I felt like I was seeing parallels with Macbeth in every movie and TV series right after reading this.
This time, I noticed the incredible sarcasm in RI felt like I was seeing parallels with Macbeth in every movie and TV series right after reading this.
This time, I noticed the incredible sarcasm in ROSS' last dialogue here:
ROSS. Your castle is surpris’d; your wife and babes Savagely slaughter’d. To relate the manner Were, on the quarry of these murder’d deer, To add the death of you.
...
ROSS. Wife, children, servants, all That could be found.
MACDUFF. And I must be from thence! My wife kill’d too?
ROSS. I have said.
ROSS, do you really think you should be incensed about having to repeat yourself in front of a guy who has lost his whole family?...more
Great book, great story, a bunch of great characters. Rambert was the character that I related with hardest. Especially his craving to leave the islanGreat book, great story, a bunch of great characters. Rambert was the character that I related with hardest. Especially his craving to leave the island and return to Paris and his decision on the day that he was going to leave.
This book's tag line should be Separation and Exile.
The book ends on a positive note; but the ending comes about mysteriously. I am not sure if Camus did this simply because he didn't want to write a depressing book, or to symbolize the ending of pestilence and how inexplicable it always feels. Either way, reading this book helped me better understand the period until the end. It did not increase my confidence that the ongoing pestilence will end because of anything that can be consciously done.
Thinking back to the beginning of the ongoing pandemic (Feb 2020):
Pestilence is in fact very common, but we find it hard to believe in a pestilence when it descends upon us. There have been as many plagues in the world as there have been wars, yet plagues and wars always find people equally unprepared. Dr Rieux was unprepared, as were the rest of the townspeople, and this is how one should understand his reluctance to believe. One should also understand that he was divided between anxiety and confidence. When war breaks out people say: ‘It won’t last, it’s too stupid.’ And war is certainly too stupid, but that doesn’t prevent it from lasting. Stupidity always carries doggedly on, as people would notice if they were not always thinking about themselves.
The 8 week emergency in Japan, everyday, Tokyo's mayor would come out and request everyone to stay home:
So, week in, week out, the prisoners of the plague struggled along as best they could. As we have seen, a few, like Rambert, even managed to imagine that they were acting as free men and that they could still choose. But in reality one could say, at that moment, in the middle of August, that the plague had covered everything. There were no longer any individual destinies, but a collective history that was the plague, and feelings shared by all. The greatest of these were feelings of separation and exile, with all that that involved of fear and rebellion.
Unable to travel anywhere, not able to go back to work or go out to dinner; at least, we have video calls and we can see each other despite the Separation and Exile:
At the start of the plague they remembered the person whom they had lost very well and they were sorry to be without them. But though they could clearly recall the face and the laugh of the loved one, and this or that day when, after the event, they realized they had been happy, they found it very hard to imagine what the other person might be doing at the moment when they recalled her or him, in places which were now so far away. In short, at that time they had memory but not enough imagination. At the second stage of the plague the memory also went. Not that they had forgotten the face, but (which comes to the same thing) it had lost its flesh and they could only see it inside themselves. And while in the early weeks they tended to complain at only having shadows to deal with where their loves were concerned, they realized later that these shadows could become still more fleshless, losing even the details of colour that memory kept of them. After this long period of separation, they could no longer imagine the intimacy that they had shared nor how a being had lived beside them, on whom at any moment they could place their hands.
Looking forward into the future, at a time when this is done and we can get together and look back at the past again:
These were harmless pleasures. But in other cases, the itineraries were more highly charged, when a lover, giving way to the sweet pain of memory, could say to his loved one: ‘Here, at such a time, I wanted you and you were not there.’ You could recognize these passionate tourists: they formed little isles of whispers and confidences in the midst of the bustling crowd around them. And it was they who, better than the bands on the street corners, announced the true deliverance, because these enchanted couples, locked together, sparing of words, proclaimed in the midst of the throng, with all the triumph and injustice of happiness, that the plague was over and that terror had had its day. Against all evidence they calmly denied that we had ever known this senseless world in which the murder of a man was a happening as banal as the death of a fly, the well-defined savagery, the calculated delirium and the imprisonment that brought with it a terrible freedom from everything that was not the immediate present, the stench of death that stunned all those whom it did not kill. In short, they denied that we had been that benumbed people of whom some, every day, stuffed into the mouth of an oven, had evaporated in oily smoke, while the rest, weighed down by the chains of impotence and fear, had waited their turn.
I started re-reading this book in search of a quote about money. The main character, Matthieu, who is strapped for cash and looking for about 40
I started re-reading this book in search of a quote about money. The main character, Matthieu, who is strapped for cash and looking for about 4000 francs for a medical procedure, spends 200 francs on a bottle of champagne. In his inner monologue, Matthieu says that money is like sand and exists only to fall through one's fingers. Atleast, that was my recollection of the quote. On re-reading the book, I realized that there is no such quote in the book at all. Nevertheless, I am glad that I re-read this book. The first time I read this book (back in 2016), I was not very familiar with the tradition of the "novel written by a philosopher," which meant that I did not appreciate much of the philosophy that is sprinkled throughout the book.
What is freedom? Sartre was obsessed with this question. This novel explores this question from the perspectives of characters who are living lives which are normal to the outside world; but even the slightest peek into their inner monologue is a terrifying reminder of the dissonance that can persist within a person's character. For e.g., Their ability to violate principles that they believe in deeply can easily coexist with their belief that these principles form a core part of their identity as a person. In this case, what is the right path for the person? Every character in this book deals with dilemmas like this one.
This time around, I focused on the various characters and how each character is not like-able in their own way. They are all ruthlessly competitive, and their inner monologues are filled with contempt for others. There's Boris who is trying to steal a dictionary. There's Matthieu who doesn't seem to flinch before asking for money, and does not flinch or betray any sense of disappointment when the loan is denied. There's Ivich who is cold, distant and inscrutable throughout, and seems to have only one noticeable thing about her: that she is pretty. No doubt, all of this is intentional. The inner monologues that Sartre has written might be exaggerated versions of the ones running inside the minds of normal people, who are nowhere close to as strange and distant as the characters in this book.
None of the characters is truly likable. In some parts of the book though, I felt some empathy for the situation they were in.
For e.g., at the club, where Boris and Ivich stab themselves with the new knife that Boris has bought for himself. They are both listless and drunk; and it's hard to dismiss their action as reckless behavior, given how thoughtful and well-calculated all of their moves until then had been. (For e.g., Boris' calculation that dancing with an older woman would ignite the jealousy of the young admirer who was sitting in the club.) Their behavior was one way in which they were flirting with suicide; and a masked attempt by Sartre at the existential philosophy that he is famous for (I think).
Another example is with the main character Matthieu himself. He is mostly despicable because he is unfocused and prone to wasting his time, rather than accomplishing a goal. But this flaw in him is a natural tendency and I can relate with his desire to do something completely reckless as he is engaged in a high-stakes struggle, that has pierced through his veneer of "not caring about anything" and turned him into a anxiety-ridden human being. The banality of his position in this moment of crisis is anathema to him. He believed in principles and philosophy; he believed that he had virtues which he would not sell out, no matter what; but when it finally came down to the wire, and he had to choose between stealing money (against his principles) and losing his "freedom" by getting married and becoming Marcelle's husband (also against his principles), he chooses the easy way out and steals the money.
Matthieu's double standards are clarified once again when he advises Ivich: He tells her that she shouldn't wreck her life to save her dignity. But Matthieu himself is ready to marry Marcelle rather than steal the money to prevent that marriage (for a while).
Daniel is another example of a character who is easier to despise. He is incomplete and uncomfortable with his homosexuality. His initial scenes with the cat, his later scenes at the shady location, his refusal to lend Matthieu the money he needs, and his lies to Marcelle about Matthieu's reaction during their discussion of his marriage. All of these are isolated and lack motivation in any direction. He seems to enjoy tormenting Matthieu; but Matthieu is an expert at hiding his anxiety and disappointment, and is adept at depriving Daniel of the pleasure of reacting to his torments with an outburst: something that Daniel tries very hard to provoke.
I heard about this new translation on the Ezra Klein show. Madeline Miller made a very convincing pitch for why this book is relevant today, and why everyone should read this book; especially, the new translation by Emily Wilson. I was looking for something complex to read, that would keep me occupied for the 5 day extended vacation from May 2nd to May 7th (here in Japan). That was my main reason for picking this book up.
The story was simple, it was told at a beautiful, exciting clip. The story moves forward with this incredible, hard-to-believe speed. I am glad I read this book!
The story is fairly simple: Odysseus goes to Troy to fight alongside the Greeks against the Trojans. He's cunning, and extremely shady; he comes up with several clever, "fox-like" plots throughout the story. Every time that he is despairing and cornered somewhere, he comes up with some kind of way to trick the person who has captured him and get out and get back to Ithaca, the place where he was king before he left for Troy.
At home, his wife Penelope and his son Telemachus are waiting for him. Well, sort-of. Telemachus is a child (although he is 20) and doesn't really have much of a spine. Penelope definitely wants him to return, but it also feels like there are moments when she does not really want him to return. She's never really happy throughout the book; even when he comes back and they are re-united, he tests him and then is happy that Odysseus is back; she is very mysterious and does not clarify her position to anyone. And finally, the villains of the story are the suitors: A group of obnoxious young men who are trying to win Penelope's hand in marriage. They have somehow entered Odysseus' house and have started having daily feasts there (???) The concept of someone entering your house just because you are not home and eating from your larder and having a great time in your absense is hard to comprehend. Perhaps it was something that was quite common in Ancient Greece? Exactly how they gained access, and established themself in Odysseus' house is never made clear. They are there at the beginning of the book, and they are an obnoxious bunch.
Odysseus is also very popular with the ladies. Every female character he meets in the story immediately falls for him and wants to keep him tied up wherever they live. Calypso is the goddess who has a lot of power and tries to take his freedom and give him immortality instead; Odysseus is not down. Circe hangs out with him for about a year; then he decides that he wants to leave. Why he didn't decide to leave early, if he really wanted to see his wife and son, is never explained.
Dichotomies
This book has a lot of dichotomies. Odysseus wants to get back home, but he's always having a good time wherever he lands. He shows urgency at some points in the story, but the 1 year he spends with Circe "in her bed" is pretty hard to explain away.
Penelope wants her husband to come back home, she wants Telemachus to be safe and to mature into an adult. She doesn't take any steps towards either end. She is very good at weaving apparently, so she is weaving in her room and weeping into her bed. No concrete steps though.
Telemachus wants to become a man, but he's the most spineless character in the whole book. Every time that someone wants him to do something or decide something, he simply defers to the other person. The most glaring example of this that frustrated me was the one in which Odysseus has finally vanquished all the suitors and asks him to suggest some kind of way to avoid a confrontation with the suitors' families. Telemachus replies promptly:
Telemachus said warily, "You have to work it out. They say you have the finest mind in all the world, no mortal man can rival you in cleverness"
Odysseus was not fishing for compliments man.
And finally, the dichotomy when describing city sackers and pirates.
Strangers, who are you? Where did you sail from? Are you on business, or just scouting round like pirates on the sea, who risk their lives to ravage foreign homes?
This was a pretty jarring line for me. "Risking your lives" is something that we always associate with something noble: like joining the army or becoming a doctor. "Ravaging foreign homes" is obviously very bad and not noble at all. To put both of those in the same line and frame a question is very hard to digest.
Translation
This book isn't very long. It's written in "iambic pentameter" and you can recognize the rhyme in most places, but it doesn't read as a poem. It read likes prose. It's extremely fast-paced. That was the highlight for me. I was able to finish reading this in about 3 days. I was reading slowly and taking notes and making sure that I wasn't missing anything important. Even still, the pace was fast enough that I often ended up reading for 2 hours without noticing the time or page numbers.
I found Madeline Miller's pitch for the book on the Ezra Klein show podcast and her review of the book very useful to understand the goal behind this translation.
One of the things that Homer has in the original is this incredible forward motion. It's an exciting, exciting read. Wilson wanted to keep that galloping speed. -- Madeline Miller (10:15, Ezra Klein Show, 2020-04-23) -- Podcast
Notes
But of course, the English of the nineteenth or early twentieth century is no closer to Homeric Greek than the language of today. The use of a noncolloquial or archaizing linguistic register can blind readers to the real, inevitable, and vast gap between the Greek original and any modern translation.
-- From the translator's note. Wilson gets it absolutely right! I have always wondered why we must use antiquated English in our translations; she does a great job of explaining why that's not useful and serves only to drive people away from reading literature that they would find interesting.
As you know, divine Calypso held me in her cave, wanting to marry me; and likewise Circe, the trickster, trapped me, and she wanted me to be her husband. But she never swayed my heart, since when a man is far from home, living abroad, there is no sweeter thing than his own native land and family.
-- This line was an articulate description of how I have felt every time I have moved away from a place I lived in for a long time. (moving to a new city when I was 10, moving to college when I was 17, moving to Japan when I was 22)
Scowling at him, Odysseus said, “Fool! I did not do you wrong or speak against you. I am not jealous of another beggar receiving gifts, however much he gets. This doorway can accommodate us both. Do not hog all the wealth; it is not yours.20 You seem to be a homeless man, like me. Gods give all mortal blessings. Do not stir me to fight or lose my temper. I am old but I will crack your ribs and smash your face to bloody pulp—then I will have a day of peace tomorrow; you will not return here to the palace of Odysseus.”
Fighting words; "I will crack your ribs and smash your face to bloody pulp" => this is so much better than an action scene.
The text cannot be altered, and the various opinions are often no more than an expression of despair over it.
This text perfectly describes t
The text cannot be altered, and the various opinions are often no more than an expression of despair over it.
This text perfectly describes this book. But the author put it at around the 90% mark, right when the book is about to end and you are starting to understand the kind of closure you will get from this book.
As far as disorienting books go, I have found those with non-linear timelines to be the most disorienting. In particular, you don't know what's going on, you have completely lost your place in the story of the book, you are invested in seeing the main character get out of whatever jam they are in but you have absolutely no clue where to go or which way will take the character forward and which will simply be a regression.
The Trial started (for me) with all of these confusions. K. was arrested, but he could keep working. The men who came to his house to tell him he was arrested were strange and didn't behave as powerful men would have, K. is extremely apologetic to his neighbours and does some strange stuff: visiting a female neighbour at around 11 pm and so on. He is annoyed and confused, just as I was annoyed and confused at the author's disinterest in telling me what was going on.
This feeling never quite goes away, throughout the book. At every step, you think this new character is probably not going to be very important, and they are not, but you get a lot of exposition about them and if it's a female character, they are immediately taken by K.'s looks and fall in love with him. The author even addresses this himself while talking about how all the accused were attractive in one way or another:
this peculiarity of hers consists in this; Leni finds most of the accused attractive. She attaches herself to each of them, loves each of them, even seems to be loved by each of them; then she sometimes entertains me by telling me about them when I allow her to. I am not so astonished by all of this as you seem to be.
The other thing that Kafka does a disturbingly good job at is showing government offices, the people working in them and the way proceedings are handled. I had to visit the Regional Passport Office in Kolkata, India once. And the first trip that K. takes on a Sunday to the court sounded eerily famiiar because it was on a similar errand: I had no idea why I didn't have my passport yet, I had to wait in line from about 10 am to 2 pm, there were a lot of people around me, the clerks in the office were the king-makers that day, the inability to see any of the senior officers in the office who would certainly understand my situation and finally, the breathlessness when you are just inside the door and are not yet used to the universal lack of ventilation.
As a result, the accused and his defence don't have access even to the court records, and especially not to the indictment, and that means we generally don't know - or at least not precisely - what the first documents need to be about, which means that if they do contain anything of relevance to the case it's only by a lucky coincidence.
P.S. The second-last chapter in the cathedral leading up to the ending is weird. It has an anecdote about a doorman and it sounds vaguely similar to K.'s story and experience with the court, but not really.
Some quotes
he admits he doesn't know the law and at the same time insists he's innocent.
-- When stated as literally as that, it seems rather stupid to ever say that one is innocent or that someone else is guilty because no one knows the law. When we say we're innocent, I think we tend to use our value judgement of right and wrong and try to decide what we would classify what we did as; thinking about innocence as something determined by one's value system and not by the written word of law.
He had, of course, begun work straight away and was nearly ready to submit the first documents. They would be very important because the first impression made by the defence will often determine the whole course of the proceedings. Unfortunately, though, he would still have to make it clear to K. that the first documents submitted are sometimes not even read by the court. They simply put them with the other documents and point out that, for the time being, questioning and observing the accused are much more important than anything written.
-- Catch-22 style contradiction! LOVE IT
As a result, the accused and his defence don't have access even to the court records, and especially not to the indictment, and that means we generally don't know - or at least not precisely - what the first documents need to be about, which means that if they do contain anything of relevance to the case it's only by a lucky coincidence.
"After a certain point in the proceedings," said the lawyer quietly and calmly, "nothing new of any importance ever happens. So many litigants, at the same stage in their trials, have stood before me just like you are now and spoken in the same way."
I distinctly remember one thing from Selby’s other book Requiem for a Dream: a lack of punctuation.
It was quite hard to understand the characters and
I distinctly remember one thing from Selby’s other book Requiem for a Dream: a lack of punctuation.
It was quite hard to understand the characters and what they were saying. Their motive was extremely easy to understand though: get the next fix. Throughout the book, the characters run around trying to extend the drug induced state that they were in.
In Last Exit to Brooklyn, the characters are hard to understand. Period. They are living in some of the worst conditions possible and deal with the kinds of internal demons and external despair that is hard to comprehend. The book is structured as 5 or 6 stories about several characters who all live in the same neighbourhood and have run-ins with each other some times. Throughout, the stories are disorienting, the characters are unable to work or do anything consistently except doing drugs or drinking alcohol, which they seem to be doing almost throughout the book.
This was a hard book to read (It took me nearly a month to work up the nerve to get through the final 3 stories after reading the first 3). The book lacks a rigid narrative structure which makes it hard to expect what’s going to happen.
My favorite story was The Strike. Running for about 30% of the book’s length, it is the story of Harry, a lathe operator at a factory in Brooklyn. He is part of the union and that is the most important part of his identity. He doesn’t work, he has trouble at home, he believes that his co-workers respect him when they actually think that he is a weirdo and avoid him as much as they can. The union contract ends and they go into a strike, Harry is put in charge of the strike by the people at the top of the union and this increases his sense of importance; everyone else still sniggers at him and uses him to their own ends (getting him to buy beer or food and expense it to the union and then take off with the food)
I liked the story probably because it was the closest to normality in the whole book (Harry has a huge set of problems that show up in the second part of the story).
The last story “Landsend” has several characters and a distinctly large number of children who are living in “The Project”, an apartment complex for Lower Income families. This story also has two normal characters, Lucy (a mother of 2 trying to stay away from the trouble-makers in The Project) and Ada, an old widow who lost her son to war and her husband to old-age.
Landsend also has two characters from previous stories, Vinnie and Mary who are in a dysfunctional marriage with 2 children. They argue right through the story; their first argument is written normally, and that was anxiety inducing enough because of how dense the prose was and how hopeless the argument was. From the second time they are shown, everything they say is written ALL IN UPPERCASE. This adds something else to their conversation. It’s almost like seeing characters fight on screen about something pointless and something that you know is not going to be resolved and will just lead to more fights. (It was suprirsingly reminiscent of a scene from The Marriage Story (2019) where the two lead characters fight in Charlie’s apartment when they are frustrated with how their divorce proceedings are going in court)
Towards the end, the book has some great pictures of Selby Jr and quotes from him. Reading what he had to say about the “Dark side of the American Dream” and why he wrote the way he did (The lack of punctuation and the constant use of UPPERCASE is a method for him to give the reader an experience instead of just a story) has piqued my interest and I look forward to reading his 2nd and 3rd novels. Not right away though, I need to take a break from this breathless, anxious prose.
P.S. My favourite review excerpt for this book was: “An urgent tickertape from hell” => A PERFECT description.
I found out about this book from Downton Abbey! Season 3, Episode 7:
Mrs. Hughes: In a new place, where she can start again, Ethel has a far more chanc
I found out about this book from Downton Abbey! Season 3, Episode 7:
Mrs. Hughes: In a new place, where she can start again, Ethel has a far more chance of happiness than in re-enacting her own version of the Scarlet Letter at Downton. Violet: Um, what is the scarlet letter? Edith: A novel, by Nathaniel Hawthorne Violet: It sounds most unsuitable
After this exchange, I absolutely had to read it. And it's been hours spent very well indeed. The writing is top class, as would be expected from any novel of the 19th century. Everything is very appropriate, there's always a hint at who the culprit really is, when it was finally revealed, I was stunned, I couldn't believe it, although all along, I did have an inkling of who it was. (as I am quite certain it's not too hard to surmise right from the first page of the book)
A lot of memorable quotes in this book (several of my pages had nearly 70% highlighted!)
The door of the jail being flung open from within there appeared, in the first place, like a black shadow emerging into sunshine, the grim and gristly presence of the town-beadle, with a sword by his side, and his staff of office in his hand.
In a moment, however, wisely judging that one token of her shame would but poorly serve to hide another, she took the baby on her arm, and with a burning blush, and yet a haughty smile, and a glance that would not be abashed, looked around at her townspeople and neighbours
Be not silent from any mistaken pity and tenderness for him; for, believe me, Hester, though he were to step down from a high place, and stand there beside thee, on thy pedestal of shame, yet better were it so than to hide a guilty heart through life.
There is one chapter in the book where the people in the town try to take the child away from Hester. It made me absolutely LIVID. This book reels you in!
If the child, on the other hand, were really capable of moral and religious growth, and possessed the elements of ultimate salvation, then, surely, it would enjoy all the fairer prospect of these advantages by being transferred to wiser and better guardianship than Hester Prynne’s
HELL NO!
Believe me, Hester, there are few things whether in the outward world, or, to a certain depth, in the invisible sphere of thought—few things hidden from the man who devotes himself earnestly and unreservedly to the solution of a mystery.
and
It is a curious subject of observation and inquiry, whether hatred and love be not the same thing at bottom. Each, in its utmost development, supposes a high degree of intimacy and heart-knowledge; each renders one individual dependent for the food of his affections and spiritual fife upon another: each leaves the passionate lover, or the no less passionate hater, forlorn and desolate by the withdrawal of his subject.
Typical romance novel. Extremely good writing. The plot is a drag at some points, but Glyn manages to keep it from being boring. Definitely read if yoTypical romance novel. Extremely good writing. The plot is a drag at some points, but Glyn manages to keep it from being boring. Definitely read if you are into this time period's writing.
A few samples:
"You see, Paul, love is a purely physical emotion," she continued. "We could speak an immense amount about souls, and sympathy, and understanding, and devotion. All beautiful things in their way, and possible to be enjoyed at a distance from one another. All the things which make passion noble—but without love—which is passion— these things dwindle and become duties presently, when the hysterical exaltation cools.
It was a proof of the strength of his character that he did not let the terrible thought of inevitable parting mar the bliss of the tangible now. He had promised her to live while the sun of their union shone, and he had the force to keep his word.
That was part of the wonder of this lady, with all her intense sensuousness and absence of what European nations call morality; there was yet nothing low or degrading in her influence, its tendency was to exalt and elevate into broad views and logical reasonings.
She had known if he knew her place of abode no fear of death would keep him from trying to see her. Ah! he had had the tears—and why not the cold steel and blood? It was no price to pay could he but hear once more her golden voice, and feel her loving, twining arms.
This is the story of a guy from the year he leaves college to the year when he's well settled with a loving wife and a son. He acts as the narrator, aThis is the story of a guy from the year he leaves college to the year when he's well settled with a loving wife and a son. He acts as the narrator, and it frankly sounds like an autobiography rather than a novel.
The foreword to this novel talks about how this is the story of a man, as he goes through life, without any exaggeration or embellishments. That is so true throughout the book. The uncertainty of not having a job, the irritation of working with someone whom you know to be untrue and devious, the love one feels for a woman he knows to be a dear friend and the absolutely relief one feels in the company of one he truly loves and wishes to spend the rest of his life with. This book is everything that a story about a man's life should ideally be. Ups, Downs, Lovers, real-life Villains, sore Friends and honest Well-Wishers.
The book between 40 and 50% was boring, it was meandering but then Bronte pulled it all together starting in Chapter 19. I am pretty sure chapter 19 is one of the best pieces I have read in a while now. It was exhilarating to see the words flow through, unencumbered by any hesitation either in the author's mind or pen. A couple specimens from the chapter. First, the opening paragraph:
Novelists should never allow themselves to weary of the study of real life. If they observed this duty conscientiously, they would give us fewer pictures chequererd with vivid contrasts of light and shade; they would seldom elevate their heroes and heroines to the heights of rapture -- still seldomer sink them to the depths of despair; for if we rarely taste the fullness of joy in this life, we yet more rarely savor the acrid bitterness of hopeless anguish; unless, indeed, we have plunged like beasts into sensual indulgence, abused, strained, stimulated, again over-strained, and, at last, destroyed our faculties for enjoyment; then, truly, we may find ourselves without support, robbed of hope.
I felt, as well as saw, who it was; and, moving neither hand nor foot, I stood some moments enjoying the security of conviction. I had sought her for a month, and had never discovered one of her traces -- never met a hope, or seized a chance of encountering her anywhere. I had been forced to loosen my grasp on expectation; and, but an hour ago, had sunk slackly under the discouraging thought that the current of life, and the impulse of destiny, had swept her forever from my reach; and, behold, while bending suddenly earthward beneath the pressure of despondency -- while following with my eyes the track of sorrow on the turf of a graveyard -- here was my lost jewel dropped on the tear-fed herbage, nestling in the messy and mouldy roots of yew-trees.
And yet one more, her reaction as she sees her long-lost master, whom she was barred from seeing by the most devious Reuter.
Amazement had hardly opened her eyes and raised them to mine, ere Recognition informed their irids with most speaking brightness. Nervous surprise had hardly discomposed her features ere a sentiment of most vivid joy shone clear and warm on her whole countenance. I had hardly time to observe that she was wasted and pale, ere called to feel a responsive inward pleasure by the sense of most full and exquisite pleasure glowing in the animated flush, and shining in the expansive light, now diffused over my pupil's face. It was the summer sun flashing out after the heavy summer shower; and what fertilizes more rapidly than that beam, burning almost like fire in its ardor?
Wuthering Heights was a great novel, a great story with the villain Heathcliff and the poor heroine of that story. This novel is a complete opposite with nothing exaggerated anywhere in this book.
Oh, this was so good! It was very Austen-like; considering that these books were written around the same time, I am not at all surprised that's the caOh, this was so good! It was very Austen-like; considering that these books were written around the same time, I am not at all surprised that's the case. Bronte is a lot more subtle and there's only one hero and one heroine, there are not multiple changes as in typically-Austen novels.
This book was a complete roller coaster. You can complete empathize with Jane and the things she has to go through. Several chapters (especially the ones in which she roams around England without money or prospects) are hard to read, because of how impersonally she tells her own story. There's no self-pity or the recognition of a mistake.
Lady Ingram is one hell of an irritating character (Mary from Downton Abbey is completely inspired from her, but a lighter version of Ingram). Jane's friend at Lowood is a heart warming character. These two are the typical roller coaster's low and high points. And this happens a few times through the book.
There are several highlights in this book that are heart wrenching; they (probably) accurately describe the pain that one who has spent most of her life feeling excluded.
* I don't think, sir, you have a right to command me, merely because you are older than I, or because you have seen more of the world than I have; your claim to superiority depends on the use you have made of your time and experience.
Oh Jane, *_*
* As if loveliness were not the special prerogative of woman -- her legitimate appanage and heritage! I grant an ugly woman is a blot on the fair face of creation; but as to the gentlemen, let them be solicitous to possess only strength and valor: let their motto be -- hunt, shoot, and fight: the rest is not worth a fillip. Such should be my device, were I a man.
Ingram says this, and I have scribbled "STFU" next to this highlight.
* But I affirm that you are: so much depressed that a few more words would bring tears to your eyes -- indeed they are there now, shining and swimming and a bead has slipped from the lash and fallen on to the flag.
* How people feel when they are returning home from an absence, long or short, I did not know: I had never experienced the sensation.
* This was very pleasant; there is no happiness like that of being loved by your fellow-creatures, and feeling that your presence is an addition to their comfort.
** I tell you I must go! Do you think I can stay to become nothing to you? DO you think I am an automaton? A machine without feelings? ... Do you think, because I am poor, obscure, plain, and little, I am soulless and heartless? You think wrong! I have as much soul as you, -- and weather, I should have made it as hard for you to leave me, as it is now for me to leave you.
* Diana had a voice toned, to my ear, like the cooing of a dove. SHe possessed eyes whose gaze I delighted to encounter. Her whole face seemed to me full of charm. Mary's countenance was equally intelligent -- her features equally pretty; but her expression was more reserved, and her manners, though gentle, more distant.
Towards the end of the book, Jane seems to fall in love with Diana and Rosamund. Being plain herself, Jane has been very fair on the beautiful women in her life. It's cute to watch her describe them, without wanting to be like them....more
This book was on my list since Ishiguro won the Nobel prize. And then, Kalyan recommended it. So, I got right to it. I liked it a lot. It was a welcomThis book was on my list since Ishiguro won the Nobel prize. And then, Kalyan recommended it. So, I got right to it. I liked it a lot. It was a welcome change from my lately formed chain of serious non fiction books. This book is serious in it's own sense, so don't think it's all fun and games just yet. Ishiguro says a lot in this book about old age, job satisfaction and contentment without explicitly saying anything on any matter related to these.
There's this quote that appears in several places: "Life is best understood in retrospect. The cruel joke is that we must live it in the direction we least understand." This means that the journals we write, the diaries we fill with entries (that for some, start with "Dear Diary") are always without a plot, they are a set of entries that define particular points in your life. There is no consideration for what might happen next. Today, you might be writing about the great pasta you had for dinner, and tomorrow, the world might come crashing around you. Would you then delete the pasta entry and instead, write "I have an ominous feeling when I see these storm clouds. They are gray to the point of appearing black to the paranoid eye."?
Of course not. And that's the way this book is written. As Mr. Stevens, an English butler in a large house that has lost it's splendor and is now owned by an American, takes a road trip through "Great" Britain, he writes down various journal entries in various places. These are well constructed pieces of prose, I almost believed that they hadn't been edited to read so well and fit each other perfectly when read as a book. The journal entries tend to go into the past and pull out memories, then switch back and forth between various timelines. There's the ominous event that happened to his old boss; the thing that happened between him and the old housekeeper, the only woman in the book that he talks about; the time England's PM came to "his" house. All of these are tied together by the only common thread: the narrator, Mr. Stevens.
If you want to sit back and read what someone else's diary would read like, if they were able to edit their diary entries later without affecting the content just to make the prose better, this book is for you.
A few quotes from the book that I can't not mention.
Even in Downton Abbey, Carson used to take himself WAY too seriously:
The butler’s pantry, as far as I am concerned, is a crucial office, the heart of the house’s operations, not unlike a general’s headquarters during a battle, and it is imperative that all things in it are ordered – and left ordered – in precisely the way I wish them to be. I have never been that sort of butler who allows all sorts of people to wander in and out with their queries and grumbles. If operations are to be conducted in a smoothly co-ordinated way, it is surely obvious that the butler’s pantry must be the one place in the house where privacy and solitude are guaranteed.
For all his talk about manners in the book, he really disappoints when he doesn't offer his condolences to Kenton and then, goes on to bash her for some "error":
‘For my part, Miss Kenton, whenever new recruits arrive, I like to make doubly sure all is well. I check all aspects of their work and try to gauge how they are conducting themselves with other staff members. It is, after all, important to form a clear view of them both technically and in terms of their impact on general morale. I regret to say this, Miss Kenton, but I believe you have been a little remiss in these respects.’
A quote about Britain:
‘We’re always the last, Stevens. Always the last to be clinging on to outmoded systems. But sooner or later, we’ll need to face up to the facts. Democracy is something for a bygone era. The world’s far too complicated a place now for universal suffrage and such like. For endless members of parliament debating things to a standstill. All fine a few years ago perhaps, but in today’s world? What was it Mr Spencer said last night? He put it rather well.’
Hear hear!
For it is, in practice, simply not possible to adopt such a critical attitude towards an employer and at the same time provide good service.
for a great many people, the evening was the best part of the day, the part they most looked forward to. And as I say, there would appear to be some truth in this assertion, for why else would all these people give a spontaneous cheer simply because the pier lights have come on?
P.S. You will find out why the name of the book is what it is in the last chapter. So, hang on!
At the end of this book, Ishiguro managed to completely confuse me about what he / Mr. Stevens thought about England. He is loyal to his boss who seems to think England is outdated, and at the same time, believes his own argument that Britain is Great. I have a nagging feeling that this is intentionally done, to throw the reader....more
I knew nothing about Moravia and no one close to me had read it. The reviews on GR were cryptic and some said they loved it and some said they hated hI knew nothing about Moravia and no one close to me had read it. The reviews on GR were cryptic and some said they loved it and some said they hated him and it was a total waste of their time. So I was going in blind on this one.
It was a GREAT book. It's soft philosophy and fast paced (relative to novels like Age of Reason). The main character is delightful to read about, and the heroine (also the antagonist?), his wife, is described precisely as she is.
This book is about a troubled writer (who isn't really good at writing) and a troubled couple (that isn't really good at marriage). The writing feels amazing and like a masterpiece when being done, but afterwards only it's sad mediocre-ness remains. The same thing happens between the two of them during love making. The parallels are intricately drawn and nothing (not a significant amount, at least) is left to the reader's imagination.
That the hero was also a literary critic at a point of time is enlightening and it also gives you an idea of the shadow that the act of creation casts on the other parts of your brain, the more reasonable ones, the analytical ones, for lack of a better way to categorize the non-creative parts of our brain.
Through the length of the book, we know about both the hero Silvio and his wife Leda. We know everything about them including their quirks and as both of them say: "When one loves a person, one loves every aspect of that person - defects and all."
The rest of the book makes sense, one aspect remains mysterious though. In the beginning of the book, there is an extended account of this look of contempt, more a complete change in Leda's face and body, that "arise from fright at some unexpected, sudden, lightning-like occurrence". The description of this is long and goes over all the details, it's fun to read about, but it is never again referred to in the book. Not even when you most expect it to happen (when he reveals something to her, when something disrespectful happens with someone, etc) Why was it there? There might be a parallel I might be missing or maybe there is some deeper level at which the whole thing might look radically different from what it does on the surface.
Some quotes:
Soon I realized that there were only two things that could save me - the love of a woman and artistic creation
Note that there is no "or" here, this might be something Moravia overlooked, got Lost in Translation, or something he put in specifically. Silvio needs both, perhaps?
And I would realize that in reality I had not loved or written so much as wished to love and to write.
There's always something false and humiliating in a success amongst one's own family, amongst people whose affection makes them indulgent and partial: a mother, a sister, a wife are always ready to recognize in us the genius that others obstinately deny us, but at the same time their praises do not satisfy us, and we sometimes feel them to be more bitter than frank condemnation
Obsessions either close up like abscesses which can find no outlet and slowly mature until their final, terrible outburst, or else, in more healthy persons, they find, sooner or later, some adequate means of elimination
In the end I said to myself that there was something mysterious about him; but not more so than in the case of many people of the working class, to whom wealthier people like to attribute thoughts and cares that match their position and then find that they are engrossed by the same things that matter to everybody
I wanted everything to go on undisturbed and unchanged as long as I was working. I wanted nothing to come and upset the state of profound quietness which, rightly or wrongly, I considered to be absolutely indispensable if my work were to go well
and finally,
If you could look inside people's heads you'd see that everyone's got some woman or other ... but no one wants to talk about them, because if you do, it gets known and then people start gossiping ... And women, as you know, only trust the ones who don't talk
There are several other good quotes (this is only till 40%, I am tired of typing it out, I will link the PDF here perhaps)
I am definitely going to sign up for more Moravia....more
After nearly 20 days of struggling with this book because it was so slow and absolutely refused to budge somewhere around 30% till 55%, I am finally dAfter nearly 20 days of struggling with this book because it was so slow and absolutely refused to budge somewhere around 30% till 55%, I am finally done with it.
The writing was good, it was not stellar or anything like that, there was a lot of metaphor-y stuff and so many inner monologues (almost the whole book is the inner monologue of one character or the other). The plot was unmoving in the first half (it covers about 1.5 hours from noon to half past 1, in the book) and then the second half speeds along and frankly, I am happy it did!
I am rather underwhelmed, probably because of the hype around Woolf's writing etc. It's just too slow and insufferable for me. (Oh, BTW I love Austen. So, it's *slower* than Austen's work, which is saying some.)
Mrs. Dalloway is a pretty bitter woman and almost at the end of her wit. She throws parties, doesn't know why. She keeps flitting around in her own party, not engaging in any real conversation with the people she actually knows and might want to talk to probably because she's afraid and wants to keep everything surafce-y.
Walsh loves her and was deeply dented by her rejection. All Walsh can talk about is how great it would have been if he had married Mrs. Dalloway. Sally Seton checks out by marrying some guy who's richer and can take care of her and keeps poking fun at Walsh not getting Clarissa and Richard getting her. Richard is totally 1D, I know nothing about him. And everyone seems to hate Hugh, or maybe it's just Walsh.
I now realize that this book was more Mr. Walsh than Mrs. Dalloway. Read at your own peril, if you have a few hours and are bored enough to not mind being bored out of your wits....more
Well, this book is a roller coaster ride! It starts with hate and ends (of course!) with love, but there are twists in the middle of the book too!
The Well, this book is a roller coaster ride! It starts with hate and ends (of course!) with love, but there are twists in the middle of the book too!
The main difference in this book is that everyone is older, and more mature, and less "stunning". Both Emma Woodhouse and Elinor Dashwood were considered to be considerably pretty, maybe not so much as her peers in the case of Elinor, but they were both young and sufficiently beautiful to not have to worry about whether there would be suitors.
Anne Elliot is 28 and single. The suitors will no doubt come, if not because she's pretty then because she is well-read, composed and so so humble! Also, Anne has this delicate skill of getting with anyone who's new in the party and get them to talk. We see this with Benwick, with Louisa and Henrietta, most of all with the Crofts. She's so humble and fun to hang-out with, everyone wants to do it once they have started! (all in the context of the late 18th century!)
Walter Elliot and Elizabeth are both are lovely people to HATE ON! They are so vain about their own status in life, and despite being poor they want everyone to praise them, and they will praise them in return simply because that's how they want it to be, there's no real "point" to their behavior which infuriates me more! But they are lovely people to hate.
Mr. William Elliot, oh what to say of him! He is one hell of a guy. He starts out, hates the Elliots (doesn't really know Anne then), then beholds Anne, falls for her, sees that he can achieve two goals with in one single opportunity, goes for it! Particularly, after their matter is settled and he moves to London, the fact that he convinces Mrs. Clay to go with him and abandon the two eldest Elliots to their mirrors and their vanity, that demands the at most respect, even from a hater. He's the definition of a hustler, he's so determined to get the baronage, he would do anything and convince anyone for it. Impressive!
Lady Russell is the object of the title of this novel and her wrong persuasion was bad once, and I am glad Anne didn't ask her again, 8 years on. Her guilt at separating a young couple at the ripe age of 20 and the guilt of depriving them of 8 years of happy married life is the punishment she will carry with her for life.
3 down, 3 to go. I must reiterate, I LOVE AUSTEN!...more
This book has been a roller coaster, almost similar to Emma with the expected disappointment at 50% and the shock at 80% and the climax at 90%. It's bThis book has been a roller coaster, almost similar to Emma with the expected disappointment at 50% and the shock at 80% and the climax at 90%. It's been a completely different book in every other aspect though.
For one, we get to spend a lot of time listening to what Elinor is thinking and feeling! This was something that was a sore point with me in Emma where we were getting other's estimation of her a lot and not her own estimation of herself and the way she came to her decisions.
That said, Elinor is too good to be true. She's too composed, too restrained, too well organised about hiding her emotions, however strong.
Marianne is typically Austen-naive and the ending she gets is fitting. Put the ending she gets in the light of everything she said in the first 30% of the book and you will realise that it fits. (Psst, psst, it's ... I am not going to spoil this for anyone. It's too good for that!)
Another important character is Lucy Steele. Oh my God, Lucy, you pulled a fast one on EVERYONE! While the doubts lingered, there was never certainty. And when certainty came, it was a twist that shocked me as much as it must have shocked Elinor and Mrs. Dashwood. Lucy, YOU are the REAL deal. Deception queen Lucy Steele, I shall say no more.
Finally, the guys. Colonel Brandon, Edward, Robert and Willoughby. W, EF and CB had dimensions to their characters but I still associate one or three emotional states to each of them, so perhaps this could have been better. I really wanted to know how EF was at 24, and how CB came to be how he is and how W came to enjoy the expensive lifestyle when he himself fell out of Mrs. Smith's favour far earlier. These are all doubts that remain un-answered even after the book. Robert Ferrars is a simple 1D arrogant, self-centred bad guy. (Okay, not bad, just a bit evil and morals-less)
This book gets a solid 5, it managed to keep me engaged through about 400 pages and with a story moving as slowly as it did, that was no mean feat....more
This book is pretty well acclaimed. There was a Criminal Podcast about the author, Raymond Chandler. And the kind of passion that the people in this pThis book is pretty well acclaimed. There was a Criminal Podcast about the author, Raymond Chandler. And the kind of passion that the people in this podcast had for the author really intrigued me as to what really made them love an author so much.
I was underwhelmed. It was a great story, there is no doubt about that. It was perfect, there was a problem, a solution, some more problems, a more complex solution, and finally, the detective (Marlowe) figures out the solution to the problem that's been dangling around for a while now. It's just that I thought it would be more about Marlowe and less about the case.
I expected more inner monologues about what Marlowe was thinking and less detailing about the Sternwood's gardens.
It's a great book, I just went in with the wrong expectations....more
At 210 pages, this is a stellar mystery. I didn't know anything about the history that this book is centered around. That made the book slightly harderAt 210 pages, this is a stellar mystery. I didn't know anything about the history that this book is centered around. That made the book slightly harder to follow in the beginning with all the different names and numbers being thrown around alongwith some family names and references that perhaps only people schooled in British history would recognize. As the book proceeds though, that gets easier to follow.
The last climactic part (sort of) of the book takes a turn for an amazing ending. The process of reasoning to reach at the conclusion is really interesting to watch.
There wasn't a lot of "quotable" material in the book with the plot being king, but even then Tey managed to sneek (sneak?) in a few lines that were GOOOOOOD:
(after Brent sees Marta out of the hospital room) Grant wondered if even the female-ridden American felt a subconscious relief at settling down to a stag party
The presumptions behind this line and Alan Grant's being British all contribute to my love for it.
He gathered his train from either side of him on to his knees with a gesture that both Marta and King Richard might have envied
A lot of fanfare is made about Brent's coat and it's train.
It's an odd thing but when you tell someone the true facts of a mythical tale they are indignant not with the teller but with you. They don't want to have their ideas upset. It rouses some vague uneasiness in them ...
To The Amazon all telegrams conveyed evil tidings
This was very well the case just a few years ago. Now, it's push notifications one is jumpy about.
Spoilers begin here. Don't read after this if you plan on reading this book ever, it will totally kill the mystery in the book
It was remarkable how that atmosphere of family feeling permeated the whole story. All the way from Cicely's journeyings about in her husband's company, to her son's free acknowledgement of his brother George's boy as his heir
The boys whom he was supposed to have put down as he would put down twin foals were Edward's sons, children he must have know personally and well. TO Henry, on the other hand, they were mere symbols. Obstacles on a path.
All questions of character apart, the choice between the two men as suspects might almost be decided on that alone
Jane Austen was a mysterious writer to me. She was talked of universally, she was admired everywhere. A character, evTHE HYPE IS REAL. AUSTEN IS GREAT.
Jane Austen was a mysterious writer to me. She was talked of universally, she was admired everywhere. A character, even one like Amy Dunne (Gone Girl, Gillian Flynn) wanted men to read Austen and learn something from them. The movie of one of her books, Pride and Prejudice, was GREAT!
Emma is a 450 page book, it's a delight to read. Set in late 18th century England, there's no need to say that it is set in a different world. That world is infinitely more formal, more proper and more delightful in almost all its ways and traditions! That has been the most important thing for me, from this book.
The formal undertone of all the exchanges, Isabella referring to her father as "Sir", the forceful mention of societal classes and someone's place in society depending on their inheritance, the purity of their blood and the size of their ancestral home. All of these make this book a great read, but at the same time, you can't help feeling like there's something off about the system: About how Jane Fairfax must cry because being a governess is her only resort, or how most people feel Harriet Smith is worth only Robert Martin and not even someone like Mr. Elton. If Austen meant for her reader to actually feel that, I am not sure. She succeeded, nonetheless.
But coming then, to the actual story of the book. The third volume of the book is by far the fastest moving with a story that rolls on and on with people matching up and marrying, left and right. The first two volumes both end in deep disappointment and surprisingly, it's Emma herself(!!) whose fate lies in jeopardy at the end Volume 2.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
The book though, ends in a really sweet place. Emma pairs up with someone who is worthy of her and their match is very becoming, indeed!
The topic of women and marriage is the overpowering centre of this book and if you don't want to read formal chats about why it is inappropriate for someone to speak loudly at the dinner table, or why a particular person's pale complexion says a lot more than just that she isn't well, this book isn't for you.
If you are unsure, definitely read it! I look forward to reading more of Austen! (I wish her books were shorter though) ...more
This book was well worth the effort of getting through the first 20%! The book is really slow to get started and is incredibly stagnant introducing chThis book was well worth the effort of getting through the first 20%! The book is really slow to get started and is incredibly stagnant introducing characters that mostly just sleep and lounge around (Allison, not their cat). But then, when the book introduces Loyal Reese and Eugene Ratliff, everything changes. The book gains some pace that it desperately needs and we finally get to see the people who will form the rest of the book.
The book is arguably about Robin's death. But it's more about how Harriet dealt with it as a toddler who doesn't remember much from that time (although she can come up with memories that are so uncannily true that everyone else is shocked). Harriet grows up in a dysfunctional household where she has to deal with this herself without any support. And like almost every single child, the one thing she cannot know is the one thing she is obsessed to find out. The mystery part of the book ends almost as soon as it begins and she writes down the name of her "first" suspect: Danny Ratliff.
I felt bad about what Danny went through himself when he narrates the story of his life with an abusive father, a psycho elder brother, a discouraging grandmother who is always hovering everything that is going on in the cramped trailer (my skin crawled at the description and I felt claustrophobic just reading about their living arrangements!) Nonetheless, as a child, he does something most children do: get attention by becoming notorious. It's really strange that this comes back to haunt him almost 20 years later. Also, he is implicated in the church fire by Ida Rhew, but that isn't given much importance at all, not even Harriet seems too concerned about that. The line in which Danny confesses to doing something he didn't understand is heartbreaking:
As an afterthought, he drew himself in the picture too, off to the side. He’d let Robin down, he felt. Usually the maid wasn’t around on Sundays, but that day, she was. If he hadn’t let her chase him off, earlier in the afternoon, then Robin might still be alive.
Farish is an interesting paranoid guy on drugs. Eugene is interesting because of his constant see-saw game with right-wrong. Loyal is feverish about his devotion. Hely is happy-go-lucky and the guy who got out at the right time. Harriet is ... Well, Harriet is just a 12 year old with a free summer on her hands.
Tartt does the thing that she has done in both her other books: She starts out slow and gives an explosive climax. As an added advantage, this book's climax is a dark comedy in which Farish and Danny come to blows over things that happen solely because Harriet exists. In their drug-fueled haze, even a turned leaf appears as an ominous sign of impending doom. Danny and Harriet are connected in the most abstract way possible and Danny spends most of his time in the climax figuring this out:
No, it wasn’t his imagination: the girl had vanished off the face of the earth in the weeks after Gum’s accident, when he’d driven the town looking for her. But now: think of her, mention her and there she was, glowing at a distance with that black Chinese haircut and those spiteful eyes.
Sadly, I don't think he even knows that Harriet was Robin's sister at the end of the book. Somethings, like who killed Robin, are simply unknowable.
Some quotes from the book:
“What’s your problem, Harriet?” It grieved Hely that she never did what he wanted to do. He wanted to walk through the narrow path in the tall grass with her, holding hands and smoking cigarettes like grown people, their bare legs all scratched and muddy. Fine rain and a fine white froth blown up around the edge of the reeds.
It was something like a small black goblin—scarcely three feet tall, with orange beak and big orange feet, and a strangely drenched look. As the car went by, it turned in a smooth tracking motion and opened its black wings like a bat . . . and Danny had the uncanny sensation that he’d met it before, this creature, part blackbird, part dwarf, part devilish child; that somehow (despite the improbability of such a thing) he remembered it from somewhere.
It was pathetic now, to think back on how he’d looked forward to his release from jail, counting the days until he got to go home, because the thing he hadn’t understood then (he was happier not knowing it) was that once you were in prison, you never got out. People treated you like a different person; you tended to backslide, the way people tended to backslide into malaria or bad alcoholism.
Coming from Eugene, this really surprised me: (probably signaling the weight shifting back to the other side of the see-saw)
There was no point in hanging around upstairs and calling attention to himself. He would go back upstairs once that painted-up whore went off shift.
Finally,
A weight lay upon her, and a darkness. She’d learned things she never knew, things she had no idea of knowing, and yet in a strange way it was the hidden message of Captain Scott: that victory and collapse were sometimes the same thing.
Um, okay. I read this because I wanted to understand what Communism really is. It covers "What it is" for maybe 1 section, but does a comparative studUm, okay. I read this because I wanted to understand what Communism really is. It covers "What it is" for maybe 1 section, but does a comparative study of it with the other prevalent schools of thought of that time (1844) for the remaining part. The first two sections were really good, and serve as a good primer on Communism and what's expected of Communists.
The third and fourth section are mainly comparative studies with the different types of Socialism. I know hardly anything about Socialism, so onwards to the next "this type of book" about Socialism, I guess!...more
100 pages about the state of the soldiers who capture towns, the people in these towns, the Mayor, Doctor and other people who were in power in these 100 pages about the state of the soldiers who capture towns, the people in these towns, the Mayor, Doctor and other people who were in power in these towns. The craziness that the conquerers descend into (which was so well written in Catch-22) is captured in an almost identical manner in 1/4th the number of pages. A free afternoon ahead? Definitely go for this book.
Fun fact:
In Fascist Italy, mere possession of a copy of the book was punishable by death
From the back-cover of a copy of this book. Such books must not be shelved for tomorrow, they HAVE to be read today....more
Right off the bat, there's one thing to acknowledge right away. All the characters in this book are profoundly unPhew. This is a dense book. So dense.
Right off the bat, there's one thing to acknowledge right away. All the characters in this book are profoundly unhappy, about their lives, they are uncertain about their future, they are always obsessing over the people they know and want to be close to, they want to suffer, they want to see others suffer, it's a huge set of Bipolar people who are always in a love-hate relationship with everyone else. The only exception is perhaps the Ivich-and-Boris relationship, they are always with each other, no matter what, but even Boris agrees at one point that although he doesn't understand all the allusions Ivich makes, it's better to pretend to understand to keep the spell going.
The book ends on a high note, a note that I never thought would come in this kind of a book. I was more or less prepared for an ending that would leave most of the people unhappy, but atleast a few people were happy. I will leave you guessing as to who they were.
And finally, Sartre and Existentialism. The whole book is spewed with inner monologues by Mathieu, Daniel, Boris (only the male characters, probably because Sartre himself couldn't write from a female perspective. Well done there!), about the characterisitcs of being trule free, they know that it has eluded them, and they might never get there, but that doesn't stop them from thinking about what they could do to get there, what things they might have let go of, and what they would definitely have to gain. Mathieu at one point talks about suffering and how he still needs to suffer a lot more, Boris wants everything to be picture-perfect, and the way it is all the time, Daniel wants to die because he is annoyed and ashamed with himself, and thinks that doing that one thing will finally let him be free. It's elusive and none of them get to it in this book at least, but this is a series of 3 books.
I certainly plan to read more Sartre. This flavor of philosophy is different from Albert Camus' The Rebel, which I was barely able to get past 50 pages of. That was heavy, devoid of plot or characters and filled with philosophical ramblings. Sartre's plot-related philosophical rambling is easier to digest, and although it is an acquired taste, the size of his books and the allure of his characters does make the time spent on it worthwhile!...more
The writing was unbearably slow and unnecessary in a few parts of the book. The two stories that really stood out were Grandparenting, which I think iThe writing was unbearably slow and unnecessary in a few parts of the book. The two stories that really stood out were Grandparenting, which I think is the absolute best short story in the book and Your Lover Just Called, which is just this bear animosity and almost hatred that both of them emit towards each other.
The last story Grandparenting also had two of these lines that are so so quotable:
Speaking of his firstborn, Judith:
Judith had been born in England, ... She was the first baby he had ever held; he had thought it would be a precarious experience, shot through with fear of dropping something so precious and fragile, but no, in even the smallest infant there was an adhesive force, a something that actively fit your arms and hands, banishing the fear. ... We are in this together, Dad, the baby's body had assured him, and we'll both get through it.
And the last line in the book, talking of his newborn grandson:
And the child's miniature body did adhere to his chest and arms, though more weakly than the infants he had presumed to call his own. Nobody belongs to us, except in memory
yeah. I completed the book today. it was a short book, when you look at the page count. but it's really long if you enlist the topics that FD touches yeah. I completed the book today. it was a short book, when you look at the page count. but it's really long if you enlist the topics that FD touches on.
while White Nights was perhaps an introduction to FD-esk scenarios, this book was a lot more about sublime and beautiful prose, narrated by an unbelievably cross and anxious and spiteful man, who is poor, doesn't have any family, doesn't have friends either.
despite all of this, he managed to convince me that although he was at fault it was probably not as high in magnitude as I would have thought during the first few chapters.
i highlighted a lot of this book. that's probably because FD's style dictates the narration of basic truths and startling realities in much the same manner.
specifically, I loved the connection between his essay about revenge in general and his own personal revenge that comes later in the book. and the few pages he spends telling Liza about the joys of family. he was almost likeable there. but then, well, read the book, you shall find out and be disappointed for yourself....more
The beginning of this book is fascinating science fiction. And then, the book moves slowly into a spiral of amazing writing that it never recovers froThe beginning of this book is fascinating science fiction. And then, the book moves slowly into a spiral of amazing writing that it never recovers from. The book gets progressively better and better. The number of Shakespeare quotations increase and the splitting of the life that is lived in London is presented, and eventually, it's death alone that can save people who want to be unhappy and undergo struggles from a world with drug-induced happiness, where everyone belongs to everyone else....more
Loading...
