borealis85's review against another edition
4.0
Compared to [bc:The Pyramid|17899|The Pyramid|Ismail Kadare|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348763532s/17899.jpg|19391] this one is much better. I have always been a sucker for Ottoman history and while this is a semi-historical novel at best, it does base itself in a larger than life myth of Skanderberg and the Ottoman - Albania conflict which both were very real. Like in the "pyramid" the behind the lines critique of the soviet system becomes evident, but in the siege the story comes closer to a universal reader. The characters, the horror and the headlessness of people especially in a devine mob are much more intrestingly portrayed as in the "pyramid".
Ps. Only read this because of laziness of transferring books to my kindle. Otherwise i might never have known that Kadare can do better.
Ps. Only read this because of laziness of transferring books to my kindle. Otherwise i might never have known that Kadare can do better.
bennysbooks's review against another edition
2.0
The fact that this book is a translation of a translation likely works against it, although I don't think that is its only problem. There were moments that drew me in, but mostly I was just bored (and that despite how grotesque and dramatic and bloody it is). I've read that Kadare uses his books to talk about life in Albania under communism, but buried in the text to avoid censorship. I could sense that here, but ultimately that meant the plot, characters, etc. were secondary to whatever else Kadare was attempting to say. Ultimately, the biggest downfall was that I couldn't become invested because the characters were completely flat, and character development is important to me as a reader. I'd still like to give Kadare another try. I read a few reviews stating that though the reviewer loves Kadare they didn't think this was his best, which gave me hope.
nealadolph's review
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? No
4.0
I'm part of an online forum where we all share book recommendations, talk about authors and novels that we have liked and that we feel have wasted our time, and where we have started, in the middle of a pandemic, playing this game of selecting who we think should be the recipient of the Nobel Prize. We collectively select 3 to 4 authors that we would like to review in our considerations, and then engage in deliberations and voting, and the winner is "announced" the week before the Nobel is revealed.
To be honest, it is both satisfying and far from it. The online deliberation process just isn't all that thoughtful usually, and the voting process means that we don't have to engage in any commitement to consensus building. Thankfully, most of the authors who make it through the first round of screening really are quite strong. Ismail Kadare was one of them, though he didn't win the prize.
I had hoped to read a couple of his books this year to help with the deliberations, but I didn't even get through this one before we had to make our decisions, and so I didn't vote in the final considerations. He wouldn't have been my top choice, but I can see why he is a strong candidate for some.
A few quick things of note:
1. His writing is consistently good, even in a translation to English from a translation to French from the original Albanian text. He was particularly good at giving me, somebody who knows nothing about warfare unless it has been taught in one of the Lord of the Rings movies, a way to understand and visualize what was happening. He also had moments where he wrote with beautiful poetry and insight. But he is not an exceptional prose stylist, and his writing can oftentimes feel like it is flat, round, pleasant, and nothing more.
2. He seems to understand well the workings of political power well, and he writes about it's invasive creeping daily tendrils into social interactions really well. This is largely due to his characters, but also the intrigue that he builds into their interactions and webs and influence. I quite enjoyed the shifting pools of influence, and the desperate need for success at the cost of others.
3. He knows how to tell a story well by using conceits that feed into the themes really well. One of the primary voices here is the Chronicler/Historian, whose task is to recount what is happening on the field so that it can be shared for generations to come. Another is his friend and constant point of intrigue, the Quartermaster, whose insights and knowledge about the politics and shifts in the game of warfare led me to wonder where his loyalties were settling in any given moment. No technique, though, is quite as exceptional as the voice of besieged fortress, recorded as though in a diary, with its entries placed at the end of each chapter. As a storyteller I never thought he put his foot in the wrong direction.
4. He knows his stuff so well that even a made-up historical battle, and all of the battles that are waged in an effort to keep the battle going, can feel true and grand but also personal and human. That's no small feat. I feel like I learned a great deal by reading this book because it felt authentic to a time, place, culture, and conflict.
And so, what to make of it all.
First and foremost, this is a good book, and that counts. I would recommend it to anybody curious to get into Kadare (like me), or who enjoys a strong piece of historical fiction (sometimes like me), or who likes a thoughtful and insightful storyteller (always like me). I would not recommend it to somebody who is most attracted to a writer by their prose stylings (sometimes like me), or by the relatability of the content (sometimes like me), or who is looking for something that is really pressing against the limitations of what literature can say or how it says it (sometimes like me).
Second, what makes the book more than just good and really actually great is the way the he humanizes people who are forced to make difficult decisions, and the reasons for which they must be made. It is some mixture of ambition and survival, entrapment and choice, paranoia and trust. And the hopelessness of winning a conflict that feels endless; clouds can appear on the horizon and with them they bring failure or revelatory joy, depending on which side you're on. I appreciated the Quartermaster's recognition that failure was never an option for the Ottoman's, but a temporary setback - while fatal to countless soldiers, officers, and a few leaders - was ultimately something that could be worked into a plan for domination.
I also appreciated the Quartermaster's realization that domination would not work; the resistance was there, it was stowing itself away, it was building itself up in stories of success and solidarity, and it would outlast an endless empire through nothing more than mere human nature. Rebellion, once it has a moment of success, even if it is a success that gets wiped out by the next spring's onslaught of warriors, will find its heroes and its stories and, with these, stow away until it can ultimately win back what was originally its own.
Comparing Kadare to the other candidates for the forum's inaugural prize, I would not have voted for him as my top choice. But, comparing this book to the only other one by him that I have read, The Pyramid, I can really start to see why people admire him. I will certainly be looking for more of his literature at the library and at bookstores in town, because I will certainly enjoy his review of the human political condition again.
To be honest, it is both satisfying and far from it. The online deliberation process just isn't all that thoughtful usually, and the voting process means that we don't have to engage in any commitement to consensus building. Thankfully, most of the authors who make it through the first round of screening really are quite strong. Ismail Kadare was one of them, though he didn't win the prize.
I had hoped to read a couple of his books this year to help with the deliberations, but I didn't even get through this one before we had to make our decisions, and so I didn't vote in the final considerations. He wouldn't have been my top choice, but I can see why he is a strong candidate for some.
A few quick things of note:
1. His writing is consistently good, even in a translation to English from a translation to French from the original Albanian text. He was particularly good at giving me, somebody who knows nothing about warfare unless it has been taught in one of the Lord of the Rings movies, a way to understand and visualize what was happening. He also had moments where he wrote with beautiful poetry and insight. But he is not an exceptional prose stylist, and his writing can oftentimes feel like it is flat, round, pleasant, and nothing more.
2. He seems to understand well the workings of political power well, and he writes about it's invasive creeping daily tendrils into social interactions really well. This is largely due to his characters, but also the intrigue that he builds into their interactions and webs and influence. I quite enjoyed the shifting pools of influence, and the desperate need for success at the cost of others.
3. He knows how to tell a story well by using conceits that feed into the themes really well. One of the primary voices here is the Chronicler/Historian, whose task is to recount what is happening on the field so that it can be shared for generations to come. Another is his friend and constant point of intrigue, the Quartermaster, whose insights and knowledge about the politics and shifts in the game of warfare led me to wonder where his loyalties were settling in any given moment. No technique, though, is quite as exceptional as the voice of besieged fortress, recorded as though in a diary, with its entries placed at the end of each chapter. As a storyteller I never thought he put his foot in the wrong direction.
4. He knows his stuff so well that even a made-up historical battle, and all of the battles that are waged in an effort to keep the battle going, can feel true and grand but also personal and human. That's no small feat. I feel like I learned a great deal by reading this book because it felt authentic to a time, place, culture, and conflict.
And so, what to make of it all.
First and foremost, this is a good book, and that counts. I would recommend it to anybody curious to get into Kadare (like me), or who enjoys a strong piece of historical fiction (sometimes like me), or who likes a thoughtful and insightful storyteller (always like me). I would not recommend it to somebody who is most attracted to a writer by their prose stylings (sometimes like me), or by the relatability of the content (sometimes like me), or who is looking for something that is really pressing against the limitations of what literature can say or how it says it (sometimes like me).
Second, what makes the book more than just good and really actually great is the way the he humanizes people who are forced to make difficult decisions, and the reasons for which they must be made. It is some mixture of ambition and survival, entrapment and choice, paranoia and trust. And the hopelessness of winning a conflict that feels endless; clouds can appear on the horizon and with them they bring failure or revelatory joy, depending on which side you're on. I appreciated the Quartermaster's recognition that failure was never an option for the Ottoman's, but a temporary setback - while fatal to countless soldiers, officers, and a few leaders - was ultimately something that could be worked into a plan for domination.
I also appreciated the Quartermaster's realization that domination would not work; the resistance was there, it was stowing itself away, it was building itself up in stories of success and solidarity, and it would outlast an endless empire through nothing more than mere human nature. Rebellion, once it has a moment of success, even if it is a success that gets wiped out by the next spring's onslaught of warriors, will find its heroes and its stories and, with these, stow away until it can ultimately win back what was originally its own.
Comparing Kadare to the other candidates for the forum's inaugural prize, I would not have voted for him as my top choice. But, comparing this book to the only other one by him that I have read, The Pyramid, I can really start to see why people admire him. I will certainly be looking for more of his literature at the library and at bookstores in town, because I will certainly enjoy his review of the human political condition again.
rosseroo's review
5.0
Originally published in Albania in 1970, and then translated into French in the mid-90s, this excellent novel has finally made it into English. It tells the story of a fictional 15th-century siege of an Albanian castle by an Ottoman army. The details of this appear to be largely drawn from accounts of the 1474 siege of Shkoder, as well as the exploits of Gjergj Kastrioti Skanderbeg (aka The Dragon of Albania), who led the resistance to the Ottomans for about twenty years, until his death in 1468.
The siege is mainly told from the Ottoman perspective, as we are taken into the Pasha's tent for discussions of strategy, wander around the camp with the hapless scribe/historian sent to chronicle the impending great victory, and listen to the monologues of the quartermaster who has to keep the siege logistically afloat. There are also occasional brief interludes written from the perspective of the Christian defenders trying to conserve their water until the arrival of the rainy season that would effectively save them.
The mechanics and psychology of the siege are wonderfully brought to life, as the Ottomans struggle to bring their superior manpower and technology to bear in an effective manner. In that sense, it's a gripping, effective, and often bloody, work of historical fiction which will appeal to fans of that genre. At the same time, the story appears to function as allegory for the plight of Soviet-dominated Albania during the Cold War. The Ottoman army -- cowering under an absolute ruler abetted by a pervasive secret police, riven by internal factions (warlords, mystics, technocrats, etc.), and subject to show-trials and cruel and unusual punishments -- bears striking similarities to Albania under the rule of Enver Hoxha. Meanwhile, the castle's desperate defenders take on the role of freedom-loving intelligentsia within that same society. The symbolism is stark, since history tells us that the Ottoman Empire does eventually conquer Albania, and the castle does fall.
The translation is very good, as the camp comes alive on every page, and the battle scenes resound off the page. But it's to Kadare's immense credit that the story remains gripping while conveying its densely layered message. Well worth reading if you have any interest in the Ottoman Empire, Albania, military history, or simply excellent world literature.
The siege is mainly told from the Ottoman perspective, as we are taken into the Pasha's tent for discussions of strategy, wander around the camp with the hapless scribe/historian sent to chronicle the impending great victory, and listen to the monologues of the quartermaster who has to keep the siege logistically afloat. There are also occasional brief interludes written from the perspective of the Christian defenders trying to conserve their water until the arrival of the rainy season that would effectively save them.
The mechanics and psychology of the siege are wonderfully brought to life, as the Ottomans struggle to bring their superior manpower and technology to bear in an effective manner. In that sense, it's a gripping, effective, and often bloody, work of historical fiction which will appeal to fans of that genre. At the same time, the story appears to function as allegory for the plight of Soviet-dominated Albania during the Cold War. The Ottoman army -- cowering under an absolute ruler abetted by a pervasive secret police, riven by internal factions (warlords, mystics, technocrats, etc.), and subject to show-trials and cruel and unusual punishments -- bears striking similarities to Albania under the rule of Enver Hoxha. Meanwhile, the castle's desperate defenders take on the role of freedom-loving intelligentsia within that same society. The symbolism is stark, since history tells us that the Ottoman Empire does eventually conquer Albania, and the castle does fall.
The translation is very good, as the camp comes alive on every page, and the battle scenes resound off the page. But it's to Kadare's immense credit that the story remains gripping while conveying its densely layered message. Well worth reading if you have any interest in the Ottoman Empire, Albania, military history, or simply excellent world literature.
thesimplepastor's review
4.0
This is the first book by Kadare that I have read and I had no idea what to expect.
It's a mythical, historical story set in the 15th century of, guess what, a siege. The Ottomans have invaded Albania but are plagued by the shadowy presence of the Albanian leader Skanderbeg.
Mostly told from the Ottoman side, the story is interspersed with short perspectives from inside the fortress. At times this creates incredible tension in the story but I'm not sure Kadare was ever that interested in heightened drama.
It's a melancholy reflection on empires, war, making a name for yourself & the violence of men. It has, I think, a resigned weariness to it of the futility of it all, yet we do it anyway.
I was transported, absorbed & moved.
It's a mythical, historical story set in the 15th century of, guess what, a siege. The Ottomans have invaded Albania but are plagued by the shadowy presence of the Albanian leader Skanderbeg.
Mostly told from the Ottoman side, the story is interspersed with short perspectives from inside the fortress. At times this creates incredible tension in the story but I'm not sure Kadare was ever that interested in heightened drama.
It's a melancholy reflection on empires, war, making a name for yourself & the violence of men. It has, I think, a resigned weariness to it of the futility of it all, yet we do it anyway.
I was transported, absorbed & moved.
karingforbooks's review
3.0
More of a journey story, but one I actually didn't mind reading. I liked how it had chapters from both the besieged and the besiegers' points of view, and that it focused on a handful of characters. It showed different siege strategies that I'd heard about previously, so it was fun to read about them being applied. The writing itself was enjoyable, as well. For a book about war, the most gruesome part was the tunnel collapse. The note at the end of the book put it into a different light as well, because the book has political undertones (that I don't completely understand) due to when it was written and published in Albania.
dearbhla's review
3.0
Sometime in the fifteenth century, an unnamed Albanian citadel is under siege by the Ottoman army. Among the besiegers is Mevla Celebi, the chronicler or historian. He will record the events for posterity. His job is to compose the story of the Ottoman’s campaign. He is the reader’s main viewpoint, among others, including two or three pages in between in each chapter from the point of view of the Albanians besieged in their castle.
And I have to say, that from the start I was not all that taken with the invading captain. His treatment of his wives did not endear him to me. Nor did any subsequent action, thought, or deed, that we see from him.
In fact none of the characters were all that relatable.
But in reading this book you need to be aware of the situation in which is was written. Albania in the 1970s, under the threat of the USSR, and under paranoia and tyrannical rule from within. It had a siege mentality all of its own.
And writing at the time Kadare was probably sensible to write of the brave Albanians in defence of their homeland, even if the actions of the Ottoman general with his secret police and scapegoat-trials are more like what was actually going on.
It is an interesting read but I don’t think this is a book I particularly enjoyed. The political power struggle within the besieging army is really what is at the heart of the book, and there is a sort of depressing inevitable to it all that I found a little wearing. And yet I still read it all and had a lot of interest in it. I think that it would probably work better if I knew more about the history of Albania. Both the mythological withstanding-the-Muslim-invaders history and the 1960/70s secret police type history.
And I have to say, that from the start I was not all that taken with the invading captain. His treatment of his wives did not endear him to me. Nor did any subsequent action, thought, or deed, that we see from him.
In fact none of the characters were all that relatable.
But in reading this book you need to be aware of the situation in which is was written. Albania in the 1970s, under the threat of the USSR, and under paranoia and tyrannical rule from within. It had a siege mentality all of its own.
And writing at the time Kadare was probably sensible to write of the brave Albanians in defence of their homeland, even if the actions of the Ottoman general with his secret police and scapegoat-trials are more like what was actually going on.
It is an interesting read but I don’t think this is a book I particularly enjoyed. The political power struggle within the besieging army is really what is at the heart of the book, and there is a sort of depressing inevitable to it all that I found a little wearing. And yet I still read it all and had a lot of interest in it. I think that it would probably work better if I knew more about the history of Albania. Both the mythological withstanding-the-Muslim-invaders history and the 1960/70s secret police type history.
More...