The Book Discussion Thread

[Mara]

I haven't encountered coincidences too heinous so far, and don't particularly think that the mere presence of them automatically discredits the plot of a novel. I mean, all novels are terribly improbable, relative to real life.

Too many coincidences break my "suspension of disbelief," as they say. I'll be clipping along happily, but then two characters from England will magically be reunited in a Paris backalley, and it really frustrates me.

There are some great coincidences in Tom Jones, which you know I love, but it's essentially a comic novel, and it plays the coincidences as deliberately hilarious.

But Woman in White feels much more dramatic and important, so the coincidences just feel like sloppy writing to me. Then again, it's a "sensational" novel, so maybe I'm asking for what is outside the genre.

The reason I picked it up was because of this review, which led me to research the author. I was intrigued enough by both his connection to Dickens and his use of drugs to pick up The Woman In White.

Yeah, I might have to check that book out.

And you haven't met the Baron yet. He's... something else.

[SpaceOddity]

Wilkie Collins is such fun. I prefered The Woman in White to The Moonstone.

Although... [

Show Spoiler

how exactly is Walter able to marry Lucy prior to establishing her identity?

]

[monolith94]

Damn, damn, damn – it's going to be at least several weeks until I can read that spoiler!

Tarnation!

[megladon8]

Reading this next...

[lovejuice]

Reading this next...

whoa! look so cool. what's it about?

[megladon8]

whoa! look so cool. what's it about?

It's about a young man who moves into an apartment in Paris and finds a hole in one of the walls.

He becomes obsessed with it, as he can look through it and see what people are up to in other apartments.

I gather being a voyeur takes over his life.

[monolith94]

I don't mean to beat this topic into the ground, Mara, but what about the great plot contrivances of tragic Greek literature? Oedipus Rex has a great plot, but it can only be contrived as coincidental beyond credulity.

[Mara]

I don't mean to beat this topic into the ground, Mara, but what about the great plot contrivances of tragic Greek literature? Oedipus Rex has a great plot, but it can only be contrived as coincidental beyond credulity.

They bother me, but I forgive them because they have so many other good qualities. Besides, the Greeks really believed in Fate, which would explain a lot of the coincidences (because the divine is interfering with natural factors.)

I'm really bothered by the final coincidence at the end of Moliere's Tartuffe, which is unforgivable.

[Melville]

Inspired by my recent argument with Qrazy about Nietzsche, I decided to read Beyond Good and Evil. It was pretty great, possibly the best thing I've read by Nietzsche, and certainly the most nuanced and cogent presentation of his views. I love his criticism of the assumption of a unified Self, which he asserts is actually based on "the synthetic concept 'I'", and especially his relation of that synthesis to traditional morality, truth and language, and the will to power. Here are some choice quotes that would have been relevant to my discussion with Qrazy and Duncan:

On the Ubermensch:
"The ideal of the most high-spirited, alive, and world-affirming human being who has not only come to terms and learned to get along with whatever was and is, but who wants to have what was and is repeated into all eternity, shouting insatiably 'from the beginning'—not only to himself but to the whole play and spectacle."

On everybody else:
"Their most profound desire is that the war they are should come to an end."

On politics:
"The vast majority of ordinary human beings exist for service and the general advantage."
"The democratic movement is not only a form of the decay of political organization but a form of the decay, namely the diminution, of man, making him mediocre."
"More after my heart—I mean such an increase in the menace of Russia that Europe would have to resolve to become menacing, too, namely, to acquire one will by means of a new caste that would rule Europe, a long, terrible, will of its own that would be able to cast its goals millenia hence... The time for petty politics is over: the very next century will bring the fight for the dominion of the earth."

On suffering:
"You want, if possible—and there is no more insane "if possible"—to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it—that is no goal"
"In man creature and creator are united... Your pity is for the 'creature in man', for what must be formed, broken, forged, torn, burnt, made incandescent, and purified—that which necessarily must and should suffer."

On the will to power:
"Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker."

On master morality:
"Moralities must be forced to bow first of all before the order of rank"
"It is not the works, it is the faith that is decisive here, that determines the order of rank: some fundamental certainty that a noble soul has about itself... the noble soul has reverence for itself."

[lwilson85]

Started reading some Julio Cortazar short stories. Very Nouveau roman. Takes such a simple setting or idea and transforms it into something else entirely, while you question your own sanity and understanding of indentity, memory, and most of all the human language.

[lovejuice]

Inspired by my recent argument with Qrazy about Nietzsche, I decided to read Beyond Good and Evil. It was pretty great, possibly the best thing I've read by Nietzsche, and certainly the most nuanced and cogent presentation of his views.

i agree. especially the "cogent presentation" part. i have tried to get through zarathusa many times but never succeed. you think, that's necessary now after BGaE?

[Benny Profane]

Now reading Tortilla Flat by Steinbeck. I'll probably finish it tonight. People who say this is lesser Steinbeck are d-bags.

[Qrazy]

On politics:
"The democratic movement is not only a form of the decay of political organization but a form of the decay, namely the diminution, of man, making him mediocre."

On the will to power:
"Life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker."

On master morality:
"Moralities must be forced to bow first of all before the order of rank"
"It is not the works, it is the faith that is decisive here, that determines the order of rank: some fundamental certainty that a noble soul has about itself... the noble soul has reverence for itself."

I admire and enjoy all of it (he's a terrific writer) but I only agree with some... I particularly don't agree with the above.

He speaks of the destruction of the animal side of man but in my mind that is the side which most desires power... the power to control one's circumstances and one's fate... to cushion ourselves against displeasure. To distill life to power for it's own sake, I shudder at the thought... and this is usually where the self-reflexive defense mechanism of the ideology kicks in... clearly to reject such notions I must still be burdened by slave morality.

But in my eyes above and beyond power there is love. Love and the capacity for love is humanity's saving grace. It's where we're most psychologically fulfilled, it's where we're at our happiest, it's what allows us to live in harmony (and at no great loss of anything). It carries with it it's own brand of pain, but even with the pain it's worth it. Before civilization life was about overpowering, but the advent of civilization and democracy have allowed us to change this to a degree. While he argues for the destruction of our 'animal nature' I feel this is actually precisely what he seeks to preserve, except dressed up in the trappings of logic, the rational and dignity.

To love one must trust and trust is 'weakness' in a sense, but a very necessary weakness, without it we could not love. The capacity to care about others and not to seek to overpower them, this is what yields happiness... and if happiness is not the goal then what is? Dignity? A manufactured dignity for the man who embraces the suffering he experiences which he himself created? I can not believe in that dignity, even more so when there is no God to hold us to such a notion.

[monolith94]

Oh man… I have no idea how much sleep I've missed out on the past two nights staying up until the wee hours of the morning so that I could finish The Woman in White. So incredible. The night before last, I read late late late, but the reading had me so emotionally worked up that I couldn't fall asleep.

[SpaceOddity]

Oh man… I have no idea how much sleep I've missed out on the past two nights staying up until the wee hours of the morning so that I could finish The Woman in White. So incredible. The night before last, I read late late late, but the reading had me so emotionally worked up that I couldn't fall asleep.

Are you reading The Moonstone, next?

[Mara]

Oh man… I have no idea how much sleep I've missed out on the past two nights staying up until the wee hours of the morning so that I could finish The Woman in White. So incredible. The night before last, I read late late late, but the reading had me so emotionally worked up that I couldn't fall asleep.

Did you finish? What did you think?

[monolith94]

Oh yes, I thought that was inferred. The answer to your second question remains: incredible. The Count's letter was amazing; I'm going to have to go back and reread it.

One thing that fascinated me was the working of the gaze into the novel: Laura Fairlie was always the one being watched, the object of a male gaze. When the narration turns to a woman, it is to Marian, a woman who is mentioned again and again as being like a man. I'm pretty sure that if I, like, cared enough to, there'd be meat in there for an essay.

[Melville]

i agree. especially the "cogent presentation" part. i have tried to get through zarathusa many times but never succeed. you think, that's necessary now after BGaE?

Yeah, Zarathustra made a lot more sense to me after having read The Genealogy of Morals; I imagine the same would be true if you read Zarathustra now after having read Beyond Good and Evil. Zarathustra is definitely worth reading for its poeticism alone.

He speaks of the destruction of the animal side of man but in my mind that is the side which most desires power... the power to control one's circumstances and one's fate... to cushion ourselves against displeasure. To distill life to power for it's own sake, I shudder at the thought... and this is usually where the self-reflexive defense mechanism of the ideology kicks in... clearly to reject such notions I must still be burdened by slave morality.

I'm still not sure how his philosophy is any more reflexively defensive than any other philosophy. According to Nietzsche, your philosophy is wrong because it is based on an idea of human life that is wrong and that stifles human life. It's not wrong because you're burdened by slave morality; it's just plain wrong.

But in my eyes above and beyond power there is love. Love and the capacity for love is humanity's saving grace. It's where we're most psychologically fulfilled, it's where we're at our happiest.

Sometimes, maybe, if that love is reciprocated. But it's often when we're most uncertain (because of our need for reciprocation), unfulfilled (because we are drawn out of ourselves and towards the other), and unhappy (because it points to an incompleteness or lack of unity in ourselves). We're talking about romantic love here, right? Otherwise, what do you mean by 'love'?

and if happiness is not the goal then what is? Dignity? A manufactured dignity for the man who embraces the suffering he experiences which he himself created?

But Nietzsche's view of life is that it is inherently a struggle and inherently contains suffering, and that most human accomplishments are born of that suffering. He's all about affirming life as it is. I agree that his description of life is somewhat limited, which in turn limits his notion of embracing it.

Anyway, as I said in the other thread, I actually agree with you, and I wasn't intending to restart the debate. I just thought those quotes nicely isolated the topics that we were debating. In particular, I think they show that Duncan's description of Nietzsche's philosophy is a bit too cute and cuddly.

[Qrazy]

Anyway, as I said in the other thread, I actually agree with you, and I wasn't intending to restart the debate. I just thought those quotes nicely isolated the topics that we were debating. In particular, I think they show that Duncan's description of Nietzsche's philosophy is a bit too cute and cuddly.

Ah ok, well I just thought I'd elaborate my thoughts a bit more, but you're right that the conversation is played out so I'll let it lie... and yeah they are a good selection of quotes.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Benny raving about Steinbeck pushed me to make Cannery Row the next book I read.

[Qrazy]

Sometimes, maybe, if that love is reciprocated. But it's often when we're most uncertain (because of our need for reciprocation), unfulfilled (because we are drawn out of ourselves and towards the other), and unhappy (because it points to an incompleteness or lack of unity in ourselves). We're talking about romantic love here, right? Otherwise, what do you mean by 'love'?

I do want to comment on this though. No not necessarily romantic love, just love for another creature, human being or otherwise... treating them as an end in itself. Doing for them without concerning yourself with a loss or gain of power. I don't believe self unity is possible without love for the other.

[Mara]

Benny raving about Steinbeck pushed me to make Cannery Row the next book I read.

I really enjoyed it when I read it a couple of years ago.

But then, the Washington Post has been doing a thing where they go back to a book that was popular in the past and re-review it to see how it's held up, and they gave it a negative review. I was very surprised.

So I'll be interested to see what you think.

[Qrazy]

I like Cannery Row as well, I'd say it's one of his strongest. I feel like the Washington Post probably would have given most Steinbeck novels a negative review on re-look so it's not purely a Cannery Row phenomenon. I assume this is because Steinbeck represents his own particular brand of romantic reduction (re: grapes of wrath, the pearl, etc)... idolizing the plight of the poor, etc... however much like Dickens I still find his stories, his plot weavings and prose, compelling enough to merit a great deal of praise.

[megladon8]

1/3 through "Hell".

It's even more erotic than I expected, but Barbusse is also quite tasteful.

It's also really cool to read how ahead of his time he was, with regards to things such as homosexuality.

He has this to say about the sight of lesbians secretly making love in a hotel room...

"What form? What does the form of love matter? I abandon this anxiety, and it seems to me that the whole tragedy of love is promptly revealed to me.

They love each other; the rest is nothing. Whether they are normal or depraved, whether they are blessed or accursed, they love each other and possess each other as far as that is possible on this earth."


Considering the original publication date of 1908, I thought this was some surprisingly forward thinking.

[Ezee E]

Reading Dark Harvest now, due to meg's rave.

It seems like it should be a kid's book, but by all means it isn't. I'm digging it a lot right now. I bet I'll have it finished by the weekend.