So I'm writing my reading progress for April one day early, because I don't think I will be finishing another novel tomorrow, with the travelling to China and the panicking about the travelling to China and all (more about travelling to China in a post to come!). So this is my score as of week 18:
11 The Spy Who Came in From the Cold - John le Carre
12 Slaughterhouse 5 - Kurt Vonnegut
13 De Ontdekking van de Hemel (The Discovery of Heaven) - Harry Mulisch
14 The Beautifull Cassandra - Jane Austen
Which means I'm still 4 books behind, but I haven't gotten more behind, which is good. Also, I fiiiiinally finished reading The Discovery of Heaven, which took me about 2 months. This is one of the real 'classics' of Dutch literature, and most people become very pretentious when talking about it, especially when they managed to get through it at an early age (it's on a lot of secondary school reading lists). I can't say I really cared for it; I liked the first part and the last part, but the middle two parts could have done with a LOT of editing. Hardly any character development, but lots of pointless side characters not really doing anything or going anywhere. Also, Mr Mulisch is very fond of killing off characters quite abruptly and for no apparent reason, which I couldn't really appreciate. The whole plot ties up nicely at the end, but I just wish we could have gotten there a bit faster.
But with that huge tome out of the way, I think I will be reading more and faster from now on. I'm halfway through Brideshead Revisited, but I also have some newer novels lined up, which I generally read faster. Also, there is the plane flight to and from China to give a lot of reading time (more about China later). So I have enough excuses to see myself getting to at least 20 novels in the next month. We'll see how that went at the end of May.
Wednesday 29 April 2015
12345 pageviews
Would you believe I managed to log in to Blogger at exactly the right moment?
Seems like the right time for the shortes blogpost so far. Yay, thanks for reading to you all!
 |
| Wednesday 29th of April, 11:30. |
Sunday 19 April 2015
War remembrance
It's almost May, which means that in the Netherlands, the yearly debate surrounding the remembrance of WWII is heating up again. We have our Remembrance Day on the 4th of May, with the national ceremony at 20:00. The 5th of May is Liberation Day, with lots of music and festivals around the country. There has been some debate as to whether the proportion of remembrance and celebration is quite right: many people are keen to celebrate their freedom, but not to remember those who died for it.
Having witnessed Remembrance Day on the 11th of November at the National War Monument in Canberra, I can tell you that our 'remembrance' pales in the light of the Anglo-Saxon way. This is partly a cultural thing: we Dutch don't like to dramatise things and we don't really have a strong military presence, and probably partly due to the fact that we weren't the liberators who sent thousands of young men halfway across the world to die on foreign soil, we were the ones who had to be liberated, after failing to keep out the enemy. Also, for the Allied forces, it's easy to determine who was 'good' and who was 'bad' in the war: we are still trying to come to terms with some of the things that Dutch people did to other Dutch people 70 years ago.
In a way, the whole debate surrounding the remembrance makes the event itself seem less important, at least to the younger generation who hasn't witnessed the war itself, or seen the effects on our parents. Which is why I turn to books, as with so many things in life. From an early age on, I've always been interested in WWII, and at some point I'd literally read all the WWII children's books our library stocked. It wasn't really a subject my grandparents talked a lot about, but for some reason I found it fascinating, so I went and got my information from elsewhere. As I got older and discovered 'real' literature this interest waned somewhat, but as I've been digging into 'the classics', I've come across several war books which have made a pretty big impression on me.
Firstly, there is All Quiet on the Western Front, a German account of WWI. 'We' were neutral in that one, so what is known as the Great War in other parts of the world isn't really a thing here, but this novel did bring the message home. I cannot imagine how anyone could ever start another war after reading that novel, which was probably why it was banned in Nazi Germany. I'd read some of the English war poets for my literature classes and was pretty familiar with that side of the story, but you keep forgetting that it was just as bad for those on the other side.
Then I read The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, which isn't about a 'live' war, but plays out in post-WWII Berlin. The Cold War is something that ended during my lifetime, so I have some memories of it (the fall of the Berlin Wall, most prominently, although I was very piqued when the country which I'd finally memorised as Czechoslovakia suddenly didn't exist anymore, and was now two separate countries). 'Cold' as it may have been, that war also changed many lives, and the setting of this novel made quite an impression.
Then I read Slaughterhouse 5, which you can't actually say anything proper about, except that again I cannot imagine anyone reading that novel and still being in favour of warfare. It is harrowing, and it will stay with me for some time to come. But I loved the jumbled-up style, and I wish I'd read this book before my 'trauma theory' essay for literature, as this would have been a great primary text to work with.
Concurrent with all the above, I've been reading De Ontdekking van de Hemel, which is translated as The Discovery of Heaven in English. This doesn't deal so much with WWII directly, but the after effects on Dutch society run throughout the novel.
And finally, my newest read is Brideshead Revisited. This was written during WWII by someone actively involved in WWII, and although most of the story takes place earlier, the whole atmosphere is that of a time gone by, destroyed by the War (amongst other things). In that sense, the novel has more in common with The Discovery of Heaven than any of the other novels written during a war.
In a way, I find these novels even more disconcerting. We can all imagine the horrors of war, but the effects that a war leaves on a society, the things that are lost and cannot be restored because something essential has been taken out, be it trust or innocence or a whole generation of young men, those effects are much harder to formulate and come to terms with. I cannot imagine how my country and my society would have been without WWII, because it took place and changed the world irreversibly. But through reading novels like these, we can get a glimpse of the profound impact a war can have on society. Maybe it isn't about whether we would have been 'good' or 'bad' during the war itself, but about how we go on when the war has ended, and peace will never be the same again.
Having witnessed Remembrance Day on the 11th of November at the National War Monument in Canberra, I can tell you that our 'remembrance' pales in the light of the Anglo-Saxon way. This is partly a cultural thing: we Dutch don't like to dramatise things and we don't really have a strong military presence, and probably partly due to the fact that we weren't the liberators who sent thousands of young men halfway across the world to die on foreign soil, we were the ones who had to be liberated, after failing to keep out the enemy. Also, for the Allied forces, it's easy to determine who was 'good' and who was 'bad' in the war: we are still trying to come to terms with some of the things that Dutch people did to other Dutch people 70 years ago.
In a way, the whole debate surrounding the remembrance makes the event itself seem less important, at least to the younger generation who hasn't witnessed the war itself, or seen the effects on our parents. Which is why I turn to books, as with so many things in life. From an early age on, I've always been interested in WWII, and at some point I'd literally read all the WWII children's books our library stocked. It wasn't really a subject my grandparents talked a lot about, but for some reason I found it fascinating, so I went and got my information from elsewhere. As I got older and discovered 'real' literature this interest waned somewhat, but as I've been digging into 'the classics', I've come across several war books which have made a pretty big impression on me.
Firstly, there is All Quiet on the Western Front, a German account of WWI. 'We' were neutral in that one, so what is known as the Great War in other parts of the world isn't really a thing here, but this novel did bring the message home. I cannot imagine how anyone could ever start another war after reading that novel, which was probably why it was banned in Nazi Germany. I'd read some of the English war poets for my literature classes and was pretty familiar with that side of the story, but you keep forgetting that it was just as bad for those on the other side.
Then I read The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, which isn't about a 'live' war, but plays out in post-WWII Berlin. The Cold War is something that ended during my lifetime, so I have some memories of it (the fall of the Berlin Wall, most prominently, although I was very piqued when the country which I'd finally memorised as Czechoslovakia suddenly didn't exist anymore, and was now two separate countries). 'Cold' as it may have been, that war also changed many lives, and the setting of this novel made quite an impression.
Then I read Slaughterhouse 5, which you can't actually say anything proper about, except that again I cannot imagine anyone reading that novel and still being in favour of warfare. It is harrowing, and it will stay with me for some time to come. But I loved the jumbled-up style, and I wish I'd read this book before my 'trauma theory' essay for literature, as this would have been a great primary text to work with.
Concurrent with all the above, I've been reading De Ontdekking van de Hemel, which is translated as The Discovery of Heaven in English. This doesn't deal so much with WWII directly, but the after effects on Dutch society run throughout the novel.
And finally, my newest read is Brideshead Revisited. This was written during WWII by someone actively involved in WWII, and although most of the story takes place earlier, the whole atmosphere is that of a time gone by, destroyed by the War (amongst other things). In that sense, the novel has more in common with The Discovery of Heaven than any of the other novels written during a war.
In a way, I find these novels even more disconcerting. We can all imagine the horrors of war, but the effects that a war leaves on a society, the things that are lost and cannot be restored because something essential has been taken out, be it trust or innocence or a whole generation of young men, those effects are much harder to formulate and come to terms with. I cannot imagine how my country and my society would have been without WWII, because it took place and changed the world irreversibly. But through reading novels like these, we can get a glimpse of the profound impact a war can have on society. Maybe it isn't about whether we would have been 'good' or 'bad' during the war itself, but about how we go on when the war has ended, and peace will never be the same again.
Monday 6 April 2015
Queen Lear
To keep up on my Shakespeare, which is something they command you to do before you are given your MA in English Literature, I've visited no less than two Shakespeare plays so far this year (and I foresee a third in the summer, when the open-air Shakespeare Theatre in Diever will stage Romeo & Juliet). But in winter we decided to stay indoors, and watched the plays at the Stadsschouwburg in Groningen.
The first was Hamlet, my fifth or sixth Hamlet in all, played by The Tiger Lillies. I had never heard of them before, but Wikipedia tells us they are "a cult British musical trio", which is not who you expect to put on a Shakespeare play. To this end, they teamed up with 4 actors, who played the main characters during the real 'acting' parts of the play, while they connected the acted bits through song and dance and a bit of cabaret. There wasn't much in the way of props or setting, just one big panel with some windows and doors, which could be tilted all the way to the ground when they didn't need it. It was brilliantly done; good acting, wonderful music, the (sometimes very high-pitched) singing was great and very relevant to the play. It also showed that you don't need to put on all of Hamlet exactly as Shakespeare has written it; you can just take 4 people and the main scenes and the gist of the story, and it will still work. I've seen Hamlet done with 6 actors who also played their own musical instruments at the Globe in London, and that one was slightly better on the acting part, but this one was better on the musical part. Anyway; a great show.
There were several other Shakespeare performances in the Stadsschouwburg this year, but we decided to stick with the one as there were other plays to be watched and it is still pretty expensive. But then one of the other plays was cancelled because the theatre went bankrupt, and we decided to visit another Shakespeare play just because we could. This was to be Queen Lear, an adaptation of King Lear by Toneelgroep Amsterdam.
Now while Hamlet had been basically the play that Shakespeare intended, with some scenes and characters removed and some musical intermezzos added, this was something completely different. Not only had they translated the play from English to Dutch, but they also reversed most of the gender roles. King Lear became a queen, his three daughters were now three sons, and their two spouses (the dukes Albany and Cornwall) had become gold digging women. Kent was there, still a male, and the fool was also still male. These were all the characters, but they proved that you can play Lear with only 8 people (with one doubling as the madman on the heath). But if all that change wasn't enough, they also changed the setting to the current time; not a kingdom divided, but a company, with several obvious references to the recent banking crisis. You might think that this is a bit too much for poor King Lear, and in some ways it was. At first you kept trying to remember what the 'real' play was about, and what they changed and why they may have done that, and what was going to happen next. But then the story got underway and you kind of forgot that you were actually watching Lear, until some of the typical Lear stuff started to happen, like the storm or the blinding of Kent or the 'Never never never never never' line. Which was good, because it is recognisable, but it also felt a bit tacked-on, as if they were trying to prove to themselves that they were still really playing Lear and not something else. They play in itself was well done, great acting and a good atmosphere, but during these typical Lear things it all felt a bit too contrived. King Lear is a universally recognisable story about old age and seeing your inheritance dissolve into nothingness, and they could have kept it just like that. I can imagine that when you tell people they're going to see Queen Lear you feel like you're obliged to keep in some of the typical Shakespearean stuff, but to me, it was not really necessary. The story was good enough on it's own.
But anyway, this was enough Shakespeare for a while, until Romeo & Juliet will start in Diever. That play will also be translated to Dutch, but otherwise they usually keep things original, and they have a large cast of volunteers so lots of characters will be there. It's good to see so many different versions of these classic stories, it shows how timeless and universal they are, even when translated to music or our modern times. But once in a while, it's still good to see the original thing, with lots of actors, in the open air.
The first was Hamlet, my fifth or sixth Hamlet in all, played by The Tiger Lillies. I had never heard of them before, but Wikipedia tells us they are "a cult British musical trio", which is not who you expect to put on a Shakespeare play. To this end, they teamed up with 4 actors, who played the main characters during the real 'acting' parts of the play, while they connected the acted bits through song and dance and a bit of cabaret. There wasn't much in the way of props or setting, just one big panel with some windows and doors, which could be tilted all the way to the ground when they didn't need it. It was brilliantly done; good acting, wonderful music, the (sometimes very high-pitched) singing was great and very relevant to the play. It also showed that you don't need to put on all of Hamlet exactly as Shakespeare has written it; you can just take 4 people and the main scenes and the gist of the story, and it will still work. I've seen Hamlet done with 6 actors who also played their own musical instruments at the Globe in London, and that one was slightly better on the acting part, but this one was better on the musical part. Anyway; a great show.
There were several other Shakespeare performances in the Stadsschouwburg this year, but we decided to stick with the one as there were other plays to be watched and it is still pretty expensive. But then one of the other plays was cancelled because the theatre went bankrupt, and we decided to visit another Shakespeare play just because we could. This was to be Queen Lear, an adaptation of King Lear by Toneelgroep Amsterdam.
Now while Hamlet had been basically the play that Shakespeare intended, with some scenes and characters removed and some musical intermezzos added, this was something completely different. Not only had they translated the play from English to Dutch, but they also reversed most of the gender roles. King Lear became a queen, his three daughters were now three sons, and their two spouses (the dukes Albany and Cornwall) had become gold digging women. Kent was there, still a male, and the fool was also still male. These were all the characters, but they proved that you can play Lear with only 8 people (with one doubling as the madman on the heath). But if all that change wasn't enough, they also changed the setting to the current time; not a kingdom divided, but a company, with several obvious references to the recent banking crisis. You might think that this is a bit too much for poor King Lear, and in some ways it was. At first you kept trying to remember what the 'real' play was about, and what they changed and why they may have done that, and what was going to happen next. But then the story got underway and you kind of forgot that you were actually watching Lear, until some of the typical Lear stuff started to happen, like the storm or the blinding of Kent or the 'Never never never never never' line. Which was good, because it is recognisable, but it also felt a bit tacked-on, as if they were trying to prove to themselves that they were still really playing Lear and not something else. They play in itself was well done, great acting and a good atmosphere, but during these typical Lear things it all felt a bit too contrived. King Lear is a universally recognisable story about old age and seeing your inheritance dissolve into nothingness, and they could have kept it just like that. I can imagine that when you tell people they're going to see Queen Lear you feel like you're obliged to keep in some of the typical Shakespearean stuff, but to me, it was not really necessary. The story was good enough on it's own.
But anyway, this was enough Shakespeare for a while, until Romeo & Juliet will start in Diever. That play will also be translated to Dutch, but otherwise they usually keep things original, and they have a large cast of volunteers so lots of characters will be there. It's good to see so many different versions of these classic stories, it shows how timeless and universal they are, even when translated to music or our modern times. But once in a while, it's still good to see the original thing, with lots of actors, in the open air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)