Scene on Three (4): More from War and Peace

Apparently, War and Peace still doesn’t stop to amaze me till now. It seems that every passage and every dialog is more important and more intense than the others. Prince Andrew is my most favorite character. His insight and his dialog (especially with Pierre) are always valuable. It seems that through Andrew, Tolstoy communicates his own thoughts of war, as well as of life.

This passage is taken from the night before one of the most important battles against French. Pierre was conversing with Andrew, and he asked his friend’s opinion on the tomorrow’s battle under the new appointed commander-in-chief. After having listening to another general about strategy, plans and positioning, Pierre was surprised to hear Andrew’s answer:

“Success never depends, and never will depend, on position, or equipment, or even on numbers, and least of all on position. (It’s) On the feeling that is in me and in him, and in each soldier. (…) A battle is won by those who firmly resolve to win it! Why did we lose the battle at Austerlitz? The French losses were almost equal to ours, but very early we said to ourselves that we were losing the battle, and we did lose it. And we said so because we had nothing to fight for there, we wanted to get away from the battlefield as soon as we could. 'We've lost, so let us run,' and we ran. If we had not said that till the evening, heaven knows what might not have happened. But tomorrow we shan't say it! You talk about our position, the left flank weak and the right flank too extended. That's all nonsense, there's nothing of the kind.

But what awaits us tomorrow? A hundred million most diverse chances which will be decided on the instant by the fact that our men or theirs run or do not run, and that this man or that man is killed, but all that is being done at present is only play. The fact is that those men with whom you have ridden round the position not only do not help matters, but hinder. They are only concerned with their own petty interests. To them it is only a moment affording opportunities to undermine a rival and obtain an extra cross or ribbon. For me tomorrow means this: a Russian army of a hundred thousand and a French army of a hundred thousand have met to fight, and the thing is that these two hundred thousand men will fight and the side that fights more fiercely and spares itself least will win. And if you like I will tell you that whatever happens and whatever muddles those at the top may make, we shall win tomorrow's battle. Tomorrow, happen what may, we shall win!”

And this is what Tolstoy believed too, and I feel that one of his reasons to write War and Piece was to tell us what historians failed to do: to reveal what really defined the course of a battle; it’s not the chief’s orders or plans, but the spirit of the whole army. War might be inflicted by one or more ambitious King(s), but in the end it is a movement of humanity.

~~~~~~~

Jadi bagaimana cara berpartisipasi dalam Scene on Three :

• Tuliskan suatu adegan atau deskripsi pemandangan/manusia/situasi/kota dan sebagainya ke dalam suatu post.
• Jelaskan mengapa adegan atau deskripsi itu menarik, menurut versi kalian masing-masing.
• Jangan lupa cantumkan button Scene on Three di dalam post dengan link menuju blog Bacaan B.Zee.
• Masukkan link post kalian ke link tools yang ada di bawah post Bacaan B.Zee, sekalian saling mengunjungi sesama peserta Scene on Three.
• Meme ini diadakan setiap tanggal yang mengandung angka tiga, sesuai dengan ketersediaan tanggal di bulan tersebut (tanggal 3, 13, 23, 30, dan 31).

Let’s Read Plays: Check-In #3

Dear #LRP-ers… we are already in the tenth month of our yearlong event: Let’s Read Plays. Here is a quick check-in.

First of all, just to remind you, our theme this month is another comedy from the Bard. It’s been three month since we read any Shakespeare’s comedy, it’s time to a bit silly wittiness again…:) And now…

Which comedy will you choose?

I will read Twelfth Night

How was your progress until now? Have you left behind several plays, or are you ahead of the schedule?

Although I didn’t read always on schedule, I have, so far, read all the themes required. Until September, I have read ten plays (I read two tragedies for the first month).

Do you think you’d be able to read the whole themes by end of October?

I might not be able to read Twelfth Night on time, but I’ll try to squeeze it before the end of October. After that, two more plays, one of them is what I’ve been waiting for: Hamlet. So, yes, I think I’d be able to read ALL the themes, and complete thirteen plays for Let’s Read Plays. What about you? We still have two and a half months to catch up!

And don’t forget, this month’s prompt of our Play Monthly Meme by Listra is: Favorite Scene. Share your favorite scene from the comedy you’re reading, or any comedy you’ve read during LRP, remember, this is the last comedy we’d read for LRP! :)

And last but not least, when you have post your LRP, please do not forget to add it to the linky in the master post, as (pssstt!) there might be a surprise gift by Dessy sometime during these two and a half month!

Please remind me also if you have posted Character Thursday for Meme but I haven't put it in the linky here, as your posts will be entered in the giveaway at the end of LRP.

Let’s keep having fun with the plays till the end (of October)! :)

#OTR: Kitab Yesaya 1 – Nubuat Kehancuran dan Pemurnian

Ini adalah post pertama untuk proyek pribadiku: Old Testament Reading. Kitab Yesaya adalah yang pertama kupilih karena, selain merupakan kitab yang paling sering kubawakan (sebagai Lektor), juga yang paling kusukai karena keindahan puisi-puisinya.

Membaca Kitab Yesaya dari awal, membuatku sadar bahwa:

1. Yesaya bin Amos sebenarnya adalah seorang Penasehat Raja;
2. Nubuatnya terentang meliputi masa pemerintahan, setidaknya, empat Raja Yehuda: Uzia, Yotam, Ahas, dan Hizkia;
3. Jika demikian, berarti ‘Yesaya’ tidaklah merupakan satu orang nabi, namun beberapa nabi yang tulisan-tulisannya disatukan menjadi satu kitab (seperti yang kukonfirmasi dari Wikipedia, Kitab Yesaya ditulis oleh tiga nabi);
4. Tulisan ketiga nabi itu tidak dijajarkan berdasarkan urutan kronologis sejarah, namun lebih berdasarkan kesamaan tema. Misalnya: Pada bab 6, saat mengisahkan panggilannya, Yesaya sedang mengabdi Raja Uzia, sementara pada bab 7 Yesaya tengah mengabdi Raja Ahas. Maka Kitab Yesaya tak dapat dibaca sebagai sebuah kronologi sejarah bila kita akan membacanya secara berurutan.

Pada bab 1 Yesaya menyampaikan kecaman Tuhan terhadap bangsa Israel yang tidak setia dan mengalami kejatuhan moral. Saking parahnya, sampai-sampai kondisinya diibaratkan bak tubuh yang seluruhnya tanpa kecuali mengalami sakit; dan orang yang menderita seperti itu pasti ditinggalkan, ditelantarkan keluarga/sanak saudaranya.

Stanza mengenai Puteri Sion yang ditinggalkan sendirian (Yes 1:8) dengan tepat menggambarkan keadaan mereka saat itu (seperti bangsa Israel yang ditinggalkan Tuhan):

Puteri Sion tertinggal sendirian

seperti pondok di kebun anggur,

seperti gubuk di kebun mentimun

dan seperti kota yang terkepung.

Efek keterasingannya sangat terasa, terutama di baris terakhir.

Selanjutnya Tuhan menjabarkan dengan detail di mana letak kesalahan Israel; mereka yang munafik dengan mempersembahkan korban bagus-bagus kepada Tuhan, tapi berlaku tak adil pada sesamanya. Tuhan lalu mengajak mereka untuk bertobat; bila mereka berpaling dari dosa-dosa mereka, Ia akan mengampuni, dan Ia akan bersama mereka lagi.

Stanza ini adalah salah satu favoritku, dari Yes 1:18 (klik tombol 'play' untuk mendengarkan suaraku):

Sekalipun dosamu merah seperti kirmizi,

         akan menjadi putih seperti salju;

sekalipun berwarna merah seperti kain kesumba,

         akan menjadi putih seperti bulu domba

Lalu Tuhan pun mengumumkan hukuman yang akan Ia timpakan pada Yerusalem bila tak kunjung bertobat. Yesaya menutup bab 1 ini dengan sangat mantap dan menohok (Yes 1:31):

Maka yang kuat menjadi seolah-olah kapas

      dan pekerjaannya menjadi seolah-olah bunga api;

keduanya menimbulkan api

      dan tidak ada yang dapat memadamkan.

Kesannya begitu ‘final’, karena tidakkah api yang tidak dapat dipadamkan di sini dapat diartikan neraka? Membaca keseluruhan bab 1 ini terasa sangat kuat, dan alurnya benar-benar mencapai klimaks di akhir. Dari bab pertama ini saja aku sudah menangkap aura keseluruhan Kitab Yesaya ini (yang membuatku menyukainya dari dulu…).

Scene on Three (3): War and Peace

I am now reading one of Leo Tolstoy’s masterpieces: War and Peace. And despite of the uncomfortable-bulk-book and the tiny fonts, War and Peace turns out to be an enjoyable story. Now I am asking myself, why have I been delaying in reading this until now? Was I afraid that the book will be boring? Not at all! I’ve been enjoying every bit since the beginning, and now am quite glad that I still have 400 pages to go, hoho!

For Scene on Three, I have picked a passage from page 110, it is when Russian troops get their first chance to meet their enemy, the French army. Being ready in their line, separated by some spaces to the enemy’s front line might be quite exciting—or frightening? What are they really thinking of? Can you imagine? Tolstoy can portray very vividly the anxiety and the feeling of the soldiers in this passage. Enjoy!

“One step beyond that boundary line which resembles the line dividing the living from the dead, lies uncertainty suffering, and death. And what is there? Who is there?—there beyond that field, that tree, that roof lit up by the sun? No one knows, but one wants to know. You fear and yet long to cross that line, and know that sooner or later it must be crossed and you will have to find out what is there, just as you will inevitably have to learn what lies the other side of death. But you are strong, healthy, cheerful, and excited, and are surrounded by other such excitedly-animated and healthy men. So thinks, or at any rate feels, anyone who comes in sight of the enemy, and that feeling gives a particular glamour and glad keenness of impression of everything that takes place at such moments.”

~~~~~~~

Jadi bagaimana cara berpartisipasi dalam Scene on Three :

• Tuliskan suatu adegan atau deskripsi pemandangan/manusia/situasi/kota dan sebagainya ke dalam suatu post.
• Jelaskan mengapa adegan atau deskripsi itu menarik, menurut versi kalian masing-masing.
• Jangan lupa cantumkan button Scene on Three di dalam post dengan link menuju blog Bacaan B.Zee.
• Masukkan link post kalian ke link tools yang ada di bawah post Bacaan B.Zee, sekalian saling mengunjungi sesama peserta Scene on Three.
• Meme ini diadakan setiap tanggal yang mengandung angka tiga, sesuai dengan ketersediaan tanggal di bulan tersebut (tanggal 3, 13, 23, 30, dan 31).

The Cherry Orchard – Final Review

For Let’s Read Plays – other author theme of July, I have picked Anton Chekhov. Chekhov is actually more famous with his short stories; he is actually the father of short story writing in Europe. I have once read one of his short stories, and have caught his clear, sharp, and deep method of writing. And I thought it would be interesting to see whether his play was written in the same style. I picked The Cherry Orchard, in particular, as it is listed on my WEM self project. I have worked on the Act summaries, as well as the stage inquiries: the first and the second level.

The Cherry Orchard tells the story within the Ranevskys’ household. The famous cherry orchard itself located within the Ranevskys estate; and said to be one of the most beautiful places on earth. It might be exaggerated—as a cherry orchard should looks just as other cherry orchards—but it certainly kept the secrets and history of the family for many generations, which creates a special bound between the orchard and the residents; the cherry orchard looks beautiful because it bears many memorable events of the past. And now the Ravenskys must let their estate go, as it would be sold in an auction to pay their debts.

This play’s main conflicts lay on the cherry orchard’s sale, as each of the characters’ future would be depended on the sale. There are people who detest the idea; Lubov Andreyevna—the present owner—a widowed mother, who has been abroad for five years before finally returns to Russia. Lubov cannot think of leaving, as she would be like being cut off from her history by that. On the other hand, Lopakhin—a businessman, son of the estate’s old slave but later on was raised by the family—insists that the cherry orchard must be cut down, so that a villa can be built on it. Trofimov—a family teacher—is pleased with the idea of moving from the estate, and is excited to welcome the future together with Anya, Lubov’s daughter. While for Varya—Lubov’s adopted daughter—it would be a total ruin, as she would loose her job besides her home.

To read this play as only portraying what it performs, would be very deceiving. At first, you would think that the whole play is only the fuss around losing a family estate and moving away. But if you read between the lines, you would find Chekhov’s idea or critics on how Russians see the upcoming waves of change. At the time Chekhov wrote this, modernism was entering Russia, and the old values are struggling to survive (this play was first performed on 1904). Each character here stands for certain idea which reflects the contrast between people who are with modernism versus people who keep holding on the Old Russian values.

In the play, you’d see many incoherent dialogs or scenes within the Acts which makes the plot seems won’t go anywhere. Actually the first four Acts feels flat and overstretched, you would be asking yourself, what does Chekhov wanted to say, really? Just keep reading, because in Act Five Chekhov would change the gear, and the acceleration is suddenly increasing towards a climax. And lo! The ending would be very surprising, if not shocking. After the curtain has been down, you would sit still, struck, and couldn’t believe that the play has ended, and that ‘that’ would be the end! And then, you would reflect the whole play, of the pieces of incoherent dialogs and scenes, and suddenly, every piece would makes sense, as if the play is a huge puzzle game. By reflecting it, you would also see what Chekhov has wanted to tell you beneath the flat story. And finally, you would see the genius brain of the author who could present his ideas in this play!

Four and a half stars for The Cherry Orchard, as although I sometimes feel uncomfortable with the sudden changes in scenes or immediate incoherent interruption, the language is beautiful, and I love Chekhov’s detailed description of the background settings.

~~~~~~~~

*I read ebook version from Gutenberg Project*

*This book is counted as:*

Let’s Read Plays (July) theme: Other Author

49^th book for The Classics Club Project

Dante’s Purgatorio – Final Review

I was struggling through this second part of The Divine Comedy: Purgatorio. Unlike Inferno—with a vivid description of Hell and some recognized figures—Purgatorio is more like an abstract image of divine actions. It is full of allegories representing many acts and symbols from Bible, that the poem is often boring and tedious.

After leaving Hell/Inferno, Dante, still with his guide Virgil, enters the Purgatorio. The setting of Purgatorio is of course different with Inferno. Dante imagined purgatory as a mountain that has many levels. At the bottom is Ante-Purgatory, then seven terraces where souls are being punished and purged. The more the mount ascend, Dante gets more spiritual growth. The mountain top is the Earthly Paradise, and after this one, Dante is purified from his sins and deserves to enter the Paradise (the third part).

We already know from Inferno that it was Beatrice who initiated this journey for Dante, and she even chose Virgil—the Roman poet—to be his guide. Now in Purgatorio, Beatrice shows herself in the middle of the journey, and even guides Dante at certain point after Virgil leaves them, near their end of journey. Another poet called Statius also accompanies Dante.

The poem itself is of course still beautiful; and this is the only aspect that kept me reading. So, if you just want to read a poem, this might be your choice. But, if you want to get what Dante talks about, you can hardly depend on the poem only. Fortunately, thanks to the digital era, there are many reading guides for these kinds of complex classics works. I was lucky to have found this site from which I learned a lot of things I would never thought about before. I think Purgatorio is more like a theological study about the Church than a poem; no wonder several people stuck on it although they can get through Inferno. Shortly, Purgatorio is a great work of poem, but needs a huge determination to finish it.

To get a better idea of the contents, you can read my summaries: Ante-Purgatory – Terrace1~2 – Terrace 3~5 – Terrace 6~7 – The Earthly Paradise.

Three stars for Purgatorio, and now I really hope Paradiso would be much better than this…

~~~~~~~

*I read ebook from Gutenberg Project*

*This book is counted as:*

2^nd book for Narrative Poem Reading Challenge

48^th book for The Classics Club Project

The Cherry Orchard – Second Level Inquiry (Logic Stage)

Following my first level inquiry of WEM Project, this is the second and last one I am working on for The Cherry Orchard. My personal final thoughts would follow soon…

John Turturro plays Lopakhin and Dianne Wiest portrays Ranevskaya 

in Classic Stage Company's production of Chekhov's classic [source]

By what the play is given unity?

It’s by idea; the characters’ attachment with their past, their fear of facing the reality, and their obsession to be released from it that betrays their consciences.

What does each character stand for?

Lubov stands for the conservatives who refuse to move on from the past or from their history. They could not accept the idea that the world is changing; they just do not want to change. The cherry orchard symbolizes old Russia; Lubov represents Russian who like to hide in the comfort of their past (old Russia) rather than facing the modernism.

Trofimov stands for the liberals who are open-minded; who treat the old Russia as a history, and embrace the modern Russia as brighter future; who can objectively see the weaknesses of the old Russia and have the courage to welcome changes.

Lopakhin stands for people who want to forget their sorrowful past and cut down his root completely from history, to embrace the new wave of materialism. In the process, they might lose their consciences, and fall into moral corruption.

Do any of the characters stand in opposition to each other?

I highlighted here the contras between Lubov and Trofomov:

How do the characters speak?

Lubov: sentimental, pessimistic, full of love expression when addressing others: ‘my treasure’, ‘my dear’, etc., and often lamenting.

“My dear, my gentle, beautiful orchard! My life, my youth, my happiness, good-bye! Good-bye!”

“I’m all at sea… I may scream… or do something silly. Save me, Peter. Say something, say something.”

Trofimov: optimistic, practical, self-confident, idealistic, bit arrogant.

“Welcome, new life!”

“Even if you gave me twenty thousand I should refuse. I‘m a free man. And everything that all you people, rich and poor, value so highly and so dearly hasn’t the least influence over me; it’s like a flock of down in the wind.”

“Yes, I am a decayed gentleman, and I’m proud of it!”

Does the playwright lead you into a satisfying resolution?

I think so. Each of the characters has different destination to reach, and each symbolizes the idea they represent, and the difference is just emphasizing the irony. But the most touching is the resolution of Fiers. I think Chekhov wanted to criticize how forgetful people could be in the turbulence of changes, or maybe he wanted to emphasize that the past/old Russia has no choices other than being locked up and dying… ?

What is the play’s theme?

In a way, it’s Modernism vs Old Russia. Chekhov criticized people who were still clutching at their satisfying pasts, and refused to think positively about the inevitable modernism. Besides that, this play also tells of how people tend to remember and forget. There are people who love to stick memories of the past to their heart, and try to forget the present (Lubov), and there are people like Trofimov who are ignorant of the past, because what’s most important is the future. Lopakhin actually shares Trofimov’s idea, but with different cause. Trofimov wants to forget the past because of his ideology, while Lopakhin because of bitterness. Whatever you choose, the past would soon be dead, and replaced by the modern. The change is inevitable, just like Fiers’ tragic ending.

~~~~~~~~