Oct. 6th, 2010

rushthatspeaks: (Default)
New work by an old friend for a late and tired night. My household has had the frustrating experience of trying to find Diderot's grave in St.-Roch; they lost him during the Revolution, it turns out, when the whole floor was dug up and commingled into one large pit. And the rector didn't know who he was.

He was, of course, the man who introduced lesbian porn to European philosophy (no, really, it's right there in The Nun) and a writer with something of Voltaire's blaze and something of Sterne's tricks. His most direct literary descendant is Italo Calvino, and I defy anyone not to find Jacques the Fatalist and his Master an incredibly frustrating experience (but good, I suspect, for the character).

Oh, I don't know, I can't talk about Diderot. There's a bust of him six feet in front of me and to the right, in the nook that contains all the really old books. It is very difficult to write a review about work by someone one has a part-share in a statue of.

At any rate, this is the collection of his shorter work, his five short stories, of which three are a linked trilogy that come to slightly more than novella length. None were intended for publication. Indeed, one was intended as a practical joke the same way The Nun was, letters describing a situation that was supposed to have really happened, an amusement for a friend who lived at a fair distance. All partake in his fragmented nature, the narrative through interjections by imaginary listeners, snatches of pseudonymous speeches; one of these stories is an entire fictional appendix written for a very real and non-fictional memoir by a famous explorer. His themes are love, stupidity, public opinion, the pointlessness of sexual fidelity and the unlikeliness of God. He is funny, charming, confusing, sly, maundering, ridiculously intelligent, subtle in his depiction of character, and second to none in his ability to be in one sentence both two hundred years ahead of himself in the sheer flow of his genius and three words later blazingly, spectacularly, amazingly wrong.

Also you will find him kinder than Voltaire, a little. But with something more of grief.

The short work is probably not the place to start with Diderot-- I'd make that either Jacques the Fatalist or Rameau's Nephew. But it is very fine, if you like its genre (contes philosophiques), and will certainly give anybody a good argument, and an entertaining time spent arguing.

If I were writing a postmodernist review, or one in the style of the subject author, this is where I would have the audience interject, but I shan't, as I already know what the listener ought to be saying to me: go to bed, it's three in the morning. Who needs to go off into rhetorical tricks for that kind of advice? I shall go to bed at once.
rushthatspeaks: (Default)
New work by an old friend for a late and tired night. My household has had the frustrating experience of trying to find Diderot's grave in St.-Roch; they lost him during the Revolution, it turns out, when the whole floor was dug up and commingled into one large pit. And the rector didn't know who he was.

He was, of course, the man who introduced lesbian porn to European philosophy (no, really, it's right there in The Nun) and a writer with something of Voltaire's blaze and something of Sterne's tricks. His most direct literary descendant is Italo Calvino, and I defy anyone not to find Jacques the Fatalist and his Master an incredibly frustrating experience (but good, I suspect, for the character).

Oh, I don't know, I can't talk about Diderot. There's a bust of him six feet in front of me and to the right, in the nook that contains all the really old books. It is very difficult to write a review about work by someone one has a part-share in a statue of.

At any rate, this is the collection of his shorter work, his five short stories, of which three are a linked trilogy that come to slightly more than novella length. None were intended for publication. Indeed, one was intended as a practical joke the same way The Nun was, letters describing a situation that was supposed to have really happened, an amusement for a friend who lived at a fair distance. All partake in his fragmented nature, the narrative through interjections by imaginary listeners, snatches of pseudonymous speeches; one of these stories is an entire fictional appendix written for a very real and non-fictional memoir by a famous explorer. His themes are love, stupidity, public opinion, the pointlessness of sexual fidelity and the unlikeliness of God. He is funny, charming, confusing, sly, maundering, ridiculously intelligent, subtle in his depiction of character, and second to none in his ability to be in one sentence both two hundred years ahead of himself in the sheer flow of his genius and three words later blazingly, spectacularly, amazingly wrong.

Also you will find him kinder than Voltaire, a little. But with something more of grief.

The short work is probably not the place to start with Diderot-- I'd make that either Jacques the Fatalist or Rameau's Nephew. But it is very fine, if you like its genre (contes philosophiques), and will certainly give anybody a good argument, and an entertaining time spent arguing.

If I were writing a postmodernist review, or one in the style of the subject author, this is where I would have the audience interject, but I shan't, as I already know what the listener ought to be saying to me: go to bed, it's three in the morning. Who needs to go off into rhetorical tricks for that kind of advice? I shall go to bed at once.

You can comment here or at the Dreamwidth crosspost. There are comment count unavailable comments over there.
rushthatspeaks: (Default)
Recommended by oh all sorts of people over quite a long span of time.

This is the first of an urban fantasy trilogy set in Moscow, and I would honestly probably have enjoyed it solely for the Moscow-ness, as I have been to Russia but not to Moscow and was therefore contrasting it against some memories of St. Petersburg. However, it's also a perfectly competent, mildly dark urban fantasy with a specific kind of shell-game complexity to the plotting that I find predictable once I've sussed it but still like looking at.

There are vampires and werewolves and competing factions of Light and Dark and moral ambiguity and all that. I don't think there are any elements here I haven't seen in other urban fantasy, excepting Moscow. But it's well done, so it's interesting again, at least mostly (the protagonist is just a smidge angstier than I entirely appreciate). If this is your genre, this is really up at the top of it, and if it isn't your genre (and it isn't mine) it's good enough to be getting on with. I'll read the others. I just don't have much to say about this other than competent, fun, readable, quickly passing.

... I haven't seen the movie, but I am having difficulty imagining a film managing to keep any of the complexity of the plotting and character motivations. In fact, I'm having difficulty imagining a film being any good whatsoever. Has anyone seen it? How was it?
rushthatspeaks: (Default)
Recommended by oh all sorts of people over quite a long span of time.

This is the first of an urban fantasy trilogy set in Moscow, and I would honestly probably have enjoyed it solely for the Moscow-ness, as I have been to Russia but not to Moscow and was therefore contrasting it against some memories of St. Petersburg. However, it's also a perfectly competent, mildly dark urban fantasy with a specific kind of shell-game complexity to the plotting that I find predictable once I've sussed it but still like looking at.

There are vampires and werewolves and competing factions of Light and Dark and moral ambiguity and all that. I don't think there are any elements here I haven't seen in other urban fantasy, excepting Moscow. But it's well done, so it's interesting again, at least mostly (the protagonist is just a smidge angstier than I entirely appreciate). If this is your genre, this is really up at the top of it, and if it isn't your genre (and it isn't mine) it's good enough to be getting on with. I'll read the others. I just don't have much to say about this other than competent, fun, readable, quickly passing.

... I haven't seen the movie, but I am having difficulty imagining a film managing to keep any of the complexity of the plotting and character motivations. In fact, I'm having difficulty imagining a film being any good whatsoever. Has anyone seen it? How was it?

You can comment here or at the Dreamwidth crosspost. There are comment count unavailable comments over there.

Profile

rushthatspeaks: (Default)
rushthatspeaks

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415 161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 11:33 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios