Brain Pain discussion
Hopscotch - Spine 2012
>
Discussion - Week One - Hopscotch - Chapter 1 - 17
date
newest »
newest »
Firstly I feel like some of these characters could of been plucked from The Recognitions . I'm enjoying the style but it does seem a bit vague, I'm not sure that that isn't because I know there's more there for the second reading. Maybe there are linking events or conversations that set the mood for the succeeding chapter.
One thing that I have noticed, and this is very broad, is that there is a lot of 'opposites' (still not sure this the appropriate word) through this first section. Something I'll try post more specifically about when I'm not on my phone. But sometimes it's quite directly written and then there are instances of it, be it between Gregorovius' and Horacio's relationship with La Maga or in the Jazz song they play. The discussion of Klee and Mondrian. etc.
Good thing we are going to 'read it again' so to speak because I need to reabsorb and reexamine.
'Two sides of the same coin' is the term I'm thinking of not opposites if that makes more sense.
Speaking of opposites, thought vs. action is something that comes up several times already.page 13: "always easier to think than to be"
page 17: "To do. To do something, to do good to make water, to make time, action in all of its possibilities. But behind all action there was a protest, because all doing meant leaving FROM in order to arrive AT, or moving something so that it would be here and not there, or going into a house instead of not going in or instead of going into the one next door; in other words, every act entailed the admission of a lack, of something not yet done and which could be done, a tacit protest in the face of continuous evidence of a lack, of a reduction, of the inadequacy of the present moment ... it was better to withdraw because withdrawal from action was the protest itself and not its mask."
p19: "And it also might be that reason is on your side, but a lamentable and mean little reason, the reason the ant uses against the grasshopper. If lucidity ends up in inaction, wouldn't it become suspect?" (it goes on... I love that part about the ant)
p. 20: you think too much before you do anything [La Maga to H.O.]
p. 36: he talks about explanation vs. being, which is similar in my mind. Klee/Mondrian debate on the next page may actually be related to that... Klee being the explainer? And Mondrian being the be-er? ("Mondrian wants is for a person to mondrianate and that's all")
Also, I noticed something I didn't notice before... a few instances he talks about 'witness'. I don't know why, but this rang a bell in my head as important, whatever that means.
p13: he calls La Maga his witness and spy several times
p14: "La Maga had no idea at all that she was my witness"
p. 20 "You believe in the principle' said La Maga. 'How complicated. You're like a witness." [speaking to Oliviera]
Reading Chapter 8 really reminded me of his short story Axolotl, which, if you haven't read it yet you should: http://home.roadrunner.com/~jhartzog/... (it's one of my favorites)
Lastly, I don't know if I didn't notice this before, or if I just forgot, but this book switches from 3rd person to 1st person POV. It doesn't seem to be done for a jarring post-modern effect or anything, in fact it seems pretty smooth. Did you guys have any thoughts on this?
I'm fascinated by the way the personalities of the characters are emerging from the text. Don't know what words to apply to the techniques Cortázar is using, nor do similar examples immediately come to mind. Perhaps some of you who are trained as writers can comment. It seems to me that character is being defined by actions and by relationships with other characters more than by anything I would normally call description.
Jimmy wrote: "p. 36: he talks about explanation vs. being, which is similar in my mind...."Similar to Horatio Oliveira vis-à-vis Lucía (LaMaga); i.e., Horatio is thinking, Lucía is Lucía? (p. 43, "Mimi in La Bohème")
I didn't "get" the Mondrian/Klee contrast -- am digging, more on that tomorrow.
Do we know the approximate years of the setting of this novel? Is it contemporaneous with its writing, i.e., circa 1963 or sometime earlier? (Mondrian died in 1944; Klee, in 1940. So we don't seem to be talking about reactions to living artists.)
I assumed about 1957 as I believe it mentions Bessie Smith who died 20 years earlier in a vehicle accident which was 1937. Is that right? I think it said something like that.
Wish this extended to chapter 20 so we could include Vieira da Silva into the Mondrian v Klee discussion. I have similar sort of thoughts to above about them.
Mod
As moderator, I hereby grant you permission to extend into Chapter 20... but make sure you give us some good stuff about Klee and Mondrian!
Etienne's point is essentially that Klee is working from an intellectual place and that to understand his work, you need "a degree ès lettres, or at least ès poésies" (p. 37). Mondrian, "on the other hand, paints the absolute... either you see or you don't see." This comparison between Klee/Mondrian is an echo of the contrast Cortázar paints between intellectual/cerebral/analytical Oliveira and wholistic/intuitive/sensual LaMaga.
BTW, I saw a retrospective of Mondrian's work at the Musée D'Orsay some years ago and his late work is derived from his early formal experiments painting trees. He was interested in the network formed by the branches. Slowly, the branches disappeared and he was left with the network which then morphed into the compositions of rectangles on a white background with primary color patches. An interesting progression when you see it there on the museum wall. As Etienne said, he worked towards the absolute.
Ok so you kind of touched on the exact conversation I wanted to reference but I think it links some points very well I'll try to live up to the granted pardon.... Tomorrow haha
Mondrian, "on the other hand, paints the absolute... either you see or you don't see."As regards Mondrian, I'm one of those who absolutely does not see it. But at the same time, I don't think of Klee as intellectual either. He may be coming from an intellectual background, but looking at his paintings I enjoy them "as-is", without any sort of explanation or reasoning or analysis. I just enjoy them, period.
I see his point, I just don't agree with him as it applies to Klee/Mondrian. But then again, I have absolutely no art history/criticism background.
I'm also interested in this idea of action/inaction as a form of protest. Protest against what? Against action itself? Protest... witness... sounds vaguely like there is a political undercurrent here.
I agree that the Horacio/La Maga split is similar to that of thinking vs. action/being. However, it seems to me that Cortazar is making fun of Horacio and his "club" with their sexist attitudes. I'm not quite sure La Maga is exactly who Horacio thinks she is. He seems to idealize her in an overly feminine/passive/earthy/anti-intellectual way. Thoughts?
Bah, humbug! This is one of those mornings I am both charmed and frustrated by this online, post notes method of discussing literature! First, thx to all who posted re Klee/Mondrian since yesterday. Second, let me say that I wish we could all just sit around my living room and toss bits of information and pictures at each other from art books and Ipads and whatever media in our hands, let alone ideas from our own heads. Third, despite that desire to explore, I'm not certain but what Cortázar, Hopscotch and the Serpent Club aren't about taking a lot of things at surface value and mashing them against each other. Finally, for now, fourth, I'm not certain how to sort out all the aesthetic, musical, spiritual, political, sexual, colorimetric, playful, sardonic, sarcastic innuendos -- nor necessarily that one should even try.For space considerations, the remainder of my comments here are in this (view spoiler)
Great comments Lily! just sit around my living room and toss bits of information and pictures at each other
Yeah, if only! Well, this (goodreads) is the next best thing.
A few more Mondrian-like Klees:
Also, this about fish in chapter 8:
"And that perfectly Giotto fish, do you remember, and those two that played about like jade dogs, or a fish which was the exact shadow of a violet cloud... We found out how life goes on in shapes without a third dimension, that they disappear when they face you, or at most leave a thin motionless pink line in the water. A flick of a fin and there he is miraculously again with eyes, whiskers, fins, and from his belly sometimes coming out and floating a transparent ribbon of excrement which has not come loose, ballast which suddenly puts them amongst us, which plucks them out from the perfection of their pure imagery, which compromises them, to use one of those fine words we so much liked to use around there in those days." p.35
(which in turn makes me think of Klee/Mondrian... the fish in their abstractly perfect shapes = Mondrian to me, whereas Klee is more the shitty ballast that ties them back to this world of particulars, there is a grittiness in Klee even though he is abstract)
Mod
Okay, a digression from the book for a minute. Klee's work uses much symbolism. Some of the symbols are obscure and some are culture-specific. As such, Etienne's comments suggest a lack of universality and/or accessibility to a wide audience. Klee's work, in a sense, can be "read", but only if you have been taught to read.
Mondrian's formal experiments reduced paintings down to their simplest elements. The black horizontal and vertical lines reference the two-dimensional nature of the picture plane. His use of primary colors - red, yellow, and blue - reference the color spectrum available to painters. The various-sized rectangles and their placement on the canvas reference the "rules" of composition. So his entire later works become a commentary on the formal restraints of painting: Two-dimensionality, Color, and Composition. There is no message beyond the formal. Get it?
Travis wrote: "Ok so you kind of touched on the exact conversation I wanted to reference but I think it links some points very well I'll try to live up to the granted pardon.... Tomorrow haha"Looking forward to whichever tomorrow ends up working for you, Travis.
Jim wrote: "...There is no message beyond the formal. Get it? ..."Love your comments, Jim; and sometimes I am as willing to be naive as La Maga allows herself! I'm not sure I DO get it, but am probably willing to let it be that way.
I quite agree with your "They are more about revealing character traits and attitudes than resolving any truths about these artists." Still, to understand the character traits and attitudes revealed, I felt a need to know a bit more about the artists.
Not certain that I am comfortable yet with the lines that associate Oliveira with Mondrian, but am willing to let that sit for a bit. (Lucía interprets that as "You meant to say someone of a rigorous nature." Oliveira stays with the more ambiguous "I said a Mondrian." p. 76, Chap. 19)
Jimmy wrote: "Great comments Lily! just sit around my living room and toss bits of information and pictures at each other
Yeah, if only! Well, this (goodreads) is the next best thing.
A few more Mondrian-lik..."
Thanks, Jimmy! And thanks for the additional Klee's. Now if I could figure out how to relate them to LaMaga.... What a technique for ascribing character, if that is what Cortázar is doing.
I'm probably too lazy or have too many other things to do it, but I wonder what I would pull if I were to make a list of each of the main characters and take from the text the passages I thought succinctly described each.
PS -- Thx, Jimmy, for reminding of the fish descriptions on p. 35. Especially: "We found out how life goes on in shapes without a third dimension, that they disappear when they face you, or at most leave a thin motionless pink line in the water."
I'm enjoying Hopscotch an awful lot. Also, love the art postings. I find Jim's comments great on the Mondrian. Things are on the surface of this novel. Cortazar wants you to read it that way. but nothing is missing I find! Or, to put it another way. what a shiny surface!Did anybody notice here we are almost visualizing a scene in our heads nearly mirrors what the characters are doing. they are sitting around a room also are throwing around these figures and things in our heads. I'm sure Cortazar, somewhere, is smiling.... But if you do even a little research on some of these figures, its like a who's who of avant garde figures that very much bring the tools that Hopscotch itself uses.
Things like this totally remind me of Borges in terms of effects...(expanding books and arts within another book) ....but Cortazar is a smooth operator. He litters this with other pop culture figures and a lot of his own wonderful nonsense that make this pop with the syncopation of the jazz he so loves.
Chapter 8 was beautiful, can't wait to come back to it. I loved and was totally reminded of axolotl.
Also, I totally agree with the person who said that the shift in person, from first to third, was smooth. It was but it also adds some tasty narrative syncopation: Oliveira's story in his head and Oliveira's story from an objective point of view, and this is short and quick and smooth with the chapter break.
It's very much like a jump cut in a film, and for me evokes Godard. (not shocking considering Cortazar has his own film adaptations, and also again evokes this expansive narrative web...) But here Cortazar is again playing Hopscotch with me to suggest another broken yet additional narrative.
Cortazar is expansive but tight, and on the surface. Smooth too. He reminds me of Flaubert at times.
I totally need a Hopscotch mix for Pandora though...
Jim wrote: "As such, Etienne's comments suggest a lack of universality and/or accessibility to a wide audience. Klee's work, in a sense, can be "read", but only if you have been taught to read...."Jim, I find that such a tantalizing comment, especially if we are to presuppose some analogy between LaMaga and Klee, as we are between Oliveira and Mondrian. It seems to almost reflect the her duality -- lack of formal education but passionate innate(?) interests. And, from another direction, Oliveira's difficulties (and abilities) in "reading" her.
{A passage enjoyed: "an awful lot of people would set themselves up comfortably in a supposed unity of person which was nothing but a linguistic unity and a premature sclerosis of character." p. 79)
I wondered at the effect/ploy of Cortázar providing the discussion of human rights violations/torture in Ch. 14 and LaMaja's rape in Ch. 15 -- from general to personal? Or was there another impression more vivid to other readers? Also, O. says "To meet you and to hear the story about the Negro is one and the same thing." p.82. Stories (necessarily) told again and again, in their unity and their variation?
I'm also reading Major Pettigrew's Last Stand by Helen Simonson for an upcoming f2f discussion. What a contrast! See comment here if interested ("absolutely must read" question).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/boo...
Love your comments, Matthew. I agree muchly with many of them, but probably wouldn't have cut through so sharply. (However, do tell us more about reminding of Flaubert?)
I presume it is Alton Tobey to whom Étienne refers on p. 68?("pisnola" -- is this Étienne's opinion on Mondrian? "watercolors" -- Klee? Or, again, is Cortázar again mixing it up and these could be references to Pollack and Tobey?)
http://www.altontobey.com/
Examples (see link above for the vast diversity of his work): (view spoiler)
He says "it's easy to see that they've LEFT the age of the pianola and the box of watercolors."I understood it as Etienne's opinion that Sonny Rollins sounds more "modern" (and therefore better) than Jelly Roll.
I don't think it has anything to do with Klee/Mondrian, unless you wish to go into hypotheticals.
I like Oliviera's mocking response "He's capable of believing in progress in art!"
Lily wrote: "I presume it is Alton Tobey to whom Étienne refers on p. 68?"I must be wrong: Mark Tobey, perhaps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Tobey
(view spoiler)
Jimmy wrote: "He says "it's easy to see that they've LEFT the age of the pianola and the box of watercolors."..."But who is the "they" -- Mondrian & Klee or Pollack & Tobey?
Jimmy wrote: "I don't think it has anything to do with Klee/Mondrian, unless you wish to go into hypotheticals...."So, can we intuit what Étienne IS implying? Or is he just being clever?
I like Oliviera's mocking response "He's capable of believing in progress in art!"
(Smile. And these guys were just touching Postmodern.)
"Why don't you put on something more intelligent, like those Sonny Rollins solos. At least those modern guys make you think of Jackson Pollock or Tobey, it's easy to see that they've left the age of the pianola and the box of watercolors."they = modern/"intelligent" guys = Sonny Rollins and others like Sonny Rollins (read: not Jelly Roll and guys like Jelly Roll)
That is my understanding anyway.
Jimmy wrote: ""Why don't you put on something more intelligent, like those Sonny Rollins solos. At least those modern guys make you think of Jackson Pollock or Tobey, it's easy to see that they've left the age o..."Thanks -- and what a difference on what comes up on Youtube for Jelly Roll Morton (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n20U8...) and Jelly Roll today! The Sonny Rollins site is sweet. (http://www.sonnyrollins.com/index.php)
But I believe you got the MP3 download from Amazon?
Yeah, the song included on the Jazzuela album is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-QTtM... (though the sound quality is obviously higher)No Sonny Rollins songs were included in the compilation, maybe because a specific Sonny Rollins song was not mentioned, or maybe because he was just talked about and not played?
Jimmy wrote: "Yeah, the song included on the Jazzuela album is this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-QTtM... (though the sound quality is obviously higher)..."So there are the references to wet feet alluded to by both Ronald and Étienne. (p. 68) I laughed at the scratchy sound, because phrases I eventually began noting were variants on "terrible scratching", "worn-out record", "needle was making a horrible noise", .... Reminders of the changes in media in sixty years.
When i looked up jazz, surrealism, expressionism, cubism - which are the artists' milieu that the characters admired or studied, it felt like these folks were trying to get a representational truth of some part of the physical world or human emotion by either atomizing the subject or examining by conscious methods the unconscious.Yet, their personal lives are still-born or destroyed by lack of personal attention. No rent money, sitting around thinking.
They argue the ideas of art and try to develop further insights into the current schools of painting, sculpture, music and solve nothing.
Wasn't jazz, expressionism, cubism and surrealism thought to lead to insanity, in 1950-ish?
April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "...Wasn't jazz, expressionism, cubism and surrealism thought to lead to insanity, in 1950-ish?"April -- by whom?
Mod
April, you are too funny!!! I totally want to drink a beer with you in one of your western, blue collar bars...
All things are a matter of perspective. Cortazar's fictional Bohemian's believe they are living the avante garde life of the free-thinking artist; liberated from the prison of the 9 to 5 work world and the corruption of power and money, they are free to contemplate the nature of reality as they gaze into their own private omphaloes*. But, as you duly note, they could all use a good scrub...
*Their Own Private Omphaloes is an early student film by Gus Van Sant. He got a C minus, but he was not bitter about it.
So I am just catching up here, and trying to catch the flavor of this book. I’ve loved the discussion so far, especially the art and music bits: thanks for all of your comments, links and images, like the juxtaposition of Mondrian's tree branches: Jim said: I saw a retrospective of Mondrian's work at the Musée D'Orsay some years ago and his late work is derived from his early formal experiments painting trees. He was interested in the network formed by the branches. Slowly, the branches disappeared and he was left with the network which then morphed into the compositions of rectangles on a white background with primary color patches.
with the leaf veins in that great quote Lily picked out:
"LaMaga became sad, she picked up a leaf from the edge of the sidewalk and spoke to it for a while, moved it along the palm of her hand, put it rightside up and upside down, stroked it, and finally she took off the leafy part and left the veins exposed, a delicate green ghost was reflected against her skin...."
Like Travis mentioned above, I’ve also noticed that Cortázar seems to be exploring dualities: order/disorder (the prominence of which, given the idiosyncratic structure of this book, is probably not a coincidence), intellect/experience, Oliveira/La Maga, history/atemporality, Mondrian/Klee, the center/the mist.
But given the postmodern territory and the book’s nonlinear structure, I bet this world isn’t black-and-white. In fact, I’m definitely sensing a thread of nonduality: “It didn’t take me [H.O.] long to understand that you didn’t discuss reality in methodical terms with La Maga. Praise of disorder would have horrified her as much as criticism of it (12).” Or, in more of Oliveira’s musings,
“As if the species in every individual were on guard against letting him go too far along the road of tolerance, intelligent doubt, sentimental vacillation. At some point the callus, the sclerosis, the definition is born: black or white, radical or conservative, homo- or heterosexual, the San Lorenzo team or the Boca Juniors, meat or vegetables, business or poetry (19).”
And then, what do you guys think about Oliveira/La Maga, order/disorder, intellectualizing/feeling with respect to our search for meaning in the book and its form? We are encouraged to read this Hopscotch thing twice, once in “order,” once in “disorder”...or are they? And I felt like travels, meetings and musings of Oliveira and La Maga in chapter 6 can almost be read as description of a reader’s travels through the text to meet with...what?
Okay, in the Hopscotch spirit, a bunch of disordered thoughts from me.
I can’t wait to see where this book goes next!
Rachel wrote: "We are encouraged to read this Hopscotch thing twice, once in “order,” once in “disorder”...or are they?..."Thx for your comments, Rachel. I, too, found it fascinating that LaMaga, who apparently was being more aligned with Klee, was the one tinkering with the natural branching Jim brought to our attention about Mondrian! (I think there are other similar back-and-forth comparisons in what Cortázar has provided us.)
But, Rachel, do note that the so-called second reading is more about "insertions" rather than about jumbling the original story -- it's more like, here's the basic story, and "oh, yes, I just remembered", and the "just remembered's" are in no particular order except as imposed by going back through the story and inserting them in their (time?) relevant order. (But they may change the story.)
I liked the lines you caught above about the need for clarity amid the dangers of frozen position ("sclerosis"!)-- one of the reasons I found it fun to read Major Pettigrew at the same time as Hopscotch. Each story wrestles with some of the same issues, but from very different starting points. It is over-simplistic, but perhaps suggestive, to say one starts with order, one starts with chaos. (Another great catch, Rachel: "...you didn’t discuss reality in methodical terms with La Maga. Praise of disorder would have horrified her as much as criticism of it.")
Mod
Thx for your comments, Rachel. I, too, found it fascinating that LaMag..."
When we reach the final week of discussions, it will be interesting to see if the first version was "ordered" or not. The second version is about insertions, as Lily says, but contrapositively (is that a word?), we could also look at the first version as having parts of the story missing, and so in a state of disorder. Time will tell.
BTW, I was surprised no one called me out about my Klee/Mondrian post back in message 14. Etienne claims that you need a degree to understand Klee, but not Mondrian. The opposite is true. Klee paints fish and suns and camels and palm trees, all of which any school child could recognize and talk about. Mondrian, on the other hand, requires some kind of education in art and art history (which I have) to be able to talk about his commentary on the formal elements of painting. For example:
The black horizontal and vertical lines reference the two-dimensional nature of the picture plane.
This is about as academic a response as one could have about Mondrian. I think Etienne/Cortazar is having a bit of fun at the expense of the drunken members of the Serpent Club, as well as the male members' habit of teasing La Maga.
Jim wrote: "Mondrian, on the other hand, requires some kind of education in art and art history (which I have) to be able to talk about his commentary on the formal elements of painting...."Considered commenting, Jim, but you ARE our gracious host and, besides, I seem to keep sticking my feet under your shoes when I attempt to glide -- my insteps are tender? LOL! The other thing that stopped me was learning that Klee apparently wrote so definitely on color ( Paul Klee Notebooks: Vol. 1 Thinking Eye and The Paul Klee Notebooks Vol 2 Nature of Nature, originally Schriften zur Form und Gestaltungslehre). The commentators also note Klee's musicality. So, since I am not trained in art and art history, I deferred. (Do you think that it is Mark Tobey Étienne refers to alongside Pollack? p. 68. Or is there someone else?)
Personal sidebar: (view spoiler)
But I like your points about Cortázar (and Étienne?) toying with us, his readers, as well as (the drunks at) the Serpent Club. You made the point earlier that the art and music are more about revealing character than resolving academic concerns. Is Cortázar playing here with the possibility that Oliveira is acting in a two-dimensional fashion as a human being (rather than more multi-dimensionally), but Oliveira is oblivious to a possible unflattering allusion?
"...we could also look at the first version as having parts of the story missing, and so in a state of disorder."
Love it! Always back to linguistics and meaning! Dis-order...
Sidebar on Mondrian: (view spoiler)
Lily, I have a bad habit of writing these postings in my phone (because it seems the only time I have to post is when I'm in transit) and sometimes I don't do the footwork to explain myself.My Flaubert comment seemed to me to be a bit of a stretch since the only Flaubert I recall reading was Madame Bovary and not in at least 10 years but my memory of Flaubert's prose was as much about appearances and what those appearances convey, and the truth being something else altogether. I think Cortazar's own thematic interests are similar.
Have to go now but will be back at some point.
Matthew wrote: "...my memory of Flaubert's prose was as much about appearances and what those appearances convey, and the truth being something else altogether. I think Cortazar's own thematic interests are similar..."Matthew -- THX! I understand now the linkages you were making! I would have said other things about Flaubert, with whom I have always struggled, even though I stand in awe of some of the passages in MB and of the respect he commands among so many writers I enjoy much more easily. So-o-o, I needed your clarification!
Lily wrote: "But, Rachel, do note that the so-called second reading is more about "insertions" rather than about jumbling the original story "Oh yes, definitely. I was thinking of the physical experience of traveling through the book. Though the content is not strictly linear in either the first or enhanced versions, the first time through, we read chapters "in order," turning pages one after the other. The second time through, though chapters 1-56 stay in order, the interpolations among them do not. I'm imagining a feeling of great disorder, as I hop from place to place. As Jim says, time will tell how these formal choices relate to the content!
In some way, even the Abbot Martini and César Bruto quotes can be read as speaking to order and disorder.
Jim wrote: "April the Cheshire Meow wrote: Wasn't jazz, expressionism, cubism and surrealism thought to lead to insanity, in 1950-ish?.."April, you are too funny!!! I totally want to drink a beer with you in..."
Make it whiskey. The book isn't any easier under the influence but it takes away the caring about that, plus, disorder becomes appealing and all paintings look Mondrian under bar lights and I don't care about that either.
; D
Mod
; D ..."
Deal. Jim Beam neat. Or Jamesons if we want to go with an import...
Brain Pain
Books mentioned in this topic
Madame Bovary (other topics)Paul Klee Notebooks: Vol. 1 Thinking Eye (other topics)
The Paul Klee Notebooks: The Nature of Nature: 002 (other topics)
Major Pettigrew's Last Stand (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Gustave Flaubert (other topics)Helen Simonson (other topics)
And moved by the hope of being of particular help to youth, and of contributing to the reform of manners in general…
- Abbot Martini, Spirit of the Bible and Universal Morals, Drawn from the Old and New Testaments, 1797
Everytime it starts to get cool, I mean in the middle of autim, I start getting nutty ideas like I was thinkin about what was forein and different, like for example how I’d like to turn into a swallow and get away and fly to countrys where it gets hot…
- César Bruto, What I Would Like to Be If I Wasn’t What I Am
FROM THE OTHER SIDE
Rien ne vous tue un homme comme d’être obligé de représenter un pays.
(Nothing kills a man like being obliged to represent a country.)
Jacques Vaché, letter to André Breton
Right from the start, Cortázar prepares us to play his game of hopscotch. He starts us off with a “Table of Instructions” along with some rules about chapter order which we can follow – if we choose to. Then he gives us an opening statement from an 18th century abbot who wants to be “of particular help to youth, and of contributing to the reform of manners in general” followed by some dead-end kids’ prose which suggests that maybe the abbot’s book wasn’t exactly effective. The first section, “From the Other Side” begins with a kind of apology about the difficulty of representing a country and then, WHAM! There we are, searching for Oliveira’s lover along the Seine.
The first seventeen chapters of the “first version” of Hopscotch introduce us to the expatriate world of Argentinean freelance philosopher, Horacio Oliveira, and his detached, intuitive lover, La Maga. Following them through the streets of post-WWII Paris, we meet their friends in The Serpent Club who smoke and drink to excess while pontificating about all manner of aesthetics and philosophy.
In this “first version”, what are your impressions of this time and place? These people and their preoccupations? Imaging our future reading of the longer “second version”, does it feel like anything is missing from these opening chapters? What more might we want or need to know about these characters and their lives in Saint-Germain-des-Prés?
To avoid spoilers, please restrict your comments to Chapters 1 – 17, pp. 1 - 71