Habit is as fatal to a sense of wrong-doing as to active enjoyment. After a few years the converted or sceptical Jew, the Westernized Hindu, can eat their pork and beef with an equanimity which to their still-believing brothers seems brutally cynical. It is the same with the habitual debauchee. Actions which at first seemed thrilling in their intrinsic wickedness become after a certain number of repetitions morally neutral. A little disgusting, perhaps; for the practice of most vices is followed by depressing physiological reactions; but no longer wicked, because so ordinary. It is difficult for a routine to seem wicked.”

Dogs don't fare so well in the novels of Huxley. It's a family legacy, perhaps. My mood is illuminated by wisecracks about vivisection. Whatever the cause, the images are striking, though Point Counterpoint is a different kettle than either Eyeless in Gaza or Brave New World. This is a softer cloth, a farce upon which ideas are allowed to percolate. It appears closer to Waugh's Scoop than any attempt to portray the way we live (now). It should be noted that over a third of the book depicts a party, one which isn't really of consequence yet the canvas keeps unrolling to accommodate the cast. Most of the characters are modeled upon actual artists and politicians, though I lack the interest to explore. Of course Oswald Mosley is easy to spot. I thought that the situation might resonate in light of the week's Impeachment. It didn't.

I enjoyed this book less than Huxley’s other works that I’ve read. Rather than a single ongoing plot, this book has multiple storylines for each of the characters, which were frankly difficult for me to follow, maybe just because I’ve been busy recently so I read this book in fits and starts.

The book itself is a kind of social satire, where Huxley makes fun of all the rich intellectuals he spends his time with. I found his criticisms of intellectualism itself quite compelling and funny.

For example: “The real charm of the intellectual life - the life devoted to erudition, to scientific research, to philosophy, to aesthetics, to criticism - is it’s easiness. It’s the substitution of simple intellectual schemata for the complexities of reality… it’s incomparably easier to know a lot, say, about the history of art and to have profound ideas about metaphysics and sociology than to know personally and intuitively a lot about one’s fellows and to have satisfactory relations with one’s friends and lovers, one’s wife and children… the intellectual life is child’s play.” - 325

As a result, I now consider: “shall I ever have the strength of mind to break myself if these indolent habits of intellectualism and devote my energies to the more serious and difficult task of living integrally?”

I don’t actually agree fully with this analysis of intellectualism, because for some people this process does entail striving beyond the quotidian necessities of life. It is true, however, that for others, intellectualism is just an escape from the world. Instead of either extreme, I would like to have it both ways, meaning the Middle Way. THIS, is the truly difficult life, but the one that I hope to live :)

Bu kitap bana edebiyat uzerine dusunmenin onemini hatirlatan kitap oldu. Bos bos okuyup gecerdim de yine... mina urganin onsozu animsatti her seyi. Anlamlari.

Dupa o indelungata si minutioasa cercetare a bibliotecilor iesene si dupa o asteptare cat toate zilele de joi, pot spune ca Jeni Acterian avea dreptate: ,,o curata bucurie si in acelasi timp o tristete''. Cele mai bune 600 de pagini pe anul asta.

Название отсылает нас к музыкальному термину контрапункт, что означает ведение двух или нескольких самостоятельных музыкальных тем, и роман, действительно, очень полифоничен, несколько линий сюжета сначала переплетаются, потом развиваются самостоятельно, при этом нет главных и второстепенных героев. Хаксли в одной стороны привержен аристократии, с другой стороны, он высмеивает или обнажает порочные стороны ее представителей. Все персонажи довольно отталкивающие, хотя почти у всех них были прототипы, причем из известных людей. Бидлейки, отец и сын, что называется, гулёны, хвалящиеся умением «лишать невинности». Люси Тэнтемаунт из того же теста, только в женском варианте. Мэри и Марк Рэмпионы из всех более-менее приятные люди, во всяком случае, им удалось преодолеть классовые различия. Хильда Тэнтемаунт женила на себе лорда Эдварда, чьим делом жизни была биология, изобразив живейший интерес к этому разделу науки, но, получив статус и деньги, она нашла себе любовника. Филипп Куорлз и его жена Элинор – тоже довольно разобщенная пара. Спэндрелл – странный тип, страдающий от «предательства» матери, внезапно решает убить ненавидимого им Уэбли, привлекая к убийству Иллиджа. В книге довольно много разных мыслей, но большая их часть спорна. Вот, например, мысли о работе: Работа ничуть не почтенней, чем пьянство, и преследует она совершенно ту же цель: она отвлекает человека, заставляет его забыть о самом себе. Работа — это наркотик, и больше ничего. Унизительно, что люди не способны жить трезво, без наркотиков; унизительно, что у них не хватает мужества видеть мир и самих себя такими, каковы они есть. Им приходится опьянять себя работой. Это глупо. Евангелие работы — это евангелие глупости и трусости. Возможно, что работа — это молитва, но это также страусиное прятание головы в песок, это способ поднять вокруг себя такой шум и такую пыль, что человек перестает слышать самого себя и видеть собственную руку перед глазами. Он прячется от самого себя. Неудивительно, что Сэмюэлы Смайлсы и крупные дельцы с энтузиазмом относятся к работе. Она дает им утешительную иллюзию, будто они существуют реально и даже преисполнены значительности. А если бы они перестали работать, они поняли бы, что они, попросту говоря, не существуют. Дырки в воздухе — и больше ничего. И к тому же довольно вонючие дырки. Надо сказать, что смайлсовские души издают по большей части пренеприятный запах. Неудивительно, что они не смеют перестать работать. Они боятся увидеть, что они такое. Это слишком рискованно, и у них не хватает мужества.

Или о жадности:

Жадность к деньгам появляется у людей только оттого, что их убеждают, будто эта жадность естественная и благородна, будто заниматься торговлей и промышленностью есть добродетель, будто убеждать людей покупать то, что им вовсе не нужно, есть проявление христианского милосердия. Инстинкт обладания никогда не был настолько сильным, чтобы заставлять людей гоняться за деньгами с утра до вечера всю жизнь. Воображению и интеллекту приходится все время подстегивать его.
Вообще, мне кажется, Хаксли видит единственной ценностью – интеллект.

Une citation du personnage de Philip Quarles, sorte d'alter-ego d'Aldous Huxley dans le roman, résume assez bien le problème majeur que j'ai eu avec "Contrepoint":

« Le défaut capital du roman d'idées, c'est qu'on est obligé de mettre en scène des gens ayant des idées à exprimer,– [...] les gens qui sont capables de dérouler des thèses proprement formulées ne sont pas tout à fait vivants : ils sont légèrement monstrueux. Il devient un peu ennuyeux, à la longue, de vivre avec des monstres. »

Il est donc évident que l'auteur présente à dessein des "monstres" qui ne font que se tromper les uns les autres et s'écouter parler. La majeure partie des dialogues ressemblent davantage à des articles scientifiques qu'à des conversations. Il n'y a aucune réelle intrigue à laquelle s'accrocher, les personnages sont pour la plupart mesquins et égoïstes, et dans l'ensemble il s'agit d'une oeuvre très, très intellectuelle. On ne peut pas remettre en doute l'intelligence d'Aldous Huxley, ni lui enlever la finesse de ses analyses politiques et sociales, mais ça n'empêche pas "Contrepoint" d'être plutôt barbant. Après des pages et des pages de chronique mondaine et de dialogues qui sonnent faux, j'étais épuisé et mon intérêt s'évanouissait aussi vite que ma patience.

What I liked about this book was how the feelings and thoughts of the characters were described. Especially Walter’s inner conflict between his wife and his girlfriend. The book follows many characters and sometimes it’s hard to keep track of who is who (especially when there are multiple people with the same names), but as the book progresses, the stories begin to converge. There are a lot of different ideologies and ways of thinking that are pitted against each other, making the book quite thought-provoking at parts.

This brilliant novel in the more classical sense is a rich slow-motion whirlwind of psychological profiles unravelling themselves, their world paradigm and the social web between them.

After leaving her husband for him, Marjorie Carling, the “pure woman”, has lost the love of Walter Bidlake, who is now infatuated with Lucy Tantamount, the type of “criminal” woman, daughter of Hilda, lady Tantamount, mischievous patron and architect of social scenes, and lord Edward Tantamount, recluse self-sufficient scientist. Lady Tantamount is the former lover and current accomplice of John Bidlake, exuberant painter and Walter Bidlake’s father by his third wife, Janet Bidlake, “an imposing ghost”. John Bidlake’s first marriage to Rose ended in the birth of John Bidlake jr., now a 50-year army man, and in divorce; his second marriage to Isabel ended with her death at childbirth. John and Janet Bidlake’s other child is Elinor Quarles, mother of baby Phil and wife of Philip Quarles, a sort of unhuman limping “earnedly elfish”“fairy”, whose brother Geoffrey died in the Great War. Philip Quarles is the son of Rachel Quarles, who takes Marjorie Carling under her wing, and of Sidney Quarles, who takes his secretary Gladys as his mistress. Elinor Quarles is being pursued by Everard Webley, leader of the “Brotherhood of British Freemen”. Philip Quarles is friends with Maurice Spandrell, “permanent adolescent” and stepson of general Knoyle, and with Mark Rampion, “a bitter and absurd puritan” and husband of Mary Rampion. Lucy Tantamount’s friend Cuthbert Arkwright is friends with Peter Slipe, former tenant of Beatrice Gilray, a “fierecely gentle” woman who evicted him in favor of Denis Burlap, writer and editor and boss of his secretary Ethel Cobbet and of Walter Bidlake. Then there’s Polly Logan, Willie Weaver, Mary Betterton, Molly d’Exergillod, Harriet Watkins, miss Fulkes, Illidge, Simmons... the scene is set for “events that are the measure of those who live them”.

“Musicality of fiction. [...] Changes of modes, sudden transitions. [...] Modulations are even more interesting [...]. A theme is stated, then developed, pushed out of shape, imperceptibly deformed, until, though still recognizably the same, it has become quite different. In sets of variations the process is carried a step further. [...] Get this into a novel. How? The abrupt transitions are easy enough. All you need is a sufficiency of characters and parallel, contrapuntal plots. While Jones is murdering his wife, Smith is wheeling the perambulator in the park. You alternate the themes. More interesting, the modulations and variations are also more difficult. A novelist modulates by reduplicating situations and characters. He shows several people falling in love, or dying, or praying in different ways - dissimilars solving the same problem. Or, vice versa, similar people confronted with dissimilar problems.”

“Novel of ideas. The character of each personage must be implicated, as far as possible, in the ideas of which he is the mouthpiece. In so far as theories are rationalizations of sentiments, instincts, dispositions of soul, this is feasible.”

Ever more so when the characters have a “liquid ubiquity”, about whose mind “there was something amoebic [...]. He had filled the most various moulds. He had been a cynic and also a mystic, a humanitarian and also a contemptuous misanthrope; he had tried to live the life of detached and stoical reason and another time he had aspired to the unreasonableness of natural and uncivilized existence. The choice of moulds depended at any given moment on the books he was reading, the people he was associating with.”

Dieses Buch besticht durch zweierlei Dinge:

Zum einen ist es interessant, über die unterschiedlichen geistigen und ideologischen Bewegungen im England der 1920er Jahre zu lesen. Es gibt zwar zahlreiche Bücher, die in der Weimarer Republik in dieser Zeit angesiedelt sind oder die im Paris der Franzosen oder der amerikanischen Exilgemeinde in Paris spielen Demgegenüber befassen sich wohl nur eine handvoll Bücher mit den geistigen Umwälzungen in England.

Zum Zweiten besticht die Komposition. Nachdem Huxley die einzelnen Protagonisten in ihren Konflikten vorgestellt hat, nimmt er gleichsam eine ironische Distanz zur Handlung ein und lässt die Protagonisten beispielsweise die Handlungen im Gespräch antizipieren, die ihnen alsbald widerfahren werden. Auch überlegt ein Charakter (Sir Philip), ein Buch wie Kontrapunkt des Lebens zu verfassen und stellt sich vor, dass in Diesem ebenfalls ein Autor überlegen sollte, ein solches Buch zu schreiben.

Abgesehen von der teils etwas langweiligen Weitschweifigkeit ist der wirkliche Wermutstropfen die unglaublich schlechte Übersetzung. Das Buch strotzt nur so von Übersetzungsfehlern. Daher besser diese Ausgabe meiden und im Original lesen.

"Lucrurile nu există decât în funcţie de opuşii lor."

O examinare sinceră, brutală, dar plină de umor a societății londoneze interbelice, un veritabil roman de idei făcut parcă din cartonașe de puzzle care te lasă, pe parcursul întregii lecturi, cu senzația că însuși Huxley nu vrea să se ia prea în serios.

"Defectul principal al romanului de idei e că trebuie să scrii despre oameni care au de exprimat idei – ceea ce exclude cam 99 la sută din rasa umană. De aceea, romancierii adevăraţi şi înnăscuţi nu scriu astfel de cărţi. Eu însă n-am avut niciodată pretenţia că sunt un romancier înnăscut.”

„Marele defect al romanului de idei e de a fi o combinaţie artificială. E obligatoriu să fie aşa, fiindcă oamenii care pot expune automat noţiuni perfect formulate nu sunt cu totul reali; au ceva cam monstruos, iar convieţuirea cu monştrii devine cu timpul plictisitoare.”

Tehnica narativă destul de neobișnuită în epocă (maniera contrapunctului preluată din cinematografie și muzică, în care înșiruirea evenimentelor se transformă într-o uriașă scenă unde totul se petrece instantaneu), astăzi este una destul de comună, așa că nu te va incomoda în mod deosebit. Nu același lucru îl vei putea spune despre numărul năucitor de personaje-pretext, alese din tipologiile cele mai diferite, dintre care singurii normali probabil îți vor părea, la fel ca mie, Mark și Mary Rampion, avându-i drept corespondenți în realitate pe D.H. Lawrence și soția sa, Frieda von Richthofen.

"Cum descrii astea într-un roman? Trecerile abrupte sunt destul de uşoare. N-ai nevoie decât de un număr suficient de personaje, şi paralel de acţiuni contrapunctate. În timp ce Jones îşi omoară nevasta, Smith plimbă căruciorul cu copilul în parc. Alternezi temele. Modulaţiile şi variaţiile sunt mai interesante, deşi mult mai dificile. Un romancier reuşeşte să modeleze, redublând situaţiile şi personajele. Arăţi cum mai multe persoane se îndrăgostesc sau mor sau se roagă în feluri diferite – lipsa de asemănare rezolvând aceeaşi problemă. Sau viceversa, oameni asemănători confruntaţi cu probleme diferite. Poţi astfel să modulezi prin toate aspectele temei tale, să scrii variaţii în orice număr de moduri diferite."

"Niciun personaj cu trăsături predominant acaparatoare nu a apărut în vreuna dintre povestirile mele. E un defect, căci oamenii cu spirit de acaparare sunt fireşte foarte răspândiţi în viaţa de toate zilele. Mă îndoiesc însă că aş putea face interesant un astfel de personaj, dat fiind că pe mine nu mă interesează pasiunea de a acapara. Balzac putea s-o facă; împrejurările şi ereditatea îl siliseră să fie foarte preocupat de bani. Dar când un lucru te plictiseşte, poţi deveni şi tu plictisitor când scrii despre el.”

Pe scurt, un colaj inedit (și greu de uitat) despre o criză profundă în care toată lumea sfidează convențiile și autoritățile, fiecare detestă visceral pe altcineva, toți puritanii au câte o amantă, dar fiecare se dovedește a fi, de fapt, în căutarea salvării.
La fel ca în zilele noastre, nu-i așa?

" - De unde ştii că pământul nu e iadul altor planete?"

If Huxley had an editor in 1928 this 514 page book might be a good short story. But unfortunately he didn't, so the book just goes on and on and on... Many have said the book is all about character development, I disagree with this sentiment. Huxley has all the characters telling the reading what they are thinking, what their motives are, and what they are going to do next, over and over again. That is not how you write interesting characters, that is how you write a puppet show for sophisticates.
There are countless pages of inner monologue in which the characters repeat the same thought rephrased in further uninteresting ways. Huxley breaks the first rule of writing a good story by padding the book with all tell, and no show.

Sam naslov se odnosi na transpoziciju muzike u književnost sa namerom da opiše isprepletene životne priče različitih likova koji bez obzira na karakterni kontrast vežu jake niti sudbinske privlačnosti. Kontrapunkt kao oblik muzičkog umeća vešto je utelovljen u priču. On navodi na visoko intelektualni stil autora, koji je jedan od njegovih zaštitnih znakova.

Na roman se može gledati kao na mozaik sastavljen iz suprostavljenih delova koji se savršeno uklapaju u tkanje života, s jedne strane licemerje i lažnu pobožnost Barlapa, a s druge oštar jezik, učenost, i objektivni pogled na svet Rampiona, prezir prema svetu Morisa Spandrela i nasuprot njoj ravnodušnost Filipa Kvorlsa, altera ega samog Hakslija. Ovde moram napomenuti da je šteta što izraz spandrelovština nije ušao u svet književnosti kao karamazovština, zbog cinizma, jakih neiživljenih osećanja Morisa, prototipa osobe zasićene životom, koji kao da je pobegao iz nekog romana Dostojevskog. U nekim momentima ličio je na Raskoljnikova, a upoređen je sa Stavroginom u jednom delu romana.

Naravno, kroz knjigu se otvaraju različita krucijalna pitanja, vezana za religiju,filozofiju, politiku... Ispoljava stavove od koji su neki proročki (pogađa početak Drugog sv. rata). Zanimljivo je navesti da nema glavnog lika već svako igra svoj ples kao što i različite melodije u kontrapunktu daju osobenost jednoj na kraju muzički skladnoj celini.