A nonsensical account of an equally nonsensical piece of prose (fire wood), “Girl with a Pearl Earring”, by Tracy Chevalier

Girl with a Pearl earring is one of the titles that has been attributed to Dutch 17^th century painter Jan Vermeer’s painting of a young girl, wearing a turban and, of course, a pearl earring. The painting has been called “The Mona Lisa of the North”, and is remarkable for its enigmatic history and nature. The book with the same title is Tracy Chevalier’s completely fictional account of what could have been the story behind the making of this widely recognized portrait.

Griet is a sixteen year old girl who in the beginning of the book receives the news that she will be working as a maid in the household of the Vermeer’s. Griet’s family is poor; her father has recently lost his eye sight after an working accident, and they desperately need any money that they can get hold of.

Griet is set to do the most normal and mundane of daily tasks, like washing clothes, grocery shopping and so on, but also, she is supposed to clean in the artist Vermeer’s working room. Throughout the book, it is described how the relationship between the maid and the artist grows more intimate and complex, and a secret but very silent bond is created between the two. She is awarded with more responsibility, and learns to help the painter with the preparation of colours and pigments, while in the meantime, he teaches her to view objects and paintings with the eyes of an artist. Not to be forgotten, is the role played by the painters jealous wife, who from the very beginning despises Griet’s presence in the house.

Besides the main intrigue – the relationship between the two central figures, and how he one day is forced to paint her – the family of Griet’s is important, as well as the relationship she develops with the butcher’s son.

“Girl with a Pearl Earring” is described by The Wall Street Journal as a work of triumph, and a lovely story. Time refers to it as a jewel of a novel. All in all, it has been praised as a wonderful love story.

Bollocks.

This book is a pathetic attempt at a love story and portrait. Though the roughly 250 pages of this book is written in a first persona narrative, the insight and understanding of the psyche of the main character that we receive as readers isn’t exactly in-depth. The devastating monotony of first person Griet’s “I and I and me” might just have disturbed my mental health so much as to actually have brought upon me the cough that currently bothers me. Griet is a stupid chick, rendered dreadfully obvious as what can seemingly fit into the lenghty and dull monologues of hers, is narrowed down to laundry, how she can’t understand her masters art, and how she still somehow fancies him for it. Griet is a nonsensical character, and I wish to cleanse her off my mind forever as soon as I’ve finished tearing this book apart; she is the one literary character, described in first person, who is actually more of a tabula rasa (clean slate) AFTER I’ve read the book, than before.

What regards the element of love in this story, I don’t know where to begin. Supposedly, there is something like a secretive, loving tenderness, intangible, between Griet and Vermeer, though I was late to in fact acknowledge it at all. And as Griet describes it to us, it seems that Vermeer himself didn’t recognize it; “Now when the painting had been finished, he didn’t need me any longer”, after which she cries. Supposedly, Vermeer had touched Griet once – something that would prove, seeing the fragility of a master/servant relationship – that there was something more than mere professionalism between the two. Heartbreaking. Try Romeo and Juliet.

I can’t go on about this book any longer. If you have nothing else to read, or you simply just want something that reads quickly (Chevalier is about as stylistically sophisticated as sheep), read Girl with a Pearl Earring.

The youth in “Sweet Bird of Youth”, by Tennessee Williams

‘Sweet Bird of Youth’ is play that was written in 1959; at the time of its release on theatres, it was partly acclaimed, partly rejected by contemporary critics, some who claimed that the drama was another masterpiece from the hand of Williams, other who asserted that the aforementioned were losing his touch.

 

Independently of whatever critics have had to say about this drama in comparison with other works of Williams’, and its status as a literary text, it is hard to deny that this is a highly engaging read. The play is divided in to three acts, sets mainly in two different environments in the town of St Cloud’s, and takes place in modern time. It begins with the main character, Chance Wayne, waking up next to the Princess Kosmonopolis, also known as Miss Alexandra Del Lagos, a former movie star. Chance is a twenty-nine year old, handsome man, who in his early youth showed off a remarkable talent for acting, but who in the end never quite made it to the big screens, and now moves around living like a washed-up no-body, earning his wage as a gigolo for older women. He has returned to St Cloud to meet his teenage girlfriend, Heavenly Finley, the daughter of a prominent politician.

Miss Del Lago is at the very end of her career as a star in the film industry, and is when she meets with Chance running away from a Hollywood that she’s losing touch with, and under a false name.

 

The main intrigue of the play is revealed early on, as the first scene does a good job to unravel the complex nature of Williams’ story. Chance has picked up the close-to lunatic Miss Del Lago in order to blackmail her into signing him under a film label; he also wants Miss Del Lago to stage a talent competition, in which Heavenly Finley will participate, and eventually win, earning herself a deal with mentioned film label. Chance will then have his career, and also, the upper class girlfriend he could never have had earlier.

 

In ‘Sweet Bird of Youth’, all main characters are in some way looking back at their respective youths, and with sadness and gloom, they regret all the chances they once missed, or alternatively, miss the times they can never have back. In desperation, Chance Wayne, a man who when he lost the glory of his youth, attempts to retrieve and win back the girl who he still loves, who to him symbolizes prosperity and hope. It is revealed early on, however, that Chance’s attempts will be in vain, as Heavenly, too, having been infected with a malicious venereal disease (many years ago, by Chance himself – remember the gigolo part), has had to go through an operation to cure herself, and has since lost touch with that inside of her which was once pure and noble, a kind of innocent youthfulness. Miss Del Lago is only with Chance, because his relative youth, compared to her age, works to satisfy her ego, and boost a belief in herself that is, in essence, a false one. Heavenly’s father, a corrupt and racist southern state politician, nevertheless a successful one, does his best to dissociate her daughter with the peasant scum he thinks that Chance is, and has his daughter marry a doctor for the money and status that it will bring. The father, too, however, tries to maintain a sincere and down to earth personality as a man to lead a people, but has since his wife’s death only been moving in a downward spiral, and does little to adhere to moral and legal standards, given that it will give him another vote.

 

In the same vein follows the spirit of the subset of characters in this play, which is one of many inherently complicated intrigues. Despite the depth these, which to some extent makes this play seem slightly disorganised, Williams manages to pull all the strings together, and present an ending that makes sense and which seems to follow logically. The author, one of America’s reputedly greatest playwrights, seems a master of dramas, for the text never becomes boring or tiring to read, but on the contrary, never fails to engage and provoke sincere interest from the reader. The plot feels at times to be a bit too weird, in plain terms, to actually be taken seriously, but seeing as the theme of youth is so vehemently focused on, a clear sense of revelation and satisfaction is brought upon us by the end of the text, as we then receive a vivid explanation of the thoughts that inspired this work of writing:

 

“CHANCE [rising and advancing to the forestage]: I don’t ask for your pity, but just for your understanding – not even that – no. Just for your recognition of me in you, and the enemy, time, in us all.”

 

The play hereafter ends, but what remains is the feeling of what Chance just pointed out. None of the characters in the play, once the intrigues have been solved and ridden, managed to secure and win back that which they all had been looking for, namely parts of their youth. Despite their ardent attempts, they all failed; Chance not being able to go back to the days when his career could still have blossomed, and Miss Del Lago to a time when she was the brightest shining star, the most beautiful actress in Hollywood, and so on… All that remained, was a sense of doom, and the impending loneliness that these people had brought to themselves.

 

In Williams’ story, there are in fact no winners, besides those who never dreamt of ever winning anything. Characters of lesser significance, those described by Chance as normal people, who settled down with regular jobs, who satisfied with what they had. All characters that in some way seems to have expressed hope in accomplishing anything of importance, go home feeling sorry, or always wanting more. The plays is, perhaps, in extension a meditation on the matter of death, and how life is a lane leading us right to it. The nature of our destiny’s aside, what we are all progressing towards is nothingness, for which reason, no-one can ever win – for which reason, in yet another extension, life seems utterly pointless. If time’s the enemy, then we must beat it to the end, and choose battle before it is too late to do anything.

Poorly written notes on ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’, by Truman Capote

Breakfast at Tiffany’s is one of Truman Capote’s most famous works of literature; according to established literary critics, second only to his non-fictional novel In Cold Blood.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s tells the story of Holly Golightly. It is told through the narrator, who is a nameless character, and supposedly Truman Capote himself.

The narrator lives in an apartment block in New York, and right under him, lives Holly. Holly’s name greatly chracterises her personality; her life is a holiday, and she walks through it with light steps, not caring too much about what her next day will be like. She is the kind of beautiful young woman, that men find it difficult to resist; our narrator, too, falls in love with her, during the short period of time that she gets to know her.

The story starts out in something like the late 1950’s, fifteen years after the narrator last saw Holly. In Joe Bell’s bar, the narrator is reminded of Holly who he hasn’t seen for so long, and from thereon, a dreamlike account for his story commences; how they first met by random chance, Holly having climbed up from her room up to his, via a fire ladder, and how they get to know each other better. The narrator, a young and aspiring writer, is bewildered and enchanted by Holly’s extravagant life style, the dubious way through which she makes a living, and the many men who plays a role in her life.
Though Holly makes a joke out of life, being as she says herself, a kind of wild and free animal, her person is nevertheless coloured by sadness and gloom; she reveals little about herself, but it is obvious that she is running away from her past. This becomes clear and evident late on in the book, when Holly’s older husband suddenly appears, having travelled to New York from the south to find her.

Breakfast at Tiffany’s is written in a style and manner that is exceptional. Norman Mailer is known to have said, that he wouldn’t have changed a single word in the entire text, and with this, I am willing to agree. Truman Capote meant that if a story is told in a way that the reader would not be able to conjure up any better way of telling it, or if he couldn’t imagine how the story could possibly look differently, it would be a success. Breakfast at Tiffany’s is very much a story just like that; it is accessible for all readers, it is captivating and most of all, it is brilliantly tied together. The story says everything it wants to say, and nothing else; there are no red herrings, nothing excessive, no psychological meditations that doesn’t contribute to the story. It tells the tale of a next door young girl in New York, living just after the second World War: Holly, a relentless force that never ceases to surprise, to spellbind and charm, but who is perhaps, to herself, a no-one, an angsty young girl without a spiritual home and direction, and who is ready to live today, and die tomorrow.

Contrary to what it may seem, given that you’ve read and understood the above, Breakfast at Tiffany’s fails to be an interesting story. It was to me all what I have mentioned above, for sure; but given that one isn’t reading this story for mere literary inspiration, for having a manual in how to write a perfect story – brilliant structure, adequate and stylish character descriptions, overall elegant narration and so on – the story avoids to enchant on more levels. It is made what it is because of Capote being an excellent writer – that is to say, a beautiful piece of text; perhaps, the way I see it, what would happen if you’d take Dylan’s ‘Like a rolling stone’, and make a lenghty extension out of it.

Overall comment on ‘Death in Midsummer’ by Yukio Mishima

Pages: 180
Nationality: Japanese
Language: English
Published in: 1966
Yukio Mishima is one Japan’s foremost novelists and playwrights. He was active for apprx 20-25 years, between the 1940’s and 1960′. Already as a young boy, he displayed a prodigious talent for writing, and was first published when he was twenty-three years old. Mishima committed suicide in 1970, by performing a hara-kiri/seppukku on himself (auto-disembowelment with the use of a sword).

‘Death in Midsummer’ is a collection of nine short stories and one play. The back fo the book reads, that these ten short texts “represent Mishima’s extraordinary ability to depict, with deftness and penetration, a variety in human beings in moments of significance’, which in brilliantly sums up the essence of this book, as I have understood it. The text on the back cover picks up however, and adds that “Mishima’s characters are often young, sophisticated Japanese who turn out to be not so liberated from their past as they had thought”.

It is, I assume, primarily my through and through European heritage, and also, my, to some extent, ignorance of Asian history and culture, that I find it difficult to read this book on more than a very shallow level.
It appears to me, that too much of Mishima’s intentions and meaning has been lost in the english translation. Language must necessarily entail culture and ways of being and thinking, and so henceforth, some of the meaning in a literary work is presumably always lost in translation. When a reader is not only not Japanese, but not East-Asian or even Asian, the normal losses in translation appear to be amplified by powers of ten.

Mishima depicts a variety of human beings that are going through, or have gone through, something that in various ways will alter their lives; always, the events told are inherently linked to current societal standings. Mishima is brilliant at describing nuances in the human psyche, and with merely a few strokes of the pen is he able to bring imaginary people to brimming life. In an indescribable way, his stories reach a climax very early on, but contrary to normal conduct, it is reluctant to fade away; every sentence in Mishima’s stories seem a vital point for the entire text, and given that one doesn’t read carefully, it will be even more tricky to decipher the point of it, than it is if one does.

Mishima is in my opionion as much of an aesthete as he is an ingeneer; his style is captivating, beautiful – sometimes enchanting – but he constantly leaves the reader wondering, asking, hesitating. In the story “The Great Priest of Shiga and his Love”, Mishima tells the story of a most accomplished buddhist priest, who at the end of his life is waiting for the eternal rest, entrance to the Pure Land, beyond death. One day, as he sees the Great Imperial Concubine passing by, a woman who’s beauty has no likes in the world, the Great Priest is unable to retain his indifference towards that which is merely physical. However much he concentrates on the rational, the pure, the non-wordly, he cannot forget the face of the Great Imperial Concubine. The Priest perishes, because he now knows that he cannot be allowed entrance to pure land; his sin has been too great already, to not to have rid his mind of his love for the Concubine. The priest goes to visit the Concubine, an evident sign on that he has given up his faith, on that he cannot reconcile with the physical worlds effects on his body, and his will to reach Nirvana. The Concubine lets the Priest touch her hand, which he strokes over his face; he then turns around and leaves, and then dies, in full peace.

Initially, I thought that Mishima had directed a criticism against Buddhism with this text, for being indifferent to all the beauty of which life offers, and that to live life with one’s back turned against it, is foolish and ridiculous. Supplied with the ending however, I was caught surprised, and I don’t know quite what to make out it. Mishima had seemingly argued human forgetfulness, the invevitability of physical attraction, and the meaninglessness in simply awaiting salvation in quietism, when he with the last ten or more sentences turns the dagger around.

Seeing as this book is not quite my forte in literature, I will refrain from commenting much more on it, and so avoiding to make any clumsy misinterpretations of the actual stories in the book. I much enjoyed reading Mishima’s text, but not being very well read up on him and his life, or Japanese culture, I am hesitant to making detailed assertions about his work. What is for sure is that the texts are interesting; they portray the most fundamental of human emotions, but are also full of insightful symbols and, more, cultural references that are beyond my grasp. Reading ‘Death in Midsummer’, one will most surely be moved by the stories: and envious of Mishima’s delicate writing. One will towards the end most surely be thinking of the texts, asking questions about the texts, and be going back to them for re-reads.

Nietzschean themes in ‘Hemsöborna’ by August Strindberg (Free translation of title, The villagers of Hemsö)

Language and nationality: Swedish

Pages: 140

‘Hemsöborna’ is one of August Strindberg’s most famous works of prose; Strindberg himself being, perhaps, the finest of all Swedish authors.

‘Hemsöborna’ starts out with the story protagonist, Carlsson, arriving to the small archipelago community Hemsö, outside Stockholm. The book sets in what is perceived to be the the end of the 19th century, a time when Sweden is still, largely speaking, a strong monarchy with few signs of a wide spread and prospering parliament; that is to say, that Sweden is ruled by the privileged upper class. (As opposed to from the 1930’s and onwards, from when Swedish democracy has been coloured by a strong Social Democratic tendency.)
Carlsson is to be working as a farmhand on a farm estate; the farm has previously been in the hands of ‘old (Mr.) Floden’, but since his passing away, the state of the farm has been declining steadily, and an outsider leader, experienced with the business, has to be called in to bring the farm back to its previous order.
Head of the farm is, at the time of Carlsson’s arrival, Madam Flod – ‘old Floden’s’ widower – together with her young son, Gusten. Madam Flod immediatly takes a liking to Carlsson, though Gusten, the son, remains suspicious and questioning about the newcomer. He fears that Carlsson, who is of a lower class than Madam Flod and Gusten, will aspire to take over the farm – or rather, steal it away from them. Gusten is quite right in suspecting this, as becomes evident later on in the book.
Carlsson, a skilled handyman, raises the farm from its disorderly state, to becoming a small luxury summer resort for wealthy city-dwellers, to be gaining benefits from trade, and he manages to sustain good harvests throughout the years of his stay.
On an overall, Carlsson becomes an influential figure in the small community, and even gets voted to hold political office as the communal spokesman. In addition, he marries the old widower, Madam Flod, and in effect, tried to lay his hands on the ownership of the farm estate. The book does, however, come to a tragic defilation, when both Madam Flod and Carlsson dies; Madam Flod from symptoms of age, and Carlsson from being swallowed by the lake, after falling through the winter ice.

What takes place in ‘Hemsöborna’ is, essentially, what I would call – with some arrogance, I am willing to admit – a Nietzschean drama. Nietzsche mentiones in one of his minor essays that he has pen correspondants all over Europe; correspondants of genius character; in this context, he mentions Stockholm. I am inclined to believe that this correspondant of Stockholm was Strindberg, seeing as the two were contemporary, and that Strindberg’s many works contains the same ideas that Nietzsche consistently expresses throughout his vast collection of works – this is to be seen, particularly, in Strindberg’s play Miss Julie.
Evident in ‘Hemsoborna’ is a power struggle; here, the subordinate working class, in the form of Carlsson, meet the upper class in the form of Madam Flod and her son, Gusten. Carlsson has learned many skills and knows how to run a farm, this in contrast to the farm’s real owners. Carlsson, almost on his own, makes the farm a good and prosperous one. On the other hand, Madam Flod and Gusten enjoys the privilege of being of a noble, or somewhat noble, trait. The books many smaller intrigues explores precisely this topic; how one who is willing to have power, may achieve it, but who those who truly have power, in the end always will be protecting it. Carlsson, desperatly wanting to achieve something, wanting to be cherished and praised, does his best to attain power and status, whereas Madam Flod and Gusten lazily sits back, and watches him bring money to the farm.
The way the book ends, with Carlsson facing death in the most horrible and painful of ways – by drowning in a frozen winter lake – and Gusten living (it suits to be mentioned here, that Gusten abandons Carlsson on the ice that is about the crack), in order to keep leading the farm as its rightful owner, clearly shows what Strindberg thinks of society’s current standings. In Sweden at the time when Strindberg wrote this work of literature, a good name meant more than personal excellence, ambition and success.

The same conflict, revolving around the power theme, occurs between men and women – this in particular between Carlsson and Madam Flod, but also between Carlsson and one the summer guests, a noble girl called Ida, whom Carlsson falls desperatly in love with. Strinberg does here again explore the same ideas that Nietzsche has been perceived to have done. Nietzsche writes in ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’, through the character of an old lady who speaks to Zarathustra, that ‘when you go to women, don’t forget the whip’. However sadomasochistic this may sound, and however much undeserved critique Nietzsche has received as for being misogynistic (as have Strindberg), this applies to something different than merely taking on a violent side when dealing with women. In life, men and women fight on equal terms, and nothing is to be said against that the two genders carry out an eternal fight in between them – for power. “A woman who wants to be equal to men lacks ambition”, someone is known to have said.
Carlsson marries Madam Flod in order to attain a higher level of class, and more status as a true owner of an estate, rather than being a mere farmhand. Madam Flod marries Carlsson for the reason that, as it seems, her flesh is aching for lust; in addition, she marries a strong man, a leader even, that is sure to make her farm prosperous for many years to come.
What seems to be Strindberg’s point in this drama, however, is that the women always appear to have the last word in an intrigue. Before her death, Madam Flod makes sure that her son, Gusten, burns the legal contract that makes Carlsson the rightful owner of the farm after marriage has been ended. Instead, Gusten will inherit the farm estate, and Carlsson will be left with nothing.
The small affair that Carlsson has with the noble Ida, before his marriage with Madam Flod, also ends in a way that is to Carlsson’s dismay. Over the summer, Carlsson and Ida has had an affair, but when Ida goes back to Stockolm over the winter, she scolds Carlsson in front of her friends, makes fun of him and his manners, and calls him a poor peasant. Here it is obvious that both class and gender issues are involved. Carlsson is of course no-one to defend himself – he is merely a farmhand, and more, he is not a man of the city and its ways.

There are numerous intrigues and problems in ‘Hemsoborna’ that is worth discussing, though at the moment, I will satisfy with having elaborated, if only just a bit, on the matters of gender and class in particular. What is most essential to mention is what an astonishingly excellent work of literature ‘Hemsoborna’ is. It is one those books that one can read five or ten times, and for each time find new problems, new intrigues and new ideas to discuss. It is not really one of those books that cathes your attention and makes you want to read and read until the book is finished, no – that would be another bullshit crime/mystery novel a la the Da Vince Code. This is a true masterwork of literature that explores our very central themes in life, and it teaches us of how to look at them, and perhaps, how to deal with them.

One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich, by Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Pages: 158
Language: English
Nationality: Russian
First published in: Novy Mir, Russian News paper, 1962

With the book “One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich”, Alexander Solzhenitsyn for the first time enters the literary stage. The text was first published in the news paper Novy Mir. The weekly issue sold all 90,000 or so copies in one single day.

Solshenitsyn was after the second world war sent to one of the Russian gulags, where he spent eight years of his life. After Stalin’s death in 1953, he was released, though it was only after Nikita Kruschchev’s ’secret speech’ in 1956, in which Stalin’s regime and leadership was officially denounced, that he could return to his home, having been living as an exile up until then.
A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich is a story that portrays one day in the life of a gulag inmate. Readers get to follow Denisovich, who’s consistently referred to as Shukhov throughout the book, from the moment when reveille sounds, until when he in the evening goes to bed, exhausted after yet another day’s work in the camp.
Khruschchev, in 1962 eagerly wanting to dissociate with the hardships and suffering caused by Stalin’s 30 years long rulership, is believed to have given a green light to the book censoring authorities for the reason that Solshenitsyn aims, however indirectly, a scathing criticism against Stalin, with this book.

What I find to be the most striking feature in this book, is how Solzhenitsyn make the book characters seem authentic and alive. A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich is not autobiographical, but strictly a fictional novel. It seems obvious, however, that Solzhenitsyn’s own experiences from the gulags plays a great influence. Shukhov, foremostly, but also all of the other characters in the book, express through their personas distinct and tangible emotions. As a reader, one cannot help but feeling as a very small part of the book itself, the way one is being drawn in to the psyche of the narrator.

“Shukhov went to sleep fully content. He’d had many strokes of luck that day: they hadn’t put him in the cells; they hadn’t sent his squad to the settlements; he’d swiped a bowl of kasha at dinner; the squad leader had fixed the rates well; he’d built a wall and had enjoyed doing it |…| And he hadn’t fallen ill. He had got over it.” These are lines from the very last paragraph of the book, that more or less sum up Shukhov’s day. Shukhov merely lives to get by the day, and he seldom looks forward. The work he does in the gulag controls his every action, and more, almost his every thought.
Shukhov’s character is one that grabs hold of a readers mind for long time; I, having just read the book, have once again been reminded of the most level of human characteristics. Through Shukhov, one feels weakness, despair, fatigue, physical exhaustion, but amidst all his suffering, Shukhov still sees hope. Hope that one day, he will get released; hope that maybe tomorrow, it might not be so cold; hope that maybe, at lunch, he’ll be offered the last drags of a cigarette. Shukhov demonstrates that man need not live for anything else than his own life, that life itself is more important than the meaning of it (ref. Notes from the Underground, F Dostoevsky), this in beautiful contrast to the nihilistic, emotional wasteland we witness on a daily basis in our lives, where our every need is fabricated.

A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich is indirectly sending off a big ‘fuck you’ to the past regime, to the dead Stalin, but is more directly featuring the most fundamental sentiments of a human being, and in a setting where everyone has been depraved of every last chance to freedom.
The book has been called a ‘masterwork of Russian literature’ and Solzhenitsyn himself has oftentimes been compared to the likes of Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Gorkiy and others. However this is a correct judgment or not, I am not up for debating. Essentially, the book is an interesting read, for all that it portrays and depicts – life in a gulag, human relations between humans stripped of freedom; of human emotions and human devotion. As for recommendations, I would give one for this.