bookloversboudoir's review against another edition
4.0
First of all, this book has nothing to do with Jesus or the bible. I thought I’d best get that out of the way to avoid any confusion. Both of these facts relieve me as I really expected to be reading (and hating) some sort of Christian allegory. I really enjoyed The Schooldays of Jesus, even more so because I’d set myself up from the start to hate the book. I’m glad I was wrong. I’m sure Coetzee devotees will hate this book (judging by the comments on Good Reads anyway) but I found it thoroughly entertaining. The Schooldays of Jesus is very funny at times. I really liked young Davíd, the kind of child who has an endearing habit of asking the adults around him the most awkward and inappropriate questions. I can easily imagine Inés becoming flustered and red-faced at his frank questioning about the birds and the bees. The Schooldays of Jesus of well-written and easy to follow. I was compelled to keep reading from the first page until the last. There are some darker moments in the book as well which are executed well. I haven’t read the first book about Davíd, Simón and Inés (The Childhood of Jesus) but never felt like I’d missed something. The Schooldays of Jesus entertained me which must be a good thing. This isn’t my favourite book from the Booker Longlist and I can see why it never made the Shortlist (there are slightly better novels in the Longlist but I really liked it and it made me change my negative opinion about the author.
diesmali's review against another edition
5.0
Utterly mesmerising, like the first one. I have no idea where this is going, I’m just along for the ride.
Can he get a second Nobel prize?
Can he get a second Nobel prize?
timbooksin's review against another edition
3.0
Disclaimer: I haven't read [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] (and am ambivalent about doing so after this read.)
This is a 3.25 star book.
Things I liked:
- the writing style (reminded me of Paulo Coelho's)
- the rising action and climax
- the inclusion of mysticism and numerology as part of a teaching philosophy
- the examination of interpersonal relationships
Things that were meh:
- the characters (esp. Dmitri, though I suspect that's part of the point)
- the falling action (just weird and inconclusive)
This is a 3.25 star book.
Things I liked:
- the writing style (reminded me of Paulo Coelho's)
- the rising action and climax
- the inclusion of mysticism and numerology as part of a teaching philosophy
- the examination of interpersonal relationships
Things that were meh:
- the characters (esp. Dmitri, though I suspect that's part of the point)
- the falling action (just weird and inconclusive)
venkyloquist's review
3.0
A story so powerful that it exasperates; a plot so deep that it exhausts and a narrative so angst inducing that it literally drives one to involuntary rage. When I first read "The Life and Times of Michael K" by Coetzee, the experience was so unsettling that I resolved never to read this giant of contemporary literature again. The one word that remained etched in my mind after the experience with "Michael K" was 'grime'. A loathsome, repulsive, revolting grime. Reneging on my own self-imposed boundaries, I picked up "The Schooldays of Jesus" on an impulse and suffice it to say came perilously close to losing my composure by the time I finished the book. The master of melancholia, the beacon of bleakness and the purveyor of provocation, Coetzeee has yet again succeeded beyond describable measure in ruffling my feathers!
Simon and Ines arrive at the non-decrepit town of Estrella having 'escaped' the law in Novilla. The reason for their fleeing Novilla is David a six year old boy. Ines, Simon, David and their faithful Alsatian Bolivar initially find refuge in a farm owned by three elderly sisters and managed by Roberta, a boisterous and enthusiastic woman. Picking grapes and olives, Simon and Ines are always on the lookout for an appropriate educational academy for David. David is of an irritating and peculiar character causing immense frustration to his parents (or are Simon and Ines his parents?) with his bull headed and rigid attitude. Finally aided by the monetary larges see of the sisters, David is enrolled in a unique Academy of dance run by the beautiful Ana Magdalena and her musically talented husband Senor Juan Sebstian Arroyo. While Simon and Ines are expectant of David transforming into a responsible boy from a petulant trouble maker, the Academy holds dark secrets into whose depths David is unwittingly sucked into. At the core of such mystery is a museum attendant and a worker at the Academy, Dmitri.
Coetzee weaves such a weft of tragedy that I was tempted to hurl the book out the window midway. The leeway and lenience given to undeserving characters induced me to think about penning an alternative plot that involved a liberally committed murder, administration of a few tight slaps and delivering a couple of well-directed kicks. The violence which Coetzee provoked in me bears ample testimony to the powerfully influential style of writing which has ensured that the man is the recipient of all the recognisable literary awards (including the Nobel).
By the time I reached the last words of "The Childhood of Jesus", I was a trembling mass of anger, despondence and frustration. And yet again i have resolved never to read Coetzee, a resolution in whose maintenance I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever!
Simon and Ines arrive at the non-decrepit town of Estrella having 'escaped' the law in Novilla. The reason for their fleeing Novilla is David a six year old boy. Ines, Simon, David and their faithful Alsatian Bolivar initially find refuge in a farm owned by three elderly sisters and managed by Roberta, a boisterous and enthusiastic woman. Picking grapes and olives, Simon and Ines are always on the lookout for an appropriate educational academy for David. David is of an irritating and peculiar character causing immense frustration to his parents (or are Simon and Ines his parents?) with his bull headed and rigid attitude. Finally aided by the monetary larges see of the sisters, David is enrolled in a unique Academy of dance run by the beautiful Ana Magdalena and her musically talented husband Senor Juan Sebstian Arroyo. While Simon and Ines are expectant of David transforming into a responsible boy from a petulant trouble maker, the Academy holds dark secrets into whose depths David is unwittingly sucked into. At the core of such mystery is a museum attendant and a worker at the Academy, Dmitri.
Coetzee weaves such a weft of tragedy that I was tempted to hurl the book out the window midway. The leeway and lenience given to undeserving characters induced me to think about penning an alternative plot that involved a liberally committed murder, administration of a few tight slaps and delivering a couple of well-directed kicks. The violence which Coetzee provoked in me bears ample testimony to the powerfully influential style of writing which has ensured that the man is the recipient of all the recognisable literary awards (including the Nobel).
By the time I reached the last words of "The Childhood of Jesus", I was a trembling mass of anger, despondence and frustration. And yet again i have resolved never to read Coetzee, a resolution in whose maintenance I have absolutely no confidence whatsoever!
blackoxford's review
5.0
Asking the Proper Questions
The relationship among the three protagonists in Coetzee’s story is mysterious. All three come from somewhere else. They are intimately connected and dependent upon one another; but their origins and histories are obscure. Although they comprise a family, it appears that each is genetically distinct. They are on the run, possibly for breaking a minor civil regulation. Although poor, they are sustained by the benevolence of community members. Among these is an apparent homicidal maniac who also may be a paedophile.
Like Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians , relevant background and motivations are left unsaid. Vagueness about purpose is purposefully part of the narrative. Consequently there are many ways to interpret the the interactions among Simon and Ines, the parental figures, and David, the young boy whom they care for. The title and biblical allusions to the Flight to Egypt and several figures from the Old Testament suggest a religious reading. Alternatively, the tale can be taken as a commentary on a fundamentally corrupt society that honours convention more than authentic morality. These interpretations may certainly be valid but I find them unsatisfying.
Coetzee hints at a different sort of interpretation entirely through his early reference to numbers and the relation between numbers and life in a sort of kabbalistic, speculative parable. His point seems to be deeply philosophical, perhaps spiritual, but not a matter of religion or political sociology. In this reading, the boy David is the number One, a singular, and singularly unique entity. As this fundamental number, he exists independently of his purported parents. In fact, he is the source of their existence, although they do not recognise him as such. David is elemental and will not be forced into some presumed role. According to his teacher, David is “integral,” that is: a self-sufficient whole. In fact, of course, he is the first integer from which all others emanate.
Ines, David’s purported mother, is the number Two. She contains David within her but she is not he (1+1=2). In fact she is the first prime number, that which is only evenly divisible by itself or by the number One. During the story, Ines becomes progressively distant from David. She has her own family life of siblings, other relatives, and friends. Although One might claim an affinity with Two, he cannot assert any rights as a prime number, and therefore as part of her family.*
Simon is the number Three. He is the protector of the One and the Two. He includes them in his life (1+2=3). But he too is unique and independent as the second prime number. Two is increasingly concerned to maintain her distance in terms of intimacy from Three. In a sense she is threatened by both One and Three - One because he might claim to be her progenitor (2 x 1=2); And Three because if he is stripped of One, he might become her (3-1=2).
These are not numbers as we typically know them, namely as signs for conducting practical tasks like counting or making change in the market. Those pedestrian numbers are part of “ant arithmetic.” They are sterile ciphers without life and which, therefore, have fixed meanings as if they were ordinary things. These ant-numbers make it appear that all numbers have a prosaically easy relationship with things, that in fact numbers are merely sets of things.** This is a misunderstanding. Real numbers come from elsewhere, from the stars, or heaven if you like. They are virtually mystical entities which can only be expressed adequately through activities like Sufi-esque dance.
One of Coetzee’s characters divides numbers into “noble ” and “auxiliary.” It seems likely that the noble numbers are primes (2,3,5,7,11,13,17...); auxiliaries are all the rest. All non-prime numbers are the sum of two primes, hence their priority (4=2+2, 6=3+3, 10=7+3...). They are the building blocks of the mathematical universe. Prime numbers are the general answer to the question ‘what should we ask about?’ in mathematics. The answer to all mathematical questions lie, in a sense at least, among the primes since they generate all other numbers.
Two and Three, as primes, lead on to the entire universe, and to an infinity of enormous families of numbers which have strange and intriguing relationships with each other (there is no highest prime number; more are always being discovered). All primes are odd; not only unique but also strange. During the story, David turns Seven, the fourth prime, a sign of maturity as well as superiority to his parents who even together only sum to Five, the third prime number. He also ‘dances down’ Seven in front of his father (and offers to dance the next prime of Eleven, but is told to stop). He can generate all the primes, and therefore all the numbers from within himself. They are all ultimately expressions of him. Neither his father nor mother can understand this, trapped as they are in their isolated noble/prime positions.
In short, numbers have a life of their own, each with its own characteristics, origins, and even temperaments. Numbers are very much like human beings; perhaps humans are a form of number (Or, conversely, number is a self-projection of what being human is). This could explain their odd behaviour. Some are intimately, even passionately, connected. Passions, like numbers, have a life of their own as well. These passions have unexpected, sometimes apparently irrational, consequences. No one knows how or why they exist; and, like prime numbers, we are likely to stumble upon them by accident.
Non-prime numbers lack something; they are defective in that they have more fundamental components. Non-primes are mundane in contrast to the primordial simplicity of the passionless primes. They are the ones that cause problems in the world. They passionately and constantly look for their prime components for completion. This passion for completion can’t be denied or derailed. It is inevitable. And it can be awkward. Then there is always the possibility that during the search for one’s components one encounters a Nought, the zero-negation of existence itself, a disaster for all numbers. Nought can never be forgiven; it can’t even forgive itself.
*One is not a prime number by accepted convention among mathematicians. Giving One that status would cause serious logical problems which are simply resolved by excluding it from consideration.
**Famously, Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead attempted to demonstrate in the early 20th century that arithmetic could be derived from set theory. They failed. The reason for their failure, and indeed the impossibility of establishing any logical foundation for mathematics, was proven several decades later by Gödel.
Postscript: There is also an important theme of measurement which runs through the book. Coetzee alludes to the widespread misconception that measurement involves the assignment of numbers to things and events. This is part of the process through which mystical numbers are turned into sterile ant-numbers. The reality is exactly opposite: in measurement things and events are assigned places on various numeric scales, what one of Coetzee’s characters calls ‘metrons.’ The numbers are what are real; things and events only appear when they are placed on these eternal scales. See For further explanation: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2250383138
The relationship among the three protagonists in Coetzee’s story is mysterious. All three come from somewhere else. They are intimately connected and dependent upon one another; but their origins and histories are obscure. Although they comprise a family, it appears that each is genetically distinct. They are on the run, possibly for breaking a minor civil regulation. Although poor, they are sustained by the benevolence of community members. Among these is an apparent homicidal maniac who also may be a paedophile.
Like Coetzee’s Waiting for the Barbarians , relevant background and motivations are left unsaid. Vagueness about purpose is purposefully part of the narrative. Consequently there are many ways to interpret the the interactions among Simon and Ines, the parental figures, and David, the young boy whom they care for. The title and biblical allusions to the Flight to Egypt and several figures from the Old Testament suggest a religious reading. Alternatively, the tale can be taken as a commentary on a fundamentally corrupt society that honours convention more than authentic morality. These interpretations may certainly be valid but I find them unsatisfying.
Coetzee hints at a different sort of interpretation entirely through his early reference to numbers and the relation between numbers and life in a sort of kabbalistic, speculative parable. His point seems to be deeply philosophical, perhaps spiritual, but not a matter of religion or political sociology. In this reading, the boy David is the number One, a singular, and singularly unique entity. As this fundamental number, he exists independently of his purported parents. In fact, he is the source of their existence, although they do not recognise him as such. David is elemental and will not be forced into some presumed role. According to his teacher, David is “integral,” that is: a self-sufficient whole. In fact, of course, he is the first integer from which all others emanate.
Ines, David’s purported mother, is the number Two. She contains David within her but she is not he (1+1=2). In fact she is the first prime number, that which is only evenly divisible by itself or by the number One. During the story, Ines becomes progressively distant from David. She has her own family life of siblings, other relatives, and friends. Although One might claim an affinity with Two, he cannot assert any rights as a prime number, and therefore as part of her family.*
Simon is the number Three. He is the protector of the One and the Two. He includes them in his life (1+2=3). But he too is unique and independent as the second prime number. Two is increasingly concerned to maintain her distance in terms of intimacy from Three. In a sense she is threatened by both One and Three - One because he might claim to be her progenitor (2 x 1=2); And Three because if he is stripped of One, he might become her (3-1=2).
These are not numbers as we typically know them, namely as signs for conducting practical tasks like counting or making change in the market. Those pedestrian numbers are part of “ant arithmetic.” They are sterile ciphers without life and which, therefore, have fixed meanings as if they were ordinary things. These ant-numbers make it appear that all numbers have a prosaically easy relationship with things, that in fact numbers are merely sets of things.** This is a misunderstanding. Real numbers come from elsewhere, from the stars, or heaven if you like. They are virtually mystical entities which can only be expressed adequately through activities like Sufi-esque dance.
One of Coetzee’s characters divides numbers into “noble ” and “auxiliary.” It seems likely that the noble numbers are primes (2,3,5,7,11,13,17...); auxiliaries are all the rest. All non-prime numbers are the sum of two primes, hence their priority (4=2+2, 6=3+3, 10=7+3...). They are the building blocks of the mathematical universe. Prime numbers are the general answer to the question ‘what should we ask about?’ in mathematics. The answer to all mathematical questions lie, in a sense at least, among the primes since they generate all other numbers.
Two and Three, as primes, lead on to the entire universe, and to an infinity of enormous families of numbers which have strange and intriguing relationships with each other (there is no highest prime number; more are always being discovered). All primes are odd; not only unique but also strange. During the story, David turns Seven, the fourth prime, a sign of maturity as well as superiority to his parents who even together only sum to Five, the third prime number. He also ‘dances down’ Seven in front of his father (and offers to dance the next prime of Eleven, but is told to stop). He can generate all the primes, and therefore all the numbers from within himself. They are all ultimately expressions of him. Neither his father nor mother can understand this, trapped as they are in their isolated noble/prime positions.
In short, numbers have a life of their own, each with its own characteristics, origins, and even temperaments. Numbers are very much like human beings; perhaps humans are a form of number (Or, conversely, number is a self-projection of what being human is). This could explain their odd behaviour. Some are intimately, even passionately, connected. Passions, like numbers, have a life of their own as well. These passions have unexpected, sometimes apparently irrational, consequences. No one knows how or why they exist; and, like prime numbers, we are likely to stumble upon them by accident.
Non-prime numbers lack something; they are defective in that they have more fundamental components. Non-primes are mundane in contrast to the primordial simplicity of the passionless primes. They are the ones that cause problems in the world. They passionately and constantly look for their prime components for completion. This passion for completion can’t be denied or derailed. It is inevitable. And it can be awkward. Then there is always the possibility that during the search for one’s components one encounters a Nought, the zero-negation of existence itself, a disaster for all numbers. Nought can never be forgiven; it can’t even forgive itself.
*One is not a prime number by accepted convention among mathematicians. Giving One that status would cause serious logical problems which are simply resolved by excluding it from consideration.
**Famously, Bertrand Russell and Alfred Whitehead attempted to demonstrate in the early 20th century that arithmetic could be derived from set theory. They failed. The reason for their failure, and indeed the impossibility of establishing any logical foundation for mathematics, was proven several decades later by Gödel.
Postscript: There is also an important theme of measurement which runs through the book. Coetzee alludes to the widespread misconception that measurement involves the assignment of numbers to things and events. This is part of the process through which mystical numbers are turned into sterile ant-numbers. The reality is exactly opposite: in measurement things and events are assigned places on various numeric scales, what one of Coetzee’s characters calls ‘metrons.’ The numbers are what are real; things and events only appear when they are placed on these eternal scales. See For further explanation: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2250383138
mibramowitz's review
2.0
Rated 2 stars because I didn't absolutely hate it, but let's just say Coetzee and I didn't get on. Same problems as the first book.
h0llyshr's review
2.0
Having read Coetzee in the past I had high expectations for this little book however quickly found it a very different experience from his earlier reads.
Vague and peculiar, I felt that not only did the story lack in explanation of circumstantial details, such as setting (which Spanish speaking country are we residing) or the reasons for why the characters came to be in their current situation, it also lacked in lyricism and depth of character.
The story follows the lives of a man and women, Simon and Ines, acting as parents, or guardians of a kind to a small and unruly boy named David. The character of Ines is quickly sidelined in the story, which continues to follow the life and thought process of David as he struggles to maintain a figure of importance and authority in the life of young David. David is a willful child, full of endless questions to which Simon patiently responds. Despite following David throughout the book it is difficult to feel a genuine connection towards the characters, as they themselves seem somehow detached or emotionless, or at least the description of their story feels as such.
I had the sense throughout the book that there must be a deeper philosophical message within in it that compensated for the lack of lyricism of character construction, however I did not get it.
A mystifying read.
Vague and peculiar, I felt that not only did the story lack in explanation of circumstantial details, such as setting (which Spanish speaking country are we residing) or the reasons for why the characters came to be in their current situation, it also lacked in lyricism and depth of character.
The story follows the lives of a man and women, Simon and Ines, acting as parents, or guardians of a kind to a small and unruly boy named David. The character of Ines is quickly sidelined in the story, which continues to follow the life and thought process of David as he struggles to maintain a figure of importance and authority in the life of young David. David is a willful child, full of endless questions to which Simon patiently responds. Despite following David throughout the book it is difficult to feel a genuine connection towards the characters, as they themselves seem somehow detached or emotionless, or at least the description of their story feels as such.
I had the sense throughout the book that there must be a deeper philosophical message within in it that compensated for the lack of lyricism of character construction, however I did not get it.
A mystifying read.
missmesmerized's review
3.0
Simón, Inés and Davíd had to flee and now come to Estrella where they hide among fruit pickers. Quickly it becomes obvious that Davíd is not an ordinary child, he asks a lot of questions and at the same time his view of the world cannot really be understood. When he is enrolled in the Academy of Dance – public schools are no option for obvious reasons – he feels comfortable and at home. The school’s strange philosophy seems to give him everything he needs and dancing becomes a new passion for him. For Simón and Inés this is difficult to understand and with the child’s gradual alienation they also find it more and more difficult to agree with each other.
J.M. Coetzee’s novel was nominated on the 2016 longlist for the Man Booker Prize. Normally, this is an indicator for me to read and book and I was never disappointed. However, this time the novel really had me despaired. First of all, I could hardly orientate in the novel. Where are we? And when? At least approximately. As I figured out in the meantime, there is another novel by Coetzee called “Childhood of Jesus” which might give some explanation to that. Second, most of the book is about the academy’s philosophy – and this was completely lost to me. Even more than to the protagonist Simón who also does not understand the least of what the teachers try to explain. Thirdly, which is closely linked to my first point, the family relationships were all but clear to me, this might be due to the fact that there is a first book in the series that I was not aware of.
Leaving aside the unease while reading, what does this text qualify for the Man Booker Prize nomination? It raises some questions which are definitely worth asking: who am I? What defines me? Which role do the family and the surrounding play in constructing me? Additionally, we have complex inner and out of family relationships which develop, intensify and loosen in the course of the story. The way especially Simón and Davíd not only interact but also react and define themselves through the other are quite interesting to observe.
All in all, I guess a lot of the story was lost to me. Unfortunately, there was too much I was wondering about to really enjoy it.
J.M. Coetzee’s novel was nominated on the 2016 longlist for the Man Booker Prize. Normally, this is an indicator for me to read and book and I was never disappointed. However, this time the novel really had me despaired. First of all, I could hardly orientate in the novel. Where are we? And when? At least approximately. As I figured out in the meantime, there is another novel by Coetzee called “Childhood of Jesus” which might give some explanation to that. Second, most of the book is about the academy’s philosophy – and this was completely lost to me. Even more than to the protagonist Simón who also does not understand the least of what the teachers try to explain. Thirdly, which is closely linked to my first point, the family relationships were all but clear to me, this might be due to the fact that there is a first book in the series that I was not aware of.
Leaving aside the unease while reading, what does this text qualify for the Man Booker Prize nomination? It raises some questions which are definitely worth asking: who am I? What defines me? Which role do the family and the surrounding play in constructing me? Additionally, we have complex inner and out of family relationships which develop, intensify and loosen in the course of the story. The way especially Simón and Davíd not only interact but also react and define themselves through the other are quite interesting to observe.
All in all, I guess a lot of the story was lost to me. Unfortunately, there was too much I was wondering about to really enjoy it.
booktwitcher23's review
2.0
I struggled to follow this story, not quite understanding what it was really about.