(no subject)
"One of those two Zippo lighters was in Franklin D. Roosevelt's pocket when he was assassinated. And one wasn't. One has historicity, a hell of a lot of it. As much as any object ever had. And one has nothing. Can you feel it?' He nudged her. 'You can't. You can't tell which is which. There's no 'mystical plasmic presence,' no 'aura' around it.'"
"'I don't believe either of those two lighters belonged to Franklin Roosevelt,' the girl said.
Wyndam-Matson giggled. 'That's my point! I'd have to prove it to you with some sort of document. A paper of authenticity. And so it's all a fake, a mass delusion. The paper proves its worth, not the object itself!'
'Show me the paper.'
'Sure.' Hopping up, he made his way back into the study. From the wall he took the Smithsonian Institution's framed certificate; the paper and the lighter had cost him a fortune, but they were worth it - because they enabled him to prove that he was right, that the word 'fake' meant nothing really, since the word 'authentic' meant nothing really."
This sums up my attitude to a lot of Japanese castles ( coincidentally : taken from a booked called 'The Man in the High Castle' ). Most of the castles in Japan are concrete reconstructions - only 12 ( or 11 , depending on how you count them ) 'genuine' castles remain.
But does it make a difference? Walking through an 'original' castle , I tell myself that centuries ago , samurai , Daimyo , ninja - and all the other characters of Japanese history - trod on the very same floorboards which my boot is now stamping down on. And yet , the castle feels no different to one knocked up in the 1960's. The new castles are built to in the same spot , and to the same plans , as the castle they replace ( occasional elevator aside ) - and , from the outside at least , you can 't tell the difference. And yet , one has 'history' , and one doesn't.
Maybe I'm just too much of a philistine to 'feel' the difference.
"'I don't believe either of those two lighters belonged to Franklin Roosevelt,' the girl said.
Wyndam-Matson giggled. 'That's my point! I'd have to prove it to you with some sort of document. A paper of authenticity. And so it's all a fake, a mass delusion. The paper proves its worth, not the object itself!'
'Show me the paper.'
'Sure.' Hopping up, he made his way back into the study. From the wall he took the Smithsonian Institution's framed certificate; the paper and the lighter had cost him a fortune, but they were worth it - because they enabled him to prove that he was right, that the word 'fake' meant nothing really, since the word 'authentic' meant nothing really."
This sums up my attitude to a lot of Japanese castles ( coincidentally : taken from a booked called 'The Man in the High Castle' ). Most of the castles in Japan are concrete reconstructions - only 12 ( or 11 , depending on how you count them ) 'genuine' castles remain.
But does it make a difference? Walking through an 'original' castle , I tell myself that centuries ago , samurai , Daimyo , ninja - and all the other characters of Japanese history - trod on the very same floorboards which my boot is now stamping down on. And yet , the castle feels no different to one knocked up in the 1960's. The new castles are built to in the same spot , and to the same plans , as the castle they replace ( occasional elevator aside ) - and , from the outside at least , you can 't tell the difference. And yet , one has 'history' , and one doesn't.
Maybe I'm just too much of a philistine to 'feel' the difference.