...

[Quando quando quando]

never thought of that.

Yes, you should both go to the workout and do the workout.
Let the kids workout too.
After that you will all see things quite differently.
If you want, or you.

 

[countthree]

who's sleeping ? I wouldn't trust my other half as far as I can throw me, it, whatever.

Anyways to make matters more complicated my other half has multiple personality disorder.

And of course there's the children !

Children too? Lawyers will have a feast with your marriage

 

[countthree]

hi guys, i can see that while i am asleep, you have the best discussions here.

i drank two liters of coffee today to enable my brain, after so many days, to finally grasp these first four pages by their throat and coldly slice the whole thing up into digestable units.

1. on page 1-4 we are introduced to 5 "characters" or "entities":

a) the relay team as a unity
b) the narrative voice (a commentator)
c) the crowds/onlookers of "the mookish world"
d) a "you" as addressed by the narrator
e) a "we": narrator + crowds

2. most of the space is used to develop an image of the relay team:

- "four bodies of one heart"
- "the living picture of the desired physique"
- perceived by the crowds as "deltoid deities"
- "marital union" based on strengths not weaknesses
- bodies as instruments
- under contract with a common goal (winning)
- calmly narcisstic, admiring each others' strength
- successful: "turn into overlords"
- dwell excitedly in their bodies

conclusion: a perfect unity to be admired, no conflicts yet presented, everything's tip-top

3. the narrative voice:

- idealizing the relay team, but able to see its impermanence (death-in-life-theme)
- dissociates him-/herself from the "crowds", doesn't like them
- tries to connect to a "you" addressed several times throughout the first pages
- wants the "you" not to hold back but accept her/his love for the narrator
- tells the "you" what s/he allegedly needs and desires, i.e. the narrator, obviously trying to woo the "you" (Jack-the-Ripper-like) into something that remains unsaid, but most likely a sexual connection

conclusion: two conflicts within the narrative voice: aging and not having lived fully; wants a "you" and can't have it/ problem of identity: need of distance from "them", i.e. the crowds (disparagingly)

4. the crowds/ onlookers of "the mookish world"

- described in disparaging terms by the narrator
- "servile in hiding": like dogs seeking a partner and marriage based on weaknesses of the partners
- reduce each other to make each other feel needed
- project their hidden desires on the sexy relay team: lasciviously dependent on them but would never admit it
- watchers in servitude
- want "do-ers" to assume all aspects of watchers' hidden desires

conclusion: not to be desired, a pathetic picture of misery

5, "we"

- though trying to distance him-/herself from the crowds, the narrator also sees some things they have in common: s/he then talks of a "we"
- "unaware of ourselves in flesh"
- morally inhibited
- sexually indifferent
- not looking or remarking on beautiful bodies of others
- "observing without operating"

conclusion: narrator displays some self-hatred and doesn't feel at home with the rest of the frigid world

6. the "you"

- the object of desire of the narrative voice
- does not behave according to the narrator's wishes who fantasizes about the "you" feeling attracted by his/her desires -> unrequitted love-theme

conclusion: the "you" seems to be either unsure about the narrator's intentions or has her own mind and doesn't care much about him/her.


alright, i feel better now. curious what you think about this

Wow! You really are taking this study very seriously. For a moment, you made me remember my literature teacher with characters analysis, different points of view, etc. Very interesting. I'm a complete failure in approaching fiction books as if they were reference books, but you are doing a great job and there's a lot to learn here.

If section 4., paragraph 3, makes reference to this sentence "It may be quite true that we unwisely reduce others in order to make them ours", it could be classiffied in section 5. I remember very well that sentence, because I stopped at it for a few moments thinking I have never done that simply because it never crossed my mind. Maybe it's a good trick to catch someone. Anyway, what's the point in having someone under those conditions? Perhaps that's why the narrator, who seems to have tried and failed, says it is unwise. That's why I absolute love the story of the prince and the witch. Well, just a thought.

 

[Anonymous]

Still trying to digest pages 1-4?

 

[Quando quando quando]

Still trying to digest pages 1-4?

Well not the pages itself.
More what's being displayed on them in words, sentences and meaning.
It's quite enjoyable if you have an interest.
It is not a chicklet easy read, like a fastfood meal, quickly satisfying your hunger but leaving you unsatisfied on a longer period and not doing any good to your digestion.

 

[Watership]

there are still some sentences that i have a hard time to understand. help is needed:

1. "Age sets its own terms, with its growing servitude catching that haunted reflection - one of no distinction because your frown now belongs to time."

2. "Or on their hands - whose touch certainly does something as the waft of their passing being triggers unsuspecting impulses within unsuspecting you?"

3. "Worth is derived from approval, yet we discount..."

I understand 2 as another example of making "forbidden" compliments to friends, in this case you make a compliment on their hands, and that the touch of those hands could have a (sensual?) effect on you that neither your friend nor you have expected. This is how I understand what the author wants to say but it is rather strange in my opinion ...

3 I think means that the worth of somebody 0r how somebody feels about himself/herself depends on the approval (or compliments) of others and that although we know this and we would like to make compliments to others (see p. 3) we don't dare to do it, because we feel it is not socially wanted or forbidden. I think this is also a strange view of the world or simply exaggerated ...

1 remains difficult for me, too, I'll have to think about it for a longer time ...

 

[nicky wire's legs]

hi guys, i can see that while i am asleep, you have the best discussions here.

i drank two liters of coffee today to enable my brain, after so many days, to finally grasp these first four pages by their throat and coldly slice the whole thing up into digestable units.

1. on page 1-4 we are introduced to 5 "characters" or "entities":

a) the relay team as a unity
b) the narrative voice (a commentator)
c) the crowds/onlookers of "the mookish world"
d) a "you" as addressed by the narrator
e) a "we": narrator + crowds

2. most of the space is used to develop an image of the relay team:

- "four bodies of one heart"
- "the living picture of the desired physique"
- perceived by the crowds as "deltoid deities"
- "marital union" based on strengths not weaknesses
- bodies as instruments
- under contract with a common goal (winning)
- calmly narcisstic, admiring each others' strength
- successful: "turn into overlords"
- dwell excitedly in their bodies

conclusion: a perfect unity to be admired, no conflicts yet presented, everything's tip-top

3. the narrative voice:

- idealizing the relay team, but able to see its impermanence (death-in-life-theme)
- dissociates him-/herself from the "crowds", doesn't like them
- tries to connect to a "you" addressed several times throughout the first pages
- wants the "you" not to hold back but accept her/his love for the narrator
- tells the "you" what s/he allegedly needs and desires, i.e. the narrator, obviously trying to woo the "you" (Jack-the-Ripper-like) into something that remains unsaid, but most likely a sexual connection

conclusion: two conflicts within the narrative voice: aging and not having lived fully; wants a "you" and can't have it/ problem of identity: need of distance from "them", i.e. the crowds (disparagingly)

4. the crowds/ onlookers of "the mookish world"

- described in disparaging terms by the narrator
- "servile in hiding": like dogs seeking a partner and marriage based on weaknesses of the partners
- reduce each other to make each other feel needed
- project their hidden desires on the sexy relay team: lasciviously dependent on them but would never admit it
- watchers in servitude
- want "do-ers" to assume all aspects of watchers' hidden desires

conclusion: not to be desired, a pathetic picture of misery

5, "we"

- though trying to distance him-/herself from the crowds, the narrator also sees some things they have in common: s/he then talks of a "we"
- "unaware of ourselves in flesh"
- morally inhibited
- sexually indifferent
- not looking or remarking on beautiful bodies of others
- "observing without operating"

conclusion: narrator displays some self-hatred and doesn't feel at home with the rest of the frigid world

6. the "you"

- the object of desire of the narrative voice
- does not behave according to the narrator's wishes who fantasizes about the "you" feeling attracted by his/her desires -> unrequitted love-theme

conclusion: the "you" seems to be either unsure about the narrator's intentions or has her own mind and doesn't care much about him/her.


alright, i feel better now. curious what you think about this

impressive!

 

[countthree]

oh well, yes, that's the seriousness you acquire with too much caffeine in your blood. and, yes, i love this kind of analytical stuff, and literature was always one of my fav subjects at school, if i remember correctly... nowadays there is so little opportunity to practise these skills once acquired, my job not offering any of that kind of entertainment. when reading your post yesterday, i remembered my former english teacher, a very tall woman, up to 2 metres, with hair looking like a copy of a judge's wig as described by dickens in his victorian novels. clothes probably second-hand ware from the 70s. awe-inspiring. she would write down at the board "don't speculate. quote!" at the beginning of each lesson. so now you know where all this comes from. thank you, mrs x. to me she said "don't speak. write!" which i found offensive then, because what else do you need at the age of 16 or 17 but to blab along with your friends in the most superficial way. but let's stop the memories.

i like what you said about fiction being used as "reference books". that's exactly what i mean. the fiction is used as a means to the end of explaining the author or what else, but not looked at as a piece of art itself, an end in itself.

i'm not quite sure though about which "sections" you write above. do you mean the pages? maybe we have different editions of the book?
but i know the sentence you quote and find it on page 2, underlined by me several times.
i read this sentence in the way that "reducing others" means to make them LOOK weaker, even though they are most likely not weak. but one of the two tells the other what she or he lacks in life, and that the one who reduces the other offers him-/herself as a solution to this non-existing "problem". why? because this person wants to be NEEDED by the other. most blatant example would be a guy telling a woman that she needs "a good f***", even though, obviously, it's him who needs it most. or a more subtle example, that she needs someone to protect her, etc. vice versa a woman might tell him that he is in need of offspring, as this is something men are told so often, but of course it's the woman who wants something to be fond of and care for.

that's what i understand with regard to the "reduce others" sentence. i don't read "reducing" meaning to verbally insult someone, but more in the way of a commercial or advertisement trying to persuade you into buying something because, we are told, you simply LACK this thing in your life.

Yes, I read "reducing" in the same way: highlightning the things the other person needs, or lacks, to make that person feel bad about that. Maybe even in front of other people. That need or lackness could be from company or sex to a family or money. Make the other person feel small to project the own image as bigger and indispensable. That even could be an unconcious or socially learned way of relate to others.

 

[Quando quando quando]

yes, i like difficult literature, it's like solving a good puzzle or crossword. so i hope rifke is going to join in too sooner or later. we had great fun with the smiths crossword the other month.

By the way lanterns, did you lecture at uni in literature or something like that, went to college, cause I AM really impressed by your insights and the sort of " close reading " that you do.
But you would deny it, not wanting to brag, ha.

 

[countthree]

thanks, this makes sense now. i think the "being" has to be read as a noun. that's why i had difficulties with it.
the narrator is talking to the "you" again, and s/he is fantasizing about approaching the "you" in that way. so s/he hopes that his or her hands would make the "you" feel hot for the narrator.

i also agree with your explanation of quote 3. this makes sense now. it sounds as if the narrator is in NEED of other peoples' approval for his/her self-esteem and assumes that everybody else needs it too. this false assumption leads to his/her accusation that the others have sort of a duty to approve openly on other peoples' outward appearance, but they fail to do so. yes, it's strange.

to sum up:
the narrative voice is not presented as an all-knowing and perfect commentator of the story. i like that. s/he seems to have her/his problems too, namely aging, not getting enough approval, unrequitted love, etc.
on the other hand, i struggle with this voice interrupting the story so often to make opinionated comments and thus distracting the reading process. it talking about "you" and "we" adds to the confusion quite a lot.

I think it is just another way of transmitting ideas. I enjoy diversity.
Nowadays there's a common literary language globally adopted and praised, which uniforms the reading experience. That makes us feel uncomfotable with other approaches to narrative and even poetry. Ezra Pound, for example, is not a piece of cake to read. Did you read Camilo José Cela? Julio Cortázar? Magic realism? There are a lot of different paths and we must walk through most of them. I'm tired of reading books that seem written by the same person. The famous ghost writer who destroys creativity and experimentation behind the walls of big editorial businesses. When I read the acknowledges of some writers to their publishers I see a creative mind grateful for being encapsulated to be easily consumed as a pill. Our literary world is a factory of machine produced books, not a workshop of interesting works produced by artists.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

yes, i like difficult literature, it's like solving a good puzzle or crossword. so i hope rifke is going to join in too sooner or later. we had great fun with the smiths crossword the other month.

well i will once i get my hands on the book! and er... read it. i hope to be able to contribute soon, but even once i've read it, im not sure ill have much to contribute. im absolutely shit at examining novels, having no natural inclination to go beneath the surface of the words presented. for example, i dont understand why names always have to have meaning. why cant a writer just choose a name because they like the name? having to imbue everything with meaning beyond the meaning of surface impressions makes an authors work seem to me like a laborious task. im also not very well read, to be honest. but im very impressed with the work you've done! you obviously have a talent for this sort of thing.

 

[Quando quando quando]

I think it is just another way of transmitting ideas. I enjoy diversity.
Nowadays there's a common literary language globally adopted and praised, which uniforms the reading experience. That makes us feel uncomfotable with other approaches to narrative and even poetry. Ezra Pound, for example, is not a piece of cake to read. Did you read Camilo José Cela? Julio Cortázar? Magic realism? There are a lot of different paths and we must walk through most of them. I'm tired of reading books that seem written by the same person. The famous ghost writer who destroys creativity and experimentation behind the walls of big editorial businesses. When I read the acknowledges of some writers to their publishers I see a creative mind grateful for being encapsulated to be easily consumed as a pill. Our literary world is a factory of machine produced books, not a workshop of interesting works produced by artists.

Dear countess,
As I value your literary taste as much as your other opinions, and I already am delighted for your recommendation of Ezra Pound, could you also recommend Julio Cortazar to me?
The only thing I know now, is that "someone" has said he should be considered as a pupil of Borges.

And I really think Borges is one of the greatest writers ever.
I am very much interested in Latin American literature and I read also many books of Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
Which also immersed me in his books and his magical world.
But that's it. So do you think I would appreciate Cortazar?
Thank you in advance

 

[Quando quando quando]

well i will once i get my hands on the book! and er... read it. i hope to be able to contribute soon, but even once i've read it, im not sure ill have much to contribute. im absolutely shit at examining novels, having no natural inclination to go beneath the surface of the words presented. for example, i dont understand why names always have to have meaning. why cant a writer just choose a name because they like the name? having to imbue everything with meaning beyond the meaning of surface impressions makes an authors work seem to me like a laborious task. im also not very well read, to be honest. but im very impressed with the work you've done! you obviously have a talent for this sort of thing.

Rifke, it does not matter.
Just read the book and say what you want.
Your opinion is interesting to me because it is yours and you have your own insights and remarks to make.
All these different opinions are valuable cause everybody has another view on it.

As to say why the names and the meaning of names is important is not easy.
Sometimes they are not. But if you start reading a novel and the first sentence is: Ezra, Nails, Harri, Justy. As your Sweetums did, you can bet your life that it has a meaning and it is there on purpose.
It is kind of mystifying and that is also on purpose.

To me it is as intriguing as the song lyrics. I want to know.
That's what there is to it.
There is some kind of joy to find it all out.
Just like with a very good and very well written detective.
But, mind you, that is only one aspect of the novel.

 

[nicky wire's legs]

Rifke, it does not matter.
Just read the book and say what you want.
Your opinion is interesting to me because it is yours and you have your own insights and remarks to make.
All these different opinions are valuable cause everybody has another view on it.

As to say why the names and the meaning of names is important is not easy.
Sometimes they are not. But if you start reading a novel and the first sentence is: Ezra, Nails, Harri, Justy. As your Sweetums did, you can bet your life that it has a meaning and it is there on purpose.
It is kind of mystifying and that is also on purpose.

To me it is as intriguing as the song lyrics. I want to know.
That's what there is to it.
There is some kind of joy to find it all out.
Just like with a very good and very well written detective.
But, mind you, that is only one aspect of the novel.

but whyyyyyyyyyyyyy? why cant he just call them that because he likes the way all the names sound together, because it makes some sort of impression? in real life you dont choose names for a person because they have some secret meaning, you choose them because you like the way they sound or because of the image they conjure up. cant that be enough? just like i cant understand why novels have to have themes. why cant a novel just be a series of scenes that make an impression rather than having some unifying theme. life isnt like that so why should novels be?

 

[Quando quando quando]

but whyyyyyyyyyyyyy? why cant he just call them that because he likes the way all the names sound together, because it makes some sort of impression? in real life you dont choose names for a person because they have some secret meaning, you choose them because you like the way they sound or because of the image they conjure up. cant that be enough? just like i cant understand why novels have to have themes. why cant a novel just be a series of scenes that make an impression rather than having some unifying theme. life isnt like that so why should novels be?

Because he is a writer. He wants to write.
And he wants to persuade his readers. He wants to play a literary game.
Just as a songwriter he needs tools to convince his audience.
Life is something completely different than literature. A novel is fiction.
But you can write in it as if it is life itself. But it isn't. That's why you need the talent and the literary tools to be convincing.
Or you can try to sort of mix them. There are all kinds of literary genres.
He used the form of a novel and there is a story behind the story.
It intrigues me.
If it would be about telling the facts, of what happened and where and who he would use another form.
But I think he finds that very boring and done already millions of times and it has no challenge for him whatsoever.
I think he wanted to write a piece of literature, and it should be as daring and unusual as possible.
To me he succeeded cum laude and I am not even halfway.

 

[countthree]

Dear countess,
As I value your literary taste as much as your other opinions, and I already am delighted for your recommendation of Ezra Pound, could you also recommend Julio Cortazar to me?
The only thing I know now, is that "someone" has said he should be considered as a pupil of Borges.

And I really think Borges is one of the greatest writers ever.
I am very much interested in Latin American literature and I read also many books of Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
Which also immersed me in his books and his magical world.
But that's it. So do you think I would appreciate Cortazar?
Thank you in advance

I don't know if you would appreciate Cortázar, but he certainly would open your mind.
It's countless

 

[countthree]

unfortunately i am not really into south american literature. would like to though. can you recommend a title to start with?
i like authors with a unique writing style or "voice", be it difficult or entertaining or whatever else. unfortunately, nowadays, that's my impression, most authors don't develop a unique narrative voice in their texts any longer, it all sounds the same and as boring as any cliché that they have copied from whatever widely accepted source, but not created themselves. pound would say they have no individual rhythm but only copy the conventional rhythms of the hegemonial culture, everything that appeals to the mediocrity, as it is well known and not experienced as a challenge to how we perceive the world.
i don't mind being slapped in the face by a text or left in a maze, as long as it activates me or creates something uniquely beautiful, that's okay, everything else is just pure depressive boredom and a waste of precious life time

If you are not a fan of García Márquez or Vargas Llosa (I like them but I'm not a fan), let me introduce you to my loved Adolfo Bioy Casares, very close friend (maybe more than that? who knows? ) of Borges. The Invention of Morel and/or Diary of the War of the Pig are two good options.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Bioy_Casares

 

[Quando quando quando]

If you are not a fan of García Márquez or Vargas Llosa (I like them but I'm not a fan), let me introduce you to my loved Adolfo Bioy Casares, very close friend (maybe more than that? who knows? ) of Borges. The Invention of Morel and/or Diary of the War of the Pig are two good options.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Bioy_Casares

Interesting recommendations countthree.
A bit curious though, you didn't recommend Borges as such.
I value your opinion, is there a reason for that?
You prefer Adolfo Bioy Casares?

 

[Quando quando quando]

i'm now half through the novel. an avalange of deaths is coming down on our once so speckless relay team. a punishment for them enjoying their bodies so uninhibitedly in the earlier pages?

so the author, moz, sorry rifke, is dealing with lots of "taboo" themes, i think, like homosexual activities among young men, masturbation, suicide, etc. they are all dealt with on one or two pages each, and it seems, that moz wanted to have them in there, come hell or high water.

Yes he is.
Totally agree with you there.
And, I noticed too, he only needs one or two pages for it. So far.

They are there and it is like they are being compressed in very few, but striking and suggestive words.
There are no redundancies.
Again I believe this was done on purpose and very well considered.

 

[countthree]

Interesting recommendations countthree.
A bit curious though, you didn't recommend Borges as such.
I value your opinion, is there a reason for that?
You prefer Adolfo Bioy Casares?

I already recommended Borges many times here. Don't want to be (even more) repetitive