On Paths Unknown discussion

Hi guys!

This thread for discussion of part IV and part V.

From: The Blind Assassin: The cafe to: The tango

I think the man in the affair was revealed at the picnic. Laura likes him, and invited him to dinner. Did Iris take him from Laura? Was that the reason for Laura's suicide. Inquiring minds want to know.....

Chance wrote: "Inquiring minds want to know....."

All is revealed in the end, but you'll probably figure out everything a little before it's made explicit. (As I've finished the book, I'm wary of saying anything prematurely.)

Now that I see there is interest in the discussion after all, I am going to keep abreast (sorry for my apparent neglect earlier), and will make 2 or 3 more threads as we progress.

Well, so far, Richard has been coming across as a real a**hole, IMO.

...and as for Laura, I keep trying to figure out her fascination with this man she keeps meeting - what is it that makes her keep going back for more? The thrill of forbidden fruit, perhaps?

Traveller wrote: "Well, so far, Richard has been coming across as a real a**hole, IMO.

...and as for Laura, I keep trying to figure out her fascination with this man she keeps meeting - what is it that makes her ..."

I'm thinking the woman in the affair is Iris, and the man is Alex. I need to read more....!

MA - That woman can write! I'm really enjoying this. Don't know if I agree on the efficacy of a blind assassin, but I am enjoying the storyline.

Also, I like that the chapter titles differentiate the stories by capitalization (title vs. sentence).

I'm sad for Iris's father. He strikes me as a decent person and honest in his business. Horrible that he pays such a price when the true cut throat businessmen (i.e. Richard) gets richer. Sad too, how disloyal the workers were to an employer who was on their side.

Chance wrote: "MA - That woman can write! I'm really enjoying this. Don't know if I agree on the efficacy of a blind assassin, but I am enjoying the storyline.

Also, I like that the chapter titles differentiate..."

Yep, I was thinking that Richard sounds like the Canadian version of the Republicans. That would be Canada's current government, right?

I couldn't help feeling that the People of Desolation/Joy reminded me of the ancient Hebrews out on one of their genocidal purges. :P I wonder if that's the intention?

Trav wroteI couldn't help feeling that the People of Desolation/Joy reminded me of the ancient Hebrews out on one of their genocidal purges. :P I wonder if that's the intention? ."
huh?
the ancient Hebrews were usually on the receiving end of the genocidal purges. To me they are more like Christian missionaries, with the rough edges intact.


I love their surprise alliance...but as with most facts presented in this fantasy novel within a memoir within a novel, nothing can be trusted.

As for Richard, without overtly maligning him, MA manages to portray him as an absolute creep.

Weeeelll. For all we cry about the current government, nobody in the US would ever consider them even right-of-center. It's arguable that Canada under Bennett in the dirty 30s was less socialist than the US under Roosevelt. My, how times have changed.

Richard's a prick, but he had a lot of company at the time.

The People of Desolation/Joy could easily be based on Alex's [name used for need of a name only. Actual person may or may not be Alex...] understanding of history. The Hebrews did, after all, come into conflict with the Hittites (though maybe not the same Hittites Alex claims to be basing his story on).

Magdelanye wrote: "huh?
the ancient Hebrews were usually on the receiving end of the genocidal purges. To me they are more like Christian missionaries, with the rough edges intact.
"
Oh goodie, you're here. :)
I was talking about this kind of thing from the Old Testament:

1 Samuel 15:3 ►
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
and
Numbers 31:17 ►
So kill all the Midianite boys and every Midianite woman who has gone to bed with a man.

and

Numbers 21:3 (King James Version (KJV))
3 And the Lord hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah.

and Genesis 34
25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.

27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,

29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.

and

Exodus 32:27-29King James Version (KJV)

27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

and so forth and so forth.

Richard, you must have noticed, in all the speeches he makes, is a fascist sympathizer, which makes him a proto-fascist, more than your common garden variety creep.

With the father, its more iffy....in a different social environment he might have risen above his limited concerns, but he succumbs to social opinion and then wonders how he could have done it differently.

and yeh, we in Canada have a proto-fascist as prime minister at the moment. (its very embarrassing and scary)

Nothing proto about Harper. I still remember that Christmas card a few years back showing him gazing at multiple pictures of himself. "Revere Dear Leader, Ordinary Canadians!" Totally creepy.

Hmm, and then there are these new Canadian "anti-terrorism" laws that made quite a stink, eh?

Not enough of one. But I'm not going to go so far as to label Harper a fascist. Richard certainly is. He admires Hitler, and doesn't think Mussolini goes far enough.

But I totally agree that the ancient Hebrews were a genocidal bunch. Yes, they were a few times on the receiving end: the "carrying off to Babylon" and the loss of most of the Tribes, etc, but they had a God-given mission to expunge all non-Hebrews from the land of Canaan. Not pretty.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: nobody in the US would ever consider them even right-of-center. "

Except for this Trade Accord. The republicans seem to like it as it is corporate friendly. I don't like the apparent secrecy of the contents. All that appears right winged.

Seems the Hittites had their glory days in around 1400-1200 BCE, and they were based around the area that is modern-day Turkey. I'll try find more about their religion.

In any case, here is the next thread.

Traveller wrote: "I was talking about this kind of thing from the Old Testament:

1 Samuel 15:3 ►
"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
and
Numbers 31:17 ►
So kill all the Midi..."

Traveler, I would like you to be more careful about all this "OT" and "ancient Jews" stuff. You are going to think it is true, because you've been indoctrinated in it and you will select out what will support your views. I'm saying it's not that it's "the truth," but that it's your story (one that's shifted and changed over the past 100 years, in fact). You might just as well begin talking about Islam's being a religion of violence, or (more in past years) about certain races being people of violence. And they can assemble plenty of "evidence," too.

I'm not asking you to be "politically correct." Actually your views would represent political correctness; in other words, they represent your politics. Say what you want; just say it's your story and you're sticking to it!

Was in a Protestant church last Sun., and heard a Christian prof of OT theology confront this issue. He didn't mention Jews at all; just mentioned mainline Christians' habit of dissing the OT, talking about an "OT God," "OT justice," etc. And how this was false. How all these issues of judgment/mercy etc are continuous up through the NT.

I guess you're going to say you don't like any religion, Trav, if I remember correctly. That doesn't change my comment, though. The stuff in any people's scripture is a story. You can't find out so easy what they really did or what really happened--unless you yourself are a fundamentalist, which you're not.

I'd just as soon not argue about all this here, but just sayin'.

Jan wrote: "Traveler, I would like you to be more careful about all this "OT" and "ancient Jews" stuff. You are going to think it is true, because you've been indoctrinated in it and you will select out what will support your views. I'm saying it's not that it's "the truth," but that it's your story (one that's shifted and changed over the past 100 years, in fact)."

You are quite welcome to argue it here - after all, that's what group discussions are for, no?

Well, the thing is, it's written down - it's there, in the Bible, and the Bible is as much part of our cultural history as Greek mythology or the works of Chaucer or Shakespeare is. You simply cannot argue its huge influence away - it has had a tremendous influence on how a large part of the world thinks, even today.

Much of our literature contains references to other texts, and I am in this case wondering if that is the specific text that this aspect of the book under discussion is based on.

The text of The Blind Assassin does make a clear hint, for example, that the peoples and culture of Sakiel-Norn is based upon the Hittites. It is not -I- who am saying that, it is what I am finding in the text.

Also, I am not stating that the inclinations of the People of Desolation/Joy definitely are based upon the acts of total destruction that we find as it is recorded, whether fictional or not, in the texts of The Bible as we know it today.

My musing on this matter is no more politically loaded than it would have been if the people in the novel felt they had to offer up the beating hearts of human sacrifices to their sun-god, and I had mentioned that it reminded me of the offerings the Aztecs had made to their god.

Also, no text is the same thing for different people, because we all come to it from different contexts and backgrounds. :)

For me religions are not so much objects of judgement than it is something to be studied and mused about.

Hmm, reading your post again, Jan, I would like to caution you about jumping to conclusions based on stereotypes. This group is exactly the kind of environment where stereotypes are not indulged as much as, rather, put under the spotlight, dissected and deconstructed.

Jan wrote: "Traveler, I would like you to be more careful about all this "OT" and "ancient Jews" stuff. You are going to think it is true, because you've been indoctrinated in it and you will select out what will "

Actually, nobody said "Jews", because we weren't talking about Jews. The Jews were the people who returned from Babylon—the Israelites minus the ten lost tribes.

Mainline Christians "diss" the Old Testament with good reason. My very mainline Christian education taught me that the doctrinal basis of Christianity is entirely in the New Testament.

I am not seeing in Trav's post anything about what she believes in as far as religion or politics. I do see her making a literary reference (and a pretty genius one at that).

Traveller wrote: "Hmm, reading your post again, Jan, I would like to caution you about jumping to conclusions based on stereotypes. This group is exactly the kind of environment where stereotypes are not indulged a..."

Yes--that's exactly my communication. When I read that section of the book it occurred to me that some darn Christian or post-Christian readers could jump to conclusions based on stereotypes, although wouldn't have really expected to see in this discussion. I don't think that's a major part of The Blind Assassin, though, so I am only addressing your assumptions about the science-fiction-story-within-a-story. That's why, as far as these particular comments go, I expect to stop with that.

BTW, I gave up on this book after 150 pages or so. I just wasn't caring about the stories or the characters. I can see why many would love this book. I do love the way Atwood writes. It is a pleasure to read her (loved the first 2 Maddaddam books). I wanted to care because her writing can be so great, but I was just getting annoyed with BA.

So that's why I disappeared.

Jan wrote: "Yes--that's exactly my communication. When I read that section of the book it occurred to me that some darn Christian or post-Christian readers could jump to conclusions based on stereotypes, although wouldn't have really expected to see in this discussion.."

Hmm, okay, I do see your point, but who knows what Atwood was thinking about? And yes, of course my personal association there is based on my own background which does include a few readings of the "Christian Bible" as it stands today, as well as readings on some of the lost books which made up the canon it had been chosen from, as well as a smidgen of Church history, as well as an interest in antiquity and cultural history in general.

It is inevitable that people can and will refer to their own experience/knowledge base - after all, that is all that we have to work with. Your comment in general was fine, and valid in principle, but I did have a small pause where it sounded rather... well, it made, it seemed to me, a few assumptions about myself and grouped me along with a specific group of people whereas my "politics" and other beliefs are concerned.

I'd like to mention that both of the latter tend to be unaligned with any particular group of people and based very much on thinking things out on a daily basis, and trying to figure the truth of things and my stance on them, as I go along, which is, I feel, what a true skeptic does, although I will admit to not always being successful in this. :)

But, I am almost always open to argument, and when people do present a clear, reasonable, rational argument about things, I have been convinced, in the past, by such arguments, to revise my own stance on a matter, or my opinion of it.

...and you will tend to find that people in this group generally, can be steadfast in some beliefs, but tend to be pretty open-minded generally. I suspect that the core group who have been around a while, have all pondered their own beliefs and opinions quite deeply and although we may not all feel the same about everything, we do respect the fact that we are at least tolerant of one another's stances, (except when Derek and I start arguing about tech stuff sometimes... ahem!), and that is all I could ask for.

I enjoy the diversity, and therefore your own voice - which also sounds like you yourself have thought long and carefully about things, is quite welcome, and I hope, could add enriching diversity to our discussions. :) As long as we all just remain respectful of one another.

...and this is the reason why I urged you to feel free to disagree with any of us. Because as long as it is, of course, couched in polite, considerate terms; then debate is very much welcomed, and so are your comments.

Michele wrote: "BTW, I gave up on this book after 150 pages or so. I just wasn't caring about the stories or the characters. I can see why many would love this book. I do love the way Atwood writes. It is a pleasu..."

Michele, I know EXACTLY what you are talking about. The fragmented aspect that you find at the start of the book, does come together later on in the book, but I agree that unless you have some specific 'hook' to draw you in, there's not much to find interesting in newspaper clippings and an old lady doddering about all over the place. However, that particular old lady is writing a story, and when her story really starts to get underway and starts to mesh in with the snippets out of "Laura's" novel and the newspaper clippings you find here and there, then it finally starts to get interesting.

..but granted, you have to hang in there for quite a while before that starts to happen, so bummer about that. :(

Btw, I was very sad that I never had a chance to finish the Vandermeer discussion we were having. :( I wonder if we could revisit it sometime, and just discuss the endings, for example?

Vandermeer... Now that was a book that lost me in the first few dozen pages.

..and yet you liked his other books, didn't you? <_<

I liked Annihilation enough to plan to read Authority but not enough to actually get around to it yet :-)

I would like to discuss Vandermeer with you, of course. I stopped when "we" stopped so I would have to go check it out and finish to discuss the end. I assume you've read the whole thing?

As far as the BA. Twice now I have experienced Atwood as going into a mode where she REALLY telegraphs that she is trying to accomplish something "clever." And for me, it comes across as so heavy-handed that I just feel angry. I experienced it at the beginning of the Handmaid's Tale and I experienced it in the BA. From the first page, I felt like she was telling me "you're going to have to read hundreds of pages before I let you in on all the good stuff." That just made me feel angry since I think she is capable of making every page "the good stuff." But evidently, most don't feel like that. I've learned to expect widely varying opinions on ANY book at this point. So, it's just me.

Oh, and I listened to Annihilation again. I can't get enough of the that one. And there are at least two squid references, which made me laugh. The man is obsessed with his squid. And of course fungi all over the place.

Hmm, I rather enjoy it when a story is gradually revealed (I love surprises!), but I do know many people really dislike it, and I admit I probably would not have pushed on with BA if so many of my friends had not said it was good. :)

Michele wrote: "I am not seeing in Trav's post anything about what she believes in as far as religion or politics. I do see her making a literary reference (and a pretty genius one at that)."

We all need others to see into our own dark corners, so we talk. It's hard to be objective about oneself and one's own story, and to listen. Thanks for your response, Michele. Btw, about 100 pages into this book I began to wonder if the reason I'd pretty much forgotten it is that I hadn't liked it very much. Paradoxically, I finished it in part to find out.

Traveller wrote: "...Hmm, okay, I do see your point, but who knows what Atwood was thinking about? And yes, of course my personal association there is based on my own background which does include a few rea..."

Thanks for your very open response, Traveller. I appreciate it a lot! I can't remember exactly why I said exactly what, except that in my opinion religion and politics are impossible to separate. I think it's reasonable to say that in Christianity there is a tendency to project evil onto Jews (Hebrews, Israelites, etc.) and therefore if there's something that looks bad think "them," or if reminscent of them, think bad. I am not saying that's the essence of Christianity or that everyone does it all the time, but it is a tendency. That's what I was remarking on and why, when I was reading that part of the book, I predicted some people might think along those lines. I do think tendencies like that make it easier to speak about "them" instead of looking at oneself. And I believe that's why I put up the following quote:

“Each of the five tribes claims to have been the victorious attacker. Each recalls the slaughter with relish. Each believes it was ordained by their own god as righteous vengeance, because of the unholy practices carried on in the city. Evil must be cleansed with blood, they say. On that day the blood ran like water, so afterwards it must have been very clean.”

That is very powerful, speaking as it does to what all groups do, "OT," NT, every religion, conservatives, liberals/leftists, everybody. See the opponent in ever darkening terms to justify what we're doing to them because we know we're not supposed to, in a vicious circle. Not here in this group, you understand, but what humans get into toward each other. I thought that's what Atwood was getting at.

"Each," not "them!" That's the key.

Seeing that is easier said than done so the rules of discussion as you enumerated them sound good to me. :)

Busy right now, so if I'm slow to respond, that's why...

Jan wrote: ""Each," not "them!" That's the key."

Gotta agree with that. "Them" (and "they", "those") is such a loaded pronoun that I make every attempt not to use it. More often than not, its intent is at least mildly pejorative.

Oh yes, making use of scapegoats and demonizing the enemy appear to be universal human phenomena. In fact, many military establishments and government propaganda machines the world over, have throughout the course of history endeavored to purposely demonize their opponents, because it is always easier to kill what you deem to be a faceless monster than a flesh and blood person with human characteristics very similar to those of your own side.

And yes, I cannot help but see irony in Atwood's voice there in the passage that Jan quoted: firstly, everybody always believes that God is on -their- side, even when it is the same god, and opposing sides will often pray to the exact same god, in the belief that the god is on their own side.

Furthermore, the killers are so intent on the sins of those that they slaughter, that they do not see the inhumanity of their own actions, and yes, it is easy to palm off the responsibility to a deity: "God told me to do it."

Traveller wrote: "Oh yes, making use of scapegoats and demonizing the enemy appear to be universal human phenomena. In fact, many military establishments and government propaganda machines the world over, have throu..."

I'm fascinated with the internal working of a person who molds their concept of god to fit the limitation of their own intellect. Examples: "I will never stand for that lifestyle and neither will God." Or, "The Bible says Obama will not finish out his second term."

Such thoughts are so alien to my own that I have concluded that I have to accept we are not the same species--this is a bit of exaggeration and melodrama, but expresses the feeling. In this mix I include those who create themselves a god who takes their side in petty sports games and genocides. Humanity has to laugh at itself, then cry a little.

Now we're on the same page, I think. ...I even have a bookshelf called "us and them," although my shelf designations are not very precise and "scientific."

On another subject: What do you (anybody) think about Iris' frequently talking about her age--I mean her consciousness the ravages of age? I've been trying that on and trying to think if that's realistic. I don't think I go around with a double consciousness like that, comparing myself to my younger self, as though my past self was my "real" self--do I? still thinking.

I just started "Lovers at the Chameleon Club" by Francine Prose and the it starts out in the pretty much the exact same form as the BA. Interesting.

@ Chance: I've often had that feeling of surprise that I could be of the same species as some other members of Homo Sapiens. :P

@ Jan: Oh good. I knew you were also a person who can't be conveniently tagged and shelved. I got that impression from snippets of conversation between yourself and others around here on GR. :)

Re Iris's age: I was wondering if Atwood herself was old enough at the time of her writing this book to have any inkling of what it must feel like to be Iris's age. There are some things that I had lost with time that I miss. For example, I have some scars and a back injury that my younger self didn't have, and I wouldn't mind having that younger self back again. :)

@ Michele; sounds interesting. You got link? I could look it up, I suppose. :P Would be interesting to see if the F. Prose draws you in better. What a name for an author, eh? - Prose... :D

Lovers at the Chameleon Club, Paris 1932 there you go.

For me it is doing a much better job at drawing me in.

Although some reviews I have read didn't love the ending.

Maybe we need a mashup of both books.

Chance wrote: "In this mix I include those who create themselves a god who takes their side in petty sports games"

Please! Of course God's a Blue Jays fan.

Jan wrote: "What do you (anybody) think about Iris' frequently talking about her age"

It sounds right to me. Some people are like that. otoh, I don't recall my grandmother saying anything out loud about her decline with age until she was something like 96 and practically everything had failed.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Chance wrote: "In this mix I include those who create themselves a god who takes their side in petty sports games"

Please! Of course God's a Blue Jays fan."

Don't kid yourself, Derek. Not even God is that much of a sap. Next you'll tell me he's a Leafs fan. Pff...

Glad to see at least some of the Canucks are loyal, no matter how bad their teams are. Who can resist such dogged loyalty, eh?

@ Michele: glad to hear you are enjoying it - keep us updated!

Even Satan wouldn't support the Leafs. I was there when the Jays won their first World Series (though I'm still English enough to think that "world series" is a pretty shameful Americanism), and I'm pretty certain God was in the stands. There've been a lot of disappointments since (but not nearly as many as the Leafs have had!), but this is their year!

Derek, I've said "This is their year!" Often enough in the last decade that I'll believe it when I see it.

:-( Me too...

Traveller wrote: "@ Jan: Oh good. I knew you were also a person who can't be conveniently tagged and shelved. I got that impression from snippets of conversation between yourself and others around here on GR. :).."

Thanks for noticing, Traveller. I find it's often a challenge not to be shoved into a cubbyhole. There's pressure to become polarized to fit preconceived and simplistic notions of "for us or agin' us."

I just came across an example of the above involving our author. I was looking up Atwood to see if she had the proverbial Jewish grandmother, wondering if that had had any impact on her writing in the novel-within-a-novel. She did handle a Jewish sub-theme well in another book, The Robber Bride, in a way I had found memorable. Well, whatever her ancestry, I could not readily find anything on that particular aspect. I did find, though, that in 2010 she accepted a literary award in Israel, stating that she did not believe in cultural boycotts, and for that she came under pressure in the most ugly terms, essentially a fatwa on her reputation. Subsequently, an accuser used the fact that she had criticisms of Israel to in essence "reclaim" her from the "dark side." In other words, a case where no nuanced view was going to be acceptable.

Jan wrote: "What do you (anybody) think about Iris' frequently talking about her age--I mean her consciousness the ravages of age?"

I don't know how plausible it is, but I really liked those passages. Maybe when I'm nearer Iris' age, I'll feel differently. And Atwood was only ~60 when she wrote it, so almost a generation younger than Iris, though perhaps anticipating her own old age.

I got to take a masterclass with Atwood once, like way back in the beginning of her professional acclaim. Even back then she anticipated a crone figure to me.

As for Iris,she hardly believes in her own existence, of course shes amazed to be still alive

But I think BA is utterly brilliant. So what if I didnt much like the people or the plot...the way it was done was so clever, and offered at least this reader, an opportunity to turn my assumptions inside out.

Thinking about all the comments on Iris and age that y'all have shared. Yes, Traveller in Comment 39, I can see that. Maybe, though, it's when she's being confronted by her aged status, whether by inability to do something or by looking in the mirror, that she would remark on it, as otherwise I'd expect her to simply "be." So, I'm still turning it over...

I agree with Magdelanye as to Atwood's brilliance, not necessarily on how the plot is constructed, but on the way the character can so often condense life to pithy observations that demanded to be quoted. :) Congratulations on those classes (or class) with her, Magdelanye, you lucky dog!