I just finished reading Les Benveillantes (The Kindly Ones, improper translation of The Eumenides) by Jonathan Littell. He won the Prix Goncourt and many others and has received tons of criticism.
misplaced.
The story of an SS, an idealist caught in psychology and fragile, a executioner bureaucrat used in Ukraine, the Caucasus, Stalingrad, and finally Berlin.
The whole book is played on dichotomies. The idealism of the Volk is dissolved in the thesis of the banality of evil, the mind of the protagonist, distressed by nightmares and flashbacks are floundering in its history (that of a modern Orestes, pursued by Benveillantes - Eumenides) and the History of the Fall Wagner the Third Reich. The internal coherence of the discourses of eugenics and living space merges with the instincts of murderers social Darwinism, the classical culture of the protagonist alternates, without the latter can be checked, with its social and sexual perversions. The message, I think, more profound, perfectly embodied by the metaphor of the greek myth, à l'arbitrariness and lack of evil of individual choice, forced by the alchemy of his brain and the chains of history and of history.
Hence the criticism. The madness at times aware of the protagonist is not a killing spree, is not a complete villain, does not give space to a clear conviction, without second thoughts. Restless imagine in its place, for this, I think, is not liked by many. Imagine the Nazi criminals as, indeed, common criminals, gives us the opportunity to lock them in always functional dress of "different", ie 'that affects us only when we define as best. Littell, speaking for the protagonist and taking 1500 pages to reconstruct the context - very accurate, no matter whether historically perfect - doubts this reassuring conviction. If instead of "other" them as men we can not but wonder if we would have done the same.
Besides the pedantry of professionals, who have clung to their precious knowledge to critique creative work - always wrong in terms of operation, the criticisms come from the fact that the lack of choice could mean justification. In reality, the protagonist makes it clear: the only moral that you can 'be applied is that of the Greeks, where they had the intent, but the attto. Oedipus did not know that Laius was his father when he killed him, but it was not the less guilty and was fined only by their punishment. In the Eumenides the moral worth as much as that of the Soviets' SS, as justice is carried out according to their transcendent moral. And the main character, the executioner, never ceases to be riven by the Furies.
Other ( http://www.gadlerner.it/index.php/2008/01/27/la-pornografia-della-shoah.html # comment-47508 ) criticized "the pornography of violence", turned around the issue age of the tools that can use art to express themselves. Although we do not consider good art - I think it is an absolute masterpiece, but certainly not Dan Brown - these criticisms are without make any difference, as, fortunately, they have always done. The violence has become partly as a result of all the blood shed in the twentieth century, a means of expression, which can 'be used well (ie effectively - Coen, Polanski) or evil (ie tacky and morbid-Gibson and Hollywood in general)
misplaced.
The story of an SS, an idealist caught in psychology and fragile, a executioner bureaucrat used in Ukraine, the Caucasus, Stalingrad, and finally Berlin.
The whole book is played on dichotomies. The idealism of the Volk is dissolved in the thesis of the banality of evil, the mind of the protagonist, distressed by nightmares and flashbacks are floundering in its history (that of a modern Orestes, pursued by Benveillantes - Eumenides) and the History of the Fall Wagner the Third Reich. The internal coherence of the discourses of eugenics and living space merges with the instincts of murderers social Darwinism, the classical culture of the protagonist alternates, without the latter can be checked, with its social and sexual perversions. The message, I think, more profound, perfectly embodied by the metaphor of the greek myth, à l'arbitrariness and lack of evil of individual choice, forced by the alchemy of his brain and the chains of history and of history.
Hence the criticism. The madness at times aware of the protagonist is not a killing spree, is not a complete villain, does not give space to a clear conviction, without second thoughts. Restless imagine in its place, for this, I think, is not liked by many. Imagine the Nazi criminals as, indeed, common criminals, gives us the opportunity to lock them in always functional dress of "different", ie 'that affects us only when we define as best. Littell, speaking for the protagonist and taking 1500 pages to reconstruct the context - very accurate, no matter whether historically perfect - doubts this reassuring conviction. If instead of "other" them as men we can not but wonder if we would have done the same.
Besides the pedantry of professionals, who have clung to their precious knowledge to critique creative work - always wrong in terms of operation, the criticisms come from the fact that the lack of choice could mean justification. In reality, the protagonist makes it clear: the only moral that you can 'be applied is that of the Greeks, where they had the intent, but the attto. Oedipus did not know that Laius was his father when he killed him, but it was not the less guilty and was fined only by their punishment. In the Eumenides the moral worth as much as that of the Soviets' SS, as justice is carried out according to their transcendent moral. And the main character, the executioner, never ceases to be riven by the Furies.
Other ( http://www.gadlerner.it/index.php/2008/01/27/la-pornografia-della-shoah.html # comment-47508 ) criticized "the pornography of violence", turned around the issue age of the tools that can use art to express themselves. Although we do not consider good art - I think it is an absolute masterpiece, but certainly not Dan Brown - these criticisms are without make any difference, as, fortunately, they have always done. The violence has become partly as a result of all the blood shed in the twentieth century, a means of expression, which can 'be used well (ie effectively - Coen, Polanski) or evil (ie tacky and morbid-Gibson and Hollywood in general)
Lerner says we do not need pornography to remember. The point is that "remember" only serves to put the animmo in peace and pull out the day in charge. Remember not to stop us from using the Holocaust in many different ways, to nourish without scruple the most varied demands of our small quotas and politics. Or to propose "zero tolerance for the Roma". Consideration should be given, and if necessary even think of murderers, because the memory makes sense.
Other (La Stampa, and many historians) have said that leaves no room for gray, paint everything as a hell of evil. I do not know who has read Liro. And 'the gray that makes the extreme cruelty so appalling is his normal instinctive ease that is the center of the novel.
All this to say that I recommend, highly.
Other (La Stampa, and many historians) have said that leaves no room for gray, paint everything as a hell of evil. I do not know who has read Liro. And 'the gray that makes the extreme cruelty so appalling is his normal instinctive ease that is the center of the novel.
All this to say that I recommend, highly.
PS. A friend, whom I shall call 'Eric Franc for convenience, recommend an exercise to understand what it really means zero tolerance towards the Roma Replace the word "Roma", the word "Jews", then stop and think and repeat if necessary. It also works for Commissioner With CPT for the Roma is not joke, use your imagination.
0 comments:
Post a Comment