This novel was published in 1943 in the USA. It is about the life of Howard Roarke from the day in 1922 when he was expelled from the Stanton Institute of Technology, shortly before his graduation. He was expelled because of his uncompromizing way of designing buildings. In spite of this, he followed his vision of being an architect and a designer of buildings.
Howard Roarke was loner. But being an architect, though without a degree, he needed klients giving him commisions to make a living. We are presented for the provincial and hypocritical New York of the 20-ies. In this context the design of a building was not considered the choice of the architect. The design of a building should rather reflect the position and place of the owner. This was of course a conflict for Howard Roarke. If he got a comission, he made it clear that he also should have his way as to the design or not having the comission at all.
The novel presents this as a principle. Howard Roarke is an architectural genius. He finds a way around any problem where state-of-the-art architects have no answers. In the trial at the end of the novel Howard Roarke finally shapes these thoughts in words. The speech he gives at the trial is the program of individualism, the program of Ayn Rand, the reason for her writing this novel.
Ayn Rand is much admired by right-wing politicians in Norway, and I can see why.
The political aspects are better discussed elswhere on the net. Though having a poor conduct of the English language, I enjoyed very much reading the book. It is a fascinating story with great characters. Though I read it more than 60 years later I found this story both interesting and necessary.
fredag 20. februar 2009
onsdag 13. august 2008
søndag 6. juli 2008
World Without End
This is a true pageturner - (in fact 1111 pages in all). I finished this book 03.30 last night. I read the first two books some eight years ago. What I was curious about then was how our local church (small stone parish church, 1180) had been built. I imagined how some competent mason was leading the work, how he (this surely was a man) had gained his experience through projects in Denmark, Sweden, perhaps from Britain.
The church area should have been filled with tents, stalls, carters. Cooks should be preparing food, families sharing the work in different ways, prostitutes, salesmen and locals joined in this society. Scaffolds were raised and stones were elevated to their proper positions, mortar was prepared at the pace of the stones. In my area it is still a mystery how the stones were brought here. Granite stones, which are used in the construction are not quarried in the neighbourhood.
In 2000 I was told about Folletts novel, got it and started reading about Tom the Builder. I was fascinated about Folletts competence in describing masonry and architecture in the 12th century.
My expectations were high when I received my copy of "World Without End" from Amazon.co.uk. I admit that I was a little disappointed when I found that 200 years were missing, and I had to get to know 4 new characters and their relations to a lot of others. The brothers Ralph and Merthin were distant relatives of Jack the Builder and Aliena, while Gwenda and Caris are independant of the previous 2 books.
Why did i find this book so interesting? Again I was impressed by Follett's detailed knowledge of the society he's describing. Of course this is a fiction world, and Follett has clearly stated that he has several sources for the picture he's painting.
First the structures of this society and their influence on the fates of the characters are worth looking at. King Edward III was ruling England and parts of France. The hierarchy of aristocracy follows beneath. Then comes the church's male hierarchy and the subordinate female one. Third a growing class of free merchants and craftsmen are challenging the two other powers. Eventually they all rest on the large but poor lower classes of mainly agricultural labourers.
How does Follett make this clock tick? My statement is that he has put at least two modern minds into the story, perhaps three.
Ralph represents tradition and the divine system. At first he has to submit to it, in the end he becomes a nobleman and an earl and is rewarded for his loyalty to the system. He gets the reward of serving his king, though his ways should have turned his life otherwise if justice had been fulfilled.
Gwenda is a thief and a daughter of a thief when the story begins. Her friendship with Caris makes a change for her, and she is encouraged to follow her dreams, which she consequentially does. Gwenda is a character of integrity. Though she is abused and harassed, she is stubborn in her belief in what she thinks is right and in her compassion for her family.
Caris is, in my mind, a modern human being
- interrogative and critical,
- free and independant, not only due to her social standing. (Frihet)
- rational in her way of thinking, emphasizing empiric knowledge before tradition. (Fornuft)
- visionary as to a better future for the society she's part of (Framskritt).
This is in short the "formula" of the modern mind. (Dag Østerberg, 2001).
She's also a "Daddy's daughter", clever in catching up with how her father does business, innovative and pragmatic when new issues are coming up. These properties are functions of the
formula above.
Merthin is described as "a boy genious" by Follett. His gift is first of all the ability of imagining three-dimentional solutions to structural problems. Starting as a carpenter he ends up being the greatest architect of his time, being able to figure out how to build the tallest building in England. Merthin is innovative and has also a merchant's instinct of how to make two pennies out of one.
This is, like the previous books, a story of love and hate, the good ones and the bad ones. In some scenes the next move is obvious, in others I was taken by surprise. The evil of the bad ones seem to have no end. Eventually the good ones receive their reward, so do the bad ones. Thus this is a usual modern fairytale.
But no thrill will come from that. Caris is the playmaker. With descartian reason she challenges the power of church, king and aristocraty wherever she can. Where she needs allies, she's politically competent.
Her dream is to become a physician, which she cannot, because that is a male privilege. This other side of her, the compassion for others, especially for those at wrong end of the hierarchy, makes her a saint.
Is it possible to believe in these characters?
All four are outstanding in some way:
- Gwenda has to suffer a lot just because of her social position. But she is able to kill her enemies three times. She is a smart though compassionate girl. As a mother and wife, she acts like a tiger to protect her family.
- Caris is the knowledgeable, brave and compassionate one. Her properties belong to the 18th century, not the 14th.
In my opinion, Follet's device wouldn't tick without these female characters. Maybe that's why I did believe in the story until the end.
I don't think Follett has had a discussion of modernity in mind when he wrote this novel. But why shouldn't he make such a bold draw? As a dramaturgic move this is brilliant. After all, Dante Allighieris "Inferno" is published in 1300, and he introduces a round earth, though this idea was not proper knowledge till centuries later.
The church area should have been filled with tents, stalls, carters. Cooks should be preparing food, families sharing the work in different ways, prostitutes, salesmen and locals joined in this society. Scaffolds were raised and stones were elevated to their proper positions, mortar was prepared at the pace of the stones. In my area it is still a mystery how the stones were brought here. Granite stones, which are used in the construction are not quarried in the neighbourhood.
In 2000 I was told about Folletts novel, got it and started reading about Tom the Builder. I was fascinated about Folletts competence in describing masonry and architecture in the 12th century.
My expectations were high when I received my copy of "World Without End" from Amazon.co.uk. I admit that I was a little disappointed when I found that 200 years were missing, and I had to get to know 4 new characters and their relations to a lot of others. The brothers Ralph and Merthin were distant relatives of Jack the Builder and Aliena, while Gwenda and Caris are independant of the previous 2 books.
Why did i find this book so interesting? Again I was impressed by Follett's detailed knowledge of the society he's describing. Of course this is a fiction world, and Follett has clearly stated that he has several sources for the picture he's painting.
First the structures of this society and their influence on the fates of the characters are worth looking at. King Edward III was ruling England and parts of France. The hierarchy of aristocracy follows beneath. Then comes the church's male hierarchy and the subordinate female one. Third a growing class of free merchants and craftsmen are challenging the two other powers. Eventually they all rest on the large but poor lower classes of mainly agricultural labourers.
How does Follett make this clock tick? My statement is that he has put at least two modern minds into the story, perhaps three.
Ralph represents tradition and the divine system. At first he has to submit to it, in the end he becomes a nobleman and an earl and is rewarded for his loyalty to the system. He gets the reward of serving his king, though his ways should have turned his life otherwise if justice had been fulfilled.
Gwenda is a thief and a daughter of a thief when the story begins. Her friendship with Caris makes a change for her, and she is encouraged to follow her dreams, which she consequentially does. Gwenda is a character of integrity. Though she is abused and harassed, she is stubborn in her belief in what she thinks is right and in her compassion for her family.
Caris is, in my mind, a modern human being
- interrogative and critical,
- free and independant, not only due to her social standing. (Frihet)
- rational in her way of thinking, emphasizing empiric knowledge before tradition. (Fornuft)
- visionary as to a better future for the society she's part of (Framskritt).
This is in short the "formula" of the modern mind. (Dag Østerberg, 2001).
She's also a "Daddy's daughter", clever in catching up with how her father does business, innovative and pragmatic when new issues are coming up. These properties are functions of the
formula above.
Merthin is described as "a boy genious" by Follett. His gift is first of all the ability of imagining three-dimentional solutions to structural problems. Starting as a carpenter he ends up being the greatest architect of his time, being able to figure out how to build the tallest building in England. Merthin is innovative and has also a merchant's instinct of how to make two pennies out of one.
This is, like the previous books, a story of love and hate, the good ones and the bad ones. In some scenes the next move is obvious, in others I was taken by surprise. The evil of the bad ones seem to have no end. Eventually the good ones receive their reward, so do the bad ones. Thus this is a usual modern fairytale.
But no thrill will come from that. Caris is the playmaker. With descartian reason she challenges the power of church, king and aristocraty wherever she can. Where she needs allies, she's politically competent.
Her dream is to become a physician, which she cannot, because that is a male privilege. This other side of her, the compassion for others, especially for those at wrong end of the hierarchy, makes her a saint.
Is it possible to believe in these characters?
All four are outstanding in some way:
- Gwenda has to suffer a lot just because of her social position. But she is able to kill her enemies three times. She is a smart though compassionate girl. As a mother and wife, she acts like a tiger to protect her family.
- Caris is the knowledgeable, brave and compassionate one. Her properties belong to the 18th century, not the 14th.
In my opinion, Follet's device wouldn't tick without these female characters. Maybe that's why I did believe in the story until the end.
I don't think Follett has had a discussion of modernity in mind when he wrote this novel. But why shouldn't he make such a bold draw? As a dramaturgic move this is brilliant. After all, Dante Allighieris "Inferno" is published in 1300, and he introduces a round earth, though this idea was not proper knowledge till centuries later.
mandag 21. april 2008
Lisbeth Salander
Så var jeg i mål med bok nr 2, "Flickan som lekte med elden". Også den en forrykende fortelling. Og den slutter slik vi ønsker at gode fortellinger skal slutte:
- de gode overlever (i dette tilfellet på svært knappe marginer)
- de onde får sin straff.
Men det er mange dimensjoner i Stieg Larssons fortellerteknikk. Han har agendaer for
- feminisme
- seksuelle minoriteter
- modernitetens dilemmaer
- makt og fordeling av makt i samfunnet
- maktens tilskikkelser, hva skjer når makten føler seg truet?
- pressens rolle i samfunnet
- moral
- embetsmannens rolle og ethos.
Samtidig har jeg tenkt, mens jeg leste, at Stieg Larsson må ha hatt denne prosjektbeskrivelsen:
Gitt at jeg har noe på hjertet av den typen som nevnt ovenfor. Og jeg i tillegg ønsker å bringe inn hovedpersoner i min lille litterære verden som setter det i ubalanse.
Hvem skulle jeg så velge? Så ender han altså opp med Pippi Langstrømpe og Mesterdetektiven Blomkvist. Jeg synes dette har for mye overstatement, noe som sikkert er tilsiktet. Når det står V. Kulla på dørskiltet på leiligheten i Mosebacke vipper det over i det komiske. Men det er vel også tilsiktet. Sitter du på din sky der oppe og flirer av oss, Stieg?
En annen assosiasjon jeg fikk er "Parfymen" av Patrick Süsskind. Det er kort vei fra Lisbeth og forøvrig hennes halvbror Ronald og til mutanten i "Parfymen".
"Det tycks finnas gott om genetiska misstag i familjen Zalachenko, tänkte hon bittert".
Jean Baptiste Grenouille var utstyrt med en ekstremt godt utviklet luktesans. Han kunne identifisere ned til minste bestanddel hva en lukt består av. Men selv utskilte han ingen lukt.
Grenouille er ingen helt i "Parfymen", men han minner litt om Lisbeth Salander som persontegning.
Noe jeg satte stor pris på i boka er hvordan Larsson setter på plass en gruppe primitive mannfolk som vi lett kjenner igjen i vår hverdag. Med enkle tanker om kvinner, homofile menn osv.
Kontrasten mellom dem og f.eks. Sonja Modig og helten Michael Blomkvist gjør samtidig analysene mer interessante.
Kanskje er dette en for nesegrus bokanmeldelse, men skitt au.
- de gode overlever (i dette tilfellet på svært knappe marginer)
- de onde får sin straff.
Men det er mange dimensjoner i Stieg Larssons fortellerteknikk. Han har agendaer for
- feminisme
- seksuelle minoriteter
- modernitetens dilemmaer
- makt og fordeling av makt i samfunnet
- maktens tilskikkelser, hva skjer når makten føler seg truet?
- pressens rolle i samfunnet
- moral
- embetsmannens rolle og ethos.
Samtidig har jeg tenkt, mens jeg leste, at Stieg Larsson må ha hatt denne prosjektbeskrivelsen:
Gitt at jeg har noe på hjertet av den typen som nevnt ovenfor. Og jeg i tillegg ønsker å bringe inn hovedpersoner i min lille litterære verden som setter det i ubalanse.
Hvem skulle jeg så velge? Så ender han altså opp med Pippi Langstrømpe og Mesterdetektiven Blomkvist. Jeg synes dette har for mye overstatement, noe som sikkert er tilsiktet. Når det står V. Kulla på dørskiltet på leiligheten i Mosebacke vipper det over i det komiske. Men det er vel også tilsiktet. Sitter du på din sky der oppe og flirer av oss, Stieg?
En annen assosiasjon jeg fikk er "Parfymen" av Patrick Süsskind. Det er kort vei fra Lisbeth og forøvrig hennes halvbror Ronald og til mutanten i "Parfymen".
"Det tycks finnas gott om genetiska misstag i familjen Zalachenko, tänkte hon bittert".
Jean Baptiste Grenouille var utstyrt med en ekstremt godt utviklet luktesans. Han kunne identifisere ned til minste bestanddel hva en lukt består av. Men selv utskilte han ingen lukt.
Grenouille er ingen helt i "Parfymen", men han minner litt om Lisbeth Salander som persontegning.
Noe jeg satte stor pris på i boka er hvordan Larsson setter på plass en gruppe primitive mannfolk som vi lett kjenner igjen i vår hverdag. Med enkle tanker om kvinner, homofile menn osv.
Kontrasten mellom dem og f.eks. Sonja Modig og helten Michael Blomkvist gjør samtidig analysene mer interessante.
Kanskje er dette en for nesegrus bokanmeldelse, men skitt au.
Abonner på:
Innlegg (Atom)
Innlegg
