What do you think?
Rate this book
Intimitet
Jay 盲r en framg氓ngsrik f枚rfattare med fru och tv氓 barn i ett tillsynes lyckligt 盲ktenskap. Men han drivs av en l盲ngtan efter frihet. I morgon t盲nker han l盲mna sin familj, men det vet de 盲nnu inte om. Denna sena kv盲ll 盲gnar han sig 氓t sj盲lvrannsakan. Han t盲nker igenom sitt liv, sitt f枚rh氓llande till kvinnor, v盲nner och barnen, resonerar kring trohet och otrohet. P氓 ett s盲llsynt 枚ppet och illusionsl枚st s盲tt redovisar han b氓de lyckan och v氓ndan av att f枚rs枚ka leva tillsammans med en annan m盲nniska.
Hanif Kureishi 盲r en av de mest omtalade yngre samtida brittiska f枚rfattarna. Med Intimitet har han 氓stadkommit en roman som talar direkt till var och en som n氓gonsin blivit l盲mnad eller l盲mnat n氓gon.
Hanif Kureishi 盲r en av de mest omtalade yngre samtida brittiska f枚rfattarna. Med Intimitet har han 氓stadkommit en roman som talar direkt till var och en som n氓gonsin blivit l盲mnad eller l盲mnat n氓gon.
166 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
126 people are currently reading
5,306 people want to read
About the author
Hanif Kureishi
120听books1,098听followersHanif Kureishi is the author of novels (including The Buddha of Suburbia, The Black Album and Intimacy), story collections (Love in a Blue Time, Midnight All Day, The Body), plays (including Outskirts, Borderline and Sleep With Me), and screenplays (including My Beautiful Laundrette, My Son the Fanatic and Venus). Among his other publications are the collection of essays Dreaming and Scheming, The Word and the Bomb and the memoir My Ear at His Heart.
Kureishi was born in London to a Pakistani father and an English mother. His father, Rafiushan, was from a wealthy Madras family, most of whose members moved to Pakistan after the Partition of India in 1947. He came to Britain to study law but soon abandoned his studies. After meeting and marrying Kureishi鈥檚 mother Audrey, Rafiushan settled in Bromley, where Kureishi was born, and worked at the Pakistan Embassy.
Kureishi attended Bromley Technical High School where David Bowie had also been a pupil and after taking his A levels at a local sixth form college, he spent a year studying philosophy at Lancaster University before dropping out. Later he attended King鈥檚 College London and took a degree in philosophy. In 1985 he wrote My Beautiful Laundrette, a screenplay about a gay Pakistani-British boy growing up in 1980鈥檚 London for a film directed by Stephen Frears. It won the New York Film Critics Best Screenplay Award and an Academy Award nomination for Best Screenplay.
His book The Buddha of Suburbia (1990) won the Whitbread Award for the best first novel, and was also made into a BBC television series with a soundtrack by David Bowie. The next year, 1991, saw the release of the feature film entitled London Kills Me; a film written and directed Kureishi.
His novel Intimacy (1998) revolved around the story of a man leaving his wife and two young sons after feeling physically and emotionally rejected by his wife. This created certain controversy as Kureishi himself had recently left his wife and two young sons. It is assumed to be at least semi-autobiographical. In 2000/2001 the novel was loosely adapted to a movie Intimacy by Patrice Ch茅reau, which won two Bears at the Berlin Film Festival: a Golden Bear for Best Film, and a Silver Bear for Best Actress (Kerry Fox). It was controversial for its unreserved sex scenes. The book was translated into Persian by Niki Karimi in 2005.
He was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2008 New Year Honours.
Kureishi is married and has a pair of twins and a younger son.
Kureishi was born in London to a Pakistani father and an English mother. His father, Rafiushan, was from a wealthy Madras family, most of whose members moved to Pakistan after the Partition of India in 1947. He came to Britain to study law but soon abandoned his studies. After meeting and marrying Kureishi鈥檚 mother Audrey, Rafiushan settled in Bromley, where Kureishi was born, and worked at the Pakistan Embassy.
Kureishi attended Bromley Technical High School where David Bowie had also been a pupil and after taking his A levels at a local sixth form college, he spent a year studying philosophy at Lancaster University before dropping out. Later he attended King鈥檚 College London and took a degree in philosophy. In 1985 he wrote My Beautiful Laundrette, a screenplay about a gay Pakistani-British boy growing up in 1980鈥檚 London for a film directed by Stephen Frears. It won the New York Film Critics Best Screenplay Award and an Academy Award nomination for Best Screenplay.
His book The Buddha of Suburbia (1990) won the Whitbread Award for the best first novel, and was also made into a BBC television series with a soundtrack by David Bowie. The next year, 1991, saw the release of the feature film entitled London Kills Me; a film written and directed Kureishi.
His novel Intimacy (1998) revolved around the story of a man leaving his wife and two young sons after feeling physically and emotionally rejected by his wife. This created certain controversy as Kureishi himself had recently left his wife and two young sons. It is assumed to be at least semi-autobiographical. In 2000/2001 the novel was loosely adapted to a movie Intimacy by Patrice Ch茅reau, which won two Bears at the Berlin Film Festival: a Golden Bear for Best Film, and a Silver Bear for Best Actress (Kerry Fox). It was controversial for its unreserved sex scenes. The book was translated into Persian by Niki Karimi in 2005.
He was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2008 New Year Honours.
Kureishi is married and has a pair of twins and a younger son.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 620 reviews
November 30, 2024
LOVE IN A BLUE TIME
Mark Rylance e Kerry Fox in 鈥淚ntimacy鈥�, 2001, regia di Patrice Ch茅reau.
Sono tornato a leggerlo per una serie di circostanze che mi hanno stimolato interesse e buona disposizione verso Kureishi.
Ho trovato l'inizio eccellente, piuttosto portentoso.
Mark Rylance e Timothy Spall nello stesso film.
Ho letto e riletto le parole, trovandole troppo profonde per una sola semplice lettura: al contempo, notavo anche la semplicit脿, l'apparente immediatezza della scrittura.
Non so bene perch茅, ma leggendolo ripensavo molto al bel film di Ferreri, "Dillinger 猫 morto".
Michel Piccoli protagonista del film di Marco Ferreri 鈥淒illinger 猫 morto鈥�, 1969.
Andando avanti, tuttavia, 猫 cominciata a crescermi la sensazione che Kureishi scrivesse bene cose molto banali e terra-terra, cio猫 che sapesse vestire bene delle banalit脿.
Guardando un filmaccio alla tv, ho paragonato il libro a Sharon Stone, che in quella trama assurda e insignificante, con partner insignificanti (Stallone e Eric Roberts), sapeva esprimere magistralmente con incredibile intensit脿 le piatte banalit脿 del copione.
Sharon Stone e Sylvester Stallone in 鈥淟o specialista鈥� di Luis Llosa, 1994.
Mark Rylance e Kerry Fox in 鈥淚ntimacy鈥�, 2001, regia di Patrice Ch茅reau.
Sono tornato a leggerlo per una serie di circostanze che mi hanno stimolato interesse e buona disposizione verso Kureishi.
Ho trovato l'inizio eccellente, piuttosto portentoso.
Mark Rylance e Timothy Spall nello stesso film.
Ho letto e riletto le parole, trovandole troppo profonde per una sola semplice lettura: al contempo, notavo anche la semplicit脿, l'apparente immediatezza della scrittura.
Non so bene perch茅, ma leggendolo ripensavo molto al bel film di Ferreri, "Dillinger 猫 morto".
Michel Piccoli protagonista del film di Marco Ferreri 鈥淒illinger 猫 morto鈥�, 1969.
Andando avanti, tuttavia, 猫 cominciata a crescermi la sensazione che Kureishi scrivesse bene cose molto banali e terra-terra, cio猫 che sapesse vestire bene delle banalit脿.
Guardando un filmaccio alla tv, ho paragonato il libro a Sharon Stone, che in quella trama assurda e insignificante, con partner insignificanti (Stallone e Eric Roberts), sapeva esprimere magistralmente con incredibile intensit脿 le piatte banalit脿 del copione.
Sharon Stone e Sylvester Stallone in 鈥淟o specialista鈥� di Luis Llosa, 1994.
March 9, 2009
If I was ever (God forbid) asked to teach a course on the ethics of fiction, this slim novel would surely be on the assigned reading list.
Intimacy unfolds over the course of 24 hours as its protagonist, a middle-aged screenwriter named Jay, prepares to leave Susan, the mother of his two young sons. Not that he has told her he's going; he intends simply to pack his bag and slip out the door in the morning after she goes to work.
This is a case of art imitating life if there ever was one. Like his protagonist Jay, Kureishi himself is in his forties; like Jay, Kureishi has been nominated for an Academy Award, and has a weakness for psychopharmacology. And like Jay, shortly before the publication of this novel Kureishi left his wife and two sons.
The release of Intimacy saw a brief flurry of reviews which lambasted the book as thinly-veiled self-confession. Among the most vocal critics of the novel were Kureishi's sister and ex-wife both of whom condemned the author for, essentially, airing private dirty laundry on the international stage.
Subsequently, the furor over Kureishi's novel subsided somewhat; the majority of reviewers have been reluctant to make grand pronouncements about what a novelist should, and shouldn't, be empowered to write about. This is an understandable impulse: nobody wants to be viewed as guilty of censorship or small-mindedness; indeed, being unshockable and accepting when it comes to art is generally accepted as synonymous with sophistication.
But let's consider this outlook for a moment. Sure, it's easy to say that in principle that a great work of art could emerge from the examination of any given subject. But granted that it's not possible to take the stance, a la Jesse Helms, that certain topics should be artistically off-limits a priori, what about applying ethical standards to specific cases? It is unreasonable to believe that, like doctors or politicians, artists can be guilty of unethical behavior in the practice of their chosen profession? And, if so, what might that mean?
Rather than leaping headlong into these thorny questions, it's instructive to start by looking at some of the things that are wrong with Kureishi's novel. To begin with, for a novel ostensibly about -- well, intimacy, and interpersonal relationships -- virtually all the characters in Intimacy are shallow to the point of being ciphers. Susan, Jay's wife, appears only in terms of Jay's dislike for her "fat, red weeping face" and his sour quips along the lines of "she thinks she's a feminist but she's just bad-tempered." As for Jay's sons, although our protagonist is ostensibly tormented over the hurt he may cause them by disappearing without a word of warning (what, you think?) they receive, if anything, an even more cursory treatment than his wife, cropping up mainly as background scenery and noise for Jay's self-pitying observations.
And, make no mistake, Jay is a champion of self-pity. "I have lost my relish for living," he announces. "I am apathetic and most of the time want nothing, except to understand why there hasn't been more happiness here." He is a navel-gazing, self-indulgent child at heart; the few insights which occur to him are depressingly generic exercises in justification which shed no light on the situation at hand. For example, he points out that "Desire is naughty and doesn't conform to our ideals ... Desire is the original anarchist and undercover agent." Yeah, sure, and...?
So where do all of Jay's lucubrations get him? Predictably, the answer is not very far. As scheduled, he leaves his wife and sons to be with Nina, a club girl who combines (here's a twist) elements of mother and whore in one fuzzily-drawn, idealized package. As our hero traipses off into the bliss of Nina's embrace, still unenlightened and tearful (it's not easy, being the father who leaves his children) one gets the distinct sense that nothing has changed and that the sordid little drama we have just witnessed is, or will be, only one in a series of similar dismal incidents.
All told, if Intimacy has a message it seems to be this: that sometimes people do stupid, confused, hurtful things.
The question then arises: what does all of this mean in terms of the ethics of fiction? If one believes that novels are nothing more than entertainment, then Intimacy is nothing more than a case of bad writing. But any serious author must realize that stories are more than just diverting sentences on paper. In a literal sense, the stories we tell ourselves form the basis for our understanding of our selves and of the world. And as such, they have lasting significance as epistemological acts. This subject quickly moves beyond book-review territory, and I'll leave it to the judgment of Kureishi's readers as to whether this book offers any meaningful insights about the human condition. But apart from such lofty standards, let me throw out an off-the-cuff suggestion about the minimal ethical responsibilities of a novelist, taken from the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.
It is on this count that, most plainly, Intimacy seems to me like a basically irresponsible piece of writing. Whether or not Kureishi intended this book to be taken as autobiography (which seems difficult to deny), the fact is that his family and the public at large will read it as such. Kureishi is an internationally recognized author who has used his pulpit to smear his ex-wife and publicize what appears to be the private tragedies of his family. I would argue that writer with a modicum of decency would have attempted to minimally disguise the real circumstances about which he is writing. What would it have cost Kureishi to depict Jay as, let's say, an academic rather than a fiction writer? Or to give him a daughter rather than two sons? This minimal kindness would have given Kureishi's ex-wife and sons at least a chance to avoid being preemptively framed as the characters in this novel.
Regardless of the theoretical standards which we apply to art, it seems little enough to ask of an author that they refrain from defaming the people who are close to them, and Intimacy fails even this modest benchmark. Mr. Kureishi, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Intimacy unfolds over the course of 24 hours as its protagonist, a middle-aged screenwriter named Jay, prepares to leave Susan, the mother of his two young sons. Not that he has told her he's going; he intends simply to pack his bag and slip out the door in the morning after she goes to work.
This is a case of art imitating life if there ever was one. Like his protagonist Jay, Kureishi himself is in his forties; like Jay, Kureishi has been nominated for an Academy Award, and has a weakness for psychopharmacology. And like Jay, shortly before the publication of this novel Kureishi left his wife and two sons.
The release of Intimacy saw a brief flurry of reviews which lambasted the book as thinly-veiled self-confession. Among the most vocal critics of the novel were Kureishi's sister and ex-wife both of whom condemned the author for, essentially, airing private dirty laundry on the international stage.
Subsequently, the furor over Kureishi's novel subsided somewhat; the majority of reviewers have been reluctant to make grand pronouncements about what a novelist should, and shouldn't, be empowered to write about. This is an understandable impulse: nobody wants to be viewed as guilty of censorship or small-mindedness; indeed, being unshockable and accepting when it comes to art is generally accepted as synonymous with sophistication.
But let's consider this outlook for a moment. Sure, it's easy to say that in principle that a great work of art could emerge from the examination of any given subject. But granted that it's not possible to take the stance, a la Jesse Helms, that certain topics should be artistically off-limits a priori, what about applying ethical standards to specific cases? It is unreasonable to believe that, like doctors or politicians, artists can be guilty of unethical behavior in the practice of their chosen profession? And, if so, what might that mean?
Rather than leaping headlong into these thorny questions, it's instructive to start by looking at some of the things that are wrong with Kureishi's novel. To begin with, for a novel ostensibly about -- well, intimacy, and interpersonal relationships -- virtually all the characters in Intimacy are shallow to the point of being ciphers. Susan, Jay's wife, appears only in terms of Jay's dislike for her "fat, red weeping face" and his sour quips along the lines of "she thinks she's a feminist but she's just bad-tempered." As for Jay's sons, although our protagonist is ostensibly tormented over the hurt he may cause them by disappearing without a word of warning (what, you think?) they receive, if anything, an even more cursory treatment than his wife, cropping up mainly as background scenery and noise for Jay's self-pitying observations.
And, make no mistake, Jay is a champion of self-pity. "I have lost my relish for living," he announces. "I am apathetic and most of the time want nothing, except to understand why there hasn't been more happiness here." He is a navel-gazing, self-indulgent child at heart; the few insights which occur to him are depressingly generic exercises in justification which shed no light on the situation at hand. For example, he points out that "Desire is naughty and doesn't conform to our ideals ... Desire is the original anarchist and undercover agent." Yeah, sure, and...?
So where do all of Jay's lucubrations get him? Predictably, the answer is not very far. As scheduled, he leaves his wife and sons to be with Nina, a club girl who combines (here's a twist) elements of mother and whore in one fuzzily-drawn, idealized package. As our hero traipses off into the bliss of Nina's embrace, still unenlightened and tearful (it's not easy, being the father who leaves his children) one gets the distinct sense that nothing has changed and that the sordid little drama we have just witnessed is, or will be, only one in a series of similar dismal incidents.
All told, if Intimacy has a message it seems to be this: that sometimes people do stupid, confused, hurtful things.
The question then arises: what does all of this mean in terms of the ethics of fiction? If one believes that novels are nothing more than entertainment, then Intimacy is nothing more than a case of bad writing. But any serious author must realize that stories are more than just diverting sentences on paper. In a literal sense, the stories we tell ourselves form the basis for our understanding of our selves and of the world. And as such, they have lasting significance as epistemological acts. This subject quickly moves beyond book-review territory, and I'll leave it to the judgment of Kureishi's readers as to whether this book offers any meaningful insights about the human condition. But apart from such lofty standards, let me throw out an off-the-cuff suggestion about the minimal ethical responsibilities of a novelist, taken from the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.
It is on this count that, most plainly, Intimacy seems to me like a basically irresponsible piece of writing. Whether or not Kureishi intended this book to be taken as autobiography (which seems difficult to deny), the fact is that his family and the public at large will read it as such. Kureishi is an internationally recognized author who has used his pulpit to smear his ex-wife and publicize what appears to be the private tragedies of his family. I would argue that writer with a modicum of decency would have attempted to minimally disguise the real circumstances about which he is writing. What would it have cost Kureishi to depict Jay as, let's say, an academic rather than a fiction writer? Or to give him a daughter rather than two sons? This minimal kindness would have given Kureishi's ex-wife and sons at least a chance to avoid being preemptively framed as the characters in this novel.
Regardless of the theoretical standards which we apply to art, it seems little enough to ask of an author that they refrain from defaming the people who are close to them, and Intimacy fails even this modest benchmark. Mr. Kureishi, you should be ashamed of yourself.
October 10, 2007
Y lo que nos ense帽a esta obra es que la crisis de los 40 puede hacer mucho da帽o en algunos hombres. No porque abandonen a la mujer y a sus hijos en medio de la noche para irse a perseguir una jovencita a la que doblan la edad, sino porque sienten tambi茅n la necesidad de escribirlo y acaban saliendo casta帽as como 'Intimidad'. Esta obra es tan narciso-nihilista que me recuerda al peor Houellebecq. Repetitiva hasta el tedio. Y como siempre este nihilismo, tan t铆pico de ciertos autores de hoy en d铆a, acaba desembocando en misoginia. Las mujeres son de cart贸n-piedra: la esposa es la bruja y la amante es la mujer irreal creada por la fantas铆a de un hombre para satisfacer sus deseos (b谩sicamente sexuales). Y no me hag谩is hablar de la madre del protagonista. Por favor. El caso es que todas las mujeres son presentadas desde una 贸ptica desfavorable (como castradoras de los hombres) y todos los hombres son presentados como dignos de compasi贸n, pobrecitos, que sufren mucho. Me reir铆a sino fuera porque ya me han contado el mismo chiste centenares de veces antes. El protagonista es pat茅tico, pero lo peor es que el escritor no sabe que su protagonista es pat茅tico. Tiene iron铆a, pero es una iron铆a como mecanismo de defensa. Puede que sea esto del mecanismo de defensa sea algo inevitable siendo todo tan autobiogr谩fico, pero ni as铆 cuela. No tiene que ver nada con la pel铆cula, que a m铆 me encant贸. Pero es que nada que ver. Hay cosas que me han gustado: al principio, cuando dice que es la noche que se va a marchar de casa y describe como quiere a sus hijos (aunque reconoce que a veces tambi茅n los mandar铆a a la mierda), y como a pesar de que los quiere se va a marchar de casa. Por un momento pens茅 que era una obra sobre el vac铆o de la existencia. Pero pronto me di cuenta que s贸lo era otra obra sobre la crisis de los 40.
July 21, 2023
Here's the story based on events in the author's own life.
A man has decided to commit an act which he knows may get him condemned. Not in a court of law but wherever family and friends gather to talk, kitchens or pubs. He's not done it yet. He just tells us that he will. He lets us into his plans. He gives us his reasons. He makes his case. He is persuasive and, at times, passionate.
A great book is struggling here. It wants out as large babies do to mother's with small hips and an even smaller pelvis. That takes patience. I wish Kureishi had given the real events and his pen more time. Then, with more gentleness this book could have been brought to light to sit happily with The Buddha of Suburbia and My Beautiful Laundrette.
A man has decided to commit an act which he knows may get him condemned. Not in a court of law but wherever family and friends gather to talk, kitchens or pubs. He's not done it yet. He just tells us that he will. He lets us into his plans. He gives us his reasons. He makes his case. He is persuasive and, at times, passionate.
A great book is struggling here. It wants out as large babies do to mother's with small hips and an even smaller pelvis. That takes patience. I wish Kureishi had given the real events and his pen more time. Then, with more gentleness this book could have been brought to light to sit happily with The Buddha of Suburbia and My Beautiful Laundrette.
July 16, 2019
The first and most alarming thing you find out about marriage, pretty much within days of your wedding, is that it is fraught with uncertainty. At first I thought this was just me, but then I began talking to other people and I realized that pretty much everyone experiences crippling doubt at one point or another about whether getting married was the right decision.
There was too much of me, I know that. We want love but we don鈥檛 want to lose ourselves.
Marriage is tough, that I knew. But that you could question yourself so viciously, or feel your emotions fluctuate so wildly out-of-control was an experience I hadn鈥檛 been adequately prepared for. You can try to explain what being so intricately bound to another person feels like, but words aren鈥檛 enough for living through the experience, and sometimes I felt adrift, faithless and unable to figure out what could make things right. Of course things always got back on track. And then we would crash and right ourselves again, over and over again until I finally got the hang of it. But it鈥檚 a process, and like all things which change you, it always lurked on the edge of complete and total destruction.
That鈥檚 why this book is so hard to take. Not because it鈥檚 complex and hard hitting, but because it focuses solely on the really, really ugly portions of a relationship. Of course, any relationship where you spend extended time with each other will eventually reveal its underbelly, full of horribleness and spite, but with love you cover it up and bandage it and learn to move on. This book, unfortunately, focuses only on the crueler aspects of marriage, on the night on which our protagonist, a middle aged man named Jay, decides to leave his wife and two sons behind.
鈥淭he house is full of poison. Susan wants me to be kind. I can鈥檛 be kind. We can do nothing for one another. It is a fact. I have decided to leave.鈥�
I think the truth is that reading this book made me miserable, and made my husband exasperated. 鈥淲hy are you reading it if it鈥檚 getting you down?鈥� he kept asking, but I was determined to struggle through, because leaving books half-read feels like some sort of personal failure I know I should learn to get over. In the end, what helped was the fact that the book itself was so abominable. Absolutely no plot, completely pointless characters, and I didn鈥檛 care much for the conversations either. And of course, a ridiculously whiny, ultimately unlikable protagonist.
This, then, could be our last evening as an innocent, complete, ideal family; my last night with a woman I have known for ten years, a woman I know almost everything about, and want no more of.
What ultimately led to this book鈥檚 downfall for me was the fact that our narrator was, frankly, not a very good person. And not a bad person in any interesting terms (like the female lead in Gone Girl or in Gone with the Wind or any other famous, compelling novel I can name with unlikeable main characters), but rather just bland, petty and mean and not really worth pages and pages of rumination.
It is unhappiness and the wound that compels me. Then I can understand and be of use. An atmosphere of generalized depression and mid-temperature gloom makes me feel at home.
Since the book tracks the events of a single night, interspersed with Jay鈥檚 thoughts about his past and fears for the present, we are forced to spend way too much time in close proximity with him. This is unfortunate because not only is Jay a pointless person, he also has a weird, unhealthy relationship with sex. I had the exact same problem with Kureishi鈥檚 hero in Something to tell you, which also incidentally featured a middle aged man hitting a midlife crisis. In this book, Jay鈥檚 constant and lecherous examination of the topic, the objectification of women鈥檚 bodies, and the days spent lunching at spots where our hero knows 鈥榝ashionable young women in close-fitting items鈥� will be present all serve to create an uncomfortable desire to distance yourself from this character.
From the beginning, starting with the girls at school, and the teachers in particular, I have looked at women in shops, on the street, in the bus, at parties, and wondered what it would be like to be with them, and what pleasure we might kindle.
There were some points in the novel, admittedly, where I almost thought it would redeem itself and shine some much-needed light on the complexities of marriage, but Kureishi ruins the perfect set-up by never managing to really colour the relationship as that between two people. Instead, what you do have is a very one-sided, close-minded portrait of the marriage from the point of view of a bitter, bored old man. For some, such a fictional world might make for interesting reading, but if an author chooses to write solely from the perspective of a horrible character without managing to make me care about them, then for me the narrative is a complete failure.
I have been trying to convince myself that leaving someone isn鈥檛 the worst thing you can do to them. Sombre it may be, but it doesn鈥檛 have to be a tragedy. If you never left anything or anyone there would be no room for the new.
The story does the same thing with its smart writing, falling over from the just-perfect to the overly decorative. At the beginning, Kureishi鈥檚 words feel incisive and controlled, an experienced author holding forth on life鈥檚 uncertainties and the pitfalls of growing older. Pretty soon though, it becomes less Pulitzer-prize-worthy, and more Hallmark quotes. I compared the first book I read by Kureishi to the atrocity that was Home Boy by Naqvi, my standard for all crappy Pakistani writing that鈥檚 well known. This book maintains the status quo, by staying exactly as bad as the first book.
It is easy to kill oneself off without dying. Unfortunately, to get to the future one has to live through the present.
Just like Home Boy, I continued to not care for our main character pretty much from the beginning to the end. Even spending pages and pages of reflection with him didn鈥檛 endear me to his frustrations. Maybe if, instead of talking about his love affair or his drug taking or his boredom, he had focused a bit more on his past with Susan, tried to figure out where they had fallen apart, there might have been something worth salvaging. As it is, he spends barely one sentence trying to figure out whether he might actually be to blame for their miserable existence, and then promptly forgets all about his momentary self-flagellation.
Have I tried hard enough? Why should I imagine that I am easy to get along with? Perhaps, all this time, she has been making a heroic effort to get along with a morose, over-sensitive, self-absorbed fool.
In any divorce, it is obvious that both the parties involved must have their own grievances, and their own versions of events. Each wife and husband about to be separated must believe that they are in the right, and that the other person is not only horrible enough to be blamed for the ensuing heartbreak, but also horrible enough to consider leaving. Still, the kind of complexity I expected from a story that focuses so solely on a marriage falling apart never manages to describe Susan, the left-behind wife, as a complete person. Instead, what we are left with are Jay鈥檚 bitter thoughts and creepy behaviour and adultery and misogyny and pretty much all around unpleasantness.
It is the men who must go. They are blamed for it, as I will be.
As a rule, a man who complains about being blamed for ending a relationship, when he is in fact the one walking away, is a man not worth spending any time or brain cells upon. And the final nail in the coffin came upon the realization that the author, father of two boys and divorced from a wife with the exact same job as the fictional wife鈥檚, might have written this book more to air dirty laundry and less as a sort of satisfying escapism for the reader. He could have made his protagonist father to a little girl, if he so desperately wanted to treat divorce as a separation from his children. He could have made an ambitious wife with literally any other job, but sticking so closely to his own life story feels disrespectful at best and a gross invasion of his family鈥檚 privacy at the worst.
All in all, it was not a pleasant reading experience, and I have no wish to ever repeat it again. One extra star for the accidental smart observation, but mostly I鈥檇 say Hanif Kureishi hasn鈥檛 managed to write anything yet that I鈥檇 consider worth reading. Not recommended.
ORIGINAL REVIEW:
Ugh, I have such a complicated relationship with this title. How the hell am I going to review it?
***
I review Pakistani Fiction, and talk about Pakistani fiction, and want to talk to people who like to talk about fiction (Pakistani and otherwise, take your pick.) To read more reviews or just contact me so you can talk about books, check out my or follow me on !
There was too much of me, I know that. We want love but we don鈥檛 want to lose ourselves.
Marriage is tough, that I knew. But that you could question yourself so viciously, or feel your emotions fluctuate so wildly out-of-control was an experience I hadn鈥檛 been adequately prepared for. You can try to explain what being so intricately bound to another person feels like, but words aren鈥檛 enough for living through the experience, and sometimes I felt adrift, faithless and unable to figure out what could make things right. Of course things always got back on track. And then we would crash and right ourselves again, over and over again until I finally got the hang of it. But it鈥檚 a process, and like all things which change you, it always lurked on the edge of complete and total destruction.
That鈥檚 why this book is so hard to take. Not because it鈥檚 complex and hard hitting, but because it focuses solely on the really, really ugly portions of a relationship. Of course, any relationship where you spend extended time with each other will eventually reveal its underbelly, full of horribleness and spite, but with love you cover it up and bandage it and learn to move on. This book, unfortunately, focuses only on the crueler aspects of marriage, on the night on which our protagonist, a middle aged man named Jay, decides to leave his wife and two sons behind.
鈥淭he house is full of poison. Susan wants me to be kind. I can鈥檛 be kind. We can do nothing for one another. It is a fact. I have decided to leave.鈥�
I think the truth is that reading this book made me miserable, and made my husband exasperated. 鈥淲hy are you reading it if it鈥檚 getting you down?鈥� he kept asking, but I was determined to struggle through, because leaving books half-read feels like some sort of personal failure I know I should learn to get over. In the end, what helped was the fact that the book itself was so abominable. Absolutely no plot, completely pointless characters, and I didn鈥檛 care much for the conversations either. And of course, a ridiculously whiny, ultimately unlikable protagonist.
This, then, could be our last evening as an innocent, complete, ideal family; my last night with a woman I have known for ten years, a woman I know almost everything about, and want no more of.
What ultimately led to this book鈥檚 downfall for me was the fact that our narrator was, frankly, not a very good person. And not a bad person in any interesting terms (like the female lead in Gone Girl or in Gone with the Wind or any other famous, compelling novel I can name with unlikeable main characters), but rather just bland, petty and mean and not really worth pages and pages of rumination.
It is unhappiness and the wound that compels me. Then I can understand and be of use. An atmosphere of generalized depression and mid-temperature gloom makes me feel at home.
Since the book tracks the events of a single night, interspersed with Jay鈥檚 thoughts about his past and fears for the present, we are forced to spend way too much time in close proximity with him. This is unfortunate because not only is Jay a pointless person, he also has a weird, unhealthy relationship with sex. I had the exact same problem with Kureishi鈥檚 hero in Something to tell you, which also incidentally featured a middle aged man hitting a midlife crisis. In this book, Jay鈥檚 constant and lecherous examination of the topic, the objectification of women鈥檚 bodies, and the days spent lunching at spots where our hero knows 鈥榝ashionable young women in close-fitting items鈥� will be present all serve to create an uncomfortable desire to distance yourself from this character.
From the beginning, starting with the girls at school, and the teachers in particular, I have looked at women in shops, on the street, in the bus, at parties, and wondered what it would be like to be with them, and what pleasure we might kindle.
There were some points in the novel, admittedly, where I almost thought it would redeem itself and shine some much-needed light on the complexities of marriage, but Kureishi ruins the perfect set-up by never managing to really colour the relationship as that between two people. Instead, what you do have is a very one-sided, close-minded portrait of the marriage from the point of view of a bitter, bored old man. For some, such a fictional world might make for interesting reading, but if an author chooses to write solely from the perspective of a horrible character without managing to make me care about them, then for me the narrative is a complete failure.
I have been trying to convince myself that leaving someone isn鈥檛 the worst thing you can do to them. Sombre it may be, but it doesn鈥檛 have to be a tragedy. If you never left anything or anyone there would be no room for the new.
The story does the same thing with its smart writing, falling over from the just-perfect to the overly decorative. At the beginning, Kureishi鈥檚 words feel incisive and controlled, an experienced author holding forth on life鈥檚 uncertainties and the pitfalls of growing older. Pretty soon though, it becomes less Pulitzer-prize-worthy, and more Hallmark quotes. I compared the first book I read by Kureishi to the atrocity that was Home Boy by Naqvi, my standard for all crappy Pakistani writing that鈥檚 well known. This book maintains the status quo, by staying exactly as bad as the first book.
It is easy to kill oneself off without dying. Unfortunately, to get to the future one has to live through the present.
Just like Home Boy, I continued to not care for our main character pretty much from the beginning to the end. Even spending pages and pages of reflection with him didn鈥檛 endear me to his frustrations. Maybe if, instead of talking about his love affair or his drug taking or his boredom, he had focused a bit more on his past with Susan, tried to figure out where they had fallen apart, there might have been something worth salvaging. As it is, he spends barely one sentence trying to figure out whether he might actually be to blame for their miserable existence, and then promptly forgets all about his momentary self-flagellation.
Have I tried hard enough? Why should I imagine that I am easy to get along with? Perhaps, all this time, she has been making a heroic effort to get along with a morose, over-sensitive, self-absorbed fool.
In any divorce, it is obvious that both the parties involved must have their own grievances, and their own versions of events. Each wife and husband about to be separated must believe that they are in the right, and that the other person is not only horrible enough to be blamed for the ensuing heartbreak, but also horrible enough to consider leaving. Still, the kind of complexity I expected from a story that focuses so solely on a marriage falling apart never manages to describe Susan, the left-behind wife, as a complete person. Instead, what we are left with are Jay鈥檚 bitter thoughts and creepy behaviour and adultery and misogyny and pretty much all around unpleasantness.
It is the men who must go. They are blamed for it, as I will be.
As a rule, a man who complains about being blamed for ending a relationship, when he is in fact the one walking away, is a man not worth spending any time or brain cells upon. And the final nail in the coffin came upon the realization that the author, father of two boys and divorced from a wife with the exact same job as the fictional wife鈥檚, might have written this book more to air dirty laundry and less as a sort of satisfying escapism for the reader. He could have made his protagonist father to a little girl, if he so desperately wanted to treat divorce as a separation from his children. He could have made an ambitious wife with literally any other job, but sticking so closely to his own life story feels disrespectful at best and a gross invasion of his family鈥檚 privacy at the worst.
All in all, it was not a pleasant reading experience, and I have no wish to ever repeat it again. One extra star for the accidental smart observation, but mostly I鈥檇 say Hanif Kureishi hasn鈥檛 managed to write anything yet that I鈥檇 consider worth reading. Not recommended.
ORIGINAL REVIEW:
Ugh, I have such a complicated relationship with this title. How the hell am I going to review it?
***
I review Pakistani Fiction, and talk about Pakistani fiction, and want to talk to people who like to talk about fiction (Pakistani and otherwise, take your pick.) To read more reviews or just contact me so you can talk about books, check out my or follow me on !
December 23, 2015
i absolutely love this book! i get why everyone is frustrated with Jay as a character, he does have a hard to like personality. i struggled trying to understand things from his perspective at times, but realising that he is a human after all i could somewhat understand the reason behind some of the decisions he made even if i didn't share his opinions. on another note i loved the writing style and the brutally honest ways Kureishi chose to convey his messages and criticize the institution of marriage and love. To me whether Jay is a good person or not, a likeable relatable character or not is irrelevant because Kureishi succeeded in portraying a human being -flawed as he may be-in his novel and that was enough for me to appreciate him as an author and adore his art.
September 12, 2017
Leali e fedeli l鈥檜no all鈥檃ltra o sleali e infedeli a se stessi?
Un romanzo brevissimo, ma che mi ha sorpreso per l'intensit脿 delle sensazioni trasmesse.
Un uomo di mezza et脿, sposato e con due figli una sera riflette. E' una sera speciale, ha deciso di andarsene, di lasciare la famiglia, con tutte le conseguenze che ci貌 comporta.
Ha vissuto tante situazioni scomode, ha sopportato responsabilit脿 famigliari, sta vivendo una esistenza che gli pesa, che non gradisce pi霉. Restare e fingere che tutto sia a posto o lasciare e riprovare a vivere?
"Ma perch茅 le persone che sanno essere brave in famiglia devono provare un tale compiacimento e presumere che quello sia il solo modo di vivere, come se tutti gli altri fossero inadeguati?"
Forse 猫 egoista, forse sta facendo una cosa disdicevole. Sicuramente soffre, per la decisione che sta prendendo, per la sofferenza che lascer脿 dietro di s茅, per l'odio che generer脿, per i dubbi, le incertezze, l'ansia, per la infelicit脿 che sta procurando ai suoi figli. Ma certamente le sue riflessioni sono interessanti e si insinuano lentamente in noi, facendoci ragionare sul nostro presente, passato e futuro.
"Che cosa mi rende maggiormente perplesso? Il fatto che da dieci anni lotto con le stesse domande e ossessioni, e con le stesse monotone e inutili risposte, senza aver riscontrato un progresso nella comprensione n茅 il minimo sollievo dal bisogno di comprendere, come un topo in una ruota. Come posso superare tutto ci貌? Sto andandomene. Un fallimento 猫 un varco, 猫 una via di fuga"
Quanto siamo disposti a soffrire e a far soffrire per raggiungere la felicit脿?
"C鈥櫭� un piccolo piacere nel matrimonio: comporta una resistenza considerevole, come fare un lavoro che si odia. Non puoi mollarlo e non puoi godertelo. Essere leali e fedeli l鈥檜no all鈥檃ltra. O sleali e infedeli a se stessi"
"Comunque io ho perso il gusto per la vita. Sono apatico, e per la maggior parte del tempo non voglio nulla, tranne capire perch茅 qui dentro sia scomparsa la felicit脿. E cos矛 per tutti? E鈥� tutto ci貌 che si riesce a ottenere? E鈥� il massimo che si pu貌 avere?"
"So che l鈥檃more 猫 un lavoro da fare nell鈥檕mbra; devi sporcarti le mani. Se ti trattieni, non succede nulla di interessante. Nello stesso tempo devi trovare la giusta distanza tra le persone. Troppo vicino, e ti soffocano; troppo lontano, e ti abbandonano. Come fare a tenerle nel giusto rapporto?"
"Mentire protegge tutti noi; fa andare avanti le cose importanti. E' una gentilezza, mentire."
Inducendo sofferenza e infelicit脿 si pu貌 essere sicuri di raggiungere la felicit脿?
March 16, 2013
賱賲丕匕丕 賷鬲夭賵噩 丕賱乇噩賱 賲賳 丕賲乇丕丞 賱丕 賷丨亘賴丕 賵賷賳噩亘 賲賳賴丕丕胤賮丕賱責
賱賲丕匕丕 賷鬲夭賵噩 丕賱乇噩賱 賲鬲毓丿丿 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲責
賴匕丕 赖賵 丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱匕賶 鬲亘丕丿乇 丕賱賶 匕賴賳賶 賵丕賳丕 丕賯乇丕 賴匕賴 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞
賯乇賷卮賶 賷氐賵乇 爻賵夭丕賳 亘胤賱丞 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 賰賵丨卮 賲鬲亘賱丿 丕賱賲卮丕毓乇 亘丕乇丿丞 賮丕賯丿丞 賱賱丕丨丕爻賷爻
賵賷毓鬲乇賮 丕賳賴 賱賲 賷丨亘賴丕 賵賱賰賳賴 鬲夭賵噩賴丕
"
賱賲 鬲賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賳賵毓 丕賱匕賶 賷孬賷乇 丕毓噩丕亘賶 賱賰賳賶 賰賳鬲 賵丕孬賯丕 賲賳 丕賳 孬賲丞 卮賷卅丕 賮賷賴丕 賷丿禺賱 丕賱賲鬲毓丞 丕賱賶 賳賮爻賶 賰賳鬲 丕賵丿 丕賳 丕鬲賵賯賮 毓賳 乇丐賷鬲賴丕 賱亘囟毓丞 丕卮賴乇 賰賶 丕賳爻丕賴丕 乇亘賲丕 賷賲賰賳賳賶 毓賳丿賴丕 丕賳 丕乇賶 賰賷賮 鬲亘丿賵 毓賳 亘毓丿
"
賵賷胤賱亘 賲賳賰 丕賳 鬲鬲毓丕胤賮 賲毓 賲丕爻丕鬲賴 賵賴匕丕 賲丕 賱賲 賷丨丿孬
賰賷賮 賷賲賰賳 丕賳 賷賰賵賳 乇噩賱 賷鬲乇賰 夭賵噩鬲賴 賵胤賮賱賷賴
爻丕毓賷丕 賱毓賱丕賯丞 賲毓 賮鬲丕丞 丕禺乇賶
囟丨賷丞责
賱賲 賷賮乇囟 毓賱賷賴 丕丨丿 賴匕丕 丕賱丕禺鬲賷丕乇
毓賱丕賯鬲賴 賲毓 胤賮賱賷賴 丕賷囟丕 卮丕匕丞
賵鬲丿賱 毓賱賶 毓賯賱賷丞 賲乇賷囟丞 賵丕賳爻丕賳 睾賷乇 爻賵賶
"
賰賳鬲 丕孬賳丕亍 匕賱賰 丕賯乇丕 毓丿丞 賰鬲亘 毓賳 鬲乇亘賷丞 丕賱丕胤賮丕賱 睾丕賱亘丕 賮賶 丕賱爻丕毓丕鬲 丕賱丕賵賱賶 賵毓賱賶 丕氐丕亘毓賶 睾丕卅胤 丕賵 賯賶亍 賵賮賶 丕丨丿賶 丕賱賲乇丕鬲 丕賱賯賷鬲 亘賴 賮賵賯 賲賴丿賴 賵丕氐賷亘 乇丕爻賴
賰賳鬲 丕囟毓 亘乇丕賳丿賶 賮賶 丨賱賷亘賴 賰賳鬲 丕乇賰賱賴 亘賯賵丞 賮賵賯 丨賮丕囟鬲賴 丨鬲賶 賯亘賱 丕賳 賷鬲賲賰賳 賲賳 丕賱賲卮賶 賰賷賮 賷賲賰賳 賱賱丕胤賮丕賱 丕賳 賷噩毓賱賵賳丕 賳卮毓乇 亘丕賱毓噩夭 丕賱賰丕賲賱
"
丕賱乇賵丕賷丞 賱賲 鬲乇賯 賱賶
丕乇丕賴丕 賲賲賱丞 賵 賲爻鬲賮夭丞
亘毓賷丿丕 毓賳 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞
賲丕 賴賶 賲毓丕賷賷乇
丕禺鬲賷丕乇 丕賱卮乇賷賰 賵丕賱丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘賴
丕賲 丕賳賴 賱賷爻 賴賳丕賰 賲毓丕賷賷乇 賲賳 丕賱丕爻丕爻
賯丿 鬲賰賵賳 賯氐丞 丨亘 賮丕卮賱丞 賱賲 鬲賰鬲賲賱 亘丕賱夭賵丕噩
鬲丿賮毓 丕賱乇噩賱 丕賳
賷鬲乇賰 賲賳 丕丨亘
賮赖賵
賱賳 賷毓賷卮 丨賷丕丞 爻毓賷丿丞 賮賷 馗賱 賲毓丕乇囟丞 丕賴賱賴
丕賱乇噩賱 丕賱卮乇賯賷 睾丕賱亘丕 賲丕 賷鬲夭賵噩 賲賳 丕賲乇丕丞 賱丕 賷丨亘賴丕
賱賲丕匕丕责
賷鬲乇賰 丨亘賴
賳賴亘丕 賱賱匕賰乇賷丕鬲
賵賷爻毓賶 賵丕賴賲丕 亘丕丨孬丕 毓賳
丕賱爻毓丕丿丞 亘丕賱夭賵丕噩 丕賱鬲賯賱賷丿賷
賲賯賵賱丞
丕賳 丕賱丨亘 亘賷賷噩賶 亘毓丿 丕賱噩賵丕夭 賵 丕賱毓卮乇賴
賴賶 爻亘亘 賮卮賱 賰孬賷乇 賲賳 丕賱毓賱丕賯丕鬲
丕賲丕 賲丕 赖賵 睾賷乇 賯丕亘賱 賱賱鬲氐丿賷賯
賵賱賰賳賴 丨賯賷賯賶
丕賳 賷乇鬲亘胤 丕賱乇噩賱 亘賮鬲丕丞 賱丕 賷丨亘賴丕
賮丕賱乇噩賱 赖賵 賲賳 賷禺鬲丕乇 賲賳 賷乇賷丿 丕賱丕乇鬲亘丕胤 亘賴丕 賵赖賵 賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱賲賵丕賮賯賴 賵丕賱乇賮囟 賮賱賲丕匕丕 賷賯丿賲 亘賰丕賲賱 賯賵丕賴 丕賱毓賯賱賷丞 毓賱賶 丕賳 賷馗賱賲 賮鬲丕丞 匕賳亘賴丕 丕賱賵丨賷丿 赖賵 丕賳賴丕 氐丿賯鬲 賰匕亘賴 毓賳 賲丿賶 丨亘賴 賱賴丕
丕賮丞 賲賳 丕賮丕鬲
賲噩鬲賲毓丕鬲賳丕 丕賱賲鬲禺賱賮賴
丕賱賰匕亘 賵丕賱禺丿丕毓
鬲鬲毓乇囟 丕賱賲乇兀丞 賱賱馗賱賲
亘丕爻鬲賲乇丕乇
爻賵丕亍 亘丕賳
賷禺賵賳賴丕 丕賱乇噩賱 丕賵 丕賳 賷鬲夭賵噩 亘丕賲乇丕丞 丕禺乇賶
賵賴賶 丿丕卅賲丕 賵丕亘丿丕 賲鬲賴賲丞 亘丕賱鬲賯氐賷乇
賵丨鬲賶 賱賵 賱賲 鬲賯氐乇 賴賳丕賰 賲爻賵睾 丿賷賳賶 賱賰賱
丕匕賶 丕賵囟乇乇 賷賱丨賯賴 丕賱乇噩賱 亘丕賱賲乇丕丞
賵丕賱乇丿 丕賱胤亘賷毓賶
赖賵
"
亘爻 丕賱廿爻賱丕賲 貙 丨賱賱 賱賱乇噩賱 兀乇亘毓丞
"
賴賱 賮乇囟 丕賱丕爻賱丕賲 毓賱賶 丕賱乇噩賱 丕賳 賷鬲夭賵噩 亘丕乇亘毓丞
丕賲 丕毓胤丕賴 賴匕丕 丕賱丨賯 賮賶 氐賵乇丞 乇禺氐丞
賵卮丿丿 毓賱賶 丕賳賴 賱賳 賷毓丿賱
賮賱賲丕匕丕 鬲卮賵賷賴 丕賱丿賷賳責
毓賳丿賲丕 爻丕賱鬲賳賶 丕丨丿賶 氐丿賷賯丕鬲賶 賱賲丕匕丕 鬲乇賰賴丕 夭賵噩賴丕 賱賷鬲夭賵噩 丕禺乇賶 丕噩亘鬲賴丕
亘丕賳 賲賳
賷毓胤賷 丕賱丨亘 賱賲賳 賱丕賷爻鬲丨賯 賱丕 賷賳鬲馗乇 賮賶 丕賱賲賯丕亘賱 丕賱丕 丕賱睾丿乇
亘毓囟 丕賱禺賵丕胤乇 亘丕賱毓丕賲賷丞
賱賵 丕賮鬲乇囟賳丕 噩丿賱丕 賯賷丕爻丕 毓賱賶 丕賱乇賵丕賷丞
丕賳 賵丕丨丿丞 丕噩賵夭鬲 賵丕丨丿 賲丕 亘鬲丨亘賵卮
賵亘毓丿賷賳 賯丕亘賱鬲 丨丿 鬲丕賳賶 賵丨亘鬲賴 賵胤賱亘鬲 賲賳 噩賵夭賴丕 丕賳賴 賷胤賱賯賴丕
丕賷賴 丕賱賶 賴賷丨氐賱
賱賵 噩賵夭賴丕 胤賱賯賴丕 賵賲賲賵鬲賴丕卮
賴賷賯賵賱賴丕 丕賳賴丕 賯賱賷賱丞 丕賱丕丿亘 賵賲卮 賲鬲乇亘賷丞
丨鬲賶 賱賵
賲丕 賮賷卮 丕賶 丨丕噩丞 丨氐賱鬲 賲噩乇丿 丕賳賴丕 賲卮 賯丕丿乇丞
鬲禺賵賳 噩賵夭賴丕 亘賲卮丕毓乇賴丕
賵賱賵 丕賮鬲乇囟賳丕 丕賳 丕賱賶 賴賶 丨亘鬲賴
賰丕賳 亘賷丨亘賴丕
鬲賮鬲賰乇賵丕 賴賷噩賵夭賴丕
賱丕 胤亘毓丕 賴賷賯賵賱賴丕 丕賳鬲賶 禺丕賷賳丞
賵匕賶 賲丕 爻賷亘鬲賶 噩賵夭賰
赖鬲爻賷亘賷賳賶
賱賰賳 賱賵 丕賱賲賵賯賮 賲毓賰賵爻
胤亘毓丕 赖賵 乇丕噩賱 賷毓賳賶 賷毓賲賱 丕賱賶 赖賵 毓丕賷夭賴
賵丕賱夭賵噩丞 丕賱噩丿賷丿丞
賴鬲鬲賮賳賳 丕夭丕賶 賲丕 鬲賯氐乇卮 匕賶 丕賱賯丿賷賲丞 賲丕 賯氐乇鬲 賵毓賲乇賴丕 賲丕 賴鬲卮賵賮賴 禺丕賷賳 賱賱毓卮乇丞
氐丨责
賱賲丕 鬲爻丕賱 丕賱賵賱丕丿 賱賷賴 爻賷亘鬲 禺胤賷亘鬲賰責
賵丕丨丿 賷賯賵賱 丕賳丕 爻賷亘鬲賴丕 賱丕賳 毓賱賶 胤賵賱 亘鬲賯賵賱 丨丕囟乇 賵賳毓賲 賵亘鬲爻賲毓 賰賱丕賲賶 賮賶 賰賱 丨丕噩丞
賲丕 賱賴丕卮 卮禺氐賷丞
丕賱鬲丕賳賶 賷賯賵賱 丿賶 賮丕賰乇賴 賳賮爻賴丕 賳丿 賱賷丕
賵丕賱亘賳丕鬲 賲鬲賱胤賲丞 亘賷賳賴賲
賱賷賴 丕賱亘賳鬲 賲丕 鬲亘胤賱卮 鬲賮賰乇 賮賶 丕賱噩賵丕夭 禺丕賱氐
賵賲丕 鬲毓鬲亘乇賵卮 賴丿賮賴丕 賮賶 丕賱丨賷丕丞
賱賷賴 賲丕 亘鬲丨鬲乇賲卮 賳賮爻賴丕 賵賲丕 鬲乇囟丕卮 亘丕賶 丕賴丕賳丞 爻賵丕亍 賮賶 丕賱禺胤賵亘丞 丕賵 丕賱锟斤拷賵丕夭責
賲毓馗賲 丕賱賵賱丕丿 丕賱賶 賴賶 亘鬲亘氐賱賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賳賴賲 丕賱賴丞 賵亘鬲賲賵鬲 賳賮爻賴丕 毓卮丕賳 鬲乇囟賷賴賲 卮賵賷丞 毓賷丕賱 賴丕賷賮丞
賲丕賲鬲賴 亘鬲噩乇賴 賲賳 賵丿丕賳賴 賵鬲賯賵賱賴 丕賳鬲 賰亘乇鬲 賷丕 丕亘賳賶 賵賱丕夭賲 賳噩賵夭賰
賮鬲乇賵丨 賴賶 鬲禺鬲丕乇 丕賱亘賳鬲 賵鬲噩賵夭賴丕賱賴 賵乇噩賱丞 賮賵賯 乇賯亘鬲賴
賱賷赖责
赖賵 亘賷賵丕賮賯 賲丕 毓乇賮卮
賲賲賰賳 鬲賰賵賳 爻賱胤丞 乇丕爻 丕賱賲丕賱 丕賱賶 毓賳丿 丕賱丕賴賱
賲賲賰賳 赖賵 賲鬲毓賵丿 丕賳賴 賱丕夭賲 鬲賰賵賳 賮賶 賵丕丨丿丞 鬲丕賳賷丞 亘丿賱 賲丕賲丕 鬲毓賲賱賴 丕賱爻賳丿賵鬲卮丕鬲
賮賲丕賲丕 丕賰賷丿 丕丿乇賶 亘賲氐賱丨鬲賴
丕夭丕賶 賵丕丨丿 鬲丕賮賴 匕賶 丿丕 賵賱爻賴 賲丕 丕鬲賮胤賲卮
賷禺賱賶 亘賳鬲 鬲賱賮 丨賵丕賱賷賳 賳賮爻賴丕
賵鬲丿禺賱 毓賱賶 賲賳鬲丿賷丕鬲
丕夭丕賶 鬲禺賱賶 噩賵夭賰 賷丨亘賰
"
丕賳卮丕賱賴 毓賳賴 賲丕 丨亘賰 賷丕 卮賷禺丞"
丕賵 丕夭丕賶
鬲賰賵賳賶 丨賱賵丞 賮賶 毓賷賳 噩賵夭賰 亘乇丿賵
賮毓賱丕责
胤亘 賲丕 鬲賰賵賳賶 丨賱賵丞 賱賳賮爻賰
賵丕賱賲賳鬲丿賷丕鬲 丕賱賶 賴鬲賮乇賯毓 賲賳 丕賱賵氐賮丕鬲 賷丕 乇賷鬲 丕賱亘賳丕鬲
鬲亘胤賱 鬲丿賵乇 賮賶 賮賱賰 乇丕噩賱
賴賶 丕賴賲 賲賳 賰丿丕 亘賰鬲賷乇
乇亘賳丕 賵丕賱賱賴 賲丕 禺賱賯卮 丕賱爻鬲丕鬲 毓卮丕賳 賷毓亘丿賵丕 丕賱乇噩丕賱丞
November 23, 2021
亘爻蹖丕乇 鬲丕孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇 賵 丿乇诏蹖乇 讴賳賳丿賴 亘賵丿.
乇賲丕賳 讴賵鬲丕賴 丨賳蹖賮 賯乇蹖卮蹖 丨乇賮賴丕蹖蹖 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀� 讴賴 賲胤賲卅賳丕" 禺蹖賱蹖 賴丕 丿乇 禺賮丕 亘丕 禺賵丿 賲蹖鈥屫操嗁嗀� 賵賱蹖 卮賴丕賲鬲 丕亘乇丕夭卮 乇丕 賳丿丕乇賳丿.
乇賲丕賳 讴賵鬲丕賴 丨賳蹖賮 賯乇蹖卮蹖 丨乇賮賴丕蹖蹖 賲蹖鈥屫操嗀� 讴賴 賲胤賲卅賳丕" 禺蹖賱蹖 賴丕 丿乇 禺賮丕 亘丕 禺賵丿 賲蹖鈥屫操嗁嗀� 賵賱蹖 卮賴丕賲鬲 丕亘乇丕夭卮 乇丕 賳丿丕乇賳丿.
March 5, 2022
Ni拧ta nije fascinantno kao ljubav, veli Kurei拧i. Ta膷nije, ni拧ta 苍补啪补濒辞蝉迟 nije tako fascinantno kao ljubav. Mr啪nja nije njen kraj, ve膰, neretko, samo drugi oblik.
Dodaje Kurei拧i i da je povre膽ivanje nekoga, zapravo, akt nehoti膷ne intimnosti, kao i da svaki dan treba ima makar jednu, sitnu prevaru. Izdaje nam, paradoksalno, omogu膰avaju pre啪ivljavanje, obe膰avaju膰i uvek bolje stanje od onoga u kome jesmo. 膶ak i kada nam je sve savr拧eno, uvek postoji prostor za 鈥瀗e拧to jo拧鈥�, raj raja. Zato nam nikad ne mo啪e biti potaman, a vernost je istrajavanje u zaljubljenosti u ideju vernosti, poku拧aj da se u svetu ne pokrade i ne uni拧ti sve 拧to je vredno.
E, vidite, ova knjiga je o tome. O ljubavima i ostalim nesporazumima, borbi protiv otupelosti kroz koju se samo jo拧 vi拧e otupljuje. 沤ivotni odabiri su 膷esto pakt sa o膷ekivanjima okoline, 膷ak i onda kad deluje da su sasvim buntovni. Misle膰i da smo izuzeci, da smo iznad situacije u kojoj smo, ponavljamo iste gre拧ke. I koliko god 啪eleo da poka啪em da mi je drago, a nije da nije, neretko me stu啪i kad vidim kako su moji poznanici 鈥瀞kockali鈥� svoje 啪ivote. Sve je to tempirano, po receptu 鈥� ko, kada, kako i s kim. Iste matrice. A onda, pre ili kasnije, po膷inje da kulja nezadovoljstvo i da se ne膷iji zajedni膷ki 啪ivot pretvara u mu膷nu samoparodiju, gde ljudi 膷esto ostaju zajedno samo jer ne znaju kako bi se sami sna拧li. Kad deca do膽u, postaje sve jo拧 slo啪enije, kao da ve膰 nije bilo. I tu je Kurei拧i ubo: uloge oca, ljubavnika i supru啪nika su raznostrane, mada se ne 膷ini da bi to trebalo da bude tako. Imaju膰i u vidu kako je prikazan odnos izme膽u generacija u romanu, name膰e se pitanje upori拧ta institucije porodice u savremenosti. Tako je jedan od presudnih momenata za razvoj protagoniste strah koji je ose膰ao u detinjstvu 鈥� strah i ogroman pritisak, koji se vremenom preobrazio u frustraciju, a frustracija je bi膰e sa hiljadu lica. Jukstapozicija detinjstava protagoniste i njegove dece pokazuje ne samo razli膷iti pristup vaspitanju, ve膰 i to kako se ideja o porodi膷nosti i u拧u拧kanosti menja. (Pre)zreli liberalni kapitalizam nametnuo je diktat udobnosti, gde je sre膰a pojedinca apsolutni prioritet. Previ拧e sam svojeglav da ne bih rekao da mi individualizam nije blizak, ali stalno se previ膽a da fokus na slobodi pojedinca podrazumeva ogroman teret odgovornosti. Individualizam bez odgovornosti je samo grabe啪 i otima膷ina, trka pacova. Imaju膰i u vidu savremena politi膷ka kretanja, sti膷e se utisak da ljudi i to posebno mla膽i ljudi 啪ele da 啪ive u dru拧tvima gde 膰e vladar kao doma膰in i o膷inska figura, znati da tresne o sto i da, umesto svoje dece, vodi ra膷una o svim njihovim brigama. To 膷ini ne samo pupe膰a tiranija izbora, ve膰 i nespremnost da ljudi preuzmu uloge koje, hteli ne hteli, sobom nose. Imaju膰i to u vidu, jo拧 jednom se pokazuje kako pisanje o seksu naj膷e拧膰e nije razodevanje intime, koliko mapiranje psiholo拧ko-dru拧tvenih struktura.
Na polici Kurei拧i bi se sjano smestio uz Filipa Rota, Uelbeka, Begbedea.
Dodaje Kurei拧i i da je povre膽ivanje nekoga, zapravo, akt nehoti膷ne intimnosti, kao i da svaki dan treba ima makar jednu, sitnu prevaru. Izdaje nam, paradoksalno, omogu膰avaju pre啪ivljavanje, obe膰avaju膰i uvek bolje stanje od onoga u kome jesmo. 膶ak i kada nam je sve savr拧eno, uvek postoji prostor za 鈥瀗e拧to jo拧鈥�, raj raja. Zato nam nikad ne mo啪e biti potaman, a vernost je istrajavanje u zaljubljenosti u ideju vernosti, poku拧aj da se u svetu ne pokrade i ne uni拧ti sve 拧to je vredno.
E, vidite, ova knjiga je o tome. O ljubavima i ostalim nesporazumima, borbi protiv otupelosti kroz koju se samo jo拧 vi拧e otupljuje. 沤ivotni odabiri su 膷esto pakt sa o膷ekivanjima okoline, 膷ak i onda kad deluje da su sasvim buntovni. Misle膰i da smo izuzeci, da smo iznad situacije u kojoj smo, ponavljamo iste gre拧ke. I koliko god 啪eleo da poka啪em da mi je drago, a nije da nije, neretko me stu啪i kad vidim kako su moji poznanici 鈥瀞kockali鈥� svoje 啪ivote. Sve je to tempirano, po receptu 鈥� ko, kada, kako i s kim. Iste matrice. A onda, pre ili kasnije, po膷inje da kulja nezadovoljstvo i da se ne膷iji zajedni膷ki 啪ivot pretvara u mu膷nu samoparodiju, gde ljudi 膷esto ostaju zajedno samo jer ne znaju kako bi se sami sna拧li. Kad deca do膽u, postaje sve jo拧 slo啪enije, kao da ve膰 nije bilo. I tu je Kurei拧i ubo: uloge oca, ljubavnika i supru啪nika su raznostrane, mada se ne 膷ini da bi to trebalo da bude tako. Imaju膰i u vidu kako je prikazan odnos izme膽u generacija u romanu, name膰e se pitanje upori拧ta institucije porodice u savremenosti. Tako je jedan od presudnih momenata za razvoj protagoniste strah koji je ose膰ao u detinjstvu 鈥� strah i ogroman pritisak, koji se vremenom preobrazio u frustraciju, a frustracija je bi膰e sa hiljadu lica. Jukstapozicija detinjstava protagoniste i njegove dece pokazuje ne samo razli膷iti pristup vaspitanju, ve膰 i to kako se ideja o porodi膷nosti i u拧u拧kanosti menja. (Pre)zreli liberalni kapitalizam nametnuo je diktat udobnosti, gde je sre膰a pojedinca apsolutni prioritet. Previ拧e sam svojeglav da ne bih rekao da mi individualizam nije blizak, ali stalno se previ膽a da fokus na slobodi pojedinca podrazumeva ogroman teret odgovornosti. Individualizam bez odgovornosti je samo grabe啪 i otima膷ina, trka pacova. Imaju膰i u vidu savremena politi膷ka kretanja, sti膷e se utisak da ljudi i to posebno mla膽i ljudi 啪ele da 啪ive u dru拧tvima gde 膰e vladar kao doma膰in i o膷inska figura, znati da tresne o sto i da, umesto svoje dece, vodi ra膷una o svim njihovim brigama. To 膷ini ne samo pupe膰a tiranija izbora, ve膰 i nespremnost da ljudi preuzmu uloge koje, hteli ne hteli, sobom nose. Imaju膰i to u vidu, jo拧 jednom se pokazuje kako pisanje o seksu naj膷e拧膰e nije razodevanje intime, koliko mapiranje psiholo拧ko-dru拧tvenih struktura.
Na polici Kurei拧i bi se sjano smestio uz Filipa Rota, Uelbeka, Begbedea.
August 8, 2015
A Joke Followed by an Intimacy
After reading Milan Kundera's "The Joke", I returned it to the shelf, and looked for something short to read next. Happily, I found it next to my Kunderas. I thought "Intimacy" might continue some of the themes about relationships that had interested me in "The Joke".
After finishing it, I discovered a 2001 interview with Kureishi in the Guardian in which he revealed that he had been reading "The Joke" that very morning.
In some ways, Kureishi was to the 90's what Kundera was to the 80's. He seemed to define the Zeitgeist. At least if you were male! He had a David Bowie-like rock star persona. He could get away with almost anything.
"All Couples Have Troubles"
I read "Intimacy" in the space of a day, well less actually, more like the time it took the Australian cricket team to knock out their first innings in the Ashes test in Nottingham. It's a novella rather than a novel. My copy was 150 pages long, but broadly spaced. No sooner had I started it than it was over.
At one level, it's an indulgent rant. It's written in the first person. The narrator (Jay) is a narcissistic Oscar-nominated scriptwriter, who's about to leave his family the next day. Inevitably, it's difficult to dissociate Jay from the author. If it's difficult now, it was certainly a lot harder when the book was first published. It was clear to all that the novel was based on Kureishi's relationship and break up with his partner and mother of their two children, Tracey Scoffield.
"Some People Read Books Endlessly"
So what can you say almost 20 years later?
Kureishi writes with amazing precision about relationships from a male's perspective. You could be quite charmed listening to Jay, thinking he had a special sensitivity. However, after a while, you realise that his precision is almost surgical, and that he wields a scalpel capable of making a neat, clean cut in human flesh.
Jay studied Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Marx, Freud, Sartre, Camus, Ionesco, Beckett and "other poets of solitude and dread". His interests bridge philosophy and psychology. However, all this study fuels his belief that he knows people and relationships better than anyone else. Well, he knows what's good for him. And this is what he imposes on those around him.
"Not Every Match Burns Bright"
Beneath the hipster facade is a viciousness, not unrelated to his taste in music:
"A lot of punk. It was the hatred, I think, that appealed."
Contrast this with his partner:
"Susan, who is four years younger than me, thinks we live in a selfish age. She talks of a Thatcherism of the soul that imagines that people are not dependent on one another...Fulfilment, self-expression and 'creativity' are the only values."
In other words, creativity had given some people a way out of conformist, pre-60's nine-to-fiveism, but it retained the egotism of the previous more material, more analogue, less digital version of capitalism.
"Some Couples Live in Harmony, Some Do Not"
Jay also takes a pot shot at women's politics:
"She is of a disapproving generation of women. She thinks she's a feminist but she's just bad-tempered."
It's as if Jay isn't a spoiled prat, he's just a very naughty boy:
"Susan would say that we require other social forms. What are they? Probably the unpleasant ones: duty, sacrifice, obligation to others, self-discipline."
These are Susan's words. Perhaps, some of us will recoil from what they imply? But, really, aren't they the sort of thing you say when you start to think in terms of needs other than just your own: the needs of a couple, the needs of a family, the needs of a peer group, the needs of a community, the needs of a social and political movement?
From the perspective of the Left, Jay confesses, "We were the kind of people who held the Labour Party back."
It's as if Jay's kind of egocentricity tends to subvert any collective, whether of two or two billion.
"You My Dear Don't Have Any Manners"
Jay loves their two boys, aged five and three, he says he'll be sad to leave them (really!), but they're not enough to commit him to any sort of family unit, not enough to make an effort. He can't will himself into the relationship: "You cannot will love, but only ask why you have put it aside for the time being."
He pretends that he can turn off his love for his children, and that they will be there for him when he's ready to revive a relationship with them, when they are more mature and can understand his needs.
He says something that many of us who have been in a relationship that didn't last can understand:
"I didn't want to love Susan, but for some reason didn't want the clarity of that fact to devastate us both."
Yet, you have to wonder whether the failed lover inside the author does want the public, written record of this fact to devastate: "It is a lovely day for leaving." How could it not devastate somebody?
"Still, It's Sad to See Everything in Tatters"
This is the true significance of the novel, as a work of fiction, but also as an implied comment on an actual relationship. The book might be named after intimacy, but it doesn't sing its praises. Instead, it reveals intimate details in order to expose and compromise them, in order to snuff out whatever flaming beauty was ever there. It's about the longing for intimacy and love, and how angry we can be when they're snuffed out, lost, rejected, left. Intimacy and love can simply dissipate before our very eyes. With no effort at all. Which is often the cause.
I couldn't believe some of the things Jay said, they were so clinically brutal. You could see them coming, and you'd wonder whether he'd restrain himself, but in the end I was glad that they weren't left unsaid. We wouldn't know the truth, otherwise.
The thing is, Kureishi does it accurately enough to condemn the 1990's era male (who hasn't changed that much) out of his own mouth. For all the aspersions he casts on Susan, it's her words that have best stood the test of time. She anticipated an era when, after the indulgences of the three decades that followed the 60's, we eventually had to grow up. They are, of course, words that Kureishi wrote, or at least selected and recorded from his real life experience. If it was the latter, then at least he had enough acumen to know what words expressed Susan's truth. And therefore ours.
SOUNDTRACK:
Marianne Faithfull - "Why'd Ya Do It?"
Lou Reed - "Tatters"
Lou Reed - "Tatters" [Live at Montreux on July 12, 2000]
After reading Milan Kundera's "The Joke", I returned it to the shelf, and looked for something short to read next. Happily, I found it next to my Kunderas. I thought "Intimacy" might continue some of the themes about relationships that had interested me in "The Joke".
After finishing it, I discovered a 2001 interview with Kureishi in the Guardian in which he revealed that he had been reading "The Joke" that very morning.
In some ways, Kureishi was to the 90's what Kundera was to the 80's. He seemed to define the Zeitgeist. At least if you were male! He had a David Bowie-like rock star persona. He could get away with almost anything.
"All Couples Have Troubles"
I read "Intimacy" in the space of a day, well less actually, more like the time it took the Australian cricket team to knock out their first innings in the Ashes test in Nottingham. It's a novella rather than a novel. My copy was 150 pages long, but broadly spaced. No sooner had I started it than it was over.
At one level, it's an indulgent rant. It's written in the first person. The narrator (Jay) is a narcissistic Oscar-nominated scriptwriter, who's about to leave his family the next day. Inevitably, it's difficult to dissociate Jay from the author. If it's difficult now, it was certainly a lot harder when the book was first published. It was clear to all that the novel was based on Kureishi's relationship and break up with his partner and mother of their two children, Tracey Scoffield.
"Some People Read Books Endlessly"
So what can you say almost 20 years later?
Kureishi writes with amazing precision about relationships from a male's perspective. You could be quite charmed listening to Jay, thinking he had a special sensitivity. However, after a while, you realise that his precision is almost surgical, and that he wields a scalpel capable of making a neat, clean cut in human flesh.
Jay studied Plato, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Marx, Freud, Sartre, Camus, Ionesco, Beckett and "other poets of solitude and dread". His interests bridge philosophy and psychology. However, all this study fuels his belief that he knows people and relationships better than anyone else. Well, he knows what's good for him. And this is what he imposes on those around him.
"Not Every Match Burns Bright"
Beneath the hipster facade is a viciousness, not unrelated to his taste in music:
"A lot of punk. It was the hatred, I think, that appealed."
Contrast this with his partner:
"Susan, who is four years younger than me, thinks we live in a selfish age. She talks of a Thatcherism of the soul that imagines that people are not dependent on one another...Fulfilment, self-expression and 'creativity' are the only values."
In other words, creativity had given some people a way out of conformist, pre-60's nine-to-fiveism, but it retained the egotism of the previous more material, more analogue, less digital version of capitalism.
"Some Couples Live in Harmony, Some Do Not"
Jay also takes a pot shot at women's politics:
"She is of a disapproving generation of women. She thinks she's a feminist but she's just bad-tempered."
It's as if Jay isn't a spoiled prat, he's just a very naughty boy:
"Susan would say that we require other social forms. What are they? Probably the unpleasant ones: duty, sacrifice, obligation to others, self-discipline."
These are Susan's words. Perhaps, some of us will recoil from what they imply? But, really, aren't they the sort of thing you say when you start to think in terms of needs other than just your own: the needs of a couple, the needs of a family, the needs of a peer group, the needs of a community, the needs of a social and political movement?
From the perspective of the Left, Jay confesses, "We were the kind of people who held the Labour Party back."
It's as if Jay's kind of egocentricity tends to subvert any collective, whether of two or two billion.
"You My Dear Don't Have Any Manners"
Jay loves their two boys, aged five and three, he says he'll be sad to leave them (really!), but they're not enough to commit him to any sort of family unit, not enough to make an effort. He can't will himself into the relationship: "You cannot will love, but only ask why you have put it aside for the time being."
He pretends that he can turn off his love for his children, and that they will be there for him when he's ready to revive a relationship with them, when they are more mature and can understand his needs.
He says something that many of us who have been in a relationship that didn't last can understand:
"I didn't want to love Susan, but for some reason didn't want the clarity of that fact to devastate us both."
Yet, you have to wonder whether the failed lover inside the author does want the public, written record of this fact to devastate: "It is a lovely day for leaving." How could it not devastate somebody?
"Still, It's Sad to See Everything in Tatters"
This is the true significance of the novel, as a work of fiction, but also as an implied comment on an actual relationship. The book might be named after intimacy, but it doesn't sing its praises. Instead, it reveals intimate details in order to expose and compromise them, in order to snuff out whatever flaming beauty was ever there. It's about the longing for intimacy and love, and how angry we can be when they're snuffed out, lost, rejected, left. Intimacy and love can simply dissipate before our very eyes. With no effort at all. Which is often the cause.
I couldn't believe some of the things Jay said, they were so clinically brutal. You could see them coming, and you'd wonder whether he'd restrain himself, but in the end I was glad that they weren't left unsaid. We wouldn't know the truth, otherwise.
The thing is, Kureishi does it accurately enough to condemn the 1990's era male (who hasn't changed that much) out of his own mouth. For all the aspersions he casts on Susan, it's her words that have best stood the test of time. She anticipated an era when, after the indulgences of the three decades that followed the 60's, we eventually had to grow up. They are, of course, words that Kureishi wrote, or at least selected and recorded from his real life experience. If it was the latter, then at least he had enough acumen to know what words expressed Susan's truth. And therefore ours.
SOUNDTRACK:
Marianne Faithfull - "Why'd Ya Do It?"
Lou Reed - "Tatters"
Lou Reed - "Tatters" [Live at Montreux on July 12, 2000]
Read
August 8, 2011After reading loads of reviews, what amazes me is that apparently not all women take this self-indulgent crap as a personal affront. Yes, Kureishi is a gifted writer. Okay, his take on the excruciating ruminations of a husband plotting to leave his family is 100% believable. But I can't get past my desire to castrate the narcissistic bastard. It must have been fun to write--a bit like writing from the perspective of a mafia hit man--without any compulsion to tie together the the disparate aspects of character (the loving father who abandons his children). Intimacy is such a clever title, because it's what Jay (the bastard) wants (from his young, life-affirming lover) and also what he finds most revolting and smothering (in his marriage). I think it's a brilliant book and I hated it.
July 19, 2024
禺蹖賱蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 乇賵 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕卮鬲賲 賵 亘乇丕蹖 賲賳 鬲丕孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇 賵 賲丨鬲乇賲 亘賵丿. 氐丿丕賯鬲 賵 噩爻丕乇鬲 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丿乇 亘賴 賯賱賲 丌賵乇丿賳 禺賵丿丿乇诏蹖乇蹖 賴丕 賵 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲 丿乇賵賳蹖 賵 亘毓囟丕 賲鬲賳丕賯囟 卮禺氐蹖鬲 丕氐賱蹖 賵丕賯毓丕 爻鬲賵丿賳蹖 賵 毓丕賱蹖 亘賵丿. .賮乇囟 讴賳 蹖讴蹖 丿丕乇賴 亘賱賳丿 亘賱賳丿 賮讴乇丕蹖 鬲賵 匕賴賳卮 乇賵 賲蹖诏賴 賵 鬲賵 賴賲 丿丕乇蹖 丕賵賳丕 乇賵 賲蹖卮賳賵蹖.蹖賴 噩丕賴丕蹖蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賴賲賴 卮亘丕賴鬲 賲鬲毓噩亘 賲蹖卮蹖貙 丕夭 丕蹖賳讴賴 賲蹖亘蹖賳蹖 蹖讴蹖 丿丕乇賴 丕丨爻丕爻丕鬲 丿乇賵賳蹖 禺賵丿卮 乇賵 亘賴 丕蹖賳 卮讴賱 賵丕囟丨 賵 氐丕丿賯丕賳賴 亘蹖丕賳 賲蹖讴賳賴貙 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇蹖 亘睾賱卮 讴賳蹖 賵 亘诏蹖 賲賳賲 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 蹖讴 噩丕賴丕蹖蹖 賴賲 胤亘蹖毓蹖賴 讴賴 亘丕賴丕卮 賴賲 賳馗乇 賳亘丕卮蹖貙 丕賲丕 亘賴 賯丿乇蹖 丕賵賳 氐丿丕賯鬲 賵 噩爻丕乇鬲卮 倬乇 乇賳诏 賴爻鬲 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丕禺鬲賱丕賮 賳馗乇 亘賴 趩卮賲 賳賲蹖丕丿.丕蹖賳 丕賵賳 丕丨爻丕爻蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 賲賳 丿乇 丨蹖賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴卮 丿爻鬲 倬蹖丿丕 讴乇丿賲.
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲乇丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж� 乇賵夭 亘毓丿 賴賲爻乇 賵 賮乇夭賳丿丕賳卮 乇賵 鬲乇讴 讴賳賴. 賲丕 丿乇 胤賵賱 丕蹖賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賳賴 趩賳丿丕賳 亘賱賳丿貙 賵丕乇丿 賮囟丕蹖 賮讴乇蹖 丕蹖賳 賲乇丿 賲蹖卮蹖賲 賵 丿乇 禺賱丕賱 丕蹖賳 賯囟蹖賴貙 诏乇蹖夭蹖 賴賲 亘賴 诏匕卮鬲賴 賴丕 賵 亘丕賵乇賴丕 賵 毓賯丕蹖丿卮 賲蹖夭賳蹖賲.
亘蹖 鬲乇丿蹖丿 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘賴 亘毓丿 讴爻蹖 丕夭賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 蹖讴 乇賲丕賳讴 鬲丕孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇 亘倬乇爻賴貙 芦賳夭丿蹖讴蹖禄 丕夭 丕賵賳 丕爻賲鈥屬囏й屰� 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺蹖賱蹖 爻乇蹖毓 亘賴 夭亘賵賳賲 賲蹖丕丿.
丿丕爻鬲丕賳 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 賲乇丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌ж� 乇賵夭 亘毓丿 賴賲爻乇 賵 賮乇夭賳丿丕賳卮 乇賵 鬲乇讴 讴賳賴. 賲丕 丿乇 胤賵賱 丕蹖賳 丿丕爻鬲丕賳 賳賴 趩賳丿丕賳 亘賱賳丿貙 賵丕乇丿 賮囟丕蹖 賮讴乇蹖 丕蹖賳 賲乇丿 賲蹖卮蹖賲 賵 丿乇 禺賱丕賱 丕蹖賳 賯囟蹖賴貙 诏乇蹖夭蹖 賴賲 亘賴 诏匕卮鬲賴 賴丕 賵 亘丕賵乇賴丕 賵 毓賯丕蹖丿卮 賲蹖夭賳蹖賲.
亘蹖 鬲乇丿蹖丿 丕夭 丕蹖賳 亘賴 亘毓丿 讴爻蹖 丕夭賲 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 蹖讴 乇賲丕賳讴 鬲丕孬蹖乇诏匕丕乇 亘倬乇爻賴貙 芦賳夭丿蹖讴蹖禄 丕夭 丕賵賳 丕爻賲鈥屬囏й屰� 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺蹖賱蹖 爻乇蹖毓 亘賴 夭亘賵賳賲 賲蹖丕丿.
February 5, 2023
**2.5 stars**
It is a perfect example of very poignant storytelling that aims at being meditative but falls short due to meandering. Intimacy was adapted into a 2001 movie starring Mark Rylance, which shares a similar melancholic, desolate tonality, which I have seen and thought to be the story of this novel. However, it feels like the movie is a sequel to the book. The plot concerns the thought process of an author, who is predictably going through a midlife crisis on the eve of his leaving his 10-year-old family.
So, of course, this novel is not at all for everyone. However, I did not find it as impactful as I would have liked because the narrative is morbidly sluggish. That would not have been a problem if the author ventured deeper into the narrator's brain. But that also seems unjust to ask of him because, well, it is all about the day before he leaves his wife and children. And a man could not possibly feel anything more than 250 pages within that time because (if we quote our favourite Ronald Weasley) "he will explode" if he does so.
My only wish is that I never become like this guy. This novel demands appreciation for being such a microscopic introspective on a relatable character, and I can not seriously find any other fault with it. So I don't understand why I am so harsh with the rating?
Feeling very confused, to be honest. Probably this is just the wrong book at the wrong time.
It is a perfect example of very poignant storytelling that aims at being meditative but falls short due to meandering. Intimacy was adapted into a 2001 movie starring Mark Rylance, which shares a similar melancholic, desolate tonality, which I have seen and thought to be the story of this novel. However, it feels like the movie is a sequel to the book. The plot concerns the thought process of an author, who is predictably going through a midlife crisis on the eve of his leaving his 10-year-old family.
So, of course, this novel is not at all for everyone. However, I did not find it as impactful as I would have liked because the narrative is morbidly sluggish. That would not have been a problem if the author ventured deeper into the narrator's brain. But that also seems unjust to ask of him because, well, it is all about the day before he leaves his wife and children. And a man could not possibly feel anything more than 250 pages within that time because (if we quote our favourite Ronald Weasley) "he will explode" if he does so.
My only wish is that I never become like this guy. This novel demands appreciation for being such a microscopic introspective on a relatable character, and I can not seriously find any other fault with it. So I don't understand why I am so harsh with the rating?
Feeling very confused, to be honest. Probably this is just the wrong book at the wrong time.
October 23, 2017
Este es el retrato de un gilipollas. El personaje principal es asquerosamente machista, su visi贸n de las mujeres (su mujer, su amante, su madre, su psic贸loga) es desde despreciativa hasta condescendiente. Cumple todos los clich茅s del hombre en plena crisis, cuya fr谩gil masculinidad le lleva a cuestionarse la potencia de su propio chorro de orina; reflexiona sobre el matrimonio, el amor y el deseo desde una perspectiva ego铆sta y mis贸gina, reafirmando la necesidad de los hombres de sentirse poderosos, de ah铆 que su fantas铆a se traslade en la conquista de una jovencita a la que puede servir de modelo y a la que puede moldear a su antojo.
No obstante, y dejando de lado que el contenido es el que es, me ha parecido que est谩 muy bien escrito, que el mon贸logo es coherente y l煤cido. Aunque el protagonista sea despreciable, est谩 muy bien retratado como lo que es.
No obstante, y dejando de lado que el contenido es el que es, me ha parecido que est谩 muy bien escrito, que el mon贸logo es coherente y l煤cido. Aunque el protagonista sea despreciable, est谩 muy bien retratado como lo que es.
October 6, 2015
One man pondering his life and relationships the night before he plans to leave his partner and children. Not very likeable.
January 28, 2008
Upon reading this, I felt that it was quite obvious that the author wrote this book with intimate knowledge of failed relationships and break-ups. The small details really do make this story. The disagreements of how to make tea, for example which leads both the characters feeling like they want to kill each other. The wife's badgering, the narrator's air of weariness, the disconnectedness of it all ... like they're only JUST missing the target, that if they tried that little bit harder, maybe they could get back on track. It really does hit a sore spot for anyone who has been in this position before.
I enjoyed following his train of thought, how he convinced himself that he will pack and leave, done! And then a few pages on, he contemplates waking his wife to talk. He wants her to say I love you, please stay! But also feels (knows?) that he doesn't want to try. He is indecisive, completely real and human. I feel like I am inside somebody's head and being dragged along on the emotional journey.
To throw a couple of children into the mix was just agonising and as a parent - I was sucked right into the confusion and pain. I think the only thing I struggled with was the lack of sorrow he had at leaving his children. Of course, he was bothered, it was one of the main themes of the book - but his world didn't seem rocked by it. I would have been a neurotic mess, rocking myself backwards and forwards in a dark corner somewhere! And then I probably wouldn't have left in the end. I certainly wouldn't have been deliberating on which objects to take with me when I left, which suits and shoes would suit my new life, which books should I leave for my sons to enjoy (although the nonchalance could have definitely been a coping mechanism).
I've read a few people's opinions on the book, on various websites and find that a lot of people hate the book, because of the narrator. But that is why I love it, he's a shitty person, he doesn't know what he wants, he's putting himself first, abandoning his family, chasing after some elusive ideal of love. It's not pretty. It's gritty, he's imperfect and I like being able to see a glimpse into his life and then be able to put the book down and appreciate my own.
I think the thing is, relationships do fail. And this really is a prime example of how it can happen ... lazily, cowardly and bleakly.
I enjoyed following his train of thought, how he convinced himself that he will pack and leave, done! And then a few pages on, he contemplates waking his wife to talk. He wants her to say I love you, please stay! But also feels (knows?) that he doesn't want to try. He is indecisive, completely real and human. I feel like I am inside somebody's head and being dragged along on the emotional journey.
To throw a couple of children into the mix was just agonising and as a parent - I was sucked right into the confusion and pain. I think the only thing I struggled with was the lack of sorrow he had at leaving his children. Of course, he was bothered, it was one of the main themes of the book - but his world didn't seem rocked by it. I would have been a neurotic mess, rocking myself backwards and forwards in a dark corner somewhere! And then I probably wouldn't have left in the end. I certainly wouldn't have been deliberating on which objects to take with me when I left, which suits and shoes would suit my new life, which books should I leave for my sons to enjoy (although the nonchalance could have definitely been a coping mechanism).
I've read a few people's opinions on the book, on various websites and find that a lot of people hate the book, because of the narrator. But that is why I love it, he's a shitty person, he doesn't know what he wants, he's putting himself first, abandoning his family, chasing after some elusive ideal of love. It's not pretty. It's gritty, he's imperfect and I like being able to see a glimpse into his life and then be able to put the book down and appreciate my own.
I think the thing is, relationships do fail. And this really is a prime example of how it can happen ... lazily, cowardly and bleakly.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 10, 2017
Este livro foi-me oferecido h谩 mais de quinze anos e desde ent茫o que tem estado na estante sem que eu tenha tido qualquer curiosidade de lhe pegar (o motivo foi a pessoa que mo ofereceu ter gostos nada consonantes com os meus). Recentemente vi algumas opini玫es aqui no goodreads que me levaram a sacudir-lhe o p贸 e a dar-lhe uma oportunidade.
E ent茫o 茅 assim:
Esta 茅 a noite mais triste, porque tenciono partir para nunca mais voltar.
Deste modo come莽a a hist贸ria em que Jay, o narrador-protagonista, nos d谩 conta da sua inten莽茫o de deixar a mulher com quem vive h谩 seis anos e os dois filhos de ambos. Uma hist贸ria que pretende dar conta do que 茅 o desmoronar de um relacionamento por via da extin莽茫o do amor (se 茅 que este alguma vez existiu) e da intimidade que deve unir os casais que partilham a vida.
Dito assim, parece algo interessante e, qui莽谩, profundo. Mas n茫o foi. Pelo menos eu n茫o o senti dessa forma. Aquilo que senti foi estar perante um "Peter Pan", de vis茫o mis贸gina e ego铆smo hedonista que, em momento algum me conseguiu fazer sentir qualquer tipo de empatia relativamente 脿s suas d煤vidas, lam煤rias e auto-comisera莽茫o.
A hist贸ria n茫o conseguiu provocar-me qualquer impacto emocional, mas apenas desagrado em rela莽茫o a quase tudo - a hist贸ria, as personagens, os di谩logos, os mon贸logos, os pensamentos. Para o desprazer da leitura tamb茅m muito contribuiu a pobreza desta edi莽茫o (Teorema, 1999), com uma tradu莽茫o miser谩vel e revis茫o inexistente, consubstanciando-se numa prosa atabalhoada e em numerosas frases carentes de sentido.
Este t铆tulo foi adaptado ao cinema, tendo ganho o Urso de Ouro no Festival de Berlim em 2001. No entanto, da pequena pesquisa que fiz, fiquei com a ideia de que o enredo do filme pouco ou nada tem a ver com a hist贸ria do livro.
Enfim, valeu o livro ser pequeno, com fonte e margens generosas.
E ent茫o 茅 assim:
Esta 茅 a noite mais triste, porque tenciono partir para nunca mais voltar.
Deste modo come莽a a hist贸ria em que Jay, o narrador-protagonista, nos d谩 conta da sua inten莽茫o de deixar a mulher com quem vive h谩 seis anos e os dois filhos de ambos. Uma hist贸ria que pretende dar conta do que 茅 o desmoronar de um relacionamento por via da extin莽茫o do amor (se 茅 que este alguma vez existiu) e da intimidade que deve unir os casais que partilham a vida.
Dito assim, parece algo interessante e, qui莽谩, profundo. Mas n茫o foi. Pelo menos eu n茫o o senti dessa forma. Aquilo que senti foi estar perante um "Peter Pan", de vis茫o mis贸gina e ego铆smo hedonista que, em momento algum me conseguiu fazer sentir qualquer tipo de empatia relativamente 脿s suas d煤vidas, lam煤rias e auto-comisera莽茫o.
A hist贸ria n茫o conseguiu provocar-me qualquer impacto emocional, mas apenas desagrado em rela莽茫o a quase tudo - a hist贸ria, as personagens, os di谩logos, os mon贸logos, os pensamentos. Para o desprazer da leitura tamb茅m muito contribuiu a pobreza desta edi莽茫o (Teorema, 1999), com uma tradu莽茫o miser谩vel e revis茫o inexistente, consubstanciando-se numa prosa atabalhoada e em numerosas frases carentes de sentido.
Este t铆tulo foi adaptado ao cinema, tendo ganho o Urso de Ouro no Festival de Berlim em 2001. No entanto, da pequena pesquisa que fiz, fiquei com a ideia de que o enredo do filme pouco ou nada tem a ver com a hist贸ria do livro.
Enfim, valeu o livro ser pequeno, com fonte e margens generosas.
October 8, 2019
The theme of this book may not be to the liking of everybody,a middle aged man prepares to walk out on his wife and kids.But it is a beautifully crafted story,full of sadness and loss,as he realizes there is no coming back,and the memories are very painful.So far,Hanif Kureishi's best book for me.
January 30, 2023
F膬r膬 卯ndoial膬, cea mai bun膬 carte a lui H. Kureishi dintre cele 3 (cu tot cu asta) citite de mine! O lucrare solid膬 - o numesc a葯a, de葯i e vorba de un volum de povestiri de sine st膬t膬toare. Eu am 卯nchis ochii 葯i le-am citit ca pe un roman, imagina葲ia mea conferindu-le un misterios substrat comun.
Iar 鈥淚ntimitate鈥�, povestirea care d膬 titlul volumului, este un adev膬rat microroman - o desf膬tare!
Inteligen葲膬 net膬, ce - totu葯i - nu cople葯e葯te, sim葲ul realit膬葲ii 葯i al verosimilit膬葲ii, vibra葲ia autorului 卯ntr-un des膬v芒r葯it ton cu strada 葯i cu societatea, modernism, nu 葯i experimentalism sterp, plus ocheadele competente aruncate marilor opere ale literaturii.
Traducerea e OK, dar putea fi mai bun膬. Rom芒neasca traduc膬torului ar fi putut fi mai bun膬, mai atent formulat膬. Mai gramatical膬. 葮i nu, nu e vorba de a traduce limbaj argotic.
Dau un exemplu de stil prost: 鈥淣u sunt 卯n dispozi葲ia de a hot膬r卯 nimic.鈥� Sigur c膬 reflexul e s膬 m膬 卯ntreb cum sun膬 aceast膬 dubl膬 nega葲ie, sucit膬 葯i lipsit膬 de elegan葲膬, 卯n englez膬 (I鈥檓 not in the mood to decide nothing? - oribil)鈥� C膬 trebuie s膬 z膬bove葯ti pu葲in ca s膬 卯葲i dai seama ce vrea s膬 zic膬.
O s膬 fiu 卯ntrebat: tu cum ai fi tradus? Eu a葯 fi tradus: 鈥淣u sunt 卯n dispozi葲ia de a hot膬r卯 ceva.鈥� Ori: 鈥淣u am dispozi葲ia de a lua acum o hot膬r芒re.鈥� (Dac膬 vrem s膬 introducem 葯i pu葲in膬 adaptare 卯n text - permis膬, c芒t timp se p膬streaz膬 miezul comunic膬rii.)
Iar 鈥淚ntimitate鈥�, povestirea care d膬 titlul volumului, este un adev膬rat microroman - o desf膬tare!
Inteligen葲膬 net膬, ce - totu葯i - nu cople葯e葯te, sim葲ul realit膬葲ii 葯i al verosimilit膬葲ii, vibra葲ia autorului 卯ntr-un des膬v芒r葯it ton cu strada 葯i cu societatea, modernism, nu 葯i experimentalism sterp, plus ocheadele competente aruncate marilor opere ale literaturii.
Traducerea e OK, dar putea fi mai bun膬. Rom芒neasca traduc膬torului ar fi putut fi mai bun膬, mai atent formulat膬. Mai gramatical膬. 葮i nu, nu e vorba de a traduce limbaj argotic.
Dau un exemplu de stil prost: 鈥淣u sunt 卯n dispozi葲ia de a hot膬r卯 nimic.鈥� Sigur c膬 reflexul e s膬 m膬 卯ntreb cum sun膬 aceast膬 dubl膬 nega葲ie, sucit膬 葯i lipsit膬 de elegan葲膬, 卯n englez膬 (I鈥檓 not in the mood to decide nothing? - oribil)鈥� C膬 trebuie s膬 z膬bove葯ti pu葲in ca s膬 卯葲i dai seama ce vrea s膬 zic膬.
O s膬 fiu 卯ntrebat: tu cum ai fi tradus? Eu a葯 fi tradus: 鈥淣u sunt 卯n dispozi葲ia de a hot膬r卯 ceva.鈥� Ori: 鈥淣u am dispozi葲ia de a lua acum o hot膬r芒re.鈥� (Dac膬 vrem s膬 introducem 葯i pu葲in膬 adaptare 卯n text - permis膬, c芒t timp se p膬streaz膬 miezul comunic膬rii.)
November 2, 2017
Pri膷a o kolote膷ini bra膷nog 啪ivota, sa mu拧kog aspekta. On svo vrijeme razmi拧lja kako 膰e te no膰i napustiti Susan i djecu, vaga, pravda se, pa opet vaga, oti膰i 膰e, ne膰e, kaki膰e, pi拧ki膰e. 沤ao mu djece, a Susan i (pre)mirna bra膷na luka definitivno nisu ne拧to 拧to 啪eli mu拧karac u 膷etrdesetim kog pere kriza srednjih godina. On 啪eli Ninu, duplo mla膽u djevojku koja ga bodri da masturbira po njoj dok spava. Ovo se 膷ita u jednom dahu, malo zbog toga 拧to nas zanima da li 膰e oti膰i, malo 拧to ga mrzimo, malo 拧to ga razumijemo. Pretpostavljam da 啪ene ba拧 i ne vole ovu knjigu, posebno one romanti膷ne, ali sre膰om ova 啪ena je nau膷ila (ili jo拧 uvijek u膷i) izdignuti se iznad tematike i racionalno 膷itati knjige, i ne mrziti lika kao da te no膰i planira mene ostaviti. Iako je neodgovoran, cini膷an i u globalu nedopadljiv, na momente je simpati膷an jer izaziva sa啪aljenje. Ako se Susan probudi, po啪eli ga upravo tu i padne neki seks, on ne膰e oti膰i. Tu啪no je koliko se ljudi otu膽e od onih koje su jednom sami odabrali. Nekako su meni ovakvi narativi kao polovina mnogo slo啪enije pri膷e, kao da nedostaje dio, ovdje konkretno 啪enska verzija, kao da uvijek moramo imati dvije strane pri膷e i sve objasniti. A ne moramo! Preporu膷ujem!
July 24, 2018
My brain holds a big disparity. On the one hand, I loved the writing style and thought a lot of the ideas displayed were very intriguing and raw; on the other hand, there are some very controversial and unethical thoughts in here. It became difficult to separate the author and the narrator. Still very happy I've read this.
3,5*
3,5*
October 27, 2018
Un roman de aproximativ 100 de pagini 葯i 3 povestiri de lungimi diferite.
Excelente caracteriz膬ri ale sufletului masculin, pe care rareori l-am v膬zut a葯a de bine analizat din perspectiva b膬rbatului care ba 卯n葯eal膬, ba este 卯n葯elat, ba pleac膬 de acas膬 葯i mai are o noapte de g芒ndire, ba se afl膬 卯n rolul amantului 卯n葯elat cu... so葲ul, ba se 卯nt芒lne葯te cu o necunoscut膬 doar pentru sex. Ipostaze foarte diferite, dar care constituie o lume 卯ntreag膬 pentru spe葲a masculin膬, analizat膬, disecat膬, criticat膬, pus膬 卯n paralel cu eternul feminin.
O carte care prive葯te o alt膬 lume, cu nelini葯tile 葯i sup膬r膬rile sale, o lume a b膬rba葲ilor care sufer膬 la fel de mult ca 葯i femeile aflate de partea cealalt膬 a mesei sau a patului.
Excelente caracteriz膬ri ale sufletului masculin, pe care rareori l-am v膬zut a葯a de bine analizat din perspectiva b膬rbatului care ba 卯n葯eal膬, ba este 卯n葯elat, ba pleac膬 de acas膬 葯i mai are o noapte de g芒ndire, ba se afl膬 卯n rolul amantului 卯n葯elat cu... so葲ul, ba se 卯nt芒lne葯te cu o necunoscut膬 doar pentru sex. Ipostaze foarte diferite, dar care constituie o lume 卯ntreag膬 pentru spe葲a masculin膬, analizat膬, disecat膬, criticat膬, pus膬 卯n paralel cu eternul feminin.
O carte care prive葯te o alt膬 lume, cu nelini葯tile 葯i sup膬r膬rile sale, o lume a b膬rba葲ilor care sufer膬 la fel de mult ca 葯i femeile aflate de partea cealalt膬 a mesei sau a patului.
October 13, 2019
Kar谋s谋n谋 gen莽 bir sevgili i莽in terk etmek 眉zere olan iki 莽ocuklu ve de orta ya艧l谋 uslanmaz bir 鈥漦ad谋n d眉艧k眉n眉鈥� adam谋n hikayesi bu k谋sa roman. Bu eylemini hakl谋 莽谋karmak i莽in ortaya att谋臒谋 savlar da roman谋n 枚z眉.
Bu k谋sa roman ilk yay谋nland谋臒谋nda Hanif Kureishi epey bir ele艧tiriye maruz kalm谋艧. Zira anlatt谋臒谋 olay谋 bizzat ya艧am谋艧, roman谋n ba艧karakteri ile kendisi hakk谋nda epey paralellikler varm谋艧. Tim Parks鈥櫮眓 In Extremis roman谋yla ya艧ad谋臒谋na benzer bir durum yani. Ama In Extremis s谋k谋 bir romand谋 en az谋ndan.
Ara s谋ra p谋r谋lt谋l谋 b枚l眉mler i莽erse de, ba艧karakterin bencilli臒i, sevimsizli臒i bir yana, metnin genel olarak y眉zeyselli臒i, kli艧eli臒i, di臒er karakterlerin (terk edilecek e艧, biri yine zampara, di臒eri ise iyi aile babas谋 iki yak谋n arkada艧谋... vs.) s谋臒l谋臒谋 gibi nedenlerle sevemedim bu kitab谋. Oysa Kureishi鈥檔in y谋llar 枚nce okudu锟斤拷um The Buddha of Suburbia鈥檚谋 (Varo艧lar谋n Budas谋 olarak dilimize 莽evrilmi艧ti) bomba gibiydi.
Intimacy鈥檔in T眉rk莽e 莽evirisini Everest 2006鈥檇a Yak谋nl谋k ad谋yla basm谋艧, bunca laftan sonra hala varsa ilgilenenlerin dikkatine馃槉.
Bu k谋sa roman ilk yay谋nland谋臒谋nda Hanif Kureishi epey bir ele艧tiriye maruz kalm谋艧. Zira anlatt谋臒谋 olay谋 bizzat ya艧am谋艧, roman谋n ba艧karakteri ile kendisi hakk谋nda epey paralellikler varm谋艧. Tim Parks鈥櫮眓 In Extremis roman谋yla ya艧ad谋臒谋na benzer bir durum yani. Ama In Extremis s谋k谋 bir romand谋 en az谋ndan.
Ara s谋ra p谋r谋lt谋l谋 b枚l眉mler i莽erse de, ba艧karakterin bencilli臒i, sevimsizli臒i bir yana, metnin genel olarak y眉zeyselli臒i, kli艧eli臒i, di臒er karakterlerin (terk edilecek e艧, biri yine zampara, di臒eri ise iyi aile babas谋 iki yak谋n arkada艧谋... vs.) s谋臒l谋臒谋 gibi nedenlerle sevemedim bu kitab谋. Oysa Kureishi鈥檔in y谋llar 枚nce okudu锟斤拷um The Buddha of Suburbia鈥檚谋 (Varo艧lar谋n Budas谋 olarak dilimize 莽evrilmi艧ti) bomba gibiydi.
Intimacy鈥檔in T眉rk莽e 莽evirisini Everest 2006鈥檇a Yak谋nl谋k ad谋yla basm谋艧, bunca laftan sonra hala varsa ilgilenenlerin dikkatine馃槉.
April 11, 2019
Comprei este livro sem saber nada acerca da sua hist贸ria ou autor, apenas porque gostei da capa e estava a um pre莽o muito apetec铆vel na Feira do Livro de Lisboa do ano passado. Intimidade 茅 um livro relativamente breve, narrado na primeira pessoa por Jay, um homem que parece 脿 beira de um esgotamento no meio de um casamento prestes a ruir.
A rela莽茫o descrita por Jay n茫o parece particularmente destrutiva; mas 茅 aquela liga莽茫o entre duas pessoas que passaram a ser indiferentes uma 脿 outra. Por vezes, Jay demonstra alguns laivos de 贸dio em rela莽茫o 脿 sua mulher, mas o que mais incomoda nesta rela莽茫o 茅 o facto de os 10 anos de vida em comum e os dois filhos parecerem n茫o ter qualquer import芒ncia para este homem. O facto de ser uma narrativa na primeira pessoa pode, eventualmente, enviesar a forma como o leitor olha e avalia a vida do casal, mas n茫o deixa de ser um relato cru e visceral sobre a forma como uma rela莽茫o entre duas pessoas pode ser tudo menos aquilo que se desejaria.
No fundo, Intimidade acaba por ser sobre aquilo que verdadeiramente importa num casamento/rela莽茫o, ao apresentar ao leitor tudo o que n茫o deve ser. Leva a reflex玫es sobre a forma mais profunda de intimidade com algu茅m 鈥� que n茫o tem necessariamente de passar pelo contacto f铆sico 鈥� e na sorte que 茅 encontrarmos algu茅m com quem o sil锚ncio n茫o se torna um inc贸modo. Hanif Kureishi tem aqui ideias bastante boas e uma escrita que me agradou, mas infelizmente n茫o consegui criar grande empatia com o protagonista. Provavelmente, n茫o era suposto, mas mesmo n茫o concordando com as a莽玫es ou pensamentos de uma personagem, penso que 茅 poss铆vel compreend锚-los se o autor arranjar a forma certa de o fazer. Por isso, quanto a mim, Intimidade acaba por falhar nesse aspeto. No entanto, fiquei suficientemente intrigada pela escrita e ideias do autor para querer explorar mais a sua obra.
A rela莽茫o descrita por Jay n茫o parece particularmente destrutiva; mas 茅 aquela liga莽茫o entre duas pessoas que passaram a ser indiferentes uma 脿 outra. Por vezes, Jay demonstra alguns laivos de 贸dio em rela莽茫o 脿 sua mulher, mas o que mais incomoda nesta rela莽茫o 茅 o facto de os 10 anos de vida em comum e os dois filhos parecerem n茫o ter qualquer import芒ncia para este homem. O facto de ser uma narrativa na primeira pessoa pode, eventualmente, enviesar a forma como o leitor olha e avalia a vida do casal, mas n茫o deixa de ser um relato cru e visceral sobre a forma como uma rela莽茫o entre duas pessoas pode ser tudo menos aquilo que se desejaria.
No fundo, Intimidade acaba por ser sobre aquilo que verdadeiramente importa num casamento/rela莽茫o, ao apresentar ao leitor tudo o que n茫o deve ser. Leva a reflex玫es sobre a forma mais profunda de intimidade com algu茅m 鈥� que n茫o tem necessariamente de passar pelo contacto f铆sico 鈥� e na sorte que 茅 encontrarmos algu茅m com quem o sil锚ncio n茫o se torna um inc贸modo. Hanif Kureishi tem aqui ideias bastante boas e uma escrita que me agradou, mas infelizmente n茫o consegui criar grande empatia com o protagonista. Provavelmente, n茫o era suposto, mas mesmo n茫o concordando com as a莽玫es ou pensamentos de uma personagem, penso que 茅 poss铆vel compreend锚-los se o autor arranjar a forma certa de o fazer. Por isso, quanto a mim, Intimidade acaba por falhar nesse aspeto. No entanto, fiquei suficientemente intrigada pela escrita e ideias do autor para querer explorar mais a sua obra.
September 21, 2015
Kureishi at his very best, an excruciating short story about the end of a relationship. Both dreamy and intense and very very sad. Most is made up of a monologue taking place in the narrators head (presumably) but it still is has a very distinct feel of theater drama, I was envisioning every character on stage during reading.
October 8, 2020
A lot of people talking about this books brutal honesty or raw truth. The fact of the matter is there is nothing to the book. Its 150 pages of a man trying to polish a turd and the author thinking he's writing pure gold. Kureishi's protagonist is shallow and acting on base instincts - he's bored and wants to have a carefree life chasing tail. But he tries to wrap his decisions up in much more complex, nuanced emotional states. He falls back on clich茅s and half formed thoughts. Plus all of the women and children in this book are one dimensional and sidelined. Frustrating to read. I told myself I would finish it. You can probably pick up a copy in a charity shop if you still think it's your bag. Don't spend money on this. Kureishi, if you ever happen to read this, save us all the trouble next time and just keep a journal.
March 28, 2017
I have a lot to say so please bare with me .
This is a story of a middle-aged british screenwriter , Jay , who decides to leave his wife and two children & the whole book is actually a dialogue by Jay filled with flashbacks to his own past .
I don't know how to feel about this book .
It's daring ,brutal , hard to read , provocative , the characters , or the protagonist , Jay , is not likeable at all , instead you constantly feel like hitting him . But at the same time , it's compelling , irresistible and incredibly moving .
It makes you stop after each page and question yourself , would you do the same thing if you were Jay ? Is it fair for a person to live a miserable life with a woman he doesn't love ?
Although I hated Jay , but i agree with him in certain points , if you're not happy in a relationship , LEAVE. Because life is too short and if you are going to spend it sacrificing your own well being and happiness for the sake of others , it's your loss , and it's not selfishness , maybe you're better off that way , both of you really .
I loved the structure of the book : going back and forth with flashbacks and reality , at first you'll struggle a little bit to keep up , but only then you'll find yourself understanding his style.
The way he objectified women is irritating , he treated them as if they were only a source of pleasure , a way to please himself and his needs , no more.
I loved how honest he wrote , he could've changed things , added things to make this book more ' socially acceptable' , but he didn't .
Such a powerful exploration into someon's mind : i was so absorbed into his life , thoughts , struggles and acts .
This book was wondeful , I enjoyed every single page of it , but at the same time ,after the ending, I'm left with some unanswered questions and dilemmas , my mind is still processing the end and i don't know if i should feel sorry for Jay or punch him in the face .. I don't know ..
This is a story of a middle-aged british screenwriter , Jay , who decides to leave his wife and two children & the whole book is actually a dialogue by Jay filled with flashbacks to his own past .
I don't know how to feel about this book .
It's daring ,brutal , hard to read , provocative , the characters , or the protagonist , Jay , is not likeable at all , instead you constantly feel like hitting him . But at the same time , it's compelling , irresistible and incredibly moving .
It makes you stop after each page and question yourself , would you do the same thing if you were Jay ? Is it fair for a person to live a miserable life with a woman he doesn't love ?
Although I hated Jay , but i agree with him in certain points , if you're not happy in a relationship , LEAVE. Because life is too short and if you are going to spend it sacrificing your own well being and happiness for the sake of others , it's your loss , and it's not selfishness , maybe you're better off that way , both of you really .
I loved the structure of the book : going back and forth with flashbacks and reality , at first you'll struggle a little bit to keep up , but only then you'll find yourself understanding his style.
The way he objectified women is irritating , he treated them as if they were only a source of pleasure , a way to please himself and his needs , no more.
I loved how honest he wrote , he could've changed things , added things to make this book more ' socially acceptable' , but he didn't .
Such a powerful exploration into someon's mind : i was so absorbed into his life , thoughts , struggles and acts .
This book was wondeful , I enjoyed every single page of it , but at the same time ,after the ending, I'm left with some unanswered questions and dilemmas , my mind is still processing the end and i don't know if i should feel sorry for Jay or punch him in the face .. I don't know ..
December 7, 2017
滨尘辫濒辞蝉颈贸苍
Tremendo comienzo para un libro que no pierde tensi贸n en sus 136 p谩ginas (al menos en la edici贸n que le铆). Es un binge-reading pero yo lo le铆 en varios d铆as merced a ciertos compromisos relacionados finalmente con lo que trata el libro: el matrimonio.
Es imposible que no te pegue si no ten茅s 40 a帽os y cierta experiencia como casado. Miqueridaesposa lo ley贸 antes que yo y me lo recomend贸 diciendo: "Est谩 muy bueno, espero que no te d茅 ideas" - no voy a spoilear nada, simplemente citar la primera oraci贸n: "Es la noche m谩s triste porque me marcho y no volver茅". Y ah铆 empieza un discurrir sobre el matrimonio y el malestar del bienestar que socialmente se considera a una vida realizada al ser un casado con hijos y la relaci贸n idealizada con la libertad perdida contrapesada con dos amigos que son el exacto contrario.
Es una bomba de tiempo que no les voy a decir si estalla o no. Tiene un final muy bueno (inteligente, iba a escribir, pero odio esa palabra como adjetivo para un argumento). Y creo que todos a esta altura ya pensamos lo mismo sobre la monogamia. Tal vez sea el pr贸ximo cambio social a nivel masivo.
En fin, van 4 estrellitas aunque no tiene fisuras, es simplemente porque uno como lector siempre espera un nuevo libro que lo deslumbre para ponerle las 5 estrellitas. Quien sabe, tal vez dentro de unos a帽os me den ganas de sumarle una estrellita m谩s.
Tremendo comienzo para un libro que no pierde tensi贸n en sus 136 p谩ginas (al menos en la edici贸n que le铆). Es un binge-reading pero yo lo le铆 en varios d铆as merced a ciertos compromisos relacionados finalmente con lo que trata el libro: el matrimonio.
Es imposible que no te pegue si no ten茅s 40 a帽os y cierta experiencia como casado. Miqueridaesposa lo ley贸 antes que yo y me lo recomend贸 diciendo: "Est谩 muy bueno, espero que no te d茅 ideas" - no voy a spoilear nada, simplemente citar la primera oraci贸n: "Es la noche m谩s triste porque me marcho y no volver茅". Y ah铆 empieza un discurrir sobre el matrimonio y el malestar del bienestar que socialmente se considera a una vida realizada al ser un casado con hijos y la relaci贸n idealizada con la libertad perdida contrapesada con dos amigos que son el exacto contrario.
Es una bomba de tiempo que no les voy a decir si estalla o no. Tiene un final muy bueno (inteligente, iba a escribir, pero odio esa palabra como adjetivo para un argumento). Y creo que todos a esta altura ya pensamos lo mismo sobre la monogamia. Tal vez sea el pr贸ximo cambio social a nivel masivo.
En fin, van 4 estrellitas aunque no tiene fisuras, es simplemente porque uno como lector siempre espera un nuevo libro que lo deslumbre para ponerle las 5 estrellitas. Quien sabe, tal vez dentro de unos a帽os me den ganas de sumarle una estrellita m谩s.
March 17, 2019
N茫o gostei deste livro.
O tema central 茅 o cl谩ssico tri芒ngulo amoroso. A personagem principal (narrador) 茅 infantil e ego铆sta, e os seus dilemas e mon贸logos interiores soaram-me pouco cred铆veis. 脡 que tenho mesmo muitas d煤vidas que algu茅m se consiga convencer a si pr贸prio com racioc铆nios do tipo dos que nos s茫o apresentados.
A hist贸ria 茅-nos contada de um 煤nico ponto de vista (o do homem) e as personagens femininas s茫o apenas superficialmente caracterizadas, pelo que nos surgem como pouco mais do que objectos.
N茫o achei a escrita particularmente boa, pelo que nem isso foi capaz de me compensar. Estamos muito longe de um Nabokov, por exemplo, capaz de nos oferecer um personagem detest谩vel como em Lolita, mas ao mesmo tempo muito cred铆vel, e por vezes mesmo divertido.
Terminei o livro *spoiler adiante* a pensar que no fim, quem teve mais sorte foi a mulher supostamente enganada, que se viu livre de um in煤til. Fiquei com pena da amante, e ou me engano muito, ou ser谩 ela a pr贸xima a sair de casa. Mais interessante do que este 鈥淚ntimidade鈥�, seria talvez ler o o que ela teria a escrever sobre o assunto...
O tema central 茅 o cl谩ssico tri芒ngulo amoroso. A personagem principal (narrador) 茅 infantil e ego铆sta, e os seus dilemas e mon贸logos interiores soaram-me pouco cred铆veis. 脡 que tenho mesmo muitas d煤vidas que algu茅m se consiga convencer a si pr贸prio com racioc铆nios do tipo dos que nos s茫o apresentados.
A hist贸ria 茅-nos contada de um 煤nico ponto de vista (o do homem) e as personagens femininas s茫o apenas superficialmente caracterizadas, pelo que nos surgem como pouco mais do que objectos.
N茫o achei a escrita particularmente boa, pelo que nem isso foi capaz de me compensar. Estamos muito longe de um Nabokov, por exemplo, capaz de nos oferecer um personagem detest谩vel como em Lolita, mas ao mesmo tempo muito cred铆vel, e por vezes mesmo divertido.
Terminei o livro *spoiler adiante* a pensar que no fim, quem teve mais sorte foi a mulher supostamente enganada, que se viu livre de um in煤til. Fiquei com pena da amante, e ou me engano muito, ou ser谩 ela a pr贸xima a sair de casa. Mais interessante do que este 鈥淚ntimidade鈥�, seria talvez ler o o que ela teria a escrever sobre o assunto...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 620 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.