"And What Does It Mean, To Die? Perhaps Man Has A Hundred Senses, And When He Dies Only The Five Senses That We Know Perish With Him And The Other Ninety-Five Remain Alive."

A good friend of mine who is a professor of set design for a theatre department of a local university, and her partner, a Yale-drama educated technical director recently told me that while plays are fine to read, they really are intended to be witnessed on the stage. Which put me in a bit of a quandary, because on one of my lists, I have 9 (now 8) plays remaining to be read. On the one hand, it would delight me to be able to just see the play in person and check it off my list, having committed only a couple hours to its consumption. But on the other hand, it wouldn't feel like I was completing the task of my reading lists by not actually reading the material listed. I'm still at a crossroads of how to handle this, but for the time being, I have not crossed off Macbeth after having watched the recent Cohen Brothers adaptation of the play as a film. But I've also de-prioritized Macbeth for the time being as well knowing that it's gonna be a drudge of difficulty to get through. 

This was not the case, however, with The Cherry Orchard by Anton Chekhov. 4 acts, less than 50 pages. No drudgery to be seen. The story takes place in the late 1800s/early 1900s in Russia where there is a palpable shift from wealthy aristocracy to the rise of the lower classes. Madame Ravensky no longer has the financial means, having squandered it away, to retain her family home and cherry orchard, so it is auctioned off. The family, neighbors, and servants, of all differing opinions on this circumstance, share in this moment. 

I would be curious (and will keep an eye out) to see if this play is performed very often. I think there are a couple other Chekov plays that would be a preferred option to do, but I wouldn't hate to see this live. Did it leave an indelible impression on me. Not really? Will I be able to remember any of the characters very long Russian names? Definitely not. But did I enjoy it? Yes. 

Up next, A Bend in the River by V.S. Naipaul. Naipaul won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2001. A Bend in the River was one of his later novels, so I'm intrigued to have another novel set in Africa on the docket (I've had 3 in the past year or so between The Heart of the Matter, Out of Africa, and Things Fall Apart). 

" 'Nothing But Vast Wisdom and Onlimited Power Should Dare To Sweep Off Men In Multitudes,' He Added; 'For It Is Only The One That Can Know The Necessity Of The Judgment; And What Is There Short Of The Other, That Can Replace The Creatures Of The Lord?' "

The Last of the Mohicans was far more engaging than I expected it to be. Given that it was written in the 1820s, I fully expected the language to be difficult to get through. And yes, it was a bit dense, but not antiquated (which is always where I struggle with older books). But it was an exciting, frontier, beginning of the United States, adventure story. So it was a pleasant read. 

However, it isn't easy to read books like this through a different lens of history. With so much overt racism against Native Americans. And so much colonist-as-rightful-conqueror mindset. And the continuous description of Native Americans as savages, even though white settlers proved themselves to be the more vicious and destructive of the races. 

But taking it with a grain of salt, it was a perfectly fine novel. The storyline was engaging, heroes and villains, damsels in distress, daring rescue attempts. I did enjoy it. 

Confession: I've been lagging behind in writing up my blog post summaries immediately after I finish the book. So it has been a few months since I actually finished The Last of the Mohicans, and clearly, the quality and detail of my post about it suffers as a result. But I'm attempting to get caught up and hopefully the rest won't be as woefully inadequate. Here's hoping.