Brain Pain discussion
This topic is about
If on a Winter's Night a Traveller
If On A Winter's Night - Sp 2015
>
Discussion - Week Two - If on a winter's night a traveller - Ch. 5-7
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Jim
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Nov 09, 2015 02:45AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
"There's a boundary line: on one side are those who make books, on the other those who read them. I want to remain one of those who read them, so I take care always to remain on my side of the line. Otherwise, the unsullied pleasure of reading ends, or at least is transformed into something else, which is not what I want..."True, or False?
Mod
A good question to ask in this era of self-published authors, online beta readers, and amateur reviewers à la Goodreads. Ludmilla would not be pleased.
False, imo, and as I think Calvino makes increasingly clear as the books(s) progresses. And that was before the ease of epublishing we have now.
I think Calvino is often fond of showing two sides of the same coin, and so I take this idea as expressive of at least a partial truth, or else a fear. I think that it's natural for a writer to feel that being intimate with the writing process can contaminate one's reading, if in reading one is reading for the purpose of development rather than purely for aesthetic enjoyment... but what may be even more of an issue is that editing and being involved in the production/promotion aspects of books makes books into work, so that one can rarely read just to read, and one may find it quite difficult to switch off the editorial perspective while reading.Maybe.
But on the other hand, one hopes that being a good critic and a writer/lover of literature can also enrich the experience.
Maybe.
This certain quote from Ludmilla surely brought a smile to my face, as I am similarly compulsive when it comes to the makers of my forms of entertainment. I never read the flap jackets, never look at the author's photos, I even love it, that on my kindle I never know, how long a book is l, thus completely omitting real-world-thoughts like "isn't it time for the climax?", "is on of the book's figures the face of the author?" or even "can I confirm what other authors said about this book?". I simply do not care, it even taints my secluded experience as I love diving into a book completely, lose myself in it and never even consider it being a fabrication. It maybe facilitates the fact that meta-fiction seems to be my favourite genre (house of leaves, straka and now the great traveler before us). Only through this kind of "constraint" or "austereness" can I fully enjoy the book's I read. Thus making Ludmilla a person I'd really like to meet and sit down to just read and talk.
Zadignose wrote: ""There's a boundary line: on one side are those who make books, on the other those who read them....True, or False? "
I remember meeting Douglas Adams as a teenager. He was doing a book-signing, for Dirk Gently I think, and I waited in line with a dutiful copy of the hardback. He may have been my favorite author at the time (hey, I was like fifteen).
When I got to the front of the line, I realized I had nothing to say to the guy. As in, I wanted to read his books, not talk to him. Plus, you know, it's a PR stop, it's not like meeting the author by chance in a pub. That might have been more interesting.
So, I guess I would say True -- though I may want to revisit this when discussing Chapter 8.
I hope there doesn't come too firm a line between writers and readers, let's put it like that. Then readers might be reluctant to challenge themselves (the whole "easy read equals good read" thing I've never cared for) and if writers don't read I can't imagine them being any good.
My first thoughts on starting chapter 5:"The polymorphic-perverse sexuality..."
"The laws of a market economy..."
"The homologies of the signifying structures..."
"Deviation and institutions..."
"Castration..."
...and we're back to Freud.
Also: I really do not miss university. That psuedo-list rings too true.
Chapter 7 has a nice turnabout, referring to the Other Reader (Ludmilla) as You, which is a bit jarring. A token attempt at appearing to write for an audience, instead of the single Reader?
Something about the second-person was bothering me, and somewhere around chapter 6 or 7 I realized what it was. This reads like the parts of a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book that don't give you choices, where the 'you' is doing things you don't necessarily agree with, but you are stuck following along out of narrative necessity, because you made a choice back on page 49 and the next choice won't appear until page 17.
I have found that there are some things that, without prompting, I remember from my first read of this book, but there are others that I come back to me only upon rereading. Of the things that I remembered well, there were some of the perverse erotic/vulgar moments, as well as the comparison of two types of writers who envy one another (I haven't gotten there yet, but I remember).Notably, though, I had forgotten the Looks Down in the Gathering Shadow part, including the remarkably perverse moment when they have sex in the car with the corpse of the murdered man falling on them and staring lifelessly the whole time. Wow. The whole absurd story in which they just can't get away from the physical presence of Jojo was amazingly ridiculous.
Also, this is a winning sentence to include in any novel:
"I knew she was working nightclubs, but the idea that she exhibits herself in public with a crocodile seems to me the last thing a father could wish as the future of his only daughter; at least for a man like me, who had a Protestant upbringing."
Additionally:A cold-reader often employs ambivalence to score a "hit." He or she might say: "You have a strong inner confidence, but sometimes events occur which challenge this confidence; you may not be inclined to consider yourself a confident person, or you may be hesitant to say so."
Now, whether you are confident, or not confident, or if you believe your confidence is occasionally "challenged" (whatever that means), you can see this as a "hit," or else, based on further conversation, the cold-reader (psychic/medium/detective/stage magician/psycho-analyst) can refer back to this as if it were a hit.
Also it has the advantage of embedding a compliment, and everyone likes a compliment.
Calvino is the Lord of Ambivalence, but he especially seems to be playing a cold-reading game in describing the "Other Reader" through an analysis of her home and furnishings (while neglecting her books). He seems to say a lot while saying nothing, and he creates a context into which one can project any image of a character or self (except perhaps for a character so extreme that it allows for no ambivalence--but there aren't many people like that, are there?).
Observing your kitchen, therefore, can create a picture of you as an extroverted, clearsighted woman, sensual and methodical; you make your practical sense serve your imagination.
So... practical and imaginative. If one doesn't fit, the other might. But at least we know she's methodical... and probably extroverted... though "can create a picture" is a bit of a hedge...
... are you tidy or untidy? Your house does not answer peremptory questions with a yes or a no. You have an idea of order, to be sure, even a demanding one, but in practice no methodical application corresponds to it.
I'm not going to commit to calling you specifically tidy or untidy, but I hope that whichever you are, you will see that I recognized that quality in you... and if, in my earlier comment, I was mistaken in calling you "methodical," well perhaps this new reading will fit better and you will have forgotten what I said when I hedged.
... you area woman who tends not to increase responsibilities, and this can be a sign either of egoism or of concentration on other, less extrinsic, concerns, as also a sign that you do not need symbolic substitutes for the natural drives that lead you to be concerned with others, to take part in their stories, in life, in books...
So, you're either egocentric and inward focusing, or concerned with what is not extrinsic (what did I say ealier about extroversion?) or else you really care about others.
Are you really hospitable, or is the way you allow acquaintances to come into the house a sign of indifference?
Yup, you definitely really care about others or else you don't.
...[books] are a defense you set up to keep the outside world at a distance... or bridges you cast toward the outside, toward the world that interests you so much...
Certainly introverted or extroverted.
Really, only as he comes around to talking about books again does Ludmilla start to reemerge as a specific character, and that is built mostly on what she has already revealed of herself. And, interestingly, even in the examination of the books, they are viewed as objects which may serve certain social or psychological functions (and as materials for construction!), but without any reference to their contents or value as literature. Which is quite a remarkable lapse on the part of the "Reader"--and surely an intentionally ironic one--that in attempting to analyze the character of a reader, he pays no attention to what she reads.
Zadignose wrote: "Really, only as he comes around to talking about books again does Ludmilla start to reemerge as a specific character, and that is built mostly on what she has already revealed of herself. "I'm not sure that she does, even then. She stakes out occasional positions, such as the type of books that she likes -- but these change constantly. The danger for Calvino here is that if he actually defines Ludmilla in anything but the vaguest terms, he risks alienating the actual Reader, who may not find the detailed Ludmilla to be his cup of tea. Better to just let the Reader project what he thinks is ideal onto the blank canvas named Ludmilla.
We do get a better description of her sister. I believe melons are mentioned, at one point.
