You are about to read the review of On a Winter's Night A Traveller by Jonathan Terrington. You look at the review but it is not what you expect. You You are about to read the review of On a Winter's Night A Traveller by Jonathan Terrington. You look at the review but it is not what you expect. You then think some deep thoughts about the world, are constantly addressed as You and wonder what on earth just happened....
This is the response I had to If On a Winter's Night A Traveller which is perhaps one of the most bizarre books I have read. I don't know if it was actually as smart as it seemed to think it was but I liked it still despite many aspects of the book that just seemed like the author's way of putting himself up on a pedestal and yelling "LOOK HOW GREAT I AM!" Anyway I liked this book, reader.
If On a Winter's Night A Traveller is very metafictional and metaphorical. Which is probably why I liked it. I love a book that references other books even if those books and tales are created within the book I was reading. Which is what happens here with this book. The story follows You, the reader, as You meet the Other Reader and pursue her across various novels you read (and which seem to have a female character reminiscent of her). This all works from a male reader's perspective but I did have to wonder what female readers would think being placed into a masculine point of view. That said it was a unique read and somewhat entertaining to me.
If on a winter's night a traveller Outside the town of Malbork Leaning from the steep slope Without fear of wind or vertigo Looks down in the gathering shadow In a network of lines that enlace In a network of lines that intersect On the carpet of leaves illuminated by the moon Around an empty grave What story down there awaits its end?
By now reader you shall have reached the end. You will likely either ignore the review or push the 'like' button. Perhaps you will leave a comment or two for the reviewer. Perhaps you will simply like the review. And perhaps if the reviewer is fortunate you will like the review enough to give the book a chance. Then when you read If On a Winter's Night A Traveller other readers will ask what you are reading and you will say If On a Winter's Night A Traveller by Italo Calvino....more
Montana 1948 is a beautiful lyrical little novel of around 160 pages. Set in Bentrock, Montana, in 1948, it is a powerful exploration of conflict, relMontana 1948 is a beautiful lyrical little novel of around 160 pages. Set in Bentrock, Montana, in 1948, it is a powerful exploration of conflict, relationships and power dynamics in the world around us from the perspective of one boy growing up through a scandalous time period.
I had never read Montana 1948 before the start of last week when I was required to read it in order to teach it. Having done so I was fascinated by such a poetic, provocative and beautiful little novel. It's a subtle novel that works in a similar sense to To Kill a Mockingbird - and in fact as I discussed with my supervisor, I would not be surprised if Larry Watson wrote his novel as the antithesis of TKAM.
Where TKAM features the childhood exploits of Scout and her brother, Montana 1948 follows David Hayden, who is growing up wild and carefree in Bentrock. His father is the local sheriff (granted his position from David's grandfather Julian - a patriarchal figure of supremacy) and yet is an unfulfilled sheriff, a man who sits uneasily with his position and responsibilities. His uncle is the local (and only) doctor, Frank, a man who the town sees as a war hero. Yet as David discovers throughout the novel, Frank is far less of a hero than he at first seems. This becomes a story of injustice and justice, whereby the issues of the Wild West are introduced into an early post-war era and analysed interrogatively by the author.
It is essentially a Bildungsroman, a tale of change, in which the narrator's moral, philosophical, psychological and spiritual growth are also examined under the microscope. I can only fully recommend it for how powerfully the novel works in a very nuanced manner. If you appreciate works of fiction which are nuanced then please read Montana 1948 and become wishful that more modern fiction was written like this......more
This was not my first attempt at reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles but rather my second. In year 10 my favourite teacher (a huge influence on why I am This was not my first attempt at reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles but rather my second. In year 10 my favourite teacher (a huge influence on why I am training in teaching today) recommended Thomas Hardy as one of those English novelists who all lovers of literature should read - particularly with his work on Tess of the d'Urbervilles. I can state that, having finally read this work: Tess of the d'Urbervilles is a great English novel to read.
It is an interesting novel in that it pries at the social mores of its time and challenges issues of morality and propriety. The novel essentially is tragic and haunting - exploring how Tess Durbeyfield discovers her heritage as one of the d'Urbervilles (a branch of nobility) and how this heritage impacts her social standing. I say this is a tragedy, for the good and bad alike all end unhappily in this novel and it is used more to point out various problems (like a problem play in some aspects) than as an entertaining read.
One of the particular problems this novel deals with is the double standard and hypocrisy of society. Tess, essentially raped by Alec d'Urberville becomes considered as not a true maiden by the individuals around her, though she could not help losing her virginity to the man who abused her. This double standard arises truly however when she marries Angel Clare. Angel reveals that he has had a dalliance with a woman before and yet looks with horror on the fact that Tess is not a virgin. Yet the question is quite clearly posed: who controlled their own destiny and who had it ripped from them? Given that the novel introduces us to Angel from the beginning and that he at that beginning slights Tess, the entirety of the novel further contains a haunting sense of aching emotion. The sense that the actions of an individual can have far greater repercussions further in life.
It becomes an interesting argument to me, when individuals claim 'it's my body' or 'it's my life' as a kind of fail-proof that entitles them to do as they wish. There is, however, one condition I would raise that argues against this: when doing as you wish impacts upon another's life and impacts them in such a negative way, then you void the right to do as you want. In this case Angel not considering Tess or his future wife when he enters into a dalliance in his past. (view spoiler)[The thing that makes this a challenging read for me therefore is that I dislike both Angel and Alec with equal measures. One raped Tess physically and the other abuses her emotionally. In the end she is the victim of a society which has abandoned her... (hide spoiler)]
This is definitely a novel worth reading, there is a reason why it is in the 1001 Books to Read Lists and why it comes highly recommended as Hardy at his most subtle and nuanced. He certainly has a way with writing which is not obvious, nor too hidden in conveying the deeper meanings and ideas of what is going on in the everyday life and society of hypocritical judgement. ...more
"To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable, because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you."
C.S. Lewis' popularity has died in more rece "To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable, because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you."
C.S. Lewis' popularity has died in more recent history. Academics accuse him of being too simplistic in his expression (a few that I have read even go so far as to say that he adds nothing to Christian theology), other readers find his style too wordy, preachy or patronising to fully enjoy. I myself, however, love C.S. Lewis' work much like I love G.K. Chesterton and J.R.R Tolkien. He is enthusiastic, flawed and all so human - bridging a divide between the more intellectual academics and the everyman. Or so I believe anyway.
The one great thing about Lewis' work, is that like Chesterton, he is so quotable. But where Chesterton is a far better wit and academic, Lewis is more laid back and grounded - like a humorous and approachable, if sometimes gruff, Grandad. The reason, therefore, that I believe many intellectuals (particularly atheistic individuals) dismiss Lewis' contribution to Christian apologetics is because he speaks with honesty and straightforwardly. This may sound contradictory, considering the way Lewis conducts his phrases - however it seems clear to me that the way he states his intentions is direct. He's not tactless, yet he does not hide his sentences in tact (if that makes any particular sense). To the intellectual who prefers greater nuance and ideas that they can make their own, there is little for them in Lewis' work.
"Do you think I am trying to weave a spell? Perhaps I am; but remember your fairytales. Spells are used for breaking enchantments as well as for inducing them. And you and I have need of the strongest spell that can be found to wake us from the evil enchantment of worldliness which has been laid upon us for nearly a hundred years."
I would define Lewis as a Christian philosopher in his own way. After all, philosophy is all about critical thought, and Lewis is nothing if not critical - again perhaps a reason for his loss of popularity is that he attacks established intellectual institutions within his thoughts. Yet he is more a philosopher of apologetics - if such a role ever has existed.
"...it would seem that Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are too easily pleased."
Yet, for most of this review I have merely been defending C.S. Lewis, not addressing this actual work of his. I will say that if you like Lewis, this is one of the better works of his that I have read. His address on The Weight of Glory is one of the finer pieces that he ever composed, I would argue, and many of the other pieces address similarly interesting and complex issues from the idea of unity, peace and scientific logic v. God. I will have to see how Mere Christianity stands up next to this.
For now I will state this in closing. I believe that C.S. Lewis is someone who should be read by anyone who reads philosophy or books of faith - works that address the idea of Human Nature and the mind or soul. Lewis is by far one of the most down-to-earth and confrontationally direct of all the writers I have tried (in many ways he is the direct opposite of Nietzsche) but he is still one of the more appealing to me. I will never cease to find it of more interest that he came from critical and intellectual atheism to critical and intellectual faith - proving that Christianity need not be faith without thought.
"Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."...more
"We are not like other folk, maybe, but there have always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort Farm..."
Cold Comfort Farm is a classic novel that aims to s"We are not like other folk, maybe, but there have always been Starkadders at Cold Comfort Farm..."
Cold Comfort Farm is a classic novel that aims to subvert the idea of the 'farmhouse novel'. Stella Gibbons is good enough with her use of language certainly, but the plot itself fails in the delivery. By which I mean that, at times, the development of the story was rushed in favour of delivering an idea.
What Gibbons is great at, however, is using nuance and subtlety. She creates a commentary on social issues, that is pointed without being pointed - it's suggestive. I mean this in how she refers to undergarments or the 'phallic symbols' that one character is obsessed with, or how she refers to one man being promised marriage to a much younger girl (on that issue - why is it considered more socially wrong for an older woman to marry a younger man but not the other way around?). When she refers to such things they are to suggest another - the notion of men being obsessive and the fact that women are not objects to be owned. Which is something I really liked about this classic - that it attacked the notion of male possession. A notion which is so, so, false.
What I did not particularly like was the stock religious character. A character who stereotypically preached hellfire and damnation. I've seen too many characters like this in fiction and it furthers my belief that far too many people have the wrong impression of Christianity. So while I did understand that this was part of the point made by using this type of character, I also disapproved of it.
The plot itself followed one younger woman, Flora Poste, who loses her parents and house - and since she cannot make a living (aside from drastic measures) she moves into Cold Comfort Farm with her eccentric and tragic relatives - the Starkadders. Throughout the rest of the book you see the element of a comedy of manners come into play, with Flora transforming the lives of the people around her (acting as matchmaker and general 'fixer-upper'). Yet, as mentioned previously there are times when the pacing of the novel is an issue and where dilemmas are solved too conveniently - to make way for the comedy and ideology you see.
That said, it was a book that was interesting to read. As mentioned, I did really like the way the book tackled the concept of male possession - although again some other elements were overly stereotypical (even for a spoof). But yes, definitely worth a thoughtful read and consideration....more
The Birth of Tragedy is by far the better written and useful of the three works by Friedrich Nietzsche that I have so far read. Thus proving that when The Birth of Tragedy is by far the better written and useful of the three works by Friedrich Nietzsche that I have so far read. Thus proving that when he is not angrily ranting about religion and morality, that Nietzsche does have important points to make about humanity. That is not to say that Nietzsche does not have his own pointed comments about religion in this narrative argument that he creates, more that these comments are superseded by the other arguments created by Nietzsche.
In the foreword to this edition, Nietzsche himself claims that he looks back with an academic disgust at his writing in this book. He claims that it is the sickly, sweet and confident work of a much younger man, as if that is a clear problem with the work itself. I myself (perhaps because I am a younger man) do not see this as an issue altogether and see the older Nietzsche as falling into the trap of becoming increasingly bitter, sceptical and closed-minded. Ironically everything that he accuses religion of fostering. Personally, reading The Birth of Tragedy I note that it appears as if Nietzsche was headed down a path that hinted at accepting a kind of Christian, or other religious, spirituality and his older persona would not allow him to accept the direction of his conclusions. Sad to say, Nietzsche 'throws the baby out with the bathwater' when it comes to anything connected to religion.
Speaking about this, it becomes clear that even from a younger age Nietzsche had this stumbling block when it came to religion. In his introductory notes, Nietzsche states that he created this work on the basis that, more or less, he wished to find a force that denoted that which was 'Anti-Christ'. Or, according to him, denied a sense of Christian morality, that was amoral as life is amoral, and was also artistic. The prompting of such words amounting to a blatant suggestion that Christianity or modern religion could not be artistic. Which personally is an insulting suggestion and one which again causes me to wonder why Nietzsche hates the Christian ethic so very much. Certainly, the modern day Christian artist may work within a box (hence my ultimate respect for those people who attempt to break ground and boxes - like Switchfoot or Skillet), but that is not enough to say that art cannot be made by Christians or by religious individuals. It is, in fact, a denial of history to state as much.
That aside, the argument made across the entirety of this volume is what I am really here to discuss. And the argument that Nietzsche makes is that art focuses around two different forces. He argues that life similarly focuses around two forces, like good or evil, order and chaos. For art these two dichotomous forces are named by Nietzsche as the Appolonian and the Dionysian - named after the two Greek gods of art.
Nietzsche classifies the Appolonian as representative of order and structure within art. For instance he represents this as linked to sculpture. The Dionysian is linked to the chaotic forces of art - to music for example - and the case is made that art flows from and between these two forces. As it is also explained, the Appolonian is like dreaming and the Dionysian is like intoxication. These are two states of consciousness that are linked together and yet are separate entities.
In many ways this work is about the history of art and tragedy in particular as seen from the perspective of a history of the Greeks. He discusses how tragedy and comedy are part of these Dionysian and Appolonian forces and that particularly the chaotic Dionysian is part of life and art itself. However, Nietzsche also discusses a period of time in which tragedy became usurped by Socratic thinking. In other words tragedy dies in an age of questions being asked and answered to provide rational solutions to that which may be irrational. However, Nietzsche concludes by stating that we may enter a period whereby we see a 'rebirth of tragedy' as an art form and as is accepted in life.
As stated, there is plenty of literary value to be taken from this book. I have an issue with Nietzsche's constant need to belittle religion, yet he'd probably also have an issue with the fact that I bring up my views and beliefs due to their links to 'religion'. That said if there is one Nietzsche book I recommend it would be this....more
Immanuel Kant is what I suppose one would call a 'practical philosopher' in that he is not primarily concerned with the more abstract thoughts of phil Immanuel Kant is what I suppose one would call a 'practical philosopher' in that he is not primarily concerned with the more abstract thoughts of philosophy. Rather his philosophy, as expressed in this book, is one about how practical philosophy, or practical reason, works. He makes a distinction at the beginning of his book between the subjective and the objective, suggesting that practical reason is about making the subjective objective.
This book begins with a section about defining practical reason and its applications. In other words, this is a work which does discuss the abstract concepts of philosophy, such as good and evil or morality. But it is not a work which broadly or ambiguously leaves questions to the reader as much as it is a work which seeks to define those questions in more concrete manners.
One particular thought that Kant reaches is that morality and the existence of morality is theoretical proof for the existence of God (or at least of some higher power). I cannot explain his reasoning, though it read as sound and logical, however I do recommend that, if that vein of argument interests you, you read Kant's work here. It is an interesting way of looking at morality and something I've often questioned - without God or some kind of higher power does morality become more or less meaningless? Others may challenge that it becomes up to us then, as individuals, to be moral for the sake of being moral but that's never made a lot of sense to me. What is the purpose of morality?
Either way this is another strong philosophical text and one worth reading in order to understand more modern Western Philosophy. If philosophy interests you I would go looking for this book....more
As with many of the great characters of literature, Sherlock Holmes was never created to star in multiple novels. He was conceived to be a one-hit won As with many of the great characters of literature, Sherlock Holmes was never created to star in multiple novels. He was conceived to be a one-hit wonder, to satisfy Arthur Conan Doyle's desire to create a detective who could rationalise and deduce the solutions to crimes through the art of observation. As such, in the first Sherlock Holmes' novel, A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock himself was hardly fleshed out as a character of any degree. It is instead left to this second novel to provide the famous details that provide the great structure to the famous detective. A detective so famous that many people have mistakenly believed at some point that he was once a real individual.
The Sign of Four is one of the less highly regarded novels by Doyle. Part of this is due to the fact that the mystery of the novel is far less complex than many of his other works featuring Holmes and Watson. Another reason is that it features a racist depiction of a small African 'savage'. The third reason is one aspect of Holmes which makes him even less politically correct to the modern reader and this is the famed 'seven percent solution'. This being a solution of cocaine, self administered by Holmes for the purpose of gaining mental stimulation. To me, given that in the past people used to take all manners of drugs for medical reasons without understanding them (laudanum - opium, alcohol and morphine solution - was taken to aid sleep for instance) it makes some sense that Holmes would take such drugs for mental stimulation. However, as others have questioned: if he takes cocaine so often, why do we not see him come down on emotional lows more often?
Personally, while I agree that the reasons above make this one of the least impressive Sherlock Holmes stories, I found that this is also a definitive Sherlock Holmes story. You have Watson's wife introduced, you have the drug issues introduced, you have the point raised about how Sherlock deals with deduction based on observation of minutiae and you further see how Sherlock Holmes is skilled in both boxing and disguise as well as deduction. On top of this there are several key quotes which highlight that Holmes values, above all else, cold and rational logic. These elements to me, make this a solid novel and one which fleshes out the character of Sherlock Holmes to a fair degree.
If you are wanting to delve into the literary character that is Sherlock Holmes I certainly recommend this novel. However I first recommend you read the first story and then move onto this. Reading chronologically will provide a much more detailed analysis of how one of the great literary creations was constructed....more
René Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy is a book I picked up for two reasons. The first is that a friend had been reading and enjoying his wo René Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy is a book I picked up for two reasons. The first is that a friend had been reading and enjoying his work, the second is that I have developed an interest in philosophy due to my university units. I am currently undertaking one literature unit on the 'Philosophies of Hell and Heaven' which is rather fascinating (though I disagree with many points). I figure that if I wish to understand a wide variety of views, I must read about those opinions and philosophers are often a key to understanding theories and ideas.
Descartes' work here is slightly different to any other philosophy work I have touched in the last while however. It is broken up into a series of 'meditations' each one touching on a particular thought and following a logical sequence. He attempts to begin by intellectually breaking down anything he has claimed to believe in the past, in order to address the ideas of 'the reality of God' and everything associated with such. He then concludes with a series of objections to his philosophical conclusions and the replies to these objections, making it a work that rebuts as much as it discusses.
It is hard to follow Descartes at times. Much of this is likely due to translation. But what is easily grasped is that he believes we all need to come to our own conclusions about God through thought and not mere theology - that the nature of the spiritual, of God and religion is as much connected to the intellectual as anything else. To some degree it's a similar conclusion as that reached by Nietzsche, only Nietzsche rejects spirituality and religion altogether.
So, if you want an older staple of philosophy, I recommend reading this. I will no doubt be delving back into Descartes' mind time to time in order to better understand the concept of intellectually thinking about my own revelations of God and humanity. But in the meantime I shall move on to other works and see what they consider. ...more
Mythology is a passion of mine and has been ever since I was a younger child - an age when I had much greater clarity of mind than I do now and was ha Mythology is a passion of mine and has been ever since I was a younger child - an age when I had much greater clarity of mind than I do now and was hampered less by outward influences. Therefore, to see Albert Camus write a sequence of differing essays which explore existentialism (whether he was truly an 'existentialist' is a matter of debate and conjecture but he was interested in existentialist concepts) in a manner that connects back to mythology was fascinating.
For those who are unaware, the myth of Sisyphus does (as with any Greek or Roman myths) differ from source to source. Some say he escaped from Hades (or Pluto) on the pretext of gaining revenge upon his wife, but fell in love with being alive again. Naturally this was an affront to Hades (having a dead man alive in the world) and so Sisyphus was dragged back down into the Greek or Roman versions of hell. As I said there are other versions (some of which say that Sisyphus was punished for hubris and believing he was greater than Zeus) - but the key facet of the myth that Camus addresses is the punishment of Sisyphus.
Sisyphus was set the eternal punishment of rolling an incredibly heavy stone, some kind of boulder, up a hill for the hellish equivalent of one day. Every day he rolled the boulder up the hill and every day the boulder returned to the bottom before he reached the top. It is an eternal punishment cycle that defeated Sisyphus in the regularity of its routine.
What Camus writes about, therefore, in relation to the myth of Sisyphus, is the existential idea about the reality of the world. In his other books, such as The Stranger or The Fall, Camus explores the idea that life is abstract, further that it is absurd. It is this conceit that he details in this short collection of essays - the notion that life is absurd and full of mechanical repetition.
We all, to Camus, are like Sisyphus, and the great humorous tragedy of life is to believe that, absurdly, we can set out into the face of overwhelming defeat and triumph. Personally, I must admit that existentialism itself, with the particularly negative bent it always seems to through up, is in itself meaningless to me, yet the ideas Camus is discussing here are fascinating and still applicable. Though I believe life has purpose, there are times where we all are Sisyphus. The point at which we reach the top of the hill and look back on where we came from, only to see the boulder crash back down and realise that we are stuck in the repetitive cycle of continuing to continue on.
So far in my philosophical venture into the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, I have read both this work and his Beyond Good and Evil. However, while I ga So far in my philosophical venture into the works of Friedrich Nietzsche, I have read both this work and his Beyond Good and Evil. However, while I gave Beyond Good and Evil 3 stars, I feel that this is a better work academically and so give it the higher 4 star rating. In this The Gay Science, many of Nietzsche's key ideas come together in a much clearer manner, and it is easier to understand his views on concepts I feel he lacks more ignorance (religions for instance).
The title of this work stems from the more traditional meaning of 'gay' - that is for it to purely mean 'happy'. In other words this is Nietzsche's examination at times of how science and rationality has come to be considered an ultimately grave and serious task when he believes it should be a happy task or something to delight in understanding.
One thing that I have discovered through reading Nietzsche is that he seems to be someone who has been misinterpreted at times. His statement that 'God is dead', for instance, is a reflection on the fact that in the past Europe had a universal belief in God and now in the current age many people no longer believe in God. His 'will to power' quote was more about the concept of self-determination rather than a concept of war and conquering: the concept that 'what a man can be a man should be.' And further it has often been said that Nietzsche was a nihilist, an Anti-Semitic and a misogynist. The first two can be disproved relatively easily in that in his writings Nietzsche opposes nihilism and writes about humanity as a whole (abhorring racism). His writings on females are...less clear, but on the whole he shows that he respects women at the least.
Part of this misinterpretation is to do with the fact that his Nazi sympathising sister re-wrote his articles and notes after his death to side with Anti-Semitic views and potentially more misogynistic views. The other part, I believe, is due to the fact that Nietzsche does write at times in blindly contradictory ways. For instance his theory of 'perspectivism' is one which states that there are multiple perspectives which can be seen to be correct and that multiple perspectives should be examined on any issue - therefore creating a sense of how existentialism works for Nietzsche. However, Nietzsche outright makes a contradictory exception to this, claiming that the 'herd instinct' connected to already established views, is one to be avoided. He uses this to discredit established ways of thinking according to religions, apparently unaccepting of that fact that man could potentially set out to find the Christian God for him or herself, or that there could be a level of spirituality which supersedes established orders. Further, if we were to take Nietzsche to his absolute conclusion, then it would seem that anarchy should reign...
There is another reason why Nietzsche is so misunderstood, aside from his convoluted and intricate manner of writing. This is due to the fact that his 'theories' are made in the form of truth claims. Nietzsche comes across as extremely arrogant in his writing, though at times humility does seep back in, with his writing conveyed as fact, rather than thoughts and reflections upon different topics. This makes it hard for the critical reader to truly accept or fully respect Nietzsche, though he has many potent ideas to discuss.
Even from my own Christian perspective I accept that Nietzsche was partly right when talking about such ideas as 'God is dead' or the avoidance of following the 'herd instinct' in morality. Yet as I have said before, Nietzsche misses that Christianity could be about more than mere morality or power structures because he only sees the physical abuses of such systems and therefore rejects them entirely. I do believe that God has, sadly, come to appear as dead for much of humanity - though in particular areas his resurrection has become evident - yet I also believe that what Nietzsche cannot comprehend is the spiritual aspect of humanity and that is why religion to him must be entirely rejected....more
"I can speak of slavery only so far as it came under my own observation - only so far as I have known and experienced it in my own person."
Twelve
"I can speak of slavery only so far as it came under my own observation - only so far as I have known and experienced it in my own person."
Twelve Years A Slave is one of those autobiographical works that make you question how such a strange and harsh reality can exist. The events within the book are a unique telling of one powerful tragedy regarding slavery, told by one man born free and sold into slavery. It is a story that I believe we as readers and human beings need to continue to read and understand, because the greatest weakness and horror of humanity is our ability to belittle and trample upon others.
Solomon Northup was a remarkably educated man and therefore his telling of events is clear and concise in how it provides an accounting of events that reads as remarkably honest and rational. Northup spares no detail, writing according to the era in which he existed, in highlighting the anguish he felt at being drawn into slavery and the ignorance of others regarding his true freedom. It is a book as much about ignorance as it is about anything else: the ignorance of the law regarding the fairness of Northup's illegal kidnapping, the ignorance of others regarding Northup as a free man and the ignorance of a society that kept African American citizens as inferior slaves.
Yet, in saying the above, ignorance does not feel like the right word. To claim something as 'ignorance' is to claim that there was or is a lack of knowledge or information. In some cases in this book, yes, information was absent. Not everyone knew that Northup was truly a free man - though they knew he was a cut above the other slaves they had seen. But many, many people knew to an extent that they ways in which they were treating slaves was wrong.
"...the court decided my evidence inadmissible. It was rejected on the ground that I was a colored man - the fact of my being a free citizen of New-York not being disputed."
Perhaps the harshest idea in this book as it relates to slavery is how Northup explains that he worked hard, laboured for his masters for years and brought prosperity for his masters and yet was treated lower than a dog. His hard efforts brought harder whippings and curses that no one should ever be fit to bear. And all in the name of an idea that some people are fit to be slaves and desire slavery.
"Let them know the heart of a poor slave - learn his secret thoughts - thoughts he dare not utter in the hearing of the white man; let them sit by him in the silent watches of the night - converse with him in trustful confidence, of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' and they will find that ninety-nine out of every hundred are intelligent enough to understand their situation, and to cherish in their bosoms the love of freedom, as passionately as themselves."
I do not feel that anything I say can compare to allowing the book to speak for itself. So I encourage you, if you appreciate moral historical lessons to read this work. I believe it to be an important work and not merely another light entertainment by rich, white educated men who sit around at desks all day...
"A human trial has permitted him to escape; but there is another and a higher tribunal where false testimony will not prevail, and where I am willing, so far at least as these statements are concerned, to be judged."
Friedrich Nietzsche seems to be a philosophical writer, who to me, has become a bigger legend than his own writing demands. Having read his work I fouFriedrich Nietzsche seems to be a philosophical writer, who to me, has become a bigger legend than his own writing demands. Having read his work I found that I was surprised by both the wordiness and the repetitive nature of his actual writing. In fact to put it flippantly, most of his arguments in this book come down to: 'everything is meaningless and everything is subjective'. Of course that's a gross exaggeration but it is how Nietzsche reads to me. I challenge anyone else to explain to me what it is that I am missing about his writing in the comments below. Discussion on this would interest me.
The entire conceit of this book, a book that meanders from one idea to the next, is that morality itself should be 'beyond good and evil'. It is hard to understand exactly what Nietzsche means at times because of this meandering but it seems to be that he suggests that as 'existentially' everything is meaningless - in terms of Nietzsche not believing in a heaven, hell or any kind of God - that morality and reality become subjective. In other words Nietzsche seems to suggest that there are some kind of natural or scientific laws which govern a kind of internal morality and lead us to do the things that we do, that 'good and evil' are concepts of a morality imposed by religion and therefore are a veneer over how humanity really acts.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that Friedrich Nietzsche was incredibly anti-Christian, and anti-religious in general. Which is odd because it appears that one of his key concepts (according to my classes) was 'perspectivism' - that there are a range of various perspectives which should be looked at in regards to any issue. Of course Nietzsche throws this idea out the window in regards to Christianity and seems to close his mind to the concept that any intelligent thoughts can have such a backing. In other words this 'perspectivism' is just a title created by Nietzsche to appeal to those with a variety of perspectives and is not necessarily as embraced by himself as it would seem. Correct me if I am wrong in judging this issue, this is my first full Nietzsche text.
The one thing I do agree with Nietzsche on in regards to religion however is the concept that we do not need God for morality or for happiness. Some might question how I can believe this, and I will state that I do not believe the purpose of my faith is to just provide me with morality - to make me a good person or make me happy. All I would have to do for that is to follow the government's laws, read books, have a good career, love my family and any number of things that I could do without needing to be involved with anything Christian. The thing that Nietzsche cannot understand is that my faith revolves around a personal connection to a God, not about trying to just become a better moral person and that connection truly is something 'beyond good and evil'.
However some of his ideas are just plain contradictory (others such as his 'will to power' or 'God is dead' are misunderstood but they appear in other locations). I speak of the idea that he seems to think a variety of ideas should be considered for any concept but rejects outright some. He believes that the concept of anything being able to create itself is absurd - so how did everything come to exist in the first place? You must have some kind of starting point which requires creation from nothing - or from a being who simply defies understanding and has always existed (say an all powerful God?)....more
There is a particular reason why Franz Kafka's works have come to be defined by the style of 'Kafkaesque'. Like Mervyn Peake in his Gormenghast works, There is a particular reason why Franz Kafka's works have come to be defined by the style of 'Kafkaesque'. Like Mervyn Peake in his Gormenghast works, Kafka defines his own style and ways of writing - working in a genre that is not quite pure fiction and not quite non-fiction. That is to say that Kafka mixes reality and imagination in a way that few writers can. His style is his own in a haunting way that does not quite fit into any genre. Is he a realist? Is he Gothic? Is he a romance author? It can be difficult to tell at times, yet definition of Kafka as an artist is all that is really required to enjoy his fictional works because he was one of a type.
Let me first discuss the aspect of Kafka that I found in this volume that I had not read elsewhere. This is his brief writing studies or experiments which range from one paragraph to several pages in length. Each one could discuss something as mundane as a man riding past on a bicycle and yet Kafka highlights in each brief - sketches, I suppose you could call them - sketch that the keen writer should be aware of the magic hidden within the most ordinary moments. This is the magic of questions: where is the man on the bicycle riding? To whom is the man on the bicycle riding? Why ride a bicycle at all? There are millions of questions which stem from the ordinary sight of a man riding a bicycle and hence a million variations on the one same story.
Aside from such sketches however, in this volume were included some longer fictional stories. Among these was Kafka's most famous short story The Metamorphosis. I had read this story before, two years ago in fact, however reading it again I noted new details about the story. It's one of the more unusual stories by Kafka in that it features a magical sort of transformation of a man into a giant bug. Yet, like most Kafka stories, how that event occurred is not important to the plot. The plot itself is more like a metaphor for alienation from one's own family and people and how this leads to people considering you as something less than human. Such alienation can be caused by deformities, changing religion, differences of sexuality or even something else - it does not matter - because Kafka's story stands in for how the metamorphosis of the soul affects all people around you even if you are comfortable in your change. In particular, I noticed in my re-reading, and from the different translation, how the daughter (Gregor's sister) also transforms. In fact the very end of the story notes how she has blossomed and has a young and nubile body. In other words at the start she was timid, powerless individual but becomes the beautiful powerful individual by the end.
The point of all this is to recommend that you read, in some shape or form, the work of Kafka. He was and remains through his works a genius. A genius who is routinely quoted by literature scholars and lovers because he has a great ability to touch all types of readers. So yes, read Kafka and transform your view of literature, allowing transformation to stem into transformation into transformation.
“Sometimes, carrying on, just carrying on, is the superhuman achievement.”
The Fall is one of those books which is less of a novel than an exploration “Sometimes, carrying on, just carrying on, is the superhuman achievement.”
The Fall is one of those books which is less of a novel than an exploration of some kind of spiritual or philosophical narrative or truth. The narrator is a self appointed judge who spares no details about the fact that he does in fact love himself in a highly narcissistic manner. It is this manner which lends him to feeling free as to judge humanity, while ironically also judging himself and yet seemingly feeling free from the burden of being judged. For he is a man who has fallen into a state that means he seems to no longer care about the depravity of depravity and that is in essence what The Fall as a novel discusses.
Of course, the finer details of the novel are seen in the little quotes contained within the narrative itself. Which is an interesting aspect of this novel as it stands. The narrative is in its way almost a fourth-wall-breaking stream of consciousness as it seems like the narrator is spilling out all his thoughts in a turbulent stream. It is only the fact that he interjects with directions to the reader that enable you to see that in fact, this is a stream of writing directed at the individual in a kind of accusation. 'You lead me into this depravity', the judge penitent seems to accuse the reader directly, 'You led me into the fall, for all humanity is fallen.' Oh yes, it perhaps is important to mention that uniquely, The Fall is written in the Second Person - an aspect of writing rarely used for any kind of fiction.
It has further been noted to me that the concept of 'the fall' comes from a particular bridge scene which I had skimmed over as somewhat less important. It is a scene hidden in all the rambling as the main character moves from being likeable to completely arrogant and back again. This scene is one in which a woman jumps from a bridge into a river and our 'judge penitent' does not rescue her from the water. This is despite many claims by our narrator about how heroic he could be - therefore showing his contradictory nature. Further this highlights what we all can be: contradictions who say one thing but do another - hypocrites.
As a work of entertaining fiction I would not recommend Albert Camus' work here. It's fragmented and messy, not at all easy to read. Yet as a work of philosophical and spiritual discussion I highly recommend it. Camus has the profound ability to get to the reader and cause them to question their realities and ask how they have fallen into a state of mistruth and misdirection wherever it may be possible....more
At the end of last year I finally completed another one of my life reading goals. That is to say I finished the classic Crime and Punishment. Having f At the end of last year I finally completed another one of my life reading goals. That is to say I finished the classic Crime and Punishment. Having found this masterpiece to be a fascinating piece of literature I decided that I would have to tackle another work of Dostoyevsky's and so when I stumbled upon Notes from the Underground and The Gambler at my library I picked up the volume and began to read.
There is something about the nature of suffering that the classic Russian authors seem to understand better than nearly anyone else. Or perhaps it is that they are more capable of conveying the quintessential ingredients behind suffering. Either way, it appears to me that Dostoyevsky's novels serve as the means by which the psychological connection to suffering and pain can be discussed. In Crime and Punishment the suffering of a man who has murdered another individual is the key point of discussion. However in Notes from the Underground the psychology of a man who suffers in love and in life - a miserable man - is the greater discussion point. And further in The Gambler the addiction compulsion of gambling is shown to the reader.
Dostoyevsky's novels here have far less scope than Crime and Punishment and are in more ways novellas than actual novels. However, they each still are self contained and excellently discuss the dilemmas of the mind in times of strife and anguish. It is for these reasons (as well as a very humorous narrator in Notes from the Underground) that they deserve to be read. It is particularly interesting to note that these books in particular were written while Dostoyevsky was in periods of turmoil himself (such as in times of death and debt). Which all goes to show that the axiom of 'write what you know' is very, very true....more
A Young Doctor's Notebook is a wonderful suite of short stories following a recently graduated doctor as he tackles various medical conditions afflict A Young Doctor's Notebook is a wonderful suite of short stories following a recently graduated doctor as he tackles various medical conditions afflicting the peasants of Russia. That is to say the peasants within his particular domain. Each story is wonderfully sharp and pointed look at the ways in which this particular doctor tackles the issues he is confronted with, each one told from his sardonic and often flabbergasted perspective. There is a hint of irony and humour in how our narrator discusses with himself all the various ways things could go wrong when operating or diagnosing.
In many ways this book serves as an insight into the writer himself. However, moreso, it serves as a poignant way of approaching the whole idea of doubt and insecurity from inexperience. I know that on a personal level I have experienced similar thoughts to those portrayed by Mikhail Bulgakov through his character. My own thoughts have been more linked to teaching and being able to handle a classroom environment, while the doctor's are more linked to 'can I perform this operation outside of a classroom' or 'have I diagnosed correctly?' However, situations aside, one can see how doubts and lack of self-belief are similar issues across careers and lifetimes.
Whether you are looking for a set of brilliant and connected short story classics to read, or wanting to read something full of thoughtful ideas, I do recommend this. It touched me on a more personal level due to the whole connection between the doctor doubting in his ability and I, myself, at times doubting myself. I have in the past struggled with public speaking. I no longer do so much when I do impromptu, however when I have a planned speech things can be a touch tougher. Either way, I believe as fellow readers you will likely find something in this work to appreciate for yourselves. ...more
The Everlasting Man is not your typical Christian apologetics classic. I say this because G.K. Chesterton is not aiming to write a pure 'defence of th The Everlasting Man is not your typical Christian apologetics classic. I say this because G.K. Chesterton is not aiming to write a pure 'defence of the faith' as it were, but to write a work that better explores the relationship of Christianity to history. It has become something of a fashionable statement to ignore the relevance of Christianity as it pertains to history and so Chesterton sets out to first explore the concept of God and his role as more than merely just another aspect of mythology and then to explore the relationship between God and man as seen in Christ.
Chesterton makes strong arguments and bold arguments. In doing so he highlights the importance of sticking to one's beliefs. That is why I hold onto my beliefs whether they are...fashionable or not. If I allow my views to merely sway with the breeze of popularity, then what kind of truths do I really believe in? In other words, Chesterton explains the necessity of holding fast to Orthodoxy for himself - a view which others can take to heart. Too often when situations arise in modern society the response of an individual is to change their world-view to accommodate such a situation, when perhaps one should change the response and not the view. Otherwise, all it says is 'I have no strong conviction.'
Chesterton makes use of his skill with paradox with such statements as: "Nero could not hire a hundred Christians to be eaten by lions at a shilling an hour, for men will not be martyred for money." There is a sense through Chesterton's writing that he aims to show how Christianity is not another mythology but something different in history. There have been many creation stories, yet how many religions feature the Creator becoming one of his own Creations to save that Creation? That, Chesterton notes, is an interesting kind of paradoxical situation in itself.
Perhaps my favourite quote from this work is found on page four: "When the world goes wrong, it proves rather that the Church is right. The Church is justified not because her children do not sin, but because they do." To me this is perfect in that it explains the one thing I often feel like explaining to people. They look at Christians and Christianity and believe it is about morality or ethics, but the gospel is not a tool for purely creating 'good' or 'morally right' people. As Romans 3:23-24 states "23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." The church should be full of people just as hurt, broken and failing as the world, and it is when the church contains such people that the message of the gospel should be seen...
Of course if you've read this far through my review you'd be aware that this is a book aimed more at Christians or those actively seeking answers to life from various viewpoints. I find that Chesterton is the best writer I have discovered at providing logical and sound reasons for belief. And in doing so he shows that Christianity is special and that faith and logic are not so different as some may believe....more
Loading...
