How we cite our quotes: (Chapter.Paragraph)
Quote #4
"We are absurd," Mr. Tagomi said, "because we live by a five-thousand-year-old book. We set it questions as if it were alive. It is alive. As is the Christian Bible; many books are actually alive. Not in metaphoric fashion. Spirit animates it. Do you see?" He inspected Mr. Baynes' face for his reaction. (5.93)
Baynes may think that Tagomi's relation to the I Ching is weird. But Tagomi sees some cultural similarity here. The I Ching and the Bible are treated the same way. But check out that final line there—Tagomi has an idea of the similarity between the culture, but he "inspected" Baynes for some reaction, as if he's not just interested in expressing his thoughts. Tagomi is checking out how Baynes thinks of this cultural similarity.
Quote #5
"Not a mystery," Paul said. "On contrary, interesting form of fiction possibly within genre of science fiction."
"Oh no," Betty disagreed. "No science in it. Nor set in future. Science fiction deals with future, in particular future where science has advanced over now. Book fits neither premise."
"But," Paul said, "it deals with alternate present. Many well-known science fiction novels of that sort." (7.51-3)
We had to include this part, where the Kasouras debate what "genre" the Grasshopper falls into—and also what genre The Man in the High Castle falls into. We may agree with Paul, but his argument is a rabbit-hole: this book is s.f. because there are other alternate history books that are s.f.—but why are those books s.f.? So, do they come up with an answer here?
Quote #6
How that man can write, he thought. Completely carried me away. Real. Fall of Berlin to the British, as vivid as if it had actually taken place. Brrr. He shivered.
Amazing, the power of fiction, even cheap popular fiction, to evoke. No wonder it's banned within Reich territory; I'd ban it myself. Sorry I started it. But too late; must finish, now. (8.57-8)
This is Reiss's POV as he thinks about The Grasshopper book, and there's probably at least one paper here. We especially like the power of fiction angle, where he notes that it's a terrible book that should be banned… but he just has to see how it ends. But there's also a political angle: here's this Nazi reading and liking a book about how great it would be if the Nazis lost. Is art more powerful than politics?