Translated by Google Translator
I'M STILL READING THIS BOOK. IT IS AN INTERESTING BOOK ABOUT EVERYTHING AND NOTHING. ANTHROPOLOGICAL SURVEY OF AN AGE IN POLAND WITH AN EMPHASIS ON SOME CATHOLICS AND JEWS.
The writer is Olga Tokarczuk, from Poland, who won the 2018 Nobel Prize for Literature. A Russian-Ukrainian surname is a person who writes in Polish. Interesting. Or maybe not.
The book has no plot. The style that spills over the pages is typically feminine, but written not from the heart, but from the head. Disinterested or maybe that's not a good word. One of the characters is called Yenta (Definitions of a yenta. (Yiddish) a vulgar shrew; a shallow coarse termagant. type of: shrew, termagant. a scolding nagging bad-tempered woman. (Yiddish) a woman who talks too much; a gossip unable to keep a secret, a woman who spreads rumors and scandal.
I was just about to think that this is typical of a logorheic intellectual who arranges her anthropological nouns and adjectives when I ran into that character named Jenta and googled the meaning. Translated from Yiddish to my language, it means logorheic woman. That's exactly how this work seems to me.
There is also history here, some 1600 years there. There are various churches, Catholic, Orthodox, everything from Thessaloniki or the Ottoman Empire to Jews who are pushing themselves to earn something by imitating life in a world that is too dangerous for them.
That's right. There are a lot of pages. It reminds one of a female Umberto Eco. Maybe I'm exaggerating. Maybe it's not fair that I use words like logorrhea. It sounds a little disdainful. However, it is not. Her writing is a little pretentious. Like some Handke who likes to play with words and the action itself is not important.
Come to think of it, both writers are a product of these last centuries where noise and fun are in fashion. The noise and the fury. It's no wonder then that their writings may not actually have any content, no sense and meaning. There is no emotion, no anger. Aren't I tired of asking why?
Perhaps the key lies in the second part of the book called The Book of Sand, Chapter Five, about how god was so tired of boredom that he created the world. Maybe he was bored and wanted company. This is how Jews imagine god, for example. That Hapsburger called it projection, and he himself did not undergo psychoanalysis, they say, but that's why he dissected others.
Olga, of course, throws in the Kabbalah, without which false mysticism cannot survive, and talks about how everything is scattered and has no meaning. The one who compiles God's work or book becomes the master of everything, even death. Fairy tales. Kabbalah is the ravings of madmen.
Who is Jakov Frank or Shabetai Zvi? Some madman of that era considered himself the Messiah and created madness in the synagogues. He became a Muslim, so to speak, undercover, to infiltrate Izmir. Some Jews on YouTube say that he was born in Poland and not in Izmir as written in Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatai_Zevi
By today's standards, they would probably give him a diagnosis of schizophrenia and throw him away somewhere. But it seems that this guy had deep connections, because where did he get the money to walk around the world at that time? He probably served as some kind of intelligence agent playing the messiah and spreading charm all over Europe. It is not clear what the goal was? To get to know the cultures of those peoples and pave the way for today's Edomites? Sounds cool to me and unused in this novel. Such a pity.
My keen sense of lies, like some have a sense of wine or a gift for tongues, led me to the conclusion that the Edomites were behind it all. And I ran to this picture, where one eye is covered. What else to say? Some like the third eye, and some like the one but valuable one, which looks at us from the dollar bill. That all-seeing eye of the fallen merciless angel who spilled candy on us.
Olga with one eye covered. Very progressive.
In fact, they printed that novel and probably gave her the Nobel Prize afterward. It is an old and well-trained team. They don't do anything by accident and crush people as soon as they arrive. In any case, I will continue to read the book until further notice.
All in all, unlike many books I tried to read and left, such as G. Muso, I can push this further. It's better than Musso writing screenplays in book form. It's all beautiful but ephemeral.
Here's what the Guardian has to say about it
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/nov/21/the-books-of-jacob-by-olga-tokarczuk-review-a-magical-mystic-tour
Here is what V., who is not politicized at all, says. Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2022/02/01/olga-tokarczuk-books-of-jacob-review/
The New York Times starts like this, which is more fun than the beginning of the book itself, but it leads to the wrong conclusion just like the teasers do. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/books/review/the-books-of-jacob-olga-tokarczuk.html
At the end of this article is the sentence Tokarczuk celebrates those who build, humbly, discreetly, outside the spotlight of history. They uphold the world. It sounds romantic, but it's not at all.
From https://kotepita.blogspot.com/2024/04/blog-post_9.html
Comments
Post a Comment