Rhetoric not decorating words
At this point, what I tried to write in this book is a moment. This book intentionally wrote "exorcise" and did not "correct" it. This is because he had only the time to show the correct answer without discussing the misunderstanding and misreading.
However, if I confess, I am not even a textist, but rather, for example, writing about Mishima Yukio, I couldn't understand Mishima Yukio. I like to read Yukio Miyuki and write the continuation of "Kuryu Yumetan" that Yukio Mishima did not write in the body written by Yukio Mishima.
I do not deny that the work can have meanings that the author has not written. Deep reading and selfish interpretation are really fun.
However, regarding Natsume Soseki's "Kokoro", he first thought that a process of "reading firmly" in accordance with Soseki's manner was necessary.
The reason will be clear to those who have read this far, but it is still strange to me.
Certainly, many pros and semi-professors have read and read the ex-boyfriend A's "Zekka". There was a case where no one pointed out, even at the beginning, the irony, the understated exaggeration law, the intertextuality, and the parody of the last scene, Kinkakuji. However, I was looking down at the former boy A without permission and thought that he might have just overlooked it.
"1Q84" published by Shinchosha was hardly calibrated.
I started to think it was funny.
When I read a review of “Kokoro” at one point, I was surprised that another “Kokoro” other than the “Kokoro” I read was being circulated.
For example, some people wonder what the meaning of the “triangular relationship” between K, teacher and daughter in “Kokoro” is.
I wonder, is the problem?
If Soseki explains the meaning of the triangular relation in literature in literary theory, I think he should follow that theory, but some people associate the triangular relation with a greater meaning than Soseki wrote. They increase the attitude of the argument and interpret it like a philosophy. It should be called "deep reading" or "excessive interpretation" in general, but if you get into a good composition, you will be praised for free.
Why is that?
It is positioned as a subject in which the Japanese language can acquire the power of thinking.Japanese language textbooks and supplementary reading books are filled with novels and essays, so-called literary objects, while verses are eliminated, and rhetoric and grammar education is eliminated. Probably because they are neglected. As a result, people have a strange habit of reading novels and interpreting them as philosophy.
That's a joke.
If there is a history of criticism as a genre of literary history, it may also be the history of the special moves of superstars starting with Fujiwara Shunsei. Assuming that the overwhelming superstar at the moment is Shigehiko Hasumi, it may be said that Yukito Karatani, who played an active role in the same period, was overwhelmed. Shiki Masaoka
… I'm not talking about Soseki Natsume at any time when I'm talking like this, so let's break it up a bit.
How are Bergson, Proust, Salinger, Joyce and Stern related?
This problem has been taken up as the problem that "Soseki is sleeping a lot". Not only in “Yumejuya”, Soseki is sleeping or sleeping like a cat. Such an attempt was made in Sanshiro. Proust is trying to unravel such a state of non-continuity like this in the search for lost time. Even if I can't catch the obvious, I'm trying to repeatedly attack that area of interest. Proust's area of interest seems to be sniffing around Bergsonian time. And so is Kokoro. K and "I" are fairly blatantly related, but their consciousness is not continuous.
Even explaining what Bergsonian time is is a matter of my control, but apparently the protagonists of Salinger's novels are afraid of fainting, and Stern's departure consists of tracing the neurons of memory forever. Joyce stays up all night and Proust demands too much time.
Let's assume that Bergson denied the stupidity that divides time that could not be divided in the past into the past, the present, and the future, and the paradox resulting from that resignation. So how much was Soseki, Proust, Joyce, Stern, and Salinger aware of this process?
A few years ago, the Japanese were relatively familiar with the Buddhist worldview, and somehow accepted the image that "I" had "previous life", trained in "the other world", and reborn. The concept of reincarnation is still accepted in Buddhism as a natural alternative. "I" in the Buddhist sense was completely different from the Cartesian I.
And “Kokoro” is the story of “I” in the Buddhist world view. Not a realist "I". This time, I've read it all the way and minimized my argument, so I'd like to give it a story later.
However, if I confess, I am not even a textist, but rather, for example, writing about Mishima Yukio, I couldn't understand Mishima Yukio. I like to read Yukio Miyuki and write the continuation of "Kuryu Yumetan" that Yukio Mishima did not write in the body written by Yukio Mishima.
I do not deny that the work can have meanings that the author has not written. Deep reading and selfish interpretation are really fun.
However, regarding Natsume Soseki's "Kokoro", he first thought that a process of "reading firmly" in accordance with Soseki's manner was necessary.
The reason will be clear to those who have read this far, but it is still strange to me.
Certainly, many pros and semi-professors have read and read the ex-boyfriend A's "Zekka". There was a case where no one pointed out, even at the beginning, the irony, the understated exaggeration law, the intertextuality, and the parody of the last scene, Kinkakuji. However, I was looking down at the former boy A without permission and thought that he might have just overlooked it.
"1Q84" published by Shinchosha was hardly calibrated.
I started to think it was funny.
When I read a review of “Kokoro” at one point, I was surprised that another “Kokoro” other than the “Kokoro” I read was being circulated.
For example, some people wonder what the meaning of the “triangular relationship” between K, teacher and daughter in “Kokoro” is.
I wonder, is the problem?
If Soseki explains the meaning of the triangular relation in literature in literary theory, I think he should follow that theory, but some people associate the triangular relation with a greater meaning than Soseki wrote. They increase the attitude of the argument and interpret it like a philosophy. It should be called "deep reading" or "excessive interpretation" in general, but if you get into a good composition, you will be praised for free.
Why is that?
It is positioned as a subject in which the Japanese language can acquire the power of thinking.Japanese language textbooks and supplementary reading books are filled with novels and essays, so-called literary objects, while verses are eliminated, and rhetoric and grammar education is eliminated. Probably because they are neglected. As a result, people have a strange habit of reading novels and interpreting them as philosophy.
That's a joke.
If there is a history of criticism as a genre of literary history, it may also be the history of the special moves of superstars starting with Fujiwara Shunsei. Assuming that the overwhelming superstar at the moment is Shigehiko Hasumi, it may be said that Yukito Karatani, who played an active role in the same period, was overwhelmed. Shiki Masaoka
… I'm not talking about Soseki Natsume at any time when I'm talking like this, so let's break it up a bit.
How are Bergson, Proust, Salinger, Joyce and Stern related?
This problem has been taken up as the problem that "Soseki is sleeping a lot". Not only in “Yumejuya”, Soseki is sleeping or sleeping like a cat. Such an attempt was made in Sanshiro. Proust is trying to unravel such a state of non-continuity like this in the search for lost time. Even if I can't catch the obvious, I'm trying to repeatedly attack that area of interest. Proust's area of interest seems to be sniffing around Bergsonian time. And so is Kokoro. K and "I" are fairly blatantly related, but their consciousness is not continuous.
Even explaining what Bergsonian time is is a matter of my control, but apparently the protagonists of Salinger's novels are afraid of fainting, and Stern's departure consists of tracing the neurons of memory forever. Joyce stays up all night and Proust demands too much time.
Let's assume that Bergson denied the stupidity that divides time that could not be divided in the past into the past, the present, and the future, and the paradox resulting from that resignation. So how much was Soseki, Proust, Joyce, Stern, and Salinger aware of this process?
A few years ago, the Japanese were relatively familiar with the Buddhist worldview, and somehow accepted the image that "I" had "previous life", trained in "the other world", and reborn. The concept of reincarnation is still accepted in Buddhism as a natural alternative. "I" in the Buddhist sense was completely different from the Cartesian I.
And “Kokoro” is the story of “I” in the Buddhist world view. Not a realist "I". This time, I've read it all the way and minimized my argument, so I'd like to give it a story later.
