The Mysterious Tripper (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} amelia) wrote,@ 2009-05-26 04:02:00 |
|
Vodka Gimlets Plus Friends Plus Baudolino
It's time for some late night drunken book reviews! Tonight: Baudolino by Umberto Eco, translated by William Weaver.
I wonder if it's too easy to view books as though they were puzzles. Especially especially "intellectual" books. Is there a myth that a deep and thoughtful book requires rereading, and hours pondering to understand the theme? Or that a truly brilliant book demands the same to simply piece together the chain of events inside it, and double that times more in order to "get" the "message"? OVERUSE OF QUOTATION MARKS WILL STOP NOW.
When I read Baudolino I always thought of my husband Stuart, who is a super awesome liar. I never questioned whether it was a fantasy novel versus a completely historically accurate account of a wacky liar, because I thought one of its strongest points was how that was a stupid question. Not all unreliable narrators exist solely to confuse the reader, and a narrative (whether it's an anecdote told at a bar or a sextilogy about the distant future) should be entertaining. And, if it's told purely for entertainment purposes, why does it matter if it's true or false?
So, back to my actual point. This view made it easier to read Baudino. I know Fuck-All about historical theories about the mystery of the poet Kyot, and Shit-All about the supposed origins of the Letter of Prester John. And I won't pretend I do just to look smart. But I'm not trying to catch all of Eco's clever little winks to the reader. I'm not trying to solve a mystery based on vast true knowledge of historical events that happened in real time, and compare my guess to the real answer. The point of the work is to show off an intriguing narrative, and explore a character who tells a lot of lies.
If Baudolino is treating the death of Beatrice I with the same veracity as the lifestyles of the Panotti, well fuck then I should too, amiright? If all the events in the book can be interpreted as split up between True and False in infinite ways and still appreciated equally, why does it matter which is in which grouping?
And I need to get better at writing endings to shit and going to bed, dammit. Geez, it's almost 5 a.m. If I don't go to sleep now I never will.
I will seriously miss Weaver's translations. His were the only books that I didn't intuitively feel a shadow of a different language hanging over. Maybe I will write more about that tomorrow.
It's time for some late night drunken book reviews! Tonight: Baudolino by Umberto Eco, translated by William Weaver.
I wonder if it's too easy to view books as though they were puzzles. Especially especially "intellectual" books. Is there a myth that a deep and thoughtful book requires rereading, and hours pondering to understand the theme? Or that a truly brilliant book demands the same to simply piece together the chain of events inside it, and double that times more in order to "get" the "message"? OVERUSE OF QUOTATION MARKS WILL STOP NOW.
When I read Baudolino I always thought of my husband Stuart, who is a super awesome liar. I never questioned whether it was a fantasy novel versus a completely historically accurate account of a wacky liar, because I thought one of its strongest points was how that was a stupid question. Not all unreliable narrators exist solely to confuse the reader, and a narrative (whether it's an anecdote told at a bar or a sextilogy about the distant future) should be entertaining. And, if it's told purely for entertainment purposes, why does it matter if it's true or false?
So, back to my actual point. This view made it easier to read Baudino. I know Fuck-All about historical theories about the mystery of the poet Kyot, and Shit-All about the supposed origins of the Letter of Prester John. And I won't pretend I do just to look smart. But I'm not trying to catch all of Eco's clever little winks to the reader. I'm not trying to solve a mystery based on vast true knowledge of historical events that happened in real time, and compare my guess to the real answer. The point of the work is to show off an intriguing narrative, and explore a character who tells a lot of lies.
If Baudolino is treating the death of Beatrice I with the same veracity as the lifestyles of the Panotti, well fuck then I should too, amiright? If all the events in the book can be interpreted as split up between True and False in infinite ways and still appreciated equally, why does it matter which is in which grouping?
And I need to get better at writing endings to shit and going to bed, dammit. Geez, it's almost 5 a.m. If I don't go to sleep now I never will.
I will seriously miss Weaver's translations. His were the only books that I didn't intuitively feel a shadow of a different language hanging over. Maybe I will write more about that tomorrow.
