Patrik Ouředník

Szavak, amelyek erről a könyvről eszembe jutottak:

1.) ZSÚFOLT. Jó, hát milyen legyen egy regény, ami a teljes európai XX. századot kívánja mint csiszolt követ, egyetlen 160 oldalnyi foglalatba szorítani? Szóval ezt elfogadom.
2.) CSAPONGÓ. Szálldos témáról témára, akár a szédült pille, aki épp az imént kortyolt bele egy kupica becherovkába. De még ennek szükségességét is aláírom – hisz végtére is amikor első és második világháború, kommunizmus és nácizmus, fogyasztói társadalom és totalitárius állam között ugrál ide-oda, akkor valami mélyebb dologra kíván rámutatni a történelmi kontinuitásról. Blaszfém persze, amikor a Barbie-baba meg a holokauszt egy mondatba kerül, de hát jó író nem megy a szomszédba egy kis blaszfémiáért, mert ha a szent dolgok tisztelete megköti a művész kezét, akkor onnantól kezdve nem is művész tán, hanem propagandista.
3.) FELÜLETES. Ezt viszont nem tudom megbocsátani. Úgy érzem, Ouředník a kisebb ellenállás felé ment el, amikor a regényt írta. Mert ugye a modernitás kritikája mindig értő fülekre talál a könyvolvasóknál, nagyot nem lehet bukni vele. A baj csak az, hogy szerzőnk csak a felszínt meri kapargatni – eseményeket ír le, amelyek frappánsak ugyan, de az események elemzésének mélységeibe nem mer, nem akar alászállni. Anekdotikus, nem pedig esszészerű ez a próza, bármennyire is esszéregénynek akar látszódni. Így aztán ha el is tudja érni, hogy egyetértsek vele, a legfontosabbat meg se próbálja: hogy egyetértésem felülvizsgálatára kényszerítsen, és ezzel valamivel többé tegyen, mint ami a könyv elolvasása előtt voltam.… (más)

On the surface, this strange book appears to be a history of the 20th century. The events of the 20th century (mainly in Europe, occasionally in America or other countries) are related in a dry, straightforward manner. The author doesn’t even use any names. When describing who did or said something, it’s “the Communists”, “doctors” or “young people”. Although major events are described–with a focus on WWI and II–the actions of random people, not necessarily famous or influential ones, are also related. There are also long lists, a focus on random subjects and a certain flattening of beliefs or events, which often leads to very strange descriptions. Clearly, the author was going for a quirky look at the strange, contradictory and sometimes horrifying history of the 20th century, but, although it was published in 2001, the book has even more relevance in our age of fake news.

The dry, straightforward tone leads the reader to wonder about the authority and focus of the author–of course, only certain things can be included, and there are some historical events that are too big to ignore, but the author is in fact choosing, while seeming to present an objective description. The random descriptions of individuals also made me wonder–I wasn’t aware of most of these incidents, which were likely chosen by the author as something strange or something that stuck in the memory, but without a name (which wasn’t included), they were difficult to fact check; it would certainly be easy to make up something and slide it in with actual history. The author often relates the beliefs of various groups. Sometimes these border on ridiculous (describing depictions of sex in movies over the years or Freudian theories) but others are obviously harmful–a list of the Nazis’ talking points, for example. Still, everything is related in the same dry factual manner, with not much commentary, which could seem to validate some of these beliefs (see: people declaring that both sides of an issue must always be presented or deciding that random person X on Facebook is equivalent to the consensus of doctors).

I found that the best way to read this book was straight through–it goes quickly, in a somewhat hypnotic way, and isn’t difficult to read despite the experimental structure. Reading large chunks of the book allows you to identify the author’s repeated quirks (sticking turtles into various lists) or juxtapositions (lists of antisemitic laws in pre-WWII Germany followed by lists of Jim Crow laws in America).… (más)

Yet-another writer for me to try to read more by. This reminded me most of Flann O'Brien - who's one of my favorite writers & whose bk "The Dalkey Archive" I presume (perhaps incorrectly) to be the source for the name of the press that published "Case Closed" (& many other bks that interest me).

Ouředník is a Czech ex-pat living in France & he's pretty down on Czechs. That's interesting for me given that I only experience Czech culture thru the work of people like Vera Chytilova & Jan Svankmayer - 2 of my favorite filmmakers - &, therefore, have a high opinion of Czech culture. Of course, such creative folks are the exception to the rule in any culture so I reckon the Czechs are as much a mess as any other people in any other country.

Given that I'm writing this 'review' in the 10 minutes before I have to leave to go to a job where I'll be tearing walls down all day, wch I don't feel like doing at all, & given that I'm exhausted right now, perhaps this 'review' is 'best' made by quoting the entirety of "Chapter 24", thereby making this a "spolier" of sorts:

"Readers! Does our story seem rambling? Do you have the feeling that the plot is at a standstill? That, generally speaking, nothing much is going on in the book you now hold in your hands? Do not despair: Either the author's a fool or you are; the odds are even. Others have died and so shall we, we'll die, oy vey, alack, alas! Who on earth knows how on earth it will turn out! Sometimes a person gets tangled up in his own life without realizing it; and the same is true of characters in novels.

"You ask, How will it end? But that, dear readers, we cannot reveal. We began this story with no clear aim or preconceived idea. How will it turn out, we haven't a clue. We're in the same boat as you, or almost, since at this moment, as you read our book, our work is done; the book is out, you bought it, invested part of your earnings in the hope that it would pay off in the form of spiritual dividends. We don't mean to be impolite, we have no intention of committing cheap provocations, and yet, and yet: what do we care? We've assumed the majority of responsibility; now it's up to you to patiently bear your share."

& that's a pretty good taste of the underpinnings of the bk except that it really is more complicated than that AND it really is a mystery & a novel of social observation & a critique of Czechs & a playful thing, etc.. AND it seems to me that the translation is probably pretty good b/c I enjoyed the language. So there.… (más)

Wat een uniek, ontregelend, confronterend en volkomen origineel boekje is dit zeg.
In 156 bladzijden wervelt de uit Tsjechisch-Frans/Italiaanse ouders geboren Patrik Ouředník door de gewelddadige geschiedenis van de 20ste eeuw in Europa.
Hij volgt geen tijdlijn of creëert geen historische blokken, maar bindt de geschiedenis samen rond thema's, ideeën, maatschappelijke evoluties of technologische stappen. Dat doet hij in een afstandelijke, droge stijl.
Soms lijk je ironie te proeven, soms ruik je een vleugje cynisme, maar dat zal dan allemaal wel aan de geschiedenis zelf ontsnappen: op de slotzin na, kan je de schrijver immers nergens echt op commentaar of standpunten betrappen.
De combinatie van de afstandelijke stijl, de ontregelende combinaties van feiten, het bijna speels omspringen met diepe sporen van de geschiedenis brengt je als lezer van slag, laat sommige feiten extra hard binnenkomen en schudt je netjes geordende blik op de geschiedenis grondig door elkaar.

Straf. Heel straf.

Niets moet. Maar dit boek lezen is de luttele tijd die je er aan besteed meer dan waard.

Hier mag je gerust verplicht leesvoer van maken voor scholieren en studenten.
Enfin, 'k ga stoppen want dit begint op gepreek en een zendingsmissie te gelijken. Exit.

(Maar lezen, die handel!)… (más)