Scan barcode
trve_zach's review against another edition
It’s probably the long and circuitous sentences and paragraphs, turning in on themselves, constantly referring to the same idea(s) and reestablishing their own importance, becoming, in that way, familiar to all who have read Bernhard or others in that camp (not too hard to find some Hamsun here as well), which, I’m coming to learn, is something that I can’t seem to get enough of, though what that says about me, being so entertained from reading works with narrators who constantly obsess and revise their thoughts, is probably worth consideration (much in the way that this high-school teacher obsesses over both a minor character in Ibsen’s The Wild Duck and his own disappointment that no one cares how he’s noticed something potentially important about this character), e.g., “The very thought of the contrary situation sufficed to make one quickly understand how impossible it would have been if it had not been the way it, as a matter of fact, was.” (15)
As he processes his own irrelevance (a theme throughout) as a literature teacher, it becomes too much, and he lashes out in front of students and teachers, breaking his umbrella on a water fountain, even jumping up and down on it before yelling at some of the nearby students. It is a turning point, calling to mind the “twitching convulsively” of the Ibsen passage he is so focused on, clearly mirroring the descent of that author’s plays. It makes me think of this bit from “The Shoelace” by Bukowski:
“with each broken shoelace
out of one hundred broken shoelaces,
one man, one woman, one
thing
enters a
madhouse.
so be careful
when you
bend over.”
The narrative shifts as Elias tells of his college days and his close friendship with Johan Corneliussen, a philosophy major. They become such good friends that Elias can hardly experience life without him. They both come to love a beautiful woman, Eva Linde. Eventually Johan, unable to find reliable work/a path forward for himself and his new wife, Eva, runs away, leaving both her and their newborn child in the hands of Elias: “And so, here he sat on the ninth floor of a high-rise building at Grorud, in his friend’s apartment, together with his friend, knowing he was half a person who would never be whole and feeling overcome with grief at the prospect of never becoming whole…I steal into a woman’s slumbering state, as the shadow of Johan Corneliussen that I am.” (79)
The problem of Johan’s absence comes more fully into the picture as Elias reaches middle age and finds himself becoming irrelevant to society. “It was as though the shapers of public opinion were not paying attention to him at all anymore. On the contrary, they seemed to make a point of looking straight past him, almost as if it gave them a special pleasure to do so. He had become nothing to them, and Elias Rukla found that to be deeply wounding.” (115) As a teacher and step-father, he has dedicated his life to service, to helping better or uphold the values of his culture/society, and his great reward is to be cast off, to become a member of the unacknowledged, unmarketed-to middle aged. This, of course, is the natural progression for all of us, but it is interesting because it's a facet of life that is so often ignored either in art or culture, like a fate too terrible to contemplate.
In Elias’ case, everything is compounded because his double, his other who he could buoy himself with, is nowhere to be found, exists only as a phantasm, a lingering reminder of his youth. That Eva would never fully open her innerworld to him also deprived him of opening himself to her even though she relies on Elias financially makes it so that Elias is a completely alienated man. He has been unable to connect to anything around him and his realization of this and his attempt to push a thought beyond the prescribed syllabus only furthers his disconnect. How, then, you extrapolate all this i/r/t Norwegian culture, modern society, capitalism or socialism, and on and on is, of course, up to you.
As he processes his own irrelevance (a theme throughout) as a literature teacher, it becomes too much, and he lashes out in front of students and teachers, breaking his umbrella on a water fountain, even jumping up and down on it before yelling at some of the nearby students. It is a turning point, calling to mind the “twitching convulsively” of the Ibsen passage he is so focused on, clearly mirroring the descent of that author’s plays. It makes me think of this bit from “The Shoelace” by Bukowski:
“with each broken shoelace
out of one hundred broken shoelaces,
one man, one woman, one
thing
enters a
madhouse.
so be careful
when you
bend over.”
The narrative shifts as Elias tells of his college days and his close friendship with Johan Corneliussen, a philosophy major. They become such good friends that Elias can hardly experience life without him. They both come to love a beautiful woman, Eva Linde. Eventually Johan, unable to find reliable work/a path forward for himself and his new wife, Eva, runs away, leaving both her and their newborn child in the hands of Elias: “And so, here he sat on the ninth floor of a high-rise building at Grorud, in his friend’s apartment, together with his friend, knowing he was half a person who would never be whole and feeling overcome with grief at the prospect of never becoming whole…I steal into a woman’s slumbering state, as the shadow of Johan Corneliussen that I am.” (79)
The problem of Johan’s absence comes more fully into the picture as Elias reaches middle age and finds himself becoming irrelevant to society. “It was as though the shapers of public opinion were not paying attention to him at all anymore. On the contrary, they seemed to make a point of looking straight past him, almost as if it gave them a special pleasure to do so. He had become nothing to them, and Elias Rukla found that to be deeply wounding.” (115) As a teacher and step-father, he has dedicated his life to service, to helping better or uphold the values of his culture/society, and his great reward is to be cast off, to become a member of the unacknowledged, unmarketed-to middle aged. This, of course, is the natural progression for all of us, but it is interesting because it's a facet of life that is so often ignored either in art or culture, like a fate too terrible to contemplate.
In Elias’ case, everything is compounded because his double, his other who he could buoy himself with, is nowhere to be found, exists only as a phantasm, a lingering reminder of his youth. That Eva would never fully open her innerworld to him also deprived him of opening himself to her even though she relies on Elias financially makes it so that Elias is a completely alienated man. He has been unable to connect to anything around him and his realization of this and his attempt to push a thought beyond the prescribed syllabus only furthers his disconnect. How, then, you extrapolate all this i/r/t Norwegian culture, modern society, capitalism or socialism, and on and on is, of course, up to you.
steve_urick's review against another edition
dark
emotional
funny
reflective
sad
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
farfuglietti's review
5.0
4.5/5
I decided to read this book again for various reasons. I think that "Timidezza e dignità" was the book that introduced me to Scandinavian literature (apart from, of course, Swedish thrillers) and it was also the first book I read from Iperborea, which I then started to love.
I remember clearly than in the first part of the book there was a long explanation of "The Wild Duck" by Henrik Ibsen. Since I hadn't read it at the time I didn't understand it and I didn't catch what it had to do with the story. So now I've read Ibsen's drama and I'm studying it at university and I thought that I could read Solstad's book once again to see if there were any changes in my perception.
And lastly, I wanted to take a look at the Italian translation, even though I don't know (yet) Norwegian and so I can't analyse it, but I "know" the translator and I wanted to see his work.
It has remained the same. I understood it more, but the sensations that it gave me are exactly the same.
We have Elias Rukla, a professor of Norwegian literature, that, after 25 years of teaching and a rare and exciting lesson about "The Wild Duck", has a break-down in the school yard. He understands that he won't teach again and he starts wandering in Oslo and thinking back to his life.
We get to know him and we do in relation with the other characters. We meet Jonas Corneliussen, a promising young philosopher who opens a new world to Elias. They spend every minute they're together discussing about life, the universe and everything. Their friendship is the best moment of Elias' life, who feels alive and connected to the world.
But then Jonas leaves Norway and uses his knowledge and understanding of capitalism at the service of capitalism itself, whilst Elias remains with his original goal, spreading culture to the young generations.
After 25 years, it doesn't work anymore. Society has changed, the new generation has changed and he is not capable anymore of teaching them. He just bores the students and it's not their fault, it's just the way it has to be, according to society. Elias teaches them things that they won't understand now and maybe never. Culture won't be useful to them. They will become as his collegues, who have an high culture but they don't benefit from it. They spend their time talking about money and debts.
Elias's crisis is personal but also ethical and generational. What he misses the most is discussing. He watches the news and he doesn't feel interested and intrigued. He is angry that the newspapers don't talk about his interests and his social class. He is dying inside. We can say that we are impenetrable to society, but we all know that it's not true. He is dying inside not because of his personal life, but because society standards don't appeal to his generation anymore.
Elias' is stuck between two centuries, he is motionless, he is slowly drowing not knowing himself anymore. And at the end of the book, once we've discovered his life, we do understand him and we see why he overreacted over an umbrella. We're left with the doubt of what he will do with his life, with a pessimist ending full of awareness that we are too little and helpless before society's brutality.
I decided to read this book again for various reasons. I think that "Timidezza e dignità" was the book that introduced me to Scandinavian literature (apart from, of course, Swedish thrillers) and it was also the first book I read from Iperborea, which I then started to love.
I remember clearly than in the first part of the book there was a long explanation of "The Wild Duck" by Henrik Ibsen. Since I hadn't read it at the time I didn't understand it and I didn't catch what it had to do with the story. So now I've read Ibsen's drama and I'm studying it at university and I thought that I could read Solstad's book once again to see if there were any changes in my perception.
And lastly, I wanted to take a look at the Italian translation, even though I don't know (yet) Norwegian and so I can't analyse it, but I "know" the translator and I wanted to see his work.
It has remained the same. I understood it more, but the sensations that it gave me are exactly the same.
We have Elias Rukla, a professor of Norwegian literature, that, after 25 years of teaching and a rare and exciting lesson about "The Wild Duck", has a break-down in the school yard. He understands that he won't teach again and he starts wandering in Oslo and thinking back to his life.
We get to know him and we do in relation with the other characters. We meet Jonas Corneliussen, a promising young philosopher who opens a new world to Elias. They spend every minute they're together discussing about life, the universe and everything. Their friendship is the best moment of Elias' life, who feels alive and connected to the world.
But then Jonas leaves Norway and uses his knowledge and understanding of capitalism at the service of capitalism itself, whilst Elias remains with his original goal, spreading culture to the young generations.
After 25 years, it doesn't work anymore. Society has changed, the new generation has changed and he is not capable anymore of teaching them. He just bores the students and it's not their fault, it's just the way it has to be, according to society. Elias teaches them things that they won't understand now and maybe never. Culture won't be useful to them. They will become as his collegues, who have an high culture but they don't benefit from it. They spend their time talking about money and debts.
Elias's crisis is personal but also ethical and generational. What he misses the most is discussing. He watches the news and he doesn't feel interested and intrigued. He is angry that the newspapers don't talk about his interests and his social class. He is dying inside. We can say that we are impenetrable to society, but we all know that it's not true. He is dying inside not because of his personal life, but because society standards don't appeal to his generation anymore.
Elias' is stuck between two centuries, he is motionless, he is slowly drowing not knowing himself anymore. And at the end of the book, once we've discovered his life, we do understand him and we see why he overreacted over an umbrella. We're left with the doubt of what he will do with his life, with a pessimist ending full of awareness that we are too little and helpless before society's brutality.
verapoyraz's review against another edition
challenging
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.25
astramine's review against another edition
3.0
Morsom til tider, men som oftest ganske kjedelig der en idé skal fortelles med akkurat samme gjenfortalte ord helt til en ny idé overtar og sirkelen fortsetter…
sitter ikke igjen med veldig mange tanker om nøyaktig hva det var jeg leste…
sitter ikke igjen med veldig mange tanker om nøyaktig hva det var jeg leste…
marieulvund's review against another edition
funny
lighthearted
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
hlinsaga's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.0