things that confuse me.

As I continue reading Everything Is Illuminated, there are things that continue to confuse me. For example, does Augustine come before or after the much adored Brod, and what relation does she have to Brod and Yankel? Speaking of Yankel, what is this story about him swindling some man while his name was Safran? And does the main character Jonathan Safran Foer and the author having the same name have any significance as far as the story? (Its fiction). Why do people in Trachimbrod, or Sofiowka, behave so strangely? Do they really record their recurrent dreams as it describes, even though they would seem, at least I imagine, such private and intimate dreams one wouldn't want to share with their whole village? What makes Brod so special? Who were her parents, why was she found the way she was, and what is up with the scene where she uses her telescope to look through a wall of a neighbor's house and read a recording of her apparent first rape, when there was no mention of her being raped before? What does this mean about her, about the book?
You'd think that having watched the movie would make these questions easier to answer, but no, I'm still confused. For one thing, the entire story of Brod and Yankel and the Slouchers and Trachimbrod at this time period was not included in the movie. I wonder why that would be, when it seems to be such a big part of the plot in the novel. Hopefully the answers to these questions will reveal themselves as the novel progresses. I will keep you updated.

On the aspect of the similarities between the book and the movie, I am happy to say that the humor is the same. They used precisely the same jokes in the movie as were in the book. I wonder, however, if I would have seen the humor in them as much if I hadn't already watched the movie.

comparing book to movie.

Everything Is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer is a movie as well as a book. I saw the movie a while ago and decided the book might be just as good if not better, so decided to read it. As I'm reading I've noticed some things that are different about the book and movie, and some things that are almost exactly the same.

One thing I noticed right away that is the same is the character Alexander's vocabulary. I have to say this is one of my favorite parts of the book, it just makes reading the chapters that he narrates so enjoyable. He is from Ukraine so doesn't always understand how Americans speak English. Here's a sample of the way he talks:
"My legal name is Alexander Perchov. But all of my many friends dub me Alex, because that is a more flaccid-to-utter version of my legal name. Mother dubs me Alexi-stop-spleening-me!, because I am always spleening her. If you want to know why I am always spleening her, it is because I am always elsewhere with friends, and disseminating so much currency, and performing so many things that can spleen a mother" (1).
A lot of the phrases and words he uses in the book are the exact same as the movie, and the first intro chapter of the book is very close to the intro of the movie.

The first thing I noticed that was significantly different was the second chapter which I'm starting to gather is part of a novel the other main character, Jonathan Safran Foer, (yes, its the same as the author, the actual relation of this I'm still unsure), is writing about his very great grandmother. It's sort of a confusing format, switching each chapter unannounced to this novel or Alex talking about or to Jonathan. The flow of the movie was easier to understand, and in the movie, Jonathan was a collector, not a writer, even though Alex's father thought he was writing a novel.

The plot so far seems mostly the same except for the confusion about this novel Jonathan seems to be writing.

We'll just have to see if the similarities and differences continue as the book progresses.

Beyond Good and Evil: Nietzsche

"Discovering that his love is returned should actually disillusion a lover about his beloved. 'What's this? This person is unassuming enough to love even you? Or stupid enough? Or -- or --'" (63).

This quote depresses me and seems rather true all at the same time, a reaction I'm finding occurs quite often while reading this book. Its heart breaking to think that if its always true, then no one will ever really be in love with their love equally returned, unless of course both of the people are so self involved it doesn't apply to them. This quote wouldn't apply to someone self centered because they wouldn't be shocked to discover the person they loves loves them back, more they would almost expect it, take it for granted. So, if we are to believe this quote to be true, (not saying that I do, as I don't entirely, it just seems to make a certain sense), either you can never have a real relationship with someone you love and loves you back, or you're far too in love with yourself. Personally, neither of those sound very appealing.

"Ultimately, it is the desire, not the desired, that we love" (72).

I also find truth in this quote. It can apply to anything that we want or desire. Its the basic argument that you always want something until you actually have it. We are more in love with the wanting aspect of it, and that consumes most of our emotions, that the actual object or person doesn't particularly matter, more the fact that it is indeed desirable is what has any affect. The wanting and leading up to an event or something else is more exciting and stimulating than the thing itself, in may cases.

Welkommen

'ello and welcome to my semi-rad blog. :]

please attempt to enjoy yourself, and if you're not... leave?