Fritz
Not sure what to think. It wasn't particularly enjoyable to read. It felt like a Dostoyevski, but without character that had a certain charm or I could feel sympathy for.
I made it though and then read up about it. Apparently it was very influential and stood out because it was so different from other novels, being so isolated.
A fascinating book about a famous movie director who was part of the most tragic of generations. Having fought in the First World War you would think enough misery has been your portion. But to be a Jew in Germany after that was much worse.
The story revolves around these two tragic periods in Kurt Gerron's life. A tragic story about heartbreak, the improbable human capacity to endure. But also the insanity of the nearly bureaucratic murder machines of the two World Wars
A wonderful essay on the nature of freedom, of becoming oneself in a society that does nothing else then serve itself. A bureaucracy that makes it impossible to live “in truth” with oneself.
This obviously has a very real bureaucracy in mind: The Soviet Union of the late 70's. But still remains relevant.
In responding to both the “West” and the “bloc” Vaclav encourages everyone to live “within the truth”.
The example he uses for a large part of the book is a greengrocer that receives a poster from the state that says: Workers around the world unite! The point he makes is that the greengrocer hangs this up above the storefront out of habit, not because he agrees with the statement, or has thought about what that would look like if the workers unite.
But in the world of the post-totalitarian regime of the Soviet he “ought” to do this. Now if he starts to think about it and refuses to hang this up, because he decides to live in the lie no longer, there is now a small revolt on the small scale.
Inevitably a regime like this must fall. Because it can't sustain original thought, or people freely expressing themselves. And that will cause conflict, be it open conflict (protest, revolt, or violence) or hidden conflict (meetings, congresses, sharing of pamphlets, educating each other)
While the Soviet Union is long gone. The critique goes further than just that of Soviet politics. It also appeals to democratic societies that are being subdued or “drugged” or kept busy in the Brave New World sense. Are we living “in the truth” or “in the lie” in our own societies.
In a quotation from Patoçka, Havel says: the thing with responsibility is, that you carry it around wherever you go.
There is a lot more to say about the nature of technology and the “automatism”. But I'll leave it at this:
It is of great importance that the main thing - the everyday, thankless, and never-ending struggle of human beings to live more freely, truthfully, and in quiet dignity - never imposes any limits on itself, never be half-hearted, inconsistent, never trap itself in political tactics, speculating on the outcome of its actions or entertaining fantasies about the future. The purity of this struggle is the best guarantee of optimum results.
P.S. Some other interesting bits:
Our attention, therefore, inevitably turns to the most essential matter: the crisis of contemporary technological society as a whole, the crisis that Heidegger describes as the ineptitude of humanity face to face with the planetary power of technology.
Technology - that child of modern science, which in turn is a child of modern metaphysics - is out of humanity's control, has ceased to serve us, has enslaved us and compelled us to participate in the preparation of our own destruction.
It would appear that the traditional parliamentary democracies can offer no fundamental opposition to the automatism of technological civilization and the industrial-consumer society, for they, too, are being dragged helplessly along by it. People are manipulated in ways that are infinitely more subtle and refined than the brutal methods used in the post-totalitarian societies. But this static complex of rigid, conceptually sloppy and politically pragmatic mass political parties run by professional apparatuses and releasing the citizen from all forms of concrete and personal responsibility; and those complex foci of capital accumulation engaged in secret manipulations and expansion; the omnipresent dictatorship of consumption, production, advertising,
Prachtige inleiding op een prachtig oeuvre.
Wat mij denk ik het meest aanspreekt is de “sprong” die iedereen uitgedaagd wordt om te maken. Maar daarvoor moet ik misschien iets van context geven.
Iedereen heeft te maken met paradoxen, elke dag in allerlei situaties. Bijvoorbeeld dat van de mogelijkheid of de eindigheid (in de woorden van Kierkegaard). De mogelijkheid beschrijft bijvoorbeeld dat ik ben wie ik ben, maar ik heb kunnen kiezen over alles wat ik ben. De eindigheid beschrijft mij vanuit de context van mijn opvoeding, de dingen die ik mee heb gemaakt en verklaart dat ik een product ben van deze situaties, locatie en omstandigheden.
Maar om in één van deze kanten vast te blijven zitten noemt Kierkegaard “vertwijfeling”. Hier is het juist relevant om de “sprong” aan te gaan en in vertrouwen beiden uiteinden te omarmen en daarmee te leven. Ja ik ben het product van mijn situatie, MAAR ik heb ook ruimte om te kiezen. Ja ik heb ruimte om te kiezen, MAAR ik ben tegelijkertijd ook gebonden aan mijn context, cultuur en opvoeding.
Dit is maar één klein voorbeeld. Maar de “sprong” die mij uitdaagt om in paradoxen vooruit te bewegen is zeker iets wat mij aanspreekt. Om concreet, voorwaarts te leven.
Lekker weird boekje over kantoor gezeik. Prachtig.
Dit soort dingen: Het bruine café naast de kantoorboekhandel was wel open, maar daar zaten twee oude mannen boven hun glaasje jenever met lege blik naar buiten te staren, als een reclame tegen alcohol, of ouderdom, of tegen het leven zelf. Cavia zag dit als een teken dat er thuis op de bank naar een nieuwe serie gekeken moest worden.
Aldus sprak Zarathoestra. Een boek voor allen en voor niemand
Daunting book. Heavy read. Some of it is really powerful. The turning away from all the negativity towards our own flesh and the turning away from lots of Calvinist denying of self etc. It is interesting to see how many of these statements are not very shocking at all as much of this has trickled down into our societal thinking.
But Nietzsche being Nietzsche there is also a lot that is harder to get through. Lots of allegory that is lost on me.
I liked the story of the Camel the Lion and the Boy a lot.
Very interesting book, loved most of it very much.
The only thing that kind of bothered me is that then author comes across as both incredibly nihilistic and deterministic of how the world works. Kind of confusing. For all the nuance he brings in certain areas he is very adamant about his perception on what the myths are we build our lives around.
Anyways.. A good read.
Not extremely profound, but it's a great articulation of a sense of loss and grief. What do you do when all your beliefs stop working? Do you give up? Do you look elsewhere?
Without going into much detail I think this book really struck a chord in a time where I was rediscovering some riches in religions (not just Christianity), in a time where I could relax a bit more instead of just finding things to throw sticks at.
This was wonderful.
It's similar to American Gods as it visits and explores the multifaceted world of gods and fables in a very profound way. But it is more like an epic fantasy story, but just set in a completely different world that most Tolkienesque fantasy explores.
It's fun and edgy, violent, graphic, sensual. It's all these things.
But! I found “A brief history of seven killings” by Marlon James a much more compelling read. And this story didn't really engage me emotionally to the protagonist or any other of the characters. So. For all of the world building, African folklore and love for it's breadth of stories, the complexity of story and language being used I give it 5 stars. But I subtract one star for not engaging me more and having me emotionally invested.
Can't wait to read the next instalment.
This was a very interesting book. The language and the kind of static archaic dialogue takes some getting used to. But on the whole it's a good “knight” story, about the classic themes like honour and power.
But to say that it stands out a lot? Just like the main characters, I'm left with a fog of forgetfulness.
What an utter load of hautain silliness. It's quasi-spiritual and semi-intellectual, but fails at both. There were some interesting themes. But most of the story was conveyed in vague descriptions.
To top that he pretends to be very faithful to his wife while clearly being infatuated with the naked woman sitting on his lap (where invited her to sit). Which is a bizarrely dissonant thing to uphold as true.
Do not recommend this.
