You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.37 AVERAGE
3.37 AVERAGE
Just like the first one this second book in the ‘Jesus’-cycle of Coetzee makes you wonder: who is this little David really? What is his connection to Christ? And in general: what is this book about? Is there a message, or does Coetzee just play a game with the reader? And so on; enough to get intrigued or even frustrated about.
I remember from the first book, [b:The Childhood of Jesus|15799416|The Childhood of Jesus|J.M. Coetzee|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1353033238l/15799416._SY75_.jpg|21522388], that I had the impression that Coetzee’s central theme was ‘the state of contrariness’, that he wanted to illustrate that people who go against prevailing thinking and social norms may be right, or at least that they have the right to be different. In that sense the stubborn little David in particular was central to that first part. And there were enough subtle hints in the direction of the Christian Trinity story (Joseph-Mary-Jesus) to explain the title reference to Jesus.
But just that is not the case in this second part. Surrogate mother Ines for instance stays almost completely out of the picture in "The Schooldays of Jesus". And little David himself remains the same stubborn, capricious and self-centred boy, constantly posing "why?"-questions and refusing to comply to what his parents want. The only evolution in his character is his fascination for the numerological theory of the dance academy where he ends up (see below).
Hence my new thesis: this novel cycle is not about David/Jesus, but about Simon, the very caring and concerned father figure. Just as in the first part Coetzee zooms in on the man's patient attempts to understand David, to explain the course of the world to him. But new is that we regularly see Simon becoming desperate, losing his patience and even falling out against David and others. And new is that Simon is clearly struggling with that special approach of the dance academy where he enrolled David and where a numerological philosophy is followed that he does not understand: the teachers learn the children to ‘make numbers fall down from the stars’, through music and dance, a clear reference to the Pythagorean philosophy (my GR-friend Blackoxford rather thinks it is a kabbalistic reference). It is clear to me that in this part Simon stands for the rational person who desperately tries to place phenomena and views that do not fit in his logical way of thinking, and is frustrated that he does not succeed (for the time being?) in doing that. To me, personally, Simon was a very recognizable character.
The murder story about the museum attendant Dmitri is another example of that issue. With Dmitri Coetzee clearly refers to Dostoyevsky: he's a passionate man, that lets his passion take control over him, with dramatic consequences. For him and for the entire community it's impossible to grasp why the murder was committed. Here too Coetzee stresses the challenge of irrationality (the issue of passion) that embarrasses our 'reasonable' world. To be honest, I found the whole murder story to be a weak element, which brought the entire second part to a slightly lesser level than the first one. This second book is also much 'poorer' in terms of themes than the first. But Coetzee compensates for this by a sudden twist in the final chapter, a twist around main character Simon that again jeopardizes our apparent certainties, and seems to offer an way out of our passion/rationality-dilemma.
And so I come back to my starting point: does Coetzee play a game with the reader? I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. It seems to me that he consciously wanted to confront us with the large portion of mystery that prevails in our seemingly well-designed world. It is a theme that is covered in almost all of his novels, and that he may have worked out a little more frivolously here than usual. And again Coetzee perfectly illustrates that the attraction of stories is that they are enigmatic and can be interpreted in many ways. So I am curious if my thesis will hold in the third and last part of the Jesus-cycle, that has just been released, [b:The Death of Jesus|48524436|The Death of Jesus|J M Coetzee|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1572259066l/48524436._SY75_.jpg|73839618]. It's already on my to-read list.
I remember from the first book, [b:The Childhood of Jesus|15799416|The Childhood of Jesus|J.M. Coetzee|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1353033238l/15799416._SY75_.jpg|21522388], that I had the impression that Coetzee’s central theme was ‘the state of contrariness’, that he wanted to illustrate that people who go against prevailing thinking and social norms may be right, or at least that they have the right to be different. In that sense the stubborn little David in particular was central to that first part. And there were enough subtle hints in the direction of the Christian Trinity story (Joseph-Mary-Jesus) to explain the title reference to Jesus.
But just that is not the case in this second part. Surrogate mother Ines for instance stays almost completely out of the picture in "The Schooldays of Jesus". And little David himself remains the same stubborn, capricious and self-centred boy, constantly posing "why?"-questions and refusing to comply to what his parents want. The only evolution in his character is his fascination for the numerological theory of the dance academy where he ends up (see below).
Hence my new thesis: this novel cycle is not about David/Jesus, but about Simon, the very caring and concerned father figure. Just as in the first part Coetzee zooms in on the man's patient attempts to understand David, to explain the course of the world to him. But new is that we regularly see Simon becoming desperate, losing his patience and even falling out against David and others. And new is that Simon is clearly struggling with that special approach of the dance academy where he enrolled David and where a numerological philosophy is followed that he does not understand: the teachers learn the children to ‘make numbers fall down from the stars’, through music and dance, a clear reference to the Pythagorean philosophy (my GR-friend Blackoxford rather thinks it is a kabbalistic reference). It is clear to me that in this part Simon stands for the rational person who desperately tries to place phenomena and views that do not fit in his logical way of thinking, and is frustrated that he does not succeed (for the time being?) in doing that. To me, personally, Simon was a very recognizable character.
The murder story about the museum attendant Dmitri is another example of that issue. With Dmitri Coetzee clearly refers to Dostoyevsky: he's a passionate man, that lets his passion take control over him, with dramatic consequences. For him and for the entire community it's impossible to grasp why the murder was committed. Here too Coetzee stresses the challenge of irrationality (the issue of passion) that embarrasses our 'reasonable' world. To be honest, I found the whole murder story to be a weak element, which brought the entire second part to a slightly lesser level than the first one. This second book is also much 'poorer' in terms of themes than the first. But Coetzee compensates for this by a sudden twist in the final chapter, a twist around main character Simon that again jeopardizes our apparent certainties, and seems to offer an way out of our passion/rationality-dilemma.
And so I come back to my starting point: does Coetzee play a game with the reader? I don’t mean that in a derogatory way. It seems to me that he consciously wanted to confront us with the large portion of mystery that prevails in our seemingly well-designed world. It is a theme that is covered in almost all of his novels, and that he may have worked out a little more frivolously here than usual. And again Coetzee perfectly illustrates that the attraction of stories is that they are enigmatic and can be interpreted in many ways. So I am curious if my thesis will hold in the third and last part of the Jesus-cycle, that has just been released, [b:The Death of Jesus|48524436|The Death of Jesus|J M Coetzee|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1572259066l/48524436._SY75_.jpg|73839618]. It's already on my to-read list.
so in this one, preteen jesus a.k.a. david enrolls in a weird mystic dance academy, and then a weird karaoke version of the brothers karamazov breaks out and there are a lot of monologues about the nature of guilt, and the primary adult character simon is mostly annoyed. probably because he never gets laid but thinks about sex a lot. this book should not be good but it just sort of is. i wish i had something more intelligent to say about the elusive allegorical mode coetzee is working in, other than i'm not sure i get it, but i'm into it either way.
also shoutout to bolivar the dog, very strong fictional dog
also shoutout to bolivar the dog, very strong fictional dog
This follow-up to The Childhood of Jesus continues on directly from where the earlier book left off. The first book was masterful and this one is no different. It's equally as enigmatic. It appears to be some kind of allegory, but it's unclear exactly what it might be about. There's a stronger vein of mysticism in this volume, with the schooldays of the title mostly taking place in a so-called Academy of Dance, where the boy David learns to 'dance the numbers down from the stars.' David and his surrogate parents are now in a city called Estrella, which means 'star' in the Spanish that they speak throughout this indeterminate land that may or may not be some kind of afterworld or a kind of representation of the new land where refugees find themselves. For all the discussion of a 'next life' there is no apparent presence of religion in this world. It's mystifying and thought provoking: something to puzzle over and reread. What more could you want from a novel?
adventurous
dark
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
No
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
The people who shit on this book and it’s predecessor are incredibly mistaken and missing the point. Their brains tire easily turning over the paradoxes and obtuse angles inherent in both books. They long for something more forgiving and inviting. And they miss it over and over and over again. These books stay with you. The ending of this in particular was energetic, beautiful, and surprising.
I'm not really sure what just happened. I'm not sure I have enough biblical knowledge to understand the allegories here, other than that the title tells me there is one.
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
mysterious
reflective
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
This was just very tiresome to read. It felt like Coetzee and all his intellectualizing, now stripped of the emotionally gripping concern of apartheid/power relations, having turned to the idea of a soul/identity, produced this work which is genuinely just as often confusing as it is wearying.
Also, the "he, Simon" device is irritatingly blatant in that it copies the device without understanding or utilizing the effect the same way. What's the point when there's hardly any emotional immediacy to be experienced?
Also, the "he, Simon" device is irritatingly blatant in that it copies the device without understanding or utilizing the effect the same way. What's the point when there's hardly any emotional immediacy to be experienced?
Frustrating because it was traveling along nicely for most of the book but then I didn't find the ending very satisfying at all.
The plot was interesting enough, but everything seemed overly constructed. The dialogues are not real, don't FEEL real, and I could not relate to any of the characters.
I am sure the book contains many clever references, but to me, it was neither interestig nor touching. In short: not a good novel.
I am sure the book contains many clever references, but to me, it was neither interestig nor touching. In short: not a good novel.