Monday, October 25, 2010

Norwegian Wood

They say you should never judge a book by its cover... and this is probably the book they had in mind when they said it.
"Norwegian Wood" - H. Murakami.
The title tells you pretty much nothing. Even when you know where the title comes from it doesn't really tell you much. "Norwegian Wood" is the name of one of the main characters favourite Beatles song.
See, nothing.
So how about the back cover?
"This book is undeniably hip, full of student uprisings, free love, booze and 1960's pop." - Independent on Sunday
What?! That has nothing to do with anything! That's like saying "Lord of the Rings" was full of grass, the "Godfather" was full of Italian restaurants or that "Dragon Ball" was about a whiny teenager who wanted his granddad to teach him to pick up girls... damn it... Dragon Ball Evolution sucked...
Admittedly, the book is set in Tokyo during the summer of '69 and does mention the student rebellions of the time. But of the 386 pages of story, probably only about 2 of them rely on that fact. Likewise, although 60's pop songs, the Beatles in particular, are regularly mentioned by name, there is no real discussion of the songs and as such no real significance. They could easily be replaced without much change in the book.
Probably the most misleading of the quote, however, is the image portrayed by the use of "hip", "free love" and "booze". The book has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of flower power, shagadelic love of Austin Powers.
So what is it about?
Good question.
Although it follows a far more logical path than some of Murakami's other novels and short stories, it is by no means a book that can be pigeon holed. However, if a description is required it can be considered as:
"An Emotional Masterpiece."
... and no, that does not mean a typical chick flick or a love story. It covers everything from high to low, including 4 suicides, 2 hospitalised deaths and several deep sessions of depression and whisky drinking. Despite this, it also has some of the most adorable passages in literature.
So let’s take a deeper look into some of the main issues of the book.
Let’s start with death...
The shadow of death is a constant companion throughout Norwegian Wood, the first suicide occurring within the first 30 pages, but the feel of it really starting from page one. There is a sense of inevitability about the fragile mortality of human existence which Murakami brings out effectively in several ways.
For a start, the whole book is written from the view of the main character, Toru Watanabe, who is remembering the events from 18 years later. As such, the whole story is inevitable. There is no possible element of surprise to the writer as he has had 18 years for it to sink in.
More than this, however, there is not really meant to be any element of surprise to the reader. The characters who die are all spoken of from the start in tones expected of discussions about friends no longer around. The deaths themselves are stated as fact before any detail is given.
Also, if all of that is too subtle, Murakami spells it out. As Toru says after one death:
"Death exists, not as the opposite but as part of life. It's a cliché translated into words, but at the time I felt it not as words but as a knot of air inside me."
And after another:
"No one should have to die like that."
To which the response is:
"We all have to die like that sometime. I will, and so will you."
Everything about the book echoes the hollow, subtle, silent sound of death, and it is from this sound where the book really gets its title from.
"That song can make me so sad. I don't know, I guess I imagine myself wandering in a deep wood. I'm all alone and it's cold and dark, and nobody comes to save me."
So is this inevitability suppose to bring some strange form of comfort? Some reduced form of anguish?
No.
"No truth can cure the sadness we feel from losing a loved one. No truth, no sincerity, no strength, no kindness, can cure that sorrow. All we can do is see that sadness through to the end and learn something from it, but what we learn will be no help in facing the next sadness that comes to us without warning."
And on that uplifting note, perhaps it’s time to look at what Murakami has to offer on another topic: Life.
"Just remember, life is a box of chocolates."
Now, you’re probably thinking you've heard that somewhere before, and indeed if you haven't: GO WATCH FOREST GUMP RIGHT NOW! Seriously, what planet have you been living on? However, it is worth pointing out that Norwegian Wood was published back in '87, 7 years before the greatness of Gump.
"You know, they've got these chocolate assortments, and you like some but you don't like others? And you eat all the ones you like, and the only ones left are the ones you don't like as much? I always think about that when something painful comes up. 'Now I just have to polish these off, and everything'll be OK.' Life is a box of chocolates."
Norwegian Wood, as with life in general, is a box of chocolates. It has it's darker moments, but it also has its happy times, and you can learn something from all of them.
"I get the feeling a lot of shit is going to come your way, but you're a stubborn bastard, I'm sure you'll handle it. Mind if I give you one piece of advice?"
"Go ahead"
"Don't feel sorry for yourself. Only arseholes do that."
In summary then, how much do I like Norwegian Wood?
“I really like it. A lot.”
“How much is a lot?”
“Like a spring bear”
“A spring bear? What’s that all about? A spring bear.”
“You’re walking through a field all by yourself one day in spring, and this sweet little bear cub with velvet fur and shiny little eyes comes walking along. And he says to you, ‘Hi, there, little lady. Want to tumble with me?’ So you and the bear cub spend the whole day in each other’s arms, tumbling down this clover-covered hill. Nice, huh?”
“Yeah. Really nice.”

Monday, October 18, 2010

13 Things That Don't Make Sense

They say you should never judge a book by its cover, and, thinking about what the cover generally has on it, that would suggest not judging by the title either. This book may be a bit of an exception to that rule:

"13 Things That Don't Make Sense" - by Michael Brooks

What's it about? Well, surprisingly enough, its about... 13 things that don't make sense...

Michael Brooks provides a list of 13 things which, in his opinion, science has not yet provided a satisfactory explanation for. These include the likes of dark matter/dark energy, gravity, life, death, sex and aliens. His discussion on each is generally well rounded, informed and thought provoking and makes for a good bed time story.

Although the topics are all highly varied, one common theme does unit the majority of the book. A theme that makes less sense than any of the topics explicitly mentioned.

The fact that many scientists treat science like a religion.

The book is mostly about the silly behaviour of scientists known as the "paradigm shift".

"Scientists work with one set of ideas. Everything they do is informed by that set of ideas. There will be some evidence that doesn't fit, however. At first that evidence will be ignored or sabotaged." Only when the evidence builds up to critical mass does the whole system break down and a new law is put in place.

However, this new order generally requires alot more than new evidence. It requires a new set of scientists with a new set of beliefs and a new set of followers. In other words, a new religion.

So powerful is the force of religious science that the writer himself, despite the majority of the book providing countless evidence of it, falls foul of it himself in his debate on free will. On rather flimsy evidence he declares, "We do not have what we think of as free will." The rest of the debate then takes this statement as fact, and the "thing that does not make sense" is that so many people believe we do. True, it can be argued that free will does not exist and there may not be any strong logical arguement as to why it should, but the evidence he bases his conclusion on is inconclusive at best.

The book therefore leads to an interesting debate on the 14th thing. Why is the human mind so strongly wired towards religion, that even those who go out of their way to find an evidence based, logical alternative to religion still just end up with another religion?