With ever-increasing sizes of bookshelves, it might be desirable to divide books into two categories - books that have a constant aesthetic pleasure tWith ever-increasing sizes of bookshelves, it might be desirable to divide books into two categories - books that have a constant aesthetic pleasure to offer (which of course is subjective) and books that you want to read because of their impact on culture but probably won't enjoy it. Books like The Silence of the lambs or the Game of Thrones seems to me to fall in the second category. 'Don Quixote' is probably the best example. I don't think a lot of people will enjoy reading it.
To begin with, you need to have a very cruel sense of humor to enjoy most of what goes in the book as the Knight and his squire fall prey to accidents or, worse still, pranks of people around them humoring themselves at the expense of the two. This kind of humor at the expense of poor and naive people seems to have something medieval in it. It is quite commonly visible in medieval books like Arabian Nights, Decameron, Don Quixote, Grimm's fairy tales, etc. You see jokes made at the expense of obese, ones not gifted with the traditional definition of looks, dwarves, hunchbacks, etc if not also naive, Innocent, simpleminded people. Even 'Game of Thrones' which has a medical times like setting is full of people having this ugly sense of humor but it (the TV series at least) redeems itself by making some of the strongest characters out of its underdogs - you side with underdogs which is not case with other books, especially with Don Quixote, in it you are supposed to be laughing at Don and his squire. These days literature in West is generally more compassionate - something you could not say about most of Bollywood or Tollywood moves where there are always some sidekicks or comedians (often fat and/or naive) suffering misfortunes (including at hands of supposed good two shoes lead heroes and heroines) for 'comic' relief. Kapil Sharma's whole career seems to be built on the back of such cheap humor.
Second, the novel doesn't exactly seem to hold together in kind of symmetry I love in well-written novels. It seems like the author wrote chapter after another on the go without worrying about the overall picture he is creating and as a result an overall picture is a group of only loosely connected objects.
I did try to love this book. I mean so many writers and critics have called it the greatest book ever. I even read Nabokov's lectures on it simply in order to find a way to love it (why else would one read lectures on literature anyway?) but nothing. Aside from the importance of titular character, which I was already aware of, Nabokov had no other good reasons for why we should read it (he did object to cruel humor in it though). And even the idea of titular character which, chances are you are already aware of, is no good reason for so long a book.
Quixote's attraction lies in his ideomania which is seasoned with a great amount of idealism. Ideomania by itself is nothing awesome - terrorists, fundamentalists, serial killers, mad lovers, etc are ideomaniacs too. It is a psychological disorder for a good reason. But Nabhokov is so fundamentalist as to be without doubt:
"Don Quixote, it should be borne in mind, is the maker of his own glory, the only begetter of these marvels; and within his soul he carries the most dread enemy of the visionary: the snake of doubt, the coiled consciousness that his quest is an illusion. " -Nabhokov
But you combine it with a bit of idealism, and you get knights running to save damsels in distress, people dying for an abstract ideal (Bhagat Singh to quote an example) and artists wasting their lives away in creating beautiful things. Such souls see themselves mirrored in Quioxite.
And this identity in Quioxite which artists find in him - Van Gogh becomes a painter knowing that he would never be successful, Flaubert takes great pains writing a book, screaming at top of his voice words until he gets that 'exactly one right word' (and the book he writes is about an ideamaniac woman too) and so on, it is this identity that makes this crude book (Nabhokov's word) likeable to them. Ideomaniac Idealists have their own romantic notions like Quixote and like him are capable of seeing monsters in wind Mills (this alternative conception of reality gives birth to art) and so it makes sense that they should love Quioxite. Even if you are not an artist or a human rights activist or one of those fancy people, but are an ideomaniac idealist you will love Quioxite's sacrifices for his idea - against all the better sense (like all Ideomaniacs, he show the great sense in spheres other than the one of his idea). Idealism is like ideomania, romantic and foolish often at odds against the wicked, wicked world. I am not an idealist and definitely not a very good artist, so his character holds little appeal to me. Btw, much like novelists and artists, readers and art lovers are that way too ..... Wasting their lives on books, ignoring people cracking jokes on them, when they could be .... Having sex.
"Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind."
Again, so many major characters are ideomaniacs - Shakespeare is full of them whether it be Hamlet, Othello, Lear, Macbeth, Shylock. And there are Emma Bovary, Anna Kareina, Joker, Harley Quinn (actually most of villians in Batman) etc.
Coming back to book, the famous windmill scene is not typical examples of all the adventures. While some involve him having hallucinations, there are other times when no such thing occurs. In the second part of the first book, the reality gives into Quixote's fantasy world of knights and damsels in distress for example ... Something later disclosed to be a dishonest intrusion by the supposed 'translator' of the book. Most of the 'adventures' Quixote has in the second part are results of cheap tricks played by people around him. Also, while most of the fantasy elements are given a so-called realistic justification by the narrator or translator or author in the course of book; there is at least one incidence, the one involving Don going down a dark pit where he had adventures lasting days while only a few minutes have passed for those waiting outside for him, in which we never learn for sure from narrator whether he was hallucinating, lying or really had that adventure.
A somewhat more curious character is Sancho Panza. I love characters behaving in a contradictory manner but only when I see some deeper justification in those superficial contradictions. You never quite learn what Sancho thinks of his Master - whether he actually believes him to a true Knight, or whether he thinks of him as a fool that he saves to justify whatever compensation he might get out of it. He is an epic example of everyman having more mundane passions such as for money. Unlike Don, he is married and it seems significant that his wisdom mostly comes in common proverbs.
The relationship between Quixote and Panza is probably the most attractive thing about this book as far as concerned. Though I don't think that it is intended that way. But Quixote and Panza are like (it's probably something j read somewhere) the heart and mind of the individual respectively - not in simplistic 'feelings' versus 'rational thoughts' manner. Even the heart can be wise and even mind can be irrational, but rather in where heart is the dreaming organ (you might argue that heart is not seated dreams but then it is not seat of feelings either, it is just a blood pumping organ) and mind is the one who follows it half-heartedly often against it's common sense judgment....more
(The spoilers are no spoiler. They just go into some of my intellectual queries which have little to do with book.)
Another of those books that would h(The spoilers are no spoiler. They just go into some of my intellectual queries which have little to do with book.)
Another of those books that would have been better if it was shorter. The book has several divisions and each division has a section of a short novella 'Free Women' (by omniscient narrator) and sections of diaries Anna, the protagonist, keeps.
Now, as a matter of principle I do not ... don't laugh, I'm perfectly capable of having principles, so, I was saying As a matter of principle, I do not read anyone's personal diaries. If you know me, you can guess that it has nothing to do with respect of privacy or anything, just that people are often more judgmental and critical in their personal diaries. Not so free women
That is problem with Anna. Either she is surrounded by lousy people all around or she is lying when she says she doesn't easily dislike a person. In fact, she can be highly useful friend for women - she is like this litmus paper which turns red on seeing every guy that is going to be bad relationship. If she finds a guy charming, you can be sure he is either a bully or suffers from some neurological disorder, the degree of which is can be ascertained by how quickly she sleeps with him - her normal average being three pages and two nights. I have no problem with her sexual life, but I have a problem with over-analysis and complaints that follows in next few pages when relationship has fallen apart. Reading those diaries like being a platonic friend of a woman who just had a breakup. And you do not need to overanalyse the thing, since most of the men are married. Think of it, a married guy wants to sleep with her the first time they meet feeling no guilt for his wife - what are chances he is going to respect a woman who is prepared to sleep with him first time she met him, herself feeling no guilt towards his wife. (view spoiler)[ BTW, this reminds me of a intellectual crisis I am having. why do they call it sleeping togather? I mean just think of it, won't it be a disappointment if you and your significant other were just sleeping together? Even new born babies sleep together, there is nothing wrong in that. And assuming you want something vague, shouldn't it rather be called staying up together?
And, while we are on subject, why do you have to be vague at all? Of course, one would think it is modesty, people want to hide their achievements, the way Indians are modest when it comes to declaring their income for tax purposes, right? But no, that is not the case, for you see, people use sexual jargon like 'fuck' as much and as uselessly as the word 'the'. We use it to describe almost anything, that is anything except the very act it is suppose to describe. In fact, when a woman wants to reject a pass made on her, she might easily say in anger 'fuck you' when that is exactly opposite of what she means. I wonder what linguists and psychologists have to say to that! (hide spoiler)] And this Anna is supposed to be a modern 'free woman'. She decides she will live independent of man. So does her sister. The two women are 'free women' giving the title to a short novella contained within the book. A joke really, since while Anna lets herself being controlled by men in her life, her sister believes she is being controlled by .... her own 20year old son who has just lost his eye-sight. I mean get some perspective - the boy lost his eyesight at twenty! And he is sitting in his room making no demands. Where is control in that?
I actually started getting the feeling that the two women actually are looking for bullies. The sister sleeps again with a man who singing abuses to her just after last time they did - because she can't helping pitying the puppy face the menake when theywho come asking for sex. Why I don't I find women like that? Anna darling actually finds all normal guys she comes across boring. And it is not just heterosexual men, but then according to her homosexual men are not proper men. And will badly influence her daughter. But then to be fair, she doesn't entertain verry high opinions of homosexual women either - she won't join her sister not-so-kind mankind because it is being lesbian in mind if not body.
(view spoiler)[ lesbians don't? I thought we could be friends - same intreste, you know. It heterosexual women and gay men I don't like - what is so possibly so attractive about a man's body? (hide spoiler)]
Lessing said the book is not about sex war - maybe, although the part about Anna's life in South Africa seems to be an orgy in which, according to her own words, a group of twenty youngsters is busy sleeping with each other.
But what the hell is all that about? That woman need someone to live for, while men can live freely and this lets men control them? Because Anna is either needing to care for her daughter or have a man in her life. In fact, Anna's sister seem to think that all the individualism their generation has gained is meaningless and the next generation should have married in twenties.
On balance, Anna does make some telling observations - comparatively very few from experience (though she herself refuses to learn from them).
So much about women liberation. Communism
Now diaries - there are four to begin with, each with a cover of different color. The Black notebook, is about her experience as author. A bit of good writing here about artist struggling against commercialisation of his work. For most part, Anna dwells on her African experience, which was source of her book. Her African experience makes a fine satire of joke communist revolution was in Africa, some semi-rich white people led by a couple of bullies busy having good time.
In red one she records her political life, her disillusionment with communism - she meets lots of people (obviously sleeps with some)- but this is still best part of novel. She draws her fears about McCarthyism which, if you ask me, is a perfect example of people wanting to punish thought crime. She is disillusioned as she slowly comes to understand that like any mass organization, communist party depeneds on a system of illusions developed by resisting vocabulary and forcing the language of all discussion into a few words and slogans. The anti-intellectual nature of communism must have affected Anna's self-image - which might be part of reason behind her failed relationships. There are some other brilliant observations made by Anna, who is strangely so clever when it comes to observing politics. These two diaries are best part of the book.
In a yellow one she writes a novel in which the heroine tries to fictionalize part of her own experience (a failed relationship of course). In the blue one she keeps a personal diary - meetings with her therapists etc.I have no idea what the Golden Notebook which she undertook to write in an effort to unite other four was about....more
So the title means a ten day event. Ten people telling ten stories in ten days - one each for ten days; now that is kind of maths I love. A king or QuSo the title means a ten day event. Ten people telling ten stories in ten days - one each for ten days; now that is kind of maths I love. A king or Queen, chosen from themselves, decides a theme each day. We are the stories we tell - and the characters of story tellers are developed by the stories they tell.
I guess one of the reasons why this book is such an amazing classic is because it captures so successfully the after taste of death. Literature seems to grow successful if it can capture the state of minds of people of it's time. Boccario's tales though not incredibly amazing themselves or really well written capture the changing values of people. The idea of collecting stories that were already popular and doing rounds in Europe at that time also seems to make it more of a work of collective consciousness rather than product of an individual imagination. Though many of these stories are much older and/or originated from far off parts of world (I think at least a few were Italy-ised version of Indian or Persian stories); the fact remains they were popular antidotes among Italians of the time and that tells you something about them.
Social institutions are challenged constantly - mostly marriage (by givimg instances of adultery where we are supposed to support the cheating party) and church (priests having sex, chasing women, or being fooled by common folks, nuns having sex) but also, at least once, administrative officers. When you see so much of death, the instinct to question the authority of established institutions seems to come naturally. The institution of Ladydom (?) is also challenged which says women, who have titles of ladies, do not have dirty thoughts or fantasies. There is a story in here where an incredibly beautiful woman repeatedly gets kidnapped by men who will want to have sex with her- again, again, again, again, again .... It is the longest story in book I think and at the end of story, ladies listening to story are showed grieved at her tragedy but also secrety envious of the woman. Unfortunately descriptions of sex are not too vivid.
Another amusing consideration is that these tales are told by the author, as well as the characters of the frame story (seven women, three men - a lovely sex ratio) for women as prime audience rather than men. And though there is a lot of sexism - of patronising kind (an example would be women of the frame story are shown looking for men to accompany them for a journey); it probably has a very liberal atitude for its time. A big number of stories are about adultery - mostly women cheating on their husbands and mostly on grounds considered justified (really old husband, really jealous husband, boring husband, simple minded husband, husband absent on a long journey or mostly because they were in love).
Though not all values are agreeable to me personally. Cuckold humilation, a common theme, for example. And the most important virtue in the world of Decameron is ready wits and cleverness - which is a theme shared by lots of medical time classics (Don Quioxite, Arabian Nights etc) and, if you are simpleminded and gullible, you deserve to be laughed at or worse. There are stories about repeat characters that fool less clever people for fun and admired for it. A story has a priest telling a young gullible girl that men's and Women's private parts are devil and hell respectively and that it is important that devil be kept in hell....more
Look it seems to be a favorite novel among so many great novelists - Nabokov, Faulkner, Kundra, Joyce even Dostoevsky but I happen to be more in agreeLook it seems to be a favorite novel among so many great novelists - Nabokov, Faulkner, Kundra, Joyce even Dostoevsky but I happen to be more in agreement with Rebecca West when she says, "And plainly Anna Karenina was written simply to convince Tolstoy that there was nothing in this expensive and troublesome business of adultery"
If you read novels to be somewhere and sometime else (and don't mind that place to be boring) this will work for you. It is a perfect chronicle of its times. The trouble is I happened to be a very sensual reader. You see I am a book-izer and date a lot of books at the same time, and take different books to dinner and bed on the same day. Whenever I see a book anywhere I start imagining myself in bed with it and can't help running my hand on its body. And above all, there must be very good reasons if the relationship is to last more than a few days. Unfortunately, this one happens to feel like a long, stale marriage.
Marriage! I guess that is the real theme of the book rather than adultery. The subject has occupied minds of people for so long that there aren't too many new jokes I can make about it, I mean the best ones like how in case of a murder, the victim's spouse is the foremost suspect are already taken. Moreover, I don't fully understand the concept of marriage - this once I was about to congratulate this newlywed couple but I was just trying to imagine their life after marriage before the chance to do so occurred and ended up saying "condolences". That because "May your souls rest in peace" seemed like hoping for too much. The reason being that I think of 'being alive' to mean to let you feel all sorts of things. Now once a person gets married, (S)he is expected not to feel attracted, fall in love, etc outside marriage. And so to that extent the person is dead. And of course, there are all the sacrifices you are supposed to make for your children, etc (a lot of people are into that too!) which won't let a person enjoy his/her life fully.
Now, it is just the kind of thing that if it wasn't for the sake of habit, people would have given up long ago. I still think they will do so someday. If you trust a person, you don't need to bound them, right? With love, my understanding is far worse - I mean if someone loves his/her spouse and wants the later to be happy, shouldn't they be more like "Go on, darling, have some fun!" instead of jealously guarding them? That, by the way, is Levin's (Anna's antagonist) method - to ask his wife not to meet men with whom she happened to laugh.
"Love one another, but make not a bond of love: Let it rather be a moving sea between the shores of your souls... Sing and dance together and be joyous, but let each one of you be alone, Even as the strings of a lute are alone though they quiver with the same music." - Kahlil Gibran.
Still, because of some sort of barbaric instinct the heart wants to hold on to the person, it is invested in, to possess them like objects so as to be sure of their presence in one's life. It seeks promises, unbreakable oaths, until-death-or-divorce-do-us-aparts, more and more bounds - anything to save one from the fear of losing beloved. And where this need for security over each other's possession is mutual, a marriage takes place. Except, of course, all such promises are useless, no one can control his/her feelings by choice, and so no one should ask the other or promise such a thing. In fact, everything people do to gain security (or whatever form) only feeds the feeling of insecurity.
Only insecure and untrusting people seek promises and
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Where you presume on security is where you set yourself to fail. All things given in love are gifts and no prices should be asked in return. Karein, Anna's husband realizes this at some point in the story and is able to fight back the famous agony of a cheated husband at least for a while. (If only I was to have a cookie for each book with adultery and jealous spouses in it I have read, I would have .... you know, diabetes. There should be some kind of restriction on each, like the no-mention-of-Hitler-in-debates rule, like a book with adultery in it doesn't win Nobel prizes or something .... but then Marquez wouldn't have won his prize, you know what, scratch that.)
Anyways, Tolstoy's argument against infidelity doesn't seem true to me. Anna didn't suffer because she cheated on her husband. She suffered because of three different reasons at different points.
First, because she had a conscience which is always a burden. How can feeling guilty about anything that can ever serve a purpose is beyond me. Guilt is a monster that like that Greek vulture which constantly fed on the heart (of Prometheus) without ever improving the victim's lot, and conscience is nothing except a set up to create a feeling of guilt among people. And to think there are people who feed this concept to their children! Terrorists never felt guilty of their actions, pregnant teenagers often do. A better world could be created if people teach compassion to their children.
Secondly, people, she is surrounded by. Many would say those were wrong times, times are not wrong, people are. Vronsky wants her, other people think of her as fallen women, the stupid divorce law ... you get the picture.
Thirdly, in the last parts, when she feels jealous lover Vronsky. It is not a self-induced fear of being cheated as often seen in people who cheat themselves - like Macbeth's fear who being usurper himself constantly fears being usurped, but rather the same old insecurity we just talked about. She has given away her son for him. We tax our loved ones for sacrifices we make them for them. It was too great a sacrifice for Vronsky to redeem in any way except by becoming a homely for her which he couldn't.
The novel has a misnomer. It should have been better named Levin, the author stand-in gets more attention than Anna Karenina. We read several boring chapters in which he gives his theories for agriculture, peasant education, etc which, though it might make the book more realistic, also makes it much larger and boring than it need be (something similar to what deviations and jokes do to this review). There are several beautiful moments in this novel but they are lost in the sea of monotonous realism, a combination that doesn't work with a sensual reader like me. The third star is almost entirely due to the last chapters of Anna's life. If it wasn't for that, I would have thought that it is Stockholm syndrome associated with large books that make people love this one....more
This time I am not gonna share quotes as there are hundreds of them and many are from authors' quoted by Montaigne. These essays are the kind of stuffThis time I am not gonna share quotes as there are hundreds of them and many are from authors' quoted by Montaigne. These essays are the kind of stuff I wish I had read when I was younger. It is probably the best kind of eloquence for a non-fiction author - not too heavy on verbosity, matter-of-factly and yet retaining a certain grace.
By 'Grace', I mean a way of holding oneself, I mean a quality which attracts natural respect. Montaigne writes with such grace that even if where his opinions are very opposite of yours, the difference of opinion becomes irrelevant. It is like listening to some old wise man - somewhat like the protagonist of 'Memoirs of Hadrin'. And you kind of know Montaigne won't mind you disagreeing to himself - he says he prefers those whose opinions are contrary to his. He speaks of his own opinions with quiet confidence but with no inclination of forcing his views on others.
He perceives the plight of women in his own times and seems to be capable of understanding them but is not moved to ask for equality for them. He also perceives that the cultures termed as 'barbarous' have as much reason to perceive other cultures as barbarous. While he sees also that laws of his time show great injustice to others, he shows great resistance to changes and revolutions.
The essays tend to grow larger as we move ahead and more personal. From general topics to talk about his opinions on different things including philosophical ones (Voltaire thinks him to be a philosopher of the best quality) to his own temperaments. This last gives you very deep insight into his nature - something better than a biography. We sort of know him (or quality of the material of which he is made) as much as we know Harold Bloom (from James Joyce's Ulysses) - in fact, we do learn quite a bit about Montaigne's toilet habits too.
Talking about oneself with honesty is probably one of the most difficult things to do. When we do see people talking about themselves at any length - we receive real or imagined complexes these people have. Perhaps this is why we are too self-conscious when talking about ourselves. Montaigne seems to be free of these complexes (perhaps because like Hadrian he was more or less waiting for death when he wrote) - he talks of weaknesses without trying anything to defend himself or showing low self-worth based on them and strengths as if they were gifts by someone else (God, nature, etc).
Not only Montaigne knows 'how' to talk about oneself, he also knows 'what' to talk about when talking about oneself. If only everyone talked about himself or herself like that!
He sometimes explains that essays were meant to show his temperaments and so this excuses his talking so much about himself. But it is really some of the essays where he is talking of his own temperaments that are my favorite parts.
When talking about philosophical subjects, he talks such as death, aging, etc; he sticks to an observational attitude he adopts while talking of customs, his favorite heroes, etc. This keeps him from getting too lost in his philosophical systems. Perhaps that is why he is not counted among philosophers despite influencing so many of them. Unlike most philosophers, Montaigne understands that he doesn't know it all. Probably ahead of his times in his ideas (church considered the book 'dangerous') - he is still open-minded enough often admitting there might be good reasons to have opinions different than his own.
The essays, especially bigger ones, are really like a stream-of-consciousness thing as they move freely between his thoughts sometimes spending several pages on a thought or idea which has nothing to do with the heading. Montaigne didn't edit his essays much which were mostly written each in a single sitting....more
“Everything you look at can become a fairy tale and you can get a story from everything you touch.”
Anderson really could make children's stories out o“Everything you look at can become a fairy tale and you can get a story from everything you touch.”
Anderson really could make children's stories out of anything. The best stories sometimes had a sad ending to them. Anderson also probably had a lot of imagination even though some of the stories contained in here might not be best for little kids - far from happily ever afters their Disney-ised versions. Although it was always going to be a five-star book because of some amazing stories, the author's religious values spoil some others. There is also a lot of Christian cruelty in many of these stories (I should have seen it coming, 'Christian' is literally the author's middle name) where good people including children are punished with years of misery for very small acts of folly....more
It has been said of Emma Clueless Wood house that her middlename has come to become a word entered into dictionaries for very good reasons. As some crIt has been said of Emma Clueless Wood house that her middlename has come to become a word entered into dictionaries for very good reasons. As some critics have noticed that she won't notice the elephant in the room even if it was to make loud noises, dance on it's trunk or splash water on her. She will noticed the odd presence in the place only if someone gave a verbal and explicit hint to her while pointing finger at the creature
..... In which case, she is sure to feel excited believing pony she has ordered has arrived. ...more
Best book ever. I don't know if I will every read anything better than this. It is a great and most diverse collection of stories - gods, voyages, lovBest book ever. I don't know if I will every read anything better than this. It is a great and most diverse collection of stories - gods, voyages, love, war, woeing, incest, adultery, rape, revenge, unrequited love, jealousy, philosophy. You name it, Ovid has stories for them all told in most poetical manner (some of the poetical narration is still there despite the loss in translation) with only similarity that at least one thing changes form to be another in each of them.
As to crew of characters, we have Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Saturn, Neptune, Pluto, Muses, Aphrodite, Pygmalion, Cupid,Pythagoras,Hercules, Achilles, Ulysses, Narcissus - to name a few.
I have tried my best but this book is beyond the best of review I can give.
I first met Greek gods in ‘Hercules’ the animated cartoon series, which I loved watching as a kid. Then there was Wikipedia and then Ovid’s Metamorpho I first met Greek gods in ‘Hercules’ the animated cartoon series, which I loved watching as a kid. Then there was Wikipedia and then Ovid’s Metamorphosis. My point being I really had high expectations when I started reading Iliad. I expected it to be a more complete account – beginning with ‘Apple of Discord’; may be even before; then Paris’ judgment that Venus was fairest of three goddesses, then oath taken at Helen’s father’s place and then Helen’s seduction or rape (whichever version you prefer) and only then war. I was also expecting it to end with the whole Trozen horse story. What it actually turned out to be was a few macho guys fighting over some Greek blonde.
There are a lot of characters just there to die or kill and the fact that characters are often refered as son-of-this, son-of-that leads to confusion. Moreover, Achilles is such a cry baby – ‘Mamma, Agamemnon stole my girl’, ‘Mamma, Agamemnon insulted me’, “Mamma, I won’t fight’, “Mamma,. Hector killed my friend’, ‘Mamma, I’ll fight’, ‘Mamma, I drown!’ and so.
Gods and poetry
What made it work for me was the poetry in it. By making the divine interference the rule of the day; Homer Simpson makes a very clever use of gods, using their names to stand for forces they own – God of war constantly changing sides, sea calamities being wrath of Neptune, heavy rains or storms being wrath of Zeus, warriors felling prey to Apollo’s arrows and so on.
My favorite is the conversation between Venus and Helen. Helen reproaches Venus for deceiving her by coming to her as a servant:
Then is it still thy pleasure to deceive? And woman's frailty always to believe!
Look at the other meaning in the reproach. She is remarking on the way beauty would decieive a woman in belieiving she is there to stay. Venus reply is equally poetical:
Should Venus leave thee, every charm must fly, Fade from thy cheek, and languish in thy eye. Cease to provoke me, lest I make thee more The world's aversion, than their love before; Now the bright prize for which mankind engage, Than, the sad victim, of the public rage.
Also he is incredible in his portrayal of gods. Forget the little cat fight between goddesses; just look at how he gave Zeus that godfather like coolness of a powerful figure by talking about power of a simple nod from him:
He spoke, and awful bends his sable brows, Shakes his ambrosial curls, and gives the nod, The stamp of fate and sanction of the god: High heaven with trembling the dread signal took, And all Olympus to the centre shook.
Hero-worship, not so much
‘And for the king's offence the people died.’
It is kind of difficult to know what Homer really thinks of war. While he is constantly talking about achievements of warriors and who-killed-whoms (which got boring for a while when Zeus made that no-divine-interference law); he seems at same time showing the stupidity of whole thing. May be, he didn’t do so more directly as it might have meant reproaching ways of his own society:
“For I must speak what wisdom would conceal, And truths, invidious to the great, reveal, Bold is the task, when subjects, grown too wise, Instruct a monarch where his error lies; For though we deem the short-lived fury past, 'Tis sure the mighty will revenge at last."
A pacifist might not have been favorite of people even in Homer’s own time. So he probably had to mask his arguments.
None of the heroes are without defects while heroes of opposite side – especially Hector are presented in as good light as his own if not better; which is not the kind of treatment expected from a hero-worshiping bard. We have talked about Achilles’ who looks like a spoiled child of god rather than anything else; both Hector and Ulysses are shown to be fleeing from battle grounds at least once.
Achillies ‘ choices to quit and return to the war are both taken under anger rather than thoughtfully. He even forgot the oath he had given to Helen’s father when he decided to quit.
Also, Homer would remind you that physicial strength is not the only virtue that a man possess. Virtues like physical strength, ancestory etc. which bring honor to individual; are repeatedly shown to be matters of fate rather than merit.
When Achilles quit the war for a while, he made quite a few good arguments as why one shouldn’t fight (reminds you of Arjuna at beginning of Bhagwad Gita). In fact, his choice from among destinies offered to him – a long prosperous life or glorious death of a hero; forms the key theme of book. I personally don’t think he chose smartly.
Also it is ended when characters are mourning for Hector. Her wife’s laments are the most moving words throughout the epic:
“The day, that to the shades the father sends, Robs the sad orphan of his father's friends: He, wretched outcast of mankind! appears For ever sad, forever bathed in tears; Amongst the happy, unregarded, he Hangs on the robe, or trembles at the knee, While those his father's former bounty fed Nor reach the goblet, nor divide the bread: The kindest but his present wants allay, To leave him wretched the succeeding day. Frugal compassion! Heedless, they who boast Both parents still, nor feel what he has lost,
May the lucky one win
Anyway one point that Homer makes clear beyond any doubt is that victory has nothing to do with such silly things like bravery, courage etc. It is all about fate and (divine) connections. The ultimate fight between Hector and Achilles (who could have already been dead – a couple of times, was it not for gods) is a mere formality; gods won’t let anything to happen to Achilles, it could only end in one way.
'Tis man's to fight, but heaven's to give success
Hector is in fact the one who comes as true hero - presented in best light, choosing to fight even when he knows that he stands no chance (despite making a number of other blunders). The third mourner over his dead body was Helen, whom his brother had kidnapped. He had reproached Paris for his stupidity in kidnapping Helen and for cowardice he showed in duel against Menelaus; but never reproached Helen for their miseries – which is very opposite to what other Trozens (except the king and Paris) did. His reputation is purely based on merit and it is so good that even gods who were teamed in killing him wouldn’t let his dead body be insulted.
“Prayers are Jove's daughters, of celestial race, Lame are their feet, and wrinkled is their face; With humble mien, and with dejected eyes, Constant they follow, where injustice flies. Injustice swift, erect, and unconfined, Sweeps the wide earth, and tramples o'er mankind, While Prayers, to heal her wrongs, move slow behind. Who hears these daughters of almighty Jove, For him they mediate to the throne above When man rejects the humble suit they make, The sire revenges for the daughters' sake; From Jove commission'd, fierce injustice then Descends to punish unrelenting men.”
Much like Achillies in Iliad, Ulysses is to be frequently seen weeping in Odyssey. With Achillies, it was always question of honor, with Ulysses, it iMuch like Achillies in Iliad, Ulysses is to be frequently seen weeping in Odyssey. With Achillies, it was always question of honor, with Ulysses, it is matter of home-sikness. He had all comforts when living with Calypso and yet, much like Dorothy, he too feels that there is no place like home.
I like the episode in Hades the best. The knowledge of the fact that his mother died while he was far away added to his misery but I think there is a poetical element in there too - for don't we deal with death without dying ourselves when our loved one dies. Haven't we all feel scared of losing our loved ones when we are not far away from them?
Homer uses the episode to take stock of a number of dead characters. Also, it is in Hades that we meet dead Achillies who seems to be regreting his selction of honor over life:
"I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be abpve ground than king of kings among the dead."
... which is very opposite to what Satan said in Paradise Lost (Better reign in hell...)
Many of his troubles are invited by Ulysses on himself when he arrogantly gives his name to Cyclops Polyphemus. The name 'Ulysses' means trouble - both causing and facing. An early example of this behavior from him is given in by that mark left on his body by that boar he hunted. Although he is cunning enough to survive all those troubles.
After going through several adventures (songs of sirens,Circe's magic, sea monsters etc.) he finally makes it to home, but not to finally have rest after this long journey. Rather his house is in chaos - friends had turned foes when he was away and he must beg around in his own house. You know how it feels when you return home tired after a long working day only to find that you still have to make your bed before you can fall asleep. Now imagine the feeling increased by a zillion times:
"Be strong, saith my heart; I'm a soldier; I have seen worse sights than this.'
Even after all this he was still lucky - to have gods in his favor, he has too much served to him on plates by different gods (especially that Minerva who can't help playing guardian angel) to be likeable; and to find that atleast his own family was faithful to him. Compare this to fate of Agamemmon who came back home only to be murdered by his wife and her lover. That might look cruel on part of his wife, but he himself had come back with Casandra, the woman he had kidnapped from Troy. So, you see it is difficult to feel sorry for these Greek heroes.
Agamemmon is right in thinking that Achillies'fate was far better than him. It ceases being home when your family turns against you (which makes Penolope's faithfulness all more important)
And if all the adventures and poetry is not enough, there are some love stories goung around, best of all was Nausicaa's unconfessed love stays in mind long after her story met an abrupt ending:
"Lovely Naussicaa stood by one of the bearing-posts supporting the roof of clositer, and admired him as she saw him pass. "Farewell stranger," said she, "do not forget me when you are safe at home again, for it is to me first that you owe a ransom for having saved your life."
These novels are different from Beckett's shorts, which I personally liked more. There is no old-style plot in any"Nothing is more real than nothing."
These novels are different from Beckett's shorts, which I personally liked more. There is no old-style plot in any of them. Somehow, this is exactly what gave Beckett recognition. What we get here is accounts of long interior monologues of three highly miserable and unreliable characters. Also the narrator in all three is physically challenged due to different reasons (injury, old age and deformity) and also probably mentally challenged.
There are hardly any links between the three novels except that the narrator of third claimed the creation of first two but he also claimed the creation of another novel - Murphy (which I haven't read). The novels ride completely on back of Beckett's unusual narrative style - completely absurd, often self-contradictory, explaining very obvious activities in a great detail and a very sad, pessimistic and dark humor - some of these things are common to most of Beckett I have read.
I have reviewed them separately too but here are some examples of prose to be expected:
Self contraditory: "A little dog followed him, a pomeranian I think, but I don't think so."
"I found my bicycle (I didn't know I had one) in the same place I must have left it."
Dark humor:
"I don’t wash, but I don’t get dirty. If I get dirty somewhere I rub the part with my finger wet with spittle. What matters is to eat and excrete. Dish and pot, dish and pot, these are the poles.
"...but of her who brought me into the world. through the hole in her arse if my memory is correct. First taste of the shit."
and finally my favorite ...
"What was God doing with himself before the creation? " ...more
Loading...
