بهتره درباره نویسنده چیزی نخونید و بعد از تموم کردم کتاب مشخصات نویسنده رو ببینید. اون وقت هست که حسابی متعجب می‌شید وقتی می‌فهمید این کتاب رو یه نویسنده قرن هجدهمی نوشته. اگر اهل خوندن کتاب‌های ایتالو کالوینو بوده باشید احتمالاً نوع نوشتار و زبان راویان کتاب شما رو یاد کتاب‌های این نویسنده می‌ندازه. نوع نوشتار "اگر شبی از شب‌های زمستان مسافری" رو به یادتون میاره و طنز موجود در کلام شخصیت‌ها و راوی "سه گانه نیاکان ما". اون وقت ممکنه توقع داشته باشید که این نویسنده هم ایتالیایی بوده باشه. ولی وقتی می‌بینید نویسنده فرانسوی هست و تو قرن 18 میلادی هم این رمان رو نوشته باز تعجب می‌کنید.حتی ممکنه اسم مترجم هم براتون آشنا باشه. اما باز توصیه می‌کنم چیزی دربارش نخونید و بگذارید که بعداً بفهمید که این خانم همون کسی هست که کوری رو هم ترجمه کرده.البته تعجب‌ها و تحسین‌هایی که این کتاب در وجود شما ایجاد می‌کنه به همین جا ختم نمیشه. داستان در ظاهر قرار هست داستانی باشه درباره عشق و عاشقی‌های ژاک که برای اربابش تعریف می‌کنه. اما نویسنده با چنان مهارتی داستان‌های با ربط و بی ربط دیگه رو توی متن قرار میده و چنان دیالوگ‌هایی بین کاراکترها میذاره که یه جاهایی حس می‌کنید باید برای احترام گذاشتن به این نویسنده و این پردازش قوی ذهنش چند لحظه‌ای کتابش رو ببندید و بایستید و بهش احترام بگذارید. هر چند خیلی جاها هم اینقدر مشتاق شنیدن داستانی که بعد از بارها وقفه دوباره از سر گرفته شده هستید که اگر ببینید باز هم حیله‌ای سر راهتون قرار داده شده برای تعریف نکردن اون داستان اصلی و گفتن داستانی فرعی، توانایی اینو دارید که فحش رو بکشید به نویسنده و برای همیشه قید تموم کردن این کتاب رو بزنید! البته مطمئن باشید این حالت شما بیشتر از چند ساعت ادامه پیدا نمی‌کنه و وسوسه می‌شید و باز کتاب رو برمی‌دارید و ادامه می‌دید.ژاک و اربابش تازه با هم آشنا شدن و آغاز به سفر کردن. ارباب آدمی هست که دوست داره داستان بشنوه و ژاک هم مثلاً نوکری که دوست داره حرف بزنه. چه چیزی بهتر از این؟ ژاک نظرش درباره اتفاقات زندگی رو که از فرمانده‌ش یاد گرفته رو بیان می‌کنه و میگه که هر اتفاقی که توی مسیر زندگی براش میفته اون بالا توی طومار بزرگ نوشته شده و قابل تغییر نیست. برای همین نه از چیزی شاد میشه و نه از چیزی ناراحت. اما داستان به این سادگی پیش نمیره که ژاک و اربابش همش در حال اسب سواری و طی مسیر باشند و ژاک هم بتونه راحت داستانش رو برای اربابش تعریف کنه. باید با ژاک طناز و فیلسوف و اربابش همراه بشید تا بفهمید چه اتفاقاتی سر راهشونه.ژاک قضا و قدری و اربابش رو باید خوند و تحسین کرد هوش سرشار نویسنده و حتی کاراکتراش رو. باید دیالوگ سازی و داستان پردازی رو ازش یاد گرفت. باید حرف زدن و بازی با خواننده رو ازش یاد گرفت. ژاک قضا و قدری و اربابش ممکنه داستان خاصی نداشته باشه، ولی مطمئناً فراموش نمیشه. و حتی شاید شما هم مثل من به نوشته‌ی "رمان‌های کلاسیک خارجی" که روی جلد کتاب نوشته شده بخندید. ژاک برای کسانی که آثار جدید رو خونده باشن اصلاً کلاسیک به حساب نمیاد.اما من. این کتاب رو شاید یک سال و نیم پیش یکی از دوستای دانشگاه بهم معرفی کرد. خیلی وقته تو لیست خرید کتابم هست و هی فراموش شده. تا اینکه یه شب که یهویی عشقم گرفت و رفتم خونه خواهرم موندم، و خوابم نبرد و تا 1 و نیم تو جام غلت می‌زدم، موبایلم رو برداشتم و با نور صفحه‌ش رفتم سراغ کتابخونه خواهرم تا ببینم به چه چیز هیجان انگیزی برمی‌خورم. و خب گفتن نداره که اولین تیتری که خوندم ژاک قضا و قدری بود و باعث شد دیگه چراغ رو روشن کنم و تا ساعت 3 که خوابم بگیره 100 صفحه‌شو یه نفس بخونم! و با اینکه چیزی به نام آخرین امتحان دوره کارشناسی جلوی راهم بود کلاً کتاب اون رو ببندم و به دو ساعت قبل از امتحانش بسنده کنم، ولی در عوض لذت خوندن یه کار خوب رو از دست ندم. به قول خود ژاک حتماً اون بالا توی طومارم نوشته بودن که باید این اتفاق برای من بیفته.:)پنج شنبه. 23.دی.89
Master: Do you pray?Jacques: SometimesMaster: And what do you say?Jacques: I say: "Thou who mad'st the Great Scroll, whatever Thou art, Thou whose finger hast traced the Writing Up Above, Thou hast known for all time what I needed, Thy will be done. Amen."Master: Don't you think you would do just as well if you shut up?It is often too easy for me to forget that high humor and religious cynicism are not new developments within the realm of published fiction. On top of that, as much as we readers here about "pomo trickery" and meta-humor, these terms--often used as insults akin to calling someone "trendy"--are generally associated with literature no more than a century old. Well, to all you pomos and popomos: allow me to introduce you to Denis Diderot. He is your metatastic brother from another great-great-great-great-great-grandmother. At some point before his death in 1784, he composed Jacques the Fatalist (in some editions titled Jacques the Fatalist and His Master, an arguably better name because of the fact that it directly references the text's play on character power dynamics). 1784. Remember that.This "novel", written in the stage play style seen above combined with frequent asides by an omniscient, brassy narrator, tells the story of real-life-storytelling as depicted in written form. Diderot breaks down the common motifs of the stock "novel", holding its cliches in one hand and the reality of conversing with other human beings in the other. The dialogue is the same interrupted, rambling, endless swirl of words that we tend to find in actual attempts at expressing ourselves verbally either one-on-one or in groups. Therefore, stories are begun and left unfinished, people are cut off, corrected, and reprimanded, and plot possibilities are dangled in front of the reader and left to his or her own particular devices, all while our playful, snarky narrator reminds us that there is no way we can know for a fact one way or another if he is being truthful, so why put stock in him or the story/stories in the first place? The book constantly re-references, repeats, mirrors/distorts, and criticizes itself in a way that calls to question all creative interpretations of reality due--amongst other things--to the biases reader, storyteller, and subject bring into the telephone game that is relaying information in a meaningful way. And it is amazingly funny while doing so. I would be willing to bet my lunch money that Charlie Kaufman is a huuuuge Diderot fan.To go back to my earlier point...if you are religiously inclined, I would stay away from this book unless you are of a mind to read eloquently expressed, harshly stated opinions which conflict with your own. It is no secret that Diderot was a spiteful sort about organized religion, and he uses Jacques and his insistence on Predestination as means to excuse his debauchery (along with every other spiritual figure in the story, each of which is almost more corrupt than basically every non-religious character within this fictional realm) as a means to highlight the hypocrisy, escapism, and general slovenliness he saw in default spiritual beliefs. Proceed with caution, as this one does bite.This story was a bit of an awakening for me. It may be the oldest piece of literature I have read which embraced meta-humor to such an extreme. As I previously stated, I tend to let myself think that this sort of thing is a new-ish development, a product of information over-saturation or something. However, Jacques the Fatalist is one of the most self-aware, admittedly (even brazenly) self-critical, and quite frankly hilarious novels about novel writing and reading that I have ever read. It constantly stops to reflect on itself, jarring you with by repeatedly pointing out that this is not an escape, this is not a reality, this is a story about stories within stories within stories, and you are reading it right now. The tangled mess that it eventually becomes reminded me in many ways of THIS bit of genius.
What do You think about Jacques The Fatalist (1999)?
Much is made of Diderot's rather bald appropriations from Sterne's "Tristram Shandy." Diderot made no secret of it-- his book is, in many ways, the Dionysian face of that book (! if that can be said with a straight face). Just look at Sterne's material-- war, and the wounds that result; Diderot, on the other hand, skips lightly past the battlefield to the real seat of Uncle Toby's wound, the heart, and its battles.* As such, Jacques put me more in mind of "The Decameron," or even "Don Quixote" (and there, again, the blending of love and war). The structure is Sterne's, but Sterne's structure itself has its roots in "Don Quixote." And in the 1001 Nights, of course. Whatever its provenance, Diderot's novel is as funny as any of the above-named books, and as surprising. As I was reading Barth's "Friday Book" and "Further Fridays" in tandem with this, I noticed that there are a few tales within tales here. I was not so concerned (as Barth is) that I noted the degrees thereof, but I was interested to note that, unlike 1001 Nights (as Barth points out), at several points, those tales within tales do affect their framing tales, and threaten to affect the larger frame tale (and, like 1001 Nights, frequently reflect their frames, if less explicitly than 1001 Nights). I think it fair to say that Diderot was more interested in those effects than in the tales themselves, and took a great deal of pleasure in the bifurcations that resulted.Finally, as Robert Loy's notes point out, not only did Diderot borrow heavily from Sterne, but also from any number of other popular stories of the time (as had Bocaccio, Cervantes, and Chaucer (among many others) in their own times). *But then, neither book is really entirely concerned with war or with love. In fact, neither book is really concerned with war or love at all, really, except as an excuse for their telling.
—Gabriel
It may be your destiny to read and adore the pithy wit of Diderot. At a time when the novel was new as a genre as a contemporary of Sterne and Richardson, Diderot confronts the religion and philosophy of his day entrenched in the idea that man's fate was written on a scroll on high and that man only acted out a bit part devoid of real choice in his slavery to destiny. Pre-destination did not sit well with Diderot and Jacques is the novelist in this "dog's breakfast" he has served up railing aginst his own genre to assert his humanity and freedom on his picaresque journey to nowhere. "Does anyone know where they're going?" certainly sounds like Beckett who lived in France and may well have read Diderot. Jacques is forced to conclude that people think they are in charge of their destiny when their destiny is in charge of them. What choice does the fatalist really have except to resign to his fate? Because life is a series of endless misunderstandings, it isn't easy to be captain of one's own soul. The epigrams are deliciously well phrased: "Virtue is an excellent thing. Both good people and wicked people speak highly of it." Or this: "I think there are some very odd things written up there on high." The wicked fable of the Sheath and the Knife is certainly memorable. Jacques is genuinely hilarious in many places and despite Diderot's scathing complaints of the early novel, he wrote an enduring classic beloved because of its pure wit, audacity, irony and uncanny phrasing. I urge you to read this great early novel destined to foretell the promise bound to follow for the genre.
—David Lentz
یکی از اثار کلاسیک برجسته ای که به انها که حتی کلاسیک خوان نیستند میتوان با اطمینان توصیه کرد :)داستان ژاک و اربابش خواننده رو دنبال خودش می کشاند با اینکه از همان ابتدای داستان خواننده می تواند حدس بزند که قرار نیست داستان عشق و عاشقی ژاک را بخواند اما کاریزما قوی دو شخصیت داستان شما را محسور می کندهمراه ژاک و اربابش راهی سفری میشوید که بار ها و بارها نویسنده اذعان می کند نمی داند به کجا.و خب من را مشتاق می کند برای دوباره خوانی ترسترام شندی در کل داستان جالبی است... واقعا.... :)ازانها که من دوستشان دارم خلاصه به قول ژاک ان بالا در طومار اعظم نوشته بود من این داستان را این جوری پراکنده ظرف بیشتر ازدو ماه بخوانم ولی به همه توصیه دارم داستان را لاینقطع دنبال کنند تا از ریتم نیفتد ...!!!!!!
—Martha
