Scan barcode
cinnamonfox's review against another edition
Leagănul respirației de Herta Muller a fost prima mea întâlnire cu autoarea și chiar am încercat să avansez cu lectura, dar stilul fragmentat m-a plictisit teribil, nu-mi păsa nici măcar un pic de personaje, iar subiectul e departe de a se număra printre preferatele mele. Nu știu dacă voi mai încerca altceva de la autoare. Tind să cred că nu sunt deloc publicul țintă pentru romanele sale.
ovenbird_reads's review against another edition
2.0
Around the World: Romania
I really wanted to like this. It had some impressive moments, some images that caused my stomach to lurch in surprise and I have to give Muller credit for the unique style of this novel. But I just didn't like it. Frankly, I was bored. I couldn't connect to the protagonist, and the level of detail provided about every speck of dust and every scrap of food became wearing and frustrating. There isn't really a moving plot here--just poetic descriptions, images, and microscopic examinations of the minutiae of life in a forced labour camp. I eventually started skipping over huge sections, sometimes entire chapters just to get to the end. I realize that the structure and focus of the book was purposeful. I can appreciate Muller's project--an attempt to capture the bizarre contrast between the mundane and the horrific in the labour camp setting. Starvation takes away humanity, leaving empty husks of people in its wake, so its no surprise that there is no energy in the text, nothing moving. But I could only deal with so many descriptions of lice and potato peels. It was all too depressing. There were very few moments of joy, nothing to give the reader hope, nothing to temper the despair. So, unfortunately, I didn't like this book, and only pressed on because it won the Nobel Prize, otherwise I would have stopped after the first few chapters. I want to stress that I don't think this was bad writing. It may even have been a deeply important book, but I personally wasn't provoked by it.
I really wanted to like this. It had some impressive moments, some images that caused my stomach to lurch in surprise and I have to give Muller credit for the unique style of this novel. But I just didn't like it. Frankly, I was bored. I couldn't connect to the protagonist, and the level of detail provided about every speck of dust and every scrap of food became wearing and frustrating. There isn't really a moving plot here--just poetic descriptions, images, and microscopic examinations of the minutiae of life in a forced labour camp. I eventually started skipping over huge sections, sometimes entire chapters just to get to the end. I realize that the structure and focus of the book was purposeful. I can appreciate Muller's project--an attempt to capture the bizarre contrast between the mundane and the horrific in the labour camp setting. Starvation takes away humanity, leaving empty husks of people in its wake, so its no surprise that there is no energy in the text, nothing moving. But I could only deal with so many descriptions of lice and potato peels. It was all too depressing. There were very few moments of joy, nothing to give the reader hope, nothing to temper the despair. So, unfortunately, I didn't like this book, and only pressed on because it won the Nobel Prize, otherwise I would have stopped after the first few chapters. I want to stress that I don't think this was bad writing. It may even have been a deeply important book, but I personally wasn't provoked by it.
emybooksandcoffee's review against another edition
4.0
“Some say that over time homesickness loses its specific content, that it starts to smolder and only then becomes all-consuming, because it’s no longer focused on a concrete home.”
"Hunger is not a bunk or a bed frame, otherwise it could be measured. Hunger is not an object.”
"Hunger is not a bunk or a bed frame, otherwise it could be measured. Hunger is not an object.”
lisaschz's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
beastreader's review against another edition
4.0
Leo Auberg was just seventeen when two policemen went from house to house with a list. They were rounding up people to take them to a prison camp in the Soviet Union. Leo traveled by train to the camp. Once there, he spent five grueling years in the camp. Although, Leo did not know it yet, he would have a companion with him. HIs companion would be known as the "hunger angel".
Ms. Muller is a profilic writer. She described in much detail the hunger that Leo was experiencing. I wuld have to say though that the "hunger angel" felt more like a shadow or demon then an angel. The "angel' was always around Leo poking into his brain or teasing him with the many layers of hunger.
Leo started out on the quiet side but as the story progressed, he became a strong voice and good narrator. Speaking of good voices, I thought that Philip Boehm did a nice job of translating Ms. Muller's words on page in English. This is not an easy task. I have read several books that have been translated and you can tell there was a struggle. Not to say that the translator did not do a good job as there is a fine line between trying to translate the author's story and not take away anything from the story. With this book, I felt like nothing was missing from the story and in fact, I agree with some of the other readers that the story read poetic at times. This book is worth your time and money to check out. You have nothing to lose but yourself in a good book with The Hunger Angel.
Ms. Muller is a profilic writer. She described in much detail the hunger that Leo was experiencing. I wuld have to say though that the "hunger angel" felt more like a shadow or demon then an angel. The "angel' was always around Leo poking into his brain or teasing him with the many layers of hunger.
Leo started out on the quiet side but as the story progressed, he became a strong voice and good narrator. Speaking of good voices, I thought that Philip Boehm did a nice job of translating Ms. Muller's words on page in English. This is not an easy task. I have read several books that have been translated and you can tell there was a struggle. Not to say that the translator did not do a good job as there is a fine line between trying to translate the author's story and not take away anything from the story. With this book, I felt like nothing was missing from the story and in fact, I agree with some of the other readers that the story read poetic at times. This book is worth your time and money to check out. You have nothing to lose but yourself in a good book with The Hunger Angel.
lspargo's review against another edition
3.0
Herta Muller won the Nobel Prize in literature for her portrayal of what it was like for the many German minorities living in Romania that were sent to Russian work camps after WWII. At first I found the book hard to get into. There's not much of a plot, just several stories about what life was like, which is, to say, not pleasant to think about. But by the end of the book I felt like I had more of a connection to the characters and an idea of how people were changed after their five years in the camps.
h_nn_hp's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? It's complicated
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
5.0
an account of memory, hunger, belonging and displacement wrought by 17 year old leo's deportation from a romanian town to a labour camp as part of the soviet union's deportation of up to 75,000 germans from romania for forced labour. leo's sense of displacement is evoked long before it's verbalised and müller crafts a vital testament to endurance and survival
the comparisons to solzhenitsyn are unfair to both writers' works, which stand in their own right
the comparisons to solzhenitsyn are unfair to both writers' works, which stand in their own right