a chat about Atonement and more

Atonement

Ian McEwan

the conversation started with concerns about his interactions with others. I offered my opinion, which he evidently agreed upon, that it's not really his problem that people often feel offended or hard to communicate with him. nonetheless, it is an obstacle for his ambition.

people like him need total freedom; but where to find it?

then he said that he was re-reading carl jung. this chapter on introvert and extravert. he sort of rationalized his own constructive and destructive behaviors along the line of being an extravert. i am often not patient enough about personality theories (but jung will be my next book). in his case, his overwhelming "problem", IMO, is his intelligence. an intelligence not protected with conventional credentials.

feeling guilty about not knowing enough of Jung, i instead confessed that i was reading 007 with joy. surprisingly, he also considered those books "classics, of course". right there then, he said a few good words about Atonement.

now i am not that impressed by atonement. it is a very simple sentiment dressed up with crafty writing, which ultimately falls short of the expectation when all is revealed （and revealed too belatedly). Jr countered that my criticism was too sketchy, only about "imbalance of content and form". incomparable to a pro-critic who knows the in-and-outs of modern art... he gave a few examples, all lost to me as I wasn't familiar with those artists.

i justified my own opinion as a rationalization of gut feeling, which can't be fooled. but he thought feelings and thinking are both needed to appreciate art. he also thought my standing was too negative, demanding the writer to meet my taste instead of aspiring to regard others more positively. well, i admitted that but saw nothing wrong with judging art subjectively.

actually i think subjectivity is what art is all about. whether one's subjectivity can be appreciated by another human being, as if turning it into sth objective, is a different matter....

(well, hard to record how the conversation really went).

the much more attractive 007

Dr. No

His Majesty's Secret Service

You Can Only Live Twice



by Ian Fleming



What ignorance. I didn't even know that James Bond was books first and movies there after. After a couple of glowing reviews on WSJ commemorating the author's 100th birthday, I picked up these three to read. Quite enjoyable indeed. Of the three, I liked "Twice" most, which, with its setting in Japan, reminded me of Eighty Days Around the World.

Overall, the stories have slower pace than their modern day equivalents but are much more enriched with careful development of characters, vivid description of the cultural and historical background and, necessarily, enough turns of the events for 007 and his heroines. To me, they are both simple and complex, making satisfactory reading.

I never cared much about the movie-version 007s, while the bond in the book is younger, rougher and less polished. far more attractive, in my opinion.