I've only been reading Battle Royale by Koushun Takami for a few days, but i'm already half-way through and my love of great literature has been revitalised.
In particular, and I don't know why I keep coming back to this (an internal argument constantly going on in my mind), this is a book that stimulates ideas and could be talked about.
Having spent most of the last 10 years concentrating my reading efforts on relatively old books, with only Murakami and a few others bringing me back to modern literature, I sometimes feel a bit neglectful of the here and now, and try to read a book that will supposedly one day become a classic - get informed about who the good authors are etc. I read the Slap on such assumptions, that this was a book by a supposedly intelligent person that people felt the need to talk about and were challenged by (and indeed, I've felt the need to talk about it - but would probably not have bothered if other people weren't raving about it).
Of course, it seems ridiculous to compare Battle Royale and The Slap - but having an interest in maths and keeping in mind that people often describe algebraic rules in terms of now being able to compare apples and oranges... or add apples and oranges? and how misleading this idea is, i'll say that if the conversation is whether books are worthy of attention or not, it's a free-for-all. so here it is:
It's a valid artistic endeavour to explore the dark-side of human nature, to challenge our perceptions that, at heart, everyone is basically good. It's valid to look at societal problems and identify the cultural mindset that leads to such problems, and wonder at how things go wrong when humans try to organise themselves together.
The Slap attempts to explore some of these issues by looking at extraordinary people in an ordinary situation - i.e. ethnic-age-and-status stereotypes at an Australian Christmas barbecue where someone oversteps their supervisory role. Tsiolkas' main vehicle for doing this is the ego dialogue. My main concern with him using this to explore human nature is that peripheral thoughts (e.g. for some reason I'm angry enough to hit that person, or that young girl is attractive) are treated as dominating thoughts, but because people can identify with both types, they are insensitive to the important difference and walk away from this book saying "I know people like that", "this is the truth".
On the other hand, Takami looks at ordinary people in an extraordinary situation - japanese school kids (albeit with an over-representation of athletic and pretty ones) getting tossed into a game of kill or be-killed. The idea is ridiculous and cliche - I don't know how many times it's been done before. The plot is reasonably predictable - people don't want to play the game but fear and distrust take over - BUT, I am constantly awe-struck at the insights into the human psyche that can be expressed in such an arena. Human weaknesses are accepted and pushed, however the yearning of humans for love and trust is also given a voice. There are beautiful moments of friendship, tragic moments of weakness, and the humans without either are chilling - and one should be chilled in the face of such things.
Here's hoping I never put myself through a "slap" in the future in an attempt to be up with "what's good".
No comments:
Post a Comment