Nate D's Reviews > 62: A Model Kit
62: A Model Kit
by Julio Cortázar, Gregory Rabassa
by Julio Cortázar, Gregory Rabassa
Nate D's review
bookshelves: argentina, postwar-re-de-constructions, read-in-2011, favorites
Oct 28, 11
bookshelves: argentina, postwar-re-de-constructions, read-in-2011, favorites
Recommended to Nate D by:
my paredros
Recommended for:
the zone, the city, the plaza of streetcars
Read from October 22 to 26, 2011
Haunting and disconcerting, formally confused and elegant, a novel as a system of correspondences, scattered both spatially and temporally, a vast map or set of maps which perfectly overlay in uncertain fashion, whose ink under weight of tears and dark waves gradually bleeds through into a single compound form, bleeds and coagulates anew into a highly ordered system of ambiguities, a dark constellation that guides the unwary down unfamiliar streets and through empty arcades to eerily circular revelations, profound and fleeting, sensed pre-verbally as ominous contours but gone just before they are elucidated.
Cortazar's elliptic masterpiece is a strange concurrence of gothic disquiet, poetic sleepwalking though unreal cities, interupting buffoonery and snail races, tangled sentences, tangled thoughts, tangled interpersonal relationships, things that must be said but which can't extricate themselves from the tip of the tongue. It's hard work: the overture is over 30 pages of revolving recollection built of highly significant but fragmented details which will be near-entirely lost on the new reader in favor of a few "mediocre phonetic associations". I had to read it twice, too tired to extract the deep-structures at first, then feeling them out but still unsure what all this seeming nonsense was indicating. The solution was not to be found in the following adagio, where, at last, we are given a chance to learn all the characters who existed as flickers in the overture, nor, except partially, in the crescendo that followed. Here, at last, the story began to develop teeth of its own, I at last, 100 pages in, realized that I was completely gripped and glad I had stuck with it through all that I had incorrectly suspected might not be worth the trouble. Then the brilliant, rending scherzo* enacted simultaneously in two and half cities, and finally a sustained burn of a finale that can only lead back to the overture, to the overture which now almost almost assumes some kind of order. And so on.
What I'm left with: intimations of the spectral City the underlies all cities, a deep and sustained sorrow, a fuguer of characters who I had feared were another version of Hopscotch's muddled expat bohemian Club, but who I actually find so much more interesting and affecting, and that dark and leering constellation which ties together the devastating orchestrations of an unkempt but terribly formal universe.
It's absolutely not for everyone. I've struggled somewhat with Cortazar, to the point that I actually wrote a long entry here explaining how we just weren't made for eachother at page 100. Only to found myself captivated by every page that followed. Had the book changed or had I? Had we changed eachother, as people do, insidiously? All told, I'll stick with him, will keep sticking with him, as long as he has anything like this to show me.
note:
Paredros: from a greek root suggesting a group of peers in a legal sense, and also a sort of attendant spirit, both of which definitions are maintained in the French "paredre". This ambiguous actual/mythological chorus seems to suit Cortazar's needs in maintaining a certain vagueness within the circle of protagonist here. Found in this article which is very helpful, but also prone to spoilers, so don't read it until afterwards.
*my understanding of scherzo proves a little off here. Apparently, it's fast (which I knew) but often humorous (which I did not know, and in no way applies to this terrifying stretch of Cortazar's book). My reference point here, was the "Suicide Scherzo" arranged out of Beethoven's 9th in A Clockwork Orange so think more on those lines.
And I had lived through too many attacks of those explosions of a power that came out of myself against myself not to know whether some were mere flashes of lightning that gave way to nothingness without leaving more than a frustration (monotonous deja vu's, meaningful associations, but swallowing their own tails), or other time, like the one that had just happened to me, were something astir in territory deep inside, wounding me all over like an iron claw, which, at the same time, was a door slammed in my face. (pg.22)
Cortazar's elliptic masterpiece is a strange concurrence of gothic disquiet, poetic sleepwalking though unreal cities, interupting buffoonery and snail races, tangled sentences, tangled thoughts, tangled interpersonal relationships, things that must be said but which can't extricate themselves from the tip of the tongue. It's hard work: the overture is over 30 pages of revolving recollection built of highly significant but fragmented details which will be near-entirely lost on the new reader in favor of a few "mediocre phonetic associations". I had to read it twice, too tired to extract the deep-structures at first, then feeling them out but still unsure what all this seeming nonsense was indicating. The solution was not to be found in the following adagio, where, at last, we are given a chance to learn all the characters who existed as flickers in the overture, nor, except partially, in the crescendo that followed. Here, at last, the story began to develop teeth of its own, I at last, 100 pages in, realized that I was completely gripped and glad I had stuck with it through all that I had incorrectly suspected might not be worth the trouble. Then the brilliant, rending scherzo* enacted simultaneously in two and half cities, and finally a sustained burn of a finale that can only lead back to the overture, to the overture which now almost almost assumes some kind of order. And so on.
What I'm left with: intimations of the spectral City the underlies all cities, a deep and sustained sorrow, a fuguer of characters who I had feared were another version of Hopscotch's muddled expat bohemian Club, but who I actually find so much more interesting and affecting, and that dark and leering constellation which ties together the devastating orchestrations of an unkempt but terribly formal universe.
It's absolutely not for everyone. I've struggled somewhat with Cortazar, to the point that I actually wrote a long entry here explaining how we just weren't made for eachother at page 100. Only to found myself captivated by every page that followed. Had the book changed or had I? Had we changed eachother, as people do, insidiously? All told, I'll stick with him, will keep sticking with him, as long as he has anything like this to show me.
note:
Paredros: from a greek root suggesting a group of peers in a legal sense, and also a sort of attendant spirit, both of which definitions are maintained in the French "paredre". This ambiguous actual/mythological chorus seems to suit Cortazar's needs in maintaining a certain vagueness within the circle of protagonist here. Found in this article which is very helpful, but also prone to spoilers, so don't read it until afterwards.
*my understanding of scherzo proves a little off here. Apparently, it's fast (which I knew) but often humorous (which I did not know, and in no way applies to this terrifying stretch of Cortazar's book). My reference point here, was the "Suicide Scherzo" arranged out of Beethoven's 9th in A Clockwork Orange so think more on those lines.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read 62.
sign in »
Comments (showing 1-3 of 3) (3 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jimmy
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Oct 28, 2011 01:48pm
that's funny because I think I enjoyed the first half of this more than the last half... I do agree that it's a great book, though.
reply
|
flag
*
I think I liked the late middle best, the vienna/paris alternation/conflation build sequence, or was that the early end. I definitely enjoyed re-reading the beginning a lot, but on first pass, by the time I hit Marrast and the painting, I was seriously concerned that I wasn't actually going to get to know any of these people besides vaguely in passing, and that the vague and de-localized sense of dread was going to stay like that. So as soon as I realized that the book was in fact coiling into a tight interlock of gears, I started to get much more into it, even if this was the somewhat more conventional part of the book. I still think the structure in its decentralized chain of meanings is entirely revolutionary enough even when slightly more narrative-driven. And I agree with what you said in your review about the comedic interludes slowing things down in the second half, but I noticed that Cortazar let them build to a climax around the late-middle scherzo and then left them out of the way until that cycle concluded, after which the relief seemed more warranted then at any other point.But I'm also noticing a difference in how we appreciate these books. Much as I'm drawn to these atraditional narrative structures, I still seem responsive to the parts where they pull into fairly traditional purposeful drive to a climax, as here and in The Lost Scrapbook, whereas those parts seem to mar to be lesser for you. (Though the climactic stretch of TLS had its own problems, I agree, I still liked it as a climax). And to some extent, I need to empathize with the characters, which didn't happen right away. So I'm seeing that you're the more appreciative reader of pure writing, whereas I like to see character and plot structures get broken, but still reformed in some way. I'm sure I'm oversimplifying, but it seems I'm revealing myself as the less adventurous reader.
To a certain extent, I think you are right. I read by intuition a lot, so that I will tolerate (and even enjoy immensely) something wildly experimental if I can intuit that there is real heart and soul behind the craziness... but I won't tolerate even a little experimentation if I don't sense that heart and soul behind it... if it's just emptiness behind a facade. But then again, it's hard to pinpoint where that intuitive feeling comes from. And of course it is also arguable (and subjective) whether something has heart and soul.As far as Cortazar is concerned, well... I have a weakness for his writing because I've never read a single word of his that I don't just completely buy into... it's an intuitive attraction, I KNOW there is something behind those words, whether I understand it rationally or not. So for example in this book, I was enjoying the hell out of it way before I even knew what was going on... partly it's that the writing had such a clear aesthetic to it that it in no way felt "random" even while it was experimental... there is a clear order to the way it was written, it's just that that order isn't apparent to the reader (yet). So I trust it and love it. And when he gets more traditional, it's still really good... and I don't complain, he really does it well and exposes just enough without overexposing.
However, in the case of The Lost Scrapbook, the more traditional second half was an outright disappointment. The first half was like a rough impressionistic sketch that hinted at something complex and deep underneath. I bought into it, because the writing was strong and kept my attention. Then the second half proceeds to spell it out in a most simplistic way so that I felt like there was almost nothing there. I started to doubt whether the first half's experimentation had any underpinnings to it at all. The second half undermines the entire first half. It was really a frustrating reading experience for me.
I'm glad you brought this up because I don't think I've thought about this before. Sometimes when I watch a documentary of a painter working on some painting, I will like certain stages of its becoming-done more than the final stage. This also happens when I visit artist studios where certain sketches or half-formed ideas are much more interesting and suggestive to me than a fully fleshed out painting.
