Sunday, March 25, 2012
Max Frisch: Andorra
Ugh, I hate message theater. Tom Lindblade, one of the better directors I know, would always ask before a musical number would begin something to the effect of "Why are you singing this? What is it about this that it can't be simply spoken?" The same sentiment applies to all theater in my mind. What is it about this that can't be conveyed in a novel or short story? Why must it be seen, performed, to be adequately conveyed? I don't feel like Andorra manages to justify its existence by this standard. There is nothing new, no compelling image, no line so striking that it simply must be read aloud. I'm sure the idea is a worthy one, that we are all victims of our identities, our labels, but I am not convinced that it would not be adequately--even better- served in a story or essay. In that form, it would probably be powerful, but as a play, all I can manage is an eyeroll.
AFI's 100 Films: Raging Bull
I suppose, in addition to the issue of whether a movie is great, there is another, equally significant question: Did I like it? With regard to Raging Bull, the answer to the former question is doubtlessly "yes," but to the former I give a guarded "not particularly . . ." The script is brilliant, almost Chekovian in the marvelous details it gives the actors to work with. I was not surprised to find out that Scorsese and DeNiro had reworked the script considerably themselves, and I attribute its greatness to them, more than to the credited writer, Mardik Martin. My favorite example is La Motta beating his championship belt with a hammer to remove the jewels . . . at first thought, it's just a tragic plot device, but from a character/actor's perspective it makes perfect sense. Such a epically proud man would never allow his belt to be seen on the open market.
The problem with Scorsese's direction is, as elsewhere, that it is so flawless, others could just as easily receive the credit for greatness that he no doubt was responsible for. The script is a perfect example, but De Niro's and Cathy Moriarty's performances are credits to Scorsese almost as much as to themselves. He certainly struck gold casting such unknowns, and that is the sort of thing that they don't give academy awards for. The same is true of his cinematography; one really doesn't notice it, partly because the clever things he does have become standard in modern movies--especially the slowdown of certain actions--but also because they seem so natural, and fit so seamlessly into the overall work. One exception is the choice of music, for which Scorses no doubt deserves the bulk of the credit. Cavelierra Rusticana is a perfect choice, both for its thematic and ironic aspects.
And then there is the matter of the acting, which is incredible. De Niro is brilliant, of course, and the parallel with Brando's in On the Waterfront is not lost on Scorsese, but De Niro is a known quality, so I was naturally far more taken with Cathy Moriarty. She had relatively little to say, but every look was filled with a meaning that, again, reminded me of Chekov. Under each "ok" lay the knowledge that she controlled this animal of a man, and saw right through him. Never was she a pathetic figure--even when being beaten. Not once did I feel sorry for her. Her face seemed to say, "whatever . . ." with each blow, a marvelous parallel to De Niro in the ring. I'm completely taken with her, but I wonder if the fact that so many of her subsequent movies were terrible is just another reminder that Scorsese is really responsible for all of it . . .
The problem with Scorsese's direction is, as elsewhere, that it is so flawless, others could just as easily receive the credit for greatness that he no doubt was responsible for. The script is a perfect example, but De Niro's and Cathy Moriarty's performances are credits to Scorsese almost as much as to themselves. He certainly struck gold casting such unknowns, and that is the sort of thing that they don't give academy awards for. The same is true of his cinematography; one really doesn't notice it, partly because the clever things he does have become standard in modern movies--especially the slowdown of certain actions--but also because they seem so natural, and fit so seamlessly into the overall work. One exception is the choice of music, for which Scorses no doubt deserves the bulk of the credit. Cavelierra Rusticana is a perfect choice, both for its thematic and ironic aspects.
And then there is the matter of the acting, which is incredible. De Niro is brilliant, of course, and the parallel with Brando's in On the Waterfront is not lost on Scorsese, but De Niro is a known quality, so I was naturally far more taken with Cathy Moriarty. She had relatively little to say, but every look was filled with a meaning that, again, reminded me of Chekov. Under each "ok" lay the knowledge that she controlled this animal of a man, and saw right through him. Never was she a pathetic figure--even when being beaten. Not once did I feel sorry for her. Her face seemed to say, "whatever . . ." with each blow, a marvelous parallel to De Niro in the ring. I'm completely taken with her, but I wonder if the fact that so many of her subsequent movies were terrible is just another reminder that Scorsese is really responsible for all of it . . .
Saturday, March 24, 2012
AFI's 100 films: Sunset Boulevard
It's been so long since I visited this thread of my blog--which ideally is about all media, and not just books--that I went back and read previous entries. In my discussion of On the Waterfront, I touched on what I think makes a nice framework for this sort of discussion, namely the question of what makes a film great. Waterfront certainly has great elements, especially Brando's performance, but also Kazan's direction. Nonetheless, I left that movie without the feeling that it was great--that there were great elements, but that the finished product did not live up to the adjective.
The same is not true of Sunset Boulevard. Like Waterfront, it featured an unmistakably great performance. Swanson was masterful, and her performance has become a metaphor as much as the character herself has. Unlike Waterfront, I didn't find anything extraordinary about Wilder's direction. So if not direction or acting, what other element is present in the one but not the other that results in, to me at least, a truly great movie?
Assuming that such relatively minor elements as costumes and sets have little to do with the matter, I think it safe to say that the key difference between the two movies is the script. Waterfront was successful in spite of it's maudlin, pandering script, thanks to the presence of other greatness. Sunset may well have succeeded on the strength of its acting, even if the script were not so good--but the script is brilliant, rightfully claiming the Academy Award that year. Wilder et al. tread the line between melodrama and touching believability deftly, which gives Swanson free reign to take her character as far as she can. If the script were less human, she would have had to walk that dangerous line herself. Such over-the-top moments as Norma's tango are cunningly offset by such real ones as Betty's nose job, and the whole thing deserves the honor of being read, as well as watched.
I suppose it's no surprise that, to such a vetted English major as I am, the script is the non plus ultra of a movie. The real test, if one were being scientific about it, would be to find a movie that a great script, but terrible direction and acting. Would such a movie have a chance at release even?
The same is not true of Sunset Boulevard. Like Waterfront, it featured an unmistakably great performance. Swanson was masterful, and her performance has become a metaphor as much as the character herself has. Unlike Waterfront, I didn't find anything extraordinary about Wilder's direction. So if not direction or acting, what other element is present in the one but not the other that results in, to me at least, a truly great movie?
Assuming that such relatively minor elements as costumes and sets have little to do with the matter, I think it safe to say that the key difference between the two movies is the script. Waterfront was successful in spite of it's maudlin, pandering script, thanks to the presence of other greatness. Sunset may well have succeeded on the strength of its acting, even if the script were not so good--but the script is brilliant, rightfully claiming the Academy Award that year. Wilder et al. tread the line between melodrama and touching believability deftly, which gives Swanson free reign to take her character as far as she can. If the script were less human, she would have had to walk that dangerous line herself. Such over-the-top moments as Norma's tango are cunningly offset by such real ones as Betty's nose job, and the whole thing deserves the honor of being read, as well as watched.
I suppose it's no surprise that, to such a vetted English major as I am, the script is the non plus ultra of a movie. The real test, if one were being scientific about it, would be to find a movie that a great script, but terrible direction and acting. Would such a movie have a chance at release even?
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
한국어로 해볼게 . . .
앞으로, 한국책 끝낼때 한국어로 논평 하기로 했어요. 많이 틀릴 것 같아도 노력 할게 ㅋㅋㅋ
문계주 (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry덕분에 ): 어린 왕자
이 책 2년전에 받았는데 이제야 비로소 이해 할수 있었어요. 왜냐하면 전에 수준이 낮아서 그래. 지금도, 완벽하게 이해 못 했어요. 여어로 읽은 적도 없어서 내용이나 줄거리도 몰랐어. 아무튼, 어느 쯕 알지 않은 단어 많고 이상한 문법도 많았어요. 앞으로 공부 더윽 열심히 해야 할 텐데 . . .
김자환: 엄마가 보고 있다
이책도 어려웠어요. 약 80% 이해 했어요. 그래도, 길고 진짜 책여서 성취감을 느껴요. 처음 읽기 시작했을때 Beverly Cleary가 쓴 책 같았어. 중학생 한 여자가 짜증스러운 남자 만났고 마침네 친구 됐어요. 대표 중학생 도서이잖아? 그렇지만 한국 새상을 배경으로 예상보다 조금 스프다. 여자는 고아여서 언니가 키워야 돼요. 그리고 언니가 잘리고 옵바가 가출을 했다. 정말 슬픈 이야기인데, 한국에서는 흔한 상태 같다.
문계주 (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry덕분에 ): 어린 왕자
이 책 2년전에 받았는데 이제야 비로소 이해 할수 있었어요. 왜냐하면 전에 수준이 낮아서 그래. 지금도, 완벽하게 이해 못 했어요. 여어로 읽은 적도 없어서 내용이나 줄거리도 몰랐어. 아무튼, 어느 쯕 알지 않은 단어 많고 이상한 문법도 많았어요. 앞으로 공부 더윽 열심히 해야 할 텐데 . . .
김자환: 엄마가 보고 있다
이책도 어려웠어요. 약 80% 이해 했어요. 그래도, 길고 진짜 책여서 성취감을 느껴요. 처음 읽기 시작했을때 Beverly Cleary가 쓴 책 같았어. 중학생 한 여자가 짜증스러운 남자 만났고 마침네 친구 됐어요. 대표 중학생 도서이잖아? 그렇지만 한국 새상을 배경으로 예상보다 조금 스프다. 여자는 고아여서 언니가 키워야 돼요. 그리고 언니가 잘리고 옵바가 가출을 했다. 정말 슬픈 이야기인데, 한국에서는 흔한 상태 같다.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
I have been lax, I know
Not sure how to explain away the fact that I have not been reading much. Maybe it's merely a symptom of a general numbness and malaise that has overtaken me. It also occurs to me (and this is heresy, I know) that I perhaps I never enjoyed reading as much as I thought I did, and that I only convinced myself that I enjoyed it because it was the best way to do what I really do enoy, namely to acquire thought. At any rate, I have been pathetic, but what little reading I have done lately shall not go undocumented.
George R.R. Martin: A Game of Thrones
Yes yes, a good book, the reading of which only makes me wonder further about the above assertion. If I truly enjoyed the act of reading, I would have a book like this on hand at all times. Instead, I read them only rarely, those books that offer only enjoyment, and instead focus on books that one "should" read, crossing them off my list like little merit badges. As for the book itself, it left no real impression, unlike the TV series which bears its name, which I contend is the most perfect piece of television ever made.
Thomas Pynchon: The Crying of Lot 49
And on the other hand, we have this item, which is indisputably in the "should read" category, not merely because Pynchon is borderline canonical, but also because I can't bear my ex having an opinion about something which I do not. So I read this, and it was, as expected, very Robert, very postmodernist, blah blah blah. Wake me when somebody tops Tropic of Cancer
(never going to happen).
Various: Korea As Viewed by 12 Creators
This volume, an anthology of 12 manga shorts by a mixture of Korean and French writers, had a lot of potential, but I found it disappointing. This was partly due to the speed with which I consumed it, but also due to the general unoriginality of the individual pieces. The French writers were especially guilty of banality here, choosing mostly fluffy, if not downright cute, cultural asides for their topic matter. The exception was Igort, whose piece Letters from Korea was touching, but limited by the short format. The Korean writers fared a little better, and I am especially fond of both the art and the thought of 최규석 and 변기휸. They are colleagues, and have formed a collective called "Metamorphosis in Three Stages", into which I simply must look. Nevertheless, I found all of the work limited by the short form, and was unsatisfied on the whole.
George R.R. Martin: A Game of Thrones
Yes yes, a good book, the reading of which only makes me wonder further about the above assertion. If I truly enjoyed the act of reading, I would have a book like this on hand at all times. Instead, I read them only rarely, those books that offer only enjoyment, and instead focus on books that one "should" read, crossing them off my list like little merit badges. As for the book itself, it left no real impression, unlike the TV series which bears its name, which I contend is the most perfect piece of television ever made.
Thomas Pynchon: The Crying of Lot 49
And on the other hand, we have this item, which is indisputably in the "should read" category, not merely because Pynchon is borderline canonical, but also because I can't bear my ex having an opinion about something which I do not. So I read this, and it was, as expected, very Robert, very postmodernist, blah blah blah. Wake me when somebody tops Tropic of Cancer
(never going to happen).
Various: Korea As Viewed by 12 Creators
This volume, an anthology of 12 manga shorts by a mixture of Korean and French writers, had a lot of potential, but I found it disappointing. This was partly due to the speed with which I consumed it, but also due to the general unoriginality of the individual pieces. The French writers were especially guilty of banality here, choosing mostly fluffy, if not downright cute, cultural asides for their topic matter. The exception was Igort, whose piece Letters from Korea was touching, but limited by the short format. The Korean writers fared a little better, and I am especially fond of both the art and the thought of 최규석 and 변기휸. They are colleagues, and have formed a collective called "Metamorphosis in Three Stages", into which I simply must look. Nevertheless, I found all of the work limited by the short form, and was unsatisfied on the whole.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Liveblogging the Bible: Galatians
1:3 Grace, when used by Paul, is more than a customary greeting. It is loaded with theological implications.
1:15 For example, here it clearly carries hints of predestination. If others, like Paul, were set apart before birth, I ask again what good it is to proselytize.
2:1 Quite a jump in the timeline here. The fact that he skips directly to his visits to Jerusalem is surely no accident, and must relate to his message to the Galatians.
2:2 And I think we get a hint of it here, in his repeated reference to the other Apostles. On the surface he is bolstering his own credentials, but in light of the context, he may well be trying to bolster theirs. He even claims to have compared his version of the gospel with theirs, just to verify what he received by inspiration.
2:6 This verse has grave implications. Does he mean to indicate that those who questioned his fitness in Acts were false apostles?
2:10 Didn't he earlier claim not to have met any of the other apostles beside James and Peter? Shall we add John here to the list, or was this not a direct meeting? And of all the things to ask him for, they only were concerned with money?
2:11 Oh, Peter. You're just a mess sometimes.
2:16 He hits this so briefly, it takes on the flavor of established theology. Certainly not a new argument to his audience.
3:2 Neither option seems very convincing . . .
3:10 Although Paul is clearly leaning toward the latter choice. This is a nice interpretation, of the Law as well. Any law, by extension, that includes a curse to those who do not follow it perfectly, by Paul's reasoning here curses those who accept it as well.
3:17 Quite a lovely argument. Paul establishes God's promise to bless the nations through Abraham as a sort of legal precedent after which the Mosaic Law was invalid, in a way.
3:25 To what extent is this true? The central hole in the argument for faith is that then no line is ever drawn.
4:1 A nice continuation of the metaphor. The Mosaic Law in this framework is just the executor of the Abrahamic Covenant, until the beneficiaries are of age.
4:10 How do the Witnesses not fixate on this scripture in their argument against the celebration of holidays? It seems that it would give more strength to their argument than all the other justifications they use combined.
4:13 Is he referring to his eyesight here? If so, in what way did it put the Galatians to the test?
4:17 although the referent of "They" here is no doubt clear to the Galatians, it is a mystery to the modern reader.
4:21 It is clear exactly what the nature of their mistake is. Will the specter of the Mosaic Law never leave?
5:3 Another convincing argument. Who would want to be held to the entire Law? Then why be held to a part of it?
5:12 A strong and fitting curse.
5:22 I am more accustomed to the translation "faith" than "faithfulness", but the NRSV usage here makes sense. After all, according to Paul, faith is a source of spirit, rather than a result of it.
6:8 And here is Paul's other quibble with the Galatians: that they are behaving physically, which is not independent of their silly subscription to circumcision.
6:12 a connection that does not escape Paul, of course.
6:15 The Witness' proscription of blood transfusions really has no solid Biblical basis, as far as I can tell, but I have always considered it rather a good idea from their perspective. It serves to separate them from others, to distinguish them in a way that reminds them of their identity. From a organizational, if not from a theological standpoint, it's a good idea. But Paul here is cautioning against such physical determinations. It is indeed a fleshly concern, whether one receives blood or not, and as such should be beneath those whose spirits are sufficiently advanced.
1:15 For example, here it clearly carries hints of predestination. If others, like Paul, were set apart before birth, I ask again what good it is to proselytize.
2:1 Quite a jump in the timeline here. The fact that he skips directly to his visits to Jerusalem is surely no accident, and must relate to his message to the Galatians.
2:2 And I think we get a hint of it here, in his repeated reference to the other Apostles. On the surface he is bolstering his own credentials, but in light of the context, he may well be trying to bolster theirs. He even claims to have compared his version of the gospel with theirs, just to verify what he received by inspiration.
2:6 This verse has grave implications. Does he mean to indicate that those who questioned his fitness in Acts were false apostles?
2:10 Didn't he earlier claim not to have met any of the other apostles beside James and Peter? Shall we add John here to the list, or was this not a direct meeting? And of all the things to ask him for, they only were concerned with money?
2:11 Oh, Peter. You're just a mess sometimes.
2:16 He hits this so briefly, it takes on the flavor of established theology. Certainly not a new argument to his audience.
3:2 Neither option seems very convincing . . .
3:10 Although Paul is clearly leaning toward the latter choice. This is a nice interpretation, of the Law as well. Any law, by extension, that includes a curse to those who do not follow it perfectly, by Paul's reasoning here curses those who accept it as well.
3:17 Quite a lovely argument. Paul establishes God's promise to bless the nations through Abraham as a sort of legal precedent after which the Mosaic Law was invalid, in a way.
3:25 To what extent is this true? The central hole in the argument for faith is that then no line is ever drawn.
4:1 A nice continuation of the metaphor. The Mosaic Law in this framework is just the executor of the Abrahamic Covenant, until the beneficiaries are of age.
4:10 How do the Witnesses not fixate on this scripture in their argument against the celebration of holidays? It seems that it would give more strength to their argument than all the other justifications they use combined.
4:13 Is he referring to his eyesight here? If so, in what way did it put the Galatians to the test?
4:17 although the referent of "They" here is no doubt clear to the Galatians, it is a mystery to the modern reader.
4:21 It is clear exactly what the nature of their mistake is. Will the specter of the Mosaic Law never leave?
5:3 Another convincing argument. Who would want to be held to the entire Law? Then why be held to a part of it?
5:12 A strong and fitting curse.
5:22 I am more accustomed to the translation "faith" than "faithfulness", but the NRSV usage here makes sense. After all, according to Paul, faith is a source of spirit, rather than a result of it.
6:8 And here is Paul's other quibble with the Galatians: that they are behaving physically, which is not independent of their silly subscription to circumcision.
6:12 a connection that does not escape Paul, of course.
6:15 The Witness' proscription of blood transfusions really has no solid Biblical basis, as far as I can tell, but I have always considered it rather a good idea from their perspective. It serves to separate them from others, to distinguish them in a way that reminds them of their identity. From a organizational, if not from a theological standpoint, it's a good idea. But Paul here is cautioning against such physical determinations. It is indeed a fleshly concern, whether one receives blood or not, and as such should be beneath those whose spirits are sufficiently advanced.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Liveblogging the Bible: 2nd Corinthians
In my convalescence, I wonder if it possible to finish the project I began years ago . . .
1:1 I wonder what part Timothy played in the composition of this epistle. I would say he was an amanuensis, except that Sosthenes in 1 Cor. had the same mention, and was not the scribe.
1:10 Except that He will manifestly not rescue Paul indefinitely . . .
1:12 a suitable boast--rather than boast of his gifts of wisdom, prophecy, tongues, Apostlehood, and the like, he boasts merely of his frankness.
2:1 In what way would his visit have been painful?
2:5 Evidently there was some antagonism toward Paul on his last visit . . .
2:7 I feel left out of the import here, but the principle is clear: as in his previous letter, he insists that the virtuous path os to let oneself be wronged rather than to insist on one's rights
3:5 Yet he did indeed claim his own authority for certain suggestions in his first letter.
3:7, 12 Paul would probably not write this way to the Hebrews. "The Ministry of Death" is certainly a harsh word for the Mosaic Law.
3:18 But is this mirror darkened, as in 1 Cor 13? So far Paul has struck an entirely different tone and message from his first letter.
4:4 Paul opens a dangerous line of reasoning here. In his first letter 8:2 he proclaims that if one claims to understand, he does not really. Here he says that one who does not understand is being pruposefully prevented from such understanding. Damned if you do, so to speak . . .
4:18 This lends weight to the argument that Paul's affliction was related to his sight.
5:13 Perhaps this rather confusing chapter falls into the former category--being in an ecstatic state, so to speak, while his first letter was firmly in the latter, more scrutable category.
5:16 Yes, this letter certainly has the flavor of a transformation of Paul's perspective. When he knew Christ from a human point of view, he believed a certain way, that understanding was the goal. Now, in his age and blindness, he is considerably more metaphysical--almost visionary.
6:11 Again Paul falls back on his frankness, which endears me to him. Frankness is among my favorite virtues, and among the most underappreciated I think..
6:14 This also seems to represent an evolution of Paul's belief as found in 1 Cor 7:12, although the two are reconcilable in a way.
6:16-18 It's times like this that I miss the New World Translation's habit of glossing all seeming quotations, for I would love to know Paul's source here. Often it is not to be found anywhere in the Bible as received.
7:8 Ah, here seems to be the crux of this letter: they do not seem to have responded well to his first one--which I loved.
7:11 Funny, I don't remember his rebukes being quite so sound as to warrant this gnaching of the teeth.
8:7 Haha a classic guilt trip. . .
8:16 I am beginning to be intrigued by this Titus fellow. I look forward to reading the book named for him.
9:1 A code word for what nowadays goes by "stewardship", but which might as well be called "finances".
10:1 Is he still going on about this?
10:10 I find this ill at odds with my conception of Paul, whom I imagine to have been a powerful public speaker, as well as a writer. How else could he have accomplished all he did? Is it possible that he faded later in life, and it is this physically unimposing Paul that writes now?
11:6 This is a terribly disingenuous statement of Paul to make. He was surely well-trained in speech at the Sanhedrin.
11:14 Again, this is at odds with 1 Cor 8:2. Is it possible that Paul has been by this point disabused of an earlier notion, and realizes that things are not as flowery as he imagined?
11:33 Paul may be excused for getting a bit carried away here, for his anxiety over the Corinthian congregation is palpable. There must have been somebody quite charismatic undercutting him for him to react this way.
12:2 Hold on a minute: what is the world does he mean by this? The third heaven? Is there a hierarchy? Was there an unrecorded assumption of some sort? Is he referring to Christ? The timing doesn't match up for that. This hints at a Metaphysical goldmine . . .
12:7 A goldmine that Paul is content merely to hint at though . . .
And he leaves it at that. I would love to be a fly on the wall when he did arrive--no doubt he diffused a tense meeting with that delightful blend of humility and frankness that I would so love to imitate.
1:1 I wonder what part Timothy played in the composition of this epistle. I would say he was an amanuensis, except that Sosthenes in 1 Cor. had the same mention, and was not the scribe.
1:10 Except that He will manifestly not rescue Paul indefinitely . . .
1:12 a suitable boast--rather than boast of his gifts of wisdom, prophecy, tongues, Apostlehood, and the like, he boasts merely of his frankness.
2:1 In what way would his visit have been painful?
2:5 Evidently there was some antagonism toward Paul on his last visit . . .
2:7 I feel left out of the import here, but the principle is clear: as in his previous letter, he insists that the virtuous path os to let oneself be wronged rather than to insist on one's rights
3:5 Yet he did indeed claim his own authority for certain suggestions in his first letter.
3:7, 12 Paul would probably not write this way to the Hebrews. "The Ministry of Death" is certainly a harsh word for the Mosaic Law.
3:18 But is this mirror darkened, as in 1 Cor 13? So far Paul has struck an entirely different tone and message from his first letter.
4:4 Paul opens a dangerous line of reasoning here. In his first letter 8:2 he proclaims that if one claims to understand, he does not really. Here he says that one who does not understand is being pruposefully prevented from such understanding. Damned if you do, so to speak . . .
4:18 This lends weight to the argument that Paul's affliction was related to his sight.
5:13 Perhaps this rather confusing chapter falls into the former category--being in an ecstatic state, so to speak, while his first letter was firmly in the latter, more scrutable category.
5:16 Yes, this letter certainly has the flavor of a transformation of Paul's perspective. When he knew Christ from a human point of view, he believed a certain way, that understanding was the goal. Now, in his age and blindness, he is considerably more metaphysical--almost visionary.
6:11 Again Paul falls back on his frankness, which endears me to him. Frankness is among my favorite virtues, and among the most underappreciated I think..
6:14 This also seems to represent an evolution of Paul's belief as found in 1 Cor 7:12, although the two are reconcilable in a way.
6:16-18 It's times like this that I miss the New World Translation's habit of glossing all seeming quotations, for I would love to know Paul's source here. Often it is not to be found anywhere in the Bible as received.
7:8 Ah, here seems to be the crux of this letter: they do not seem to have responded well to his first one--which I loved.
7:11 Funny, I don't remember his rebukes being quite so sound as to warrant this gnaching of the teeth.
8:7 Haha a classic guilt trip. . .
8:16 I am beginning to be intrigued by this Titus fellow. I look forward to reading the book named for him.
9:1 A code word for what nowadays goes by "stewardship", but which might as well be called "finances".
10:1 Is he still going on about this?
10:10 I find this ill at odds with my conception of Paul, whom I imagine to have been a powerful public speaker, as well as a writer. How else could he have accomplished all he did? Is it possible that he faded later in life, and it is this physically unimposing Paul that writes now?
11:6 This is a terribly disingenuous statement of Paul to make. He was surely well-trained in speech at the Sanhedrin.
11:14 Again, this is at odds with 1 Cor 8:2. Is it possible that Paul has been by this point disabused of an earlier notion, and realizes that things are not as flowery as he imagined?
11:33 Paul may be excused for getting a bit carried away here, for his anxiety over the Corinthian congregation is palpable. There must have been somebody quite charismatic undercutting him for him to react this way.
12:2 Hold on a minute: what is the world does he mean by this? The third heaven? Is there a hierarchy? Was there an unrecorded assumption of some sort? Is he referring to Christ? The timing doesn't match up for that. This hints at a Metaphysical goldmine . . .
12:7 A goldmine that Paul is content merely to hint at though . . .
And he leaves it at that. I would love to be a fly on the wall when he did arrive--no doubt he diffused a tense meeting with that delightful blend of humility and frankness that I would so love to imitate.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Liveblogging The Bible: 1st Corinthians
1:1 It's no doubt fruitless to wonder about such men as Sosthenes--here presumably Paul's amanuensis--but wonder I do.
1:4 a couple of troubling thoughts about translation and petty modifiers:
I don't have much to say on any particular verse in this chapter, because I find the whole thing quite brilliant. Paul masterfully transforms a question of sectarianism among the Corinthians into a soaring discourse on the relationship between power and wisdom. In v. 17 he (perhaps disingenuously) decries his own wisdom, and leverages this bit of self-deprecation into a unavoidable focus on the message of Christ. By the end of the chapter, the writer has disappeared completely, and the reader has forgotten everything but the message. Brilliant.
2:6 Paul cannot deny for long, of course, that there is real wisdom to be had in the message of Christ. His distinction is the means by which is it gained: by revelation, and not by reason.
2:11 I'm not sure what to make of this verse, but I love it.
3:2 and he then uses this to bait his audience a bit, reminding them that as long as they are arguing over fleshly things, the real wisdom of God will not be revealed to them.
3:12-15 I consider this to be a misstep, a bit. It feels like Paul got carried away with his metaphor, and took it down a path that doesn't really relate to his subject. Mercifully, he catches himself quickly.
4:5 He seems to be setting up his next step, namely a rebuke of certain behaviors.
4:14 Yes, this whole chapter is definitely ground work for what comes next.
5:3 This seems to contradict his caution against judgement in 4:3-5, and he also seems to be making a rather striking claim of prescience. Is he claiming some sort of astral travel, or merely speaking metaphorically?
5:12 It is probably fair for Paul to claim the right of judgement here, it just seems to go against his own theology.
6:2 This verse is commonly used as justification for the despicable practice of handling such matters as pedophilia internally without informing secular authorities. I think the presence of the word "trivial" in the description should take the power out of that argument though.
6:7 This is the natural extension of Paul's argument in ch.1, that the highest virtue is to allow oneself to be wronged in the service of the higher good. One has to wonder where the line is drawn, though. At murder? Pedophilia? Petty theft? Purely civil matters?
6:9 In this context, the implication is that sin is its own punishment, rather than all such ones should be judged by the congregation.
6:12 an elegant transition into a larger point, one that I can get on board with--as weighty as it is.
7:4 This may be the only authority Paul grants to a woman in his entire ouvre.
7:7 And what gift may it be that Paul has? Extraordinary self-control? That seems unlikely, in light of other statements he makes. What could it be, other than that certain things do not tempt him? And considering the context, what could that be but certain sexual temptations?
7:10 does this represent a typo on Paul's part, one that without the benefit of an eraser he had to amend? Furthermore, what does the slip represent? Does the command come by divine inspiration, or by virtue of his apostolic authority?
7:12 Aah, perhaps not a typo after all, but a setup for the next statement. Nicely done, Paul.
7:14 In what sense are they made holy? In that they are converted, or in that they are grandfathered in, so to speak?
7:17 Leading the life to which God has called you could take many forms. Paul has already allowed concessions for certain personal defects, such as the lack of self-control. What if one was born with a natural attraction for members fo the same sex?
7:21 As tempting as it is to rebuke Paul for his endorsement of slavery, it is a consistent and natural extension of his command to let yourself be wronged. In the broader scheme, what difference does it make, slave or free?
7:25 again, Paul inserts his own opinion, a bald admission that all of the Bible is not inspired by God.
7:29 Is this inconsistent with v.3? Or is it more metaphorical?
Paul spends quite a bit of time on the question of whether or not to have sex. Is this a preoccupation on his part, or a response to a preoccupation on the part of his audience?
8:2 Beautifully consistent with more Eastern thought.
8:9 A running theme in this book. I really like it. Really.
9:4,5 Now wait a minute. Is Paul willing to follow his own counsel here, and allow himself to be wronged?
9:12 Evidently so. Still, he seems to leave certain loopholes for the other Apostles.
9:15 Though for dubious reasons--surely this is not his real motivation.
10:1 Certainly not "under a cloud" in the sense that we would expect.
10:6-13 These verses change the tone of the book, from one of gentle and reasonable suggestion, to intense and urgent command.
10:29 This question, which seems to contradict his point, is promptly answered by the most utilitarian of arguments, "For the Lord," AKA "Cuz I said so."
11:2-15 This seems out of place to me. He has spent so much time dealing with weighty matters, why does he now devote an entire chapter to what he admits are mere customs? Especially one so seemingly trivial as how long one's hair should be? I wonder what the background situation was such that he felt it of such import?
11:20 I don't see how to reconcile this with the Witness' insistence that the Lord's Supper take place only annually. "When you come together" certainly seems to apply to more than an annual occurrence.
11:27 And what would constitute and " an unworthy manner"? To excess? In a morally unclean state?
11:34 This seems to argue for the former.
12:3 This is a rather convenient way for "false" prophets to establish some credibility.
12:11 The Spirit here certainly has agency, as though an individual, rather than a mute force.
12:24 In what way? Paul may be belaboring the metaphor here. To pick it apart:
CH 13 Perhaps one of the most famous and widely memorized of chapters in the entire Bible, and for good reason. I can't think of much to add--other than that he has what amounts to a pronoun referent problem: What is it that will signify the end of these things? "The Complete" is certainly an intriguing appellation. I see no clue here even.
14: Now, how exactly is one supposed to strive for gifts of prophesy when the assignation of such things is purely arbitrary, as determined by spirit?
14:2 The Witnesses often claim that The Complete that Paul references in ch.13 has already come, and that correspondingly all such gifts have disappeared, and that all who seem to exhibit such gifts are either fraudulent or influenced by Demons. They say that the early Christians' gifts of tongues were in actual tongues, known languages, and modern speaking in tongues is mere babble--not from spirit. This verse contradicts that claim--clearly at least some speaking in tongues was incoherent. Furthermore, their assertion does not seem possible under Paul's theology in 12:3.
14:13 The power to speak in tongues is lower in the hierarchy than the gift of prophesy or interpretation for a very good reason.
14:18 If Paul's gift is one of tongues, does that mean that he is lower in authority? Does he ever actually claim the gift of Prophecy? It is convenient that he has put the gift of Apostlehood first in 12:28.
14:26 I love this model of worship. I have often wanted to have a group of friends that I could do this with--void of pedagogy or dogma, free from instruction of all sorts--a simple sharing of love and inspiration.
14:34 Is a woman not permitted the gifts of prophecy then? Or tongues? This is manifestly untrue. So where are these gifts to be shared, if not in the church?
15:1 So it's time for a little pure theology, rather than applied . . .
15:10 Paul doesn't ever shy away from truths--pleasant or un.
15:29 People often laughingly criticize the LDS for this very practice, but there seems to be a clear precedent.
15:32 My sentiments exactly, at one poiont in life. Nowadays, however, I feel that if the dead are not raised, let us be all the more virtuous--for its own sake, not that of a reward.
15:52 Not a common justification for the doctrine of the Rapture, but certainly in support of that belief.
16:21 Not true of every letter of his--worthy of note. What part did Sosthenes play in this letter then?
1:4 a couple of troubling thoughts about translation and petty modifiers:
- "my God" in stead of "God" is a superficially petty distinction, but the theological implications are profound. The original text no doubt makes it difficult, if not impossible, to choose from these two potential translations. "My God" makes the text a personal affirmation, but also leaves open the possibility of other gods beside this one. An unmodified "God" is more authoritative, but correspondingly offhanded. The worst thing about questions like this is that there can be no answer.
- giving thanks "for you", in common usage, signifies "because of you", but here seems to mean "in your behalf", acceptable grammatically, but a strange usage--and one with theological ramifications. Is it possible to act as a thanksgiving proxy? If so, what would be the point? It is possible, that the original meaning is closer to a combination of the two denotations, something like "I give thanks that you are so blessed".
I don't have much to say on any particular verse in this chapter, because I find the whole thing quite brilliant. Paul masterfully transforms a question of sectarianism among the Corinthians into a soaring discourse on the relationship between power and wisdom. In v. 17 he (perhaps disingenuously) decries his own wisdom, and leverages this bit of self-deprecation into a unavoidable focus on the message of Christ. By the end of the chapter, the writer has disappeared completely, and the reader has forgotten everything but the message. Brilliant.
2:6 Paul cannot deny for long, of course, that there is real wisdom to be had in the message of Christ. His distinction is the means by which is it gained: by revelation, and not by reason.
2:11 I'm not sure what to make of this verse, but I love it.
3:2 and he then uses this to bait his audience a bit, reminding them that as long as they are arguing over fleshly things, the real wisdom of God will not be revealed to them.
3:12-15 I consider this to be a misstep, a bit. It feels like Paul got carried away with his metaphor, and took it down a path that doesn't really relate to his subject. Mercifully, he catches himself quickly.
4:5 He seems to be setting up his next step, namely a rebuke of certain behaviors.
4:14 Yes, this whole chapter is definitely ground work for what comes next.
5:3 This seems to contradict his caution against judgement in 4:3-5, and he also seems to be making a rather striking claim of prescience. Is he claiming some sort of astral travel, or merely speaking metaphorically?
5:12 It is probably fair for Paul to claim the right of judgement here, it just seems to go against his own theology.
6:2 This verse is commonly used as justification for the despicable practice of handling such matters as pedophilia internally without informing secular authorities. I think the presence of the word "trivial" in the description should take the power out of that argument though.
6:7 This is the natural extension of Paul's argument in ch.1, that the highest virtue is to allow oneself to be wronged in the service of the higher good. One has to wonder where the line is drawn, though. At murder? Pedophilia? Petty theft? Purely civil matters?
6:9 In this context, the implication is that sin is its own punishment, rather than all such ones should be judged by the congregation.
6:12 an elegant transition into a larger point, one that I can get on board with--as weighty as it is.
7:4 This may be the only authority Paul grants to a woman in his entire ouvre.
7:7 And what gift may it be that Paul has? Extraordinary self-control? That seems unlikely, in light of other statements he makes. What could it be, other than that certain things do not tempt him? And considering the context, what could that be but certain sexual temptations?
7:10 does this represent a typo on Paul's part, one that without the benefit of an eraser he had to amend? Furthermore, what does the slip represent? Does the command come by divine inspiration, or by virtue of his apostolic authority?
7:12 Aah, perhaps not a typo after all, but a setup for the next statement. Nicely done, Paul.
7:14 In what sense are they made holy? In that they are converted, or in that they are grandfathered in, so to speak?
7:17 Leading the life to which God has called you could take many forms. Paul has already allowed concessions for certain personal defects, such as the lack of self-control. What if one was born with a natural attraction for members fo the same sex?
7:21 As tempting as it is to rebuke Paul for his endorsement of slavery, it is a consistent and natural extension of his command to let yourself be wronged. In the broader scheme, what difference does it make, slave or free?
7:25 again, Paul inserts his own opinion, a bald admission that all of the Bible is not inspired by God.
7:29 Is this inconsistent with v.3? Or is it more metaphorical?
Paul spends quite a bit of time on the question of whether or not to have sex. Is this a preoccupation on his part, or a response to a preoccupation on the part of his audience?
8:2 Beautifully consistent with more Eastern thought.
8:9 A running theme in this book. I really like it. Really.
9:4,5 Now wait a minute. Is Paul willing to follow his own counsel here, and allow himself to be wronged?
9:12 Evidently so. Still, he seems to leave certain loopholes for the other Apostles.
9:15 Though for dubious reasons--surely this is not his real motivation.
10:1 Certainly not "under a cloud" in the sense that we would expect.
10:6-13 These verses change the tone of the book, from one of gentle and reasonable suggestion, to intense and urgent command.
10:29 This question, which seems to contradict his point, is promptly answered by the most utilitarian of arguments, "For the Lord," AKA "Cuz I said so."
11:2-15 This seems out of place to me. He has spent so much time dealing with weighty matters, why does he now devote an entire chapter to what he admits are mere customs? Especially one so seemingly trivial as how long one's hair should be? I wonder what the background situation was such that he felt it of such import?
11:20 I don't see how to reconcile this with the Witness' insistence that the Lord's Supper take place only annually. "When you come together" certainly seems to apply to more than an annual occurrence.
11:27 And what would constitute and " an unworthy manner"? To excess? In a morally unclean state?
11:34 This seems to argue for the former.
12:3 This is a rather convenient way for "false" prophets to establish some credibility.
12:11 The Spirit here certainly has agency, as though an individual, rather than a mute force.
12:24 In what way? Paul may be belaboring the metaphor here. To pick it apart:
- What are the more honorable members of the literal body? One would imagine the head and the heart, while the more dishonorable members are the feet or the pudendum.
- In what way to the feet get more honor than the head? In that they are clothed?
- In what way does the pudendum get more honor than the heart? In that it is secreted?
- This seems to connect to his discussion of hair in ch.11: That the head recieves its own glorious apparel, and it is shameful to cover it.
CH 13 Perhaps one of the most famous and widely memorized of chapters in the entire Bible, and for good reason. I can't think of much to add--other than that he has what amounts to a pronoun referent problem: What is it that will signify the end of these things? "The Complete" is certainly an intriguing appellation. I see no clue here even.
14: Now, how exactly is one supposed to strive for gifts of prophesy when the assignation of such things is purely arbitrary, as determined by spirit?
14:2 The Witnesses often claim that The Complete that Paul references in ch.13 has already come, and that correspondingly all such gifts have disappeared, and that all who seem to exhibit such gifts are either fraudulent or influenced by Demons. They say that the early Christians' gifts of tongues were in actual tongues, known languages, and modern speaking in tongues is mere babble--not from spirit. This verse contradicts that claim--clearly at least some speaking in tongues was incoherent. Furthermore, their assertion does not seem possible under Paul's theology in 12:3.
14:13 The power to speak in tongues is lower in the hierarchy than the gift of prophesy or interpretation for a very good reason.
14:18 If Paul's gift is one of tongues, does that mean that he is lower in authority? Does he ever actually claim the gift of Prophecy? It is convenient that he has put the gift of Apostlehood first in 12:28.
14:26 I love this model of worship. I have often wanted to have a group of friends that I could do this with--void of pedagogy or dogma, free from instruction of all sorts--a simple sharing of love and inspiration.
14:34 Is a woman not permitted the gifts of prophecy then? Or tongues? This is manifestly untrue. So where are these gifts to be shared, if not in the church?
15:1 So it's time for a little pure theology, rather than applied . . .
15:10 Paul doesn't ever shy away from truths--pleasant or un.
15:29 People often laughingly criticize the LDS for this very practice, but there seems to be a clear precedent.
15:32 My sentiments exactly, at one poiont in life. Nowadays, however, I feel that if the dead are not raised, let us be all the more virtuous--for its own sake, not that of a reward.
15:52 Not a common justification for the doctrine of the Rapture, but certainly in support of that belief.
16:21 Not true of every letter of his--worthy of note. What part did Sosthenes play in this letter then?
Friday, May 27, 2011
Umberto Eco: The Name of The Rose
This book was not what I expected. I expected something more meta-literate from the hands of Eco, a noted semiotician. Which is not to say it was illiterate--some of my favorite moments came from his references to Boethius or Apuleius, and I confess to a little pride in having read the referenced works. In spite of its pleasures, the book never really seemed to reach beyond its own pages. It made gestures in the direction of certain worthy themes, the interreliance of books upon each other, etc. But I was dissapointed to realize at the close that Eco had written only what he had set out to write: a novel.
Monday, March 21, 2011
G.K. Chesterton: The Man Who Was Thursday and Seven Suspects
I have already said much that I have to say about Chesterton in general upon reading Selected Father Brown Stories, to wit: That he is a much better philospher than detective writer. The books are filled with little errors in judgement, of the sort that one sees in amateurish Hollywood blockbusters---nothing terrible, just occassionally forgetting to tell us something, or omitting some detail that would have made the scene easier to track. Jarring at most, as if the cinematographer had mistaken the line of sight and confused the audience about who was speaking to whom for a moment.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is just as well that his prose is not airtight, for his stories are never really detective stories at all. They are always philisophical, almost religious, in bent, and the crime is mere bait or frosting, depending on his intent. I had forgotten this as I began to read The Man Who Was Thursday, so it was only natural that his implausible dialogue, his seeming misrememberance of earlier established facts, were vexing at first. It was only after I remembered that it is folly to read Chesterton as fiction that I began to truly enjoy this remarkable novella. What he offers is not a detective story at all, but an allegory that offers all the pleasures of allegory--the fine, confluent detail, the overlapping and interlocking symbolism--without much of its didacticism. I can't help but feel that it would have been better undisguised.
The stories in Seven Suspects are a little more passable, and one could almost overlook the mysticism if careless. After reading Thursday, however, my pump was primed, and I sought it everywhere. Nor was I dissapointed. A passage that still brings chills, even upon multiple readings:
Do you remember when we last met at that theatre and I told you that I always liked the picture on the curtain as much as the scenes of the play. . . from any other angle I should see that it was only a painted rag. That is how I feel about this world, as i see it from this mountain. Not that it is not beautiful, for after all a curtain can be beautiful. Not even that it is unreal, for after all a curtain is real. But only that it is thin, and that the things behind it are the real drama" (The Tower of Treason).
How perfectly this parallels my own thinking lately. Taken literally, all that we seem to perceive is but a trick of light. The space between particles of matter is so much exponentially bigger than the matter itself, we may as well be looking at an image projected onto a cloud or water vapor. And if we allow it to, the light is constantly altering what we seem to see, as a shadow falls across it, or as our eyes change their focus, or as the light itself changes. Every visual image we have is quite literally a trick of the light, an optical illusion. It has no reality, and is rather more like Chesterton's theater curtain than anything else. Better yet, perhaps it is more like a scrim, that peculiar sort of theater screen that is opaque when lit from the front, but translucent lit from behind. If the light hits it just right, all that we seem to perceive could instantly disappear to reveal something else, something that may or may not be more real, but would at least be different.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, it is just as well that his prose is not airtight, for his stories are never really detective stories at all. They are always philisophical, almost religious, in bent, and the crime is mere bait or frosting, depending on his intent. I had forgotten this as I began to read The Man Who Was Thursday, so it was only natural that his implausible dialogue, his seeming misrememberance of earlier established facts, were vexing at first. It was only after I remembered that it is folly to read Chesterton as fiction that I began to truly enjoy this remarkable novella. What he offers is not a detective story at all, but an allegory that offers all the pleasures of allegory--the fine, confluent detail, the overlapping and interlocking symbolism--without much of its didacticism. I can't help but feel that it would have been better undisguised.
The stories in Seven Suspects are a little more passable, and one could almost overlook the mysticism if careless. After reading Thursday, however, my pump was primed, and I sought it everywhere. Nor was I dissapointed. A passage that still brings chills, even upon multiple readings:
Do you remember when we last met at that theatre and I told you that I always liked the picture on the curtain as much as the scenes of the play. . . from any other angle I should see that it was only a painted rag. That is how I feel about this world, as i see it from this mountain. Not that it is not beautiful, for after all a curtain can be beautiful. Not even that it is unreal, for after all a curtain is real. But only that it is thin, and that the things behind it are the real drama" (The Tower of Treason).
How perfectly this parallels my own thinking lately. Taken literally, all that we seem to perceive is but a trick of light. The space between particles of matter is so much exponentially bigger than the matter itself, we may as well be looking at an image projected onto a cloud or water vapor. And if we allow it to, the light is constantly altering what we seem to see, as a shadow falls across it, or as our eyes change their focus, or as the light itself changes. Every visual image we have is quite literally a trick of the light, an optical illusion. It has no reality, and is rather more like Chesterton's theater curtain than anything else. Better yet, perhaps it is more like a scrim, that peculiar sort of theater screen that is opaque when lit from the front, but translucent lit from behind. If the light hits it just right, all that we seem to perceive could instantly disappear to reveal something else, something that may or may not be more real, but would at least be different.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Catching up . . .
Margaret Atwood: The Handmaid's Tale
It has been so long since I updated this blog, due to a combination of computer failure and motivation failure, that I have forgotten most of what I meant to say about this book. To remind myself what I thought, I went back to see what pages were dogeared, and found only one. Not surprisingly, it was the most meta passage in the book:
"This is a reconsctruction. All of it is a reconstruction. It's a reconstruction now, in my head, as I lie flat on my single bed rehearsing what I should or shouldn't have said, what I should or shouldn't have done, how I should have played it."
Atwood's narrator further bemoans the difficulty of ever communicating events as they really happened. No matter what, our stories are always many times removed from reality--and perhaps removed the furthest by our own capacity to edit.
I myself am fascinated by this phenomenon, though unlike Atwood's narrator, I don't regret the fact. I relish my editorial post in this life--the trick is not to believe your own story, to be cognizant of its inherent falsehood. The future is a lie. It will never happen. It is fine to lie alone in our beds and write stories about it, but we must never make the mistake of believing those stories, building expectations or anxieties. The past, too, may well have never happened. It most certainly did not happen the way we remember it. We lay in our solitude and return, replay, regret, but it is never more than an illusion projected onto a cloud.
Which brings me to:
Robert Schwartz: Courageous Souls
Recommended to me by my dear friend 주협, this book did not disappoint. The above reminders inspired by Atwood, are an especially appropriate framework in which to discuss it for two reasons: firstly, the central idea is that our stories are one step further removed from reality than Atwood implied: that every event upon which our stories were based is in fact an expression of something unseen, something that happened before we were born even. The way in which the author outlines that idea is rather involved, and I will not go into it here. He does a good job of outlining it, but it is important to remember that this too, is just a story. It is a story about stories, in fact, about how we construct and conceal them. It is helpful, and even healing to read, but it would be a mistake to take it as reality.
C.S. Forester: Mr. Midshipman Hornblower
I can't find a single dogeared page in this book, so I guess there was no particular passage that I wanted to remember or quote verbatim. Instead, I want to read every other volume in the series. It was fresh and engaging, serious without being ponderous, exactly the sort of thing I should read more of.
It has been so long since I updated this blog, due to a combination of computer failure and motivation failure, that I have forgotten most of what I meant to say about this book. To remind myself what I thought, I went back to see what pages were dogeared, and found only one. Not surprisingly, it was the most meta passage in the book:
"This is a reconsctruction. All of it is a reconstruction. It's a reconstruction now, in my head, as I lie flat on my single bed rehearsing what I should or shouldn't have said, what I should or shouldn't have done, how I should have played it."
Atwood's narrator further bemoans the difficulty of ever communicating events as they really happened. No matter what, our stories are always many times removed from reality--and perhaps removed the furthest by our own capacity to edit.
I myself am fascinated by this phenomenon, though unlike Atwood's narrator, I don't regret the fact. I relish my editorial post in this life--the trick is not to believe your own story, to be cognizant of its inherent falsehood. The future is a lie. It will never happen. It is fine to lie alone in our beds and write stories about it, but we must never make the mistake of believing those stories, building expectations or anxieties. The past, too, may well have never happened. It most certainly did not happen the way we remember it. We lay in our solitude and return, replay, regret, but it is never more than an illusion projected onto a cloud.
Which brings me to:
Robert Schwartz: Courageous Souls
Recommended to me by my dear friend 주협, this book did not disappoint. The above reminders inspired by Atwood, are an especially appropriate framework in which to discuss it for two reasons: firstly, the central idea is that our stories are one step further removed from reality than Atwood implied: that every event upon which our stories were based is in fact an expression of something unseen, something that happened before we were born even. The way in which the author outlines that idea is rather involved, and I will not go into it here. He does a good job of outlining it, but it is important to remember that this too, is just a story. It is a story about stories, in fact, about how we construct and conceal them. It is helpful, and even healing to read, but it would be a mistake to take it as reality.
C.S. Forester: Mr. Midshipman Hornblower
I can't find a single dogeared page in this book, so I guess there was no particular passage that I wanted to remember or quote verbatim. Instead, I want to read every other volume in the series. It was fresh and engaging, serious without being ponderous, exactly the sort of thing I should read more of.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Mathieu Ricard: Why Meditate?
It seems enough to say that my Dad gave me this book. As could be inferred from that statement, it has little to recommend it.
Useless though the book is, however, reading it served to remind me that January is an excellent time to give my personal meditation practice a shot in the arm. In 2010, I have been meditating along the lines of Ernest Holmes' model, but I cannot say that I have put much effort into it or been very consistent.
Since reading Ricard's book, on the other hand, I have managed to meditate--fruitfully, I might add--every day. I guess it did its job after all.
Useless though the book is, however, reading it served to remind me that January is an excellent time to give my personal meditation practice a shot in the arm. In 2010, I have been meditating along the lines of Ernest Holmes' model, but I cannot say that I have put much effort into it or been very consistent.
Since reading Ricard's book, on the other hand, I have managed to meditate--fruitfully, I might add--every day. I guess it did its job after all.
Aleksandr Ostrovsky: The Storm
In the preface to this edition (Bibliobazaar, for those interested), the editor makes two comments, either of which would have sufficed to lower my expectations for this play. Firstly, she or he (identified only as E.G. for some reason) identifies Ostrovsky as " . . . the greatest of the Russian dramatists." On what authority is this ludicrous statement made? What makes Ostrovsky (largely unknown outside of Russia) better than Chekov or Gorki? Ridiculous. Secondly, "All the reproach that lives for us in the word theatrical is worlds removed from 'The Storm'. . . people who like 'farcical comedy' and social melodrama, and 'musical sketches' will find 'The Storm' deep, forbidding and gloomy." Of course, I am one of those people, so I didn't expect much to like this play.
I was not wrong, but my distaste for it did not arise from the editor's expected causes. For one thing, it was indeed gloomy, but not particularly deep. In fact, in a play where the heroine hurls herself to her death after her affair is discovered, the above assertion that the play is not theatrical seems patently absurd. Rather than overly dramatic, I found the play too simple for my taste. The plot is uninventive, and the characters uninteresting. This first item from the sixth year of Ward's Lifetime of Reading has been a disappointment, but he fails me so rarely, and plays take so little time to read, that I forgive him.
I was not wrong, but my distaste for it did not arise from the editor's expected causes. For one thing, it was indeed gloomy, but not particularly deep. In fact, in a play where the heroine hurls herself to her death after her affair is discovered, the above assertion that the play is not theatrical seems patently absurd. Rather than overly dramatic, I found the play too simple for my taste. The plot is uninventive, and the characters uninteresting. This first item from the sixth year of Ward's Lifetime of Reading has been a disappointment, but he fails me so rarely, and plays take so little time to read, that I forgive him.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Doris Lessing: The Cleft
LOL I knew Lessing was a feminist when I picked up this book, so I really should have guessed the subject from the title. Still, in spite of basically being about pussies and how men are stupid, but women are stupid for liking them, it was a fun book. The structure kept it from becoming didactic, and Lessing has a way with narrative. If there is something hidden in these few pages, I suspect that the clue lies in the narrator's reference to Artemis and Diana as two different gods, even though that has no saliency for me. The story is clearly set in Rome, so why would he even mention Diana? There is something here that is occurring to me, even as I write it down, about how our modern myths are just more mature versions of older ones--including the myth of where men and women came from. I bet, if I were a feminist critic instead of merely a personal one, I would take that ball and run with it.
Won H. Kim: Water of Life, A Cure for our Bodies
Results don't lie. If I read this book in a vacuum, I would have discounted it as so-called quack science. It is written and organized in such a way that the science behind it seems fuzzy at best, and even wishful at times. Part of this may be due to translation, but surely not all of it.
However, I did not read it in a vacuum. The author's daughter is a very close friend of mine, and her story plays a large part in the book itself. The seemingly ridiculous health claims made in the book, about how her need for troublesome and ineffective hormone supplements was nearly eliminated by mere water, are not exaggerated in the least. Crystal really has been taking specially treated water instead of medicine for years.
Which is the only reason I don't laugh at the later parts of the book, where the science gets even fuzzier, and the claims even more outlandish. Could it be true? Can we really be cured of deadly diseases so easily? The fact that Crystal's Dad is under investigation for his claims strengthens his credibility, rather than weakening it. Of course such discoveries would come under attack. At any rate, I am at least half convinced that what he describes is true, and am willing to at least consider the possibility of the other half--and believe me, it's pretty strange. . .
However, I did not read it in a vacuum. The author's daughter is a very close friend of mine, and her story plays a large part in the book itself. The seemingly ridiculous health claims made in the book, about how her need for troublesome and ineffective hormone supplements was nearly eliminated by mere water, are not exaggerated in the least. Crystal really has been taking specially treated water instead of medicine for years.
Which is the only reason I don't laugh at the later parts of the book, where the science gets even fuzzier, and the claims even more outlandish. Could it be true? Can we really be cured of deadly diseases so easily? The fact that Crystal's Dad is under investigation for his claims strengthens his credibility, rather than weakening it. Of course such discoveries would come under attack. At any rate, I am at least half convinced that what he describes is true, and am willing to at least consider the possibility of the other half--and believe me, it's pretty strange. . .
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Romans II
9:1 Paul seems more to be convincing himself than his audience
9:2-5 What an interesting source of anguish. He almost wishes he didn't know the truth so as not to be alienated from his own people.
9:9 but he justifies it by claiming that Christians are the real holders of Abraham's legacy.
9:14-16 Paul takes this as an example of God's justice, but it certainly seems to be otherwise. If God's mercy is arbitrary, as was his selection of Jacob over Esau, what could be less just?
9:17 and here he invokes another example, but weakens his point. Surely god set Pharoah up, hardening his heart just to make a point. Was this just?
9:20 and the only answer that can be made, "well, his ways are a mystery" is utterly unsatisfactory.
9:23 it is well and good that god should use the objects of wrath to make known the riches of mercy--unless you happen to be one of those objects of wrath, in which case it is bound to seem unfair.
9:33 and here god has said with his own voice that he purposefully set some up to take a fall.
This whole chapter has left me feeling quite melancholy. If one is to believe the Bible at all, this book, but especially the Hebrew Scriptures, then I am most certainly one of those "objects of wrath that are made for destruction." I am by Biblical standards, quite flawed. The funny thing is, so was Paul. What is the difference? Why has he been "saved" and I have not?
10:1 and what good are Paul's prayers that so and so be saved, if god's decision on these matters is arbitrary and irreversible?
10:3 and he seems to be talking about the Nation of Israel as a whole here--no wonder he is in such anguish writing these words. It is his own people that have been set aside for destruction.
10:13 and yet, is this all that is necessary? If so, Paul is contradicting himself rather seriously . . . of course, his theology is sound if one applies only to the specific case of Israelites who have heard the word of Christ. For the rest of us, though, what application is to be made of these words? We have neither law nor faith by which to be saved? We have not been born into law, like Israel, nor have we been called to faith, for, as Paul describes in ch.9, this call is arbitrary. Paul is not addressing such cases here, of course, but if the theology is sound, then how can it fit?
11:1 It is telling that Paul cannot help but refer to the Israelites as "God's People", even though he well knows that the appellation no longer really fits.
11:4 In what sense did Go keep these 7,000 for himself? Did he actively intervene in their exercise of free choice? Is this what we are calling, "Grace"?
11:7 More and more, this book takes on the flavor of a convulsing dialectic, one that may never reach synthesis. When Paul asks, "What then?" it doesn't seem rhetorical anymore. He seems to realize that he has reasoned himself into a corner, and doesn't know what's next.
11:11 A terrible proposition: that the Gentiles are God's backup date, intended to make Israel jealous.
11:16 This metaphor takes some of the sting out of that though. Nicely played. The question is, in the metaphor what is the root? Israel, or God?
11:25 And what is that "full number"? Does that mean that a limited number of Gentiles can be saved?
11:26 Is all Israel intended for salvation in the sense that Gentiles will fill the empty places, and so the number will be unchanged, or the entrance of Gentiles will inspire the nation as a whole to repentance (whereupon Paul seems to thing the Gentiles would become irrelevant)?
11:28-32 Okay it's about to get really twisted; let's see if I can make sense of Paul's reasoning here: The Jews are still elect, but were disobedient so the Gentiles have received mercy. What is not clear is in v.31 how the mercy shown to the Gentiles opens mercy up to the repentant Jews. I suppose the connection must be made to v.23 where branches that have been cut off can be grafted back on--in this sens the mercy of the grafting process is made possible for the Jews after is has been made necessary for the Gentiles.
11:33 Did Paul just give up understanding this muddle? This wasn't even the worst one; I thought I untied it rather nicely above.
12:3 "According to the measure of faith that God has assigned" is an interesting phrase. Is Paul indicating that, as grace is in ch.11, so faith is portioned out administratively?
12:6 But Paul makes that sound like such a good thing: very ecumenical. Even just being cheerful is a gift of spirit--kind of like, "Well, she has a great personality. . ."
12:16 The only one in this list of usual exhortations that caught my eye: "Do not claim to be wiser than you are" as opposed to "Do not claim to be wiser than another". This makes me giggle inside.
12:19 I like this expression: "Leave room for the wrath of God". Don't avenge yourselves, not because it is wrong, but because if you avenge yourselves then God won't do it.
13:1 This certainly seems to be an untenable argument--that no authority exists that God has not instituted. Surely Paul realizes that it is a ridiculous proposition; could he be covering his ass here? Paul asserts that the governmental authorities are no impediment to good, which is manifestly and immediately disprovable.
In all, this chapter is really nice though. Sweet, poetic, and meaningful.
14:15 Paul takes a bold step here, one that elevates this chapter from mere proverbs to real theology. He takes aim here, not at flawed ideas, but at the stony, proud hearts of mankind, who insist on their "rights" and especially on being "right". It is the natural path of any religion, as it develops, to begin with a focus on righteousness, and end up in a pit of rightness. What Paul proposes here is revolutionary: let yourself be wrong--not wronged, but actually be wrong--for the sake of your brother. That may be a gift more subtle and more profound than giving one's life.
15:1 and doing so, don't clap yourself on the back either. The noble thing that Paul proposes is to let yourself be wrong, and let your brother whom you know to be wrong--albeit harmlessly--think himself right. So difficult . . .
15:17 Rather an unorthodox thing to dwell on for half a chapter . . .
15:27 another untenable position--surely meant more with a smirk than as actual theology.
16:1 this chapter reads like a postscript, or a list of attachments.
16:22 This Tertius is a potentially fascinating character. I wonder what else is known about him. Seems to be a psuedonym, especially when considering that he calls his bother Quartus.
9:2-5 What an interesting source of anguish. He almost wishes he didn't know the truth so as not to be alienated from his own people.
9:9 but he justifies it by claiming that Christians are the real holders of Abraham's legacy.
9:14-16 Paul takes this as an example of God's justice, but it certainly seems to be otherwise. If God's mercy is arbitrary, as was his selection of Jacob over Esau, what could be less just?
9:17 and here he invokes another example, but weakens his point. Surely god set Pharoah up, hardening his heart just to make a point. Was this just?
9:20 and the only answer that can be made, "well, his ways are a mystery" is utterly unsatisfactory.
9:23 it is well and good that god should use the objects of wrath to make known the riches of mercy--unless you happen to be one of those objects of wrath, in which case it is bound to seem unfair.
9:33 and here god has said with his own voice that he purposefully set some up to take a fall.
This whole chapter has left me feeling quite melancholy. If one is to believe the Bible at all, this book, but especially the Hebrew Scriptures, then I am most certainly one of those "objects of wrath that are made for destruction." I am by Biblical standards, quite flawed. The funny thing is, so was Paul. What is the difference? Why has he been "saved" and I have not?
10:1 and what good are Paul's prayers that so and so be saved, if god's decision on these matters is arbitrary and irreversible?
10:3 and he seems to be talking about the Nation of Israel as a whole here--no wonder he is in such anguish writing these words. It is his own people that have been set aside for destruction.
10:13 and yet, is this all that is necessary? If so, Paul is contradicting himself rather seriously . . . of course, his theology is sound if one applies only to the specific case of Israelites who have heard the word of Christ. For the rest of us, though, what application is to be made of these words? We have neither law nor faith by which to be saved? We have not been born into law, like Israel, nor have we been called to faith, for, as Paul describes in ch.9, this call is arbitrary. Paul is not addressing such cases here, of course, but if the theology is sound, then how can it fit?
11:1 It is telling that Paul cannot help but refer to the Israelites as "God's People", even though he well knows that the appellation no longer really fits.
11:4 In what sense did Go keep these 7,000 for himself? Did he actively intervene in their exercise of free choice? Is this what we are calling, "Grace"?
11:7 More and more, this book takes on the flavor of a convulsing dialectic, one that may never reach synthesis. When Paul asks, "What then?" it doesn't seem rhetorical anymore. He seems to realize that he has reasoned himself into a corner, and doesn't know what's next.
11:11 A terrible proposition: that the Gentiles are God's backup date, intended to make Israel jealous.
11:16 This metaphor takes some of the sting out of that though. Nicely played. The question is, in the metaphor what is the root? Israel, or God?
11:25 And what is that "full number"? Does that mean that a limited number of Gentiles can be saved?
11:26 Is all Israel intended for salvation in the sense that Gentiles will fill the empty places, and so the number will be unchanged, or the entrance of Gentiles will inspire the nation as a whole to repentance (whereupon Paul seems to thing the Gentiles would become irrelevant)?
11:28-32 Okay it's about to get really twisted; let's see if I can make sense of Paul's reasoning here: The Jews are still elect, but were disobedient so the Gentiles have received mercy. What is not clear is in v.31 how the mercy shown to the Gentiles opens mercy up to the repentant Jews. I suppose the connection must be made to v.23 where branches that have been cut off can be grafted back on--in this sens the mercy of the grafting process is made possible for the Jews after is has been made necessary for the Gentiles.
11:33 Did Paul just give up understanding this muddle? This wasn't even the worst one; I thought I untied it rather nicely above.
12:3 "According to the measure of faith that God has assigned" is an interesting phrase. Is Paul indicating that, as grace is in ch.11, so faith is portioned out administratively?
12:6 But Paul makes that sound like such a good thing: very ecumenical. Even just being cheerful is a gift of spirit--kind of like, "Well, she has a great personality. . ."
12:16 The only one in this list of usual exhortations that caught my eye: "Do not claim to be wiser than you are" as opposed to "Do not claim to be wiser than another". This makes me giggle inside.
12:19 I like this expression: "Leave room for the wrath of God". Don't avenge yourselves, not because it is wrong, but because if you avenge yourselves then God won't do it.
13:1 This certainly seems to be an untenable argument--that no authority exists that God has not instituted. Surely Paul realizes that it is a ridiculous proposition; could he be covering his ass here? Paul asserts that the governmental authorities are no impediment to good, which is manifestly and immediately disprovable.
In all, this chapter is really nice though. Sweet, poetic, and meaningful.
14:15 Paul takes a bold step here, one that elevates this chapter from mere proverbs to real theology. He takes aim here, not at flawed ideas, but at the stony, proud hearts of mankind, who insist on their "rights" and especially on being "right". It is the natural path of any religion, as it develops, to begin with a focus on righteousness, and end up in a pit of rightness. What Paul proposes here is revolutionary: let yourself be wrong--not wronged, but actually be wrong--for the sake of your brother. That may be a gift more subtle and more profound than giving one's life.
15:1 and doing so, don't clap yourself on the back either. The noble thing that Paul proposes is to let yourself be wrong, and let your brother whom you know to be wrong--albeit harmlessly--think himself right. So difficult . . .
15:17 Rather an unorthodox thing to dwell on for half a chapter . . .
15:27 another untenable position--surely meant more with a smirk than as actual theology.
16:1 this chapter reads like a postscript, or a list of attachments.
16:22 This Tertius is a potentially fascinating character. I wonder what else is known about him. Seems to be a psuedonym, especially when considering that he calls his bother Quartus.
Joseph Conrad: Under Western Eyes
"Speech has been given to us for the purpose of concealing our thoughts." (136)
It takes Conrad a while, but with this quote he reveals his purpose, much like he did in The Secret Agent. On the surface, this is yet another spy novel, but underneath is the painful thesis that people never really know one another, especially those separated by culture on top of our already insurmountable isolation. I have treated this theme already in the aforementioned book of Conrad's, so why not touch on a more personal application of this idea, one to which I am beginning to subscribe . . .
Let's call this fellow Jay. Why not? That's what he calls himself, and the fact that it is not his real name should already be revealing. Jay is a Korean man who has lived in the United States for 15 years, and speaks nearly perfect English. Jay and I have remarkably similar values and religious beliefs--startlingly so. We also share several interests, not the least of which are opera and cuddling. On top of these overlapping features, he also has a powerful set of relationship skills, with which I continue to be impressed. In short, Jay and I should be able to communicate well, as well as can be expected of any two people, let alone two people of different nationalities.
Be we do not. Even in flawless English, I find that our messages are muddied somehow, misinterpreted and transformed into something offensive. Conrad would not be surprised, of course, so why should I be? I already know that one never knows another, not measurably, yet I find myself startled each time. To avoid wallowing, let me conclude by saying that it is a source of wonder and fear that, in each mind that passes my way, there is an entire universe every bit as strange and complicated as the one in my own mind, and it would take a lifetime to understand, even I did have access to it. Which I do not.
It takes Conrad a while, but with this quote he reveals his purpose, much like he did in The Secret Agent. On the surface, this is yet another spy novel, but underneath is the painful thesis that people never really know one another, especially those separated by culture on top of our already insurmountable isolation. I have treated this theme already in the aforementioned book of Conrad's, so why not touch on a more personal application of this idea, one to which I am beginning to subscribe . . .
Let's call this fellow Jay. Why not? That's what he calls himself, and the fact that it is not his real name should already be revealing. Jay is a Korean man who has lived in the United States for 15 years, and speaks nearly perfect English. Jay and I have remarkably similar values and religious beliefs--startlingly so. We also share several interests, not the least of which are opera and cuddling. On top of these overlapping features, he also has a powerful set of relationship skills, with which I continue to be impressed. In short, Jay and I should be able to communicate well, as well as can be expected of any two people, let alone two people of different nationalities.
Be we do not. Even in flawless English, I find that our messages are muddied somehow, misinterpreted and transformed into something offensive. Conrad would not be surprised, of course, so why should I be? I already know that one never knows another, not measurably, yet I find myself startled each time. To avoid wallowing, let me conclude by saying that it is a source of wonder and fear that, in each mind that passes my way, there is an entire universe every bit as strange and complicated as the one in my own mind, and it would take a lifetime to understand, even I did have access to it. Which I do not.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Albert Camus: The Fall
I can think of no better endorsement of this novelette than to announce that I have found the epigraph for my memoir:
"But what do I care? Don't all lies eventually lead to the truth? And don't all stories, true or false, tend toward the same conclusion? . . . Sometimes it is easier to see clearly into the liar than into the man who tells the truth. Truth, like light, blinds. Falsehood, on the contrary, is a beautiful twlight that enhances every object. Well, take it how you like, I was named Pope in a prison camp" (340,41).
Aside from being a riveting panegyric thinly disguised as a narrative, this book has one other distinguishing feature: it is the only fiction work I can think of that is written in the second person. The possibilities that such a format offers opened before me as I read it, and they are considerable. It is strange that more authors don't make use of it--only Browning even toyed with it that I know of. Even here, Conrad only scratches the surface of the possibilities. So, I shall take more than Conrad's words for my memoir. I shall write it, at least partly, in the second person. It was never going to get published anyway--maybe not even written.
"But what do I care? Don't all lies eventually lead to the truth? And don't all stories, true or false, tend toward the same conclusion? . . . Sometimes it is easier to see clearly into the liar than into the man who tells the truth. Truth, like light, blinds. Falsehood, on the contrary, is a beautiful twlight that enhances every object. Well, take it how you like, I was named Pope in a prison camp" (340,41).
Aside from being a riveting panegyric thinly disguised as a narrative, this book has one other distinguishing feature: it is the only fiction work I can think of that is written in the second person. The possibilities that such a format offers opened before me as I read it, and they are considerable. It is strange that more authors don't make use of it--only Browning even toyed with it that I know of. Even here, Conrad only scratches the surface of the possibilities. So, I shall take more than Conrad's words for my memoir. I shall write it, at least partly, in the second person. It was never going to get published anyway--maybe not even written.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Albert Camus: The Plague
As strong is this book, it could stand on its on simply on its surface merit. That is to say, a riveting if morbid account of the spread of Bubonic Plague through a small town in Africa. The characterization and pacing are especially strong, and the work is a refined piece of literature. So strong, in fact, that it is tempting to leave it there and move on.
Which may be why Camus chose to tip his hand in the epigraph and encourage the reader to look a little closer:
"It is as reasonable to represent one kind of imprisonment by another, as it is to represent anything that really exists by what which exists not!" ~ Daniel Defoe
Thus does Camus to declare his ambition to write more than a flawless narrative, and dive into an allegorical representation. Simply replace "imprisonment" in Defoe's words with "plague," and you have nearly unraveled Camus' meaning.
But the question remains, for what sort of plague is his literal plague a metaphor? It is pretty evident from his focus throughout that he means to represent the fatal separation of all mankind from each other, for it is that psychological aspect of the event that he treats, almost to the exclusion of all others. The word "isolation" is ubiquitous, clearly not due to Camus' limited lexicon.
And it is revealed over the course of the story that the plague does not cause the isolation; it simply reveals an isolation that already existed in the lives of all. The conscience of the story, Tarrou, remarks, "everyone's always cut off from everyone else", not as a result of the plague, but of their consciences (172). Later, this same character cements the connection between plague and isolation in his final diatribe, as he uses "plague" to describe his entire life, irrespective of the literal disease. "I, anyhow, had had plague through all those long years," he observes, recounting his life. "What does that mean--'plague'--just life. No more than that" (222, 270).
And so it is in Camus' world. Men are incurably isolated from one another--not by choice, but from birth. Those to whom we think we are connected, with whom we experience the illusion of intimacy, are always separated from us. We never truly know another, and sadly, there is some truth in what he proposes. I, for one, take Woolf's view that we are indeed leaves floating blinding in a stream, but that we occasionally, in blessed moments, manage to bump into each other (A Room of One's Own).
Which may be why Camus chose to tip his hand in the epigraph and encourage the reader to look a little closer:
"It is as reasonable to represent one kind of imprisonment by another, as it is to represent anything that really exists by what which exists not!" ~ Daniel Defoe
Thus does Camus to declare his ambition to write more than a flawless narrative, and dive into an allegorical representation. Simply replace "imprisonment" in Defoe's words with "plague," and you have nearly unraveled Camus' meaning.
But the question remains, for what sort of plague is his literal plague a metaphor? It is pretty evident from his focus throughout that he means to represent the fatal separation of all mankind from each other, for it is that psychological aspect of the event that he treats, almost to the exclusion of all others. The word "isolation" is ubiquitous, clearly not due to Camus' limited lexicon.
And it is revealed over the course of the story that the plague does not cause the isolation; it simply reveals an isolation that already existed in the lives of all. The conscience of the story, Tarrou, remarks, "everyone's always cut off from everyone else", not as a result of the plague, but of their consciences (172). Later, this same character cements the connection between plague and isolation in his final diatribe, as he uses "plague" to describe his entire life, irrespective of the literal disease. "I, anyhow, had had plague through all those long years," he observes, recounting his life. "What does that mean--'plague'--just life. No more than that" (222, 270).
And so it is in Camus' world. Men are incurably isolated from one another--not by choice, but from birth. Those to whom we think we are connected, with whom we experience the illusion of intimacy, are always separated from us. We never truly know another, and sadly, there is some truth in what he proposes. I, for one, take Woolf's view that we are indeed leaves floating blinding in a stream, but that we occasionally, in blessed moments, manage to bump into each other (A Room of One's Own).
Friday, September 17, 2010
Hermann hesse: The Glass Bead Game
This book certainly lends itself to literary analysis. I could write paper upon paper about it, never repeating myself, about the parallels between Ludi's life and his fictional autobiographies, about the homosexual undercurrent, about the underdevelopment of female characters, especially about the books dazzling ending. But I shall not.
As tempting as it is to grind out one of those sort of essays, it is even more tempting to make some unlooked for connections between the book and other recent projects of mine. There is a fortuitous and obscure common thread between this novel, Doctor Zhivago, and the letters of Pliny the Younger, very nearly all of my recent literary consumption. The thread is The Plight of the Amateur Poet. Doesn't that have a nice ring to it? I'm sure the theme has not been touched, and I would do it justice. But I shall not.
Instead, I am compelled to write that least reputable of literary analyses, the personal reaction. As dense as The Glass Bead Game is with content, and as ripe as it is for analysis, I am holding a personal grief which the book has brought to a boil. It concerns Robert, also technically a contributor to this blog, but I think there is little danger of his reading it. If he does happen upon it, I think that itself an indicator that he might be feeling similarly.
The eponymous game of Hesse's is not a game at all, of course. This is true not only in the sense that it is a metaphor, but also that it is a way of thinking--not a competition. The player connects and orders symbols to create a systematic and harmonius train of thought. The trick lies in the fact that each symbol has sundried meanings, perhaps a musical theme of Bach's alongside a correlating astronomical equation, a passage of Homeric Latin, and perhaps a mathematical theorem. The idea is that all fields of thought are connected, and what is true for music is true for Astronomy, literature and indeed all of reality. The protagonist's contention is that each "game" points to a kernel of truth at the center of all reality, and spends the book searching for . . . well, that's another essay.
It is this very game that Robert and I used to play, connecting his ideas about movies or science to mine about philosophy or literature, and often vice versa. These are easily the most stimulating interactions I've ever had with another human, and I miss them. It's a pity that our paths have forked--or rather that such an amazing interchange has disappeared along with the very love that it fertilized. Is there a way for me to play the glass bead game again? with Robert or with someone else?
As tempting as it is to grind out one of those sort of essays, it is even more tempting to make some unlooked for connections between the book and other recent projects of mine. There is a fortuitous and obscure common thread between this novel, Doctor Zhivago, and the letters of Pliny the Younger, very nearly all of my recent literary consumption. The thread is The Plight of the Amateur Poet. Doesn't that have a nice ring to it? I'm sure the theme has not been touched, and I would do it justice. But I shall not.
Instead, I am compelled to write that least reputable of literary analyses, the personal reaction. As dense as The Glass Bead Game is with content, and as ripe as it is for analysis, I am holding a personal grief which the book has brought to a boil. It concerns Robert, also technically a contributor to this blog, but I think there is little danger of his reading it. If he does happen upon it, I think that itself an indicator that he might be feeling similarly.
The eponymous game of Hesse's is not a game at all, of course. This is true not only in the sense that it is a metaphor, but also that it is a way of thinking--not a competition. The player connects and orders symbols to create a systematic and harmonius train of thought. The trick lies in the fact that each symbol has sundried meanings, perhaps a musical theme of Bach's alongside a correlating astronomical equation, a passage of Homeric Latin, and perhaps a mathematical theorem. The idea is that all fields of thought are connected, and what is true for music is true for Astronomy, literature and indeed all of reality. The protagonist's contention is that each "game" points to a kernel of truth at the center of all reality, and spends the book searching for . . . well, that's another essay.
It is this very game that Robert and I used to play, connecting his ideas about movies or science to mine about philosophy or literature, and often vice versa. These are easily the most stimulating interactions I've ever had with another human, and I miss them. It's a pity that our paths have forked--or rather that such an amazing interchange has disappeared along with the very love that it fertilized. Is there a way for me to play the glass bead game again? with Robert or with someone else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)