Originally posted by StarrmanI haven't read this book, but I like the idea of this thread. I may join in next time if I catch the announcement in time. Feel free to PM me before you start.
Okay, sinc I haven't heard back from anyone else I will assume that you have all finished reading. So... Who wants to start us off? Did you like the book? Have you read any Kundera before and if so, how did it rate against his other books? Did you like the characters, the writing style, the plot? Start anywhere you like 🙂
Originally posted by StarrmanI didn't like it nearly as well as The Book Of Laughter And Forgetting or The Unbearable Lightness Of Being, probably because the protagonist, Jaromil, was such an unlikeable fellow. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of poetry.
Okay, sinc I haven't heard back from anyone else I will assume that you have all finished reading. So... Who wants to start us off? Did you like the book? Have you read any Kundera before and if so, how did it rate against his other books? Did you like the characters, the writing style, the plot? Start anywhere you like 🙂
Originally posted by rwingettWith me it was the other way round, although my first of Kundera's books was this one and I read the rest of them afterwards so perhaps that has something to do with it. I loved Jaromil, I saw an awful lot of his character in myself, although I'm not naive enough to believe in myself to the extent that all others are merely an experience I have to justify, as he does. I know a number of very creative people who show similar traits to Jaromil and lets not forget he's a boy becoming a man in a world that doesn't understand him and that he doesn't understand. His mother's overcare leads inevitably to an oedipus complex so it's not surprising he knows nothing about women. I think he's a wistful character in a world of stark reality and because of this he never quite works out how to get along, but I like him for this fragility.
I didn't like it nearly as well as [b]The Book Of Laughter And Forgetting or The Unbearable Lightness Of Being, probably because the protagonist, Jaromil, was such an unlikeable fellow. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of poetry. [/b]
Originally posted by StarrmanHe would only be a wistful character if his actions had no repurcussions outside themselves. But he directly causes the arrest of his girlfriend and the presumed execution of her brother. Plus his misplaced and warped idealism (along with that of Czecholslovakia's seemingly endless supply of poets) contributes directly to the rise of the Stalinist dictatorship in the country. It is in light of these consequences that Jaromil moves beyond mere wistfulness into something far more sinister.
With me it was the other way round, although my first of Kundera's books was this one and I read the rest of them afterwards so perhaps that has something to do with it. I loved Jaromil, I saw an awful lot of his character in myself, although I'm not naive enough to believe in myself to the extent that all others are merely an experience I have to justif ...[text shortened]... nd because of this he never quite works out how to get along, but I like him for this fragility.
It's interesting that Jaromil is the only character in the book who is given a name. Everyone else if referred to, not by name, but by how they relate to Jaromil. His father, his mother, his girlfriend, his shool chum, the artist, none of them are given a name.
Originally posted by rwingettI agree he causes a great deal of destruction, but there is something about the way he avoids the guilt that I think is born from innocence rather than survival. Perhaps I'm being too bleeding heart here, but there's almost a diminshed responsibility about him. As if he's just a creation of his world, by nurture rather than nature. Does this remove his moral code perhaps?
He would only be a wistful character if his actions had no repurcussions outside themselves. But he directly causes the arrest of his girlfriend and the presumed execution of her brother. Plus his misplaced and warped idealism (along with that of Czecholslovakia's seemingly endless supply of poets) contributes directly to the rise of the Stalinist dictator ...[text shortened]... s father, his mother, his girlfriend, his shool chum, the artist, none of them are given a name.
I agree the fact he is named and no-one else is must be a purposeful statement by Kundera to highlight Jaromil's self absorbancy. It makes him almost a celebrity and celebrities get away with murder.
What I also love about Kundera and what is absolutely pivotal in a book about a poet, is his refusal to include metaphor. He chooses not to use it, but then writes beautiful poetry on behalf of the character and instead creates metaphors that are not words long, but paragrpahs, even chapters long. All his books have this in common I think.
Originally posted by StarrmanNo, wait a second. I was wrong. His mother is given a name: Maman. I think everyone else is nameless, though.
I agree he causes a great deal of destruction, but there is something about the way he avoids the guilt that I think is born from innocence rather than survival. Perhaps I'm being too bleeding heart here, but there's almost a diminshed responsibility about him. As if he's just a creation of his world, by nurture rather than nature. Does this remove hi ...[text shortened]... not words long, but paragrpahs, even chapters long. All his books have this in common I think.
So, did anyone else read the book at all?
Originally posted by StarrmanI still don't see a pure innocence. Perhaps in the beginning. But he later moves into something more malevolent. He thinks about choking his girlfriend. He slaps her around in that one portion. He turns her brother in to the police. I think that by that time what innocence he may have had has become corrupted. When he gets booted out onto the cold balcony toward the end, he had become the complete opposite of his poetic ideal. He had helped to subvert all the freedoms he supposedly was championing.
I agree he causes a great deal of destruction, but there is something about the way he avoids the guilt that I think is born from innocence rather than survival. Perhaps I'm being too bleeding heart here, but there's almost a diminshed responsibility about him. As if he's just a creation of his world, by nurture rather than nature. Does this remove hi ...[text shortened]... not words long, but paragrpahs, even chapters long. All his books have this in common I think.
Originally posted by rwingettYes, but don't you feel sympathy for him? There wasn't a turning point, he didn't make a conscious decision to become like that, he just found himself at the end of a journey with no real idea how he got there. He is the very essence of creativity and yet that creative force destroys what is around him. He can't deny who he is, he just is and although what he said he stood for is now obviously nothing to him, he has at least been true to his essence. Lol, I could blame the parents 🙂 He's the only one that burns with passion, none of the others can muster his vitalising urge to live. Kundera makes a very nice analogy with the burning of Byron's body in his book 'The art of the Novel' in which he compares poets to the fire of intention, incandessant and red-hot. Poets die by burning and Jaromil is no exception, it's almost as if he and those he comes in contact with are doomed to be eaten by his talent.
I still don't see a pure innocence. Perhaps in the beginning. But he later moves into something more malevolent. He thinks about choking his girlfriend. He slaps her around in that one portion. He turns her brother in to the police. I think that by that time what innocence he may have had has become corrupted. When he gets booted out onto the cold balcony ...[text shortened]... e of his poetic ideal. He had helped to subvert all the freedoms he supposedly was championing.
Originally posted by StarrmanBut he squandered his talent. By the end his poetry had devolved into Stalinist agitprop about girls driving tractors. As the guy who kicked him out onto the freezing balcony pointed out, it was the artist who remained the true creative force, even though the system had turned its back on him. I don't think Jaromil ever really had any true creative talent. He was good at mimickry and was able to adapt himself to whatever group he happened to be involved with at the moment. When he was studying with the artist, he wrote poetry like the artist. When he was with the communists, he wrote socialist realist poetry. All the real poets always ignored him (except the artist). It was mainly the party hacks and the police who were keen on his poetry.
Yes, but don't you feel sympathy for him? There wasn't a turning point, he didn't make a conscious decision to become like that, he just found himself at the end of a journey with no real idea how he got there. He is the very essence of creativity and yet that creative force destroys what is around him. He can't deny who he is, he just is and althoug ...[text shortened]... , it's almost as if he and those he comes in contact with are doomed to be eaten by his talent.
It's curious about his death; although he died burning of a fever, it was by almost freezing to death that brought the condition on.
Originally posted by rwingettSorry. No. The book wasn't available through the county library, and I didn't have time to do much but read several reviews on the internet.
No, wait a second. I was wrong. His mother is given a name: Maman. I think everyone else is nameless, though.
So, did anyone else read the book at all?
Just visualizing what you two have said here though, I wonder if there isn't much to do with the "metaphore of the title".. of the "death of creativity under totalitarian rule", hence Life truly is elsewhere, but not here.
Anyway, sorry. I'll try to do better on the next book.
I enjoyed both of your posts.
Mike
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou are somewhat correct, as is Rob, although I still wish to remain a companion to Jaromil, Kundera himself explains both the title and Jaromil a little further in the postscript. The book was originally titled "The Lyric Age" and Kundera says this refers to both the age of youth through which Jaromil is existing and the epoch in which he must exist. I will quote him here to answer some of Rob's critique:
Sorry. No. The book wasn't available through the county library, and I didn't have time to do much but read several reviews on the internet.
Just visualizing what you two have said here though, I wonder if there isn't much to do with the "metaphore of the title".. of the "death of creativity under totalitarian rule", hence Life truly is else ...[text shortened]... Anyway, sorry. I'll try to do better on the next book.
I enjoyed both of your posts.
Mike
"Don't say that Jaromil is a bad poet! That would be too cheap an explanation of his life's story! Jaromil is a talented poet with great imagintion and feeling. And he is a sensitive young man. Of course, he is also a monster. But his monstrosity is potentially contained in us all. It is in me. It is in you. It is in Rimbaud. It is in Shelley, in Hugo. In all young men, of all periods and regimes. Jaromil is not a product of communism. Communism only illuminated an otherwise hidden side, it released something which, under different circumstances would have slumbered in peace."
Originally posted by StarrmanIt's possible that there are people out there who read the book but who haven't seen the recent discussion in the thread yet. We may get some more participation still.
Seeing a no-one else seems to have joined in, Rob would you like to choose the next book? I have a list of people who would like to join in this time, whom I shall PM with the title.
I'll take a day or two to select something. Maybe I'll present a few options.