![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
raxSo I read a book this week. I've been reading an amount that is utterly ridiculous for me and I love it. I just read read read read read. Basically whenever I have more than two minutes to spare I have a book open. It's awesome. So actually I read more than one book this week, but I want to write about this one before it falls out of my head: The Sacred Book of the Werewolf by Victor Pelevin. I bought this book immediately upon reading this NYT book review a while ago and then forgot about it until this week, when I picked it up and tossed it in my bag as one of the books I might start on the way to work on Tuesday. While you absolutely need to read this if your name starts with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
circuit- or ends with -iquidjewel , I think a number of the rest of you might want to check this out too. Here's my plot synopsis:
An ancient werefox virgin hypnotist prostitute with a literary theory obsession attracts the attention of the Russian military. While her sister is trying to hunt the British aristocracy and she is studying philosophy, they both run into the concept of the super-werewolf, which may or may not have anything to do with the super-ego. Our protagonist finds herself swirled up in a conspiracy of conspiracies and hanging around with werewolves, to boot; between the action (and, yes, the action) she and her sisters exchange long emails about Freud and Foucault.
If you're me, you've already clicked the Amazon link above and bought the book. But most of you probably not so much. :) I have A Thing for depictions of foxes in literature --- not a thing I've nurtured all that much but a thing nonetheless. Adrienne Rich's fox who is more my sister than they are, Joyce's fox digging and scraping, red reek of rapine in his fur... So when Pelevin hands me a fox character whose approach to learning is much like mine, I am basically hooked. She understands herself and others by conversations in which she bounces things she has heard off of other people to see if she agrees with them or not, and works from there. I don't think a book has made me tempted to incorporate things from it into my own life since I read The Crying of Lot 49. I'm not an ancient werefox virgin hypnotist prostitute, and that's probably for the best for everyone involved, but there are a lot of similarities between the ways we think and the things we think about. (I need to read Berkeley now. No, this one.) If I start signing emails "Heads and tails," this is why.
The mythological magical what have you in the book borrows from a bunch of traditions in ways that might be problematic? I'm honestly not sure. I'm not familiar with the Russian relationship to Taoism or Buddhism or chakras or Norse mythology (yes, Congery, it has Norse mythology in it) and for the most part it didn't feel problematic. The British aristocrats go around appropriating everything and its mother but... well, that's sort of in-character, isn't it? (More books should narrativize powerpoint presentations on the occult. It's awesome.) I'd be curious to know what other readers think of this mishmash of philosophies and --- the narrator uses this word herself, many times --- discourses.
I also feel like there's a layer to the book I'm not entirely getting because I don't know that much about Russia. There are a lot of multi-lingual puns that are explained in translation. Pelevin wrote in Russian, but there are a whole lot of riffs in English (the apparat as "upper rat," werewolf sex as "tailechery") that fit in very well even if they weren't there originally. Various reviews talk about the subtle political satire, and while some of it was pretty apparent to me, some things, I'm sure, sailed right over my head. This does mean that clearlyeredien should read it, though, and then I can pester her with questions.
I'm not honestly sure if this book would be a great read if you didn't think werefoxes arguing about philosophy for twenty pages at a time was the best thing ever. I don't want to give away too much about the plot or directions because I know a lot of people care about spoilers, but things do happen --- it's not just werefoxes arguing about philosophy for twenty pages at a time. A lot of the action is laugh-out-loud funny: I got some weird looks sitting in cafes or in trains laughing at the book with the naked werefox silhouette on the cover. Buy or borrow this book, and you could too!
circuit- or ends with -iquidjewel , I think a number of the rest of you might want to check this out too. Here's my plot synopsis:An ancient werefox virgin hypnotist prostitute with a literary theory obsession attracts the attention of the Russian military. While her sister is trying to hunt the British aristocracy and she is studying philosophy, they both run into the concept of the super-werewolf, which may or may not have anything to do with the super-ego. Our protagonist finds herself swirled up in a conspiracy of conspiracies and hanging around with werewolves, to boot; between the action (and, yes, the action) she and her sisters exchange long emails about Freud and Foucault.
If you're me, you've already clicked the Amazon link above and bought the book. But most of you probably not so much. :) I have A Thing for depictions of foxes in literature --- not a thing I've nurtured all that much but a thing nonetheless. Adrienne Rich's fox who is more my sister than they are, Joyce's fox digging and scraping, red reek of rapine in his fur... So when Pelevin hands me a fox character whose approach to learning is much like mine, I am basically hooked. She understands herself and others by conversations in which she bounces things she has heard off of other people to see if she agrees with them or not, and works from there. I don't think a book has made me tempted to incorporate things from it into my own life since I read The Crying of Lot 49. I'm not an ancient werefox virgin hypnotist prostitute, and that's probably for the best for everyone involved, but there are a lot of similarities between the ways we think and the things we think about. (I need to read Berkeley now. No, this one.) If I start signing emails "Heads and tails," this is why.
The mythological magical what have you in the book borrows from a bunch of traditions in ways that might be problematic? I'm honestly not sure. I'm not familiar with the Russian relationship to Taoism or Buddhism or chakras or Norse mythology (yes, Congery, it has Norse mythology in it) and for the most part it didn't feel problematic. The British aristocrats go around appropriating everything and its mother but... well, that's sort of in-character, isn't it? (More books should narrativize powerpoint presentations on the occult. It's awesome.) I'd be curious to know what other readers think of this mishmash of philosophies and --- the narrator uses this word herself, many times --- discourses.
I also feel like there's a layer to the book I'm not entirely getting because I don't know that much about Russia. There are a lot of multi-lingual puns that are explained in translation. Pelevin wrote in Russian, but there are a whole lot of riffs in English (the apparat as "upper rat," werewolf sex as "tailechery") that fit in very well even if they weren't there originally. Various reviews talk about the subtle political satire, and while some of it was pretty apparent to me, some things, I'm sure, sailed right over my head. This does mean that clearly
eredien should read it, though, and then I can pester her with questions.I'm not honestly sure if this book would be a great read if you didn't think werefoxes arguing about philosophy for twenty pages at a time was the best thing ever. I don't want to give away too much about the plot or directions because I know a lot of people care about spoilers, but things do happen --- it's not just werefoxes arguing about philosophy for twenty pages at a time. A lot of the action is laugh-out-loud funny: I got some weird looks sitting in cafes or in trains laughing at the book with the naked werefox silhouette on the cover. Buy or borrow this book, and you could too!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-27 02:48 pm (UTC)Also, Berkeley is a rather boring writer, sadly. He's not Searle boring, but he's up there.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-27 02:58 pm (UTC)Let me know what you think.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-05-25 08:34 am (UTC)Seducing someone via a theological argument seems like the hottest thing ever.
Pelevin has a good excuse for creating a character that us humans can actually relate with, in the explanation of the foxes' memory. I'm glad he thought of that, since excessively human non-humans are a pet peeve of mine.
Not once did A ever express a desire to become human. Finally. I get really sick of all the quisling foxes in literature.
I'm adopting "heads and tails" as an affectation.
The best comparison I can think of for A's attitude toward classic literature is with Nietzsche's attitude, which is intensely personal, making all the great insights in those works seem like gestures of friendship toward the reader, and making all the great errors seem like outright betrayals. Mind, A has a better reason than Nietzsche to think that way. :>
The characters' conversations about great (and not-so-great) authors were not abstract discussions thereof but ones that related them intimately to the characters' lives, which I take to be a sign of an author who has himself been deeply shaped by such predecessors.
Pelevin's (via A's) approach to Buddhism is markedly an outsider's. The satori-like (and somewhat Socratic) exercises seem composed by rote, and at times almost a recitation of dogma. Since these appear more toward the end, it was a bit of a disappointment, but not much of one.
I like that foxes receive plenty of explanation, and werewolves almost none.
Pelevin managed, in a tiny passage, to exactly encapsulate the arrogance, boyishness, confidence, and enthusiasm that I associate with wolves, namely in the letter to Alexander from his mentor ("Transform! WOLF-FLOW!"). I burst out laughing when I read that, and at several other moments too.
The sense of humor is one that I find myself starved of in American entertainment, and one that I'd like my own to approach: critical and perceptive without being cynical, spiteful or malicious. In particular, A's attitude of simultaneous fondness for and weariness with Russia was expressed in some great ways, and I also dug the way every fox spoke disparagingly of her own native country.
I felt I learned a few subtle things about Russia, though one can get the same from any good book set in a foreign country and written by a native thereof.
The book kept me from completing my grading when I should have. :P
The story uses a displaced structure that was once brought heavily to my attention by an amazing professor, with the story being told by a character in the story. You can see the same thing in Heart of Darkness, Steppenwolf, and scads of Poe stories. I've come to associate the technique with highly personal writing, as though it adds a barrier or layer of protection to the actual author.
It seems to be unfortunate that I haven't read Lolita yet, because there was a heavy subtext (sometimes not-so-sub text) about A's appearance that I could sense but not follow.
Those damn Taoist exorcists! Okay, so there was a cultural touching point there that I simply don't know, as I recently watched a Korean fox anime which also had a Taoist exorcist. I would like to know the common lore, but things like that aren't well-suited to internet searches.
It's a shame no one can hold his own against A in an intellectual debate, since when she does let loose the effect is dazzling.
Damn good book. I've already passed it on to some local friends. I will bite whomever calls it pretentious.
Oh, and some favorite quotes that I bookmarked while reading:
"I always avoid arguing with people, but this time I just exploded and started talking seriously, as if I was with another fox."
"'And what do I smell of?'
"'I can't really say... Mountains, moonlight. Spring. Flowers. Deception. But not a wily kind of deception, more as if you're having a joke.'"
"In the north of England there are several privately owned castles where aristocrats are bred from the finest stock and raised specially for hunting by foxes -- the output isn't all that large, but the quality is excellent."
"Foxes have a fundamental answer to the fundamental question of philosophy, which is to forget this fundamental question."
Hmm, I think I'll make an entry out of this, too.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-27 03:33 pm (UTC)You have been officially reminded :D.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-27 03:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-27 04:02 pm (UTC)I'd probably read this book even if it were.
Thanks!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-28 01:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-28 07:00 am (UTC)I read Pelevin's Omon Ra (1992) in college, but I didn't love it so much that I'd have picked up another book of his on random curiosity. Seriously, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I shall let you know what I think!
(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-28 12:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-28 01:20 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-28 01:24 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-28 01:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-28 04:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-02-28 12:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-02 01:31 pm (UTC)