This book was rough. I mean, really rough. Fortunately it was short so I didn't as downtrodden as I would have had it been merely pages longer.
The first section of the book appeared to be intellegent but largely incoherent ramblings on life and what it all means. But, truthfully, I had a difficult time following him. One passage did stick out for me. "Nature doesn't ask your permission; it doesn't care about your wishes, or whether you like its laws or not. You're obliged to accept it as it is, and consequently all its results as well." He makes a good point and speaks an undeniable truth here. And, I'm sure, if I hadn't been so lost in the rest of this section, I would feel a deep connection between this statement and the others in the section, but I do not.
The second section of the book was far more interesting to me. In this section we get to know more about this insanely obsessive man. I've met people like this and I imagine stepping into their brains would be much like reading this section of the story. The way he overthinks and obsesses about every little nuance of his life shows a deep level of insanity. It seems like he's the kind of guy who the name of every person who ever wronged him written in lipstick on his bathroom mirror. He sits alone every night, staring at the wall, thinking of new and grotesque ways to murder them and end his suffering.
He really is a deplorable character and I might dislike him greatly if I didn't feel so sorry for him. It's almost as if he's bi-polar. One moment he is staunchly in defense of his words and actions and the next moment he's completely reversed his perspective, quickly followed by a final reversal and deeper support of his initial views. I guess in a way we all do this but reading it is intense. I would have a difficult time understanding this fellow if I knew him in real life. He's wildly unpredictable. You never would know how he would react to anything you told him.
To be him would be twice as unbearable as knowing him. He's manic with his thoughts, never peaceful or calm. I think the only way he could really exist is locked away in his house because, after a certain point of thinking about ways to antagonize people, he would actually try and do it one day be tossed in jail or killed in a brawl. But, at the same time, he's a coward. He never actually goes through with his actions as he intended but he takes great care in preparing for them. He seems to like the challenge of getting up courage to do something more than actually doing it.
All in all, I enjoyed this book and when I read it again, I'm certain I will only enjoy it more as I attempt to make out what the heck was going on in the first section.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The key to existentialism in part is how to read it. There is no intention that it be read from a logical perspective, or that there be any sequencing in terms of time or emotion. In fact, just the opposite is required, the separation of the reading from any intention. The reason you had a "hard time following" section 1 is that there is no intention that you follow it. The book is emotions and events, so that instead of imposing a logical order (time, intention), we instead follow the dimensions of its interpretation by one person in his mind. There is no sense of trying to make great quotes about reality, so the statement on nature is really an assessment of "human nature" and the interpretations. There is NEVER any sense of "improvement" or using this information to become a better person. In fact, the book would probably suggest the main character would not be able to absorb this concept.
For part II, although carried to extreme, the point is that it is in our own in(MIS)terpretation of the reality we exist in that we try to take actions. Those actions most often are misguided (by our perspective).
There may be some limited aspects of Buddhism, and indeed, Hermann Hesse's Siddhartha has been mandatory reading in many college literature classes, representative of existentialist perspectives. There is a new Novel, Buddha, which presents a very different Buddha than Hesse's version, which contrasts with the time contexts and is more representative of contemporary thought.
Good notes and comments. It is important to not try to read into the writing, or read it as if every word counts. Instead, you might have a go at reading it very quickly, trying to see what ideas (or no ideas) lie behind the narrative.
DGW
Post a Comment