Having seen the BBC series and the movie, it was difficult to realise that I was reading Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe unnecessarily, since I'd read it. It wasn't until some kind of "Gosh, by jove" statement from one of the kids that I realised I'd come across this before.
Since so many comparisons are drawn between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis, I found it hard to be too sympathetic towards this book. It's nowhere near the poetic masterpiece written by Tolkien - although I suppose it's not intended to be... but I always remember something about Tolkien being ridiculed by his writing/reading friends for his ideas as he was writing.
This book is very English... very proper English, so it's easy to get annoyed at the characters. Some of the morals also seem a little dated, and it's hard to accept that the gender roles allocated to the children are only a fault of the time and not of the author - afterall, many of the females in LOTR are happy to get their hands dirty.
Having said this, perhaps the most resonating passage in this book is the folklore concerning the stone table - although it is a bit awkwardly phrased. But I like the parallels with the Christ story, and that since Aslan is goodness, he's not something you can get rid of - still a bit trixsy and deceitful one might say though.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Alain de Botton's own philosophy: Status Anxiety
A had heard of The Consolations of Philosophy from a few friends, but it seemed too introductory to be of interest. My Dad (A man quite interested in introductions and dot points) showed me the six-part TV series Philosophy: A guide to Happiness, which I did watch and found fairly interesting. Alain de Botton's take on philosophy is nice and accessible, allowing some of these thinkers to be introduced to those who may not usually take any interest in philosophy.
Where episodes concerned thinkers I knew more about (e.g. Nietzsche) however, I couldn't help but feel that aspects of their philosophy was being misinterpreted (or at least misrepresented). I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know more about these thinkers than de Botton, however it seems that in simplifying an idea (whose beauty may lie in its innate complexity), something may be lost - particularly the ideas of someone like Nietzsche - wasn't it a misrepresentation of his ideas that was used to promote fascism?. So whilst entertaining, the shows are about as interesting philosophically as a certain book-come-movie (about anagrams) is interesting mathematically.
However! Although, for an introduction to philosophy I would recommend Solomon, I was interested to see how rigorous Alain de Botton's own philosophy was - hence my purchase and subsequent reading of Status Anxiety. I had really hoped a lot from this book, as I believe the concept of status anxiety is important to the philosophical ideas concerning the individual and identity. For example, to create a sense of self, we associate many ideas with who we are and reject many others, which may or may not be true of ourselves. We associate ourselves with certain dreams, however these dreams are sometimes more associated with societal expectations or associations between happiness and the success of others: i.e. status anxiety - this is what I was hoping for anyway.
Unfortunately, the exploration is somewhat banal, lacking depth and originality. This is not to say I did not somewhat enjoy it - I just don't consider it to be a philosophical work, which is perhaps not the intention. Perhaps de Botton's main concern is with pop-society and issues like consumerism, in which case this book might be better considered alongside Affluenza, than The Gay Science. Some history to modern thoughts is given, and then philosphical anecdotes are used to guide the reading.
My main concern with Status Anxiety is this: Status anxiety is equated with the pursuit of material wealth. Especially today, status can be understood in many more forms. I think of myself, and how much of my dedication to obtaining a PhD is tied to my desire to be seen as intelligent. Think of people who believe "to travel" means "to be somebody" (interestingly, travel is presented as something which might assuage status anxiety). Consider people with little interesting in writing who feel they "must write a book", men who'd rather be seen with a pretty wife than one that makes them happy and that they are faithful to. This is perhaps a more important failure of the book than what is focused on by the philosophically inclined.
Status anxiety, in my opinion, is that complex of external influence and internal projection which leaves us wanting. It is where we orient ourselves towards achievements and experiences for reasons other than what they provide in of themselves. Status anxiety can be considered alongside that existential yearning to be someone of significance as we are faced with an indifferent and infinite universe.
Where episodes concerned thinkers I knew more about (e.g. Nietzsche) however, I couldn't help but feel that aspects of their philosophy was being misinterpreted (or at least misrepresented). I'm not arrogant enough to think that I know more about these thinkers than de Botton, however it seems that in simplifying an idea (whose beauty may lie in its innate complexity), something may be lost - particularly the ideas of someone like Nietzsche - wasn't it a misrepresentation of his ideas that was used to promote fascism?. So whilst entertaining, the shows are about as interesting philosophically as a certain book-come-movie (about anagrams) is interesting mathematically.
However! Although, for an introduction to philosophy I would recommend Solomon, I was interested to see how rigorous Alain de Botton's own philosophy was - hence my purchase and subsequent reading of Status Anxiety. I had really hoped a lot from this book, as I believe the concept of status anxiety is important to the philosophical ideas concerning the individual and identity. For example, to create a sense of self, we associate many ideas with who we are and reject many others, which may or may not be true of ourselves. We associate ourselves with certain dreams, however these dreams are sometimes more associated with societal expectations or associations between happiness and the success of others: i.e. status anxiety - this is what I was hoping for anyway.
Unfortunately, the exploration is somewhat banal, lacking depth and originality. This is not to say I did not somewhat enjoy it - I just don't consider it to be a philosophical work, which is perhaps not the intention. Perhaps de Botton's main concern is with pop-society and issues like consumerism, in which case this book might be better considered alongside Affluenza, than The Gay Science. Some history to modern thoughts is given, and then philosphical anecdotes are used to guide the reading.
My main concern with Status Anxiety is this: Status anxiety is equated with the pursuit of material wealth. Especially today, status can be understood in many more forms. I think of myself, and how much of my dedication to obtaining a PhD is tied to my desire to be seen as intelligent. Think of people who believe "to travel" means "to be somebody" (interestingly, travel is presented as something which might assuage status anxiety). Consider people with little interesting in writing who feel they "must write a book", men who'd rather be seen with a pretty wife than one that makes them happy and that they are faithful to. This is perhaps a more important failure of the book than what is focused on by the philosophically inclined.
Status anxiety, in my opinion, is that complex of external influence and internal projection which leaves us wanting. It is where we orient ourselves towards achievements and experiences for reasons other than what they provide in of themselves. Status anxiety can be considered alongside that existential yearning to be someone of significance as we are faced with an indifferent and infinite universe.
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
wonderful wizard
Unlike most people my age... or younger, I don't think I've seen The Wizard of Oz (the movie) the whole way through. It was interesting, then, to read the book and understand the story. Baum apparently avoided writing the Wicked Witch as a haunting character - aiming the story at children, and believing he knew how a children's story should be.
As an important story culturally, I guess I focused on the elements of the story and symbolism that have subsequently pervaded other literature. Each of the characters is on a quest to see the wizard, to gain something about themselves they see as lacking. The Lion's desire for courage and the Tinman's yearning for a heart, I think are done particularly well - the sentiment that courage is to act despite fear, and that to love is to see the world beautifully and to care, come across nicely. Perhaps the only real reservation I have is that the Scarecrow gets a degree as a substitute for a brain... perhaps this idea was less loaded back in the day. By the way, there's an interesting story about the movie: on receiving his degree, Scarecrow decrees "The square of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side" - which is false in all cases. Obviously based on pythag. thrm which concerns right-angle triangles, and the square of the hypotenuse, not the square root... but there's some dispute as to whether this was deliberate, accidental, or just stupid.
The main thing I noticed here was the lack of description - particularly of action sequences. The group are surrounded by hounds, all of a sudden, the Tinman cuts their heads off, the end. Done deliberately to avoid frightening the young children. I remember writing a very similar descriptive passage in my story "The Three Missile Men", which I wrote at the age of 6.
The Wizard of Oz is not a story like The Hobbit, The Little Prince, or even Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, all of which are well crafted, interesting stories in themselves but also hold deeper meanings for adults. Perhaps of this lot, The Little Prince stands above the rest - but I am biased towards that particular book.
As an important story culturally, I guess I focused on the elements of the story and symbolism that have subsequently pervaded other literature. Each of the characters is on a quest to see the wizard, to gain something about themselves they see as lacking. The Lion's desire for courage and the Tinman's yearning for a heart, I think are done particularly well - the sentiment that courage is to act despite fear, and that to love is to see the world beautifully and to care, come across nicely. Perhaps the only real reservation I have is that the Scarecrow gets a degree as a substitute for a brain... perhaps this idea was less loaded back in the day. By the way, there's an interesting story about the movie: on receiving his degree, Scarecrow decrees "The square of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side" - which is false in all cases. Obviously based on pythag. thrm which concerns right-angle triangles, and the square of the hypotenuse, not the square root... but there's some dispute as to whether this was deliberate, accidental, or just stupid.
The main thing I noticed here was the lack of description - particularly of action sequences. The group are surrounded by hounds, all of a sudden, the Tinman cuts their heads off, the end. Done deliberately to avoid frightening the young children. I remember writing a very similar descriptive passage in my story "The Three Missile Men", which I wrote at the age of 6.
The Wizard of Oz is not a story like The Hobbit, The Little Prince, or even Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, all of which are well crafted, interesting stories in themselves but also hold deeper meanings for adults. Perhaps of this lot, The Little Prince stands above the rest - but I am biased towards that particular book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)