thesarahstory's review against another edition
3.0
Goat Mountain ist ein Buch, für das man starke Nerven und einen guten Magen braucht. Es ist nicht unbedingt das Blutige, das einem die Übelkeit bringt, sondern diese absolut rohe Gewalt, die in diesem Buch herrscht und die einen immer wieder Erschaudern lässt.
Ich muss zugeben, dass ich ein paar kurze Kapitel übersprungen, bzw. quergelesen habe, als es um den Tod an einem Hirsch ging. Klar, wenn man weiß, worum es in dem Buch geht - um Hirschjagd - dann sollte man sich darauf einstellen, dass so was auch thematisiert wird, aber es ging nicht um die Jagd an sich, die mir zu viel wurde, sondern die Art und Weise, wie mit einem sterbenden Tier umgegangen wurde. Es war einfach abartig für mich und unfassbar, wie boshaft und gefühlskalt manche Menschen sein können und gerade bei Tieren hab ich da einfach ein großes Sensibilitätsproblem. (Wobei das für mich allerdings nicht als Problem sondern als Segen gilt!)
Doch der Rest des Buches ging mir ins Fleisch. Mitzubekommen, wie die tiefsten Abgründe menschlicher Seelen sind, dass es immer noch ein Stück tiefer und grausamer geht, war wirklich erschreckend. Es gibt Bücher, Filme und wahre Geschichten, da erlebt der Leser oder Zuschauer eine Art Faszination. Doch hier war es einfach nur so kalt und grausam, dass in mir keine noch so winzig kleine Faszination des Bösen überblieb oder überhaupt aufkam.
Dennoch ist nicht zu verleugnen, dass dieses Buch den Leser dadurch natürlich dennoch am Ball hält. Wenn man dem Menschen etwas vorsetzt, dass er nicht kennt oder vor dem er sich fürchtet, es jedoch aus der Ferne betrachten kann, wird er hinschauen wollen. Oft jedenfalls. Und so oder so ähnlich war es eben hier. So abstoßend es auch war, etwas von mir wollte wissen, wie es zu Ende geht. Wie die Menschen in diesem Buch sich jeweils während diesen 260 Seiten entwickelt haben, war deutlicher als sonst irgendetwas. Welch starke Persönlichkeiten hier handeln und wie unterschiedlich sie sind, obwohl sie alle eine große Gemeinsamkeit haben. Das Jagen. Doch wie die Moralvorstellung jedes Einzelnen waren, fand ich großartig geschildert.
Ich selbst fühlte mich, nach dem Tod des Mannes, den der kleine Junge in diesem Buch erschießt und keinerlei Mitgefühl oder Schuld in sich trägt, in diesem Buch gefangen. Ich war mit in diesem Wald, ich war mit in den Bergen und ich war zwischen dem gnadenlosen Großvater, dem kleinen Jungen, der nicht kapiert, was er getan hat und dem Vater, der verzweifelt versucht eine passable Lösung für alle zu finden, gefangen. Und ich fühlte mich erdrückt und eingeengt, verängstigt. Ich wusste nicht, was auf mich zukam und wie dies alles zu Ende gehen würde.
Ein grandioses Buch, das eigentlich mehr als drei Sterne - locker - verdient hätte. Doch da ich aus meinem eigenen Gefühl heraus bewerten muss, bleibt es bei drei Sternen, denn ich kann mit solcher Gewalt an Tieren, wie es hier der Fall war, nicht umgehen und trotz der absolut genialen Vorlage für ein Horrorfilm-Drehbuch, war es mir einfach nicht mitreißend genug geschrieben. So trocken, wie die Gefühlskälte der Menschen, so hitzig, wie die Situation zwischen den Leuten und so nüchtern, wie der Tod einer Kugel, die mitten ins Herz trifft.
Klingt immer noch nicht nach 'nur' drei Sterne, oder? Macht euch am Besten selbst ein Bild. Ich finde das Buch auf seine Art gut. Aber ich kann es nicht mit mir vereinbaren, auf eine solche Thematik Lobeshymnen zu schwingen. Dennoch etwas, das absolut tief unter die Haut geht! Für Leser die so etwa suchen, ist es genau das Richtige.
Ich muss zugeben, dass ich ein paar kurze Kapitel übersprungen, bzw. quergelesen habe, als es um den Tod an einem Hirsch ging. Klar, wenn man weiß, worum es in dem Buch geht - um Hirschjagd - dann sollte man sich darauf einstellen, dass so was auch thematisiert wird, aber es ging nicht um die Jagd an sich, die mir zu viel wurde, sondern die Art und Weise, wie mit einem sterbenden Tier umgegangen wurde. Es war einfach abartig für mich und unfassbar, wie boshaft und gefühlskalt manche Menschen sein können und gerade bei Tieren hab ich da einfach ein großes Sensibilitätsproblem. (Wobei das für mich allerdings nicht als Problem sondern als Segen gilt!)
Doch der Rest des Buches ging mir ins Fleisch. Mitzubekommen, wie die tiefsten Abgründe menschlicher Seelen sind, dass es immer noch ein Stück tiefer und grausamer geht, war wirklich erschreckend. Es gibt Bücher, Filme und wahre Geschichten, da erlebt der Leser oder Zuschauer eine Art Faszination. Doch hier war es einfach nur so kalt und grausam, dass in mir keine noch so winzig kleine Faszination des Bösen überblieb oder überhaupt aufkam.
Dennoch ist nicht zu verleugnen, dass dieses Buch den Leser dadurch natürlich dennoch am Ball hält. Wenn man dem Menschen etwas vorsetzt, dass er nicht kennt oder vor dem er sich fürchtet, es jedoch aus der Ferne betrachten kann, wird er hinschauen wollen. Oft jedenfalls. Und so oder so ähnlich war es eben hier. So abstoßend es auch war, etwas von mir wollte wissen, wie es zu Ende geht. Wie die Menschen in diesem Buch sich jeweils während diesen 260 Seiten entwickelt haben, war deutlicher als sonst irgendetwas. Welch starke Persönlichkeiten hier handeln und wie unterschiedlich sie sind, obwohl sie alle eine große Gemeinsamkeit haben. Das Jagen. Doch wie die Moralvorstellung jedes Einzelnen waren, fand ich großartig geschildert.
Ich selbst fühlte mich, nach dem Tod des Mannes, den der kleine Junge in diesem Buch erschießt und keinerlei Mitgefühl oder Schuld in sich trägt, in diesem Buch gefangen. Ich war mit in diesem Wald, ich war mit in den Bergen und ich war zwischen dem gnadenlosen Großvater, dem kleinen Jungen, der nicht kapiert, was er getan hat und dem Vater, der verzweifelt versucht eine passable Lösung für alle zu finden, gefangen. Und ich fühlte mich erdrückt und eingeengt, verängstigt. Ich wusste nicht, was auf mich zukam und wie dies alles zu Ende gehen würde.
Ein grandioses Buch, das eigentlich mehr als drei Sterne - locker - verdient hätte. Doch da ich aus meinem eigenen Gefühl heraus bewerten muss, bleibt es bei drei Sternen, denn ich kann mit solcher Gewalt an Tieren, wie es hier der Fall war, nicht umgehen und trotz der absolut genialen Vorlage für ein Horrorfilm-Drehbuch, war es mir einfach nicht mitreißend genug geschrieben. So trocken, wie die Gefühlskälte der Menschen, so hitzig, wie die Situation zwischen den Leuten und so nüchtern, wie der Tod einer Kugel, die mitten ins Herz trifft.
Klingt immer noch nicht nach 'nur' drei Sterne, oder? Macht euch am Besten selbst ein Bild. Ich finde das Buch auf seine Art gut. Aber ich kann es nicht mit mir vereinbaren, auf eine solche Thematik Lobeshymnen zu schwingen. Dennoch etwas, das absolut tief unter die Haut geht! Für Leser die so etwa suchen, ist es genau das Richtige.
krisak330's review against another edition
dark
medium-paced
3.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Violence and Murder
jan2bratt's review against another edition
2.0
Usually books written in this sparse style appeal to me but this one was too dark and depressing.
miuflora's review against another edition
adventurous
dark
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? N/A
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
4.0
ciska's review against another edition
3.0
*Disclaimer: I received a free copy of this book from Harper in return for an honest review*
Author
David Vann was born in the Aleutian Islands and spent his childhood in Ketchikan, Alaska.
A forner Guggenheim fellow, Wallace Stegner fellow, John L'Heureux fellow, and NEA fellow, he has taught at Stanford, Cornell, FSU, USF, and is currently a Professor at the University of Warwick in England.
Review
This is the first book by David Vann I read. I was curious about the incident what exactly happened and how it would work out. When I started reading the book I had to get used to Vann's style. He has a very poetic writing style which makes that you really have to pay attention to what you read and it makes it clear too that not all you read is meant like that.
The story is very disturbing filled with violence and the reactions of the men on this are equally disturbing. They either do not seem to care or turn violent themselves. The way the 11 year old narrator of this story was portrayed made me wonder about the way he grew up. The idea you get from his father is that even though it is not always the right decision he wants to do what is best for his kid. The grandfather seems to think everything is a big joke. Tom (the father's best friend) is the one I connected with most. He did see how disturbing it all was but gave me the idea it was the first time he realized how crazy the father and grandfather where but he suspected the boy was crazy for a long time already. The things all three adults did to the boy though made me angry at them giving me the feeling the kid never had a fair chance at a normal life. Still the boy scared me too the way he thought about killing people compared to killing animals. He must have had some mental disorder.
This book is really intense and not for the faint hearted. I am not sure if it was brilliant enough for 4 stars or disturbing enough for 2 stars so I stay with the safe 3 stars.
Author
David Vann was born in the Aleutian Islands and spent his childhood in Ketchikan, Alaska.
A forner Guggenheim fellow, Wallace Stegner fellow, John L'Heureux fellow, and NEA fellow, he has taught at Stanford, Cornell, FSU, USF, and is currently a Professor at the University of Warwick in England.
Review
This is the first book by David Vann I read. I was curious about the incident what exactly happened and how it would work out. When I started reading the book I had to get used to Vann's style. He has a very poetic writing style which makes that you really have to pay attention to what you read and it makes it clear too that not all you read is meant like that.
The story is very disturbing filled with violence and the reactions of the men on this are equally disturbing. They either do not seem to care or turn violent themselves. The way the 11 year old narrator of this story was portrayed made me wonder about the way he grew up. The idea you get from his father is that even though it is not always the right decision he wants to do what is best for his kid. The grandfather seems to think everything is a big joke. Tom (the father's best friend) is the one I connected with most. He did see how disturbing it all was but gave me the idea it was the first time he realized how crazy the father and grandfather where but he suspected the boy was crazy for a long time already. The things all three adults did to the boy though made me angry at them giving me the feeling the kid never had a fair chance at a normal life. Still the boy scared me too the way he thought about killing people compared to killing animals. He must have had some mental disorder.
This book is really intense and not for the faint hearted. I am not sure if it was brilliant enough for 4 stars or disturbing enough for 2 stars so I stay with the safe 3 stars.
perednia's review against another edition
5.0
An eleven-year-old boy goes on the annual hunting trip with his father, grandfather and his father's best friend. He has gone with them as long as he can remember. They are going to their family's property on Goat Mountain in Northern California. This is the year the boy is supposed to become a man; he is supposed to get his own deer.
But that's not what happens. A death occurs and the rest of David Vann's Goat Mountain deals with ideas of justice and retribution, of punishment and the lack of salvation and forgiveness. It is a stark and violent novel that is difficult to read without the reader's heart aching and stomach feeling queasy. Goat Mountain also is a sincere attempt on the author's part to reconcile Old Testament, New Testament and how he sees the world based on his great admiration of his Cherokee grandfather.
The novel is brilliantly written. There are sentence fragments and complex sentences and plain, old regular sentences that all work together to cast a spell that made this world whole. I wrote out 15 pages of quotes in a chapbook because the writing is so beautiful, evoking not only what happens in this story but also its larger implications of humanity's notions of life and death, of dominance and freedom. For a novel that is less than 270 pages, it's a big book of ideas.
The narrator, the boy, is obviously excited about this rite of passage trip and looks forward to taking his place as a full-grown man amongst these other men. When they arrive at their property, they spot a poacher sunning himself on a ledge in the distance. The boy's father focuses his rifle on the trespasser, readies the rifle to fire a warning shot and hands the rifle to his son to take a look. The boy dispassionately fires and kills the stranger.
It is clear he feels he has done the right thing; the men were just complaining that about the trespasser and how nervy he was to invade their property. He should be taught a lesson. So, the boy teaches him a lesson. After all, his father passed to him a loaded rifle ready to be fired. So he should have been able to fire with impunity. There also is the sense that the boy isn't thinking through what pulling the trigger means. He just did it. He wasn't actually thinking through the consequences. This was a dispassionate act. He did it as much to see what would happen as he did because he felt his menfolk condoned his action:
There was no thought. I'm sure of that. There was only my own nature, who I am, beyond understanding.
And later:
How could I kill and feel nothing? Can we ever know how we have become?
There also is the sense that he has been goaded before on this trip. They stop on the way to camp to drink from a sulfer spring. The grandfather has brought a sack of lemons and cuts one up so the boy can use it while drinking the potent water. The men laugh at him when he does. They don't partake. The boy jumps to the truck bed, rifle in hand, scanning for deer. He states he is ready to shoot something. He has to prove himself. Later in the novel, he will cavort as a child in an attempt to win over the men but for the most part, he is determined to be considered as a man. Perhaps this is part of his nature. Perhaps it is part of the nature of most men, and he is different from most only because he is trying to honestly acknowledge it, without fanfare, bragging or, on the other hand, abject regret at the baseness of his nature. Years later, the narrator does regret the passing of his boyhood world because of his act, but that isn't quite the same thing as being sorry, is it?
According to Vann, hunting is what brings men together: "Our first reason to band together, to kill." Is it? Does it make things sound different, a little more civilized, if we say that humanity's first reason to band together are the basics of food and protection? Vann's narrator also likens the killing that takes place in the story to the story of Cain:
... and I wonder whether every story in the Bible comes from Cain. A riddle, all of it, testing a man and finding him worthy because he's willing to kill? Cain as our goodness, our faith, our murderousness as our salvation?
The boy takes another life. He does shoot a buck, and its death is up close, prolonged and horrifying. This time, when Cain kills Abel, another fellow creature, it is up close and he hears the mortally wounded creature's cries and looks deep into his eyes:
... this time Cain is shielded by nothing, this time he knows who he is.
And therein lies what the story of Cain means to the boy:
It may be a long time before he brings that stone down (on Abel), and it's in this moment we know Cain. The momentum of his life, everything out of control, everything misunderstood and recognized too late, that's how we are descended from Cain. All that was instinctual suddenly bearing consequence, our animal nature betrayed by consciousness. ... Part of us will act according to instinct, and that will never change. And one of our first instincts is to kill.
The only characters in the novel are male. The boy is being raised by his father and grandfather. The father's friend, Tom, has a daughter mentioned in passing and the boy's mother is mentioned once. This is a story about men. Vann's storytelling is a window -- just one window, but an opening nonetheless -- into a purely masculine frame of existence. Not every male will respond to it the same way, adding another layer to the complexity of what Vann has brought forward. Just as not every woman will respond to this novel in the same manner, or even want to read it. This is the most primal masculine work I've ever read; it goes far beyond what is usually thought of in terms of Hemingway masculinity. Nick Adams would have been running for cover from these men, and that would have been a wise decision.
Yet, Vann conveys the boy's huge respect for his grandfather. This is a character that harkens back to tales of the gods, farther back than the Old Testament, in Vann's telling. The author notes his deep respect for his own grandfather in the book. The fictional grandfather is an archetype. He is part of nature, not part of humanity:
My grandfather did not come from god. I'm sure of that. He came from something older, unthinking, unfeeling. He came from something as true as rock and stars, a place of no recognition, before names.
There is one spot where wonder and the grandfather's character are seen together. It's a scene that's easy to visualize; an old man gathering sugar pinecones. It's something he has done his entire life and he hoards them at home:
This is how I would like to remember him, standing with a newborn cone raised high in celebration under soft pale sugar pines, a breeze and late-day sun reaching through, more cones everywhere at his feet. The closest I ever saw to rapture, and the only indication of something good or soft or innocent in him, the only time he might have had a soul.
But this enormous figure that commands respect is not a benevolent figure. He does not dispense mercy. And he has not brought up his family to dispense mercy.
The immediate aftermath of the shooting is that the boy's father strikes him to the ground in disgust. It's an action that his grandfather will later do to his father. The generational strife is a central part of the story. In the middle of that first night, after the boy has killed a stranger, he wakes up to find his great mountain of an aged grandfather straddling him, ready to cut his throat. The grandfather later stabs the father with a fork. This is portrayed as Old Testament violence. Much is made in Vann's narrative of Cain and Abel -- as in the boy slaying a fellow man -- there also is the idea of the older generation sacrificing the younger -- as in Abraham and Isaac. But another sacrifice doesn't come along in the form of a ram that appears on the hillside where Isaac has been bound by Abraham.
Vann goes beyond the Old Testament to take on Jesus as well, and to try to reconcile the New Testament with his male lineage. According to Vann, Cain committed the first murder but
Jesus broke the law, broke the separation between living and dead. A collision of our two worlds, and it could only be catastrophic. Jesus released the dead into our lives, set all the dead wandering the earth, freed the wraiths and demons we fear now ... God wanted this. He sent his only son as an invasion of the otherworld into ours. This is the story of Jesus. After thousands of years of separate worlds, we finally had to admit that the demonland was inside us, and so we told this story of Jesus moving that stone, opening the gate ... Jesus is the recognition of the demon inside us, a recognition of the animal inside us, the beast. A recognition we wanted and needed.
Even accepting the way Vann stitches together pagan, Old and New Testament storylines, is this a wanted and needed recognition? That we're only animals? It's hard to not answer that in a way that doesn't come across as earnest undergraduate trying to be both realistic and optimistic, searching for more to life.
Just before the ultimate act of violence, the boy's father has time alone with him, trying to gather all the broken pieces in the aftermath of what happened and put their lives back together again:
You're my son, he said. I'm here to help you. I'm trying to figure out what the hell you are and trying to keep you from becoming that.
Is he saying Jesus was a monster or was he the sacrifice like Isaac was supposed to be? Was the sacrifice of Jesus a Pandora's box that gave the world all its ills instead of an act of healing?
Just because we are capable of violence does not mean that we also are not capable of healing, of forgiveness and of quiet strength that does not demand sacrifice of others. How the narrator and Vann feel love for the grandfather figure is also something that isn't immediately apparent. Unless he's saying that recognizing the monster in ourselves means being able to love the monster from whence we came.
But that's not what happens. A death occurs and the rest of David Vann's Goat Mountain deals with ideas of justice and retribution, of punishment and the lack of salvation and forgiveness. It is a stark and violent novel that is difficult to read without the reader's heart aching and stomach feeling queasy. Goat Mountain also is a sincere attempt on the author's part to reconcile Old Testament, New Testament and how he sees the world based on his great admiration of his Cherokee grandfather.
The novel is brilliantly written. There are sentence fragments and complex sentences and plain, old regular sentences that all work together to cast a spell that made this world whole. I wrote out 15 pages of quotes in a chapbook because the writing is so beautiful, evoking not only what happens in this story but also its larger implications of humanity's notions of life and death, of dominance and freedom. For a novel that is less than 270 pages, it's a big book of ideas.
The narrator, the boy, is obviously excited about this rite of passage trip and looks forward to taking his place as a full-grown man amongst these other men. When they arrive at their property, they spot a poacher sunning himself on a ledge in the distance. The boy's father focuses his rifle on the trespasser, readies the rifle to fire a warning shot and hands the rifle to his son to take a look. The boy dispassionately fires and kills the stranger.
It is clear he feels he has done the right thing; the men were just complaining that about the trespasser and how nervy he was to invade their property. He should be taught a lesson. So, the boy teaches him a lesson. After all, his father passed to him a loaded rifle ready to be fired. So he should have been able to fire with impunity. There also is the sense that the boy isn't thinking through what pulling the trigger means. He just did it. He wasn't actually thinking through the consequences. This was a dispassionate act. He did it as much to see what would happen as he did because he felt his menfolk condoned his action:
There was no thought. I'm sure of that. There was only my own nature, who I am, beyond understanding.
And later:
How could I kill and feel nothing? Can we ever know how we have become?
There also is the sense that he has been goaded before on this trip. They stop on the way to camp to drink from a sulfer spring. The grandfather has brought a sack of lemons and cuts one up so the boy can use it while drinking the potent water. The men laugh at him when he does. They don't partake. The boy jumps to the truck bed, rifle in hand, scanning for deer. He states he is ready to shoot something. He has to prove himself. Later in the novel, he will cavort as a child in an attempt to win over the men but for the most part, he is determined to be considered as a man. Perhaps this is part of his nature. Perhaps it is part of the nature of most men, and he is different from most only because he is trying to honestly acknowledge it, without fanfare, bragging or, on the other hand, abject regret at the baseness of his nature. Years later, the narrator does regret the passing of his boyhood world because of his act, but that isn't quite the same thing as being sorry, is it?
According to Vann, hunting is what brings men together: "Our first reason to band together, to kill." Is it? Does it make things sound different, a little more civilized, if we say that humanity's first reason to band together are the basics of food and protection? Vann's narrator also likens the killing that takes place in the story to the story of Cain:
... and I wonder whether every story in the Bible comes from Cain. A riddle, all of it, testing a man and finding him worthy because he's willing to kill? Cain as our goodness, our faith, our murderousness as our salvation?
The boy takes another life. He does shoot a buck, and its death is up close, prolonged and horrifying. This time, when Cain kills Abel, another fellow creature, it is up close and he hears the mortally wounded creature's cries and looks deep into his eyes:
... this time Cain is shielded by nothing, this time he knows who he is.
And therein lies what the story of Cain means to the boy:
It may be a long time before he brings that stone down (on Abel), and it's in this moment we know Cain. The momentum of his life, everything out of control, everything misunderstood and recognized too late, that's how we are descended from Cain. All that was instinctual suddenly bearing consequence, our animal nature betrayed by consciousness. ... Part of us will act according to instinct, and that will never change. And one of our first instincts is to kill.
The only characters in the novel are male. The boy is being raised by his father and grandfather. The father's friend, Tom, has a daughter mentioned in passing and the boy's mother is mentioned once. This is a story about men. Vann's storytelling is a window -- just one window, but an opening nonetheless -- into a purely masculine frame of existence. Not every male will respond to it the same way, adding another layer to the complexity of what Vann has brought forward. Just as not every woman will respond to this novel in the same manner, or even want to read it. This is the most primal masculine work I've ever read; it goes far beyond what is usually thought of in terms of Hemingway masculinity. Nick Adams would have been running for cover from these men, and that would have been a wise decision.
Yet, Vann conveys the boy's huge respect for his grandfather. This is a character that harkens back to tales of the gods, farther back than the Old Testament, in Vann's telling. The author notes his deep respect for his own grandfather in the book. The fictional grandfather is an archetype. He is part of nature, not part of humanity:
My grandfather did not come from god. I'm sure of that. He came from something older, unthinking, unfeeling. He came from something as true as rock and stars, a place of no recognition, before names.
There is one spot where wonder and the grandfather's character are seen together. It's a scene that's easy to visualize; an old man gathering sugar pinecones. It's something he has done his entire life and he hoards them at home:
This is how I would like to remember him, standing with a newborn cone raised high in celebration under soft pale sugar pines, a breeze and late-day sun reaching through, more cones everywhere at his feet. The closest I ever saw to rapture, and the only indication of something good or soft or innocent in him, the only time he might have had a soul.
But this enormous figure that commands respect is not a benevolent figure. He does not dispense mercy. And he has not brought up his family to dispense mercy.
The immediate aftermath of the shooting is that the boy's father strikes him to the ground in disgust. It's an action that his grandfather will later do to his father. The generational strife is a central part of the story. In the middle of that first night, after the boy has killed a stranger, he wakes up to find his great mountain of an aged grandfather straddling him, ready to cut his throat. The grandfather later stabs the father with a fork. This is portrayed as Old Testament violence. Much is made in Vann's narrative of Cain and Abel -- as in the boy slaying a fellow man -- there also is the idea of the older generation sacrificing the younger -- as in Abraham and Isaac. But another sacrifice doesn't come along in the form of a ram that appears on the hillside where Isaac has been bound by Abraham.
Vann goes beyond the Old Testament to take on Jesus as well, and to try to reconcile the New Testament with his male lineage. According to Vann, Cain committed the first murder but
Jesus broke the law, broke the separation between living and dead. A collision of our two worlds, and it could only be catastrophic. Jesus released the dead into our lives, set all the dead wandering the earth, freed the wraiths and demons we fear now ... God wanted this. He sent his only son as an invasion of the otherworld into ours. This is the story of Jesus. After thousands of years of separate worlds, we finally had to admit that the demonland was inside us, and so we told this story of Jesus moving that stone, opening the gate ... Jesus is the recognition of the demon inside us, a recognition of the animal inside us, the beast. A recognition we wanted and needed.
Even accepting the way Vann stitches together pagan, Old and New Testament storylines, is this a wanted and needed recognition? That we're only animals? It's hard to not answer that in a way that doesn't come across as earnest undergraduate trying to be both realistic and optimistic, searching for more to life.
Just before the ultimate act of violence, the boy's father has time alone with him, trying to gather all the broken pieces in the aftermath of what happened and put their lives back together again:
You're my son, he said. I'm here to help you. I'm trying to figure out what the hell you are and trying to keep you from becoming that.
Is he saying Jesus was a monster or was he the sacrifice like Isaac was supposed to be? Was the sacrifice of Jesus a Pandora's box that gave the world all its ills instead of an act of healing?
Just because we are capable of violence does not mean that we also are not capable of healing, of forgiveness and of quiet strength that does not demand sacrifice of others. How the narrator and Vann feel love for the grandfather figure is also something that isn't immediately apparent. Unless he's saying that recognizing the monster in ourselves means being able to love the monster from whence we came.
sean67's review against another edition
2.0
The lesson here is easy reads are not always good reads.
In fact this just felt like someone banging on about his beliefs and hiding them in a story, not quite the Daniel Quinn rubbish of previous years but really a preachy tome which I struggled to maintain interest, despite being easy in style.
And just use chapter numbers - it's not hard and it makes you look less like a pompous git.
In fact this just felt like someone banging on about his beliefs and hiding them in a story, not quite the Daniel Quinn rubbish of previous years but really a preachy tome which I struggled to maintain interest, despite being easy in style.
And just use chapter numbers - it's not hard and it makes you look less like a pompous git.
zimlicious's review against another edition
4.0
For English, please visit Community Bookstop.
Orijinali, canlabirsene'de yayınlandı.
Pislik'i okuduktan sonra aklımdan geçen bir düşünce olmuştu; Keçi Dağı'nı okurken de aynı şeyi düşünürken buldum kendimi: "David Vann yazmayı seçmeseymiş çok iyi bir seri katil falan olabilirmiş." Adamı tanımam, etmem haliyle. Önce kocasını, sonra kendisini vurmuş bir üvey anneanne, intihar eden bir baba gibi kısıtlı bilgilerim var hakkında. İki kitaptan çıkarabildiğim kadarıyla bu büyük travmalar ona yetmiş de artmış bile. Damarlarımın içinin yandığını hissediyorum Vann'ı okurken. Yatağımda rahat rahat yatarak okusam da tüm bedenim acıyor. Bu da yetmezmiş gibi kalbim ve beynim acıyor. Bir yandan da hayran kalıyorum kendisine... Acı ve zevk arasındaki o garip çizgide gidip geliyorum yani.
Kitap, bir baba, oğul ve dede ile babanın en yakın arkadaşı Tom'un (ki ismi geçen tek karakter de Tom) ormanda geleneksel geyik avına çıkmalarıyla başlıyor. Silahını hak ettiğin, artık büyüdüğünü kanıtlamak için bir geyik vurması gerektiğinin farkında olan oğul, geyik vuramıyor. Onun yerine bir kaçak avcıyı vuruyor. Adamlar hep birlikte "ne yapsak, ne etsak?" moduna girince olaylar zaten sarpa sarmaya başlıyor. Oğlumuzun da Vann'ın Pislik kitabındaki derecede bir saykoluğa sahip olduğunu da söylemek lazım...
Vann, bu tek bir olaydan çıkarak, tüylerimizi ürperte ürperte daha büyük şeyleri sorgulatıyor bize. Ana sorusu da şu: NEDEN AVLANIRIZ? Öldürmek, insanın sağ kalmak için mecburen yaptığı bir şey mi mesela, yoksa içine kazınmış bir güdü mü? Öldürmekten zevk almak psikopatlık mı, içgüdüsel bir his mi? Hayvanları öldürmek doğruyken insanları öldürmek neden yanlış? Neden yaşıyoruz? Neden ölüyoruz? Neden "öldürmek" diye bir şey var? Nedir olayımız, ne?! Kalbi sağlam olmayanlar uzak dursun bu kitaptan.
Bu kitapla ne içilir: Buz gibi su içilir anca
Bu kitapla ne dinlenir: Talking Heads - Psycho Killer
Orijinali, canlabirsene'de yayınlandı.
Pislik'i okuduktan sonra aklımdan geçen bir düşünce olmuştu; Keçi Dağı'nı okurken de aynı şeyi düşünürken buldum kendimi: "David Vann yazmayı seçmeseymiş çok iyi bir seri katil falan olabilirmiş." Adamı tanımam, etmem haliyle. Önce kocasını, sonra kendisini vurmuş bir üvey anneanne, intihar eden bir baba gibi kısıtlı bilgilerim var hakkında. İki kitaptan çıkarabildiğim kadarıyla bu büyük travmalar ona yetmiş de artmış bile. Damarlarımın içinin yandığını hissediyorum Vann'ı okurken. Yatağımda rahat rahat yatarak okusam da tüm bedenim acıyor. Bu da yetmezmiş gibi kalbim ve beynim acıyor. Bir yandan da hayran kalıyorum kendisine... Acı ve zevk arasındaki o garip çizgide gidip geliyorum yani.
Kitap, bir baba, oğul ve dede ile babanın en yakın arkadaşı Tom'un (ki ismi geçen tek karakter de Tom) ormanda geleneksel geyik avına çıkmalarıyla başlıyor. Silahını hak ettiğin, artık büyüdüğünü kanıtlamak için bir geyik vurması gerektiğinin farkında olan oğul, geyik vuramıyor. Onun yerine bir kaçak avcıyı vuruyor. Adamlar hep birlikte "ne yapsak, ne etsak?" moduna girince olaylar zaten sarpa sarmaya başlıyor. Oğlumuzun da Vann'ın Pislik kitabındaki derecede bir saykoluğa sahip olduğunu da söylemek lazım...
Cesedin yanına varıp ona bakabildim ve bir geyiğin leşine bakmaktan daha fazla rahatsız olmadım. Hatta heyecanlandığımı bile söyleyebilirim.
Vann, bu tek bir olaydan çıkarak, tüylerimizi ürperte ürperte daha büyük şeyleri sorgulatıyor bize. Ana sorusu da şu: NEDEN AVLANIRIZ? Öldürmek, insanın sağ kalmak için mecburen yaptığı bir şey mi mesela, yoksa içine kazınmış bir güdü mü? Öldürmekten zevk almak psikopatlık mı, içgüdüsel bir his mi? Hayvanları öldürmek doğruyken insanları öldürmek neden yanlış? Neden yaşıyoruz? Neden ölüyoruz? Neden "öldürmek" diye bir şey var? Nedir olayımız, ne?! Kalbi sağlam olmayanlar uzak dursun bu kitaptan.
Bu kitapla ne içilir: Buz gibi su içilir anca
Bu kitapla ne dinlenir: Talking Heads - Psycho Killer
miaaa_lenaaa's review against another edition
dark
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
I did not read this on purpose, libby spliced it in with love in the time of cholera
It was very confusing
It was very confusing
suzanne615's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0