Narziss and Goldmund by Hermann Hesse
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This novel runs a continuous debate about two philosophical questions as to which one is better: life of hedonism and creativity or life of spirituality and rationality. But does Hesse settle this debate in the book? I believe he does, however it very much depends upon your own interpretation.

What Hesse does is that he tries to answer these two philosophical questions through his two diametrically opposed characters Goldmund and Narziss. Godlmund represents the passionate "feminine mind" of emotion and sensuality while Narziss represents the disciplined and pious mind of altruism and reasoning. Both of these characters seek to find their true nature, and meaning and connection to the world. One tries to do so by being a wanderer, succumbing his life to sensuality and Artistic creativity while the other living a life of devoted priest and theorist.

Although both Goldmund and Narziss live the lives of extremes, there is a true connection of friendship and respect between them. They also learn from each other. It is through Narziss that Goldmund realizes that he is not meant to become a scholar and in fact it is against his true nature. Narziss clearly points out the danger of someone trying to force into a role that is not meant for them.

Golmund thus leaves the monastery to fulfill himself and after years of travelling and experiencing life and even death, he returns to the same monastery. Narziss whose true nature is to become a scholar is shown 'awake', having an understanding of his true intent and in fact when Goldmund returns, Narziss is already an Abbot, holding a high position in monastery – very wise and accomplished.

It is here that Hesse tries to settle the philosophical debate. When Goldmund returns and carves sculptures, Narziss sees his true nature and respects him. However, Narziss also realizes something else – when compared to Goldmund, how poor he was, with all his knowledge, his monastic discipline and dialectics! Narziss - "Yes, and perhaps it was merely not simpler and more humane to live a Goldmund-life in the world. Perhaps in the end it was more valiant, and greater in God's sight, to breast the currents of reality, sin, and accept sin's bitter consequence, instead of standing apart, with well-washed hands, living in sober,quiet security, planting a pretty garden of well-trained thoughts, and walking then, in stainless ignorance among them......"

However, this realization he never shares with Goldmund.

Eventually, when Goldmund comes back again from his yet another wanderings, sick and close to death but looking evermore peaceful and satisfied – Goldmund feels sorry for his friend Narziss. His last words to him is, "But how will you die, Narziss? You know no mother. How can you die without a mother? Without mother we cannot die."

Goldmund's last words seared Narziss heart like a flame.

I somehow feel like Goldmund's life was more satisfying and accomplished towards the end but Golmund was also a troubled individual compared to Narziss who knew his true nature and was disciplined towards achieving his goal. Both the polar opposite throughout the story respected each other differences and also learned from each other.

Ultimately, what is important is creating a balance of Golmund and Narziss in our lives (between passion and reason), for obviously we all have that polar extremes.

View all my reviews

Animal Farm

Animal Farm by George Orwell
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

While I was reading this book, I had our country's internal armed conflict in mind.

Just to give you a brief background as to what the book is all about (for those who have not read the book yet). The humans in Manor Farm are chased away by the farm animals, in the leadership of pigs and they rename the farm 'Animal Farm'. They establish their own principles and commandments but as time goes by the smart pigs change the commandments to fit their selfish needs and ultimately enslave the animals and run the farm themselves. That’s the background in a gist.

To me, not surprisingly, the ending of the book matched quite well to the current position of Nepal. With all that bloodshed and uprising, what happened? In Manor Farm humans were simply replaced by pigs and the animals continued to suffer. Does that not sound familiar?

While the book might have been a critique to the then Stalin's communism in USSR, I think I not only speak for myself but dare say most Nepalese (who've read the book of course), of its obvious resemblance to Nepal – of the thwarting failure of Maoist and the principals they claimed to stand by. What do the pigs do with the Animal Farm's commandments; comrades they change it one after another (very discreetly of course)!!

Obviously the book gives a strong message at the end – the fact that a violent armed revolution, particularly led by power-hungry people will only lead to the change of masters. Precisely why communism has failed in most places (by naively assuming that the pigs will not abuse their power)! And boy have we not seen the contrary in Nepal!


View all my reviews

Review on the book Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Lolita always had a negative connotation. Even when I shared to people that I was reading Lolita, they already had a negative ruling on the book. They said it was a sexy book, but contrarily Lolita is far from it. Obviously it is a classic novel so everybody knows about it and the subject that Nabokov has written about is very disturbing and tabooed.

Humbert a full grown male adult is the narrator who declares his ceaseless and hysterical love/desire for a child named Lolita. There are few instances in the book that really appalled me. For instance Humbert says Lolita (the little child) was the one who seduced him. Imagine the intensity of that charge to justify his sickening action; blaming a child walking around and sitting on his lap innocently for the reason he raped her repeatedly. Second thing that was shocking to me was Humbert realizing the fact that Lolita will one day grow up and that he might need to find someone alternative for his sexual needs. He then envisages marrying Lolita to have a girl child (little Lolita) that he can use as a pawn to satisfy his pedophilic needs in the future.

How the writer Nabokov explains about Humbert being a pedophile by nature, I thought was pretty interesting and convincing. There are moments when you feel sad for Humbert and then you are disgusted by your own feeling for sympathizing a pedophile. I think Nabokov through his words and writing intended to do exactly that to the readers. He convinces you to side with a pedophile over a little girl. A creepy thought isn’t it?

While this is indeed a book about pedophilia, it is much more than that. I think Nobokov intended to not just look at Humbert's vices but reflect on our own as well. We need to look beyond the flat theme of the book and read between the lines. While it might be difficult for the negative tag that Lolita comes along with to go away, reading the novel definitely made me realize that this book is far from being just plain disturbing, negative and/or sexual.


View all my reviews

My Take: Catch 22 by Joseph Heller

I always heard about this great classic but never got around reading it until recently.

As a kid I remember my father reading a lot of books. He would proudly say 'I know the English I know today because I read books". He always encouraged us to read books and no wonder, all of us - five sisters - are very fond of books. I thank my father for inspiring me to have love towards great writers and great books.  I grew admiring his huge bookshelf stacked will all the classics like Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Kafka, Bronte, Shakespeare, Twain and so on. I really looked forward to reading them and attempted quite a few as well when in school.

There was something about reading the same book read by my father. It was a special feeling . I would admire the lines he'd underlined and try to put myself in his shoe and think about what he must have thought when he read that particular part. I would notice the dates he'd scribbled in the front and the place he'd purchased the book and try to figure out his age when he read it.

One time while I was trying to find books with lot of pictures, I stumbled upon a copy of Catch 22. What attracted me was the big 22 number in the front. While I flipped over though I did not find any pictures inside I found a comment written by my father about the book which struck me. I never got around reading it as a kid because I did not understand anything. It however, held a special place in my heart because I knew it had made an impression on my father.

After nearly 15 years, when I saw a copy of Catch 22 on a book shop near Tafalgar Square in London, my childhood memory flushed fresh and I finally bought a copy. Since I was busy studying for my MA, I never got around reading it. After finishing my Masters and returning back to Nepal I finally found it among a pile of clothes and that's when I picked it up to read it after nearly 1 and a half years of purchasing it. 

Catch 22 - my observation:

Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I nearly felt like quitting the book after 150 pages but I am very glad I finished it. It requires an effort to read this book especially in the beginning and I will confess that I had problems with the writing in places. What I liked about this book is the 'Tragic Humor". I say tragic humor because there are a lot of funny moments in this book with hilarious character descriptions and dialogues that make you laugh but these moments do not last long for tragedy sneaks up on you. The very fact that the whole comedic incidences happen in a corrupt bureaucratic system and the helpless inability of the characters who behave the way they do out of frustrations make you sympathize them and suddenly you are not laughing anymore. The characters look ridiculous and crazy in the context of war and the fact that the shady bureaucracy makes things worst for them make you even question the very basis of war.

Heller is very descriptive about his characters and characters there are a lot, which can be a bit boring and hard to keep track at times but it is what makes the story so good. Each character is different and unique. Further, the story seems to be laid chaotically like the author bluntly hints about his character’s demise very early even before the character is introduced in the story. And while you begin to read about that particular character and his story, you feel sorry for him. You nervously and dreadfully read not knowing when that moment of his death will come making you drawn more to the particular character.

The book revolves around the theme ‘catch 22’ which is a situation that you cannot get out of and most of the time this situation is based on illogical reasons. This book is satirical towards war and reveals the corrupt military system through the characters.

Yossarian, a bombardier from US Army squadron during WWII, stands up after the missions are raised again and again even after he has flown 70 combat missions to self-centered bureaucrat like Colonel Catchcart. All Yossarian wants is to save himself and fears that he will die like the rest of his friends if he flies one more time. Though in reality he has done his duty he is still forced to do extra work because the people above him want to make an impression and advance in career. This is where you really sympathize with this character when he is trying his best to stand up against the corrupt system and gets caught in 'Catch 22' unable to get out.

All in all, this book is an anti-war novel and it's about bureaucracy, war, life and death. Though I found the character Milo who ran a black market and manipulated everyone to support his M&M enterprise interesting, I despised him later especially in the part where Snowden is about to die and Yossarian is trying to save him. When Yossarian tries to give Snowden morphine he cannot find it because Milo has smuggled it. Instead of morphine he finds in the first aid kit a note signed by Milo that says 'what’s good for M&M enterprise is good for the country'- This scene is very sordid and heartrending. I respected the character Orr for his farsightedness and how he manages to give Yossarian hope at the end. On the whole the book has left me bittersweet.


View all my reviews 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps reading the same copy of Catch 22 that my father read would have been more special but nevertheless I know now why this book made an impression on him. It has made and impression on me as well. It is a master piece and I recommend we all read it!