In which Genji goes into sad and lonely exile

Everything is going wrong for Genji-- exactly what is not detailed, other than his wife dropping dead and vague troubles at court, but I suspect Kokiden of machinating in the background. So he decides to get out of town, rather as Rokujo did in the chapter before last, only Genji's going to live on the coast of Suma. He doesn't take Murasaki with him, because that's Not Done, and takes only seven or eight trusted retainers.

He did write to certain people who should know of the event. I have no doubt that there were many fine passages in the letters with which he saddened the lives of his many ladies, but, grief-stricken myself, I did not listen as carefully as I might have.

Ah-ha, this definitely indicates a fictional narrator who is a contemporary of Genji's.

Genji takes leave of various friends and relatives, with much weeping, mourning, symbolically fading cherry blossoms, and a final fling with one of Aoi's women (I guess a handmaid?) Murasaki is really upset, since her father has given her the cold shoulder so she now has no one but Genji. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome. Meanwhile, sad things are more beautiful, especially when G=P:

As he combed his hair he could not help noticing that loss of weight had made him even handsomer.

There are still yet more farewells and letter exchanges involving just about every character introduced in previous chapters who's still alive. But finally, Genji finishes his packing.

He would take only the simplest essentials for a rustic life, among them a book chest, selected writings of Po Chu-i and other poets, and a seven-stringed Chinese koto. He carefully refrained from anything which in its ostentation might not become a nameless rustic.

Because nameless rustics commonly read Po Chu-i. I couldn't help translating this to the modern equivalent: "a laptop, my poetry collection, and an acoustic guitar."

So he goes to Suma, where he and Murasaki, Rokujo, and others exchange many poignant letters. Back at court, everyone except Kokiden misses him greatly, especially Murasaki, who goes into a decline. At Suma, his retainers worry that he's not looking well, but that just makes him more beautiful, so beautiful and fragile that they refuse to leave him even to visit their families. Dude, just bring in To no Chujo, the governor's step-mother's brother, Murasaki's father, and then you can all have the great big orgy that you are all clearly dying for.

Genji stays in Suma for a year, then he dreams of the king of the sea (who was partial to handsome men like Genji) telling him to go home. Genji decides to leave.

So, is Murasaki now about twelve? I await the day she at least hits puberty. Maybe she will have by the time he returns. Also, I eagerly await more machinations by Kokiden, who will no doubt be displeased at Genji's return; and I do not believe that we have seen the last of Rokujo.
Has anyone here seen the stage or film version of the Mahabharata that Peter Brook directed? If so, what did you think about it?

I saw it a number of years ago on film, and recall being impressed with a lot of the stage craft and theatricalism, but I also recall thinking it was stiff and pompous and tended to go for austere moments of symbolism rather than the narrative thrills and emotional engagement I had been expecting. And I didn't like a lot of the character interpretations, though I now can't recall who I disliked or why. (Well, I can guess from looking at a photo from the production that I undoubtedly had a big problem with the actor playing Krishna not being especially good-looking when he ought to be supernaturally handsome, or at least ordinarily handsome and supernaturally charismatic.)

Anyway, the reason I ask is that I was thinking of watching it again to see if I totally had my head up my ass about this universally adored classic, but Netflix doesn't have it and I'm reluctant to spring for it on Amazon when I had so many problems with it the first time.
Has anyone here seen the stage or film version of the Mahabharata that Peter Brook directed? If so, what did you think about it?

I saw it a number of years ago on film, and recall being impressed with a lot of the stage craft and theatricalism, but I also recall thinking it was stiff and pompous and tended to go for austere moments of symbolism rather than the narrative thrills and emotional engagement I had been expecting. And I didn't like a lot of the character interpretations, though I now can't recall who I disliked or why. (Well, I can guess from looking at a photo from the production that I undoubtedly had a big problem with the actor playing Krishna not being especially good-looking when he ought to be supernaturally handsome, or at least ordinarily handsome and supernaturally charismatic.)

Anyway, the reason I ask is that I was thinking of watching it again to see if I totally had my head up my ass about this universally adored classic, but Netflix doesn't have it and I'm reluctant to spring for it on Amazon when I had so many problems with it the first time.
.

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags