The racism, lookism and other bad -isms might be said to be values of characters narrating the story rather than author's. Ayesha is definately one ofThe racism, lookism and other bad -isms might be said to be values of characters narrating the story rather than author's. Ayesha is definately one of the most fascinating characters and single-handedly holds like about 70 percent of what makes book enjoyable. The other 30 is shared between ideas discussed, humor and occassionally beautiful prose. The Adventures weren't half as interesting....more
"What augustness, and what grandeur! And what suffering and struggle in their pursuit! Was it right for so many worthy souls to be expended for the
"What augustness, and what grandeur! And what suffering and struggle in their pursuit! Was it right for so many worthy souls to be expended for the sake of his personal exaltation? Was it proper for him to rule over so noble a people, who had only one goal — his own happiness."
Khufu's wisdom seems to be such a waste of idea. It could be a fine story about a man's obsession with his death. Or rather immortality. .
"immortality is itself a death for our dear, ephemeral lives."
Perhaps it is absurd in some way to have your death on your mind any more than a sentence, if it could think, was to obsess about its full stop - not wanting to end, or wanting to somehow stay around after the full stop. But what is death but end of life? At least a full stop has an existence on paper (or screens) - it indicates a pause when speaking. Death is not even any of that. Yet we obsess with death and like I said want to somehow exist beyond that full stop. The dream of physical immortality being imposssible, we look to do it by making it so that we are remembered beyond our death - for most it shows in desire for children. In others, it takes the form of doing something that will make them worth remembering - 'make a dent on the universe' as Steve Jobs put it. Most do it through art and books. Khufu decided to do it in a way so poetical, that it shows both the excess and absurdity of his dream - by building the biggest tomb of the world for himself. What will you say about a man whose life's biggest project, on which he spent twenty years and incredibly huge amount of resources, was preparation of his death? Excusing his actions on idea of some imagined greatness:
"And what is Egypt but a great work that would not have been under taken if not for the sacrifices of individuals? And of what value is the life of an individual? It equals not a single dry tear to one who looks to the far future and the grand plan. For this I would be cruel without any qualms. I would strike with an iron hand, and drive hundreds of thousands through hardships - not from stupidity of character or despotic egotism. Rather, it's as if my eyes were able to pierce the veil of the horizons to glimpse the glory of this awaited homeland. More than once, the queen has accused me of harshness and oppression. No - for what is Khufu but a -wise man of far-seeing vision, -wearing the skin of the preying panther, -while in his breast there beats the heart of an openhanded angel?”
And, in fact, he spent his last years inside the tomb while .... guess what? writing a book of wisdom that will make him memorable. His true wisdom, except if title was supposed to be ironical (which isn't Mahfouz's style), really seemed to be his quiet acceptance of his disillusionment and death toward the end.
And this book started off awesome with some pretty 5 star stuff - characters speaking in that sophisticated manner which made everyone in Plato's dialogues look like nerds. The trouble is Mahfouz's book really doesn't stick around Khufu all that long. Except for the first few chapters, he is a side-character - sometimes not appearing for chapters, with his successor being the protagonist. The successor, Djedefra wasn't all that interesting to me. His is a story of a rags-to-riches boy who is perfect in everything he do. And there seemed something lacking with Mahfouz's narration too - all his characters seem to be dying of too much of emotion in here. This comes from someone who has enjoyed Mahfouz's novels before.
The best moment of the book was in the time when Khufu takes a whole army unit to kill a new born baby. It might be another irony that the boy would be raised by wife of a man who build the tomb and the inspector who overlooked the property. It could hold some interest for being a book on ancient Egypt written by an Egyptian author which is why it gets the last half star.
"What a pity! For if only those suffering from loss would remember that Death is a void that effaces memory, and that the sorrows of the living vanish at the same speed with which the dead themselves disappear, how much toil and torment they could avoid for themselves!"
I do love how the books are growing shorter. This is the biggest (the only big) book in 2019's long list of International Booker (now in short list) aI do love how the books are growing shorter. This is the biggest (the only big) book in 2019's long list of International Booker (now in short list) and it didn't feel that long. I think what makes it a quick read is that much of it is narrating facts and events Which kind of offer much less food for thought per minute.
The main theme is conspiracy theories. And it had a putting off effect on me. I find some of them interesting (Dan Brown novels are interesting) but not the ones that concern the death of political figures (Kennedy, Bose, etc), definitely not enough to read 600 page long novels on them.
The Marquez Connections
This one interested me because of the mention of the name of Gabriel Marquez in some of the reviews. Apparently, Marquez happened to be in place of murder of a famous Colombian politician, Gaitain, just after the murder took place and would remember, in his autobiography (Living to Tell The Tale), a mysterious elegant man that played a major role but was not remembered by anyone else at the scene.
Another Marquez link is part of the story being based on the assassination of a politician, Rafael Uribe Uribe, which was a major inspiration for the character of Colonel Aureliano Buendía in One Hundred Years of Solitude. (Btw Vasquez loved that book but is critical of its Magical Realism as he is quoted saying when talking about his other book 'The Secret History of Costaguana'
"I want to forget this absurd rhetoric of Latin America as a magical or marvelous continent. In my novel, there is a disproportionate reality, but that which is disproportionate in it is the violence and cruelty of our history and of our politics. Let me be clear about this quote, which I suppose refers, in a caringly sarcastic tone, to One Hundred Years of Solitude. I believed that with this novel, and I can say that reading One Hundred Years ... in my adolescence contributed much to my vocation, but I believe that all of the sides of magical realism is the least interesting part of this novel. I propose to read One Hundred Years like a distorted version of Colombian history. That is the interesting part; in what makes One Hundred Years ... with the massacre of the banana workers or the civil wars of the 19th century, not in the yellow butterflies or in the pigs' tails. Like all grand novels, One Hundred Years of Solitude requires us to reinvent the truth. I believe that this reinvention is to make us lose ourselves in magical realism. And what I have tried to make in my novel is to recount the 19th Century Colombian story in a radically distinct key and I fear to oppose what Colombians have read until now.
)
Yet another Marquez trivia, mentioned in the book, is that he claimed to be born in a different year to make the year of his birth same as that of Banana Massacre, an event he was greatly obsessed in and that, as Vásquez tells us found its way into 'One Hundred Years of Solitude'. I don't know why Marquez thought that the coincidence of his birth with a major political event made it any special, it is kind of like old superstitions where people would consult horoscopes or stars (Mark Twain was born shortly after an appearance of Halley's Comet, and he predicted that he would die as well; he would die the day after the comet returned.) but Salman Rushdie, another admirer of both Marquez and One Hundred Years of Solitude (without any qualms about magical realism) also shared Marquez's love for big events. Born about two months before India's independence, he changed the date of birth of his fictional counterpart, Saleem Sinai, to coincide not only the month and date of independence but also the time to exact same second in the Midnight's children.
Assassinations
While the book does mention these Marquez facts, that is all we hear about him. Nothing more. Same with 9/11 conspiracy theory and a couple of others - nothing more than a mere mention in passing 'The Shape of the Ruins' is mostly focused on assassinations of politicians (mostly Columbian, but also Kennedy) and how all of them seem to have more parties involved than the killer or killers that were caught, the involvement of a secret powerful organization. It gets into minds of conspirators, how to them everything seems to be a result of plans from a strong force:
“In politics, nothing happens by accident,” Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said. “If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
But that is going too far and:
"it’s very easy to ignite suspicion but what is necessary is to prove it."
Way too easy. If you look long enough and with full concentration of thought at anything, say a chair in your room, or your own navel, you will suspecting everything including the existence of those very things and yourself. That, in fact, is how yogis and philosophers are born. When it comes to major political events though, there are people whose lives are unfortunately so far affected by them, that they can't help thinking too much at them.
The truth has no obligation to show itself, it can remain hidden, unknown, forgotten, unproven. And majority needs proofs (unless it is a question of faith), and so the versions of events that can't be proved become conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theorist thus must suffer the anguish of a hallucinating person whose private version of reality makes him/her lonely. Many of them waste their lives away trying to prove their version of events. Something that does happen to a character in the book.
Violence
Another theme is violence. The assassinations are important because of violence they provoked - in one case discussed in the book, killing thousands within the first few days. The author was especially sensitive to the violence, that we have got used to in our modern day lives, at the eve of the birth of his daughters. And thus the book is born - and the book is dancing alternatively between reality and fiction.
Love For Leaders
Personally, I think the problem is with our unhealthy obsession with individual political leader rather than the idea or ideas the leader represents (assuming existence of such ideas, most modern day politicians don't have any) - and that is something I think should have been brought up in the book. Much of action of the book (unless it is almost Wikipedia like the narration of assassinations) is about blood, bones, clothes, etc of these dead politicians, how some people love them as treasures. In fact, it was the author's (and narrator's) holding the rib of one such politician in his hand which was what inspired this book. Take museums containing historical objects like mummies, Gandi's Charka and alike. I mean really? Isn't it all a kind of necrophilia?
But I think that unhealthy obsession with politicians is the problem. This kind of blind devotion to a single leader, considering him a kind of god, was warned against by Dr. Ambedkar in his speech while introducing the Indian Constitution.
Also, when people are doing something not because they think it is right but because a leader told them to do it, it just makes sense to kill the leader to make people back off. In one of the sequels of Godfather, the writer points out that what is strange is that there are any more assassination attempts on the lives of the political figures given how many enemies they have.
And if there is a lack of investigation in such crimes, it is because the assassin who actually does the killing is of far little importance that the person he kills, to prosecute the assassins diminishes the godlike value of those politicians further (and that is why the descents of the assassinated members of Gandhi and Nehru-Gandhi family find it easy to forgive the assassin).
Anyway, the problem with the 'The Shape of Ruins' is that it rarely goes beyond the superficial scratching of its themes.
And now my favorite quote, especially because Indian elections are coming, and this one perfectly captures the attitudes of most Modi bhakts and twitterites:
"Many years ago I’d dropped the habit of reading the online comments my column inspired, not only from lack of interest and time, but out of the profound conviction that they displayed the worst vices of our new digital societies: intellectual irresponsibility, proud mediocrity, implausible denigration with impunity, but most of all verbal terrorism, the schoolyard bullying that the participants got involved in with incomprehensible enthusiasm, the cowardice of all those aggressors who used pseudonyms to vilify but would never repeat their insults out loud. The forum of opinion columns has turned into our modern and digital version of the Two Minutes Hate: that ritual in Orwell’s 1984 in which an image of the enemy is projected and the citizens ecstatically give themselves over to physical aggression (they throw things at the screen) and verbal aggression (they insult, shriek, accuse, defame), and then go back to the real world feeling free, unburdened, and self-satisfied."
Goodreads comments are still awesome though!
More Quotes:
"maybe because marble plaques are reserved by some implicit or silent tradition for those who drag others to their deaths, those whose unexpected fall can take down a whole society and often does, and that’s why we protect them—and that’s why we fear their deaths. In ancient times no one would have hesitated to give their life for their prince or their king or their queen, for all knew that their downfalls, whether due to madness or conspiracy or suicide, could well push the whole kingdom into the abyss."
“It’s one of two things: either my wife is drowning or we’ve run out of ice.”
"I dislike willful irrationality and I can’t stand people hiding behind language, especially if it involves the thousand and one formulas language has invented to protect our human tendency to believe without proof."
“Out of the quarrel with others we make rhetoric,” wrote Yeats. “Out of the quarrel with ourselves, we make poetry.”
“I still remember the moment when my gaze fell upon the mutilated face of a young woman, her features slashed through with a bayonet. Soundlessly,
“I still remember the moment when my gaze fell upon the mutilated face of a young woman, her features slashed through with a bayonet. Soundlessly, and without fuss, some tender thing deep inside me broke. Something that, until then, I hadn't realised was there.”
A semi-fictional account of unnecessarily violent supression of a student uprising in Han Kang's home town, Gwangju, South Korea in 1980 through point of view of inter-related characters. I guess it would have been brutal to expect another 'The Vegetarian' from her but this is beautiful in its own way - showing what it means having to live through such incidences - how it changes the way one sees the world:
“Is it true that human beings are fundamentally cruel? Is the experience of cruelty the only thing we share as a species? Is the dignity that we cling to nothing but self-delusion, masking from ourselves the single truth: that each one of us is capable of being reduced to an insect, a ravening beast, a lump of meat? To be degraded, slaughtered - is this the essential of humankind, one which history has confirmed as inevitable?”
what it means to lose someone dear to illogical brutalities of psychopaths that seem to be getting hold of power everywhere - that is, to lose them so entirely both body and soul taken away from you (there must be something soothing for a grieving person in the acts of last rites, something that helps them to come to terms with their loss - and several mothers were deprived of that 'something'):
“After you died I could not hold a funeral, And so my life became a funeral.”
“After you were lost to us, all our hours declined into evening. Evening are our streets and our houses. In this half-light that no longer darkens nor lightens, we eat, and walk, and sleep.”
and how survival in such cases is just a relative term - how you come out of such things different, broken irreparably (remember Headth Ledger's 'Whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stranger.")
“I'm fighting alone, every day. I fight with the hell that I survived. I fight with the fact of my own humanity. I fight with the idea that death is the only way of escaping this fact.”
“Some memories never heal. Rather than fading with the passage of time, those memories become the only things that are left behind when all else is abraded. The world darkens, like electric bulbs going out one by one. I am aware that I am not a safe person.”
*****
“Glass is transparent, right? And fragile. That's the fundamental nature of glass. And that's why objects that are made of glass have to be handled with care. After all, if they end up smashed or cracked or chipped, then they're good for nothing, right, you just have to chuck them away. Before, we used to have a kind of glass that couldn't be broken. A truth so hard and clear it might as well have been made of glass. So when you think about it, it was only when we were shattered that we proved we had souls. That what we really were was humans made of glass.”
“But then again I wonder if what we feel in our hearts today isn't like these raindrops still falling on us from the soaked leaves above, even though “But then again I wonder if what we feel in our hearts today isn't like these raindrops still falling on us from the soaked leaves above, even though the sky itself long stopped raining. I'm wondering if without our memories, there's nothing for it but for our love to fade and die.”
In as far as the great aim of impressing me is concerned - the one aim that all books should strive for IMO, Ishiguru started with a bad foot - I am not much interested in the fantasy genre, even though I liked watching the game of thrones I can't imagine reading and enjoying the book. Buried giant shares much with the Game of thrones at superficial levels - the ancient Europe setting, the knights, the dragons. There is a lot of violence too but most of that occurs in the background for Buried Giant. Ishiguru's work is of course more of a united entity and with lesser twists and turns made in order to shock, Ishiguru obviously doesn't give cool one-liners to his characters like Martin which is second best thing about Game of Thrones (you will in a moment guess the best thing) ... and unfortunately without any naked ladies whatsoever.
Yet despite its fantasy motifs, its themes are literary - memory and trauma. And here Ishiguru plays those themes at levels of collective unconsciousness, a level in writing about which very few authors impress me. How do we deal with hurts done to us by those we are forced to live with? Must we revenge ourselves but revenge will, in its turn, attract revenge. Or shall we forgive? The question then arises if such forgiveness won't be an injustice to victims. Particularly, when victims still live memories of trauma suffered. So, if we are to avoid violence at all costs, the only way is to forget the traumatic experience itself.
These questions can be raised on a number of socio-political themes. Racism, the slave trade (Wole Soyinka wrote essays on forgetting and forgiveness in those contexts), imperial history, the memory of wars, etc. The hatemongers are able to use those traumatic memories to raise themselves to power. Hitler did that. Likes of Trump and Modi have done so in recent times.
"Who knows what will come when quick-tongued men make ancient grievances rhyme with fresh desire for land and conquest?”
There is also a theme of how forgetting and remembering affect love that I won't talk about. It seems to be an exploration that somehow demands simple characters which can make the book boring at times. Perhaps the only time I could say about Ishiguru, but I would have preferred it to be shorter. Though all his books have a tendency of being elusive with what they explore, I particularly won't recommend this one to be your first Ishiguru....more
Traitor's Niche is a place where heads of traitors were displayed for public to see and know what happens when they question authority in Ottoman empiTraitor's Niche is a place where heads of traitors were displayed for public to see and know what happens when they question authority in Ottoman empire. The idea of characters being constantly made face to face with a dead face and thoughts that might occur to him might have been interesting. But it actually turned out to be most boring book I have read out of international booker lists so far. I don't know how it ever got listed. The narrative isnt stimulating and there isn't much of a plot either....more
Okay, I waited for the holiday season to be over before I put this review. The review contains information of gruesome violence and depressing images.Okay, I waited for the holiday season to be over before I put this review. The review contains information of gruesome violence and depressing images. If you want to stay in good mood, don't read it. I don't think it will change anything. (view spoiler)[
[image]
[image]
“The Japanese, I learned, sliced babies not just in half but in thirds and fourths, they said; the Yangtze River ran red with blood for days.”
“Chinese witnesses saw Japanese rape girls under ten years of age in the streets and then slash them in half by sword. In some cases, the Japanese sliced open the vaginas of preteen girls in order to ravish them more effectively.”
Have you ever noticed how our compassion seems to work on a sort of value-index? The higher a victim of some tragedy scores on that index, the more the compassion of the world (s)he gets. To calculate your own value make a list of items – non-white, non-Euro-American, women, not very beautiful (the ‘oh! Why it had to happen to her, she was so beautiful’ syndrome), too poor to be visible etc. The more items a victim tick, the less the sympathy (s)he has of people.
People of Nanking didn’t tick most of these items and so their mass-murders and mass-rape were ignored by the world, ignored not as in they didn’t make it to newspapers, Japanese, in their arrogance, made sure that the mass murders make the news
"on their way to the capital, Japanese soldiers were made to participate in killing competitions, which were avidly covered by the Japanese media like sporting events. The most notorious one appeared in the December 7 issue of the Japan Advertiser under the headline “Sub-Lieutenants in Race to Fell 100 Chinese Running Close Contest.”
[image]
..... but rather the whole world chose to do nothing about it.
In fact, the then president of States was more ‘disturbed’ by sinking of Panay – a USS but, well, then it was full of western people.
And seriously, how many people still think that allies (US, UK, France etc) were fighting the world war to save Jew? Hitler actually offered them Jewish citizen as refugees which allies refused. Second World War was all about power. And Japan, whose war crimes included live burials, mutilation, nailing prisoners, death by fire, cannibalism, forced prostitution of women from captured countries – the ‘comfort women’, forcing incest upon helpless captives, rape of women from ages 8 to 80+, impalement of vaginas, medical experiments, “water treatment” that pumped water or kerosene into the noses and mouths of victims until their bowels ruptured, suspension of POWs by wrists, arms, or legs until their joints were literally ripped from their sockets, victims being forced to kneel on sharp instruments, excruciating extractions of nails from fingers, electric shock torture, naked women forced to sit on charcoal stoves, every imaginable form of beating and flogging etc, was more or less never asked to account for its action, never asked to compensate its victims. The officers and the king who issued the orders to kill captives remain untouched even after Japanese surrender in second world war. And why? Because US saw Japan as a potential friend against Russia, just as two Chinese governments 'forgive' Japan in expectation of trade contacts (the governments had no rights to forgive on behalf of those individuals, they weren't even contacted). There are no good or bad nations, nations have no conscience.
“In exchange for Japan’s surrender, the American government granted him, the emperor of Japan, immunity from trial, so he was not called in as a defendant or even a witness. Because the terms of the surrender exonerated all members of the Japanese imperial family, Hirohito’s uncle Prince Asaka (under whose command the “Kill All Captives” order was forged) also escaped justice, exempting him from having to appear at the IMTFE at all.”
While those who committed those crimes lived a life of luxury, the survivors of Nanking, rape victims (reminds me of how the slave makers of Africa and slave owners of States are some of the richest families in their countries) and 'comfort women' had to live a life of poverty and (in the case of women, since Eastern world, chastity among women continues to be considered a virtue) disgrace, suffering from psychological shock and a large number committed suicide.
How can someone be so inhuman?
Probably the most difficult question is what made people do such things – the rape of Nanking, the Holocaust etc? Chang does answer this question as far as Nanking is concerned in many ways, and they are more or less same as in the case of Holocaust, slavery, the presently on-going violance in middle-East and Africa.
1. Racial superiority – Japanese thought themselves superior people, the only people of god.
2. Ultra-nationalism – Like religion, Nationalism excuses murders and mass violence.
3. Milllitary culture – Samurai culture is not as pleasant as it appears in western movies
4. Submissiveness to the will of king – power corrupts and absolute power ...
The Heroes
Not all kept their silence though, within Nanking, a few brave foreign individuals fought for the captives. Within Nanking, a few Europeans and Americans constantly put their lives at risk in saving innocent Chinese lives.
[image]
The biggest savior of Nanking people was John Rabe, a german merchant in China - (and here is the time to gasp) a Nazi, and if that is not enough, a Nazi who wrote to Hitler to intervene and ask Japan to stop their war crimes (Hitler, of course, did nothing). Rabe didn’t know what his own party back in Germany was doing to Jews and would later suffer because of his association with it. In China, though he was like messiah. He created and managed a safety zone which provided shelter to residents of Nanking and along with a few Europeans and Americans policed it against Japanese soldiers. The detestable Nazi Savastik actually helped him protect innocent lives.
There were a few other foreigners who stood for innocent Chinese rather than fleeing. Chang goes into detail talking about two more of them. These heroes, who continue to fight for Nanking long after the rape was over - against Japanese effort to censor the information, ended up no better in their lives than the survivors in their later life. Some went mad from psychological shock, some committed suicide.
Stupid Criticisms
There are some stupid criticisms of the book in the reviews here on Goodreads such as –
1. It is sensationalist because of the word ‘holocaust’ in sub-heading – one of the reviewers called it sensationalist but I don’t think Chang could have got the event the well-deserved attention otherwise and scenes of violence are just as gruesome. I mean how many of you have heard about Nanking? How many have heard about Auschwitz?
“It is not just that Japan has doled out less than 1 percent of the amount that Germany has paid in war reparations to its victims. It is not just that, unlike most Nazis, who, if not incarcerated for their crimes were at least forced from public life, many Japanese war criminals continued to occupy powerful positions in industry and government after the war. And it is not just the fact that while Germans have made repeated apologies to their Holocaust victims, the Japanese have enshrined their war criminals in Tokyo—an act that one American wartime victim of the Japanese has labeled politically equivalent to “erecting a cathedral for Hitler in the middle of Berlin.“
Add to the list, the fact that Japanese continue to censor information about these war crimes.
2.It is not well researched – it uses information from at least four different countries and as many languages from different means – witnesses accounts, photographs, video clippings, newspaper reports (including Japanese ones), personal diaries, confessions of some Japanese scholars themselves etc.
3.It uses only eye witnesses accounts – See 1. Above
4.It gives a one-sided account of the story – I’m sorry Japanese that ultra-nationalists didn’t get their voice but seriously Chang thinks that the Japanese soldiers involved in the acts were themselves victims of a system of oppression:
“Some Japanese scholars believe that the horrors of the Rape of Nanking and other outrages of the Sino-Japanese War were caused by a phenomenon called “the transfer of oppression.” According to Tanaka Yuki, author of Hidden Horrors: Japanese War Crimes in World War II, the modern Japanese army had great potential for brutality from the moment of its creation for two reasons: the arbitrary and cruel treatment that the military inflicted on its own officers and soldiers, and the hierarchical nature of Japanese society, in which status was dictated by proximity to the emperor. Before the invasion of Nanking, the Japanese military had subjected its own soldiers to endless humiliation. Japanese soldiers were forced to wash the underwear of officers or stand meekly while superiors slapped them until they streamed with blood. Using Orwellian language, the routine striking of Japanese soldiers, or bentatsu, was termed an “act of love” by the officers, and the violent discipline of the Japanese navy through tekken seisai, or “the iron fist,” was often called ai-no-muchi, or “whip of love.”
5.It is racist – On the contrary, she rejects any racist interpretations of the event.
“There are those who believe that the Japanese are uniquely sinister—a dangerous race of people who will never change. But after reading several file cabinets’ worth of documents on Japanese war crimes as well as accounts of ancient atrocities from the pantheon of world history, I would have to conclude that Japan’s behavior during World War II was less a product of dangerous people than of a dangerous government, in a vulnerable culture, in dangerous times, able to sell dangerous rationalizations to those whose human instincts told them otherwise. The Rape of Nanking should be perceived as a cautionary tale—an illustration of how easily human beings can be encouraged to allow their teenagers to be molded into efficient killing machines."
6. It criticises Japanese culture – I keep hearing this one in India too, but why is it even an argument? Why is something considered beyond criticism if it can be called ‘culture’ of any country? And any culture which promotes racist thinking kills compassion or excuses such meaningless violence is worth criticising. Chang is critical of the only military culture of Japan and not its other traditions.
And that kind of culture which asks people to get used to violence is detestable everywhere. Japan learned it from America and now China seems to have learned it too. And it will go on, when all over the world, the most progressive people see nothing wrong in letting their children play with toy-guns and violent video-games.
What is most disheartening is indifference the world is able could acquire. The whole world knew about Nanking just they know about the presently going genocide in Darfur and Rwanda. Or maybe we should learn to expect such behaviour - of forgetting the whole thing or putting a new UN resolution of 'never again' every time it happens.
And you may think that nations are afraid of political action, but helping famine victims in Somalia didn't need political intervention. And a negligible percentage of money wasted on arms race the world over could have saved those lives. Unlike a drought, a famine is not a natural failure, it is a human failure and can be avoided by timely action. But just like in Rwanda where UN refuse to call it genocide (that would have meant that they will have to do something) , in Somalia they waited patiently before a famine was declared ignoring the warning signs.
[image]
[image]
And soon, it will be Nigeria's turn.
To be honest, in a world where Trumps, Modis, Putins, Britexits are admired, where a US president, who is also a Nobel Peace laureate, refuses to apologise on behalf of his country for Heroshima and Nagasaki - calling them 'difficult decisions. I don't think Nigeria can hope for much.
Most people I meet tend to lovers of humanity - having a great faith in it, and what is the point in living if you have nothing higher to believe. That is why we all tend to think negatively of misanthropists - we want to disagree with Gulliver's conclusions who started feeling disgusted at his fellow-humans after his travels, I remember an interviewer showing his shock and refusing to believe that George Carlin was serious when later told him he didn't expect humanity to get any better - but I wonder whether it is a result of our ignorance or deliberate forgetfulness that we continue to hold on to this belief. Maybe it is a conclusion we must deny, we would never have had dreams if lying to oneself wasn't a part of living. Still it can't always be easy, there are people, I believe, who like Quentin, after he was disillusioned about Southern misogynist-racist culture, struggle to deny their hatred upon seeing this ugly face of humanity.
“I don't hate it he thought, panting in the cold air, the iron New England dark; I don't. I don't! I don't hate it! I don't hate it!”
A but fragmentary but I love the way she writes. There is a bit of youthfulness in the selection and treatment of a theme that might make it seem kitsA but fragmentary but I love the way she writes. There is a bit of youthfulness in the selection and treatment of a theme that might make it seem kitsch to readers who have read a lot. But really it was really one of the very first works. And I personally admired the presentation of Napolean. If you are into love poems, you will probably like it too. There are lots of quotes I gathered but gonna leave with just one:
"I say I'm in love with her, what does that mean?
It means I review my future and my past in the light of this feeling. It is as though I wrote in a foreign language that I am suddenly able to read. Wordlessly she explains me to myself; like genius she is ignorant of what she does."
Okay two:
I asked him why he was a priest, and he said if you have to work for anybody an absentee boss is best.
Well three and I stop:
She had made him possible. In that sense she was his god.
Like God, she was neglected.
Screw it.
When she hears a boat go by her head pokes out of her nook and she asks you what time of day it might be. Never what time it is; she's too much of a philosopher for that.
‘When you’re at school, sometimes, you forget. Just sometimes. You count the days until the holidays like the other girls do, and then you think y
‘When you’re at school, sometimes, you forget. Just sometimes. You count the days until the holidays like the other girls do, and then you think you’ll see Mother and Papa again.’
Probably not his best book, Ishiguro seems to think it is his weakest book. There are some beautiful passages that capture what it feels like to be orphaned (three of four main characters in book are orphans) - the absence of parents, the lack of a proper start to your life, nothing holds on to you and you are forever afraid of being blown away by currents of life.
"We’re like the twine that holds together the slats of a wooden blind."
The life is just as much as a search of your past which, unlike past of others, is a mystery and not firm ground on which to stand build your future: ™ "Perhaps there are those who are able to go about their lives unfettered by such concerns. But for those like us, our fate is to face the world as orphans, chasing through long years the shadows of vanished parents. There is nothing for it but to try and see through our missions to the end, as best we can, for until we do so, we will be permitted no calm."
And the frustration of the label of orphans. The awful failure of language that makes you feel alien among others:
"It had become a matter of some irritation to me that my schoolfriends, for all their readiness to fall into banter concerning virtually any other of one’s misfortunes, would observe a great solemnness at the first mention of my parents’ absence."
There are a few passages where Ishiguro captures those feelings and there is some beautiful writing when narrator is talking about his childhood.
Ishiguro's usual techiniques are present - often the narrator remembers something because of something that he saw or happened in present or is inspired when trying to explain history of his relation with a character he just met or one or other emotion he has started feeling. These flashbacks are always blurred frequently by forgetfulness.
Another technique that he feequntly applies is giving his book a vague resemblace to a generic work - 'The remains of the day' was somewhat like a travelogue, 'Never Let Me Go' looked like (and actually was a good one at that) science fiction while 'The Buried Giant' takes form of fantasy. This one takes form of spy novel. This is probably where the novel fails for me. While I never expected it to be thrilling like a spy novel, the masquerade seems to take the focus away from the centeral theme for too long, especially in the parts where he rescues Akira. More quotes: "I often treat people badly,’ she said. ‘I suppose that comes with being ambitious. And not having so much time left.’
"I did, for a while, consider the notion that Akira regarded my mother as he did because she was ‘beautiful’. That my mother was ‘beautiful’ was something I accepted, quite dispassionately, as fact throughout my growing up. It was always being said of her, and I believe I regarded this ‘beautiful’ as simply a label that attached itself to my mother, no more significant than tall’ or ‘small’ or ‘young’. At the same time, I was not unaware of the effect her ‘beauty’ had on others. Of course, at that age, I had no real sense of the deeper implications of feminine allure."...more
"Omar Khayyam mourned his disciple with the same dignity, the same resignation and the same discreet agony as he had mourned other friends. ‘We wer
"Omar Khayyam mourned his disciple with the same dignity, the same resignation and the same discreet agony as he had mourned other friends. ‘We were drinking the same wine, but they got drunk two or three rounds before me.’"
Among other things, this book has among its motifs - Omar Khayyam, Hassan-i Sabbah, Persian liberation efforts at the beginning of 20th century, Titanic, Mongols etc.
Have you ever detests the 'x' of algebra during your math classes, well Omar Khayyam is the source of that 'x'.
"to represent the unknown in this treatise on algebra, Khayyam used the Arabic term shay, which means thing. This word, spelled xay in Spanish scientific works, was gradually replaced by its first letter, x, which became the universal symbol for the unknown."
He was a polymath - a true polymath, not one of the modern-day self-claimed ones who learn basics of many fields without mastering any. Omar wrote thesis in maths and astronomy and wrote incredible poems famous all over the world - and that had a really strong influence on sufi poems - even though he himself was far less submissive to God: blockquote> "I am not one of those for whom faith is simply fear of judgement. How do I pray? I study a rose, I count the stars, I marvel at the beauty of creation and how perfectly ordered it is, at man, the most beautiful work of the Creator, his brain thirsting for knowledge, his heart for love, and his senses, all his senses alert or gratified.’ "
Hasan-i-Sabah is the one who started the 'order of assassins' - the expert murders; from whose popularity the English words for assassination and assassin are driven; and which also seem to hold genes for suicidal terrorist bombers.
How can precautions be taken against a man intent on dying? All protection is based upon dissuasion, and we know that important personages are surrounded by an imposing guard whose role is to make any potential attacker fear inevitable death. But what if the attacker is not afraid of dying, and has been convinced that martyrdom is a short-cut to paradise?
The book deals with the fate of a book having the same name as the tile of the book - Samarkand which is the only copy of the manuscript in which Omar wrote his poems (the ones that are popular now only survive in memories of people, who had seen this manuscript.
Some Quotes
A ruler when announcing the end of rule of ultra-religious 'Order of Assassins':
"Since we are now in Paradise and in permanent contact with the Creator, we no have any need to address Him at fixed times; those who persist in making the five prayers show thereby how little they believe in the Resurrection. Prayer has become an act of unbelief.’
"Cancer, cancer, cancer,’ he repeated as if in warning. ‘In the past doctors attributed illnesses to the conjunctions of the stars, but only cancer has kept its astrological name, in all languages. The fear is still there.’"
An admirable example of political tolerance in Persia:
"Taking refuge, or taking bast as the Persians say, means giving oneself over to a strictly passive resistance in the shelter of a sanctuary of which there were several in the area of Teheran: the mausoleum of Shah Adbul-Azim, the royal stables, and the smallest bast of all, the wheeled cannon in Topkhane Square – if a fugitive clung to it, the forces of order no longer had any right to lay hands on him."
And finally, there is no other way to end a book on Omar except with one of his poems:
"We are the pawns, and Heaven is the player; This is plain truth, and not a mode of speech. We move about the chessboard of the world. Then drop into the casket of the void. "
“The real loneliness is living among all these kind people who only ask one to pretend!”
I’m not much into romantic stories – I mean how much of ‘
“The real loneliness is living among all these kind people who only ask one to pretend!”
I’m not much into romantic stories – I mean how much of ‘Ellen, I love you’ and ‘Newland, it is wrong’ one can bear? More so, love triangles – and why they call it love triangles. Just look at this one – Archer has relations with May and Ellen but the two women do not love each other, so where is the third side of triangle? Shouldn’t it be called love angle or love V? In fact, if you think about it, a love triangle is only possible when at least one of three people is homosexual or bisexual ... well, that is just the kind of thing I wonder about when not working on my paper on quantum mechanics involved in motion of Nitrogen particles in low atmospheric temperatures.
Also, I don’t much like leisure classes; for me they represent half the things that are wrong with the world – they are hypocrites, full of ideas of ‘society’ and ‘common folks’, vain, sinfully rich, are always talking about useless subjects like- other equally boring people, balls, marriages, clothes (clothes! Clothes!), food etc.
The good thing is Wharton doesn’t much like them either.
Innocence
There can be many meanings of the word ‘innocence’. The people of society pretend to have and collectively impose on themselves conformity to standard of an innocence that is more of an ignorance and a willingness to stay the same - “ the innocence that seals the mind against imagination and the heart against experience!”
But in reality these things come involuntarily; you can’t shut them out when they come; although you can always pretend. And so, almost all characters of 'society' are hypocrites.
"“In reality they all lived in a kind of hieroglyphic world, where the real thing was never said or done or even thought, but only represented by a set of arbitrary signs.”
May is a typical example – she knows that women are expected to be innocent in above mentioned meaning of the word and so acts naive to affirm to the standard. In affirming to social expectations, she refuses to be honest with her own emotions. The only time she breaks away from social expectations is out of compassion for Ellen and Newland - ’her courage and initiative were all for others, and that she had none for herself’ However, her need for conformity defeats even this exemplary compassion once institution of marriage is thrown into equation.
One other meaning of the word ‘innocence’ is honesty to one’s emotions and ideas – to cry when one feels like crying, to say and do what one thinks is right and not to take society’s dictation. Far few people accomplish that - Ellen is explicitly told not to talk about her emotions. The only people in the novel who are innocent in this later sense are either misfits (Ellen) or from so-called common people (M. Riviere). And that is why I think that the title is ironic.
Newland, the protagonist, is much more rebellious than May. For one thing, his training into matters of social form was not as closely watched; then there was all the sentimental education from novels. He struggles between social conformity and honesty to one's emotions.
And that often makes him contradict himself. Sometimes he is saying saying sexist things like “What could he and she really know of each other, since it was his duty, as a "decent" fellow, to conceal his past from her, and hers, as a marriageable girl, to have no past to conceal?” and taking offence because too much of Ellen’s shoulder is visible. At other point he is fighting for women rights. At one point, we are told “Few things seemed to Newland Archer more awful than an offence against "Taste," while later he will want to run away with Ellan.
In the begining, he is revolting in that he argues for equality of sexes but only in as far as he knows his would-be wife won’t be taking those liberties. But really people are like that. A lot of people I know in real life have this NIMBY attitude – they want equality for women but only when that ‘women’ represents distant vague sections of society like people from tv or newspapers – but they lack similar initiative in their family where habit of traditionally available advantages stops them from doing that.
These themes are similar to Lawrence, when compared to his, the psychology of Wharton's characters is more believable and she doesn't preach in as obvious a manner.
In fact, there is alternative way of looking at the novel – Archer’s oscillation between passions and conformity represented in Ellen and May; is a story of many such people; had the novel been written by a man he would have been accused of using May and Ellen as metaphors (especially given how subtly the characters of two women are developed).
"“He had married (as most young men did) because he had met a perfectly charming girl at the moment when a series of rather aimless sentimental adventures were ending in premature disgust; and she had represented peace, stability, comradeship, and the steadying sense of an unescapable duty.”
I’m quite okay with what gets termed as ‘India Bashing’ (or, if for that matter, bashing of any other country) as often it is just a veil used by poweI’m quite okay with what gets termed as ‘India Bashing’ (or, if for that matter, bashing of any other country) as often it is just a veil used by powerful to suppress criticism pointed at them but my one condition is that author should actually feel concerned for the people. That she/he is frustrated and seems to be frowning at the circumstances too is fine by me.
What is not fine is when it is done by a author who seems to scorning at the people, feeling disgusted at them as if he belongs to some higher race.
Now V. S Naipaul calls India a ‘difficult’ country. He has clear problems with Indian part of his Identity and he probably feels insulted by it. The tone he takes is not that of ‘We’ Indians but instead ‘they’ Indians’. Yet, he must write about it – because let us face it; a book about India is big bucks.
The ‘India’ shown in this book must have suited to then western temperament, when US didn’t approve of India-Russia relations. I bet he actually came to India with a title already in his mind and saw only what suited his prejudice.
He must began his book with Vijaynagar - (I)an ancient city-empire (II) which Indians have 'forgotten'. He will later contradict himself on both these counts (I) by condemning a politician for trying to look at country through its ancient past. (II) by blaming country of being struck in its past.
Not only that, he must scorn at the country – draw a really dark picture of the country, should tell you that India somehow ‘deserved’ to be colonized, has failed as an independent country and that its ways are too old for society to progress.
Poverty
Let us began by admitting a lot of things he says about poverty of the country are true; although it is true they give only a partial image. For example, not all houses of country (even those of poor) are like those Slum dwellers of Mumbai as Naipaul would have you think. It is having you look at a man's armpit and then have you believe that this is what whole man look like. (Okay! I need to work with my metaphors.)
He also forgets to mention that country was one of the richest country in eighteenth century – and that british rule drained it dry. It takes his genius to look at country’s poverty and not feels frustrated at the powerful who caused it. Not only he managed to do so without talking about british rule but also without talking about corruption prevalent in Indian government services.
He would often distort the situation rather than making it clear; throw in random phrases the like ‘Hindu way of life’ and window dress the facts to make his case.
For example, not all parts of India were poor – he just conveniently missed the regions of Panjab and Harayana which had shown miraculous growth in food production during years of green revolution and while he is quick to say co-operatives won’t work in India; he forgot to mention the incredible success of Amul co-operative which by the time he was writing actually turned into a country wide initiative ‘Operation Flood’.
And let me tell you more, this ‘poor’ country with ‘no resources’ gave refuge to over ten million Bangladeshis during Bangladesh Liberation War just a few years before Naipaul wrote the book. Another fact missed by Naipaul. We sure don’t like to preach but it is not because we are bad at doing so. This time I’m going to preach a little. Compare Indian attitude back than to present European attitude towards a few lakhs of migrants –where governments decide how many people they are willing to take in (how easy it is to be indifferent to lives once we start talking in numbers!) and where those people will settle down.
Again what he says of untouchibility is particularly moving and probably true but let me tell you, it is not like we were not doing something. He will tell you that constitution had just been suspended but won’t tell you the constitution he just talked about was framed by an untouchable. Also that untouchability was banned under same constitution – something British didn’t do in their reign extending two centuries.
Hindu way of life
He puts all the blame on what he calls ‘Hindu way of life’ which in itself is the result of his own oriental bias. He is himself culprit of several fallacies he sees in others. There is just no Hindu way of life. You can’t expect one/eighth of the population of the world to be same in any way at all. His generalization come out of a character from R.K. Narayana – and no, not the famous opportunist ‘Raju’ from The Guide or ‘Swami’, the protagonist in Narayan’s children stories –those figures won’t suit the image he is trying to create He must choose an example of intellect, Mr. Sampath, accuse him of giving up on world he lives in and then generalize it for all Hindus. I mean all intellects are like that; look at Naipaul’s own life, is he not himself dependent on society for providing him with a lavish life style while all he does is just scorn at different cultures? Yet since Sampanth reads Sanskrit books while Naipaul reads western classics; it makes all the difference in the world. And even if he wants to call it the ‘Hindu way of life’; only a few people actually lived that kind of life.
Indifference to Politics
Nor Hindus or Indians were particularly indifferent to who is rulling upon them. He actually generalizes this notion from what he read of RK Narayan’s uncle. It is funny, isn’t it?
Yes, Emergency was the darkest spot in history of Indian democracy but even USA had its civil war. You can’t judge the book of my life from the chapter you walk in ( a quote from Goodreads) And Indians love talking about their Politics. Politics is one of six most talked about subjects (the other five being – marriage, opposite sex, cricket, religion, bollywood; information source: yours only) India has one of the highest voter turn-up; much, much higher than most first world countries despite the fact that socio-economic costs of voting for an individual are higher in India than in west.
Indians and Hindus are not the same
Actually this inter-changeable usage of words ‘Indians’ and ‘Hindus’ itself is wrong, criminally wrong. India has world’s third largest Musilm population; largest Sikh population and communities of several other religions. It is offensive to call a secular country or its people ‘Hindu’ – if Naipaul had actually looked at some of ‘Hindu’ philosophy he loves so talking so much about, he could have been surprised at diversity of thought in it.
No, he even goes to anarchy of calling all Muslim ruler as foreigners; even when most of whom never left India all their lives. He can’t call himself ‘Indian’ when his ancestors have been out of India for a hundred years, yet he wants to raise an eye brow when some Muslim tells him that his family is Indian for five centuries.
Dark Ages
All the last thousand years of the country are ‘dark’ ages according to him. Dark ages which have produced among architecture – Taj Mahal, Lal Quila, Bhakra Dam; among saints and philosophers – Madhvacharya, Kabir, Nanak, Gobind, Vivekananda; among artists – Surdas (he could make it rain through his music); Premchand, Tagore etc. This list could go on and on but I just don’t see the point.
I'm not saying there were dark ages, there were - like other parts of world; but they sure never lasted beyond a couple of centuries.
The Western Ideas
Now one last question - do you ever saw an Indian saying ‘Zero’ is an Indian invention; Westerners don’t know how to use it or they must inhibit use of what is a foreign idea to them? No? Then why do everybody keep saying democracy won’t work in East; that Judiciary is a western concept and so on? Not only that, but you must give Nobel Prize to people for saying that. BTW, Democracy had actually failed in Germany and Italy just a few decades back. It had also failed in country of its origion, France, just a few years after it was first established.
Gandhism
At one point Naipaul will have you believe a politician's statement that India had once again turn into Importer of foodgrains (which is not true) at face value just because he is gandhian. Later he is questioning gandhian politics itself after Gandhi's death. You can't have an apple and eat it too. He is scarcastic when told that Gandhi presented himself in dhoti to English president to show the world India's poverty. Naipaul's thoughts - 'as if they didn't know it already'. And what is Naipaul himself doing if I may ask? Is he not selling India's poverty? It is not like Naipaul is here to offer some solutions. No he won’t even pretend to. According to him, India can’t be helped. I mean we don't need to import Naipaul for this, we have enough of those pessimistic useless uncles of our own, to tell us that.
Last time I checked, India was world’s second fastest growing economy. Take that Naipaul! ...more
Premchand is most celebrated of Indian authors and this story is based on a true historical person; but I'm not much in for the values it preaches. A Premchand is most celebrated of Indian authors and this story is based on a true historical person; but I'm not much in for the values it preaches. A woman would have men including her husband and sons die just because she doesn't like that her husband should accept supremacy of another king. If there was some sort of injustice around, there would have been reason for fight but there is nothing wrong with this 'another king'; he seems to give no reason for offence. This, to me, is a very stupid sense of 'honor' and she seems to have no problem in having servants herself....more
Loading...
