Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World, is probably the most sci-fi oriented of Murakami's novels. Like all good sci-fi, Murakami begins with an idea and explores it within the well established rules of the world - i.e. things still need to make sense, there is a difference between sci-fi and a far-fetched plot... that is my belief anyway.
This novel threads two stories, one which takes place in a future world, the other in the unconscious of the protagonist. The End of the World component is rife with Jungian symbols and archetypes: the wall, the shadow, the gate-keeper - each developed according to Murakami's own ideas. In the Hard-boiled wonderland, the protagonist is getting a little confused and persued for what a code that is in his head (he is a human encryption device... lovely idea). Murakami's talent here is to describe interesting details of the worlds he creates as if he were writing a "normal" novel. The opening scene describes a simultaneous counting process where coins are counted and backwards and forwards simultaneously. In the End of the World, the dream-reader is given a riddling description of a song as "some words spoken quickly, others stretched out", which i also found quite beautiful in its own way.
As with all of Murakami's novels, he likes to give a couple of nods to his favourite authors, in this one we hear about Mersault from the Outsider (coming to mind because he apologized all the time) which adds another dimension to Murakami's work that makes him interesting beyond the telling of a good story.
This was a nice introduction to Murakami. It's an interesting and well-executed story. It is one that I would perhaps recommend to others as it is not as depressing as something like Norwegian Wood (not my interpretation of depressing anyway... i guess there is The end of the world to consider). The book ends with one of Murakami's trademork ambiguous drop-offs. One is reading, feeling that everything is coming together and then a final sentence forces a reinterpretation of everything just mentioned. All stars.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Camus plays
Camus' plays are harder to obtain than his fiction - obviously they are not viewed to be as literarily important. I am still looking for a copy of his play-version of The Possessed, although I will probably read the big book before I get too serious about this search.
Of the plays in this collection, Caligula and The Just Assassins are the most important to his philosophy and indeed, the better written. Caligula represents a perversion of unquestioned Christian values. He operates alongside Mersault in Camus' philosophy of the Absurd. For some reason, I feel like there is something quite admirable about this Caligula. Despite all he does, it seems like he really does just want "the moon" (contrast to Mersault's Sun), and the inauthenticity of the characters around him draws little sympathy for all he puts them through. There is a resemblance between the way Caligula and Hamlet approach their destinies. In light of a modernist anguish, a deprivation of meaning, they manipulate the world around them in an attempt to find something tangible.
Here is a poster I have framed and in my room - was done in poland I think to advertise a performance of Caligula.
The Just Assassins consumates the philosophy presented in The Rebel. It retells the (true) story of the assassination of a Duke, the perpetrators failing in a prior attempt because they refused to attack while he was around his niece and nephew. For Camus, the refusal to sacrifice innocents is important for the Rebel - who wants all or nothing. As a french-algerian, Camus believed in the rights of the native Algerians, however refused that it was necessary to attack innocent settlers in order to gain their independence.
The misunderstanding is an attempt by Camus to write a tragedy in the style of Oedipus. As a result, it reads more like a literary experiment - frankly, something that might be written as a text response by a Year 12 student. A son returns home only to be killed by his sister and mother, because he neglects to tell them who he is. There is a very nice sentiment conveyed here which I think is worthwhile, something which comes through in Kafka stories like Metamorphosis, The Trial and the Castle.
We hold onto a naive belief that many of the problems we face arise as a result of misunderstanding. If we can just express ourselves clearly enough, get in contact with the right people, then our problems will be resolved.
This is certainly a trap I find myself falling into, it's hard just to accept that some things cannot be communicated, and it's better to shut-up than to dig yourself into more and more misconceptions. Sometimes it's a sad thing to realise.
State of Seige is somewhat similar to The Plague. Camus liked to write A Novel, an Essay and a Play to explore the same idea. In this play, a plague is used as an excuse to implement a totalitarian regime. It is reasonably unremarkable - perhaps not refined as was the case with The Plague.
Of the plays in this collection, Caligula and The Just Assassins are the most important to his philosophy and indeed, the better written. Caligula represents a perversion of unquestioned Christian values. He operates alongside Mersault in Camus' philosophy of the Absurd. For some reason, I feel like there is something quite admirable about this Caligula. Despite all he does, it seems like he really does just want "the moon" (contrast to Mersault's Sun), and the inauthenticity of the characters around him draws little sympathy for all he puts them through. There is a resemblance between the way Caligula and Hamlet approach their destinies. In light of a modernist anguish, a deprivation of meaning, they manipulate the world around them in an attempt to find something tangible.
Here is a poster I have framed and in my room - was done in poland I think to advertise a performance of Caligula.
The Just Assassins consumates the philosophy presented in The Rebel. It retells the (true) story of the assassination of a Duke, the perpetrators failing in a prior attempt because they refused to attack while he was around his niece and nephew. For Camus, the refusal to sacrifice innocents is important for the Rebel - who wants all or nothing. As a french-algerian, Camus believed in the rights of the native Algerians, however refused that it was necessary to attack innocent settlers in order to gain their independence.
The misunderstanding is an attempt by Camus to write a tragedy in the style of Oedipus. As a result, it reads more like a literary experiment - frankly, something that might be written as a text response by a Year 12 student. A son returns home only to be killed by his sister and mother, because he neglects to tell them who he is. There is a very nice sentiment conveyed here which I think is worthwhile, something which comes through in Kafka stories like Metamorphosis, The Trial and the Castle.
We hold onto a naive belief that many of the problems we face arise as a result of misunderstanding. If we can just express ourselves clearly enough, get in contact with the right people, then our problems will be resolved.
This is certainly a trap I find myself falling into, it's hard just to accept that some things cannot be communicated, and it's better to shut-up than to dig yourself into more and more misconceptions. Sometimes it's a sad thing to realise.
State of Seige is somewhat similar to The Plague. Camus liked to write A Novel, an Essay and a Play to explore the same idea. In this play, a plague is used as an excuse to implement a totalitarian regime. It is reasonably unremarkable - perhaps not refined as was the case with The Plague.
Thursday, January 13, 2005
the brothers karamazov
The Brothers Karamazov is not as famous as Crime and Punishment, although it is probably more important philosophically, its themes referred to throughout various essays. Two examples that come to mind are the Sartre paraphrase "If God is dead, then everything is permitted" (attributed to Dostoevsky as a quote but Sartre said it this way, not him) and the story of a boy being mauled by a dog - the "is this evil necessary?"/god existence dilemma.
These two examples are both presented in the story through Ivan Karamazov, and indeed, Camus refers to Ivan throughout The Rebel. A particularly nice (Camus) quote is "All the truth in the world is not worth a child's tears" - Ivan's level-headed philosophy, which Camus believed represented the real views of Dostoevsky.
So there is all that to bear in mind - the story is beautiful. It is a big book, however it is very enjoyable to read, and one sees elements of this story arise in other literature. The court case, of patricide (perhaps alluded to in The Outsider) is particularly enthralling, although it is perhaps just an excuse for Dostoevsky to write long showy speeches.
The three brothers, quite shamelessly manifest the heart, the mind and body. Alyosha (the heart) is such a beautifully innocent character that one can't help but admire his goodness. Classic Dostoevsky trademarks are present, in particular the madness which consumes Ivan (madness is a necessary consequence of all Dostoevsky's characters who cease to believe in God... not to be confused, although reminiscent, of Nietzsche's madman).
Finding a good translation, I think, is important. Some of the sayings, e.g. "One reptile will devour the other" must have quite a bit of room for interpretation, another translation reads "Viper eats viper..." and one American book I read was filled to the brim with the word gotten.
Whilst I enjoyed this book far more than Crime and Punishment, if recommending one or the other, I would probably defer to Crime and Punishment. It more clearly executes an idea that is important historically, whereas Brothers Karamazov is more a nice story with a few philosophical side-investigations.
These two examples are both presented in the story through Ivan Karamazov, and indeed, Camus refers to Ivan throughout The Rebel. A particularly nice (Camus) quote is "All the truth in the world is not worth a child's tears" - Ivan's level-headed philosophy, which Camus believed represented the real views of Dostoevsky.
So there is all that to bear in mind - the story is beautiful. It is a big book, however it is very enjoyable to read, and one sees elements of this story arise in other literature. The court case, of patricide (perhaps alluded to in The Outsider) is particularly enthralling, although it is perhaps just an excuse for Dostoevsky to write long showy speeches.
The three brothers, quite shamelessly manifest the heart, the mind and body. Alyosha (the heart) is such a beautifully innocent character that one can't help but admire his goodness. Classic Dostoevsky trademarks are present, in particular the madness which consumes Ivan (madness is a necessary consequence of all Dostoevsky's characters who cease to believe in God... not to be confused, although reminiscent, of Nietzsche's madman).
Finding a good translation, I think, is important. Some of the sayings, e.g. "One reptile will devour the other" must have quite a bit of room for interpretation, another translation reads "Viper eats viper..." and one American book I read was filled to the brim with the word gotten.
Whilst I enjoyed this book far more than Crime and Punishment, if recommending one or the other, I would probably defer to Crime and Punishment. It more clearly executes an idea that is important historically, whereas Brothers Karamazov is more a nice story with a few philosophical side-investigations.
Friday, November 12, 2004
Nietzsche
Beyond Good and Evil was the first Nietzsche book I read - as a result, I read it without guidance and I must say not too much comprehension of what was going on. The most prominent criticisms are those of Women - I've had friends (a man, by the way, who converted from being a conservative women/gay/refugee distrusting conservative to a vegetarian feminist overnight) who could not understand how such views as are in Beyond Good and Evil to be published.
Of course, anyone who's studied Nietzsche will know how misconceived the racist/sexist perceptions are, so I won't go on too much about this.
It is hard, without having read much Nietzsche at the time, to differentiate between his sarcastic statements, his deliberate eccentricities and his sincere concerns. I think everyone at some point would like to write the way Nietzsche does - just get all your ideas out there and refuse to sensor any ideas that might seem a little askew.
What resonates in Beyond Good and Evil, as well as his distrust of organized religion and manipulative women, is his love of art. When one picks up on this value, the other statements can be interpreted toward it. e.g. what is wrong with Christianity is the suppression of the artistic soul, what is wrong with women is ... well, yes, I guess that stuff is more an expression of impotence and desire - which is indicative of a torn and longing individual, rather than a sexist one.
Of course, anyone who's studied Nietzsche will know how misconceived the racist/sexist perceptions are, so I won't go on too much about this.
It is hard, without having read much Nietzsche at the time, to differentiate between his sarcastic statements, his deliberate eccentricities and his sincere concerns. I think everyone at some point would like to write the way Nietzsche does - just get all your ideas out there and refuse to sensor any ideas that might seem a little askew.
What resonates in Beyond Good and Evil, as well as his distrust of organized religion and manipulative women, is his love of art. When one picks up on this value, the other statements can be interpreted toward it. e.g. what is wrong with Christianity is the suppression of the artistic soul, what is wrong with women is ... well, yes, I guess that stuff is more an expression of impotence and desire - which is indicative of a torn and longing individual, rather than a sexist one.
Friday, August 13, 2004
The Wall
"Le Mur" (The Wall) is included in Sartre's collection of short stories, released under the title "Intimacy" in English (although I think the collection was also called Le Mur in French).
I had heard about this story from a friend doing a French Lit unit, and that apparently it retold lived experiences from Sartre's days in the resistance, and that one of the characters is Camus. Unfortunately the publishing of the story predates the war (and the resistance, it's actually set during the Spanish civil war), and furthermore predates Sartre's introduction to Camus (Camus had reviewed the short stories, an essay which is published in the collection: Lyrical and Critical Essays). However, what was quite delightful when I had heard about it was the connexion between this story, and an essay by Kant "On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns".
Kant's essay gives a hypothetical dilemma: a murderer is at your door, asking for your friend. You think your friend is at the cinema, so you can either tell the truth, or lie (inaction is not possible). The argument runs like this: if you lie, and say your friend is at the cemetary, and by some strange coincidence the murderer finds him there, then you are morally responsible for the death. If you tell the truth, you are not morally responsible.
Yep, it's pretty dumb (in its condensed form anyway), but without getting into the strengths and weaknesses of Kantian philosophy, Sartre's story is an allegory of this anecdote (is an allegory of a fictional story still an allegory?). In Le Mur, the protagonist, Pablo, is being interrogated about the wherabouts of the rebels' leader - Ramon. When they do finally bring him in (all because Pablo tries to give them the runabout by lying about his whereabouts), Pablo falls to the ground in some ambiguous fit of tears and laughter.
I should revisit this short story collection, I don't remember it to be that memorable. I much prefer Sartre's plays - in his stories, there is something bitter, a smirk at the human condition, which I can't help but feel is a result of Sartre's dissatisfaction at being ugly... (i'm only being half facetious)... but respect there is always.
I had heard about this story from a friend doing a French Lit unit, and that apparently it retold lived experiences from Sartre's days in the resistance, and that one of the characters is Camus. Unfortunately the publishing of the story predates the war (and the resistance, it's actually set during the Spanish civil war), and furthermore predates Sartre's introduction to Camus (Camus had reviewed the short stories, an essay which is published in the collection: Lyrical and Critical Essays). However, what was quite delightful when I had heard about it was the connexion between this story, and an essay by Kant "On a supposed right to lie because of philanthropic concerns".
Kant's essay gives a hypothetical dilemma: a murderer is at your door, asking for your friend. You think your friend is at the cinema, so you can either tell the truth, or lie (inaction is not possible). The argument runs like this: if you lie, and say your friend is at the cemetary, and by some strange coincidence the murderer finds him there, then you are morally responsible for the death. If you tell the truth, you are not morally responsible.
Yep, it's pretty dumb (in its condensed form anyway), but without getting into the strengths and weaknesses of Kantian philosophy, Sartre's story is an allegory of this anecdote (is an allegory of a fictional story still an allegory?). In Le Mur, the protagonist, Pablo, is being interrogated about the wherabouts of the rebels' leader - Ramon. When they do finally bring him in (all because Pablo tries to give them the runabout by lying about his whereabouts), Pablo falls to the ground in some ambiguous fit of tears and laughter.
I should revisit this short story collection, I don't remember it to be that memorable. I much prefer Sartre's plays - in his stories, there is something bitter, a smirk at the human condition, which I can't help but feel is a result of Sartre's dissatisfaction at being ugly... (i'm only being half facetious)... but respect there is always.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Camus and Sartre, an historical quarrel
I was introduced to both Camus and Sartre via my philosophical studies under Russell Grigg. Consequently, one can't help but draw comparisons, decide which one you "like" - who is smarter? who is more artistic? who is right/wrong etc...
The intellectual quarrel fascinated me, however. The story was put together for me gradually, disseminated throughout book introductions and reading guides. The publication of Ronald Aronson's Camus and Sartre: The friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It was then quite timely, released just when I wanted to know more and just before my birthday.
The book is a really easy read, Aronson has a great understanding of French culture, and seems well versed in the the writings and history of both Sartre and Camus. In order to write this book he interviewed Jeanson (the third man in the quarrel) and this interview is obtainable also (if you are interested). A brilliantly crafted section of the book discusses The Fall, drawing links between some of Camus' offhand comments and his friendship/falling out with Sartre. Truly enthralling!
One did feel at times that the book seemed somewhat of an apology for Sartre, which I think is fair enough - many commentators getting caught up in how his justifications for violence did not stand the test of time.
Reading this prompted me also to buy Sartre and Camus: A Historic Confrontation, which Aronson (in private correspondence with myself - yes, I talk to people) had been asked to write the introduction for, however did not end up having time. Rather than enhancing my reading of the two literary philosophers, I rather found that this topic sparked a separate, parallel interest.
For those interested in a summary of the bout: Sartre was editor for a popular journal called Les Temps Modernes . This journal was becoming increasingly allied with communism (around the time much of the fascist horrors were beginning to surface but before the Russian trials executions etc were well known). Camus, whilst a friend of Sartre, remained independent of the circle of followers Sartre had accumulated. Camus was not too fond of these underlings as their views on politics disagreed with his. He was particularly annoyed when a bad review of one of Arthur Koestler's books came out, a good friend of Camus - i think there was some physical incident with Koestler, Sartre and Camus, maybe Koestler hit Camus or something but I forget - anyway, main thing is: Camus wrote the Rebel, rather than review the book, Sartre asked Jeanssen to do it - probably knowing it would be unfavourable, Camus submitted a scathing response to the review, Sartre and Jeanson published their responses in the following issue. Camus felt betrayed, Sartre was fedup. The end... although when Camus died, Sartre wrote a nice obiturary. Translations of all these letters can be found in Sartre and Camus: A historic confrontation - the two books work quite well together.
The intellectual quarrel fascinated me, however. The story was put together for me gradually, disseminated throughout book introductions and reading guides. The publication of Ronald Aronson's Camus and Sartre: The friendship and the Quarrel that Ended It was then quite timely, released just when I wanted to know more and just before my birthday.
The book is a really easy read, Aronson has a great understanding of French culture, and seems well versed in the the writings and history of both Sartre and Camus. In order to write this book he interviewed Jeanson (the third man in the quarrel) and this interview is obtainable also (if you are interested). A brilliantly crafted section of the book discusses The Fall, drawing links between some of Camus' offhand comments and his friendship/falling out with Sartre. Truly enthralling!
One did feel at times that the book seemed somewhat of an apology for Sartre, which I think is fair enough - many commentators getting caught up in how his justifications for violence did not stand the test of time.
Reading this prompted me also to buy Sartre and Camus: A Historic Confrontation, which Aronson (in private correspondence with myself - yes, I talk to people) had been asked to write the introduction for, however did not end up having time. Rather than enhancing my reading of the two literary philosophers, I rather found that this topic sparked a separate, parallel interest.
For those interested in a summary of the bout: Sartre was editor for a popular journal called Les Temps Modernes . This journal was becoming increasingly allied with communism (around the time much of the fascist horrors were beginning to surface but before the Russian trials executions etc were well known). Camus, whilst a friend of Sartre, remained independent of the circle of followers Sartre had accumulated. Camus was not too fond of these underlings as their views on politics disagreed with his. He was particularly annoyed when a bad review of one of Arthur Koestler's books came out, a good friend of Camus - i think there was some physical incident with Koestler, Sartre and Camus, maybe Koestler hit Camus or something but I forget - anyway, main thing is: Camus wrote the Rebel, rather than review the book, Sartre asked Jeanssen to do it - probably knowing it would be unfavourable, Camus submitted a scathing response to the review, Sartre and Jeanson published their responses in the following issue. Camus felt betrayed, Sartre was fedup. The end... although when Camus died, Sartre wrote a nice obiturary. Translations of all these letters can be found in Sartre and Camus: A historic confrontation - the two books work quite well together.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
hell is other people
Huis Clos (i think "through the keyhole") translated to No Exit and In Camera in English is Sartre's most famous novel, "Hell is other people" contained therein. I much prefer Sartre's style in his plays, perhaps because he is forced to "show and not tell" if that's the rule.
This little scene of hell is used to demonstrate the philosophical idea of Mauvaise Foi (Bad Faith) - Sartre's main component of his moral philosophy. There are two aspects shown in these characters: 1) they cannot convince themselves of their own authenticity and 2) they cannot convince the others. "Hell is other people" then articulates the idea that as long as other people are around, we're not ever going to be able to convince ourselves that we're okay. One is in Bad faith when one relegates a moral decision to some form that exists outside ourselves: e.g. I can't steal that bread because I'm a Christian. The tenet is one then that stems from Nietzschean directives to reinvent one's values. The three characters crimes are thus: Garcin - flees conscription, claiming to be a pacifist, he now tries to convince the others and himself that he is not a cowaard, Estelle - commits matricide, driving a lover to commit suicide, her bad faith is then a denial that she held any responsibility toward her man or her child, and Ines - A Lesbian who is killed by her female lover in a double suicide after they conspired to kill the lover's husband, again, she seems to blame her actions on "who she is" rather than accepting her absolute freedom.
Sartre's characters are never particularly likable, but this play carries so much interest - trying to find out what happened, how they will react to each other etc. - that it is enthralling. As a side-note, it does seem like the first job of any new moral philosophy requires accepted moral rights and wrongs to find a place within its framework - always is interesting though! At one point Camus was going to act as Garcin in this play, but I think it ended up falling through - it's a part of how their friendship started.
This little scene of hell is used to demonstrate the philosophical idea of Mauvaise Foi (Bad Faith) - Sartre's main component of his moral philosophy. There are two aspects shown in these characters: 1) they cannot convince themselves of their own authenticity and 2) they cannot convince the others. "Hell is other people" then articulates the idea that as long as other people are around, we're not ever going to be able to convince ourselves that we're okay. One is in Bad faith when one relegates a moral decision to some form that exists outside ourselves: e.g. I can't steal that bread because I'm a Christian. The tenet is one then that stems from Nietzschean directives to reinvent one's values. The three characters crimes are thus: Garcin - flees conscription, claiming to be a pacifist, he now tries to convince the others and himself that he is not a cowaard, Estelle - commits matricide, driving a lover to commit suicide, her bad faith is then a denial that she held any responsibility toward her man or her child, and Ines - A Lesbian who is killed by her female lover in a double suicide after they conspired to kill the lover's husband, again, she seems to blame her actions on "who she is" rather than accepting her absolute freedom.
Sartre's characters are never particularly likable, but this play carries so much interest - trying to find out what happened, how they will react to each other etc. - that it is enthralling. As a side-note, it does seem like the first job of any new moral philosophy requires accepted moral rights and wrongs to find a place within its framework - always is interesting though! At one point Camus was going to act as Garcin in this play, but I think it ended up falling through - it's a part of how their friendship started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)