I've read Tom Jones twice. Loved it! Loved your comment that it's basically a 'experimental novel'. Kind of makes one look at it in a whole new way. Hamlet, of course, I've read a couple times and watched the Olivier movie a couple years ago. Then you pull out The Sea!!! I've read FIVE TIMES and recently was thinking I have to read again. And then you say it's boring. Sigh. (Charlie Brown sigh.) Oh, well. Not a novel as much as an ode or lament. About how stupid and ugly and overwhelming Grief (and Time, and Loneliness)can be. The images in that book have long stuck in my head. Loved that one and Eclipse. That's all. Love your reviews! Always interesting!
It's great to see you again, Matthew! I read Hamlet recently too. It's amazing how so many of the things Hamlet says when he's feigning madness end up sticking in your head afterwards.
I’ve been thinking a lot about _Tom Jones_ since picking up a copy a couple of years ago, but for now I’m hesitant about starting any long works. (Of those, I’m contemplating _The Monkey King_ next.) Great discussion of Ye Olde Marquis. I read him when I was young. _120 Days_ and one of the J- books - but don’t think I would touch him now with a ten foot pole so I’m glad that you’re taking up that office. 😂
Glad you are back, Matthew. I tried to post a long comment yesterday but my power went out. I hope this gets through. I'm glad you noticed the parallels between Candide and Justine. These novels and a couple others were part of a great debate that took place in the 18th century about the essence of Nature (with a capital N.) As science began to take hold, the role of God and religion receded. But initially the viewpoint of the philosophes regarding Nature remained pretty much the same. God created Nature and Nature being God's handiwork, must be good, essentially benign. Voltaire had that outlook. But he could no longer maintain it after the great Lisbon Earthquake in which roughly 50,000 people were killed. From that point on, the best Voltaire could say was: cultivate your garden. If Nature was not good, and rational--what was it ? Rousseau still thought it was good but man and his social institutions were bad. "Man is born free, everywhere he is in chains." Diderot had a more modern view: Nature was indeterminate a product of chance. That idea horrified the ultra rationalist Voltaire but Diderot whose view of life was more whimsical revelled in it. Diderot's great novel Jacques the Fatalist and His Master is a comic masterpiece of indeterminacy. Notwithstanding these ideas the notion that what was Natural was good and what was good was natural persisted. Then, along came De Sade. De Sade's morals were deplorable and his actions got him locked up. In order to justify himself De Sade took the position that Nature is quite simply :evil" . De Sade was convinced that nothing he did was un-natural. So, arguing from the notion that what is natural is good, his actions were actually however deplorable were "good" and in accordance with Nature. Those who condemn him are the bad guys because they are against Nature. Essentially Justine stands Morality on its head. And it is certainly true that this argument that whatever is natural is good can be used to devastating effect. And in Justine, De Sade rubs it in. Justine obstinately wants to be good in a conventional way even when it leads her from one disaster to the next. Juliette, her sister, who leads an immoral life rises to the top. Justine is simply incorrigible and God or Nature finally disposes of her by striking her with a lightning bolt.
I dont personally have much urge to read de sade, but I'm glad someone like you is safekeeping his written work in this depressing climate of book banning and censorship. For similar reasons, I keep certain books in house so my kids will have access if the US goes full handmaid's tale. Based on your last Tom Jones video, I read book one a few weeks back. Dug it, but fell into the Aeneid and then Vollmann's the Ice Shirt. Now I'm in palate cleanser pap noir called Tapping the Source, supposedly inspired the ml movie Point Break. Ok, so far, not great. Hope to get back to Tom Jones by end of year. Also read the first part of the Katz BK. But decided to hold off that reread for a while.
I actually quite enjoy Justine. My takeaway for this book is treat it like a dark fantasy or fairytale. Nothing of the torture porn in this book actually holds in real world. Although the latter part feels a bit drag for me, the gothic vibe of this book is fun to read. The philosophy, I agree with you, is just bad philosophy😂Not just that it’s not realistic. It feels contradictory all the time. His basic argument is that there is no God or moral authority, so people should only pursue instant pleasure which often sacrifices others’. However, if Justine s sister Juliette is the epitome of evil who achieves happiness through any crimes and adulteries saving not kins, she has no reason to save Justine. This similar problem exists also in the book philosophy in boudoir. I’m not going to read 120 days because I don’t think my faint heart can handle it but I don’t feel any regret not to do so because I kind of get his “philosophy“ already😅some authors are underrated for a reason. They are just not good at all😅
"One of the most abominable books you could read" you've got me right there lol now I gotta read it lol
I've read Tom Jones twice. Loved it! Loved your comment that it's basically a 'experimental novel'. Kind of makes one look at it in a whole new way. Hamlet, of course, I've read a couple times and watched the Olivier movie a couple years ago. Then you pull out The Sea!!! I've read FIVE TIMES and recently was thinking I have to read again. And then you say it's boring. Sigh. (Charlie Brown sigh.) Oh, well. Not a novel as much as an ode or lament. About how stupid and ugly and overwhelming Grief (and Time, and Loneliness)can be. The images in that book have long stuck in my head. Loved that one and Eclipse.
That's all. Love your reviews! Always interesting!
great to hear from you again!
Dude, "The Piano Teacher". Jelinek. "Just do it!".
It's great to see you again, Matthew! I read Hamlet recently too. It's amazing how so many of the things Hamlet says when he's feigning madness end up sticking in your head afterwards.
Always enjoy hearing what you’ve been reading 👍
I’ve been thinking a lot about _Tom Jones_ since picking up a copy a couple of years ago, but for now I’m hesitant about starting any long works. (Of those, I’m contemplating _The Monkey King_ next.)
Great discussion of Ye Olde Marquis. I read him when I was young. _120 Days_ and one of the J- books - but don’t think I would touch him now with a ten foot pole so I’m glad that you’re taking up that office. 😂
Glad you are back, Matthew. I tried to post a long comment yesterday but my power went out. I hope this gets through.
I'm glad you noticed the parallels between Candide and Justine. These novels and a couple others were part of a great debate that took place in the 18th century about the essence of Nature (with a capital N.) As science began to take hold, the role of God and religion receded. But initially the viewpoint of the philosophes regarding Nature remained pretty much the same. God created Nature and Nature being God's handiwork, must be good, essentially benign. Voltaire had that outlook. But he could no longer maintain it after the
great Lisbon Earthquake in which roughly 50,000 people were killed. From that point on, the best Voltaire could say was: cultivate your garden. If Nature was not good, and rational--what was it ? Rousseau still thought it was good but man and his social institutions were bad. "Man is born free, everywhere he is in chains." Diderot had a more modern view: Nature was indeterminate a product of chance. That idea horrified the ultra rationalist Voltaire but
Diderot whose view of life was more whimsical revelled in it. Diderot's great novel Jacques the Fatalist and His Master is a comic masterpiece of indeterminacy.
Notwithstanding these ideas the notion that what was Natural was good and what was good was natural persisted. Then, along came De Sade. De Sade's morals were deplorable
and his actions got him locked up. In order to justify himself De Sade took the position that Nature is quite simply :evil" . De Sade was convinced that nothing he did was un-natural. So, arguing from the notion that what is natural is good, his actions were actually however deplorable were "good" and in accordance with Nature. Those who condemn him are the bad guys because they are against Nature. Essentially Justine stands Morality on its head.
And it is certainly true that this argument that whatever is natural is good can be used to devastating effect. And in Justine, De Sade rubs it in. Justine obstinately wants to be good in a conventional way even when it leads her from one disaster to the next. Juliette, her sister, who leads an immoral life rises to the top. Justine is simply incorrigible and God or Nature finally disposes of her by striking her with a lightning bolt.
I dont personally have much urge to read de sade, but I'm glad someone like you is safekeeping his written work in this depressing climate of book banning and censorship. For similar reasons, I keep certain books in house so my kids will have access if the US goes full handmaid's tale. Based on your last Tom Jones video, I read book one a few weeks back. Dug it, but fell into the Aeneid and then Vollmann's the Ice Shirt. Now I'm in palate cleanser pap noir called Tapping the Source, supposedly inspired the ml movie Point Break. Ok, so far, not great. Hope to get back to Tom Jones by end of year. Also read the first part of the Katz BK. But decided to hold off that reread for a while.
Great to see you back Matthew I've missed your video's
I actually quite enjoy Justine. My takeaway for this book is treat it like a dark fantasy or fairytale. Nothing of the torture porn in this book actually holds in real world. Although the latter part feels a bit drag for me, the gothic vibe of this book is fun to read. The philosophy, I agree with you, is just bad philosophy😂Not just that it’s not realistic. It feels contradictory all the time. His basic argument is that there is no God or moral authority, so people should only pursue instant pleasure which often sacrifices others’. However, if Justine s sister Juliette is the epitome of evil who achieves happiness through any crimes and adulteries saving not kins, she has no reason to save Justine. This similar problem exists also in the book philosophy in boudoir. I’m not going to read 120 days because I don’t think my faint heart can handle it but I don’t feel any regret not to do so because I kind of get his “philosophy“ already😅some authors are underrated for a reason. They are just not good at all😅
"Justine" That's a deffrent book, ain't normal, It's just VERY EXTREME.