Hmmm...I haven't so much as looked at this blog for quite some time but the urge to write something has struck again (it was about time!) and so, here I am.  Since this blog had taken a political tone before I went on this extended break, perhaps a note or two in that vein is a good place to start.

It appears that the federal election of May 2011 was riddled with problems of the kind that would put Mr. Mugabe to shame.  All right, so that was a tiny exaggeration but it is no less serious.  I am  talking about the attempts to undermine the democratic process: the phone calls, mostly to Liberal Party supporters but also others, claiming to be from Elections Canada, and telling voters that their polling station locations were changed.  It just boggles the mind that someone, in a 21st century democracy would even attempt such dirty, not to mention illegal tricks...but then again, one thinks of this government's utter contempt for democracy as shown on numerous previous occasions and, well, ceases to be surprised.  Having said that, this issue has to be fully investigated, the perpetrators punished etc. if our democracy is to survive.  I have no desire to write anything more on this now.

Shifting gears, then, I shall now launch into a little rant regarding, of all things, the interpretation of literary works.  I am not interested in going on about the nature of interpretation - hermeneutics and all that though I suppose that would add to the discussion.  Then again, this is a rant, not a discussion! Ha!  It all started recently and with a movie no less.  Yes.  A movie.  A movie about a book club...well, I could do what it does to Jane Austen and leave it in that misinterpreted state!  Yes, a book club features prominently in the film (and I was so tempted to say "in the feature"...) but the film is about a lot more than that.  It's about human relationships, particularly of the romantic persuasion (yes, this, too, is deliberate), the trials and tribulations associated with them at different points of the human life span etc.  I actually found it a very watchable film ultimately but, and there had to be a "but," it was rendered a lot less so by the disservice it does to the audience, not to mention Jane Austen herself, and indeed, her devoted readers.

So what's the fuss?  Someone had a different interpretation of an Austen novel; big fucking deal!  Well, yes, it is a big deal.  How can anyone who claims to be a fan of Austen misinterpret the central point of Persuasion?  How can anyone claim, as they do in this film (and I believe the film is The Jane Austen Book Club), that either Wentworth stops loving Anne or that she stops loving him?  Yes, his ego takes a beating when Anne is forced to give him up but he never stops thinking about or loving her.  And, upon their meeting after several years, it is that wounded ego that doesn't want to show Anne that she is still loved by Wentworth.  The captain's behaviour is meant to show her that she made a mistake.  Anne, for her part, has never stopped loving him which is evident from the fact that she kept informed on his career etc., as well as her reactions to being in the same company as him, all those years later.  This is all very crudely written but it gets the point across.  I just can't understand how anyone can not see that...

Now on to the other novel so fundamentally misinterpreted that it makes my blood boil.  Well, not quite but again, I fail to see how any serious reader can get it wrong.  The novel is The Idiot by F. M. Dostoyevsky and again, we are dealing with very important relationships that are clearly misunderstood by someone who tried to interpret the novel for others on one of those websites (I don't recall exactly where I saw this particular analysis but it doesn't really matter).  So, what could be so offensive in the interpretation that I am about to talk about?  Well, let's just say that to misinterpret this is to misunderstand the whole book.

What I am talking about revolves around the relationship(s) between Myshkin, Rogozhin and Nastasya Filipovna.  The interpretation that so shocked me holds that Rogozhin loves Nastasya more passionately than does Myshkin.  That is all one needs to know about this interpretation.  It is immature and fails to see that Rogozhin does not love Nastasya at all while Myshkin loves her in a more platonic sense.  Rogozhin is infatuated to be sure but he tries (and I guess succeeds?) to buy her...to buy her for crying out loud!  He doesn't love her; he loves the idea of possessing her, a woman of great beauty whom other men want to marry (and indeed long to possess, as well).  It is about Rogozhin beating out competition because he can outspend them.  In this sense, he reduces her to the level of a prostitute, a misconception the St. Petersburg society already shares.  It is only Myshkin who sees things clearly and he is motivated by an innocent love and a sincere wish to help/save her.

As for Nastassya herself, she decides to go with Rogozhin both as an act of self-immolation and as a mockery of both the society and indeed Rogozhin himself.  She feels that she doesn't deserve any better, falsely blaming herself for the image the St. Petersburg elite have of her.  The only man she comes close to loving is Myshkin, who for all his understanding and compassion, is not in love with her but with Aglaya.  Something like that, anyway.  The point is, Rogozhin, for all his fire, does not love Nastasya.  He is simply not capable of it.  He is a small man whose petty jealousies and need to have somehting others don't, drive his actions.  He is infatuated with Nastya, but so is pretty much every man in the novel.  To interpret his madness as love is to miss the mark completely.  I think I'll stop there.