There are books which should not be written. And for certain not by their
respective authors. "Purge" by the Estonian/Finnish writer Sofi Oksanen is
one of those.
Superbly written text gave me shivers not once and, to be sure, the above
statement is all about the content, not about the author's skill. It is
expressing my frustration by the topic.
The story is simple and all too known: people caught in the historical
events, killed, raped, tortured and psychically tormented by the effects of
that.
Intertwinning of the 1990-ies story with the events about and after the WWII
is a less usual mixing, and Oksanen ingeniously does it. Together with the
family which is a multiple victim of war, the grand-daughter becomes a victim
of human trafficking and forcing to prostitution. In effect, she becomes
equal to the previous victims of war.
Why I wrote a young, too young writer Sofi Oksanen (being at the beginning
of her 30-ies when writing it!) should not write such a story? She is describing
the bestiality of men. And women. In her writing I felt the vibes of Jens
Bjorneboe, another chronicler of human bestiality. He perfidly and exactly
noted down, jotted down, what disgusting things small bears can do to the other
small bears. It is not something a young person should know.
But obviously she did. And what to do with it.
What strikes in her writing is the fact that she knew so well to put equal the
suffering of both "sides". There is no sides when it comes to suffering,
especially the suffering of war and its aftermath.
It all is abomination, and it is something so well shown in this writing.
Tormentors were, are the tormented, criminals are, ironically, merely the
executors of justice.
Who could like such a world? And it is the reality of too many, too many people.
Goodbye to Reason, indeed!
Thursday, July 19, 2018
Friday, May 18, 2018
Lawrence Durrell's "Judith"
The unpublished novel by this of Masters, published in 2012 (he died in
1990), was written at the beginning of 1960-ies as a screenplay for the
Paramount Pictures movie by Daniel Mann featuring Sophia Loren. At the end,
Durrell withdrew from the movie production (probably unsatisfied with the
needed changes). The similar fate was with his earlier engagement with the
Twentieth Century-Fox in the making of the "Cleopatra".
While still working on it, Sophia Loren asked Durrell to change the main
character, played by her, from the Lady-professor to the wife and mother,
as "she is not an intelectual type", and he did so, producing two parallel
texts, which he was considering to publish as a "Double scenario" book,
which did not happen, he abandoned the text.
His success as a writer after the publication of "Justine", the first part
of "The Alexandria Quartet", brought Durrell offers of work on the
screenplays, but he was more focused on his artistic work than such
ventures. Still, as in his top writings, in those "side works" he also
investigated thoroughly the locations and state of matters and paid attention
to the structure of the work. "Judith" was a part of his 2nd tier works,
which, for him, was a kind of fermentation of thoughts and rest between the
major works. Durrell was a compulsory writer, and needed many vents for his
artistic personality.
I met with people who considered Durrell mildly, if not strongly
anti-semitic, based on some of his writings. But, of his 4 wives, 2 were Jewish,
and I do not remember ever reading any evil statements or feelings he would
express... But then, he did not belong to the overly politically correct writers,
and some of his comments could be taken out of context and presented in this or
that way. When writing about French Resistance in "The Avignon Quintet" in not
exactly glorifying terms, or similarly about Arabs in many of his works, he did
not show any hate or animosity. Only normal contempt for the human stupidity where
things could, with a little of clear thinking, be easily converted into something
constructive, not destructive, as it was usually the case.
In "Judith" he did exactly the opposite from anti-semitic, from every line
one can feel his sympathy with the Jewish case, and contempt for the
surrounding circumstances of the birth of the Israel, from the collapse of
the British Mandate to the petty plotting of the Arabs.
I do not know much about the events of the Mandate, and especially the fact
that Israel was fought for, not plainly given by the world main players, was
appropriately exposed in "Judith". My impresion is that the fight Israel won
at the time against Arabs gave the country legitimity as any other country,
including my own Croatia just recently...and the rest is in the hands of
more or less dirty politycs. Israel is a fact. As are Arabs, and a sensible
solution for the problem is to be found, or there will be more and more of
the senseless killing.
I learned a pile from the book, and if Durrell is not the most exact of the
historians, I never found him being an evil one. In difference to the too many
of the "official", and in fact doctrinary, historians, or rather propheths of
the one or other national identity.
This book, published only recently from the writings in his documentation,
definitely deserves its place between his other works. He considered it of so
little artistic value that he even did not publish it, but many authors would
love to be able to have such a work in their meter or so of the books on the bookshelf.
1990), was written at the beginning of 1960-ies as a screenplay for the
Paramount Pictures movie by Daniel Mann featuring Sophia Loren. At the end,
Durrell withdrew from the movie production (probably unsatisfied with the
needed changes). The similar fate was with his earlier engagement with the
Twentieth Century-Fox in the making of the "Cleopatra".
While still working on it, Sophia Loren asked Durrell to change the main
character, played by her, from the Lady-professor to the wife and mother,
as "she is not an intelectual type", and he did so, producing two parallel
texts, which he was considering to publish as a "Double scenario" book,
which did not happen, he abandoned the text.
His success as a writer after the publication of "Justine", the first part
of "The Alexandria Quartet", brought Durrell offers of work on the
screenplays, but he was more focused on his artistic work than such
ventures. Still, as in his top writings, in those "side works" he also
investigated thoroughly the locations and state of matters and paid attention
to the structure of the work. "Judith" was a part of his 2nd tier works,
which, for him, was a kind of fermentation of thoughts and rest between the
major works. Durrell was a compulsory writer, and needed many vents for his
artistic personality.
I met with people who considered Durrell mildly, if not strongly
anti-semitic, based on some of his writings. But, of his 4 wives, 2 were Jewish,
and I do not remember ever reading any evil statements or feelings he would
express... But then, he did not belong to the overly politically correct writers,
and some of his comments could be taken out of context and presented in this or
that way. When writing about French Resistance in "The Avignon Quintet" in not
exactly glorifying terms, or similarly about Arabs in many of his works, he did
not show any hate or animosity. Only normal contempt for the human stupidity where
things could, with a little of clear thinking, be easily converted into something
constructive, not destructive, as it was usually the case.
In "Judith" he did exactly the opposite from anti-semitic, from every line
one can feel his sympathy with the Jewish case, and contempt for the
surrounding circumstances of the birth of the Israel, from the collapse of
the British Mandate to the petty plotting of the Arabs.
I do not know much about the events of the Mandate, and especially the fact
that Israel was fought for, not plainly given by the world main players, was
appropriately exposed in "Judith". My impresion is that the fight Israel won
at the time against Arabs gave the country legitimity as any other country,
including my own Croatia just recently...and the rest is in the hands of
more or less dirty politycs. Israel is a fact. As are Arabs, and a sensible
solution for the problem is to be found, or there will be more and more of
the senseless killing.
I learned a pile from the book, and if Durrell is not the most exact of the
historians, I never found him being an evil one. In difference to the too many
of the "official", and in fact doctrinary, historians, or rather propheths of
the one or other national identity.
This book, published only recently from the writings in his documentation,
definitely deserves its place between his other works. He considered it of so
little artistic value that he even did not publish it, but many authors would
love to be able to have such a work in their meter or so of the books on the bookshelf.
Saturday, January 6, 2018
Ph.K.Dick's Transmigration
As I predicted in the recent post
I could not resist to torture myself and read the third-and the last,
thanks to the Skies!-part of the Ph.K. Dick's "VALIS" trilogy:
"The transmigration of Timothy Archer". In fact the trilogy's
final part was supposed to be "The owl in daylight", his unfinished
novel, for which he collected advance money from the publisher. But
he died before he even thought out the plot or defined the
characters. There is a discussion about the "Trilogy", but
PKD himself called "The transmigration..." part of the trilogy,
because of the common theme.
It seems with time of writing the subsequent novels, PKD's amount of
amphetamine or whatever he was using was getting smaller, as the amount
of unreadable religio- pornography decreases somewhat towards the end of writing.
In the first part, his use of ink on VALIS is large. In the 2nd part VALIS
is mentioned only two times, and in "The transmigration...", his final
completed book, it was not mentioned at all. "The transmigration..." was
nominated for the best SF work in the year of his death, 1982, but I think
it must be like a hommage, more than the real value of the book.
Timothy Archer is an Episcopal Bishop, who really transmigrates
into not being bishop any more, but taking a lover. He gets
obsessed with find and translation of Zadokite scrolls, where is
a notion from 200 years before the Christ, which invalidates the
meaning of him as a son of God. Plot is set in 1980, and starts
with the killing of John Lennon.
The book is characterised as postmodernist and philosophical. I would
not call it none of this, but just a product of an ill mind. It might
be philosophical only for someone who learns philosophy from PKD and
history from Dan Brown. Which is not so bad, it would mean (s)he at
least reads something, not just stare in the screen.
So, in 2017 I succeeded in reading the VALIS. Was it worth the effort?
No, it was not.
Except if we follow the Marxist "learn your enemy" advice, where
"enemy" is for me the claim that VALIS would be one of top heights of the
PKD's writing. True, it has valuable moments, as PKD was, definitely,
a good writer. But good writing can not hide the heavily troubled
personality. PKD produced VALIS after a spiritual experience, which he
would not attribute to medication/drugs use. I think that such text could
be brewed only in the USA, and later it is accepted (more or less) elsewhere
based on the placebo effect of ... thinking.
I could not resist to torture myself and read the third-and the last,
thanks to the Skies!-part of the Ph.K. Dick's "VALIS" trilogy:
"The transmigration of Timothy Archer". In fact the trilogy's
final part was supposed to be "The owl in daylight", his unfinished
novel, for which he collected advance money from the publisher. But
he died before he even thought out the plot or defined the
characters. There is a discussion about the "Trilogy", but
PKD himself called "The transmigration..." part of the trilogy,
because of the common theme.
It seems with time of writing the subsequent novels, PKD's amount of
amphetamine or whatever he was using was getting smaller, as the amount
of unreadable religio- pornography decreases somewhat towards the end of writing.
In the first part, his use of ink on VALIS is large. In the 2nd part VALIS
is mentioned only two times, and in "The transmigration...", his final
completed book, it was not mentioned at all. "The transmigration..." was
nominated for the best SF work in the year of his death, 1982, but I think
it must be like a hommage, more than the real value of the book.
Timothy Archer is an Episcopal Bishop, who really transmigrates
into not being bishop any more, but taking a lover. He gets
obsessed with find and translation of Zadokite scrolls, where is
a notion from 200 years before the Christ, which invalidates the
meaning of him as a son of God. Plot is set in 1980, and starts
with the killing of John Lennon.
The book is characterised as postmodernist and philosophical. I would
not call it none of this, but just a product of an ill mind. It might
be philosophical only for someone who learns philosophy from PKD and
history from Dan Brown. Which is not so bad, it would mean (s)he at
least reads something, not just stare in the screen.
So, in 2017 I succeeded in reading the VALIS. Was it worth the effort?
No, it was not.
Except if we follow the Marxist "learn your enemy" advice, where
"enemy" is for me the claim that VALIS would be one of top heights of the
PKD's writing. True, it has valuable moments, as PKD was, definitely,
a good writer. But good writing can not hide the heavily troubled
personality. PKD produced VALIS after a spiritual experience, which he
would not attribute to medication/drugs use. I think that such text could
be brewed only in the USA, and later it is accepted (more or less) elsewhere
based on the placebo effect of ... thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)