Not as Democratic as You Thought

A People's History of the United States
This was easily the most interesting history I've ever read. Why? Imagine reading a history where 90% of the US historical figures you've ever been taught to admire and revere in high school history turned out to be a bunch of filthy bastards. That's what you get from this book. Well, they may not be that bad, but Zin focuses more on how figures such as Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Columbus, Andrew Jackson, etc. helped to repress, or just exterminate, minorities and the lower classes so that the upper classes could thrive. That's really what this book is about: oppression of "inferior" classes in the United States throughout the country's history.

Zin certainly has his own viewpoint and has chosen what he's going to focus on. He does not deny that these leaders have done good things as well, but he rightly points out that a history that covers everything would be pretty much impossible. Hence, he chooses to focus on the downtrodden and the way US history has treated them. One does not so much doubt his facts or statistics either. His assertions are well-supported by numerous writings of both famous and more anonymous figures who were actually there and in the trenches as well as by facts and statistics from various government agency archives. Again, the only thing to keep in mind is that he uses these statistics to his own advantage. Like any other historian, Zin's point of view is not the objective "truth." No one can supply that.

The only real criticism that I have about the book is best exemplified by the chapter "The Upcoming Revolt of the Guards" where Zin lays out his theory for the only way to truly change the Capitalist system to a more people-friendly system. While I have no objection to the overtly socialist ideals he sets forth, I am critical of his argument (or lack thereof really). Instead of providing us with justification and reasoning as to why this is the course of action we ought to take, he instead engages in the same shallow rhetoric for that brief chapter that makes The Communist Manifesto a less-than-convincing document. Besides, while I make no claim that history should not be argumentative or prescriptive (it always has been and always will be), I don't like it to be so blatant about it.

All in all, Zin's A People's History is a great and illuminating look at the repressed side of American history that everyone should be aware of, whether they agree with Zin's point of view or not.

Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
Though this may be a romance, it isn't one in the Nora Roberts sense of the word (thankfully). Rather, it is a romance in the Shakespearian sense that it is neither comedy nor tragedy, and it does have romantic aspects sprinkled throughout. However, it is a dark, brooding novel that focuses far more on loss, revenge, and the deterioration of the human soul than it does on love or anything else the average person might conceive of as "romantic."

In many ways, it parallels Milton's Paradise Lost, if in a metaphorical sense. We have Heathcliff as the devil (as he is often referred to throughout) and his fall from grace. We have both Catherines as Eve-type characters in slightly different ways, and as I explain below, it is their choices (often under the infernal influence of Heathcliff) that determine the future of the narrative, much as Eve's choice determines the future of humanity. We even have the loss of paradise toward the end, but with the hope of eventual salvation and a return thereto (i.e., as Paradise Regained is suggested in the last book of Milton's epic).

The characters of Wuthering Heights are a generally unlikable bunch of flawed human beings provoking and being provoked by each other. Strikingly realistic for a "romantic" novel. It is the strong, independent women of the novel who are the foundational characters around which the book revolves. They are the focus of attention, and it is only through them that the male characters are able to accomplish whatever ends they set out to accomplish. In fact, one of the main struggles of the book can be seen as the attempts of the women to remain independent of the male characters' repeated attempts at subjugation and control. Interestingly, it is always the women who end up with the choice as to result will prevail in each battle of this war.

In this sense, Wuthering Heights can be seen as a feminist novel, but not as a preaching one. Rather, Bronte seems to strive for the reader to understand the strength and resiliency of her women through their subtle control of the narrative and their resistence to the constant pressure that the male characters exert from attempting to take that power away. One final example of this is through the framing of the narrative itself. Though superficially told by Mr. Lockwood, he is initially relating Ellen Dean's story verbatim through the first half of the book. However, halfway through, he discards Ellen and "summarizes" the story she told him off-screen. In other words, he attempts to dominate the telling of the narrative as Heathcliff, Edgar, Hareton, and Hindley attempt to dominate the women of the novel at various points. Yet, like all the other dominations throughout the novel, this narrative domination fails as well. Ultimately, Ellen is able to reassert herself as the official storyteller over the last few chapters, but what was the effect of losing her immediate voice for the intermediate period, I'll leave up to you to interpret. I'm still working it out myself.