From: wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL)
Subject: Re: Unbearable Lightness of Being (was Re: Q about _Gravity's_Rainbow_)
Organization: University of Western Australia
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 10:57:20 GMT

wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) writes:

>In article <1992Apr15.124737.5013@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
>wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL) writes:
>>wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) writes:

>>>I must have missed something when I read _Unbearable Lightness..._,
>>
>>I meant that Kundera concerns himself with explicit meanings of
>>words. This is automatically a kind of aloofness, since with any
>>explicit definition, the meaning moves further away. Hence Kundera's
>>"pencil sketch with no outline" motif.

>Nevertheless, while that sort of game might distance one from the
>characters, I found that I didn't feel this distance when I first read
>it.  Thus, whatever else is in the book, I'm still unable to
>characterize the book as "aloof".

Read Chekhov's play, "The Cherry Orchard", or Dostoevsky's "The Idiot", and
compare them with ULoB.

Or many other Russian authors.


>>>then, since I felt none of the aloofness you mention.  In fact, the
>>>reason that I enjoyed the book was primarily my identification with
>>>the characters and the situations.
>>
>>This is odd, since Josef was meant to be an aloof character.

>If you mean that he was intended to be
>shown as aloof, then he succeeded, 

This is what I meant.


>but I don't see a contradiction with my identification.

There is no contradiction between your identification and the aloofness of
the character. However, the way you recognised some of the exolicitly
expressed objects is a function of the way you are at the time. So your
acceptance of the characters as presented, your readiness to believe the
illusion, is indicative of something about you which may put you in one of
the categories Kundera was using to classify character types. Did you find
yourself in the novel?  If so, then well and good - you think like many 
a Westerner .

The novel, for me, was an intellectual husk which could have been filled in
by a writer with a particular sensibility.



>>>My feelings for the structure and reasoning were secondary, and came
>>>later.
>>
>>The structure conveys feeling. It is a peaceful novel.

>It does indeed, in that it draws me in.  The structure did not,
>however, become an object of interest to me until after my first
>reading.  My first enjoyment of the book came from the characters and
>situations.

I propose that your enjoyment and your perception of structure are not as
distinguishable as you believe they are.

One perceives structure before one knows about it.



>>>Perhaps if I read it again, I'll feel more distant from it.
>>
>>You are mocking me. Cunt.

>Of course.  You post to USENET, don't you?

A splattering mouthful of raspberries to you, Sir.



>-David
>--
>============================================================================
>David Wald                                           wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu
>   "Blessed are the peacocks, for they shall be called sonship of God"
>             -- Matt 5:9, from a faulty QuickVerse 2.0
>============================================================================


jw