sept 19, 2003 Demons

Monk began to work the ghost scene again, where Hamlet confronts the ghost and receives the call to revenge, but the magic was gone; he had done the scene enough, complete with his best bellowing voice. So, he decided to make this a three-day weekend. You see, Monk looks forward to the weekends, too, thanks to his reading routine! He picks up his "Demons."

We were struggling earlier with Dostoevsky's ideological heart. We knew that he was an active Leftie in his youth, but we have some impression that his political worldview may have changed dramatically in his more mature years, with this being perhaps no better manifested than in this novel, "Demons." It is interesting to see some of this evolution in one of the main characters, Stepan Trofimovich.

Trofimovich represents that first generation of idealistic liberals, who were more innocent and less dangerous, those who were excited by the vision of a freer and more enlightened society, and who were not yet frustrated and ambitious enough to seek to realize their vision by any means. Dostoevsky paints him as an undesirable character who sponges off a woman sponsor, who plays his sugar mommy.

In his older age, Stepan Trofimovich continues to harp on the grand old ideals, but it is obviously only so much hot air, signifying next to nothing and meaning even less. What gives Trofimovich's character a little more depth is his reaction to the latest generation of Lefties, who are no longer content just to have a beautiful vision, but who are hungry to force their vision upon the world. Trofimovich appreciates the nastiness of these characters. When his friend descibes the mental derangement of one of them, Trofimovich says:

"These people imagine that nature and human society are otherwise than God made them and than they actually are."

Wow! This is the sort of fatalistic gem that Monk might utter, on one of his better days. Of course, one wouldn't want to discourage those who seek to reform our society for the better, for the world is what we make it, and there is a big middle-range between traditionalism and Stalinist totalitarianism. Yet, one wonders how much change there can be. We are only human. A big part of Dostoevsky's genius is his appreciation of human weakness.

sept 21, 2003 Dreaming of a Consumer's Paradise

Before turning in last night, Simple Tree tells Monk that he saw a 65" TV on sale for fifteen-hundred dollars. In a sarcastic tone, Monk says, "Oh, yeah!" Tree insists, "That's cheap!" Monk is on the computer, trying to hide what he's doing on Blurty, as he relates rather intimate matters to a friend, and he turns smirking to face Tree, "It doesn't sound too cheap for somebody who may lose his job."

Tree blows this off chortling, as though it were nothing. Monk presses as he becomes loud and expansive, "Ohhh, you mean there's no real threat!? You didn't tell me that part. So, everything is really okay?"

Tree says nodding, "I'm going to lose my job alright!" He goes on to make this seemingly strange argument about how it doesn't matter, "When you buy the TV, they cannot take it back." Monk doesn't know what to make of this. He would like to think that he's just joking, but such silliness is not impossible, as both he and Stormy Dreamer suffered much worse from lower-classdom, being poorly educated and a little simple of mind (but being able to work and hold down a job, which is beyond our somewhat educated primate-protagonist).

This consumerist drive! One may recall the new printer. Only last week, Simple Tree talks about how he would like to get one of those flat, bigger computer monitors. He also speaks of plasma TVs. Then there is a new truck, which is high on the wish list, as the Red Baron is on its last leg, and it has to be another premium $30,000 truck.

He reminds Monk of Stormy Dreamer with this ungrounded consumerist dreaming. She liked to think that all the world was available to her -- a rather poignant denial. Yet, here is Monk typing this onto the internet on a personal computer, which he thought would never happen. To live is to be hungry, one supposes, and it may be Monk's own form of denial that he tries to pretend the hunger doesn't exist.