Justin
I had Low Expectations for this book going in; I thought Dickens was a stupid name and have vague memories of flipping through the Sparknotes of Tale of Two Cities instead of reading the book in HS (I remember nothing). I really wanted to hate on it.
But he got my ass.
I usually don't like overly moralizing books but I think bildungsroman is the one genre where they work best. When we grow up the world is black and white, and everything is exaggerated, and part of the process is to color it in with gray. The characters and plot are quite corny and unbelievable, but many of the people who pass through our lives also just serve a single purpose in our story. There's no revolutionary lesson here; but Pip's world is so vividly colored and his inner thoughts are explained so clearly that it gives his journey life. Maybe the themes of allowing arrogance to deceive oneself, or having strong ungrounded feelings of how life and love should be, were especially relatable to me.
I also hated the prose for the first few days of reading, but afterwards I began to adore it. Sure, some of the sentences probably somewhere near ten clauses, but they were so rewarding to parse. I loved the extended metaphors, and this guy is a master at using language to set atmosphere while hinting at Pip's unspoken thoughts. Take the scene where he enters Miss Havisham's room: he starts by laying out the broad outline and main objects in the room, then zooms in on Havisham, and fills in the details starting from her, then finally noting the faded nature of the colors and providing Pip's thoughts.
also funny i finished reading hamlet the same day I read about Wopsle's play in the show
not sure what to think about the ending though...
a wonderful little (or big?) conspiracy
pynchon explores how it can be an error (or at least require a leap of faith) to impose a narrative on our understanding of anything
Of course oedipa doesn't learn the “truth” in this book, but after her whirlwind of experiences I'm not sure if she can find it
i enjoyed how Hilarius' faith in Freud, Driblette's faith in aesthetic transcendence, and Wendell's faith in ego dissolution, among others', were scrutinized uncomfortably
oh yeah of course the historical criticism guy too
did not understand so much in this book, not even sure if there is something to understand
quick thoughts:
clearly took HEAVY inspiration from iliad/odyssey, and expanded on a lot of the themes (dido/underworld parts were quite different and fascinating)
feels like virgil was trying to highlight moral ambiguity in many of the greek scenes, or just plain moral transgressions by the heroes by contrasting them with aeneas' actions and reactions. the roman values are quite boring
funny how this is a propaganda piece
aeneas is kinda a bot and venus glazes him more than athena glazes odysseus
The Underground Man is the ultimate lifeform.
I'd describe him as Camus' absurd villain. The first half of this book consists of him expounding his views on the human condition, specifically what he considers the curse of too much consciousness. He recognizes the absurd, the contradictory pursuits of status, personal vindication, etc., and scorns those who engage in these aims, lamenting his recognition of how pointless it all is. Yet he claims he does not envy those who are able to enjoy life, as he himself is unable to return to the cave nor does he desire it if he could. One of his main conclusions is that humans, above all, crave freedom or the illusion of it, and will purposely go mad if they can't find it. He recognizes following desires is no freedom, and neither is reason as you become a slave to the laws of nature. Clearly he keeps the absurd in mind, and through it he goes insane as he now holes himself up in his underground room, then breaks out to seek approval from those he scorns, not really believing in anything, and never truly knowing if he is being genuine or playing a character just too have something to do.
This endless, hopeless dialectic seems to be a common thread in a bunch of his characters. I think I see why Dostoevsky became Christian.
Death cut him short. The end closed in around him.
War strips bare pretensions both human and divine, revealing the irrational pride and implacable wrath of our heroes and gods. Heroes, all too aware of the house of Hades just one spear away, seek only glory and legacy, while gods engage in bitter spats in securing the fates of their favorite heroes. The Iliad is not afraid to depict war's savagery. But it also uses that pervasive terror of death to highlight the beauty of change in Achilles himself. Patroclus' death forces him to come to terms with his own mortality, finally redirect his all-encompassing rage of 16 books, and change.
Also random side notes
I really liked Miller's Song of Achilles but was not so impressed with Odysseus. Reading the Iliad elucidated this dichotomy for me: Patroclus is clearly a central character, the driving force for the Iliad's exploration of mortality and legacy, and yet his relationship with Achilles is not really expanded on. There is a natural thread to be weaved here. Song of Achilles makes some creative tweaks but they're not major event changes and mainly serve to humanize Achilles (his anger over Briseis seems more justified, although maybe ancient Greek culture would have seen this the same way). Clearly there's a great thematic divergence but those background questions of mortality stay intact. However, I personally was not interested in Circe's backstory after reading the Odyssey, and Miller took some major liberties with her narrative (Glaucus???). Stories told from a god's point of view just don't work as well for me; they undergo no metamorphoses.
Ajax and Teucer are cooler here than in Genshin
Also this justifies why Naruto war arc is peak
