Julio Cortázar: Hopscotch [Archive] - World Literature Forum

titania7

14-Oct-2008, 10:42

Aside from saying that sadism (and, most especially, sexual sadism) is not a personal turn-on for me, I'd prefer to not elaborate upon my reasons for not liking Hopscotch. Actually, I stopped reading it about 1/3 of the way through. I am not doubting Cortazar's brilliance. The book just very much offended me. In fact, I'm going to borrow a line from Dorothy Parker to sum up my feelings on it:

"This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be
thrown with great force."

I have read other things by Cortazar--namely, short stories. Some of them are good, some are strange. It's rather like watching a string of films from the French New Wave movement--some of them can be exquisitely innovative, whereas others are downright bizarre.

To those who are Hopscotch fans, I offer no words of criticism. There is room in this world for both you and me.

Best,
Titania

"There's no such thing as chance;
And what to us seems merest accident
Springs from the deepest source of destiny."
~Johann Friedrich von Schiller

fausto

14-Oct-2008, 16:03

I would very much like you to elaborate on what offended you actually. Your comment is a tad cryptic.

titania7

14-Oct-2008, 16:19

Fausto,
In order to respond fairly to your inquiries, I would need to own a copy of the book.
Unfortunately, I don't. However, I will get it out of the library as soon as I can. Then I shall address your questions more specifically.

I believe Hopscotch was on your list of 50 favorite books. And so I hope I won't offend you if I offer my genuine "take" on the book once I procure a copy. If there would be any change of starting an argument, I'm willing to leave the entire subject alone. Although there is such a thing as "healthy debate," it would be my preference to maintain an atmosphere of amiability.

Please do remember that, being a woman--and one with feministic tendencies, at that--I am not going to see things in the same light that you might. Obviously, we would have drastically different
vantage points.

~Titania

"In the fields of observation chance favors only
the prepared mind."
~Louis Pasteur

fausto

14-Oct-2008, 16:25

I'm interested in literature. Vantage points do not interest me as much as the written word, so if your distate is linked to a perceived world-view incompability rather than an assessment of literary qualities, I'm not going to be receptive, that's for sure. I won't bite, though.

checostan

14-Oct-2008, 22:19

I have always enjoyed Cortazar, and I consider Hopscotch to be a major work. Even more interesting, however, are his short stories and poetry. Unreasonable Hours (short stories) and Save Twilight (poetry) are two small volumes that include some of his lesser known works; both are worth reading. I don't know if they are currently in print, but they can probably be found on Amazon.

titania7

15-Oct-2008, 22:35

Fausto,
A point could be argued here that a reader's vantage point is connected to the literary qualities within a work.

I'll give an example. The day before yesterday I was reading a critical essay on sexuality in Victorian literature. The critic who wrote this essay perceives issues of lesbianism in Charlotte Bronte's novel, Jane Eyre. Is that not just his opinion? I would say so. In fact, I think his conclusions in this regard probably have a great deal to do with his general "world-view."

However, I have no problems with separating Hopscotch's literary merit from my own feelings about the work. I am capable of being very analytical (believe it or not) and I can also be highly objective. But please understand that I am not going to be influenced by anyone else's opinion on the book. It doesn't matter to me if a million critics consider it to be one of the masterpieces of world literature. It matters little to me that Pablo Neruda (a poet whom I happen to admire) is famously quoted as saying: "People who do not read Cortazar are doomed. Not to read him is a serious invisible disease." I honestly just don't care.

The reason I'm re-reading the book is because a) I like you and respect your intelligence and b) I want to make sure I can separate my own likes/dislikes from my critical opinions. Plus, I figure if I can re-read Dreams of My Russian Summers for Thomas Saliot, I can re-read this for you. And it won't do me any harm. It's not as if it's Paulo Coelho ;).

Anyway, I ordered it yesterday from the library. So, I'm assuming I'll be able to start reading it during the next few days.

Best,
Titania

"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins.
Which of the two has the grander view?"
~Victor Hugo

amanda

16-Oct-2008, 02:09

Titania, I am curious about your criticism, too.
Hopscotch/Rayuela is one of my favorite books, and (or even though?) I identify as a feminist also. The novel definitely isn't unproblematic re: gender (the female reader, for one), but I didn't read the novel - or Oliveira - as especially sadistic. I don't know if you were referring to something more specific, though.

I agree re: vantage point, and think that it is possible to acknowledge how one's background or vantage point shapes an assessment of the literary qualities of a work (or the definitions or weight of those qualities) without reducing literature to mere fodder for ideological sermonizing (ahem). [Edited to say, I was also thinking of vantage point not just of gender but also in relation to debates over realism and representation and the purpose of the novel ...]

titania7

16-Oct-2008, 04:56

Amanda (Fausto, you may also find this post of some interest),

Hello! Glad to become acquainted with you. It's interesting that, being a feminist (I believe this is how you see yourself) that you didn't notice the sadistic way that Oliviera treats La Maga. Of course, I don't know how long ago you read this book. I just got my copy of it from the library today (bravo!); thus, I am able to elucidate a little bit on my previous comments by using passages directly from the book:

From Chapter 5:

:.....he (Oliveria) bothered La Maga in a long night which
they did not speak much about later. He turned her into Parsiphae
(queen of Crete in Greek mythology who has sex with a bull and becomes the mother of Minotaur), he bent her over and used her as if she were a young boy, he knew her and demanded the slavishness of the most abject whore, he magnified her into a constellation, he held her in his arms smelling of blood, he made her drink the semen which ran into her mouth like a challenge to the Logos......he wore her out....

Cortazar goes on to write:

"Later on Oliviera began to worry that she would think herself
jaded.....(she was) terribly mistreated that night...."

Then....

".....La Maga was really waiting for Horacio (Oliviera) to kill her and (that) hers would be a phoenix death...."

I'm sorry, but does this relationship really sound normal to you?
Don't you think it's sadistic when a man forces a sexual act on a woman?? It's obvious the scene I've just shared is one in which anal rape takes place. La Maga obviously didn't wish to take part in anal sex. Doesn't sound like she wanted to swallow Oliviera's semen, either.

Let's contrast this scene to one in D.H.Lawrence Lady Chatterley's Lover, another scene in which (discreetly) anal sex evidently transpires:

"....Though a little frightened she let (note: let implies she had a choice) him have his way, and the reckless, shameless sensuality shook her to her foundations, stripped her to the very last, and made a different woman of her. It was not really love (but thankfully, it was apparently not rape, either). It was not voluptuousness. It was sensuality sharp and searing as fire, burning the soul to tinder.....She had often wondered what Abelard meant, when he said that in their year of love he and Heloise had passed through all the stages and refinements of passion (perhaps no one on this list is aware of it, but Abelard and Heloise had a very "experimental" relationship, sexually speaking). The same thing, a thousand years ago: ten thousand years ago! The same on the Greek vases, everywhere! The refinements of passion, the extravagances of sensuality!....."

It may not be blatantly obvious that these passages are referring to anal sex. But take a look at this essay on Lady Chatterley's Lover written by Doris Lessing:

Books news, reviews and author interviews | guardian.co.uk | Books | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/)

Go to this link and put the name Lessing in the search engine.

A direct link (which may or may not work) is here:

Doris Lessing on Lady Chatterley's Lover | Books | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jul/15/classics.dhlawrence)

Whether or not anal sex is a turn-on for you (just for the record, it isn't for me), I still think you must admit it ought to take place between two consenting adults.

Amanda, I haven't any idea what your relationships with men have been like. And honestly, the details of your sex life aren't ANY of my business. But I do hope you realize that men who force sexual acts on women are sadists. It isn't normal or natural for a man to use a woman like a whore. Even whores shouldn't be used in that fashion.

In regard to Hopscotch, I'm going to give it another read. However, my opinion regarding the sadism in the book will not alter no matter
how many times I read it (or how many other opinions I hear).

Best,
Titania

PS At the risk of offending someone on this list, I am speaking much more explicitly on this subject than I would like to. You'll note in my first posting regarding Hopscotch I clearly stated that I had "personal reasons" that "I'd rather not go into" for disliking the book. But, since you and fausto have requested that I be more specific, I am merely acquiescing to your (and his) wishes.

"In high art and pure science detail is everything."
~Vladimir Nabokov

Jayaprakash

16-Oct-2008, 06:46

Is this relationship presented as being acceptable or normal in the book?

Guillaume Barkero

16-Oct-2008, 07:14

Hello, Friends.
I don't agree with many of Harold Bloom's statements, but I found a very valuable point of view in Western Canon: appreciating literary works based upon their literary merits or not to appreciate them at all. I tell you: I'm a Latinamerican, and I recognize that Cortazar is better read in his maternal language, because his prose (Rayuela is a good example) and its rythm are unique, recognizable from Onetti's, Borges', Carpentier's and from many others. Cortazar's account of endless jazz-blues sessions and his "fluid" and melancholic views of the landscape of Paris resist any political/ideological interpretation. That is my point of view, I say.

(But, as I said before, his short stories -almost any of his collections- are his best works)

Warm regards.

titania7

16-Oct-2008, 07:55

Jayaprakash,
I don't have a memory of the relationship being depicted as particularly abnormal. However, I haven't read even 1/3 of the book. In fact, I pretty much stopped reading after the scene I posted parts of to this list popped up. I just have a problem with men using, mistreating, or otherwise violating women, particularly when the women who are treated badly allow themselves to continue being hurt. Maybe this really is "a woman's thing"?? Though if it is that, why was Hopscotch one of Amanda's favorite books?

One reason I'm re-reading (if it's proper to call it that--remember I didn't read much of it before) Hopscotch is to have a clear and unbiased view of the entire work. There is much talk here about literary merit. However, when I discreetly mentioned the sexual sadism in the book, I was asked to basically explain myself (strange when people only want to hear comments about "literary merit"). I will state that La Maga (the girlfriend of Oliviera, whom he rapes) does not end the relationship after he abuses her. I don't think she makes a very big deal of it. Clearly, she doesn't enjoy it (though how could she, unless she's completely masochistic?) I know that a good writer isn't supposed to pass judgement on his characters. Yet, from the tone Cortazar takes about the relationship, I don't think we're supposed to see Oliviera as a bad man simply because he rapes his girlfriend.

I can just see men reading Hopscotch, thinking, "Yeah, I can treat a woman like this if I want to. Why not? It's not like anything terrible will happen if I do."

And yes, people really do oft-times base their actions on those of their favorite characters from books and films. I once knew a man who, from watching so many movies where a woman said "No" when she really wanted sex, had developed the idea that "No" from a woman really means "Yes." But maybe this isn't an uncommon male viewpoint?? (sorry if I sound cynical, but I honestly don't know quite what to think these days).

But back to this book.....

I'm not terribly anxious to read Hopscoth, even though it's considered to be a grand "masterpiece" and what-not. I can separate literary qualities in a book from personal opinions. But if you'll note, those who want mere literary criticism nonetheless seem to want me to elucidate on my comments about sexual sadism.
It's like the comedian, Bill Cosby, said: "I don't know what the secret to success is. But the secret to failure is to try to please everyone." I feel almost like I can't win here. Surely the people here don't think I'm incapable of writing a critical review of a book.
However, if they're going to inquire into my personal feelings, I have every freedom to share those, too. And it really does make me unhappy to read books in which women are mistreated by men without those men having to pay any consequences.

But speaking strictly of literary merit....I'm not overly impressed by Cortazar's writing. So far, I don't see much (read: any) artistry in it.
He's no Marquez or Calvino, that's for sure. But don't let my views turn you off. By all means, if you want to explore Hopscotch, go ahead. I do think Cortazar's short stories are better than this
novel--speaking completely from a literary standpoint, mind you. Of course, one must keep in mind that he's a highly experimental writer. So, you never can be sure exactly what you're going to get (some good, some bad, some mediocre).

~Titania

"I could not have gone through the awful wretched
mess of life without having left a stain upon the
silence."
~Samuel Beckett

Jayaprakash

16-Oct-2008, 08:02

It's certainly a quandary how to react to behaviour we find wrong in a novel and not solely a woman's thing. I know that, much though I enjoy On The Road I also felt that none of the Beats were really qualified to be in adult relationships with actual women. And the scenes in the Mexican brothel kinda turned my stomach.

While I do judge a book on its literary merit I also read it for what it says about the author and his milieu, things the author is not always aware of. Isn't it fair to comment on both aspects?

Latly, I know I feel bad when people try ascribe perverted motives to my reading choices, but it is true that things we read can impact what we do. Another quandary.

titania7

16-Oct-2008, 09:19

Jayaprakash,
Thank you for your words of empathy. How refreshing to find another man who is capable of being deeply influenced by what he reads! I'm glad to hear it is truly not a "woman's thing."

And yes, I agree that literary criticism can include both judgements about a work's literary merit and personal opinions. Earlier in this same thread, I mentioned an essay I had recently read on sexuality in Victorian literature and how the critic perceived elements of homosexuality in Jane Eyre. I don't know whether or not you've read Jane Eyre, Jayaprakash, but let me just say I think it is a bit outlandish for someone to decide, simply because Jane Eyre has a certain fondness for a schoolgirl friend, that Jane is a lesbian. Yet doesn't this particular critic have every right to express his feelings, whether they are based in reality or not? Perhaps he saw different aspects of the novel than I did--maybe he read "between the lines" and I didn't. I think his opinions are absurd, but that in NO way means he isn't entitled to them.

And if this well-respected critic can publish a literary essay in which his personal views are included, am I not entitled to the same, without being crucified for allowing my own "world view" to get in the way of my literary assessment??

Unfortunately, I'm unable to say whether or not I share your feelings regarding On The Road because I've never read it. The only Keroauc I've read is Maggie Cassidy, and I don't remember it well enough to have a credible opinion on the relationships within the novel.

Anyway, thanks again for validating my remarks. I like you, Jayaprakash, I really like you--even if you did read Venus in Furs ;).

~Titania

"Experience is the name everyone gives to
their mistakes."
~Oscar Wilde

fausto

16-Oct-2008, 10:38

Titania,
I don't have time now to answer your remarks now and unfortunately probably won't for a long while (I'm going away for 7 weeks as of saturday) but still, a couple of points.
I find your continuous snide remarks about male viewpoints or attitudes particularly offending. I am also surprised that you're wondering why on earth someone would ask your opinion on the literary merits of the work AND still ask of you to explain yourself on the sadism bit. Who exactly did do that? I only asked the first part and didn't bring up sadism.
On the content, you may be surprised to hear that most people I know (males, yes, males) do have very strong sympathies and feelings for La Maga. Such is not the case for Oliveira. Actually, echoes and tributes to La Maga can be found in many books by latin-american writers. I'm pretty sure Cortazar's way of depicting her treatment at the hands of her lover goes a long way to explaining this preferrence. In the passages you quote, it is clearly mentionned she has been "mistreated", a pretty negative word that whould indicate some degree of comdemnation on Cortazar's part. Furthermore, a single scene is a bit short. There is much to be found later on, for example more use of myths -- they might explain the scene you quote -- and, much more importantly, you might note La Maga is Horacio's muse -- more than a flesh and blood character, she is a metaphor of the meaning of a muse to an artist. Is the rape real or symbolical of the relation an artist might entertain at times with the muse? I think this is a pretty important question to ask oneself.

titania7

16-Oct-2008, 11:18

Fausto,
I am very sorry you are offended by my remarks about men. I like men. In many ways I like them better than women. Perhaps you've misconstrued something here. Is that in any way possible? Not knowing me except via this list, it is unfair of you to judge me so harshly. You haven't any idea what my life experiences have been like. Do you? Perhaps I'm accustomed to men who denigrate women, who think women are inferior to men and who see nothing wrong with mistreating a woman. If so, maybe this does color my perception of the world. Would that be so hard to fathom?

Let me ask you something: If 2/3 of the women you had known had been difficult, extremely aggressive females, would not this color your perception of women?? I've known men who have experienced dreadful situations with women who were unfaithful and cruel to them. I empathize with them. Honestly I do. I am fully cognizant of the fact that callous or unacceptable behavior can go both ways.

I assumed you did wish me to explain further on the sexual sadism issue by saying that my first remark had been a "tad cryptic." Was I mistaken? If so, you have my deepest apologies, fausto.

And I will re-iterate what I said a moment ago. I like men. I really do. The majority of my closest friends have always been and currently are men.

I've also made it clear that I haven't read enough of Hopscotch to give a clear, definitive opinion of the work. Did you not see where I said that? This is why I'm reading it again. Honestly, you're making me wonder why I'm doing it at all. It's obvious from the tone of your post that you dislike me intensely. But since you don't really know me, I choose not to take it personally.

And you may be surprised at what I'm about to say, but I understand why you dislike me. For one thing, I've said negative things about a book that obviously means a great deal to you.
For another, I have said some less-than-glowing things about men.
However, I wasn't referring to ALL men when I said "men." Some men, I'm sure, are very sympathetic towards women. I just haven't met very many of these men. Is that my fault? And has it been a crime for me to express my "take" on various books I read from an individualistic standpoint? I tend to think that preconceived ideas
rule the world. We, both men and women, make assumptions, rather consciously or unconsciously, about everything. I'm not saying I'm perfect or that my opinions are written in stone. They're really just the views I have at one moment in time. Believe it or not, they could change tomorrow.

Once more, my apologies, Fausto. Sincerely. And I hope we can put all this behind us. Is this possible, do you think?

Safe travelling,
Titania

"Even a thought, even a possibility, can shatter us
and transform us."
~Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

fausto

16-Oct-2008, 12:14

Fausto,
Not knowing me except via this list, it is unfair of you to judge me so harshly.

I indeed only have this list and being offended is not a judgement, it's a feeling. I don't judge you, I just tell you some things you are saying here are offensive.

You haven't any idea what my life experiences have been like. Do you? Perhaps I'm accustomed to men who denigrate women, who think women are inferior to men and who see nothing wrong with mistreating a woman. If so, maybe this does color my perception of the world. Would that be so hard to fathom?

You're right I have no idea. But it's completely irrelevant. You're making remarks and assumptions on men in this thread, men who actually post on this forum. And you generalize from past experience. This is exactly what some do about women ("all women are tarts"). It's a sexist behaviour.

I assumed you did wish me to explain further on the sexual sadism issue by saying that my first remark had been a "tad cryptic." Was I mistaken? If so, you have my deepest apologies, fausto.

It was a tad cryptic because you daid you were offended but didn't wish to elaborate. Your attitude to sadism, I couldn't care less.

It's obvious from the tone of your post that you dislike me intensely.

This is laughable. I never dislike intensely people I don't know. I intensely disagreed with some of what you said and made it clear. Huge difference.

For one thing, I've said negative things about a book that obviously means a great deal to you.

It doesn't mean a great deal, I think it's great and I'd like to have your opinion on it, not on the effects the literary representation of sadism can have on men. Especially when it's obvious Oliveira is not shown in a really positive light.

For another, I have said some less-than-glowing things about men. However, I wasn't referring to ALL men when I said "men." Some men, I'm sure, are very sympathetic towards women. I just haven't met very many of these men. Is that my fault?

No, it's not your fault. But it is, however, completely your fault that you initially chose to make sweeping generalization. Your current rectification is welcome.

We talked about vantage points earlier, and this is what I was worried about. As we all do, you have your own experiences that shape your vision of what you're reading. But readers should be able to put their experience on their side to try and engage the book on its own terms, see what it is trying to achieve and take it from there. Personally, that's what I'm interested in. If you, as a reader, don't react that way, fine, let's drop it.

Stewart

16-Oct-2008, 12:25

As we all do, you have your own experiences that shape your vision of what you're reading. But readers should be able to put their experience on their side to try and engage the book on its own terms, see what it is trying to achieve and take it from there.
I think that's the key right there.

titania7

16-Oct-2008, 12:56

Thanks, Stewart.

titania7

16-Oct-2008, 13:13

Fausto,
I am doing my best to stop allowing my life experiences to color my perceptions of
what I read. I'm still learning. Whether you believe me or not, I'm not a hard-headed, cynical, man-hating female. I hope I will never become one, either.

But maybe I do come across as some sort of know-it-all? Certainly, that hasn't been my intention. I am SO far from perfect it's positively laughable. I make tons of mistakes every single day of my life and I try to learn from them (this is easier said than done).

When I said you "dislike me intensely," I didn't mean that quite as seriously as it sounded. I guess what I meant to say is that you have disliked intensely some of the views I've shared about men. Because of this, you probably don't have the most positive impression of me as a person. Am I being presumptuous again or have I summed things up accurately? It's your call.

You want my opinion on the book? Not a problem. But I have to read the entire thing first, and it will probably take me at least seven weeks. Given my current schedule, it could take even longer.

It has crossed my mind that the Dorothy Parker quote I used in an earlier
post might have been "too much." I actually used it in a spirit of fun, Parker being
a very witty lady. I did dislike the parts of Hopscotch I read, but I wouldn't have literally thrown the book with "great force." I never throw books around. They're too important to me. Plus, this was a library copy ;).

Have I really made "sweeping generalizations" about men? Where have I done that?
I'm not saying I haven't. I'd just like a couple of examples, if you don't mind. To use the term generalizations implies I've made "blanket statements" (as in ALL men this or ALL men that). I don't recall using that terminology, fausto (correct me if I'm wrong).

~Titania

"My trade and my art is living."
~Montaigne

fausto

16-Oct-2008, 15:31

I once knew a man who, from watching so many movies where a woman said "No" when she really wanted sex, had developed the idea that "No" from a woman really means "Yes." But maybe this isn't an uncommon male viewpoint??

Yes, it's common. We all think that way.

I can just see men reading Hopscotch, thinking, "Yeah, I can treat a woman like this if I want to. Why not? It's not like anything terrible will happen if I do."

Yes, we do think that.

I just have a problem with men using, mistreating, or otherwise violating women, particularly when the women who are treated badly allow themselves to continue being hurt. Maybe this really is "a woman's thing"??

Yes, it is a woman's thing. Men have no problem using and violating.

--------------------------
This is my last post on here on the subject of what offended me in your replies and I only provide this because you requested exmaples and you deserve them. Let's all move along now. Thanks.

titania7

16-Oct-2008, 22:44

Fausto,
I assume it is alright with you if I correct a couple of things I said earlier.

I was wrong in saying that Cortazar did not imply that Oliviera's behavior was
unacceptable. When I read parts of this book a year ago, I didn't even remember the term "mistreatment" in connection to the relationship between Oliviera and La Maga.
I have the book in my possession now. I see what you are speaking of.

Secondly:

Not knowing any of the men on this list, I have done my best to prevent myself from judging them. Sorry if anything I said *implied* I was making lots of assumptions.
The important thing is, I wasn't.

And...
You're right. You weren't the person who asked me to explain what was sexually sadistic in this novel. That was Amanda. Not you. If you glance at her post you will see where she says she doesn't find Oliviera's behavior towards La Maga to be particularly sadistic. My response in this regard was directed at her. And she is fully entitled to her views, whatever they may be. I merely elucidated on mine per
her request.

Finally.....

How's a lady to respond when you "call her on the carpet" regarding her comments about men?? Fausto, you and I both know that, posting my isolated remarks in the fashion you did, it made me look just terrible. Do I have a leg to stand on?

I will state one thing, however, in my defense: The comments about "No" meaning "Yes" in regard to sex were from a male friend of mine--well, ex-friend now (long story, and this isn't the place for it). That was his actual opinion. Not mine. When I'm not in a cynical mood (which is most of the time) I don't honestly think men think/feel that way. But we all have moments in which we have a pessimistic view of life, don't we? I'm sure you can be negative at times, too.

And how many times do I have to say this before I'm taking seriously?? I LIKE MEN.

Please don't pick apart what I've said. It was all written in a spirit of peace.

A literary critique of Hopscotch will be forthcoming sometime during the next several weeks.

~Titania

"The right to be heard does not automatically
include the right to be taken seriously."
~Hubert Humphrey

amanda

17-Oct-2008, 03:21

Eh. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, but I haven't had much access to the internet.

From your post above my initial post, I assumed that you were already planning to reread the book and were open to discussing it (so that it wasn't an issue of the subject being triggering, etc.), but I'm sorry if I dragged you into a discussion you weren't really interested in having. I was/am sympathetic to the viewpoint that you and Jayaprakash discussed earlier of reconciling (or not) a novel or an author's abhorrent actions or attitudes with historical contingencies and the framework of the novel/their work, even if I seem too capable at compartmentalizing.

I guess that part of the fault is mine in that I was not more explicit or more clear what I intended in my reply. I definitely did not read the novel as approving of Oliveira's behavior. (which is how I originally took your comment, and that I now see you've amended. I also wasn't sure if/was hoping that it was not a case of deciding a book's merit on how likable or relatable the main character is.) I was curious if it was a specific scene or the novel that you had read so far that way because to see it as condoning or celebrating his & the club's behavior ran almost entirely counter to how I read the novel.

Regarding Oliveira specifically, I saw his behavior as more of a casual cruelty drawing from a self-centered/selfish focus on intellectual games at the expense of actually engaging and empathizing with other people (and this may be merely nitpicking or being overly pedantic), than that of actually intending and desiring to inflict harm and enjoying the fruits of his cruelties (or at least not most of the time - I don't disagree with your reading of the 5th chapter, though I did read it more in the mythological/metaphorical vein that fausto referenced earlier in the thread).

Just because perhaps I've given intent too much of a role when, yes, the end result is pretty much the same doesn't mean I'd actually want to date him, much less do I condone his (or others' similar) behavior, though.

titania7

17-Oct-2008, 04:08

Amanda,
Thank you, both for your views and for sharing them. As I've said before, I very much need to read the novel all the way through before giving my valid opinions of it. It looks like a complex read, and one that can be understood on a multitude of different levels.

I have been filled with guilt all day over what has been perceived on this thread at this forum as an attack on men. Maybe I do need to work through some personal issues stemming from past experiences. But much of what I've said has been misinterpreted and exaggerated.

It's true--I wasn't interested in having a discussion specifically about sexual sadism, Amanda, because I didn't really feel like re-iterating my feelings about rape (which have been explored already in the Andrei Makine thread). You know, after awhile, what I say begins to sound like a rant against men who mistreat women. It begins to seem as if I am saying there are no "decent" men in the world. And this is far from my intention. In fact, it is ludicrous.

I did, in my last post to fausto, do my best to amend the errors I made when discussing this book in previous posts. At this point, I have a fear that most, if not all, things I say will be heavily dissected. I am regretful that I chose to speak of Hopscotch in as much detail as I did without having read the entire work. You cannot judge a book by a fragment here and there and give a fair assessment of a) its literary quality or even b) your personal opinion of it.

Also, while I'm at it, let me include what I mean when I call myself a "feminist." I believe a) a woman should make the same amount of money as a man does for the same job, b) a woman is a man's intellectual equal, c) a woman is capable of fulfilling any role in society she so desires, whether it be that of a doctor, lawyer, or president, premier, or prime minister, and d) a woman's ultimate fulfillment does not depend on marriage and/or children.

If being a feminist means I am a) only mildly tolerant of men, b) dislike men, c) believe women are superior to men, than I am NOT a feminist.

I'm clarifying all this because my mum and I just had a long discussion about feminism tonight (What is a feminist exactly vs. what do others think of when they think of a feminist?). I don't know whether this would be your view of feminism also, Amanda.
Perhaps many women have something much more radical in mind when they call themselves "feminists" ?? I don't. I just believe in equality of the sexes, basically. And since we live in 2008 (not the Victorian era), I don't frankly see anything controversial about my opinions. I am not some free-thinking radical looking for the next place to vent my anger on one issue or another. Yet it's possible this may be how some people at this forum have perceived me. To those who have--this is a complete and utter misconception. Trust me.

I have wished many, many times that I had refrained from ever posting to this thread. If I had ever thought that the opinions of somebody like lit'l old moi would turn so many tables upside down, I'd have kept my mouth clamped shut.

I'll look forward to understanding more of the mythological
and metaphorical implications in Hopscotch as I read it, Amanda.

And don't ever worry about how speedily you reply to my posts.
Take all the time you need. No explanations necessary.

Thanks again.

Best,
Titania

"What matters in life is not what happens to you
but what you remember and how you remember
it."
~Gabriel Garcia Marquez

titania7

18-Oct-2008, 09:32

To Fausto and other men on this list:
I scarcely know if this is the proper place to post this because I doubt that many of the men at this forum will go to this thread.
However, I don't know of another place to say this that would be better.

(note: Fausto, as you said your last post was your final one that would deal with my offensive remarks about men, I am not expecting a response. Not that I would mind one, assuming it's courteous.)

But, just to clear the air a bit.......

It was wrong of me to vent my feelings on *a certain type of man* so vehemently here. This was not the place to share my negative opinions. At the same time, re-reading what I've said, I've become aware that there's a lot of "emotional baggage" I need to personally work through. My mum and I have had two hour-long, very serious talks about my warped conceptions regarding men--or some men, I should say. Perhaps I have too much of a tendency to focus more on the handful of lousy men I have known than ALL the truly great guys out there.

I'm not sure whether this would alter anyone's opinion of me, but the truth is, I'm every bit as upset about scenes in a book where MEN are mistreated. Just to give one example, there is a chapter in D.H. Lawrence's The Rainbow that was absolute torture for me to get through. The main female character in the book, Ursula, terribly mistreats a man whom she is supposed to be in love with. My difficulties with this encounter in the book actually prevented the book from making it on my list of top 50 books. The literary qualities of The Rainbow are first-rate (as is almost always the case with Lawrence), but my personal feelings tied to that scene ruined the impact the book might have had on me otherwise.

I am actually (this would be hard to believe I know, but it's true) a soft-spoken, sweet, somewhat shy woman. Only about 1% of my personality "make-up" is tinged with cynicism or bitterness over ANYTHING, including male/female relationships. I am an enthusiastic, optimistic person totally in love with life. I honestly don't hate anyone.

When I look back over the remarks I've made about men, I admit that some of them do sound extraordiarily negative. Unfairly so, in fact. And I ask forgiveness of any men who have read this comments. Hopefully, anyone who views me as a man-hater will be able to alter their opinion of me.

You mention my "past experiences," Fausto. Although I had, from childhood, a troubled relationship with my father, who never wanted a girl child (in his mind, all women are pretty much without merit), most of my experiences are ones I take full responsibility for. I didn't have to go out with certain men nor did I have to keep certain male friends in my life. I've made many poor choices. This doesn't make it right that I have trouble putting my personal experiences aside to judge a work of literature solely on its own merits. I'm not saying it does. It's just a tendency.

At any rate, I guess I've made a muck of things by making sure most men here think I detest men, on the whole. Yet, to quote a famous line from Bulgakov's Master and Margarita, "What's done
cannot be undone."

I can say I like men but the other things I've said about them makes my claims seem insincere. I recognize that. And it's not easy to attempt to rectify the situation--if, indeed, it can be rectified.

I have not, however, given up all hope in this regard. Also, I would like to imagine my apologies meant something to someone here. I realize sometimes, once we perceive someone to be a certain way, it can be very difficult to adopt an incongruous view. But there is absolutely nothing more that I can do than ask forgiveness
for my past behavior.

Best,
Titania

"There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood
by those who hear it."
~William James

Mirabell

18-Oct-2008, 16:47

Some of us who were offended, and I think I do speak for the truffle as well, don't judge nor care about xr character. This is the internet, you can be as fake as you want to, you can behave like a cranky old man and claim to be one, for all we care. So who you *really* are, is of lesser importance.

On the internet, far more so than in real life, you are as you do. And what you did, was offensive to me, Fausto and, I trust, other men as well. The problem is not that

It was wrong of me to vent my feelings on *a certain type of man* so vehemently here.The problem was the way in which you vented them. As Fausto's quotes demonstrate you vented the feelings in a sweeping manner, thereby including all of us under the heading of "a certain type of man", which I frankly resent.

You did apologize for that, which is fine, but I feel you are too apologetic. There's no need to apologize for disliking a certain typoe of person, nor for being brash or a feminist. Feel good about yrself, but cut down on the generalizations.

Also, and here I diverge from the grand M. Majistral, I guess, there's noone who reads a book solely on its literary merits. LIterary merits, as isolated phenomena, are a construction. We as readers are what makes literature be so alive and powerful. True, a large extent of this resides in the book, but a novel which is clearly written from a male pov is closely fit into a hioerarchy of power and if female readers don't dip into their own experience to unmoor those hierarchies, who else will do it? LIterature contains value judgments, which are due to certain axioms,which, in turn, can be linked to a certain position in the hierarchies of everyday life.

De Man called that mechanism Blindness and Insight, the reader is in the position to illuminate the blindspots of the work of literature (yes, this in no way does justice to de man's brilliant essay),and many, many men have blind spot as far as the female experience is concerned. And yes, there are as many female experiences as there are women and my own experience provides me with a contrast to many patriarchially informed texts, but this is sketchy by necessity.

In sum, while hurt by your remarks about men, I was also concerned by your ensuing apologetic behavior which covered far more than the small area where you were actually offensive. Straighten up. More power to you.

NOt that I like your reviews, but that is a different matter.

Cordially,

M.

nnyhav

18-Oct-2008, 17:56

Some of us who took no offense can still disagree. Separating where the author and narrator and protagonists are coming from can be a tricky business.

Machismo is an operative concept in LatAmLit generally and in Cort?zar particularly. It may help to see what he has to say about it himself (interview cuts off midstream, but covers this ground before the interruption):

A Conversation with Julio Cortazar by Evelyn Picon Garfield 10-13.7.73 (http://www.dalkeyarchive.com/interviews/show/81)

(and yes I consider Hopscotch/Rayeula one of the best and most important books of 20c LatAmLit)

titania7

18-Oct-2008, 19:16

Nnyhav,
I wasn't able to pull up the link to the Cortazar interview.
Is there another link I could try to access it through?
My computer is problematic; so, it's possible
that's why I'm unable to pull it up.

Thanks.

Best,
Titania

nnyhav

18-Oct-2008, 19:55

Sorry, can't help except to suggest you try, try again. (I had looked around for a complete version of the interview.)

titania7

18-Oct-2008, 20:04

Thanks, Nnyhav. I'll keep trying, then. I'm not a gal who gives up easily ;).

~Titania

titania7

20-Oct-2008, 09:00

[quote=Mirabell] On the internet, far more so than in real life, you are as you do. And what you did, was offensive to me, Fausto and, I trust, other men as well. The problem is not that . The problem was the way in which you vented them. As Fausto's quotes demonstrate you vented the feelings in a sweeping manner, thereby including all of us under the heading of "a certain type of man", which I frankly resent.

Mirabell,
I am regretful that you perceived that I was putting all of
the men on the list under the "certain type of man" category.
Are you sure this wasn't merely your "take" on what I said?
I've looked back through all my posts and I don't see any comments
that would indicate I was referring to all of you. Yes, I'm guilty of
"sweeping generalizations," but there is a slight difference in
that and in clumping all men on this list into the "certain type
of man" category. Just my usage of the term "certain type of man" would indicate I didn't mean ALL men.

[quote: You did apologize for that, which is fine, but I feel you are too apologetic. There's no need to apologize for disliking a certain type of person, nor for being brash or a feminist. Feel good about yrself, but cut down on the generalizations.

I feel ok about myself. But I'll tell you something: I feel better about myself for the fact I was a big enough person to apologize to this
entire list. "Little" people can rarely say they're sorry about anything, even when they are gravely in error. So, better to err
on the side of over-apologizing than to be too much of a coward
to apologize at all.

[quote: Also, and here I diverge from the grand M. Majistral, I guess, there's noone who reads a book solely on its literary merits. LIterary merits, as isolated phenomena, are a construction. We as readers are what makes literature be so alive and powerful. True, a large extent of this resides in the book, but a novel which is clearly written from a male pov is closely fit into a hioerarchy of power and if female readers don't dip into their own experience to unmoor those hierarchies, who else will do it? LIterature contains value judgments, which are due to certain axioms,which, in turn, can be linked to a certain position in the hierarchies of everyday life.

I agree with most of what you say.

[quote: ....many, many men have a blind spot as far as the female experience is concerned....

Yeah, well, many women have a blind spot where the male experience is concerned. Men and women still have a lot to learn
about each other. But taking offense at the views I express isn't going to help anything. It would be my hope that you and others
would try to learn something about women from hearing my comments instead. Namely, that intelligence and emotional intelligence are not necessarily linked. Look, I first attended college
when I was seven years of age. Needless to say, I am a highly intelligent woman. Yet I've behaved stupidly many times when it's come to men. The comments I made here demonstrate how little of the emotional intelligence I possess I actually make use of (just the fact I shared so much about myself shows I can be less than sagacious). So, Mirabell, look beyond how I offended you and see if I've taught you anything. You're a smart guy--I'm certain you can find something positive that's come out of all this. Maybe you weren't as aware as you could've been of how deeply affected a clever, self-assured, educated woman can be from encounters with callous, uncaring men.

[quote:] Straighten up. More power to you.

Thanks. My mum's always telling me to "straighten up"...but that's in regard to my posture (though I used to be a model, it seems
I have a habit of slumping. I need to start walking around with
a book on my head, I guess).

[quote]: NOt that I like your reviews, but that is a different matter.

You never told me personally what you don't like about them ;).
(but please don't post your opinions to the list).

However, this reminds me of something a famous writer once said
when someone told him they didn't like his most recent novel:

"I didn't write it for you."

Well, Mirabell, I hate to burst your bubble, but I don't write my reviews for you or any other specific person on this list. I learned long ago that it's impossible to please everyone; so, I don't even try.

But, take heart! I may not be posting that much longer to this list, anyway. So....you'll be rid of me--and my reviews. I won't be leaving the list because of you, Fausto, or anyone else. The World Literature Forum has simply become an overwhelming distraction for me and I have a lot of goals completely unrelated to this list that I'm not currently accomplishing.

By the way, have you read Hopscotch or any of Cortazar's other
writings? I assume since you were reading the posts to this thread
you must have an interest in his work.

Cordially,
Titania

PS Thanks for taking the time to post a response to
my apology. I appreciated it.

"Has the world ever been changed by anything save
the thought and its magic vehicle the Word?"
~Thomas Mann

Mirabell

20-Oct-2008, 09:57

You wrote most of this in a pm already which I ignored because I have only so much time for lenthy internet discussions. Why are you reposting it here? To get an answer? My, you are are a spot of bother.

So, Mirabell, look beyond how I offended you and see if I've taught you anything. You're a smart guy--I'm certain you can find something positive that's come out of all this. Maybe you weren't as aware as you could've been of how deeply affected a clever, self-assured, educated woman can be from encounters with callous, uncaring men.

so...condescension and banalities. never a good mixture. I am guilty enough of that sort of thing myself, but that doesn't mean I should encourage it in others. the amount of trite and obvious things one says should be severely limited. Sybarite! Where is she when we need a (sub)editor so badly.

Well, Mirabell, I hate to burst your bubble, but I don't write my reviews for you or any other specific person on this list.

yeah...I know. does that mean I can't say I don't like them? oh the headaches.

By the way, have you read Hopscotch or any of Cortazar's other
writings? I assume since you were reading the posts to this thread
you must have an interest in his work.

"when you assume..."

titania7

20-Oct-2008, 10:17

You wrote most of this in a pm already which I ignored because I have only so much time for lenthy internet discussions. Why are you reposting it here? To get an answer? My, you are a spot of bother.

I didn't write most of this in the private message I sent you.
Come on, buddy--my message was mostly to ask you WHAT
you didn't like about my reviews. You and I both know that.
That was the entire purpose of my message to you.
You never replied, which makes me wonder why you ever
said you disliked my reviews. Didn't you expect me to
want any details? Maybe you wouldn't care why someone
didn't like something you had written. I do.

Of course, for one thing, I'm not a supercilious, pompous person
who thinks they a) know everything and b) that they can't improve anything about themselves. I happen to look at life as a learning
experience. Obviously, you have a different vantage point.

And, considering you post three ways--in addition to private messaging at the forum--that you can be contacted, it would
seem you are wanting to discuss something with someone.

[ quote:] so...condescension and banalities. never a good mixture. I am guilty enough of that sort of thing myself, but that doesn't mean I should encourage it in others.

Ha! First of all, I wasn't condescending. That was YOUR interpretation of my words. It's all about your reaction to what
I say--not what I actually say. Any psychologist worth his/her salt
would tell you that.

Secondly, if I had been condescending or had used banalities,
if it's fine for you, it's fine for me.

the amount of trite and obvious things one says should be severely limited.

Really? By whom, you? Who died and made you King??

[quote:] Sybarite! Where is she when we need a (sub)editor so badly.

Sybraite may still be reeling from the cocky attitude you demonstrated towards her in the "Book Mistakes" thread.
Besides, I have a feeling that Sybarite isn't as petty and
rude as you are. I don't think she'd have a problem with
anything I've said.

[quote:] yeah...I know. does that mean I can't say I don't like them (your reviews)? oh the headaches.

You could always take some aspirin.

[quote:] "when you assume..."

Hmmm....you're right. I did make an assumption about
you and Cortazar. Now I can make yet another assumption:
you haven't read any Cortazar.

I see you are incapable of being "cordial" for very long. Too bad.
I was starting to think I had misjudged you....(next I would've actually been starting to like you).

~Titania

titania7

20-Oct-2008, 10:25

Mirabell,
One more point of interest. I don't need an editor. I live with my mum who is a professional editor, not a sub-editor. And she's completely unbiased in regard to critiquing my work, including
my posts to this forum.

In other words, I don't need Sybarite's editing skills.

~Titania

Mirabell

20-Oct-2008, 10:31

I didn't write most of this in the private message I sent you.
Come on, buddy--my message was mostly to ask you WHAT
you didn't like about my reviews. You and I both know that.

well. not in terms of quantity, here's the pm. want to count lines?

Mirabell,
Hey. Thank you for your post to the Cortazar thread. I appreciate your comments.

I'll admit that I may have been too apologetic
regarding my previous remarks. I tend to easily get into a 'guilt-complex' frame of mind. This probably is a "woman's thing." I'm from Atlanta, you know, and Southern women are encouraged to be docile and submissive (yes, even in 2008). I'm a bit of an anomaly in my community and family. I know women who, for example, will let their husbands tell them when and how often they can go to the grocery store. And they don't really think there's anything wrong with this. If they voice their opinion about something and upset anyone, they will usually resort to apologies and explanations.

I'm not trying to find an excuse for why I over-apologized (is that even a word?). I'm merely trying to give you some idea of the cultural society I live in. Certain things aren't easily accepted--opinionated women are not readily welcomed, at least in my neighbourhood.

Yes, the internet is a place where you can be anyone you want to be. However, all the stuff I've said about myself has been 100% true.

I think my main issue with how I spoke about men
is that it gave others a misconception of who I am
and what I'm like. In addition, as you admitted,
I offended you and others on the list. I won't apologize again because that would be sheer
redundancy.

I'm very glad you read my rebuttal, however.
I was hoping someone would comment on it.
Sorry it didn't have the effect I would have wished for. I never dreamed I could offend anyone by being too apologetic. That's a new one for me.

But you're right--I haven't any reason to apologize for being a feminist. Or for being brash. My mother
did warn me last night about turning into a bitter old woman. And she also said that, back in the 70's, when she attended some NOW meetings, the women who regarded themselves as "feminists" had very little use for men. I'm not really aware of the connotation "feminist" has these days. However, I started to take the word off my "Personal Profile" because I don't want to be labelled as something I'm not. Who does?

Ugh! Have I rambled? Yes, I can be loquacious.
We all know this.

The main reason I private messaged you rather than writing this on the list is because I wanted
to ask you about my reviews. What don't you like about them? Is there something I can do improve them? I'm not good at judging my own work, as I'm a perfectionist and nothing is every going
to be good enough for me, anyway. But I admire
your opinions and respect your intellect.
So....tell me, how can I make my reviews better?
All suggestions are most welcome.

Mirabell

20-Oct-2008, 10:32

Really? By whom, you? Who died and made you King??

barry.

Stewart

20-Oct-2008, 10:36

Mirabell

20-Oct-2008, 10:38

Of course, for one thing, I'm not a supercilious, pompous person
who thinks they a) know everything and b) that they can't improve anything about themselves. I happen to look at life as a learning
experience. Obviously, you have a different vantage point

dude, "obvious" must mean something totally different in your world, since I am not well described by a) or b). The things you wanted me to "learn" are common knowledge. If you had told me where the sun rises it would not have been more noteworthy. And NOTE I did not complain about this, just about your assumption that I did not already know this. And assuming someone does not know something perfectly well known is condescending in my book.

Sybraite may still be reeling from the cocky attitude you demonstrated towards her in the "Book Mistakes" thread.

I think Sybarite can take it. ;)

Now I can make yet another assumption:
you haven't read any Cortazar.

"when you assume..."

don't be misled by the tone I use,
I still close

cordially,

M.

Mirabell

20-Oct-2008, 10:39

Right, people, quit it with the slanging match. It's Hopscotch or nothing on this thread. I highly doubt anyone wants to read pointless squabbles going back and forth. Take it to PM, and if that isn't working, just forget about it. It's boring.

She did take it to pm and then reposted the pm with an attitude. Which is what I complained about. BUt other than that I agree, sir. will jump to it sir. ;)

titania7

20-Oct-2008, 11:57

Right, people, quit it with the slanging match. It's Hopscotch or nothing on this thread. I highly doubt anyone wants to read pointless squabbles going back and forth. Take it to PM, and if that isn't working, just forget about it. It's boring.

Not a problem for me :). Glad to know Mirabell shares my
sentiments.

~Titania

DB Cooper

09-Dec-2009, 03:27

Im currently reading Hopscotch and I noticed something. Those of you familiar with the book of course know that the Table of Instructions lays out two methods of reading the book. The first is to read it straight through chapters 1-56, leaving out the "expendable" chapters. The other method (the one Im doing) skips, or hopscotches, around all chapters in the book. At the end of each chapter there is a notation telling you what chapter to skip to next, and also a table of instructions in the front of the book. What I noticed is this: after reading chapter 54, in which some significant events occur, I casually browsed the first few lines of ch. 55, expecting to jump back to that chapter at some point. I went to the table of instructions and noticed that reading using the hopscotch method that ch. 55 is not included at all in the table, in other words its completely omitted when reading the book that way. Obviously if you read it in linear fashion it would be included, but why not the other way? Is this a printing error? Simple oversight? Was it intended to be this way? Or perhaps a puzzle that Cortazar employed?

DB Cooper

09-Dec-2009, 03:28

By the way what an amazing book.

Stiffelio

09-Dec-2009, 05:39

DB Cooper

09-Dec-2009, 06:00

Hopscotch is a novel that deserves many readings. No, there's no printing error. Read it both ways and get your own conclusions (though you'll be able to google into zillions of comments and interpretations about the novel) :p

Interesting. Ive decided I will read ch 54 last. And I agree wholeheartedly that this book demands re-readings. A lot to chew on there and you simply cant digest it all in one sitting.

Side note: The thread and discussion about this book is bizarre.

Peeping Tom

09-Dec-2009, 06:33

I?ve only read Hopscotch a third of the way (three times!). I think this is probably the best partially-read-novel I?ve ever read (or at least the most memorable). I?ve only known one person who has read it twice, both ways (that was my goal), and I?ve always wondered if there were any other readers who read it twice both ways, and if so, did it matter?

By the way, before posting this, I thought I?d better read this thread from the very beginning. Holy Rocamadour, what a history!

Daniel del Real

09-Dec-2009, 23:14

I read Hopscotch (translated title never ceases to surprise me) more than 5 years ago, so by now, it's hard to tell you, but here's what I remember.

There are two ways reading the book, the one where you jump some chapters, or the one where you go in a straight reading from chapter 1 to 56. Of course the best thing is to read it both ways, but here's what I found on each one.

From chapter 1 to 56, tells the story of all the characters involved in the Paris Latin neighbourhood. Oliveira, La Maga, Wong and the rest of them interact with each other. These are long chapters. However, after chapter 56, we find a series of short chapters that tells the stories of a painter named Morelli and his views of life.

If you read it normally until chapter 56, you just get the story of all these characters I mentioned earlier. However if you choose to reading it as Cort?zar suggests, you go back and forth between the story and the comments of Morelli, making it a richer and more complete novel.

I think that what Cortazar is trying to state, is the difference he always said about Male (Active) or Female (Passive) reader (don't yell at me, is Cortazar who made this sexist distinction). Reading it as suggested by him involves a lot more of effort to the reader than the normal way. Maybe the statement is, that if you read a normal book, the normal way, you'll be losing tons of valuable information, from chapter 56 to the end of the book. However this is just my interpretation.
I'd suggest to read it first with the jumps, let it rest some time and then go back and read it normally.

With that you'll get a basic idea of what's the book about. I need to re-read it soon.

Bjorn

29-Jun-2010, 19:42

Just started this (in the "hopscotch" order) and thought I'd bump the thread. Looks like I'm in for a ride. Has anyone else read it since the last discussion?

DB Cooper

30-Jun-2010, 06:30

Really, really liked Hopscotch. Also greatly enjoyed Cortazar's short story collection Blow Up And Other Stories. Im not very aware of his other works but I would like to read more Cortazar soon.

kpjayan

30-Jun-2010, 07:01

Just started this (in the "hopscotch" order) and thought I'd bump the thread. Looks like I'm in for a ride. Has anyone else read it since the last discussion?

I did, and I agree that the hopscotch way is more entertaining..

Amoxcalli

30-Jun-2010, 12:39

I agree with kpjayan and DB Cooper. It's a very good book and the "hopscotch" way is definitely the way to read it. Possibly my all-time favourite work of fiction. Enjoy!

Bjorn

15-Jul-2010, 23:06

So I finished Hopscotch a week ago and I've been trying to write a review, but... damnit. So these are just going to be a bunch of thoughts in (possibly) random order.

The story, as told in chapters 1-56 of 155: Pretentious guy in a foreign country meets girl, treats her like shit, loses her, goes back home to search for her or himself... In a way, that's probably a great move by Cort?zar, hanging a complex novel on a story that, while it contains a few bizarre turns (it more or less turns into pure Marx Bros towards the end) is pretty straight-forward, one we already know from other stories. And then he can start hanging all the other stuff on that story. One problem with it is the same that we recently discussed re: David Lynch; you occasionally get the feeling that Cort?zar is so busy subverting not only his own story but the very idea of a story that he doesn't take the characters seriously, that they're just there to be messed with by the narrator. But hey, for the most part it works, is alternately hilarious and upsetting... Chapters 1-56 are quite a good novel. (Oh, and regarding some of the earlier discussion in this thread... no, I never got the impression that we're supposed to see Oliveira as a hero.)

But then, of course, nobody reads this in the "normal" order. It's a book in hypertext. So what you get isn't really the story; you get both more and less than that, and there's no way I could cover it all here. Cort?zar sets the reader paging back and forth through the book, dropping in loose chapters that sometimes flesh out the "official" story, sometimes contradict or subvert it, sometimes just offer quotes or philosophical meanderings that may or may not have bearing on what just happened in the "plot", leaving it up to us to try and figure out why this chapter had to be followed by this quote, how much of it is taking place inside and outside the story...

Cort?zar creates the illusion that the reader gets to pick which novel to read, as if it were some choose-your-adventure book, but of course the way you read it is strictly controlled by the author. There's a Tristram Shandy-style joke here (though it doesn't get old as fast as Tristram Shandy does) in the way the story continually sabotages and derails itself. But what's more, by forcing the reader to the act of searching for the next chapter, bouncing from page 158 to page 576 to page 390 etc, he makes us conscious of the act of reading, of what we ourselves bring to a story. The novel is fiction, a lie, calling attention to every old ingrown clich? even as it serves them to us; every single philosophical discussion by Oliveira and his friends goes nowhere; none of the characters or narrators seem reliable, every motif deconstructed; and yet there's a strong narrative carrying us forward.

The game of the title turns up towards the end (by which time we've learned not to trust any metaphors completely) and feels almost a little too much like a summation. You throw your marker, you jump, but you're stuck in the same grid as everyone else who plays it. You can't simply walk through a hopscotch court or you'll lose the game. Hopscotch is, perhaps, a novel about those lines that both the characters, the author and the readers are bound to by our personal, cultural, philosophical, religious, etc backgrounds; we can try to define them, we can try to escape them, but we can never ignore them. If it has a failure, it's probably that it works slightly better as a form experiment than as a novel... but not so much better that it ruins the novel.

****0