|
|
Saturday, April 5th, 2008
Tyler Cowen says of Pamuk's books that "The Black Book is the one to read last, once you know the others." I wonder how true this is, and why. I am, coincidentally, reading The Black Book last (leaving aside that I never finished The New Life -- Cowen thinks I would understand it better if I had knowledge of "how Dante appropriated Islamic theological writings for his own ends," which is certainly possible), and it does seem like a good position in the reading order for it. On the other hand I have recommended it to some friends who have not read any Pamuk, principally on the basis of their liking Pynchon -- this book seems to me to have a lot in common with Pynchon's writing, which I don't think any of Pamuk's other books do, particularly much. I think Snow is a great book to have read first -- principally because I relate very strongly to the lines from its first few pages that I quoted here -- Ka driving into the blizzard is (in certain ways) like me starting to read Snow.
posted evening of April 5th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about The Black Book
|  |
|
Ragebunny's painting "Violin Birds" arrived in the mail a couple of days ago. Nice! It is labelled "artist's proof" -- I don't know quite what this means but, well, it makes it seem special, so that's all to the good. I took it in to the frame shop today and selected framing materials -- an orange mat surrounded by a black mat, and a thin camel frame, and UV-protecting glass -- and am looking forward to the result.
posted evening of April 5th, 2008: Respond
|  |
You became someone else when you read a story -- that was the key to the mystery. The chain of mystery in The Black Book is spiralling wider and wider in Chapter 24. The story seems to have taken Galip's paranoid break with reality smoothly in stride and assimilated that into the "reality" of the book. Galip's identification with Celâl is a done deal; and now we are seeing Celâl as having discarded his own identity in favor of Rumi's*. In addition Celâl has asserted in the previous chapter, that being able to tell stories, to command the attention of an audience and (I am reading in) thus to weaken your audience members' identities and to intermix your own self into them, is a primary element of human existence, something without which a person is anguished and "helpless in the face of the world!"Meanwhile the unknown caller is competing with Galip for Celâl's identity, and Galip has a moment of suspicion that he has been lured into "a deadly trap."
 *I have not read nearly enough Rumi -- I reckon I am going to be missing a lot of nuance in this portion of the book. The story about Shams of Tabriz in Chapter 22, for example, is widely divergent from what I read about him in the closest reference work to hand; I don't know what to make of this. ...Well here is a program about Rumi which speaks of a disputed account of Shams being murdered by Rumi's disciples. So the Wikipædia article is just incomplete I guess. (The Wikipædia article on Rumi does mention the murder, and does not even say that it is disputed.) That program also links to some readings from Rumi in Persian and in translation.
posted evening of April 5th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about Orhan Pamuk
|  |
...as he read, he identified first with the usher, then with the brawling audience, then with the çörek maker, and finally -- good reader that he was -- with Celâl.-- The Black Book
A couple of jottings in furtherance of my essay idea:
- Identity confusion is important in Pamuk.
- I started to formulate this statement while I was reading Other Colors, and have since seen it borne out in The White Castle, The New Life, and especially The Black Book.
- Does this statement also apply to Snow and My Name is Red, which I read before it occurred to me? (beyond the obvious detective-story aspects of Red) -- the answer may well be yes but I think I would need to reread them with this in mind, to be sure. If not, it might seem appropriate to think of this as something Pamuk had "outgrown".
- The confusion that I'm talking about is (frequently) a confusion between the roles of Author and Reader. So it's an easy step to take, to confuse yourself-as-reader with Pamuk-as-author. Or so I think.
- As a side note, I wonder how this plays into my impression of these 5 novels, which is that each of them is written in a distinctly different style and voice -- though I think I can hear shades of the same voice underlying each -- if Pamuk is serious about giving up his identity when he writes that would help explain the differences. An alternate explanation is that there are four different translators involved in creating English versions of these five books -- only Maureen Freely has two translations. But I don't think those two are particularly more similar to each other than any other pair.
- I think the experience of losing track of one's identity while reading a story is a wonderful thing; it might be the primary reason I read novels. Understanding this is something I am taking away from reading Pamuk. Is this the same as saying "I read for escape from my everyday life", which seems banal and not really worth thinking about at length the way I have been doing? In Pamuk's novels it seems to be doing a lot more work than that.
- What larger ideas if any does this lead to? How is the beauty of Pamuk's books explicable in these terms? Would such an explication be "criticism"? (Note: I've had an ongoing conversation with myself about what is criticism, and is it something I would be able to write, for a while now.)
posted evening of April 5th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about Readings
|  |
Friday, April 4th, 2008
Hm. Response to No Country For Old Men is ultimately similar to my response to Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, which is namely that the acting and direction are beautiful but not, finally, worth sitting through all that shooting for without a story. (And that's not to say that movies with shooting are necessarily bad, or not as good as they would be with less of it: I thought Once Upon a Time in the West was fantastic.) The minimalism and creepiness seem a little studied.
posted evening of April 4th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about The Movies
|  |
(Thinking some lines from "Only the Stones Remain" would be a good epigraph, then thinking better of it.)
I was a little irked by my posting earlier that "Shine a Light" is one of my favorite Stones tunes, without fuller qualification. I don't really know their music, and it surprises me that I should not, when I like so much of what I do know by them. I think I've only ever listened to two of their records very closely or repeatedly, namely Beggar's Banquet and Let it Bleed. I only know "Shine a Light" because Janis taught me to play it; I really ought to check out Exile on Main Street sometime.
posted evening of April 4th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about The Rolling Stones
|  |
|
Wednesday evening I will go into the city to see Robyn Hitchcock! I'm so excited! It is now just about exactly a year since my interest in Hitchcock was reawoken by Ms. Irene Trudel. In that year (in the year since I last saw him play) I've been listening to his music really heavily -- you probably already know this if you read the blog much. This time I am going to have a much fuller notion of what I'm listening to. Can't wait, can't wait. Also on the bill (and indeed, actually at the top of the bill) is Nick Lowe, about whom I know almost nothing at all, but from what I've been reading it sounds like he'll be a lot of fun too.
posted evening of April 4th, 2008: Respond
➳ More posts about Music
| |
|
I just heard Martin Scorsese give an interview to NPR about his new movie -- I was interested to learn the title is "Shine a Light", since that's one of my favorite Stones songs (and gets fairly little play); but Ellen thinks it is a different song with "shine a light" in the chorus.* I'm looking forward to the movie -- it is probably as close as I will ever get to seeing the Stones live; but Scorsese was kind of grating on my nerves as he described it. You know whose concert films I love? Jonathan Demme's, is whose. The focus is on the music and you get this pretty elemental, raw passion of artistry -- whereas Scorsese was making it sound kind of like his focus was on making the film and on the personalities involved. Hopefully I am misreading the interview, because I'd really love to see a film crystallizing the Stones' music.
 *Update: No, looking at the track list of the soundtrack album now, and "Shine a Light" is indeed present, and is the closing track! Sweet.
posted morning of April 4th, 2008: Respond
|  |
Thursday, April third, 2008
 Per Mr. Fritz's request, a comparison of our bathroom floor plan before and after the remodeling project:
Only very roughly to scale. But the basic message communicated, that there is now a lot more open space in the bathroom through which to move, is an accurate one.
posted evening of April third, 2008: 4 responses
➳ More posts about Bathroom Renovation
| |
Wednesday, April second, 2008
Could we get people to quit saying "I believe in evolution" and similar constructions? This sticks in my craw every time I read or hear it. Try "I accept the truth of evolution" or something like that -- saying we should "believe in" scientific doctrine is messy thinking. Sure I guess it's better than "I disbelieve in evolution" but still.
posted afternoon of April second, 2008: Respond
| Previous posts
Archives  | |
|
Drop me a line! or, sign my Guestbook.
•
Check out Ellen's writing at Patch.com.
| |
