Kuras zvolil poněkud netradiční pohled na humor jako na činnost téměř věděckou, uměleckou a veskrze činnost, do které musíte investovat značné množstvKuras zvolil poněkud netradiční pohled na humor jako na činnost téměř věděckou, uměleckou a veskrze činnost, do které musíte investovat značné množství energie, trpělivosti a především mozku. Což je, zdá se, můj problém. Pro mě byl humor vždycky věc instinktu. To mi bohužel neposkytuje dostatek prostoru, abych v danou chvíli analyzovala, zda moje poznámka je nebo není vtipná - samozřejmě pokud vezmu v úvahu Kurasovo hledisko. Především mi dělají problém vtipy na slabší, menší nebo jinak znevýhodněné. Zvlášť proto, že občas aby si k tomu člověk nakreslil tabulku a pár grafů, než zjistí, jestli na daný cíl může nebo nemůže udělat vtip. Pro ty, kteří to nedokáží sami odhadnout (jako jsem já) existuje hromada pravidel, která určují na co lze a nelze udělat vtip - jinak také pravidla politické korektnosti, lidově pravidla cenzury a politické buzerace. Takže se po přečtení této knihy budu muset smířit s tím, že část mých vtipů není vtipná. Ale pořád lepší to zkusit, než čekat, až to řekne někdo jiný. A z pohledu slabšího (jelikož jím často jsem), když si ze mě někdo utahuje, můžu mu to vrátit, takže je to pořád lepší, než kdyby mě zmlátil do kuličky. Jako ženě mi přirozeně Kurasův text hluboce zalichotil, ale rozhodně ne natolik, abych mu kvůli tomu nasázela pět hvězdiček. Nevím, kolik z Kurasových myšlenek bylo původních, ale pravděpodobně o dost víc, než se mi zdálo. Většinu z toho, co napsal, jsem totiž jaksi podvědomě cítila už dost dlouho předtím a nejsem si jistá, jestli číst něco, co už dávno vím není plýtvání časem. Pokud bych to měla sesumírovat, skutečně pobavená, pohnutá, nadšená nebo jinak kladně poznamenaná jsem byla zhruba ve dvaceti procentech knihy. Se zbytkem jsem víceméně souhlasila, pokývala jsem si hlavou, párkrát protočila oči a nevadilo mi to číst...jenže to je trochu málo. Kniha samotná je z mého pohledu tak na dvě hvězdičky (tedy, že to bylo dobré). Ta třetí hvězdička je vtip (dobře, ne úplně, protože ta kniha se mi opravdu líbila, ale když to porovnám s jinými tříhvězdičkovými knihami, nestačí to). Kdybych přidala čtvrtou, byl by to výsměch. A kdybyste tam viděli pět hvězdiček, znamenalo by to, že vás někdo praštil do hlavy....more
I am Czech, so I was reading this book only to see what it would say about us (you know, because I am really obsessed with our image). The worst thingI am Czech, so I was reading this book only to see what it would say about us (you know, because I am really obsessed with our image). The worst thing about this book is that most of it is true even though you really can't apply it on everybody (for exemple, I hate the taste of beer and cant tell jokes properly).
But not being able to tell jokes is actually no handicap. Telling jokes is too staged for most of the Czechs. It's more imporant to be able to make amusing, ironic or sometimes caustic comments about any situation (even the most unfortunate one – you should have seen the super speed with which jokes about about horrid catastrophes spread around, because the Czechs are keen on another telling: what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger).
Then, there is another type of humor that Czech often use and it wasn't mentioned in the book. The book said that the Czechs were cunning and I suppose that this connects to it: its a type of humor so subtle you never know when the person is serious and when he's picking on you. That other nationalities have a hard time understanding it is quite clear when for exemple the american media are interviewing Jaromír Jágr (hockey player if you don't know). He uses this type of humor a lot and the interviewers are sweating their way through.
Apparently I am a very typical Czech since most of the things in the book not only don't seem one bit weird to me, but I was even surprised that it's so unusual that they mentioned it. For exemple the mushroom picking or the slippers or hiking. I knew that the cottages are unusual and that nobody (including some of the Czechs) really knows what ruchadlo is and how to pronounce "ř", but I was not aware there is anything weird about forests being opened to the public....more
With the risk of looking like a person who completely lost herself in the words of others, this is the way I see it: I admit that I already made an opiWith the risk of looking like a person who completely lost herself in the words of others, this is the way I see it: I admit that I already made an opinion on this book before I even opened it. I'm an avid reader and I don't read to please others, but to please myself - which is a kind of reading Mr. Bayard somehow manages to ignore (no matter how much he tries to conceal it). I don't know what are his motivations for reading, but it seemed to me as if the author was driven mainly by guilt. He says that people are looked down upon because they don´t read. I would like to know where the author´s lived, because from what I´ve seen so far, nobody (except your lit-teacher, who´s obliged to do so) will scold you for not reading Hemingway. Some will even smile and clap your back – not that I wouldn’t get them as I gave up on Hemingway after fifty pages of For Whom the Bell Tolls. And yes, I am able to talk about it. According to mister Bayard, my teacher should be satisfied if I told him for exemple that the book is about the painful life of a bridge. Don’t get me wrong, it would be great if it was the case. Anyway, I have all the reasons to think that Mr. Bayard sees reading and talking about books as little more than a way to impress others. Or he at least thinks that’s why people read in general. Maybe it is so, but I choose not to believe that. I have no idea if he's being sarcastic when he's talking about the views of contemporary society or if that's really what he thinks, but either way it makes the whole book sound quite absurd and pointless. In case he's sarcastic, we are not in danger of ever being in need of Bayard's advice and in case he means it we won't need it either, because we probably won't risk any of the consequences he mentions in real life. The only circumstance this could be usefull in for normal people would be at school, but then again, all inteligent students and teachers invented a reliable way of talking about books they haven't read a long time ago and they didn't need Mr. Bayard for it. And the stupid ones can't be helped. He cannot acknowledge that he might be wrong since that would mean breaking one of the rules of an essay and that´s probably what makes the book so annoying. But in his case even the rules of essay are not an excuse, because he´s violating them anyway. His thesis is not consistent and sometimes it seems like he stopped trying to make sense. Maybe he thinks that nobody will really read the book as he suggests. Well, he´s wrong then. The only moment when he didn´t sound annoying to me was when he talked about Paul Valery and that was because Valery was even more annoying than Bayard. And the only moment I was truly interested in the book was the part where he summed up The Name of the Rose. Well, ok, those are just examples. But generally, when I look back I realize that I only enjoyed the book when Bayard talked about other authors and their ideas. That means that yes, he can talk about books he hasn't read, but he can't sell his own ideas successfully. On several occasions he either contradicts himself or doesn't properly explain his argument. Whichever it is, it left holes in the theory. As if it already wasn't fragile enough. I'm not saying he's not right in certain aspects, but those places are buried under a pile or poorly, inconsistently and even haphazardly defended statements and ideas. All in all, I wouldn't recommend this book to anybody, since I know nobody who would need it. But there is something good that comes from this book. Since I know that Bayard is good at talking about the work of others, I'll probably read his other books....more