tried. It actually was turned into a play during her lifetime and was very popular- in fact, she went to see it and turned to her father and remarked, how she had gotten famous- almost like- how did that happen. As of today, that I could find on Wikipedia= there are more than 62 movies and they are all over the place. There’s some that are just classic and accepted as art, the most famous being Boris Karloff’s movie- Frankenstein that came out in 1931- and of course it’s sequel the Bride of Frankenstein which came out in 1935- many critics have said that movie is the best horror sequel of all time- and there is no shortage of horror movie sequels. Anyway, the Curse of Frankenstein from 1957 is highly acclaimed and Jane Seymour’s Frankenstein, the True Story is also really well-regarded as well as Mel Brook’s Young Frankenstein…and then there are the rest of them. Frankenstein General Hospital is considered by Leonard Maltin the film critic to be the absolute worst of them- but it’s a competitive category. I was a Teenage Frankenstein, Frankenstein unbounded, Alvin and the Chipmunks meet Frankenstein- but

John Keats-Ode On A Grecian Urn - Poetry Supplement! Hi, I’m Christy Shiver. And I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love lit Podcast. This week- by way of Segway between Sophocles and the Greek theater - to our next book the great romantic//gothic novel by Mary Shelley, Frankenstein - we have chosen the feature a Romantic take on the Greeks- Ode ON a Grecian Urn by John Keats- not to be misquoted by what seems more natural Ode TO a Grecian Urn. That’s true- and very perceptive- there are far more Odes TO things than there are Odes ON things (although Keates does have more than one)- and obviously you would expect the Ode to be TO something or to someone because as we talked about in our discussion of the most prolific ode writer I know of, Paulo Nerudo, an ode is a poem TO something. But what you’e going to see in pehaps the most beloved ode in the English language- is that Keats, by design, has made this poem so cryptic and enchanting that no one really says with any true authority much about who this poem is to, what it is about, and even what it actually means- we’re all just so confused!!!. And really- at the end of our discussion and when we talk about what he feels is his contribution to the world with what he called “negative capabilitity) even that should make total sense. What people agree on is that it’s beautiful. This poem is truly truly beloved. And I’m not just saying tht to be vague= that is the flat truth of it. Are you saying that everyone loves this poem BECAUSE they dohn’t know what it means or in spite of it? You’re getting ahead of where I want us to be in this discussion with that question= but the short answer is …Yes…and Yes…and this poem tells us it doesn’t even matter- let it be what it is. And that feeling sbout the world can actually make us feel good about ourselves…you’ll see…But first, let’s go over a little bit about what Romantic writers are really about, especially the Brits who really own this genre, in my mind. Everyrone loves them, and, of course, we’e not talking about Meg Ryan or Audrey Hepburn, although obviously we love them too. Romantic writers are those who come out a specific time and way of thinking starting with the last couple years of the 18th century and taking us into the early 1800s. Keats was born in 1795 and dies in 1821, so so sad and short a life. And he embodies a lot of what Romanticism was really about. Well, Historically, the world is really changing at this time period. Obviously the French Revolution and the French principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are extremely influential in what goes on on the continent of Europe, but not just thee.. those ideas impacted the Western world- all the way into all of the Americas. Not just North America- but- just focusing on England- we can see patterns that will eventually extend world wide- first of all the English extended voting rights to middle class males AND abolished slavery by 1832 (fortunately without a war)- these are two big social and political changes that represent obviously big results of a change in thinking. People like jean Jaques Rosseau led people to think about themselves and each other differently with ideas that seem obvious like, ‘Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. People began to allow to really think more emotionally- instead of the STEM- minded thinking of the enlightment, if you want to think about it that way. Thoughts like allowing love and quality of life to matter for everyone led to considerations and new thoughts like- people should be able to work in safety- and this resulted in the first law governing factory safety, if you can believe it. Well, I can absolutely believe it because the Romantic poets embody every bit of that and more, and we English people like to think that the poets, dreamers and writers and the ones on the front end of the ways people look and think about the world. And maybe that’s why we love Romantic writers- they wanted to write about the common man and many of them WERE common men- not necessarily fancy lords sitting in castles writing, but common experiences- here’s a funny- John Keats was given what today we’d call an ethnic slur- he was referred to as being from the Cockney school, meaning that his language was low brow- the term was offensive- anyway Romantics talked about how he/she felt, the natural world, the inner world, and a general questioning of the authority and tradition of their day. You could think of them sort of like the hippies of their generation of their day- challenging social norms and yes- and we’ll definitely see this with Mary Shelley- experimenting with the ideas of free love, drugs and sometimes resulting in extremely dangerous lifestyle choices- and dying young. You say hippie- I say rock star culture- but interesting there is this cyclical nature of humanity- and the tensions between chaos and order that are the essence of being alive on planet earth and they are reflected in the arts. Yes,

The Easter episode. The archetypes, history and literary importance of Easter. Hi, This is Christy Shriver And this is Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love Lit podcast. If you are listening to this in real time, this is the week of Easter 2020- and what a crazy year this has been. The Kansas City Chiefs, my hometown team finally won the Superbowl after 50 years, we started our hard core workouts, well, we like to think of them that way, but we’d started attending our local work out core training classes regularly…and then… the Corona virus pandemic. We, like you, are sitting in quarantine..no sports, no anything really.. wondering how the world will sort out this mess. Of course, we all have ideas, no one appears to really know, lots of people are trying, but many of us are afraid for lots of reasons besides just getting sick, although that’s no small thing. And so, it is in that spirit that we would like to take a pause from Romantic literature, although we are looking forward to Frankenstein and Mary Shelley next week, and think to understand perhaps- the holiest day of the Christian calendar, Easter. Easter, if you are not from a Christian background is a holiday that celebrates new birth, renewal- resurrection- and if there were ever a modern moment that planet earth could use a reminder of the idea that things can restart- redo- and even undo a dark past- it is now- in the middle of the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. So, in that spirit and in the spirit of Easter, let’s take a look at one of the most marking stories of Western Literature.- the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We will read the narrative from the gospel of Luke, which is one of the four accounts of the life of Jesus Christ in the Christian New Testament. As we discussed in the Christmas special, this story is NOT written from the perspective of a Jew or even an immediate disciple of Jesus, but from a Greek man- think Sophocles but a medical doctor by the name of Luke, a friend of Paul of Tarsus or St. Paul as he’s known today. The story of Luke and how he brings the Greek perspective to the story of Jesus is interesting in and of itself and if you haven’t listened to the Christmas special, go back and catch that. We also want to read it from the beautiful and most significant translations the English languge has ever known- the King James version of 1611. It’s a fascinating story in its own right and one, we should tell, perhaps on another religious holiday, but in 1604, King James who actually considered himself a bit of a theologian and had even translated portions of the Bible himself set out to create what today we would called a “peer reviewed’ textual translation of the Bible. 47 scholars worked tirelessly to produce the most faithful, scholarly and ultimately the most accessible translation the world has ever known. And even though today it may feel difficult to read its influence is immeasurable. That’s right- and although I know you’re talking about how it changed the political landscape because it empowered individuals- it had the same effect on the English language. Phases like “my brother’s keeper” “fall from grace” ‘eye for an eye” and “thou shalt not judge” ‘by the skin of one’s teeth” “salt of the earth” “the prodigal son”just go on and on in the ear of people who may or may not even know where the phrases originated. Victor Hugo, author of Les Mis sayd, “"England has two books, the Bible and Shakespeare. England made Shakespeare, but the Bible made England." So Today in that spirit, let’s take a look at the most sacred stories in this sacred text. As you said, Garry, we’re not going to really focus on the author of this particular story, since we did that already. Instead we’re going to drop the story into historical context, perhaps hit a little bit on the historical context of the story which is interesting in and of itself, but we’re going to look at the story from an archetypal perspective or in some sense a psychological one. Lots of the ideas that you’ll hear come from Thomas C Foster’s fantastic classic “How to Read Literature Like a Professor” and if you enjoy reading classic literature, it’s really a delightful and informative book as he really breaks down into fun and simple language this extremely complex notion of literary archetypes which is what we’re really going to see in the resurrection narrative. So by way of getting us into the literary and archetypal frame of mind, Garry, what should any basic student of literasture know about archetypes and how does that help us understand the narrative of the resurrection of Christ? Sure, so the basic concept or observation of Jung is that there are images, symbols, characters and situations that are instinctual expressions of the nature of man. He’s going to say that there things imprinted in the unconscious psyche of man- that’s been debated and perhaps is informed by religious tradition or other theories, but I think it’s pretty undisputed that the

Antigone Episode #2 - Tragedy, Honor, Wisdom And The End Of All Things 2Hi, I’m Christy Shriver. And I’m Garry Shriver and this is the how to love lit podcast. We are working our way through Sophocles’ greatest hits!! Of all the plays he wrote, as we discussed last week, we only have seven (which I guess isn’t that surprising since they were written in the 400’s bc)- but of those his Oedipus trilogy is by far the most popular- and of those three- Oedipus Rex is the most popular of those. I’m excited to talk about his second most popular, Antigone, which is actually the first one he wrote- mostly because it’s about a brave woman- which is super surprising. You don’t expect to see strong females in a lot of classical literature written by men and especially literature from the ancient- in fact, off the top of my head, I can’t think of another one, although maybe there is- in most stories a woman hero is a woman who is self-sacrificing, like Hecaba, but she’s not really a strong protagonist- and really this should be surprising- in the ancient world women were literally property- they were viewed legally as such and they viewed themselves as such- which actually comes out in this play. But, Antigone, the character- does NOT consider herself property- good for her and good for Sophocles for creating this character- although I think most scholars will tell you that like the story of Oedipus he is retelling a well-known story and there’s a couple of different versions floating around some are quite complicated and have her running away and all kinds of things- but I think she hangs herself in all of them. Well, The Oedipus/ antigone story, as you know from the last three podcasts, really starts with Oedipus’ birth to his parents Jocasta and Laius.- and we probably have should have mentioned this too- even though the whole I married my mom problem is a real thing- don’t let the age gap confuse you. In the ancient world, old men often married really young girls- so it was probably true that Laius and Jocasta were farther apart in age than Oedipus and Jocasta- but age not withstanding- neither Oedipus nor Jocasta take it will well when they realize what he has done in marrying his mother and murdering his father. Jocasta kills herself first because she figures it out first, and When Oedipus Rex figures out what happened and in an outburst of unrestrained rage, grief, agony, and what other array of emotions one would feel upon such a revelation, he gets Jocasta’s dress pins and dramatically, passionately and pokes his eyes out leaving quite literally a bloody mess. At the end of that play, after this revelation, Oedipus makes a deal with Creon which actually will be the impetus for this play. He is going to promise never to come back to Thebes if Creon will take care of his children,. He’s not worried about his sons, but he’s particularly worried about Ismene and Antigone- again them being tainted goods at this point. Creon agrees and is left as Regent or surrogate ruler of Thebes until the boys are old enough to rule I didn’t really think about this when we ended the play, but I guess I should have. I just assumed that Creon would be king since that’s where we end it. But obviously, that’s not the case. The crown goes to oedipus’ two sons- Polyneices and Eteoclyes. Well, they are too young to rule at first, but Creon, it appears, brokers this deal that there were two of them that they would take turns a year at a time- one would rule for a year and then would switch out and the other would rule for a year and so forth and Eteocles would go first. Let me just interject, that every mother in the room knows that deal is not going to work. It doesn’t even work with toys. Have you ever done the move where one kid is going to get the cellphone to play games for two minutes and after two minutes you’re going to switch out? That plan always has the same outcome- crying. And that’s about how it worked out in this case. The elder brother Eteocles refuses to resign the kingship to Polyneices at the end of the first year of the Royal Condominium. A civil war breaks out, with Polyneices trying to recruit an army from Argos. That actually is a story in a totally other play by Aschyles, but it does get us into the SECOND play of the Oedipus series, Oedipus at Colonnus that Sophocles probably didn’t even write until he was in his late 80s or maybe even 90s. it wasn’t even performed until after his death. Some think its his most reflective of the three, but I won’t speak to that. I think they are all just so very different in what they are going for. Antigone being the most political and Colonnus being the most personally reflective, if you want to think of it like that. Anyway, back to the story- in this play, the one we’re NOT reading. All these years, howevery many there were, Oedipus has been wandering aimlessly around Greece. He comes to this town called Colunus, ironically where Sophocles is actually from, and the king there a

Antigone Episode #1 - Drama, death, higher law, family issues and more death 2Hi, I’m Christy Shriver. And I’m Garry Shriver and this is the how to love lit podcast. We are working our way through Sophocles’ greatest hits!! Of all the plays he wrote, as we discussed last week, we only have seven (which I guess isn’t that surprising since they were written in the 400’s bc)- but of those his Oedipus trilogy is by far the most popular- and of those three- Oedipus Rex is the most popular of those. I’m excited to talk about his second most popular, Antigone, which is actually the first one he wrote- mostly because it’s about a brave woman- which is super surprising. You don’t expect to see strong females in a lot of classical literature written by men and especially literature from the ancient- in fact, off the top of my head, I can’t think of another one, although maybe there is- in most stories a woman hero is a woman who is self-sacrificing, like Hecaba, but she’s not really a strong protagonist- and really this should be surprising- in the ancient world women were literally property- they were viewed legally as such and they viewed themselves as such- which actually comes out in this play. But, Antigone, the character- does NOT consider herself property- good for her and good for Sophocles for creating this character- although I think most scholars will tell you that like the story of Oedipus he is retelling a well-known story and there’s a couple of different versions floating around some are quite complicated and have her running away and all kinds of things- but I think she hangs herself in all of them. Well, The Oedipus/ antigone story, as you know from the last three podcasts, really starts with Oedipus’ birth to his parents Jocasta and Laius.- and we probably have should have mentioned this too- even though the whole I married my mom problem is a real thing- don’t let the age gap confuse you. In the ancient world, old men often married really young girls- so it was probably true that Laius and Jocasta were farther apart in age than Oedipus and Jocasta- but age not withstanding- neither Oedipus nor Jocasta take it will well when they realize what he has done in marrying his mother and murdering his father. Jocasta kills herself first because she figures it out first, and When Oedipus Rex figures out what happened and in an outburst of unrestrained rage, grief, agony, and what other array of emotions one would feel upon such a revelation, he gets Jocasta’s dress pins and dramatically, passionately and pokes his eyes out leaving quite literally a bloody mess. At the end of that play, after this revelation, Oedipus makes a deal with Creon which actually will be the impetus for this play. He is going to promise never to come back to Thebes if Creon will take care of his children,. He’s not worried about his sons, but he’s particularly worried about Ismene and Antigone- again them being tainted goods at this point. Creon agrees and is left as Regent or surrogate ruler of Thebes until the boys are old enough to rule I didn’t really think about this when we ended the play, but I guess I should have. I just assumed that Creon would be king since that’s where we end it. But obviously, that’s not the case. The crown goes to oedipus’ two sons- Polyneices and Eteoclyes. Well, they are too young to rule at first, but Creon, it appears, brokers this deal that there were two of them that they would take turns a year at a time- one would rule for a year and then would switch out and the other would rule for a year and so forth and Eteocles would go first. Let me just interject, that every mother in the room knows that deal is not going to work. It doesn’t even work with toys. Have you ever done the move where one kid is going to get the cellphone to play games for two minutes and after two minutes you’re going to switch out? That plan always has the same outcome- crying. And that’s about how it worked out in this case. The elder brother Eteocles refuses to resign the kingship to Polyneices at the end of the first year of the Royal Condominium. A civil war breaks out, with Polyneices trying to recruit an army from Argos. That actually is a story in a totally other play by Aschyles, but it does get us into the SECOND play of the Oedipus series, Oedipus at Colonnus that Sophocles probably didn’t even write until he was in his late 80s or maybe even 90s. it wasn’t even performed until after his death. Some think its his most reflective of the three, but I won’t speak to that. I think they are all just so very different in what they are going for. Antigone being the most political and Colonnus being the most personally reflective, if you want to think of it like that. Anyway, back to the story- in this play, the one we’re NOT reading. All these years, howevery many there were, Oedipus has been wandering aimlessly around Greece. He comes to this town called Colunus, ironically where Sophocles is actually from, and the king t

Oedipus Rex - Episode #3- The Reveal, The Conclusion, Sigmund Freud, and how it all goes together! Hi, I’m Christy Shriver. I’m Garry Shriver, and this is the how to love lit podcast. Today we wrap up our discussion of what Aristotle calls the greatest of all plays. Of course, although I wouldn’t have said this a few years ago, I think this may be truer than even Aristotle knew. It’s amazing to think that a play so old and outdated in a stylistic sense could even be taken seriously today. There is no humor, there is no blood or gore even- all the good stuff happens off stage- no sex- no special effects- not even any profanity- all the things modern movie producers feel they must include to get anyone to watch their films. In fact, even the language is a stiff by today’s standards- there is no nuance in characterization- the characters are flat. The setting is basic. It’s a musical- and those are hard to pull off nowadays! So what makes this play “great”- what makes it so popular and what makes people still read it year after year? That’s the question we’re going to try to answer as we pick up where we left after after the third choral ode and take it to its very very tragic conclusion. Actually, Aristotle answers this question. In fact, he referenced this play 10 times in his essay Poetics and really truly loved it. The short answer is that he believed it elicits the greatest amount of catharsis. Last week we talked about that being emotional release of emotion- kind of like what happens in psychotherapy. But Aristotle is detailed about what emotions he’s talking about. He says that tragedy elicits pity and fear- and by pity- he doesn’t mean pity like we think of pity- you poor thing- like a pitiful stray kitten in the road= the word is pathos which we should think of more like empathy- or sympathy- we feel for him- we feel his pain- and this play elicists the most of that. Now, I’ve thought about that all week as we’ve been thinking about this podcast because at first I didn’t get it. No one really cries when they see this play- it’s way too stiff for that- but in some mysterious sense, I’ve come to agree with him- I believe it truly does- and I hope to be able to make that argument persuasively as we finish out discussing this play. So, back to Aristotle and catharsis, what makes people different from animals is our ability to see things from another person’s point of view and according to him- this is what art is about- seeing someone else’s view of the world and feeling for another person- when it’s sad that is really what tragedy is about- and feeling for Oedipus is what we should have in our minds as we read the ending of this play. The things that Oedipus has done is truly what I would suggest would be the worst than any person could ever do- especially if they are a good person. So, before we watch Oedipus learn the truth- think about what the Greeks (because this isn’t Sophocle’s story0 it’s much older than that- did when they created this character. They created a guy, a nice guy, a noble guy, who from his very birth had huge setbacks that were not his fault- his parents tried to kill him. He was saved from that, but obviously had a good soul. He was loved and he obviously loved his new parents. He’s not a perfect guy, he has ths issue of a temper, but a lot of us do. He is a bit impulsive, a lot of us are like that. He unwittedly gets in an altercation and kills a dude, presumably in his mind out of self-defense. But that’s okay because right after he saves an entire town. He loves his wife. He loves his children. He loves his community. And it is in this sense that we are Oedipus. Lots of us had setbacks as children- maybe we we’ren’t foundlings on mountains, but there is stuff in our childhood that we’ve had to overcome. And hopefully, no matter how far along in life you are, you have don’t quite a bit of work to overcome those deficits- of the fates- to use a Greek word. We are also like Oedipus in that we have personality issues. We have pride issues. If you are at all honest with yourself- you have stuff that you struggle with- but again, hopefully if you are the kind of person that is trying to be better and better- than hopefully things have gotten better for you. Maybe you haven’t saved a town- but you’ve done good things and helped people have better lives in some way. So- in both cases, Oedipus is the extreme of all of us. Now, have this in your mind, what if you found this out about yourself- is there anything more desguisting and horrible and cross than what is about to happen to him. So Garry, bring us up to speed what has happened since the play opened to where we are at the choral ode? Sure, well the play opened up with the people of Thebes coming to Oedipus and appealing to his greatness. Their city is suffering from a horrible plague and they need a hero- and he IS a hero. He saved them before from the Sphinx in their greatest time of need, and they are all that level of sufferin

Oedipus Rex - Episode #2 - Irony, Tragedy, Oracles, Flaws And More! Hello, I’m Christy Shriver. I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love lit Podcast. This is the second episode in our series on the two most popular works by the Greek playwright Sophocles. Last week, we traveled back the couple thousand years and across the ocean to Greece and tried to understand a little bit about the culture and customs that surrounded Greek Theater. We discussed the occasion for the plays, the set up of the amphitheaters, the organization of the drama and some of the things we can expect to see in every Greek play, things like masks, an orchestra, chorus, and a skene. We also told the story of Oedipus, the myth itself, a story that would be familiar to everyone watching the play. We discussed the fact, that nobody went to the theater to get a surprise or see a unexpected plot twist- the fun was in the retelling of the familiar story. How was Sophocles going to show this or that, and listen and enjoy the irony of the things the characters say and do. That is correct, and today we are going to go through much of that story. As we learned last week, Greek plays have an organizational structure that is somewhat easy to follow. There is a prologue, then a choral ode then an episode, then a choral ode, until the end. In this play, there are five episodes and five choral odes. We are going to take it all the way to the third parados or the third choral ode. Anyway, back to this, today, before we get into the story- which I know we need to do, there is one more thing we really need to nail down- and that is this idea of what is a tragedy. It’s a very Greek idea. Aristotle, who tells us everything we need to know, and with whom we dare not argue, defines tragedy as and I quote ‘an imitation of an action of high importance, complete and of some amplitude, in language enhanced by distinct and varying beauties, acted not narrated, by means of pity and fear effecting its purgation of these emotions’- and I know everyone has already checked their phone and thought about their next meal before I finished reading that. True- and let me add one more fun fact, What Aristotle did was not proscribe to playwrights how to write a play. What he did was go to enough of these plays to make observations about what he thought was going on. What he wanted to do is think deeply about theater and try to understand it and its appeal. So let me put it in different words- a tragedy must involve a person of high estate- a person that is better than we are. He is more powerful, more noble, have more character than us. If we don’t admire him, how can we feel sad when bad things happen. And for him or her to be a tragic hero they must fall and experience terrible suffering- really more than he deserved. The rxn you’re supposed to have is- well, I can see how that was bad, but come on…really…he has to experience all that??!?!?!. And in Greek tragedy- it’s because of something in the protagonist himself- the word they used for this is harmatia- which sometimes people translate as a tragic fall, in the Bible it’s translated as sin- but what it. Means is ‘miss the mark’- he didn’t get it right. He’s not a bad fellow. Sometimes, you may can say it wasn’t really his/her fault (this is really an issue in Antigone). Often its hubris or pride- which can lead to good things as well as bad- and I would argue, in Oedipus really definiting how pride can get you in trouble is what the play seems to be discussing from my vantage point- although there are many different interpretations about what this play is really all about. What almost everyone can agree, however, that there are some things in Oedipus’ character that really stand out as things that cause him problems. The first, and to me the most obvious In Oedipus, is that the man is clearly too rash and impulsive. Personsally, what I find pretty interesting about the confusing concept of harmatia is that it forces the hero to be responsible- and I see responsibility to be a big deal with the Greeks. You can be a hero if you have a flaw, but you can’t be a hero if you’re not resp9onsible or take responsibility both in glory as well as in doom. They seemed to admire that in all of its forms, and I kind of really like that. IT’s certainly not a modern idea. To the Greeks, it appears to me, that even if there was information you didn’t know (like you didn’t know you were married to your mother for 20 plus years, it didn’t matter, the gods still held you accountable for that- it was your job to know- and if you don’t…you suffer regardless. I see that too. And that’s why we can have sympathy for someone who has “missed the mark” or fallen short or has a terrible flaw- we can see that it could have been me. We’ve all missed the mark. We’ve all sinned, to say it that way. We all have things about us that make us vulnerable to the powers of fate. The final idea in Aristotle’s definition is this idea of catharsis. Garry, t

Oedipus Rex - Episode #1 - The philosophy, the predicaments, the purpose in Greek Theater Hi, I’m Christy Shriver. And I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast. Today, we’re venturing back into drama and when I say back- I mean way way back- all the way to 496bc give or take a few years to Athens Greece where we will meet one of the most famous playwrights of all time- Sophocles. But…before we do, I’ve been called out for an inconsistency. It seems that a listener, actually two listeners, have made the claim that I have just completely quit the fun facts. So, in response, I thought I’d kind of revive the tradition. Christy has a strange connection with Greece in that her passion for Greece does not come necessarily for a love of the language, although she took Greek in high school, btw- or the food or the wine or even the beaches..things she loves, but from the movie Mamamia- she and her daughters, Anna and Lizzy have a passionate relationship for all things Mamamia!!...including the fact that this summer, she and her daughter Anna performed a fine albeit out of tune performance of “Mamamia” in Valparaiso Chile in front of a large group of karaoke watchers…and I have the video, I should post it!!! Oh dear-Anna will kill you- but maybe we should- take one for the team!! it is so awkward when you do this. But I can’t deny- Mamamia introduced me to Greece, but Greece can certainly hold its own. This summer was the first time I had ever been there, and we didn’t even get to the islands, just the mainland, so I am due a return visit. But you know, I’m not the only one with fun facts..if we can call them.. lots of people have fun facts about Greece or any of the other books we’re talking about…if you have a fun fact about something we’re talking about or some place we’ve been- message us on fb, Instagram or via the website. We’d love to give you a shout out!! Just tell us what book it connects with and your fun fact!!! Include a pic if you have one! Now, leaving Abba and going to Sophocles- Sophocles is one of the big three Greek poets you may have heard of before- Sophocles, Euripedes and Aeschylus. Sophocles is said to have written as many as 123 dramas prior to his death around 406 bc (remember we count backwords at this point)- but. Only seven have survived the 2500 years of human history between now and only two of those can be dated with any amount of certainty. So, Christy..before we get into Sophocles and Oedipus, what do we need to know about Greek theater in general to be able to really understand it. Ugh- well, that’s a very multi-faceted question with a long answer, but we’ll take it in chunks. To begin with, something to keep in mind is that the purpose of Greek theater was SO different than how we think of theater today. For the citizens of Athens in the fifth century BC, theater was both a religious as well as a civic occasion. They were only two times a year that they even had them and both were at religious festivals and both were associated with the Dionysius, the god of wine and crops. When I try to explain this to my kids here in Memphis, I make the comparison with Christian churches. In Memphis, Christianity has a very strong cultural tradition as well as a religious one we kind of do the same thing. In Memphis we not only have many churches, but we also have mega-ones. We have one church, Bellevue, that has over 10,000 members and one of the things they’re known for in our community is putting on a Christmas pageant and an Easter Pageant. They hold these things for a couple of weeks and lots of lots of people come, not just church members and these are often big deals with hundreds of people singing, and fireworks and an orchestra and live animals- it’s huge. We talked a little bit about this in our special Christmas edition- so, in one sense to. Me it feels natural to think of it this way except- there’s just one big difference- the religions are very different. Well, I would have to say that makes a huge difference- Dionysius being the god of wine – there is not doubt there was a different feel than a Christian service or mass. There was a lot of drunkenness and the atmostphere was far from what today we would consider reverent- That’s true- but there is another parallel with religious cantatas as we know them today- Sophocles, or any major author the Greek classical age- the purpose of the plays were instructional- now not in the moral sense like this is right code of ethics and this is a wrong one, but in the philosophical sense. Sophocles is a teacher on stage and is trying to instruct his fellow men to think, and to act according to the way the rules of the universe operate so that in understanding these they have a shot at improving themselves- and in this sense- some of the ideas he discusses in these plays have been found to be timeless, they have been explored for literally 2000 years. He looks deeply at the correct attitude and concept of family relationships- Ano

Animal Farm - Short Story Supplement - Anton Chekov Hi, My name is Christy Shriver. And my name is Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love lit Podcast. Today we are going to take a very small dip into the vast sea of what has been called the Golden age of Russian literature. It’s going to be an unusual episode today because we’re going to try to tackle a different genre . We’ve done novels, plays, non-fiction memoirs, a political document and poetry, but today, we look at our very first short story. Christy, what are we getting into? Yes, stories in general, are comprised of certain elements and are for the most part, like novels…except for the obvious- much shorter: they have characters, settings, develop plots, use symbols,. reveal attitude through tone and are delivered with a very intentional point of view, and like novels all these things contribute to lead a reader to a specific theme- or universal truth, insight on life, perspective, however you want to define it. Short stories are unique in that they must be concise and extremely focused- it’s not just a shorter sequence of events. Lots of times they involve an epiphany- some moment of insight, discovery or revelation by which a life is changed. They are usually set in only one place. Often the plots are not are not complex and perhaps may not be very important to the story. In Chekov’s case- he really focused a large part of his work on characters. He used precision of details, dialogues, inner-monologues, sometimes even reversals (when the result of the action is the direct opposite of the character’s intentions) to say something, make an observation or just maybe even pose a question about who a person is and vicariously who we all are as people. You will see, because it’s exemplified in these stories, that he’s not just saying the same old thing- in some sense, I’m not exactly sure what he’s saying about people. Tell all that stuff you learned about Chekov’s not developing heros. And the Russian era in general not being all about the heroic.-Russia’s golden age writers focused on the opposite of heroic-they focused on emotions and internal processes and futile behavior-less about story lines and more about introspection-literary critics pummeled this perspective-these writers were detailing human behavior as serfdom was dying out and Russia was increasingly focused on becoming westernized Yes, the 19th century is definitely the Golden age of Russian literature, and there is not very many people who have not heard of Leo Tolstoy’s masterpiece- War and Peace- but you never see the Russian writers being compared to the Odyssey for its adventure of Mark Twain for his wit and satire. Talk about how they were actually criticized as a whole for the direction of their writing- its phiolosphic nature and of course being famous for being long.Heavily philosophic on the meaning of lifeBorderline nihilistic on the futility of manWill heavily influence every renown writer up to this day Of course, Matthew Arnold, the poet, who wrote Dover Beach, the very first poem we ever analyzed on this podcast, famously said that a work by Tolstoy is not a piece of art but a piece of life. He’s probably the most famous Russian writer, with perhaps Dostoyesky coming in second. They are both famous for writing those big thick books that scare everyone. Maybe, we’ll be tackle one their books one day, I really like Anna Karenina, but our day today is going to be devoted to another very significant Russian writer, who I like to teach for one reason because he’s manageable- Anton Chekov. If you’ve ever heard of him, you may have heard of his play the Cherry Orchard. That was the first thing I ever read by him, but what he wrote most of and what he really perfected to competitively being one of the best in the entire world is actually the short story. He wrote literally more than 400 of them. He has no equal in terms of quantity. He wrote about everything: life in big cities like Moscow and St. Petersburg, small towns and peasant villages from every part of Russia from the south all the way to Siberia. He wrote about aristocrats, industrialists, small town merchants, writers, painters, religious people, secular people, servants, bad people, good people even crazy people- all of it. Someone counted over 8000 different types of characters in his works. He wrote, of course, about a lot of themes, but his favorite theme was the freedom of the individual- he hated inauthenticity and really tried to look for what people were actually like and the circumstances that created and defeated individuals. And this is a very modern aspect of his writing, in my view- in a very real sense, he seeks to be non-judgemental. His stories, at least the ones I’ve read are not moralistic. They are not hinting that man should be a certain way or maintain a certain view. They just are..as people are..and that seems to be what he is wanting to accomplish. Just to drop him into history, he was born on

Animal Farm Episode #4 - The conclusion of Orwell's satirical expose on the true nature of totalitarianism! Hi, I’m Christy Shriver. And I’m Garry Shriver and this is the How to love lit podcast. Today we will wrap up our discussion of George Orwell’s timeless warning against totalitarianism through the novella Animal Farm. In Week One, we met Orwell and looked at his life and how his ideas were formulated over a lifetime lived split between the continent of Europe and the countries of India and Burma. We explored how his understanding the ‘have’s vs the have nots came not through a study of theory only, but also through a lived both as a “have’ and as a “have not” and a sympathy for those who are born, through no fault of their own, in a world lacking what we today call ‘privilege”/. That’s right- in the second episode we met the characters on the Manor Farm. We talked about who they were on the farm and who they represented in real life if we looked at this book as a direct allegory to the country of Russia as it transformed into the ussr at the beginning of the twentieth century. In episode 2 we delved into quite a bit of Russian history and discussed the Russian Revolution, Stalin and Trotsky or Napoleon and Snowball to use Animal Farm words. Last week we expanded our discussion into a much larger discussion as we broadened our understanding of Orwell’s novel to being not just be about the Soviet Union. We looked specifically at the rise of power of a tyrant; we analyzed specifically how Napoloen rose to power on Animal Farm. We highlighted the most obvious types of propaganda used on Animal Farm and how Squealer (the propaganda pig) was able to revise history, edit circumstances, intimidate and ultimately flat out lie about reality leaving the entire farm in a state of cognitive dissonance. Yes, and today we are going extend this thematic application one step farther. Beyond just an exposure of propaganda techniques- what is Orwell saying about human nature and who is responsible for the rise of tyranny- and I want to define tyranny as cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary use of power and control- but not just in governments- anywhere. We are going to do this by breaking down the last three chapters of the book with a discussion of how to interpret the entire book once the last page has been read. However, before we do, I do want to talk about what we’re doing next week because I’m kind of excited about that. I also want to talk about the song we’re playing on the beginning of the animal farm podcast series. Yes- I think we should talk about that song- because you absolutely insisted we play it. What is the name of this song and what is it about? Katyusha is a song that really takes me back to my Kazakhstan experience. When I was there it was played everywhere, and we even learned it in school- although I’m embarrassed to say, that’s all left my brain. The song is actually a WW2 patriotic song written in 1938 and was used to inspire people to serve and defend the homeland. I love it because it has a fun catchy melody and it’s kind of a romantic song. It’s about a girl name Katysha standing, singing and watching her true love go to the war. The idea is that the soldier will protect the Motherland remembering he’s protecting this girl and that she will be waiting for him. If you want to put it in Animal Farm terms- it’s big Brave Boxer swearing to take care of Clover and all the other animals on the farm. Can you sing it? I think we’ve established that we’re not doing a singing podcast, especially not one in Russian. But that brings me to next week- next week, I had originally thought about talking about orwell’s other short works, like some of his essays or short stories, but I have had a change of mind. Instead what I would like to do is feature one of the great Russian writers of short fixtion and that is Anton Chekov. I feel like because Orwell is so hard on Russia, it’s easy to think that Russia as a culture is defined by communism – but it’s not. Communisim existed in Russia for a period of time, but their history and culture is very very rich and very deep. The literary tradition alone is comprised of many men (yes, and I must admit mostly men) who’s brilliance, insight, poetic expression and phisolophic insight enlighten people of all ages and actually…. Many of their words confound most of us- but not Chekov- he’s actually manageable and easily relatable. So, next week, I want to take a nod to a great Russian writer, one of the father’s of the short story genre, Anton Chekov. We will look at just a couple of stories- just for funsies and briefly talk about a few things in general that a person should bear in mind when reading any short story but specifically two that I will pick out form his large collection between now and then. Does that sound interesting? That does, I must admit, I’ve heard a lot about the great Russian writers: Dostoyesky, Tolstoy , Pushkin, Solzhenitsyn and so forth, but beyond

Animal Farm - Episode #3 - Propaganda - the art of creating alternative reality - and dictatorships! Script 3- Animal Farm HI, I’m Christy Shriver. I’m Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast. We are on episode 3 of Orwell’s classic fairy story- in quotations- or allegorical novella Animal Farm. And although the book is extremely short, it is compact and full of political satire. On week one, we spent most of the episode looking at Orwell’s life, his perspective of the world and how he formed it. On week two we considered the book as a political allegory on the country of Russia specifically in the context of the Russian revolution. We didn’t get very far into the story, only through chapter three, but we focused on who each character on the farm was supposed to represent through an almost direct allegorical correlation to a person in real life. Today we are going to change directions and discuss the book in much broader terms while also discussing through chapter 7. That’s correct. Today we want to talk about the book as satire. Satire is defined in the Merriam Webster dictionary as a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn- what does that mean. It means that a person who is writing satire is trying to get you to see something about yourself or the world that is wrong and he’s trying to hold a mirror up to it. Let me put it this way, and the satirist looks at the world and sees something wrong with it, but he/she believes that because you’re so used to seeing things as they are- you don’t notice something that’s really wrong. So what he does is try to create a piece of art that highlights the flaw he thinks you’re overlooking. In some ways it serves the same purpose as a sermon in church- he’s moralizing in some sense. The reason satirists use humor as much as they do is because many times, we are more likely to take their criticism seriously if we can laugh at it. And we’re less likely to be offended than if they just lectured us. Of course, in America, tv personalities use shows like Saturday Night Live, South Park and even the Simpsons to do this. We have websites like the Onion and Babylon Bee that do this. What you will see immediately, especially in those last wo examples is that all satire is based on OPINION. This is my perspective- consider it, is the concept. So then the question becomes how do that do it? You’re right, that is the question. And there are tons of techniques available to them: they use burlesque, chariacture, puns, malapropisms, jargon, irony, hyperbole, defamiliarization, and many others- and many of these are in this little book. We’re going to look at just a couple of these and show how they are being used in this book and then we’re going to discuss WHY they are going used. What’s the big idea he’s criticizing in this book, in particular these middle sections of the book. And in Orwell’s case, he begins his satire before he even starts the book with the title. The book is called “Animal Farm” and the subtitle was a fairy story. Now let’s think about this in terms of satire. What is a fairy tale? It’s a magical story, it’s idealized; it ends with a happily ever after. And one thing we all know about fairy tales is that they are not real. So, what has Orwell done- here we have irony and hyperbole- this is NOT a fairy tale, although it’s magical in the sense that animals are talking- what he is saying is that socialists want to do is believe in a fairy tale- believe in a lie. What they are telling us can happen is just a fairy tale. It’s a dream- it’s fantasy- and not only that- but it ends poorly for us if we believe it. It ends poorly for us if we believe or trust them AT ALL. This subtitle is dripping in irony- this book is the opposite of a dream. It’s a nightmare. And if you believe in this dream- you are a flat fool. This is where we ‘re going to get into the middle portion of the book- Orwell is not-so-subtly saying- only the dumbest of blind fools allow themselves to be victimized in the way I’m about to describe to you. This middle section of the book really is about the power and techniques of propaganda. What we see here is the pigs emerging as the leaders on the farm. They take over- they are trusted with leadership and then spend the rest of their time exploiting everyone else- and how does this happen- through the use of propaganda. So, let’s jump back to satire for a minute. Satire is when he’s trying to blow something up to get you to see something you’re blind to. How the satire is going to work here is in large part through hyperbole, defamiliarization and dramatic irony. Hyperbole is when you exxgerrate for the purpose of making a point. Defamiliarization is when you describe something everyone recognizes as if they didn’t recognize it, and dramatic irony is when the reader of the story knows something the characters in the story don’t know. And in this book what is going to become painfully obvious to the reader is

Animal Farm - Episode #2 - Meet the characters of Animal Farm and dive into lots of political allegory! Hi, this is Christy Shriver. This is Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast. This is the second episode in the series where we look at George Orwell and his political ideology through the classic and beloved novella and allegory Animal Farm. Last week, we discussed the life and times of Orwell himself, and we looked, albeit very briefly at the first couple of chapters of the book itself highlighting really the deceptively lighthearted tone of the first couple of chapters where a wise old boar expounds the beauties of Animalism – a dream world where everyone is treated fairly and properly; Where everyone feels respect and attains a life of leisure, but most importantly where the blame for all the cruelties of life is clearly identified and on whom it should fall- and the answer to that is man. Man is the source of all evil and to get rid of man is to get rid of tyranny, cruelty and evil. We ended with the animals roaring in applause as they are lost in the Utopian dream. And singing, although I don’t think we brought that out- what would be their theme song or national anthem- Beasts of England, which according to Orwell, is a “stirring tune something between ‘Clementine’ and ‘la Cucaracha’”. I still can’t figure out how you can mosh those two together- but I’m sure coming through the bleats of talking pigs, horses, chickens and even rats- it’s all the same. Today we are going to look at at this book pretty much solely as a straightforward thinly disguised discussion of Russian politics and as a criticism of the Russian revolution. It’s written in the third person that keeps us at a safe distance. We are NOT ever going to feel like we’re on the farm with these animals- this story is about another world- and on one letter- a very very specific time and place in human history. And to understand it we must begin with a discussion of Russian history. I know it feels like we’re going super heaving on history- since we got into the Spanish Revolution and colonialism last week, but when you understand the series of events as they unfolded in Russia, then the story makes total sense. I think it is a HUGE mistake to avoid a discussion of Russian history when studying this book, although I know this is a common practice in some places. In this book, from a historical perspective, it’s unavoidable to see the extremely obvious connection. It’s Orwell’s obvious purpose to NOt hide who each character was or that he was even talking about Russia. It was the Russians who called everyone “comrade” – and I think everyone who grew up during the cold war ever, thinks about Russia when they hear that word comrade- I don’t know if it’s used besides when talking about communist people from Russia. So, when old Major begins by saying “All animals are comrades”- the secret it out- the code word has been uttered- this farm is Russia. To me, it’s like when someone says, “I’m not going to tell you who’s fault it is, but his name rhymes with Harry and starts with a G. Exactly, so, let’s get a little familiar with the country of Russia and its incredibly diverse and interesting past. Christy, I know you lived there are one point in your life, what can you tell us. Well, let me correct you on that. I never lived in Russia. When I was in college, I was an exchange student to Kazakhstan, which today is an independent country, but during the Soviet era was a Soviet republic. What that means, is that although it had a totally different cultural heritage until 1991, it was a part of the same country as Russia. Russia was a republic and Kazakhstan was a republic- they were both republics in the country that existed from 1922-1991, and is basically what Animal Farm is about. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, I was in college. In 1992, I signed up to be a part of an exchange to the former Soviet Union. I had always been enamoured, like everyone else of my generation, with everything Soviet- we watched a LOT of James Bond movies. I went over there with a group of six students to a University named Kazhgyu Grad to study Russian language and culture. We thought we were pretty cool getting one of the first looks back behind the “iron curtain” as everyone called it back then. The Soviet Union to us had been a mysterious place and even a scary place. And the story of how it was created is the story Orwell tells. Perhaps in another episode, if it fits into the discussion, I’ll tell you what it was like when we got there- and as everyone in the West quickly discovered after the wall came down, it was never the dream old Major described or the Russian people envisioned when they threw out the Czars and brought in the communists. I was totally unprepared for what we saw. But anyway, Let’s tell the story. Ok- Well, Until the beginning of the 20th century, Russia was an empire- which means it’s a monarchy- like the other European cou

Animal Farm - Episode #1 - Meet George Orwell and the array of world forces that produced this classic work! Hi, I’m Christy Shriver. And I’m Garry Shriver, and this is the How to Love Lit Podcast. Today we start another political tale- this time instead of a play written two-thousand years, ago, we will discuss a novel, well officially it’s a novel, but its author called it a fairy-tale, albeit without the prince charming, beautiful princess and the happily ever after ending. I’m not sure how it’s a fairy tale at all, actually. HA! Yes, Orwell was very careful with his words and that bit of satirical language sets the tone for what’s to come in this strangely inspirational scary yet playful warning about the dangers of power and totalitarianism. And speaking about Orwell calling it a fairy tale- the American publisher omitted that title in the American edition a year after it was written and after that so did everyone else- I’m really not sure why. ,It’s an obvious fable that works on several levels. First, it’s a charming story about talking animals- and it works so well on that level and written so simply that there are libraries who mistakenly put it in the juvenile section of the library. And in some sense it is simple and that makes it a relief to read. I saw in a survey done by the Independent newspaper of Great Britain that it is THE most popular book adults remember from their school days- even beats out The Great Gatsby, Charlottes’s Webb and lord of the flies- and if I were to guess, and I will, I have a feeling, that’s because most of the books we make kids read have complicated vocabulary, old fashioned syntax and are just exhausting. Animal Farm is none of that. It has a simplicity of form that makes it simple to navigate- but if you read it ONLY in that way- you are making a grave mistake. It’s not the same as the jungle book or Beatrix Potter. It’s a biting satire about Soviet Totalitarianism as well as an important allegory on basic human nature- what people are really like- and exposing complicated people as simply as he did is where the genius rests- We should never mistake simplicity of form with simplicity of ideas- and an oversimplification of this story makes you the gullible fools he’s writing about and warning you not to be. Another point mentioning is that this book has been controversial from before it was published. Orwell finished the manuscript to Animal Farm in 1943 but it wasn’t published until August 1945 by a company called Secker & Warburg. Frederic Warburg published the book despite his wife threatening to leave him if he did publish it. It was horrifying to publish a book so openly mocking the Russians who were our allies in WW2 and had lost so many men in the fight against Hitler. The book came out literally the same month in which the atomic bomb hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki- and although no one would have known it at the time- there’s a bit or irony to think about the fact that the Manhattan Project, an effort basically committed to figuring out how to blow up the world, was literally going on at the exact same time Orwell was writing this warning about the political scenario that would lead to such a disaster- anyway- despite his wife’s protestations, Warburg published the book and the 4,500 copies he printed sold out in just a few days. Nine million copies were sold by 1973 and Warburg gained popularity from his connection to Animal Farm. The fact that the everyone knew the book would be controversial only made them want to read it more.Even after WWII and the book’s obvious success there has still been some opposition to it in the classroom, although nothing like of mice and men or Huck Finn. In the sixties in Wisconsin the book was challenged because of its phrases about revolution, and people were afraid this would cause public revolt .At the same time in New York, there was opposition because Orwell was a socialist and they did not want to teach a book thought to be written by a communist. But in the end, it has been hailed in free countries as a great exposition of communism, and it’s banned in countries where control of free thought is government policy. Animal Farm is still banned in Cuba, Kenya, and the United Arab Emirates according to the American Library Association. Only a censored version is read in China and the book was banned in Russia from 1945 until the 1980’s. Of course, on the other side of this issue, and this is kind of funny- Animal Farm is the only book I know of that the CIA actually funded, In the 1950s, the CIA actually paid to have an animated version of this book distributed around the world. It does seem that that this unassuming “fairy tale”does ruffle feathers- it can’t be ignored. There is a lot to say about the different ways to approach this book. First we must look at it in its original historical context, the politics of Russia, Spain, the 1940s, etc…this is how Orwell intended it to be understood. He is even quoted as saying this

Julius Caesar - Episode #5 - The ghost, the battle, the conclusion! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Julius Caesar Episode #4 - How to commit murder while claiming to be noble! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Julius Caesar Episode #3 - The coup, the fatal flaws of Brutus and the point of no return! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Julius Caesar - Episode #2 - "Delusions of grandeur - do they bring destruction?" Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Julius Caesar - Episode #1 - Meet Shakespeare and Caesar - All In The Same Episode! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Alchemist Poetry Supplement - Chilean Poet Pablo Neruda! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The conclusion and summary of Steinbeck's classic work! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Archetypes, foreshadowing and literary analogies abound in this episode! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Meet the main characters of the book in episode 2. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode we introduce Nobel and Pulitzer prize winning author John Steinbeck and his classic novel Of Mice And Men. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The shocking conclusion of Lord Of The Flies! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The discovery of the beast! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Paradise, the pig and the beast! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Introduction to William Golding's classic work. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The poetry of Langston Hughes and the Harlem Renaissance. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The big finale and resolution of Fahrenheit 451! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Montag is on the run, the mechanical hound is on the hunt, the world is at war. You know, just another average day! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Exploring the plot, the satire, the characters and thematic ideas of chapter 1. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We introduce Fahrenheit 451, the author Ray Bradbury and the relevent history of his times. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The final revelations and conclusion of the Scarlet Letter! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Do Hester and Dimmesdale surrender to love? Find out in this episode! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In episode 2 of the Scarlet Letter we jump into chapters 2 through 8 covering the first of three scaffold scenes. We meet Hester Prynne, Arthur Dimmesdale, Roger Chillingworth and little Pearl. Our study begins with Hester on the scaffold and ends with Hester defending her right to keep her child three years later. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Episode 3 covers chapters 9-12 and dissects the relationship between Dimmesdale and Chillingworth. The triangular relationship between Hester, Arthur and Roger creates moral and psychological drama and tension! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to the How To Love Lit Podcast! We start our journey with the classic work by Nathaniel Hawthorn - The Scarlet Letter. Episode one introduces the history of the author and historical background information on the Puritan culture. We will also meet the main characters in the story and begin discussing the cultural, psychological and religious forces that impact their lives. Enjoy! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Welcome to the How To Love Lit Podcast! We start our journey with the classic work by Nathaniel Hawthorn - The Scarlet Letter. Episode one introduces the history of the author and historical background information on the Puritan culture. We will also meet the main characters in the story and begin discussing the cultural, psychological and religious forces that impact their lives. Enjoy! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.