Saturday, May 4, 2013

Book review: The Magus by John Fowles

The Magus is a long book. Almost 600 pages!

Part I: London and Greece


I didn't like the main character but I LOVED the writing of him as a self-centered, narcissistic intellectual with a good deal of self-awareness. I felt that I, as well as a lot of other young people, could relate to his ideas about the nobility of being alone as one who can't but inflict emotional pain on others through relationships, although he seeks affairs with women frequently. When he meets Alison, I again was enamored with the writing that I thought described her as certainly a girl with many flaws but that at the same time acknowledged her whole self in a way that made me love her and her influence on Nicholas. I began to really like him, maybe because of her influence, and them as a couple, and I forgot about what a jerk he self-described prior to her entry.

It was heartbreaking when they separated for his departure to Greece (I didn't like him very much again). The total change of scenery however was absolutely exquisite again with the detailed descriptions of life on an Greek island. The writing of this section and the description of the total solitude there made me feel that it is one of the most beautiful places on the planet and, at the same time, that there are many challenges to living in such an isolated place that is actually riddled with poverty and petty relationships fostered by people living in close quarters for generations. Again, I think the author is skilled at acknowledging both the good and the bad at the same time of his subjects, which in this case was the island Phraxos. Nicholas was a poor thing, so to speak, and pretty despicable when he becomes depressed and tries to commit suicide.

Part II: the "mysteries"


The story with Conchis at Bourani is really tremendous. I was sure at one point that it was all magic and had no other rational explanation! Usually the reader's experience is the other way around, I think, where the characters fear the supernatural but the reader is assured that it's not. I thought the writing and the way that the different layers and scenes were introduced here were absolutely brilliant. I also was impressed by all of the references to music, art, literature and mythology; almost all of the former three categories I had no reference for but I felt that I was familiar with enough of the mythological references to follow the suggestions that they made of the story's direction. I was also excited to learn about additional mythological goddesses who are related to Artemis (my self-proclaimed patron goddess), like Astarte, Ashtaroth and Isis.

I loved the scenes of Alison coming to Athens. At that point in the story, Nicholas was beginning to really become enamored with Lily and what he imagined she was. But the context in which they were spending time together seemed so contrived -- in some way -- that I predicted she couldn't be possibly what he wanted her to be. And so the return of Alison, who we know he had thought of often and probably underestimated his love for, seemed really important, as if it would snap him back to reality.

He was pulled out of his little world of magic at Bourani and fall back in love with Alison (I thought) but it didn't end well. What I did love was the description of their time together. First, Nicholas didn't want to meet her at all because he (correctly) anticipated an unpleasant clashing to two worlds: his past life in England and with Alison and his current life on Phraxos and the intoxicating mysteries of Conchis at Bourani. Furthermore, he thinks he is committing himself to Lily/Julie and that she is too pure, in his mind, to justify a breach of his "commitment" by being intimate with Alison. All of this is of course either unspoken or not yet reciprocated by Lily/Julie, but Nicholas is convinced of the importance of these things. This boils down to him being completely intoxicated with the scene at Bourani.

When he meets Alison, he immediately finds things to criticize about her. However, just by being herself, which is open and honest and totally authentic with all the good and the bad, she slowly wears down his guard such that he can't help but start to like her again, despite his best efforts not to. I imagined this being shot as in a movie, with some beautiful sunlit images of Alison indicating how he can't help but respect her transparency with him and her natural lightness. Of course, he doesn't want to be worn down. 
"But I had, so to speak, to be irritated; so I seized on her buoyancy, her ability to bob up from the worst disappointments. I thought she ought to have been more subdued, and much sadder." 
Still, they spend an amazing day and evening together, unplanned, on Mount Parnassus and in the end he is worn down and realizes, with still an unbelievable amount of selfishness as well as immaturity, how he thinks he feels.
"It rushed on me, it was quite simple, I did lover her, I wanted to keep her and I wanted to keep -- or to find -- Lily. It wasn't that I wanted one more than the other, I wanted both, I had to have both; there was no emotional dishonesty in it. The only dishonesty was in my feeling dishonest, concealing... it was love that finally drove me to confess, not cruelty, not a wish to be free, to be callous and clear, but simply love."
He then goes on to confess about Lily/Julie. Although Nicholas has limits to his self-awareness, I think this is a great line that displays the self-awareness that he does possess:
"I had chosen the worst of all possible moments to be honest, and like most people who have spent much of their adult life being emotionally dishonest, I overcalculated the sympathy a final behing honest would bring... but love, that need to be understood."
How true. It's as if he believes he deserves a medal or an award for this confession, because selfishly he can only think of the hurdle he has cleared to be honest; he cannot think through how his confession will make Alison feel. And so this is a great failure, ending with Alison storming out of the hotel the next morning without forgiveness. Following this, he goes back to Phraxos where he is quickly re-enmeshed in the mysteries there.

Fast forward to page 343: he receives a letter from Ann Taylor, Alison's flatmate back in London, with newspaper clippings of "Air Hostess Suicide." Alison has committed suicide.

It's hard to figure out the source of his emotion when he gets this. There is a lot of guilt, because he believes his confession is what drove her to kill herself. But I believe he also suspects that the loss of her will be a wound so deep that he can't quite even imagine the depths of it and suspects that it was affect him terribly. Of course, in his manner he tries to think of other things, like Lily/Julie, and to not face his sadness because he doesn't have the emotional equipment to really deal with it. He shifts all of his projections completely on Lily/Julie. I think he has the right feelings but of course he is aiming them at the wrong person.
"And Julie; she now became a total necessity. Not only marriage with her, but confession to her. If she had been beside me then, I could have poured out everything, made a clean start. I needed desperately to throw myself on her mercy, to be forgiven by her. Her forgiveness was the only possible justification now. I was tired, tired, tired of deception; tired of being deceived; tired of deceiving others; and most tired of all of being self-tricked, of being endlessly at the mercy of my own loins; the craving for the best, that made the very worst of me."
When I read this part I almost didn't believe it. I felt as Nicholas did, but for entirely different reasons. And this describes my experience for a lot of the book. I felt like I was riding the wave of experience with him and very much in sync with his feelings as the protagonist  although I was the reader, but my feelings were for much different reasons. The mysteries at Bourani, the feeling of hating it but also not wanting it to stop, and interminable dragging on through some parts of the book to heighten the suspense and the sense that something must happen: I felt really like I was right there with him.

Part III: the end

But how the eff does this all wrap up? Some themes I noticed:
  • Europe (Greece in particular) v. England: Greece and other European peoples with more free-flowing manners and emotions were frequently contrasted against the British to portray the latter as stiff, good at lying and unable to properly express themselves
  • Gender tensions: Nicholas has a serious double standard for sexual liberation between men and women; it seems to be okay for him to have many liaisons, but he is turned off by women who are too overtly sexual (e.g. Alison) and turned on by Lily/Julie who, in her role as a 1915 English maid, is perfectly puritanically conservative and reserved. This gets back to theme number one, about the English emphasis on propriety, puritanism and reservedness. This is one of multiple examples of gender compare/contrast; is Nicholas's downfall related to his male gender? All of Conchis's "victims" are male. It certainly seems like he, at least, has a point to make about gender. Furthermore, at one point Conchis suggests that if it were up to women there would be no war, because women are adept at seeing the relationships between things -- almost that they are more evolved than men -- and to them the futility and pointlessness of war is immediately obvious (in a way that it is not to men). To such leaders, war would never proceed because women see through the bravado, machismo and glorification of war that may be used to mobilize men.
  • Sexuality and competency with emotions: Best illustrated by the gods-in-masks trial scene at the book's end, much is made of Nicholas's tendencies to sexually prey on young women and maybe that this is rooted in his adolescent emotional competencies. This scene was crazy to me until they laid it all out in clear language, really turning the tables on him because the relationship he perceived with Lily/Julie was really no different from any other in his life, although he thinks it is profound in a new way for him. They often refer to psychology in the book and use it to explain Nicholas's behavior in that monologue, in particular that his sub-optimal relationship with both parents have led him to be a terrible partner to young women in the most important relationships in his life. Additionally and in a different scene, Lily de Sades goes on obliquely about the purpose of the godgame somehow in relation to how enlightened her family (she herself, her husband, and now her daughters) are sexually; she has had relations with Conchis, her husband with an Indian mistress -- all with full consent of the other partner -- and her daughters are uninhibited enough to sleep with their friends, e.g. Joe the actor, and to perform sexual acts for Nicholas's benefit, so to speak, in the play. This seems pretty wild for 1953 England. (And Nicholas is disgusted for at least three reasons: it's uncouth behavior for young women in terms of conventional standards, it's a taste of his own medicine, and it's used to draw him into an elaborate trap in the play.) I'm not sure what Lily de Sades means in the end by saying that they have a great mission to carry out with Conchis: is it that they think the world needs liberation from puritan shackles? (The opposite of which is Dionysian bacchanalia?) Yet another point here is that Alison is the opposite of Nicholas: she's sexual and she has competency with her emotions. She knows what she wants and she know how to be a partner and she can see through him in a second. By contrasting Nicholas against Alison, it seems like John Fowles is really trying to demote a way of seeing life and living it (Nicholas's) and to promote the opposite approach (Alison's), although they each have their flaws and no way is perfect.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I didn't love this book when I started reading it, but it did a 180 before I finished it last night. Ian McEwan has some big ideas and I would definitely be interested in reading some of his other stuff in the future.

At first, Saturday seemed dated. All the references to terrorism and the September 11th attacks and the fear and paranoia of that time felt behind us, somehow.



Friday, June 3, 2011

Thank you -- and FINALLY -- Malcolm Gladwell

OutliersOutliers by Malcolm Gladwell

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I finally have to hand it to Malcolm Gladwell. This is his best book by far, in my opinion, and I have come to the conclusion that he is exceptional for his research and translation of the information into terms that anyone can understand which, combined with his reach into pop science, is pretty powerful when it comes to conveying concepts and ideas to the general public. I think he did a better job in Outliers of tying together a variety of anecdotes in a way that made sense and was interesting but that didn't oversimplify.



View all my reviews

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Personal finance, for the young folks

Generation Earn: The Young Professional's Guide to Spending, Investing, and Giving BackGeneration Earn: The Young Professional's Guide to Spending, Investing, and Giving Back
by Kimberly Palmer

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


I think literacy and strategy around personal finance is good to learn and think about, at least a couple times a year, yet my feeling is that there's a lack of access to information that spells it out in clear, easy to understand terms. This book is probably not for someone who already has a depth of knowledge about retirement funds, different savings accounts, and rules of thumb on how to save, pay down debt and invest. But for a certain age and income bracket -- MINE -- I found it to be a must-read and I want to recommend it to almost all of my friends who have the same questions I've had about how to use money money, where to put it, and what to think about when it comes to financial health. This book totally did that for me, and I would highly recommend it to anyone who is up and coming in their career who wants to think smart about financial security in the current economy, plan for the future, and just better understood financial tools that everyone talks about all the time but that few people can seem to distill.



View all my reviews

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

He didn't feel too gorgeous.

The Catcher in the Rye

by J. D. Salinger

The Catcher in the Rye was a book club pick and, although I’ve read it probably ten times prior to this, I was happy to be reading it again. I love book club for driving me to read more actively – and also I end up scouring the internet for additional analyses, side-stories, any additional information to understand the author or the premise of the story. This time was no different. I know that JD Salinger was a notorious recluse, but after having read CITR once more and then listening to some NPR interviews conducted after his death a couple years ago, I feel a strong connection between Holden Caulfield and Salinger himself (most people won’t be surprised by that statement). One interviewer on NPR asked some literary folks what they imagine the adult Holden to be; I think neither of them could answer. (Sounded to me like they were stuck on Holden in that time and place, and they had a lot of questions about whether or not he truly escaped his depression that lands him in a psychiatric hospital at the end of the book.) In my opinion, I like to think that he did escape it. Or at least have a relatively normal life, in the sense that he goes on to get his education, find sustaining work of some sort, having fulfilling interpersonal relationships (e.g. wife), and probably even have a family. After listening to another NPR segment on Salinger, I realize that HE is the grown-up version of Holden. Salinger famously said that he wrote for himself and only for himself, not for the fame or fortune or gravitas of standing for something to anyone else. He lived in great seclusion, refused to speak to the media, and upon his death insisted that none of his manuscripts ever be published (much less, I think he wanted to them destroyed.) This sounds so much to me like EXACTLY Holden’s wish when he describes living in the woods in California somewhere as a mute. He describes even being married to a wonderful woman who lives with him in his cabin and has to communicate with him through hand-written notes on paper, because he’s so vehemently anti-phony and, apparently to Holden, speaking aloud represents an opportunity for corruption of the authentic. Sure sounds similar to how Salinger’s life turned out, in a way. Not that he was necessarily unhappy or refused to speak to anyone in his own house; just that he felt extremely sensitive to anything less than authentic and valued his privacy so much that he had no inclination to be involved in the outside world. Really interesting.

Aside from that, I really liked the book again. Mostly I think it’s about Holden and Holden’s family grieving over the loss of Allie, Holden’s younger brother, who died of leukemia a few years earlier and was a sweetheart of a kid. Sounds like Holden’s father is pretty much out of the picture, being entirely preoccupied with work, and Holden’s mother isn’t the same since her son’s death, to the point where Holden feels completely unsupported by his parents and as if he’s thrust into (perceived) adulthood. This—combined with his super sensitivity to what he calls phony-ness, or just less-than-genuine and sincere actions that we witnesses all around him—leads him to think fondly of nothing but the innocence and un-self-consciousness of children and a child’s life.

I don’t think he doesn’t make it out of his depression; I do think he grows up to be an extremely sensitive and observant adult, who learns very early on about the preciousness of life and genuine interpersonal human interactions. I wonder how much of Salinger is truly reflected in Caulfield. Likely we’ll never get the answer to that one.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

It's all connected; and at the moment, all disconnected too.


Movie review:
Syriana
written and directed by Stephen Gaghan
February 26, 2011

This movie was hard to keep up with. I've had to refer to Wikipedia to get the critical plot points connected to one another.

For one thing, this movie is another example of George Clooney choosing interesting, unglamorous, morally-conflicted roles in which his character ultimately struggles with right and wrong, good and evil, in a complicated world where nothing is simple or clear or not multi-layered. (Other films in this category for Clooney are Good Night and Good Luck, Michael Clayton, and Up in the Air, which is probably only an incomplete list.) In this case, he plays Bob Barnes, a veteran CIA agent, who jumps the fence when he finds himself playing for the wrong team.

After watching the film a second time (at least the first half, before I fell asleep too early on a Friday night) and taking notes, my conclusions are that Syriana is a solid movie. Its complicated, herky-jerky, jump-around style that connects five or six disparate story lines, however, gives the impression of something deeper than I think it actually is. The message of the storyline following the Pakistani father and son in the unidentified Gulf state, for example, is no deeper than that lack of work due to a bad economy leaves a young man vulnerable to persuasion via ultraconservative religious dogma to commit jihadi suicide -- directed, quaintly (if that's the right word), at the multinational corporation that took away his job. (As I right this, however, Syriana may be proven right, in a way, since the global economic recession of the last few years seems to be a match thrown on the fuel of widespread discontent under absolutist regimes throughout the Arab world, which is now erupting in protests, political coups, and civil war. So... my film critique here is not meant to the belittle the role that economic empowerment can play for certain groups, which is certainly an important one.)

Anyway, I still think the most intriguing aspect of the film is the involvement of George Clooney in (yet) another film in which he plays a character who is either himself morally ambiguous or else tied up in a broader scheme of moral ambiguity from which he must disengage himself, somehow.

I wonder if these types of films are acknowledged and consciously en vogue in Hollywood. Are screenwriters writing them, producers and directors executing them, and actors bringing life to them because they believe in the point? (By "point" here, I mean that all things are connected and that we must try to perceive as many of the consequences of our actions as possible, therefore. And, that the US and multinational corporations sometimes wreak devastation, unwittingly, on parties big and small. And that maybe we should try to understand better the ripple effects of those actions or else not make them.) Anyway, it's not a bad idea, but I also wonder to what extent these movies are made because there is a minor (or not so minor) demand for them. My questions are, who is watching them and what was there opinion regarding this topic before and after seeing the movie? Was anyone's political position altered? I wonder if like-minded folks are only being reaffirmed in their ideas (which will never encompass all the complexity, truly -- myself included!) by watching these movies, but not really learning anything new or being spurred on to try to generate change in "real life." Because, for sure, paying $13 for a movie ticket on Saturday night isn't doing much to alter any situations analogous to the one depicted in the movie.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

A more balanced perspective on the US: past, present and future


Book Review:
The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria
January 19, 2011

This book was fantastic. It helped develop interests that are just being seeded related my career and education, and it was a great companion during a school trip to India in January.

Zakaria (whose previous book, The Future of Freedom, published in 2003, is now in my queue) describes the shift of power from the US, which held it basically unchallenged since the end of the Cold War through the 90's, to solely by the US through the end the the 90's, to more fractured sharing of power between many up-and-coming countries as well as countries which have been players on the world stage for centuries; the power-sharing of the latter situation makes it such that the US can't act unilaterally any longer without serious repercussions of trust, among other things.

I would like to write more about this book -- and perhaps read it a second time -- as its scope was vast and the topics relatively new to me. One thing I loved from my initial reading was a take on not only the black eyes but also the feathers-in-caps for the US over the 20th century, which of course relate to global political and other predictions for the 21st century. (I believe I may have a tendency to underestimate and belittle the progress and good deeds the US may have had a hand in, globally, over the last century, as I have learned more about US international relations and suffered some disillusioning.)

Would highly recommend to international observers. Great read.