Fantastic book.
The author's vocabulary is amazing. When I started reading the novel, it was a tough read because sentences were long, occasionally complex, and contained lots of words that I didn't know. But gradually, it gets easier and the book is so enjoyable that these things don't bother much. I just read quickly to get the story and although I may be missing out on the descriptive richness, I am not stripping it down to bones.
It's also very very funny. It is intelligently funny too. Puns would be too easy. The book has many conversations that just keep hitting you with unexpected humor in the way sentences are interpreted and they just keep coming. A two page conversation can contain so much fun and absurdity, which really however makes sense, that a climatic statement at its end will just make you roar with laughter. It isn't stupid though.
And the insights are very real and deep, though portrayed in a easy-to-read manner and though comical events. Toward the end of the novel, the layers of comedy start to come apart and you get a glimpse into the reality of war, bureaucracy, greed in capitalism and more. The structure of the novel is so perfect. For example, things are tied up at the end without disappointment.
This is a book everybody has got to read!
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
new testament
matthew
fulfilment of certain old testament / jewish words.
does not say old jewish laws should be done away with. what about for gentiles? well, are gentiles even mentioned?
mark
constant theme of jesus not wanting people to tell others that he is god or doing miracles. (note: but they tell anyway)
jesus declares all food clean. (but the parallel story in Matthew does not say this, and Mark is a source from which Matthew and Luke is written)
luke/acts
good jewish people do good jewish things
starting (verse 5+) parallels abraham and sarah.
end times: inserts "time of the gentiles" which is not in Mark.
a lot of parallels to old testament. mary's prayer and hannah's in 1 Samuel.
idea is that luke/acts seems to be written to emulate the old testament.
a lot of emphasis on the gentiles. (anti-jew sentiment)
theme: "prophet is rejected by his own people". gospel to be rejected by jews. then for the gentiles. see ending of Acts.
tradition, if true, says that Paul was beheaded in Rome by the Romans. But luke/acts did not include it, why? because the theme is supposed to be rejection by jews and going to (hence acceptance by?) gentiles.
also, stephen. rejected by jews. martyred. theme: prophets get martyred.
jews still have to keep their laws. gentiles don't have to keep the jewish laws. acts 15.
has no mention of jesus' death being a ransom or sins. more like a martyred prophet.
john/letters of john (1st, 2nd, 3rd)
not necessarily written by the same person, but seems to be by the same kind of persons, according to scholars.
the only gospel that has Jesus in Jerusalem more than just before his death. 3 Passovers are mentioned in John and not the other gospels. How do we derive that Jesus started ministry at 30 and died at 33? the 3 years is from John's writing of 3 passovers. the 30 comes from Luke i think, where exactly?
in john, there is no Eucharist (last supper with bread, wine, and "do this in remembrance of me"), although there is jesus dipping the bread and talking to judas. also, there is foot-washing.
crucified before Passover (the time when lambs for the Passover were being slaughtered). other gospels say on the day of Passover. Literary parallel because John also refers to Jesus as the "lamb of God" (1:29) and writes of Jesus dying when lambs for the Passover were being killed.
lots of themes of "see" and "know".
and then chapter 9, a blind man made to see, but in verse 12, he says "i don't know"
symbolic meaning? or just a literal description of an event?
verse 22 is anachronic according to scholars who claim that at the time of jesus, there was no movement like that described in "...already the Jews had decided that anone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue". such a movement may have been established later (when John was written), but not during the event being told.
Chapter 5 verse 19+ talks about the Father and Son. prior verse 18 says "the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he...but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." But, since when was being the son the same as being the father, or being the son of God equal to being God? was that already a Jewish notion? was that a commonly accepted religious idea? It seems that the author of John added these details because this was what he believed, not necessarily what the Jews were thinking.
chapter 3, verse 3. the only (practically only maybe?) place with the "born again" notion. however, the Greek word used can be also translated to "from above". likewise in verse 7. (Note: the text was in Greek, and although Jesus spoke Aramaic, this conversation might not have ever happened at all. The Greek is all we have). if "from above" was the original intention, then from where does modern "born again" movements derive meaning? but verse 4 has the reply as if verse 3 meant "born again". So that seems settled. Also, in the following verses, there is "Spirit" and "wind", but the Greek word used is the same (pneuma). So, what do we do? Is it meant to be a pun, or was one meaning intended?
Jesus doesn't seem to give straight direct answers in John. Always speaking in riddles. Chapter 8 verse 31. Jews who believe in him are with Jesus, and Jesus "argues" with them. He accuses them of wanting to kill him and of belonging to the devil (v44). Finally, he claims to be God (v58) with "...I am" probably in reference to God's (YHWH) talking to Moses at the burning bush.
lens to view John through: sectarian christology. (believing only they are the correct ones and the rest are all wrong and is unacceptable, or will be damned.)
1 John. Love God, love brothers/one another (c4,v7,v21), do not love the world (c1,v15). Also, John 3:16 "God so loved the world that..." has the same Greek verb for "love" and same Greek noun for "world". so is there a contradiction in loving the world (cosmos?) and one another? one interpretation is that one another refers to within the sect, and the world outside.
seeing from a sectarian perspective, chapter 2 verse 18+ makes new sense. chapter 4 verse 2+. chapter 5 v 8. so this sect believes in jesus being God, not just a holy man, and not just promoted to divine. argues against other christologies, such as Docetism (jesus' body not really flesh...*seemed* only to be a body and *seemed* to die at crucifixion) in 2 John verse 7+.
see relationship between 2John and 3John, noticing "Diotrephes" in verse 9. Possible that the letter in 2John did not work and so 3John needed to be written. Also, argued that 2John is metaphorically written to a lady and children, but that it means a/the church. Previous splits in christologies due to doctrinal differences, but is one in 3John coming up due to politics?
lingo
Christology(-ies): any doctrine of Jesus, divine or human.
Mark: Jesus is the son of God (not necessarily God; such a relationship might not have been established then). Messiah who has to suffer to ransom sinners.
Mathew: quite similar to Mark. Jesus is son of God, the Messiah, and the "ransom". Also important that Jesus is a teacher and lawgiver, somewhat like a new Moses. The emphasis of Jesus as son of God is weaker.
Luke: "Ransom" idea is not included. Notions of martyred prophet.
Thomas: Jesus comes across as the revealer of hidden knowledge. He always acted like he was God or something. Included are episodes of him using his power to strike people when he was a child...etc.
John: eventually gives rise to Orthodox sect which includes the Nicean creed. And this Nicean creed believes that Jesus was always divine, not a good person who was promoted to divine status.
fulfilment of certain old testament / jewish words.
does not say old jewish laws should be done away with. what about for gentiles? well, are gentiles even mentioned?
mark
constant theme of jesus not wanting people to tell others that he is god or doing miracles. (note: but they tell anyway)
jesus declares all food clean. (but the parallel story in Matthew does not say this, and Mark is a source from which Matthew and Luke is written)
luke/acts
good jewish people do good jewish things
starting (verse 5+) parallels abraham and sarah.
end times: inserts "time of the gentiles" which is not in Mark.
a lot of parallels to old testament. mary's prayer and hannah's in 1 Samuel.
idea is that luke/acts seems to be written to emulate the old testament.
a lot of emphasis on the gentiles. (anti-jew sentiment)
theme: "prophet is rejected by his own people". gospel to be rejected by jews. then for the gentiles. see ending of Acts.
tradition, if true, says that Paul was beheaded in Rome by the Romans. But luke/acts did not include it, why? because the theme is supposed to be rejection by jews and going to (hence acceptance by?) gentiles.
also, stephen. rejected by jews. martyred. theme: prophets get martyred.
jews still have to keep their laws. gentiles don't have to keep the jewish laws. acts 15.
has no mention of jesus' death being a ransom or sins. more like a martyred prophet.
john/letters of john (1st, 2nd, 3rd)
not necessarily written by the same person, but seems to be by the same kind of persons, according to scholars.
the only gospel that has Jesus in Jerusalem more than just before his death. 3 Passovers are mentioned in John and not the other gospels. How do we derive that Jesus started ministry at 30 and died at 33? the 3 years is from John's writing of 3 passovers. the 30 comes from Luke i think, where exactly?
in john, there is no Eucharist (last supper with bread, wine, and "do this in remembrance of me"), although there is jesus dipping the bread and talking to judas. also, there is foot-washing.
crucified before Passover (the time when lambs for the Passover were being slaughtered). other gospels say on the day of Passover. Literary parallel because John also refers to Jesus as the "lamb of God" (1:29) and writes of Jesus dying when lambs for the Passover were being killed.
lots of themes of "see" and "know".
and then chapter 9, a blind man made to see, but in verse 12, he says "i don't know"
symbolic meaning? or just a literal description of an event?
verse 22 is anachronic according to scholars who claim that at the time of jesus, there was no movement like that described in "...already the Jews had decided that anone who acknowledged that Jesus was the Christ would be put out of the synagogue". such a movement may have been established later (when John was written), but not during the event being told.
Chapter 5 verse 19+ talks about the Father and Son. prior verse 18 says "the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he...but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God." But, since when was being the son the same as being the father, or being the son of God equal to being God? was that already a Jewish notion? was that a commonly accepted religious idea? It seems that the author of John added these details because this was what he believed, not necessarily what the Jews were thinking.
chapter 3, verse 3. the only (practically only maybe?) place with the "born again" notion. however, the Greek word used can be also translated to "from above". likewise in verse 7. (Note: the text was in Greek, and although Jesus spoke Aramaic, this conversation might not have ever happened at all. The Greek is all we have). if "from above" was the original intention, then from where does modern "born again" movements derive meaning? but verse 4 has the reply as if verse 3 meant "born again". So that seems settled. Also, in the following verses, there is "Spirit" and "wind", but the Greek word used is the same (pneuma). So, what do we do? Is it meant to be a pun, or was one meaning intended?
Jesus doesn't seem to give straight direct answers in John. Always speaking in riddles. Chapter 8 verse 31. Jews who believe in him are with Jesus, and Jesus "argues" with them. He accuses them of wanting to kill him and of belonging to the devil (v44). Finally, he claims to be God (v58) with "...I am" probably in reference to God's (YHWH) talking to Moses at the burning bush.
lens to view John through: sectarian christology. (believing only they are the correct ones and the rest are all wrong and is unacceptable, or will be damned.)
1 John. Love God, love brothers/one another (c4,v7,v21), do not love the world (c1,v15). Also, John 3:16 "God so loved the world that..." has the same Greek verb for "love" and same Greek noun for "world". so is there a contradiction in loving the world (cosmos?) and one another? one interpretation is that one another refers to within the sect, and the world outside.
seeing from a sectarian perspective, chapter 2 verse 18+ makes new sense. chapter 4 verse 2+. chapter 5 v 8. so this sect believes in jesus being God, not just a holy man, and not just promoted to divine. argues against other christologies, such as Docetism (jesus' body not really flesh...*seemed* only to be a body and *seemed* to die at crucifixion) in 2 John verse 7+.
see relationship between 2John and 3John, noticing "Diotrephes" in verse 9. Possible that the letter in 2John did not work and so 3John needed to be written. Also, argued that 2John is metaphorically written to a lady and children, but that it means a/the church. Previous splits in christologies due to doctrinal differences, but is one in 3John coming up due to politics?
lingo
Christology(-ies): any doctrine of Jesus, divine or human.
Mark: Jesus is the son of God (not necessarily God; such a relationship might not have been established then). Messiah who has to suffer to ransom sinners.
Mathew: quite similar to Mark. Jesus is son of God, the Messiah, and the "ransom". Also important that Jesus is a teacher and lawgiver, somewhat like a new Moses. The emphasis of Jesus as son of God is weaker.
Luke: "Ransom" idea is not included. Notions of martyred prophet.
Thomas: Jesus comes across as the revealer of hidden knowledge. He always acted like he was God or something. Included are episodes of him using his power to strike people when he was a child...etc.
John: eventually gives rise to Orthodox sect which includes the Nicean creed. And this Nicean creed believes that Jesus was always divine, not a good person who was promoted to divine status.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Saturday, January 2, 2010
kafka on the shore, haruki murakami
interesting and easy read. somehow, it doesn't take much effort to go through the pages and i find myself able to somewhat speed-read, skim-read, or whatever you think of it. sometimes i feel the layout of the words, line spacing, font, paragraphing, word spacing and even length and width of the book affects reading speed.
there are little gems within the book, which is what makes books good reads. however, as a collective whole, the novel seems promising all the way until you reach the end. it's not simply a classic case of bad ending or too much anticipation with the author having built a setup beyond his league to satisfy. i feel like murakami could probably tie things up in a way that gives the major incidents in the novel definite meaning. he simply doesn't as part of his intention. and it's almost expected, given the surreal like events in the novel.
it's just turns out to be a mambo of metaphors and under individual interpretation, they can amount to anything, and classicly hence to nothing. I get some of it, but i don't get a lot more. and trying to connect them isn't all i want. i want to connect them the way the author intends; at least until i come up with another favorite interpretation. who wants to watch "waiting for godot" and end up not knowing a damn thing about its meaning, to ponder over it and come up with 5 different interpretations, each having to make different assumptions and disqualify certain events, later to find out the author meant nothing at all. like a trick. but "waiting for godot" has a author unintended favorite to many including myself, and that seems to be what makes it successful - the interpretation of godot being god. perhaps this vagueness coupled with luck yields success once in a while. but that's not what i would have wanted out of "kafka on the shore". it's a pity if i have to conclude that the build up leads to nothing but the author's playing around with, not too deeply, with concepts like self and the oedipus complex. ultimately then, this novel is more literary than philosophical. more english (or japanese) than literature. more surface form than underlying meaning. that would be sad.
perhaps the best way to appreciate it without judging too much is to not ask for too much and view each incident as independent on its own. like a dream, where the second scene feels connected to the first, but doesn't have to be, and is probably not. some things remain, for example, you, being in the dream. and maybe 2 people next to you. but one moment they could be your parents, and the next 2 schoolmates who don't even know each other, but with the physical form of a stranger you remember on the bus last night.
the intriguing aspects are all not finished on in the novel - the losing consciousness incidents, nakata and all his special situations, also hoshino and his; the connection between reality and dream is too blurred, and that's why the novel makes sense as a dream and hardly anything beyond that. still, indefinite unconnected and perhaps inherently meaningless dreams can be a pleasurable experience and precious memory and this novel is worth a read for that.
interesting and easy read. somehow, it doesn't take much effort to go through the pages and i find myself able to somewhat speed-read, skim-read, or whatever you think of it. sometimes i feel the layout of the words, line spacing, font, paragraphing, word spacing and even length and width of the book affects reading speed.
there are little gems within the book, which is what makes books good reads. however, as a collective whole, the novel seems promising all the way until you reach the end. it's not simply a classic case of bad ending or too much anticipation with the author having built a setup beyond his league to satisfy. i feel like murakami could probably tie things up in a way that gives the major incidents in the novel definite meaning. he simply doesn't as part of his intention. and it's almost expected, given the surreal like events in the novel.
it's just turns out to be a mambo of metaphors and under individual interpretation, they can amount to anything, and classicly hence to nothing. I get some of it, but i don't get a lot more. and trying to connect them isn't all i want. i want to connect them the way the author intends; at least until i come up with another favorite interpretation. who wants to watch "waiting for godot" and end up not knowing a damn thing about its meaning, to ponder over it and come up with 5 different interpretations, each having to make different assumptions and disqualify certain events, later to find out the author meant nothing at all. like a trick. but "waiting for godot" has a author unintended favorite to many including myself, and that seems to be what makes it successful - the interpretation of godot being god. perhaps this vagueness coupled with luck yields success once in a while. but that's not what i would have wanted out of "kafka on the shore". it's a pity if i have to conclude that the build up leads to nothing but the author's playing around with, not too deeply, with concepts like self and the oedipus complex. ultimately then, this novel is more literary than philosophical. more english (or japanese) than literature. more surface form than underlying meaning. that would be sad.
perhaps the best way to appreciate it without judging too much is to not ask for too much and view each incident as independent on its own. like a dream, where the second scene feels connected to the first, but doesn't have to be, and is probably not. some things remain, for example, you, being in the dream. and maybe 2 people next to you. but one moment they could be your parents, and the next 2 schoolmates who don't even know each other, but with the physical form of a stranger you remember on the bus last night.
the intriguing aspects are all not finished on in the novel - the losing consciousness incidents, nakata and all his special situations, also hoshino and his; the connection between reality and dream is too blurred, and that's why the novel makes sense as a dream and hardly anything beyond that. still, indefinite unconnected and perhaps inherently meaningless dreams can be a pleasurable experience and precious memory and this novel is worth a read for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
