[kid vic]

Oh yeah....
 
 

Just finished this, really enjoyed and was a little scared by how closely it all resonated with my own life

 

[rasmushorn]

Just finished:

 
And I loved it. Next one is:
 

 

[DLeeWebb]

 

[Nusho]

  In Russia only clowns and dangerous pro-Soviet revisionists support Karl Marx. Usually Marxism there goes hand in hand with aggressive anti-Americanism and anti-West position in general. Surprisingly in the West Marx's dangerous and poisonous ideas ( particularly idiotic theory of class struggle which was the kernel of the whole teaching) are more vital and still influential for example in such spheres as feminism and social equality.
 

Interestingly, my university makes almost all its students read Marx for a year in their education here. My reading of Marx (ie my teacher's reading of Marx) was not a class-struggle one -- in fact, we did not talk about class conflict even once! Rather, we talked about internal contradictions of capitalism, and spent a large amount of time on the economic and philosophical manuscripts (along with the Gundrisse), discussing Marx's notion of the human being. For a reading of Marx that talks about internal contradictions, I recommend checking out David Harvey's Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism (I havent read it but I hear its very good).  
 
Next year were going to talk about his ideas in terms of society and personal identity, including readings of Foucault and Durkheim. 

 

[PalJoey]

  Just finished:

 
And I loved it. Next one is:
 

'Norwegian Wood' didn't really do it for me, but I did get absorbed by 'The Wind-up Bird Chronicle'.
 
I'd be interested to hear your opinion comparing the two books once you have finished the latter.

 

[WraithApe]

  'Norwegian Wood' didn't really do it for me, but I did get absorbed by 'The Wind-up Bird Chronicle'.
 
I'd be interested to hear your opinion comparing the two books once you have finished the latter.

 
Yeah I agree - Norwegian Wood was the most conventional, and least gripping Murakami I've read. Hard-Boiled Wonderland is probably my favourite (kinda reminded me of Iain Banks' Walking On Glass with the twin narratives), although Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is up there - I prefer his more surreal stuff. I went through a phase a few years ago of caning Murakami but got a little jaded with his books in the end - although superficially very engaging, I find a lot of his stuff is very similar and there's a sort of 'politeness' to his prose style and characters that irks me. Haven't read anything of his since After Dark.

 

[Hutnicks]

   
Yeah I agree - Norwegian Wood was the most conventional, and least gripping Murakami I've read. Hard-Boiled Wonderland is probably my favourite (kinda reminded me of Iain Banks' Walking On Glass with the twin narratives), although Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is up there - I prefer his more surreal stuff. I went through a phase a few years ago of caning Murakami but got a little jaded with his books in the end - although superficially very engaging, I find a lot of his stuff is very similar and there's a sort of 'politeness' to his prose style and characters that irks me. Haven't read anything of his since After Dark.

Thats a polite way of saying he writes the same book every time.

 
If you read 1Q84 there is probably no need to read any of his other stuff, it's all in there.

 

[rasmushorn]

 
Thats a polite way of saying he writes the same book every time.

 
If you read 1Q84 there is probably no need to read any of his other stuff, it's all in there.

Can I conclude then, that if I read all his other stuff, I can skip the 1Q84 books?

 

[mutabor]

  Interestingly, my university makes almost all its students read Marx for a year in their education here. My reading of Marx (ie my teacher's reading of Marx) was not a class-struggle one -- in fact, we did not talk about class conflict even once! Rather, we talked about internal contradictions of capitalism, and spent a large amount of time on the economic and philosophical manuscripts (along with the Gundrisse), discussing Marx's notion of the human being. 
 
Next year were going to talk about his ideas in terms of society and personal identity, including readings of Foucault and Durkheim. 

 
If they didn't speak about class conflict theory which was the kernel of the whole Marx's political ideology around which all his other ideas including economical revolved then they don't teach you Marx per se, as he was but they teach you interpretation of Marx which suits liberal leftist agenda and American universities are known for their liberalism. They misinterpret Marx ignoring the key concepts of his teaching ( as if they didn't exist) and concentrating on points which give Marxism more "positive" look.

 

[Hutnicks]

 
Can I conclude then, that if I read all his other stuff, I can skip the 1Q84 books?

Pretty much.

 

[PalJoey]

   
Yeah I agree - Norwegian Wood was the most conventional, and least gripping Murakami I've read. Hard-Boiled Wonderland is probably my favourite (kinda reminded me of Iain Banks' Walking On Glass with the twin narratives), although Wind-Up Bird Chronicle is up there - I prefer his more surreal stuff. I went through a phase a few years ago of caning Murakami but got a little jaded with his books in the end - although superficially very engaging, I find a lot of his stuff is very similar and there's a sort of 'politeness' to his prose style and characters that irks me. Haven't read anything of his since After Dark.

He does return to similar themes again and again and, like you, I haven't really bothered with the more recent books. I enjoyed 'Kafka on the Shore' though - more than I expected, as I was beginning to become less excited by his work when that was published.. 

 

[metalsonata]

   
If they didn't speak about class conflict theory which was the kernel of the whole Marx's political ideology around which all his other ideas including economical revolved then they don't teach you Marx per se, as he was but they teach you interpretation of Marx which suits liberal leftist agenda and American universities are known for their liberalism. They misinterpret Marx ignoring the key concepts of his teaching ( as if they didn't exist) and concentrating on points which give Marxism more "positive" look.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I think in an earlier comment I stated that you're a fan of tossing the babe out with the bathwater--here's a prime example of that. Nearly everyone cherry-picks components from supposedly comprehensive and interconnected philosophies, so long as they can (ideally) reach a personal internal consistency, or can (less ideally) live blissfully unaware of the inherent, undiscovered cognitive dissonance that lurks at the heart of their worldview. I know the term 'post-modernism' makes your hackles rise, but judicious use of the post- prefix is an important and valuable way to reconfigure base understanding of not just art, but also philosophy, religion, criticism, etc. There is Marxism, but there is also Open Marxism and Post-Marxism, just as there is, rather famously, Post-Trotskyism. There is religious orthodoxy, but there is also syncretic religiosity (especially in Eastern traditions and neopaganism), and even Post-Christianity (consider peace churches, the Jefferson Bible, and, arguably, the effect of reading gnostic texts in the modern day), and I assume there's no need to list examples of post-modern art and criticism. Anecdotally, a prime feature of your posts, both in this thread and elsewhere, is in your persistent painting of things in black and white, and in your readiness to discount an entire body of work if there exists a kernel or three within it with which you take issue with. I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong to do so or that you don't bring value to the conversation, but your constant attempts to directly undermine the considered approaches to philosophy and history expressed by many posters, never mind the intellectual traditions with which you are culturally removed, wears thin quickly at best, and seems purposely inflammatory or trollish at worst. 
 
I'm sure there are better places for your thoughts on Marx and everyone else's rebuttal to them, and I'm not certain that a thread called 'What Book Are You Reading Right Now' is the place for it. It'd be one thing if someone were reading Das Kapital and were analyzing it piece-by-piece out loud for the rest of us to respond to, but even a casual mention of Marx is enough for you to let us know exactly what you think of him and what you think of those who value him. People read Marx still, and they do it with preconceived notions that differ vastly from yours. Probably best to get over it, instead of treating every time his name is mentioned as an opportunity for you to unload your particular bin of Marx-based baggage. Of course, it'd be just as best, if not better, if I learned to ignore things you say that rub me the wrong way. I wouldn't be terribly shocked if I were to learn that I'm as much a nuisance to some as you are. But I think therein lies the important difference between you and I--I routinely exercise social self-awareness, even in a setting where I am, to a high degree, anonymous, and even if I do it in a basically useless way, wherein I exercise it out-loud for everyone else to hear and be annoyed by. I'm as transparent as you, for better or worse. Henceforth, I'm going to try some baby steps on the way to self-betterment. Spoiler shield, activate! I invite you to use spoiler shields too, particularly where Marx is involved. Let's strive to keep our ideological struggles in the shade, and our simple enjoyment of reading in the light.

 
On Murakami: I too find his retreading of style and theme a little tiresome, but would nonetheless recommend 1Q84 even if you are feeling a bit burnt on his work. I thought it was structurally experimental in a way that his work generally lacks, which did much to clarify and enhance his brand of magical realism. His placement of the climax at near the story's halfway point was particularly brave, and lent the remainder of the book a compelling sense of pace which seemed completely necessary to compliment the novel's characters' attempts at resolving everything that came before. While his books have always struck a particular and very specific note with me, with 1Q84 the note seemed especially powerful, and it lingered with me for days. It was as if the fabric of the world had been pulled taut, exposing its hidden corners. It's no doubt a flawed and occasionally really annoying book, but its flaws contribute just as much to its value as do its few perfect moments, in my not so humble opinion. I'm not saying you'll necessarily enjoy or like it, but if you appreciate a bit of formula-bending challenge, then I think it's well worth the read.

 

[Nusho]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

   
If they didn't speak about class conflict theory which was the kernel of the whole Marx's political ideology around which all his other ideas including economical revolved then they don't teach you Marx per se, as he was but they teach you interpretation of Marx which suits liberal leftist agenda and American universities are known for their liberalism. They misinterpret Marx ignoring the key concepts of his teaching ( as if they didn't exist) and concentrating on points which give Marxism more "positive" look.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Your evaluation of the way I learned Marx to a criticism of American Universities is flawed and argumentatively weak.
 
Specifically, in my University almost all the other teachers for the class spent a heavy amount of time on class struggle. The thing is that, from what I have read, Marx doesn't delve into class conflict in his manuscripts, the gundrisse, and only very slightly does in Capital. The manifesto, on the other hand, is all about class conflict. One of the reasons why Marx and class conflict have come hand in hand is because of scholarly translations: until the late 20th century, many of Marx's works weren't translated so the main interpretation of Marx was through the lens of class struggle (the Manifesto and such). Recent Marxist scholars debate a variety of interpretations of Marx because they have more of his texts available (large portions of epm for example). Obviously, we were not taught all of them, which is a shame.
 
Furthermore, liberal leftist agendas are full of talk about class struggle ... I dont see your point there. 
 
With this said, an interpretation of Marx devoid of class struggle is something that has swept through academia, starting in the 90s. It could be argued that academia has separated the working class and "practical" part of Marx by reading his theory without looking at it through the lens of the manifesto, turning it into something purely theoretical. I do agree with this, and am somewhat saddened by this theoretical reading of Marx. But if we think through this framework, the manifesto uses class struggle to create a means through which capitalism can be overthrown (forgive me for the oversimplification, im trying to make a point). Why does it have to be? Because of the internal contradictions that plague it, the dehumanization of those within it, and the freedom that results from overthrowing it. These points are in theoretical Marx, and perhaps keeping in mind what Marx is trying to do, where he is coming from, and what he envisions is the most valuable takeaway from Marx.
 
With that said, I will definitely be reading scholarly papers and rereading the Manifesto and parts of Capital this winter break. Any suggestions on your part of things I should read/ listen to?
 
As always, the point of a good education is not to simply teach but to inspire curiosity.

 
I also finished reading Excellent Sheep by William Deresiewicz. Amazing book on the current state of American education and admissions, I recommend everyone check it out!

 

[WraithApe]

It's been said before, but I think it's worth re-iterating: start a thread on Marxism is you wish to discuss the work of Marx in this level of detail (or use the spoiler approach suggested by @metalsonata); it's essentially spam for those of us who aren't interested in the subject. This is the reason I un-subbed from this thread last time - 3 pages or more of over-zealous discussion of a niche subject.

 

[Nusho]

  It's been said before, but I think it's worth re-iterating: start a thread on Marxism is you wish to discuss the work of Marx in this level of detail (or use the spoiler approach suggested by @metalsonata); it's essentially spam for those of us who aren't interested in the subject. This is the reason I un-subbed from this thread last time - 3 pages or more of over-zealous discussion of a niche subject.

Ah sorry didnt realize! Will do next time.