What do you think?
Rate this book
Judas
«Amos Oz narra en Judas las grandes preguntas y conflictos de la historia y de la religión en Oriente Próximo».
Judas, el regreso de Amos Oz a la novela, género que no había frecuentado desde Una historia de amor y oscuridad, plantea una audaz y novedosa interpretación de la figura de Judas Iscariote en el contexto de una angustiosa y delicada historia de amor.
En el invierno de 1959, el mundo del joven Shmuel Ash se viene abajo: su novia lo abandona, sus padres se arruinan y él se ve obligado a dejar sus estudios en la universidad. En ese momento desesperado, encuentra refugio y trabajo en una vieja casa de piedra de Jerusalén, donde deberá hacer compañía y conversar con un anciano inválido y sarcástico. A su llegada, una atractiva mujer llamada Atalia advertirá a Shmuel de que no se enamore de ella; ese ha sido el motivo de la expulsión de sus predecesores. En la aparente rutina que se crea en la casa, el tímido Shmuel siente una progresiva agitación causada, en parte, por el deseo y la curiosidad que Atalia le provoca. También retoma su investigación sobre la imagen de Jesús para los judíos, y la misteriosa y maldita figura de Judas Iscariote, la supuesta encarnación de la traición y la mezquindad, va absorbiéndole sin remedio.
Judas, el regreso de Amos Oz a la novela, género que no había frecuentado desde Una historia de amor y oscuridad, plantea una audaz y novedosa interpretación de la figura de Judas Iscariote en el contexto de una angustiosa y delicada historia de amor.
En el invierno de 1959, el mundo del joven Shmuel Ash se viene abajo: su novia lo abandona, sus padres se arruinan y él se ve obligado a dejar sus estudios en la universidad. En ese momento desesperado, encuentra refugio y trabajo en una vieja casa de piedra de Jerusalén, donde deberá hacer compañía y conversar con un anciano inválido y sarcástico. A su llegada, una atractiva mujer llamada Atalia advertirá a Shmuel de que no se enamore de ella; ese ha sido el motivo de la expulsión de sus predecesores. En la aparente rutina que se crea en la casa, el tímido Shmuel siente una progresiva agitación causada, en parte, por el deseo y la curiosidad que Atalia le provoca. También retoma su investigación sobre la imagen de Jesús para los judíos, y la misteriosa y maldita figura de Judas Iscariote, la supuesta encarnación de la traición y la mezquindad, va absorbiéndole sin remedio.
303 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2014
952 people are currently reading
7,643 people want to read
About the author
Amos Oz
167books1,609followersAmos Oz (Hebrew: עמוס עוז�; born Amos Klausner) was an Israeli writer, novelist, journalist and intellectual. He was also a professor of literature at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba. He was regarded as Israel's most famous living author.
Oz's work has been published in 42 languages in 43 countries, and has received many honours and awards, among them the Legion of Honour of France, the Goethe Prize, the Prince of Asturias Award in Literature, the Heinrich Heine Prize and the Israel Prize. In 2007, a selection from the Chinese translation of A Tale of Love and Darkness was the first work of modern Hebrew literature to appear in an official Chinese textbook.
Since 1967, Oz had been a prominent advocate of a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Oz's work has been published in 42 languages in 43 countries, and has received many honours and awards, among them the Legion of Honour of France, the Goethe Prize, the Prince of Asturias Award in Literature, the Heinrich Heine Prize and the Israel Prize. In 2007, a selection from the Chinese translation of A Tale of Love and Darkness was the first work of modern Hebrew literature to appear in an official Chinese textbook.
Since 1967, Oz had been a prominent advocate of a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,105 reviews
June 9, 2017
Little did I imagine when I was around 30% into the novel that I would award it 4* since I was seriously considering to putt up my hands up and surrender any hope to enjoy this novel. The main character annoyed me to no end and I wanted to slap his laziness out of him. Still, the writing slowly grew on me and the ideas put forward made me ponder and discuss them with my father who is a world politics enthusiast. I still did not feel too much sympathy for the main character at the end, so not change there.
Ok, I’ll get serious now. Schmuel Ash is given three major blows by fate, which were more or less his doing. His father losses his business and cannot finance Schmuel’s studies anymore, his girlfriend leaves him to marry another man and he gives up on his studies. In order to support himself he gets hired by a mature woman, Atalja, to offer company for a few hours per day to an old crippled man in exchange for home, food and a small salary.
For me, the whole setting is only a pretext to discuss the idea of loyalty and treason. Amos Oz chooses two important and controversial examples to illustrate his thesis that loyalty can be disguised as treason. Schmuel studied religion and his abandoned thesis was named Jesus in the Eyes of the Jews (or something like that). From his research, one idea is borne, namely that Judas was the first real Christian because if Jesus hadn’t been crucified and resurrected Christianity would not have existed. The 2nd subject of discussion comes from the identity of Atalja father, a politician who was consider a traitor because he considered that the use of force was not necessary during the creation of the state of Israel and that a compromise could have been reached with the Arabs. These two major themes, and more, are discussed between the three characters and the merit of the novel is that it made me wonder if there is some truth in these beliefs. In addition, I learned interesting facts about Israel’s history and politics regarding which I am looking forward to expand my knowledge.
The appearance of a plot was given by the unshared love Schmuel begins to nurture for Atalja and his efforts to win her affection. Without it the book would probably resemble more to an essay, however an interesting one.
I believe this novel has chances to win the Booker prize and I would not mind if it did.
Ok, I’ll get serious now. Schmuel Ash is given three major blows by fate, which were more or less his doing. His father losses his business and cannot finance Schmuel’s studies anymore, his girlfriend leaves him to marry another man and he gives up on his studies. In order to support himself he gets hired by a mature woman, Atalja, to offer company for a few hours per day to an old crippled man in exchange for home, food and a small salary.
For me, the whole setting is only a pretext to discuss the idea of loyalty and treason. Amos Oz chooses two important and controversial examples to illustrate his thesis that loyalty can be disguised as treason. Schmuel studied religion and his abandoned thesis was named Jesus in the Eyes of the Jews (or something like that). From his research, one idea is borne, namely that Judas was the first real Christian because if Jesus hadn’t been crucified and resurrected Christianity would not have existed. The 2nd subject of discussion comes from the identity of Atalja father, a politician who was consider a traitor because he considered that the use of force was not necessary during the creation of the state of Israel and that a compromise could have been reached with the Arabs. These two major themes, and more, are discussed between the three characters and the merit of the novel is that it made me wonder if there is some truth in these beliefs. In addition, I learned interesting facts about Israel’s history and politics regarding which I am looking forward to expand my knowledge.
The appearance of a plot was given by the unshared love Schmuel begins to nurture for Atalja and his efforts to win her affection. Without it the book would probably resemble more to an essay, however an interesting one.
I believe this novel has chances to win the Booker prize and I would not mind if it did.
October 14, 2023
Un roman foarte bun. Pe lîngă discuția cu privire la rolul lui Iuda, romanul cuprinde și o poveste de iubire. Studentul Shmuel Asch se îndrăgostește de Atalia Abarbanel, gazda lui. El are vreo 25 de ani, femeia 45. Nu prea se potrivesc. El este un expansiv cu idealuri socialiste, vrea să modifice lumea, femeia e o statuie a discreției și reținerii.
Atalia e ăîԲ, cum o numește Gershom Wald, un alt chiriaș. Ea dictează regulile, ea judecă, ea pronunță sentința, casa este a ei. Atalia reprezintă o frumusețe distantă și, totuși, echivocă, atrage, îmbie, amețește, și, în același timp, îi ține la mare distanță pe admiratori. Shmuel Asch înțelege că nu va putea obține nimic, deși femeia pare a-i făgădui mereu și mereu totul. Amos Oz (1939 - 2018) creează astfel o tensiune insuportabilă. Vă las să ghiciți singuri deznodămîntul.
Î Iuda, am găsit unul dintre cele mai frumoase începuturi de roman: „Iată o poveste petrecută în ultimele zile de iarnă ale anului 1959 și în primele zile ale anului 1960. E o poveste încărcată de erori, pasiuni și dezamăgiri, ce ridică însă și o problemă religioasă rămasă încă nerezolvată� (p.9).
Problema religioasă se referă, firește, la gestul lui Iuda: L-a trădat pe Iisus fiindcă a fost constrîns de un scenariu preexistent? A acționat liber? Eu cred că da și mai cred că nu e locul aici să-mi argumentez părerea. Găsiți mai multe răspunsuri subtile în cartea lui Amos Oz...
Atalia e ăîԲ, cum o numește Gershom Wald, un alt chiriaș. Ea dictează regulile, ea judecă, ea pronunță sentința, casa este a ei. Atalia reprezintă o frumusețe distantă și, totuși, echivocă, atrage, îmbie, amețește, și, în același timp, îi ține la mare distanță pe admiratori. Shmuel Asch înțelege că nu va putea obține nimic, deși femeia pare a-i făgădui mereu și mereu totul. Amos Oz (1939 - 2018) creează astfel o tensiune insuportabilă. Vă las să ghiciți singuri deznodămîntul.
Î Iuda, am găsit unul dintre cele mai frumoase începuturi de roman: „Iată o poveste petrecută în ultimele zile de iarnă ale anului 1959 și în primele zile ale anului 1960. E o poveste încărcată de erori, pasiuni și dezamăgiri, ce ridică însă și o problemă religioasă rămasă încă nerezolvată� (p.9).
Problema religioasă se referă, firește, la gestul lui Iuda: L-a trădat pe Iisus fiindcă a fost constrîns de un scenariu preexistent? A acționat liber? Eu cred că da și mai cred că nu e locul aici să-mi argumentez părerea. Găsiți mai multe răspunsuri subtile în cartea lui Amos Oz...
September 18, 2017
I can't remember the last time spending so much time with a book --- and I'm not done yet.
I'm preparing for a serious die-hard discussion coming up at my temple. I've listened to the audiobook, have read the ebook, and will get a copy of the physical book to examine soon too. By the time my book club meets -I'll have read this book 3 times.
The more I research this book's topics - themes - and Amos Oz's personal political-and religious point of views - mixed with the realities that Israel was established a Jewish state in 1948. (David Ben-Gurion became Israel's first premier)......the more 'uncertain' I become on my own views.
The time period in which Amos Oz set this story is worthy of discussion itself -late 50's to early 60's. The Arab-Israeli conflict- six Day War of 1967 was just around the corner.
It doesn't particularly take strenuous effort to read this book - but where it can be fatiguing is in the grappling with the puzzling questions addressed regarding betrayal, theology, anti-Semitism, Zionism, religion, history, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The humor -and the personal Intimate side between the characters -- was a great balance when exploring Jewish-Christian philosophy- thoughts - beliefs -bigotry -and debates.
The two questions that most stand out for me from this novel are:
......was the State of Israel � in 1948 as a Jewish state - a mistake?
......And in the end....who was the traitor?
The three main characters - Shmuel Ash, Atalia Abrahanel, Gershom Wald, and 4th ghost character --Shealtiel Abravanel.......either young and reserved, sensuous and mysterious, old, opinionated and outspoken, a hero or a villain, each of the characters - as we slowly get to know them, we come to learn their own personal struggle with violence with association to Israel.
The writing and storytelling are both equally wonderful - informative-complex and thought provoking.
Grab some tea and biscuits- as there is an abundance throughout this story - might as well join in -- and do not forget to feed your fish!
However-- don't think Bella is coming over to do your laundry!
NO VISITORS ALLOWED WHEN TAKING YOUR TURN TO READ THIS BOOK --enjoy your solitude! Shmuel sure 'tried'.
For a girl who resisted reading this book for a long time - Its probably the first book I've read that has 'shaken' my thinking about Israel in a long time. I have a lot of respect for Amos Oz and the questions he created with this novel.
I'm preparing for a serious die-hard discussion coming up at my temple. I've listened to the audiobook, have read the ebook, and will get a copy of the physical book to examine soon too. By the time my book club meets -I'll have read this book 3 times.
The more I research this book's topics - themes - and Amos Oz's personal political-and religious point of views - mixed with the realities that Israel was established a Jewish state in 1948. (David Ben-Gurion became Israel's first premier)......the more 'uncertain' I become on my own views.
The time period in which Amos Oz set this story is worthy of discussion itself -late 50's to early 60's. The Arab-Israeli conflict- six Day War of 1967 was just around the corner.
It doesn't particularly take strenuous effort to read this book - but where it can be fatiguing is in the grappling with the puzzling questions addressed regarding betrayal, theology, anti-Semitism, Zionism, religion, history, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The humor -and the personal Intimate side between the characters -- was a great balance when exploring Jewish-Christian philosophy- thoughts - beliefs -bigotry -and debates.
The two questions that most stand out for me from this novel are:
......was the State of Israel � in 1948 as a Jewish state - a mistake?
......And in the end....who was the traitor?
The three main characters - Shmuel Ash, Atalia Abrahanel, Gershom Wald, and 4th ghost character --Shealtiel Abravanel.......either young and reserved, sensuous and mysterious, old, opinionated and outspoken, a hero or a villain, each of the characters - as we slowly get to know them, we come to learn their own personal struggle with violence with association to Israel.
The writing and storytelling are both equally wonderful - informative-complex and thought provoking.
Grab some tea and biscuits- as there is an abundance throughout this story - might as well join in -- and do not forget to feed your fish!
However-- don't think Bella is coming over to do your laundry!
NO VISITORS ALLOWED WHEN TAKING YOUR TURN TO READ THIS BOOK --enjoy your solitude! Shmuel sure 'tried'.
For a girl who resisted reading this book for a long time - Its probably the first book I've read that has 'shaken' my thinking about Israel in a long time. I have a lot of respect for Amos Oz and the questions he created with this novel.
August 9, 2023
GESÙ IN PROSPETTIVA EBRAICA
Giuda bacia Gesù di modo che i soldati possano riconoscerlo e arrestarlo. Ma Gesù era ben noto a Gerusalemme, aveva già fatto la sua “piazzata� nel tempio, i soldati lo conoscevano, non avevano certo bisogno dell’aiuto di Giuda (Caravaggio: Cattura di Cristo nell’orto, 1602).
Questo è il commiato narrativo di Amos Oz, il suo ultimo romanzo, pubblicato quattro prima della morte.
È ambientato a Gerusalemme nell’inverno 1959-60, e sono ancora ben visibili i segni del 1948, la guerra con gli arabi, o, secondo i punti di vista, la guerra d’indipendenza: la città è divisa, ci sono ancora cecchini che sparano, sia sul lato giordano che su quello israeliano.
Shemuel ha quasi venticinque anni. La fidanzata lo lascia per sposarsi con il ragazzo di prima, e lui digerisce molto male notizia e fatto. La ditta del padre fallisce e i suoi non possono più mantenerlo agli studi. Shemuel decide li lasciare l’università e cercarsi un lavoro. Ma non vuole tornare a casa (Haifa), preferisce restare a Gerusalemme. Caso mai trasferirsi nel deserto dove stanno costruendo una nuova città.
Il pagamento dei trenta denari, la ricompensa per il tradimento. Trattasi di cifra molto modesta anche a quell’epoca. E Giuda era l’unico ricco dei discepoli, non aveva certo bisogno di trenta miseri denari (Gerard Seghers).
Gesù in prospettiva ebraica è il titolo della tesi che ha scelto per laurearsi.
Shemuel � che arreda la sua mansarda con foto-poster dei barbudos rivoluzionari cubani (per la cronaca, in tutte le foto passate ai posteri non compare mai neppure un “nero�. Eppure Cuba ne è piena, sono la maggioranza della popolazione) ed è membro attivo di una piccola organizzazione socialista � accetta un curioso lavoro: per qualche ora al giorno fare compagnia, con chiacchiere e letture, a un anziano invalido, che è comunque autosufficiente, in cambio di vitto e alloggio e un modesto stipendio. Anche gli orari di lavoro sono inusuali: inizio alle cinque del pomeriggio, termine verso le undici di sera.
In casa c’� solo l’anziano e una donna di mezz’età, decisamente affascinante e misteriosa, che si scopre essere la nuora del vecchio, vedova ormai da tempo. Atalia dimostra la sua età nelle mani, ma il viso e il resto del corpo appaiono ben più giovani. Ecco come la descrive il suocero:
Ci sono stati tre o quattro ragazzi prima di te, a farmi compagnia. Quasi tutti si sono innamorati e di uno o due lei deve avere avuto pietà per un paio di notti. Poi li ha spediti via. Alla fine tutti se ne sono andati di qui con il cuore spezzato. Ma mica per colpa sua. Davvero no. Non si può incolpare lei. Lei ha una specie di freddezza calda, un distacco che vi risucchia come le falene con la luce della lampada. Mi dispiace per te a volte. Perché sei ancora un bambino, tu.
Giotto: Il bacio di Giuda.
Come il titolo del romanzo e quello della tesi di Shemuel lasciano presagire, c’� un secondo livello narrativo: seguendo Shemuel nei suoi studi e nelle sue ricerche, ci immergiamo nelle varie interpretazioni ebraiche di Gesù e del suo discepolo Giuda. Ho trovato il capitolo in sottofinale che racconta come Oz immagina gli ultimi giorni di Gesù e di Giuda carico di intensità e umanità al punto da trasmettere lo strazio dei chiodi sulla croce e quella lenta agonia sotto il sole.
Il secondo filo narrativo si intreccia al primo in modo magistrale, non c’� distanza men che meno separazione.
E dato l’argomento, non si può dire che il romanzo non ruota intorno al tradimento: quello di Giuda (se davvero c’� stato), quello di Gesù (e anche qui dubbi sulla sua esistenza), quello di dio, padre che abbandona il figlio. Oppure quello di uno stato nato dalla violenza e dall’occupazione, che tradisce il vero spirito sionista. Oppure quello di un figlio e di uno sposo, che pur avendo una condizione fisica e un’età che gli permettevano di evitare la prima linea, va a farsi massacrare dal nemico. O ancora, quello di un padre che per tutta la vita insegue un sogno e trascura la bimba che gli cresce accanto (Atalia).
Giuda è il secondo alla dx di Gesù, stringe la borsa con i soldi, si allontana all’indietro con aria colpevole e nell’agitazione rovescia la saliera. (Leonardo da Vinci: Ultima cena, 1498).
Noi ci raccontiamo che siamo venuti in terra d’Israele solo per costruire ed essere costruiti, per ripristinare i nostri giorni, come dice la Bibbia, per riscattare l’eredità dei nostri progenitori ecc., ma me lo dica lei se c’� al mondo un popolo che avrebbe accolto a braccia aperte un’invasione repentina di centinaia di migliaia di sconosciuti, e poi anche milioni, piombati qui da lontano con la bizzarra pretesa che i loro testi sacri che si sono portati dietro così da lontano promettono a loro e solo a loro tutta la terra.
Fernando Botero: Il bacio di Giuda (2010).
Giuda bacia Gesù di modo che i soldati possano riconoscerlo e arrestarlo. Ma Gesù era ben noto a Gerusalemme, aveva già fatto la sua “piazzata� nel tempio, i soldati lo conoscevano, non avevano certo bisogno dell’aiuto di Giuda (Caravaggio: Cattura di Cristo nell’orto, 1602).
Questo è il commiato narrativo di Amos Oz, il suo ultimo romanzo, pubblicato quattro prima della morte.
È ambientato a Gerusalemme nell’inverno 1959-60, e sono ancora ben visibili i segni del 1948, la guerra con gli arabi, o, secondo i punti di vista, la guerra d’indipendenza: la città è divisa, ci sono ancora cecchini che sparano, sia sul lato giordano che su quello israeliano.
Shemuel ha quasi venticinque anni. La fidanzata lo lascia per sposarsi con il ragazzo di prima, e lui digerisce molto male notizia e fatto. La ditta del padre fallisce e i suoi non possono più mantenerlo agli studi. Shemuel decide li lasciare l’università e cercarsi un lavoro. Ma non vuole tornare a casa (Haifa), preferisce restare a Gerusalemme. Caso mai trasferirsi nel deserto dove stanno costruendo una nuova città.
Il pagamento dei trenta denari, la ricompensa per il tradimento. Trattasi di cifra molto modesta anche a quell’epoca. E Giuda era l’unico ricco dei discepoli, non aveva certo bisogno di trenta miseri denari (Gerard Seghers).
Gesù in prospettiva ebraica è il titolo della tesi che ha scelto per laurearsi.
Shemuel � che arreda la sua mansarda con foto-poster dei barbudos rivoluzionari cubani (per la cronaca, in tutte le foto passate ai posteri non compare mai neppure un “nero�. Eppure Cuba ne è piena, sono la maggioranza della popolazione) ed è membro attivo di una piccola organizzazione socialista � accetta un curioso lavoro: per qualche ora al giorno fare compagnia, con chiacchiere e letture, a un anziano invalido, che è comunque autosufficiente, in cambio di vitto e alloggio e un modesto stipendio. Anche gli orari di lavoro sono inusuali: inizio alle cinque del pomeriggio, termine verso le undici di sera.
In casa c’� solo l’anziano e una donna di mezz’età, decisamente affascinante e misteriosa, che si scopre essere la nuora del vecchio, vedova ormai da tempo. Atalia dimostra la sua età nelle mani, ma il viso e il resto del corpo appaiono ben più giovani. Ecco come la descrive il suocero:
Ci sono stati tre o quattro ragazzi prima di te, a farmi compagnia. Quasi tutti si sono innamorati e di uno o due lei deve avere avuto pietà per un paio di notti. Poi li ha spediti via. Alla fine tutti se ne sono andati di qui con il cuore spezzato. Ma mica per colpa sua. Davvero no. Non si può incolpare lei. Lei ha una specie di freddezza calda, un distacco che vi risucchia come le falene con la luce della lampada. Mi dispiace per te a volte. Perché sei ancora un bambino, tu.
Giotto: Il bacio di Giuda.
Come il titolo del romanzo e quello della tesi di Shemuel lasciano presagire, c’� un secondo livello narrativo: seguendo Shemuel nei suoi studi e nelle sue ricerche, ci immergiamo nelle varie interpretazioni ebraiche di Gesù e del suo discepolo Giuda. Ho trovato il capitolo in sottofinale che racconta come Oz immagina gli ultimi giorni di Gesù e di Giuda carico di intensità e umanità al punto da trasmettere lo strazio dei chiodi sulla croce e quella lenta agonia sotto il sole.
Il secondo filo narrativo si intreccia al primo in modo magistrale, non c’� distanza men che meno separazione.
E dato l’argomento, non si può dire che il romanzo non ruota intorno al tradimento: quello di Giuda (se davvero c’� stato), quello di Gesù (e anche qui dubbi sulla sua esistenza), quello di dio, padre che abbandona il figlio. Oppure quello di uno stato nato dalla violenza e dall’occupazione, che tradisce il vero spirito sionista. Oppure quello di un figlio e di uno sposo, che pur avendo una condizione fisica e un’età che gli permettevano di evitare la prima linea, va a farsi massacrare dal nemico. O ancora, quello di un padre che per tutta la vita insegue un sogno e trascura la bimba che gli cresce accanto (Atalia).
Giuda è il secondo alla dx di Gesù, stringe la borsa con i soldi, si allontana all’indietro con aria colpevole e nell’agitazione rovescia la saliera. (Leonardo da Vinci: Ultima cena, 1498).
Noi ci raccontiamo che siamo venuti in terra d’Israele solo per costruire ed essere costruiti, per ripristinare i nostri giorni, come dice la Bibbia, per riscattare l’eredità dei nostri progenitori ecc., ma me lo dica lei se c’� al mondo un popolo che avrebbe accolto a braccia aperte un’invasione repentina di centinaia di migliaia di sconosciuti, e poi anche milioni, piombati qui da lontano con la bizzarra pretesa che i loro testi sacri che si sono portati dietro così da lontano promettono a loro e solo a loro tutta la terra.
Fernando Botero: Il bacio di Giuda (2010).
November 19, 2016
3.5 stars
This is my first book by this prolific author, who I have known about for many years, but never took the opportunity to read until now. The book is complex in some ways and I found multiple levels here - political, religious, and for me mostly the emotional level. In looking at some biographical material, it appears that Oz is not only prolific but political and not without his critics in standing for a two state solution to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. The intellectual, religious aspect of the book is depicted as the main character, a young man has just abandoned his research on the Jewish view of Jesus. Consequently, there are parts of the book that discuss his view of whether Judas was a traitor or whether by betraying Jesus , "there would have been no Christianity." The political/religious aspect was covered in the story of one of the character's father and whether he was a traitor in favoring a two state solution. So is it about the question of whether a traitor is really a traitor, about loyalty? All of this, in all honesty is just a bit too heady for me. However, there are things that drew me into the book. It did not feel like a translation in any way. There are wonderful descriptions and lovely writing in general and I found the three main characters appealing, wanting to know more about them and how they would end up.
Shmuel Ash, 25 , has lost the financial help he received from his parents after their bankruptcy. He has lost his girlfriend who married her former boyfriend and lost his enthusiasm for his research and in some ways it seems he's lost himself. He takes a job as a care giver to an disabled man and his main responsibility is to keep the man company and converse with him in the evening. Gershom Wald, too suffers a loss - his son in 1948 in the Arab-Israeli war. While Ash is trying to escape what life has dealt him , to be away from it all , he finds a lonely life until he is attracted to Atalia Abravanel, widow of Wald's son , 20 years his senior. There as I mentioned above a lot going on here on an introspective, intellectual level, but for me the meaning of the story was about loss and loneliness and the connections that Shmuel makes with Atalia and Gershom.
There are several reviews in major publications that will give a more in depth analysis on what Oz was perhaps trying to do here and for anyone interested I suggest you look for those . From my perspective, I'm glad I read this for the writing and the poignant moments of connections between the characters.
I received an ARC of this book from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt through Edelweiss,
This is my first book by this prolific author, who I have known about for many years, but never took the opportunity to read until now. The book is complex in some ways and I found multiple levels here - political, religious, and for me mostly the emotional level. In looking at some biographical material, it appears that Oz is not only prolific but political and not without his critics in standing for a two state solution to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. The intellectual, religious aspect of the book is depicted as the main character, a young man has just abandoned his research on the Jewish view of Jesus. Consequently, there are parts of the book that discuss his view of whether Judas was a traitor or whether by betraying Jesus , "there would have been no Christianity." The political/religious aspect was covered in the story of one of the character's father and whether he was a traitor in favoring a two state solution. So is it about the question of whether a traitor is really a traitor, about loyalty? All of this, in all honesty is just a bit too heady for me. However, there are things that drew me into the book. It did not feel like a translation in any way. There are wonderful descriptions and lovely writing in general and I found the three main characters appealing, wanting to know more about them and how they would end up.
Shmuel Ash, 25 , has lost the financial help he received from his parents after their bankruptcy. He has lost his girlfriend who married her former boyfriend and lost his enthusiasm for his research and in some ways it seems he's lost himself. He takes a job as a care giver to an disabled man and his main responsibility is to keep the man company and converse with him in the evening. Gershom Wald, too suffers a loss - his son in 1948 in the Arab-Israeli war. While Ash is trying to escape what life has dealt him , to be away from it all , he finds a lonely life until he is attracted to Atalia Abravanel, widow of Wald's son , 20 years his senior. There as I mentioned above a lot going on here on an introspective, intellectual level, but for me the meaning of the story was about loss and loneliness and the connections that Shmuel makes with Atalia and Gershom.
There are several reviews in major publications that will give a more in depth analysis on what Oz was perhaps trying to do here and for anyone interested I suggest you look for those . From my perspective, I'm glad I read this for the writing and the poignant moments of connections between the characters.
I received an ARC of this book from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt through Edelweiss,
October 7, 2022
This is a story focused on a young single man (Shmuel, he's 25) who is working on a doctoral thesis while living in Jerusalem. His research is about Jewish views of Jesus and Judas. His schooling is interrupted because his father's previously prosperous business suffered financial losses.
Shmuel is kind of heavy, a bit slow moving and not too good looking. He talks way too much. He takes in stray kittens and feels he has an unmanly tendency to weep at sad movies. He had been in a Marxist group that split up into factions and dissolved in chaos. (Apparently a hazard of the trade - I think of The Real Life of Alejandro Mayta by Vargas Llosa that focused a lot on the inability of Marxist/communist/socialist groups in Latin America to accomplish anything because of all the in-fighting and the continuous expelling of members and creation of new splinter groups.)
Here’s a passage where the author introduces the main character and it gives us a look at his writing style:
“At eleven years old Shmuel was a thin, slightly stooped child, with big staring eyes, matchstick legs, and knees that were always scratched. It was years later, when he finished his military service, that he grew his tousled mane of hair and the caveman beard that hid his long, narrow face. He disliked the mane, the beard, and the childish face underneath, but he felt that the wild beard concealed something a man should be ashamed of.�
The young man gets a job as a caretaker/reader/listener for an elderly man who is ill. It takes Shmuel a while to figure out who the beautiful 30-ish woman is who lives in the house with the elderly man and what their relationship is.
They are both mysterious and the woman tells him, in effect, ‘You'll see other things going on; just ignore them and stay in your room.� He’s also sworn to secrecy. For what? They all appear to lead pretty dull lives.
Of course some romantic tension develops between Shmuel and the woman but he’s cautious because he knows he’s simply the latest of several young men who held this position before him. What happened to them?
Mostly the young man listens to the old man expound on philosophical issues and the tremendous political complexities of the state of Israel. The young man discusses his research on what Jews think of Jesus. There’s almost enough of his research explained, citing books and authors, that the novel takes on an academic tone at times. We read, for example that one authority describes Jesus as “…an out and out Jew, who kept the commandments and never intended to found a new religion or to be considered divine, and it was only after his death that Christianity arose and distorted his image for its own needs and elevated him to the rank of a deity.�
We are told that wrings by Jews on Jesus range from mockery to deep religious arguments and that Jews avoided translating a lot of their best works on the subject into European languages in pre-modern times because they feared these works falling into Christian hands. However, they were willing to have these works translated into Arabic because they felt it helped them somewhat to make common cause with Islamic cultures against Christianity.
All in all I liked the story, Oz’s good writing, and I enjoyed learning some things about Jewish culture and about Israel’s history. I’ve read several novels by Amos Oz now and enjoyed all of them.
ŷ says the author, while living (1938-2018), was Israel’s ‘most famous living author.� His 40 novels, short story collections, and children’s books were translated into 45 languages. All his novels appear to be available in English. His best-known book in English is A Tale of Love and Darkness. I read his novel Rhyming Life and Death and gave it a �5.�
Top photo of Jerusalem from misstourist.com
The author from theguardian.com
Shmuel is kind of heavy, a bit slow moving and not too good looking. He talks way too much. He takes in stray kittens and feels he has an unmanly tendency to weep at sad movies. He had been in a Marxist group that split up into factions and dissolved in chaos. (Apparently a hazard of the trade - I think of The Real Life of Alejandro Mayta by Vargas Llosa that focused a lot on the inability of Marxist/communist/socialist groups in Latin America to accomplish anything because of all the in-fighting and the continuous expelling of members and creation of new splinter groups.)
Here’s a passage where the author introduces the main character and it gives us a look at his writing style:
“At eleven years old Shmuel was a thin, slightly stooped child, with big staring eyes, matchstick legs, and knees that were always scratched. It was years later, when he finished his military service, that he grew his tousled mane of hair and the caveman beard that hid his long, narrow face. He disliked the mane, the beard, and the childish face underneath, but he felt that the wild beard concealed something a man should be ashamed of.�
The young man gets a job as a caretaker/reader/listener for an elderly man who is ill. It takes Shmuel a while to figure out who the beautiful 30-ish woman is who lives in the house with the elderly man and what their relationship is.
They are both mysterious and the woman tells him, in effect, ‘You'll see other things going on; just ignore them and stay in your room.� He’s also sworn to secrecy. For what? They all appear to lead pretty dull lives.
Of course some romantic tension develops between Shmuel and the woman but he’s cautious because he knows he’s simply the latest of several young men who held this position before him. What happened to them?
Mostly the young man listens to the old man expound on philosophical issues and the tremendous political complexities of the state of Israel. The young man discusses his research on what Jews think of Jesus. There’s almost enough of his research explained, citing books and authors, that the novel takes on an academic tone at times. We read, for example that one authority describes Jesus as “…an out and out Jew, who kept the commandments and never intended to found a new religion or to be considered divine, and it was only after his death that Christianity arose and distorted his image for its own needs and elevated him to the rank of a deity.�
We are told that wrings by Jews on Jesus range from mockery to deep religious arguments and that Jews avoided translating a lot of their best works on the subject into European languages in pre-modern times because they feared these works falling into Christian hands. However, they were willing to have these works translated into Arabic because they felt it helped them somewhat to make common cause with Islamic cultures against Christianity.
All in all I liked the story, Oz’s good writing, and I enjoyed learning some things about Jewish culture and about Israel’s history. I’ve read several novels by Amos Oz now and enjoyed all of them.
ŷ says the author, while living (1938-2018), was Israel’s ‘most famous living author.� His 40 novels, short story collections, and children’s books were translated into 45 languages. All his novels appear to be available in English. His best-known book in English is A Tale of Love and Darkness. I read his novel Rhyming Life and Death and gave it a �5.�
Top photo of Jerusalem from misstourist.com
The author from theguardian.com
April 25, 2017
This is the third outstanding work I’ve read by an Israeli in as many weeks, and I find myself falling under a spell of admiration again for a culture that fights back against the worst aspects of itself, interrogates itself relentlessly, and creates humor around the morose recognition of man’s fallibility. Into a novel describing three generations living together in Jerusalem in a small house, Amos Oz weaves history, religion, politics, and leadership into a meditation on the why and how of Jewishness and the concept of a Jewish state.
Not for a moment do we believe the characters have a life beyond that of describing a conflict. The generous nature of Oz’s characters make us willing to suspend judgment and place our trust in his hands awhile, to hear what he has to say. In our modern world one is rarely willing or able to hear an opposite view, but this seems a safe place to examine ideas. In a , Oz speaks of this novel as a piece of chamber music. A grouping of voices influence one another, each different than the other, three generations of Jews in Israel.
The time is late 1950s or early 1960s. A student Shmuel has found his thesis, “Jewish Views of Jesus,� not as unique as he’d imagined and less interesting than something he'd bumped up against in research: “Christian Views of Judas.� Shmuel discovers that without the traitor Judas Iscariot, there would be no Christianity. Jesus and his apostles were all Jews. Without the crucifixion, there would have been no rift in beliefs.
Needing to ponder this theory further, Shmuel has left his thesis unfinished and has taken a job as evening companion to learned old Gershom Wald in exchange for room and board. The old man spends his days arguing vociferously with friends and enemies, and is a strong supporter of David ben-Gurion’s Zionism. Wald’s daughter-in-law Aitalia holds an opposite and more radical view that reflects her own father, Shealtiel Abravanel’s opinion that the concept of nation states and ownership of land and resources is a faulty one.
Oz makes no secret of his own opinions in interviews, but in this work he makes us puzzle it all out. He gives us the old conundrums in new ways, making us want to take them up again for examination. We question everything from the ground up. This work reminds me why I love literature: Oz is able to layer complex motivations onto history and take a stab at trying to explain what man is and what we should expect of him.
The translation of this work into English by Nicholas de Lange from the Hebrew is especially easy to enjoy. The Blackstone audio production is excellent, the work narrated on ten discs (11 hours) by Jonathan Davis. The hardcover published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt is useful to return to some ideas. Though the novel is not difficult to read, the ideas challenge readers and may require a second or third look to tie the threads together. This is great stuff. Oz is seventy-seven years old. He should be proud of himself, and we should be grateful.
Not for a moment do we believe the characters have a life beyond that of describing a conflict. The generous nature of Oz’s characters make us willing to suspend judgment and place our trust in his hands awhile, to hear what he has to say. In our modern world one is rarely willing or able to hear an opposite view, but this seems a safe place to examine ideas. In a , Oz speaks of this novel as a piece of chamber music. A grouping of voices influence one another, each different than the other, three generations of Jews in Israel.
The time is late 1950s or early 1960s. A student Shmuel has found his thesis, “Jewish Views of Jesus,� not as unique as he’d imagined and less interesting than something he'd bumped up against in research: “Christian Views of Judas.� Shmuel discovers that without the traitor Judas Iscariot, there would be no Christianity. Jesus and his apostles were all Jews. Without the crucifixion, there would have been no rift in beliefs.
Needing to ponder this theory further, Shmuel has left his thesis unfinished and has taken a job as evening companion to learned old Gershom Wald in exchange for room and board. The old man spends his days arguing vociferously with friends and enemies, and is a strong supporter of David ben-Gurion’s Zionism. Wald’s daughter-in-law Aitalia holds an opposite and more radical view that reflects her own father, Shealtiel Abravanel’s opinion that the concept of nation states and ownership of land and resources is a faulty one.
"Aitalia’s father was one of those people who believe that every conflict is merely a misunderstanding: a spot of family counseling, and handful of group therapy, a drop or two of goodwill, and at once we shall all be brothers in heart and soul and the conflict will disappear. He was one of those people convinced that all that is required to resolve a conflict is for both parties to get to know each other, and immediately they will start to like each other�"The novel is a multi-layered examination of the idea of ‘traitor,� and whether or not it is, in fact, an enlightened state “which really ought to be seen as a badge of honor:�
"Anyone willing to change," Shmuel said, "will always be considered a traitor by those who cannot change and are scared to death of change and don't understand it and loathe change�"But old man Wald reminds us that it is the name Judas which has become a synonym for betrayal, and perhaps also a synonym for Jew.
……Shmuel added in a hushed voice, as though afraid that strangers might hear: "After all, the kiss of Judas, the most famous kiss in history was surely not a traitor’s kiss�"
"Millions of simple Christians think that every single Jew is infected with the virus of treachery…So long as each Christian baby learns with its mother’s milk that God-killers still tread the earth, or the offspring of God-killers, we [Jews] shall know no rest."In a , I’d expressed some concern that Arab schoolchildren in the Middle East were learning religious hatreds early, never considering that North American Christians were of course learning religious hatreds at the same age.
Oz makes no secret of his own opinions in interviews, but in this work he makes us puzzle it all out. He gives us the old conundrums in new ways, making us want to take them up again for examination. We question everything from the ground up. This work reminds me why I love literature: Oz is able to layer complex motivations onto history and take a stab at trying to explain what man is and what we should expect of him.
The translation of this work into English by Nicholas de Lange from the Hebrew is especially easy to enjoy. The Blackstone audio production is excellent, the work narrated on ten discs (11 hours) by Jonathan Davis. The hardcover published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt is useful to return to some ideas. Though the novel is not difficult to read, the ideas challenge readers and may require a second or third look to tie the threads together. This is great stuff. Oz is seventy-seven years old. He should be proud of himself, and we should be grateful.
March 15, 2025
”How deep the silence is.� Atalia said. “You can almost hear the stones breathing.�
~~
My friend, Spenky, has said, “I prefer writing over plot.� Spenky would love ’s . The writing is beautiful, the plot slight ..
This is the first work of Oz’s I have read. was probably not the best place to start my journey with Oz, but I had heard so much about this book I wanted to read it.
is set in Jerusalem at the end of 1959. Israel is a country rife with hostility, mired in the pain of the past, and unsure of her future. However, in one old, rundown house, the focus is solely on the past, both recent and ancient, as a young man tries to make sense of how those who believe the most are often those who are loved the least �
Oz’s focus here is on whom & what is a traitor. Considering how often Oz has been labeled a traitor it should hardly surprise anyone that he is fixated by the term’s loaded implications. Oz places his examination of treason center stage, focusing on nationalism and the devastating affect it can have on a people.
is a difficult read, calling upon the reader to be actively engaged all at times while inhabiting the world Oz has created. If you are looking for a relaxing read, is not for you. The storytelling is well plotted, and characters expertly drawn. The story’s “present� set in the brutal Jerusalem winter of 1959 � 1960, the past is set in both the Israel of 1947 � 1948 and during Jesus� ministry. Oz wisely leaves it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions about Jesus and his relationship with the Jews. The most fascinating sections of the book deals with Judas & his relationship with Jesus. This leads to a startling conclusion, which mesmerizes the reader. This gospel is told by none other than Judas. It should be noted that the original title in Hebrew of Oz's book translates to . Oz’s work in Chapter 47 will stay with me for quite some time. Was Judas both the first and last Christian? It's an interesting argument. Oz’s portrayal of Judas may be the most humane and sympathetic you ever encounter.
2/3’s of are a character study of Shmuel. Oz focuses on the quirks, of this out of shape man, the messy beard and clumsy demeanor that overshadow his kind, intelligent soul. His search for solitude after his relationship break-up is successful, and he uses his time to clear his mind through hours spent in his attic room, or wandering the streets of post-independence Jerusalem. Once he’s recovered somewhat, he turns his mental energies back to his studies of Jewish views on Jesus; it is here that Oz unleashes the full of writing talents and Judas turns towards the subject of its title.
Shmuel’s world revolves around Atalia and Gershom for most of the novel. They are two broken individuals. Inhabiting this world is destroying Shmuel, although neither he, nor the reader realizes this until the end of the novel. Shmuel is infatuated with the widow, Atalia, despite Gershom’s warnings. It is she who holds the most sway over Shmuel and he gradually gives himself over to her. Despite feeling sympathy for both Shmuel and Atalia, neither is very likeable. We clearly see the faults and shortcomings of these two ~~ and yet, Judas does succeed as a love story albeit, a very unconventional sort of love story.
Oz’s language is poetic, as he effortlessly transports us from 1959 Israel, to the Israel of 1947, and ancient Jerusalem and back again. was spellbinding. By the time I closed the cover I had come to realize that there are many forms of betrayal and a traitor is not always a traitor.
~~
My friend, Spenky, has said, “I prefer writing over plot.� Spenky would love ’s . The writing is beautiful, the plot slight ..
This is the first work of Oz’s I have read. was probably not the best place to start my journey with Oz, but I had heard so much about this book I wanted to read it.
is set in Jerusalem at the end of 1959. Israel is a country rife with hostility, mired in the pain of the past, and unsure of her future. However, in one old, rundown house, the focus is solely on the past, both recent and ancient, as a young man tries to make sense of how those who believe the most are often those who are loved the least �
Oz’s focus here is on whom & what is a traitor. Considering how often Oz has been labeled a traitor it should hardly surprise anyone that he is fixated by the term’s loaded implications. Oz places his examination of treason center stage, focusing on nationalism and the devastating affect it can have on a people.
is a difficult read, calling upon the reader to be actively engaged all at times while inhabiting the world Oz has created. If you are looking for a relaxing read, is not for you. The storytelling is well plotted, and characters expertly drawn. The story’s “present� set in the brutal Jerusalem winter of 1959 � 1960, the past is set in both the Israel of 1947 � 1948 and during Jesus� ministry. Oz wisely leaves it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions about Jesus and his relationship with the Jews. The most fascinating sections of the book deals with Judas & his relationship with Jesus. This leads to a startling conclusion, which mesmerizes the reader. This gospel is told by none other than Judas. It should be noted that the original title in Hebrew of Oz's book translates to . Oz’s work in Chapter 47 will stay with me for quite some time. Was Judas both the first and last Christian? It's an interesting argument. Oz’s portrayal of Judas may be the most humane and sympathetic you ever encounter.
2/3’s of are a character study of Shmuel. Oz focuses on the quirks, of this out of shape man, the messy beard and clumsy demeanor that overshadow his kind, intelligent soul. His search for solitude after his relationship break-up is successful, and he uses his time to clear his mind through hours spent in his attic room, or wandering the streets of post-independence Jerusalem. Once he’s recovered somewhat, he turns his mental energies back to his studies of Jewish views on Jesus; it is here that Oz unleashes the full of writing talents and Judas turns towards the subject of its title.
Shmuel’s world revolves around Atalia and Gershom for most of the novel. They are two broken individuals. Inhabiting this world is destroying Shmuel, although neither he, nor the reader realizes this until the end of the novel. Shmuel is infatuated with the widow, Atalia, despite Gershom’s warnings. It is she who holds the most sway over Shmuel and he gradually gives himself over to her. Despite feeling sympathy for both Shmuel and Atalia, neither is very likeable. We clearly see the faults and shortcomings of these two ~~ and yet, Judas does succeed as a love story albeit, a very unconventional sort of love story.
Oz’s language is poetic, as he effortlessly transports us from 1959 Israel, to the Israel of 1947, and ancient Jerusalem and back again. was spellbinding. By the time I closed the cover I had come to realize that there are many forms of betrayal and a traitor is not always a traitor.
January 11, 2020
Είχα έμπνευση τελικά! Πολύ καλή επιλογή να ξεκινήσω το αναγνωστικό έτος με αυτό το βιβλίο.
Διδακτικό, βαθύ, με φιλοσοφικές προεκτάσεις και με μια γραφή καθηλωτική. Σίγουρα χωρίς κάποια ιδιαίτερα συναρπαστική πλοκή, εντούτοις με μια κρυφή γοητεία που συγκινεί.
Και μόνο οι σκέψεις πάνω στην πραγματική φύση και τα κίνητρα του προδότη, αξίζουν για να κάνουν αυτό το βιβλίο εξαιρετικό.
Ότι καλύτερο για το ξεκίνημα της χρονιάς.
Διδακτικό, βαθύ, με φιλοσοφικές προεκτάσεις και με μια γραφή καθηλωτική. Σίγουρα χωρίς κάποια ιδιαίτερα συναρπαστική πλοκή, εντούτοις με μια κρυφή γοητεία που συγκινεί.
Και μόνο οι σκέψεις πάνω στην πραγματική φύση και τα κίνητρα του προδότη, αξίζουν για να κάνουν αυτό το βιβλίο εξαιρετικό.
Ότι καλύτερο για το ξεκίνημα της χρονιάς.
August 2, 2020
Ενα βιβλίο σαν ήρεμο απογευματινό βράδυ μιας Κυριακής, χωρίς εντάσεις και εξόδους, μήτε επισκέψεις και τσακωμούς· ένας ψίθυρος διαπερνά την κάθε σελίδα και αν κάνεις ησυχία θα καταφέρεις μέσα από τις γραμμές να ανακαλύψεις την ωριμότητα και την μεστή σκέψη της γραφής του Οζ.
Τρία πρόσωπα ζωντανά και τρία απόντα καθοδηγούν την ιστορία. Ο νεαρός, ο γέρος και η γυναίκα· και από την άλλη ο σκοτωμένος άντρας, ο πεθαμένος πατέρας και ο προδότης μαθητής. Ανάμεσα σε αυτούς ξετυλίγεται το κουβάρι αργά, σχεδόν χωρίς καμία κλιμάκωση, μέσα από αναπάντητες ερωτήσεις και μονοπλευρες εξομολογησεις.
Ο Ιησούς και ο Ιούδας - όπως ο Ιούδας έβλεπε τον Ιησού, ο Ιησούς των Εβραίων και η στάση τους απέναντι του, ο πόλεμος της Ανεξαρτησίας του 1948, ο Μπεν Γκουριόν, το Ισραήλ σαν ιδέα και σαν έθνος, οι αγωνίες ενός νέου, ο πόνος των γονιών, οι αναμνήσεις και οι συγκρούσεις ενός λαού, ο νεαρός που ψάχνει τον εαυτό του, ο γέρος που συνεχίζει να ζει μετά τον θάνατο του γιου του· αλλά κυρίως η γυναίκα, αυτή η βάσανος κάθε άνδρα που θα το διαβάσει, αυτή η μυθιστόρηματικη φιγούρα που έπλασε ο Οζ και σε ΟΛΟ το βιβλίο προσπαθείς συνειρμικά να της δώσεις μορφή, σχήμα εικόνα πρόσωπο!
Η Αταλια... που ζει για να θυμάται τον νεκρό και να διατηρεί την μνήμη του προδότη - η Μνήμη και η Λήθη - ίσως η πιο ζωντανή εικόνα γυναίκας που έχω διαβάσει ποτέ και προσπάθησα να μην ερωτευτώ και εγώ, αλλά... φευ.
Τρία πρόσωπα ζωντανά και τρία απόντα καθοδηγούν την ιστορία. Ο νεαρός, ο γέρος και η γυναίκα· και από την άλλη ο σκοτωμένος άντρας, ο πεθαμένος πατέρας και ο προδότης μαθητής. Ανάμεσα σε αυτούς ξετυλίγεται το κουβάρι αργά, σχεδόν χωρίς καμία κλιμάκωση, μέσα από αναπάντητες ερωτήσεις και μονοπλευρες εξομολογησεις.
Ο Ιησούς και ο Ιούδας - όπως ο Ιούδας έβλεπε τον Ιησού, ο Ιησούς των Εβραίων και η στάση τους απέναντι του, ο πόλεμος της Ανεξαρτησίας του 1948, ο Μπεν Γκουριόν, το Ισραήλ σαν ιδέα και σαν έθνος, οι αγωνίες ενός νέου, ο πόνος των γονιών, οι αναμνήσεις και οι συγκρούσεις ενός λαού, ο νεαρός που ψάχνει τον εαυτό του, ο γέρος που συνεχίζει να ζει μετά τον θάνατο του γιου του· αλλά κυρίως η γυναίκα, αυτή η βάσανος κάθε άνδρα που θα το διαβάσει, αυτή η μυθιστόρηματικη φιγούρα που έπλασε ο Οζ και σε ΟΛΟ το βιβλίο προσπαθείς συνειρμικά να της δώσεις μορφή, σχήμα εικόνα πρόσωπο!
Η Αταλια... που ζει για να θυμάται τον νεκρό και να διατηρεί την μνήμη του προδότη - η Μνήμη και η Λήθη - ίσως η πιο ζωντανή εικόνα γυναίκας που έχω διαβάσει ποτέ και προσπάθησα να μην ερωτευτώ και εγώ, αλλά... φευ.
February 10, 2017
3.5 Dense and cerebral. A young man in Jerusalem abandons his thesis to take a position with a disabled, intellectual recluse. For rom, board and a small stipend he agrees to speak, listen and discuss nightly with Wald, five hours a night. Older than he is, Wald's daughter in law provides the love interest.
This is a brilliantly written book, covers so much, informative especially for this reader who little understands the ongoing Israeli and Arab struggles. Not a book that called to me, definitely not a quick read, but immersive once picked back up, teaches much. Politics, the difference in the Jewish and Christian perceptions of Jesus, the role of Judas, all discussed nightly by Wald and Schmuel.
Also, a novel about a young man trying to find his way. Friendship, love, respect, crush on an older woman, and the seeking of knowledge. The ending I found quite poignant.
This is a brilliantly written book, covers so much, informative especially for this reader who little understands the ongoing Israeli and Arab struggles. Not a book that called to me, definitely not a quick read, but immersive once picked back up, teaches much. Politics, the difference in the Jewish and Christian perceptions of Jesus, the role of Judas, all discussed nightly by Wald and Schmuel.
Also, a novel about a young man trying to find his way. Friendship, love, respect, crush on an older woman, and the seeking of knowledge. The ending I found quite poignant.
March 9, 2020
Un inverno a Gerusalemme
Gerusalemme, inverno 1959-60. Uno studente universitario di 25 anni alle prese con una ricerca, che non riesce a concludere, intitolata "Gesù visto dagli ebrei".
Il giovane, "timido, sensibile, socialista, asmatico, propenso tanto all'entusiasmo quanto alla precoce delusione", recentemente lasciato dalla fidanzata, è affascinato dalla figura di Gesù e si domanda "perché gli ebrei non hanno voluto accoglierlo?" , ed è ossessionato da quella di Giuda. Il tema del tradimento affiora spesso tra le pagine.
Un annuncio sul giornale : "A studente celibe (...) dotato di competenza storica, offronsi alloggio gratis e modesto stipendio mensile in cambio di cinque ore serali di compagnia a settantenne invalido, colto ed eclettico (...) bisognoso di conversazione" .
Nella casa, oltre all'anziano, vive una donna con tutti i suoi segreti .
Questi tre personaggi, con le loro ossessioni, paiono bastare al racconto ; gli altri stanno sullo sfondo, qualcuno vivo, qualcuno morto.
Ovviamente c'è la questione israeliana : la nascita dello Stato ebraico e lo scontro con gli Arabi.
Benché la vicenda sia ambientata decenni fa, si avverte la problematicità attualissima.
Amos Oz è un maestro di stile : una scrittura austera, cioè priva di fronzoli o leziosità.
In questo romanzo di interni, i dettagli si fanno penetranti. Gli squarci di paesaggio, semplici e solenni, danno emozioni di un fascino particolare e profondo : "una luce di miele, (...) la luce che accarezza Gerusalemme nelle terse giornate d'inverno", "luce invernale, luce di pini e pietre" ; "i neri cipressi oscillavano come in quieta devozione" ; nel silenzio "si sentono quasi respirare le pietre" .
Gerusalemme, inverno 1959-60. Uno studente universitario di 25 anni alle prese con una ricerca, che non riesce a concludere, intitolata "Gesù visto dagli ebrei".
Il giovane, "timido, sensibile, socialista, asmatico, propenso tanto all'entusiasmo quanto alla precoce delusione", recentemente lasciato dalla fidanzata, è affascinato dalla figura di Gesù e si domanda "perché gli ebrei non hanno voluto accoglierlo?" , ed è ossessionato da quella di Giuda. Il tema del tradimento affiora spesso tra le pagine.
Un annuncio sul giornale : "A studente celibe (...) dotato di competenza storica, offronsi alloggio gratis e modesto stipendio mensile in cambio di cinque ore serali di compagnia a settantenne invalido, colto ed eclettico (...) bisognoso di conversazione" .
Nella casa, oltre all'anziano, vive una donna con tutti i suoi segreti .
Questi tre personaggi, con le loro ossessioni, paiono bastare al racconto ; gli altri stanno sullo sfondo, qualcuno vivo, qualcuno morto.
Ovviamente c'è la questione israeliana : la nascita dello Stato ebraico e lo scontro con gli Arabi.
Benché la vicenda sia ambientata decenni fa, si avverte la problematicità attualissima.
Amos Oz è un maestro di stile : una scrittura austera, cioè priva di fronzoli o leziosità.
In questo romanzo di interni, i dettagli si fanno penetranti. Gli squarci di paesaggio, semplici e solenni, danno emozioni di un fascino particolare e profondo : "una luce di miele, (...) la luce che accarezza Gerusalemme nelle terse giornate d'inverno", "luce invernale, luce di pini e pietre" ; "i neri cipressi oscillavano come in quieta devozione" ; nel silenzio "si sentono quasi respirare le pietre" .
April 2, 2022
The narrator of Amos Oz's esoteric masterpiece is Shmuel Ash, a university student, recently rejected by his girlfriend, who must abandon his master's thesis, "Jewish Views of Jesus," because of his family's financial difficulties to unexpectedly seek a new means of survival in the real world of 1959 Israel.
Answering an advertisement offering room and board in an old Jerusalem apartment in return for entertaining the seventy-year-old scholar, Gershom Wald, with five hours of conversation every evening, Shmuel does not exactly end up in the real world.
Besides Wald's daughter-in-law Atalia, who provides the story's necessary love-interest, Shmuel will find himself among two other spirits from the past who have never left. They will constantly prey upon his musings once they have entered into the conversation. One is Atalia's father, Sheatiel Abravanel, a political opponent of David Ben-Gurion who sought compromise with the Arabs. The other is her husband Micha, Gershom Wald's son, who was killed during the fighting in 1948.
Within the confines of this apartment, against the backdrop of the Israeli-Arab conflict, Amos Oz uses Shmuel to search out a rational explanation for the holocaust and the suffering of centuries of Christian pogroms and inquisitions.
With inspiration from his dialogues with Wald, Shmuel's "Jewish Views of Jesus" evolves into what he perceives as the Christian misinterpretation of Judas Iscariot's betrayal of Jesus that put a price on the head of every Jew for centuries thereafter.
I do not wish to infringe upon the reader experiencing this argument first hand, but it is worth mentioning that Shmuel's Judas is very similar to second century interpretations from Gnostics such as the Cainites.
As I mentioned in the beginning, this is an esoteric novel. Mr. Oz has the narrative craftsmanship to make it spellbinding by interweaving the story of Atalia's father seeking accommodation with the Arabs as a bass line counterpoint to the melody of Shmuel's Judas. I consider this novel to be a soft-spoken masterpiece.
As a history nerd and a Catholic with a mild theological bent, I was thoroughly entranced. Amos Oz has leapt to the top of my list of contemporary authors.
Answering an advertisement offering room and board in an old Jerusalem apartment in return for entertaining the seventy-year-old scholar, Gershom Wald, with five hours of conversation every evening, Shmuel does not exactly end up in the real world.
Besides Wald's daughter-in-law Atalia, who provides the story's necessary love-interest, Shmuel will find himself among two other spirits from the past who have never left. They will constantly prey upon his musings once they have entered into the conversation. One is Atalia's father, Sheatiel Abravanel, a political opponent of David Ben-Gurion who sought compromise with the Arabs. The other is her husband Micha, Gershom Wald's son, who was killed during the fighting in 1948.
Within the confines of this apartment, against the backdrop of the Israeli-Arab conflict, Amos Oz uses Shmuel to search out a rational explanation for the holocaust and the suffering of centuries of Christian pogroms and inquisitions.
With inspiration from his dialogues with Wald, Shmuel's "Jewish Views of Jesus" evolves into what he perceives as the Christian misinterpretation of Judas Iscariot's betrayal of Jesus that put a price on the head of every Jew for centuries thereafter.
I do not wish to infringe upon the reader experiencing this argument first hand, but it is worth mentioning that Shmuel's Judas is very similar to second century interpretations from Gnostics such as the Cainites.
As I mentioned in the beginning, this is an esoteric novel. Mr. Oz has the narrative craftsmanship to make it spellbinding by interweaving the story of Atalia's father seeking accommodation with the Arabs as a bass line counterpoint to the melody of Shmuel's Judas. I consider this novel to be a soft-spoken masterpiece.
As a history nerd and a Catholic with a mild theological bent, I was thoroughly entranced. Amos Oz has leapt to the top of my list of contemporary authors.
May 14, 2017
"(...) um calendário com imagens de uma planície, colinas, oliveiras, uma ruína, e uma cordilheira, do pintor Reuven Rubin." (Galilean Landscape)
”Esta história decorre no inverno de finais do ano de 1959 princípios de 1960. Há nela engano e desejo, desilusão de amor e uma certa questão religiosa que ficou por responder.� - são estas as primeiras linhas do último romance do escritor israelita Amoz Oz (n. 1939) e que resumem admiravelmente ”Jܻ岹�.
”No início de dezembro, Samuel Asch interrompeu os estudos na universidade com a intenção de deixar Jerusalém por causa de um amor falhado, de uma pesquisa que marcava passo e, acima de tudo, porque a situação económica do pai se degradara e Samuel viu-se obrigado a procurar trabalho.�. (Pág. 11- 12)
Samuel Asch é um jovem estudante universitário, com vinte e cinco anos, asmático, corpulento, barbudo, tímido, de lágrima fácil, sensível, ”de entusiasmo fácil e desilusão imediata�, que está a escrever uma tese de doutoramento com o título “Jesus visto pelos judeus�, membro do Círculo para a Renovação Socialista, e que, infelizmente, tem que procurar trabalho; através de um anúncio no quadro de cortiça da Universidade Hebraica de Jerusalém, acaba por aceitar uma proposta de emprego numa casa antiga feita de pedra e onde ”Sobre tudo aquilo pairava o silêncio de uma noite fria de inverno. Não era um silêncio do género dos silêncios transparentes, que nos chamam e incitam a juntar-nos a eles, antes um silêncio indiferente, antigo, um silêncio que pairava de costas para nós.� e que tem um pátio interior que lhe transmite "uma emoção que era um misto de tristeza e de prazer: como uma única nota de violoncelo no meio da noite escura.�.
É nessa casa que vivem Gershom Wald, um septuagenário culto, irascível e incapacitado fisicamente e Atalia Abravanel, uma mulher de quarenta e cinco anos, de olhos castanhos, enigmática e sensual � é nessa casa que viveram Shealtiel Abravanel, o pai de Atalia, e de Micha, marido de Atalia e o único filho de Wald.
Amoz Oz em ”Jܻ岹� combina inúmeras temáticas, incluindo, as religiosas, as sociais e as políticas, evocando a Guerra da Independência de Israel em 1948, o período de 1959 � 1960 em que parte da cidade de Jerusalém estava ocupada pela Jordânia e várias histórias de amor.
“Eu, meu caro, não acredito no amor universal. A capacidade de amor é limitada. (...) Não fomos feitos para amar mais do que um punhado de pessoas. O amor é um acontecimento íntimo estranho e contraditório, pois muitas vezes amamos uma pessoa por amor-próprio, egoísmo, luxúria, desejo físico, ou vontade de dominar o amado e de escravizá-lo; ou, pelo contrário, por desejo de ser escravizado pelo objeto do nosso amor e, no fundo, o amor assemelha-se muito ao ódio e está bem mais próximo dele do que a maioria das pessoas pensa. Por exemplo, quando amamos ou odiamos alguém, em ambos os casos estamos sempre ansiosos por saber onde e com quem está, se está bem ou mal, o que faz, o que pensa, quais os seus receios. Nada mais enganador que o coração, tantas vezes perverso: quem pode conhecer os seus segredos? (Jr 17,9).
(�)
No Cântico dos Cânticos, no mesmo versículo, é-nos dito que o amor é forte como a morte, e violento como o sepulcro é o ciúme (8, 6). (Pág. 134)
Amoz Oz (n. 1939)
Amoz Oz é um escritor empenhado politicamente, defende a solução de dois estados para o conflito israelo-palestino baseada nas fronteiras pré-1967, assegurando que deve haver um acordo com os palestinos sobre o estabelecimento de um estado independente na Cisjordânia e na Faixa de Gaza, porque os problemas de Israel não podem ser resolvidos pela força ou pela repressão.
A escrita de Amoz Oz é meticulosa e envolvente, pausada e brilhante no enquadramento histórico, introduzindo a vertente religiosa � com partes dos capítulos da tese de Samuel Asch (ele está convencido de que Judas foi o verdadeiro fundador do cristianismo, o mais fiel de todos os discípulos e o único que realmente acreditava que Jesus era o Filho de Deus.) � sobre as “opiniões� judaicas de Jesus e as ideias cristãs sobre Judas Iscariotes, com um suspense sobre o mistérios ou os mistérios que envolvem directa e indirectamente as personagens e que progressivamente o leitor vai compreendendo.
”Jܻ岹� é um romance notável sobre o amor, a solidão, a religião, os sonhos, o sofrimento e a traição.
"(...) um calendário com imagens de uma planície, colinas, oliveiras, uma ruína, e uma cordilheira, do pintor Reuven Rubin." (Galilean Landscape)
"Judas" de Amoz Oz faz parte da short-list para o prémio - The Man Booker International Prize 2017
November 18, 2020
Δεν ξέρω πως θα μου είχε φανεί ο Ιούδας αν δεν είχα ασχοληθεί με την ιστορία της Μέσης Ανατολής το προηγούμενο διάστημα. Ίσως πιο βαρετός, ίσως και αδιάφορος. Οπως,επίσης, πιστεύω ότι θα με είχαν κουράσει όλες αυτές οι αναφορές στον Ιησού και τον Ιούδα, αν ο πρώτος δεν αποτελούσε διαχρονικά μια ενδιαφέρουσα φιγούρα για μένα.
Το ζήτημα είναι ότι πέτυχε διάνα.
Κατασυμπάθησα τους τρεις τραγικούς πρωταγωνιστές, μαγεύτηκα από την γραφή του Οζ και βγάζω το καπέλο στη Μάγκυ Κοέν γιατί, παρά το γεγονός ότι δεν ξέρω εβραϊκά, θα μπορούσα κάλλιστα να πιστέψω ότι αυτό το βιβλίο γράφτηκε εξαρχής στα ελληνικά.
Το βιβλίο είναι τόσο μεστό και ώριμο από μόνο του που με το που τελείωσε αισθάνθηκα να αδειάζει με μιας ο ασκός συναισθημάτων που είχε γεμίσει σελίδα την σελίδα. Δεν θα άλλαζα ούτε τελεία. Εξαιρετικό.
Το ζήτημα είναι ότι πέτυχε διάνα.
Κατασυμπάθησα τους τρεις τραγικούς πρωταγωνιστές, μαγεύτηκα από την γραφή του Οζ και βγάζω το καπέλο στη Μάγκυ Κοέν γιατί, παρά το γεγονός ότι δεν ξέρω εβραϊκά, θα μπορούσα κάλλιστα να πιστέψω ότι αυτό το βιβλίο γράφτηκε εξαρχής στα ελληνικά.
Το βιβλίο είναι τόσο μεστό και ώριμο από μόνο του που με το που τελείωσε αισθάνθηκα να αδειάζει με μιας ο ασκός συναισθημάτων που είχε γεμίσει σελίδα την σελίδα. Δεν θα άλλαζα ούτε τελεία. Εξαιρετικό.
January 28, 2019
Agridulce. Sí, esta es la sensación que me ha dejado este libro. Es una buena historia, me ha encantado la parte "romántica o sentimental", pero me ha faltado un final en regla.
May 9, 2018
Ein ganz wunderbares Buch. Auf jeden Fall eines der besten zeitgenössischen Bücher, die ich je gelesen habe. Ich kann es gar nicht recht glauben, dass Amos Oz so ein komplexes Werk mit unterschiedlichen zeitlichen Ebenen, unterschiedlichen Erzählformen, unterschiedlichen Meinungen und Entwicklungen, mit realen und fiktiven Personen schreiben konnte, und das Ganze auf gerade mal 350 Seiten. Diese Verdichtung wirkt aber nicht gehetzt, ganz im Gegenteil. Das Tempo des Buchs ist ruhig und bedächtig, die Sprache poetisch, die Beobachtungsgabe des Autors detailverliebt und die Komposition einfach genial vernetzt.
Es geht in erster Linie um eine Dreiecksbeziehung im Winter 1959 zwischen dem naiven tollpatschigen Idealisten Schmuel (25 Jahre), dem greisen Gerschom Wald, dessen Pflege Schmuel übernimmt, nachdem er aus finanziellen Gründen sein Studium abbrechen musste(Magisterarbeit "Jesus aus der Sicht der Juden") und Walds verwitwete Schwiegertochter Atalja (45 Jahre), die mit dem Alten in dem heruntergekommen Haus in Jerusalem wohnt. Schmuel soll in erster Linie Gerschom unterhalten, ihm widersprechen und zu Diskussionen anregen. Und so entstehen lange Dialoge über Religion, Geschichte und Politik, bei denen sich die beiden so ungleichen Männer näher kommen und immer mehr zu schätzen wissen. Unnahbar erscheint dagegen Atalja, sowohl körperlich als auch geistig. Sie ist die Tochter eines Verräters an der zionistischen Bewegung, denn sie und ihr verstorbener Vater stehen für die Zwei-Staaten-Lösung bei der Juden-Palästinenser-Frage. Doch Schmuel fühlt sich immer näher zu dieser Frau hingezogen und am Ende wird aus dem Überzeugten ein Zweifler, der mit dem letzten Satz fragend in die Ferne schaute. Ein offenes Ende, welches mich erstmal verstörte, welches ich aber unter dem Gesichtspunkten des Wandels der Person Schmuel in den vier Monaten der Geschichte gut nachvollziehen konnte.
Was mir unheimlich gut gefiel, ist die Art von Amos Oz, die verschiedenen Sichtweisen auf einen Sachverhalt darzustellen, ohne Wertung, so, dass man als Leser Pro und Contra in Form eines Romans präsentiert bekommt. Ich habe mich oft ertappt, dass ich gedacht habe, ich kann gerade beide Seiten gut verstehen. Und ich weiß gar nicht so recht, was der Autor jetzt denkt. Das ist das größte Lob, das man einem Roman geben kann. Er regt zum Nachdenken an, er beschäftigt sich mit ungeklärten Fragen und er lässt mir als Leser die Möglichkeit, mir meine eigene Meinung zu bilden ohne das ich tendenziös in eine Richtung vom Schriftsteller gelenkt werde.
Der berühmteste Verrat in der Geschichte verbindet dabei alle Handlungs- und Beziehungsstränge des Buchs. Der Verrat Judas an Jesus. Amos Oz stellt durch die Reden seiner Protagonisten klar, dass der Verrat immer aus der Sicht einer bestimmten Gruppierung festgelegt wird. Hinter jedem Verrat steckt aber auch eine Geschichte und vielleicht ist dies auch eine Geschichte der Liebe und Zuneigung. Staufenberg wurde als Hochverräter verurteilt, aber für uns heute ist er ein Held. Der Vater Ataljas wurde als Verräter der Juden bezeichnet, aber im Grunde wollte er eine Versöhnung zwischen Juden und Arabern. Judas Iskariot wird oft als der Verräter interpretiert, der aus Geldgier für 30 Silberlinge Jesus mittels eines Kusses verraten hat. Amos Oz spielt aber die bereits von anderen Autoren genannte Idee fort, dass Judas den Verrat begangen hat, weil er am tiefsten überzeugt davon war, dass Jesus der Messias ist und es somit zum Gottesplan gehörte, dass Jesus das Wunder der Auferstehung im Herzen Jerusalems wirkte. Als er dann aber sah, dass Jesus am Kreuz starb, er auch nur ein Mensch aus Fleisch und Blut war, erhängte er sich.
Es ist interessant zu sehen, wie der Verrat als Thema sich durch das Buch zieht. Unbedingte Leseempfehlung. Ein Buch für meinen Favoritenordner.
Es geht in erster Linie um eine Dreiecksbeziehung im Winter 1959 zwischen dem naiven tollpatschigen Idealisten Schmuel (25 Jahre), dem greisen Gerschom Wald, dessen Pflege Schmuel übernimmt, nachdem er aus finanziellen Gründen sein Studium abbrechen musste(Magisterarbeit "Jesus aus der Sicht der Juden") und Walds verwitwete Schwiegertochter Atalja (45 Jahre), die mit dem Alten in dem heruntergekommen Haus in Jerusalem wohnt. Schmuel soll in erster Linie Gerschom unterhalten, ihm widersprechen und zu Diskussionen anregen. Und so entstehen lange Dialoge über Religion, Geschichte und Politik, bei denen sich die beiden so ungleichen Männer näher kommen und immer mehr zu schätzen wissen. Unnahbar erscheint dagegen Atalja, sowohl körperlich als auch geistig. Sie ist die Tochter eines Verräters an der zionistischen Bewegung, denn sie und ihr verstorbener Vater stehen für die Zwei-Staaten-Lösung bei der Juden-Palästinenser-Frage. Doch Schmuel fühlt sich immer näher zu dieser Frau hingezogen und am Ende wird aus dem Überzeugten ein Zweifler, der mit dem letzten Satz fragend in die Ferne schaute. Ein offenes Ende, welches mich erstmal verstörte, welches ich aber unter dem Gesichtspunkten des Wandels der Person Schmuel in den vier Monaten der Geschichte gut nachvollziehen konnte.
Was mir unheimlich gut gefiel, ist die Art von Amos Oz, die verschiedenen Sichtweisen auf einen Sachverhalt darzustellen, ohne Wertung, so, dass man als Leser Pro und Contra in Form eines Romans präsentiert bekommt. Ich habe mich oft ertappt, dass ich gedacht habe, ich kann gerade beide Seiten gut verstehen. Und ich weiß gar nicht so recht, was der Autor jetzt denkt. Das ist das größte Lob, das man einem Roman geben kann. Er regt zum Nachdenken an, er beschäftigt sich mit ungeklärten Fragen und er lässt mir als Leser die Möglichkeit, mir meine eigene Meinung zu bilden ohne das ich tendenziös in eine Richtung vom Schriftsteller gelenkt werde.
Der berühmteste Verrat in der Geschichte verbindet dabei alle Handlungs- und Beziehungsstränge des Buchs. Der Verrat Judas an Jesus. Amos Oz stellt durch die Reden seiner Protagonisten klar, dass der Verrat immer aus der Sicht einer bestimmten Gruppierung festgelegt wird. Hinter jedem Verrat steckt aber auch eine Geschichte und vielleicht ist dies auch eine Geschichte der Liebe und Zuneigung. Staufenberg wurde als Hochverräter verurteilt, aber für uns heute ist er ein Held. Der Vater Ataljas wurde als Verräter der Juden bezeichnet, aber im Grunde wollte er eine Versöhnung zwischen Juden und Arabern. Judas Iskariot wird oft als der Verräter interpretiert, der aus Geldgier für 30 Silberlinge Jesus mittels eines Kusses verraten hat. Amos Oz spielt aber die bereits von anderen Autoren genannte Idee fort, dass Judas den Verrat begangen hat, weil er am tiefsten überzeugt davon war, dass Jesus der Messias ist und es somit zum Gottesplan gehörte, dass Jesus das Wunder der Auferstehung im Herzen Jerusalems wirkte. Als er dann aber sah, dass Jesus am Kreuz starb, er auch nur ein Mensch aus Fleisch und Blut war, erhängte er sich.
Es ist interessant zu sehen, wie der Verrat als Thema sich durch das Buch zieht. Unbedingte Leseempfehlung. Ein Buch für meinen Favoritenordner.
October 11, 2016
One man's traitor is another man's loyalist. In Amos Oz's new tome "Judas", a coming-of-age novel, the theme of loyalty is explored. Shmuel Ash, a shy, emotional, twenty five year old university student is adrift. He is dealt three blows to his ho hum existence; loss of funding for school due to his father's bankruptcy,a breakup with his girlfriend, and stalled research on his masters thesis on Jewish Views of Jesus. Shmuel replies to an ad seeking a part-time caregiver and companion for a seventy year old invalid with room, board and a small stipend included.
Gershom Wald, an emotionally detached septuagenarian delivers scathing lectures and arguments daily by phone to sparring partners. Shmuel must keep Gershom verbally engaged from 5PM to 11PM .Residing in the dark, dreary, silent home with Gershom Wald is Atalia Abravanel, war widow and Wald's daughter-in-law. Atalia has a hypnotic, alluring hold on Shmuel's emotions.
Spending the winter of 1959-1960 in this household, Shmuel considers whether Atalia's father, Shealtiel Abravanel was a traitor. Abravanel opposed the creation of Israel in 1948 feeling that Jews and Arabs should live together as equals. He was asked to resign his post in the Zionist Executive Committee. Traitor or loyalist?
Shmuel starts to rethink his views on Judas. Perhaps Judas was not a traitor. Perhaps, although misguided, he was the first Christian. Without Judas, Jesus would not have died for our sins. Perhaps Judas was not a traitor but used by God as an instrument of change.
"Judas" in a multi-faceted tome. It is hoped that peace, love and understanding might one day prevail. Kudos to Amos Oz.
Thank you Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and Net Galley for the opportunity to read and review "Judas" by Amos Oz.
Gershom Wald, an emotionally detached septuagenarian delivers scathing lectures and arguments daily by phone to sparring partners. Shmuel must keep Gershom verbally engaged from 5PM to 11PM .Residing in the dark, dreary, silent home with Gershom Wald is Atalia Abravanel, war widow and Wald's daughter-in-law. Atalia has a hypnotic, alluring hold on Shmuel's emotions.
Spending the winter of 1959-1960 in this household, Shmuel considers whether Atalia's father, Shealtiel Abravanel was a traitor. Abravanel opposed the creation of Israel in 1948 feeling that Jews and Arabs should live together as equals. He was asked to resign his post in the Zionist Executive Committee. Traitor or loyalist?
Shmuel starts to rethink his views on Judas. Perhaps Judas was not a traitor. Perhaps, although misguided, he was the first Christian. Without Judas, Jesus would not have died for our sins. Perhaps Judas was not a traitor but used by God as an instrument of change.
"Judas" in a multi-faceted tome. It is hoped that peace, love and understanding might one day prevail. Kudos to Amos Oz.
Thank you Houghton Mifflin Harcourt and Net Galley for the opportunity to read and review "Judas" by Amos Oz.
December 28, 2018
Reposting in tribute to Amos Oz, who passed away today:
Anyone willing to change, Shmuel said, will always be considered a traitor by those who cannot change and are scared to death of change and don't understand it and loathe change.
Book 10 of 13 from my reading of the 2017 Man Booker International longlist.
I have previously read Amos Oz’s classic A Tale of Love and Darkness, also translated by Nicholas de Lange, which was very strong. Judas isn’t quite in that league but more than worthy of its place on the MBI longlist and a thought-provoking read.
Judas is a story from the winter days of the end of 1959 and the beginning of 1960 set in then still divided Jerusalem, a decade after the 1948 Arab-Israel war.
Shmuel Ash is 25 years-old and studying at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he is working on his Master’s thesis on the “Jewish views of Jesus�. However, he is in something of a crisis: his girlfriend Yardena abruptly leaves him to marry a previous boyfriend; his entirely non-proletarian and only 6-strong “Socialist Renewal Group� undergoes a schism after the revelations about Stalin at the 20th Congress and, crucially among the four who split off were the two girls in the Group, without whom there was no longer any point; and his financial support dries up as his parents are bankrupted in a lawsuit with their business partner.
Shmuel is a wonderfully sketched character � simultaneously younger and older in spirit than his age would imply (the following is a edited excerpt of the character sketch) :
He would be instantly intoxicated by new ideas, provided they were wittily dressed up and involved a paradox. But he also tended to tire quickly, possibly on account of an enlarged heart and his asthma. His eyes filled easily with tears, which caused him embarrassment and even shame.
He loved to lecture anyone who would listen, particularly his comrades from the Socialist Renewal Group: he loved to clarify, to state the facts, to contradict, to refute and to reinvent. He spoke at length, with enjoyment, wit and brio. But when the reply came, when it was his turn to listen to others' ideas, Shmuel was suddenly impatient, distracted, tired, until his eyes closed and his tousled head sank down onto his shaggy chest.
He was kindhearted, generous, brimming with goodwill and as soft as a woollen glove, going out of his way to make himself useful, but at the same time he was muddled and impatient. He never knew where he had put his other sock, what exactly his landlord wanted from him, or who he had lent his lectures notes to. On the other hand, he was never muddled when he stood up to quote with deviating accuracy what Kropotkin had said about Nechayev after their first meeting, and what he had said two years later. Or which of Jesus' apostles was less talkative than the rest.
A few days before she left him, Yardena said: 'Either you're like an excited puppy, rushing around noisily - even when you're sitting on a chair you're somehow chasing your own tail - or else you're the opposite, lying on your bed for days on end like an unaired quilt�.
He rushed across but roads at an angle, hurling himself into the heart of a skirmish, his bushy, bearded head thrust forward, his body leaning with it, as if eager for the fray. His legs always seemed to be chasing after his body, which in turn was pursuing his head, as if they were afraid of being left behind when he disappeared around the next corner.
Once he met Stalin In a dream. The meeting took place In a low back room in the grimy cafe where the Socialist Renewal Group convened. He failed to explain to Stalin, who was smiling under his moustache, why the Jews rejected Jesus and why they still stubbornly turned their backs on him. Stalin called him Judas.
He decides to abandon his studies and return home when he spots an advert on the University noticeboard:
Atalia is the daughter of the late Shealtiel Abranavel. In Oz’s novel the fictional Shealtiel was the lone dissenter from the Zionist Executive Committee and the Council of the Jewish Agency in the post War period who (per Wald) tried in vain to persuade Ben-Gurion in 1948, that it was still possible to reach an agreement with the Arabs about the departure of the British and and the creation of a single joint condominium of Jews and Arabs, if we only agreed to renounce the idea of a Jewish state, after which he resigns, jumped or pushed being unclear, and lived out his life in self-imposed internal exile, condemned, after the 1948 War, as a traitor by his former colleagues.
Amos Oz himself is known as a long-term advocate of a two-state solution to the Palestinian question, and one expects his sympathies lie with the “Judas� Shealtiel, but through the differing views of the Zionist Wald and the secular Marxist Shmuel we get a balanced account of the issue.
Shealtiel’s argument was that the Arabs feared that a Jewish state could ultimately, in decades to come, dominate the area, giving rise to the conflict, whereas Wald has the opposite view:
I actually think that more than the Arabs feared the future power of Jews, they were tempted by their present weakness.
and
There's no one quite like Ben-Gurion,' Wald said. 'The Jewish people has never before had such a far-sighted leader as Ben-Gurion. Few understand as he does that ‘the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned amongst the nations� is a curse not a blessing.
The exact relationship between these characters and why they are living such an isolated life is part of the this novel-of-ideas’s relatively limited plot development
Shmuel spends his time in the house lying in his room reflecting on both his life and his thesis, verbally sparring, as he is paid to, with Wald, and gradually finding himself infatuated with Atalia who tells him.
Your predecessors in the attic also began to tell me their dreams. Then they left us, each one in turn. You'll leave us soon too. This monotonous life in a dark, ageing house with only a garrulous old man and an embittered woman for company doesn't suit a young man like you.
They embark on long walks together, full of unrequited feelings and unspoken thoughts on Shmuel’s side (He ought to tell Atalia. He ought to tell her now. But what should he tell her.) through the streets of and hills surrounding Jerusalem. The city itself is invoked beautifully in the text, albeit at a detailed street-by-street level that would be more meaningful to someone who knows the modern city.
Atalia remains a larely closed book to both Shmuel and the reader, although the narrative sometimes drops rather anomalously into her thoughts, (she felt responsible for his injury although she could find no logical explanation for this feeling),. I wasn’t clear of the literary intent as it is almost as if Oz occasionally forgets that his third-person narration is from Shmuel’s perspective.
Another striking feature is the repetition of certain signature features of the characters' appearances � Shmuel’s distinctive walk with his legs chasing after his head, his stubby fingers “thick and short, as if they each lacked a knuckle [which I don’t think masks a Donald Trump reference] and Atalia’s unusually deep furrow from her nose to her upper lip.
Oz’s key theme is of betrayal but how sometimes the betrayer is the true believer.
Anyone willing to change, Shmuel said, will always be considered a traitor by those who cannot change and are scared to death of change and don't understand it and loathe change.
Shmuel’s thoughts and debates with Wald enable the novel to expand on this theories of the writings of Jewish scholars and polemicists down the centuries on Jesus. The atheist Shmuel isn’t a believer in the Gospel but is attracted by Jesus’s moral teachings, which he believes could have led to a combined Jewish-Christian philosophy rather than two warring religions:
It's a curious fact, Shmuel wrote to himself on a loose piece of paper, that however much these Jews engage with the supernatural stories surrounding Jesus' parentage and birth, his life and death, they studiously avoid any confrontation with the spiritual or moral content of the gospel. It is as if they are content to refute the miracles and contradict the wonders, and as if my this means the gospel itself will disappear without trace. And it is also strange that in all these writings there is no mention of Judas Iscariot. And yet, had it not been for Judas, there might not have been a crucifixion, and had there been no crucifixion there would have been no Christianity.
And Shmuel is particularly occupied with the topic of Judas, the disciple that anti-Semitic Christians regard as the epitome of the treachery of the Jews, but who Shmuel regards as the first Christian. The late Christian. The only Christian.
Shmuel believes that Judas engineered the crucifixion in order to prove Jesus� divinity, including to Jesus himself, expecting him to miraculously climb down from the cross. He regards the resurrection and the Christianity that emerged as a largely Pauline invention, and his version of the gospel story has Judas hanging himself from the fig tree that Jesus cursed (Mark 11: 12-14, 20-25) as Judas realises, with hindsight, that this odd incident showed that after all, he was no more than flesh and blood like the rest of us. Greater than us, more wonderful than us, immeasurably greater than all of us, but flesh and blood.
Overall certainly a thought-provoking novel although one that hangs together rather uneasily. Shmuel’s theories on Judas are rather less original than he - and I suspect possibly the author � thinks they are, although the link to the story of Shealtiel provides justification for their inclusion in the novel. Shmuel and Wald are memorable creations, but Atalia felt a little artificial and the May-to-September romance with Shmuel introduced an unnecessary element to the text.
3-4 stars and on the fringes of my personal shortlist for the MBI � although one that I suspect will stay with me longer than some of the lighter works on the list.
Anyone willing to change, Shmuel said, will always be considered a traitor by those who cannot change and are scared to death of change and don't understand it and loathe change.
Book 10 of 13 from my reading of the 2017 Man Booker International longlist.
I have previously read Amos Oz’s classic A Tale of Love and Darkness, also translated by Nicholas de Lange, which was very strong. Judas isn’t quite in that league but more than worthy of its place on the MBI longlist and a thought-provoking read.
Judas is a story from the winter days of the end of 1959 and the beginning of 1960 set in then still divided Jerusalem, a decade after the 1948 Arab-Israel war.
Shmuel Ash is 25 years-old and studying at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he is working on his Master’s thesis on the “Jewish views of Jesus�. However, he is in something of a crisis: his girlfriend Yardena abruptly leaves him to marry a previous boyfriend; his entirely non-proletarian and only 6-strong “Socialist Renewal Group� undergoes a schism after the revelations about Stalin at the 20th Congress and, crucially among the four who split off were the two girls in the Group, without whom there was no longer any point; and his financial support dries up as his parents are bankrupted in a lawsuit with their business partner.
Shmuel is a wonderfully sketched character � simultaneously younger and older in spirit than his age would imply (the following is a edited excerpt of the character sketch) :
He would be instantly intoxicated by new ideas, provided they were wittily dressed up and involved a paradox. But he also tended to tire quickly, possibly on account of an enlarged heart and his asthma. His eyes filled easily with tears, which caused him embarrassment and even shame.
He loved to lecture anyone who would listen, particularly his comrades from the Socialist Renewal Group: he loved to clarify, to state the facts, to contradict, to refute and to reinvent. He spoke at length, with enjoyment, wit and brio. But when the reply came, when it was his turn to listen to others' ideas, Shmuel was suddenly impatient, distracted, tired, until his eyes closed and his tousled head sank down onto his shaggy chest.
He was kindhearted, generous, brimming with goodwill and as soft as a woollen glove, going out of his way to make himself useful, but at the same time he was muddled and impatient. He never knew where he had put his other sock, what exactly his landlord wanted from him, or who he had lent his lectures notes to. On the other hand, he was never muddled when he stood up to quote with deviating accuracy what Kropotkin had said about Nechayev after their first meeting, and what he had said two years later. Or which of Jesus' apostles was less talkative than the rest.
A few days before she left him, Yardena said: 'Either you're like an excited puppy, rushing around noisily - even when you're sitting on a chair you're somehow chasing your own tail - or else you're the opposite, lying on your bed for days on end like an unaired quilt�.
He rushed across but roads at an angle, hurling himself into the heart of a skirmish, his bushy, bearded head thrust forward, his body leaning with it, as if eager for the fray. His legs always seemed to be chasing after his body, which in turn was pursuing his head, as if they were afraid of being left behind when he disappeared around the next corner.
Once he met Stalin In a dream. The meeting took place In a low back room in the grimy cafe where the Socialist Renewal Group convened. He failed to explain to Stalin, who was smiling under his moustache, why the Jews rejected Jesus and why they still stubbornly turned their backs on him. Stalin called him Judas.
He decides to abandon his studies and return home when he spots an advert on the University noticeboard:
Offered to a single humanities student with conversational skills and an interest in history, free accommodation and a modest monthly sum, in return for spending five hours per evening with a seventy-year-old invalid, an educated, widely cultured man. He is able to take care of himself and seeks company, not assistance.He takes the role, and finds himself in the quiet home, with no visitors other than the cook and cleaner, that the elderly Gershom Wald shares with the mid-40s Atalia Abranavel.
Atalia is the daughter of the late Shealtiel Abranavel. In Oz’s novel the fictional Shealtiel was the lone dissenter from the Zionist Executive Committee and the Council of the Jewish Agency in the post War period who (per Wald) tried in vain to persuade Ben-Gurion in 1948, that it was still possible to reach an agreement with the Arabs about the departure of the British and and the creation of a single joint condominium of Jews and Arabs, if we only agreed to renounce the idea of a Jewish state, after which he resigns, jumped or pushed being unclear, and lived out his life in self-imposed internal exile, condemned, after the 1948 War, as a traitor by his former colleagues.
Amos Oz himself is known as a long-term advocate of a two-state solution to the Palestinian question, and one expects his sympathies lie with the “Judas� Shealtiel, but through the differing views of the Zionist Wald and the secular Marxist Shmuel we get a balanced account of the issue.
Shealtiel’s argument was that the Arabs feared that a Jewish state could ultimately, in decades to come, dominate the area, giving rise to the conflict, whereas Wald has the opposite view:
I actually think that more than the Arabs feared the future power of Jews, they were tempted by their present weakness.
and
There's no one quite like Ben-Gurion,' Wald said. 'The Jewish people has never before had such a far-sighted leader as Ben-Gurion. Few understand as he does that ‘the people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned amongst the nations� is a curse not a blessing.
The exact relationship between these characters and why they are living such an isolated life is part of the this novel-of-ideas’s relatively limited plot development
Shmuel spends his time in the house lying in his room reflecting on both his life and his thesis, verbally sparring, as he is paid to, with Wald, and gradually finding himself infatuated with Atalia who tells him.
Your predecessors in the attic also began to tell me their dreams. Then they left us, each one in turn. You'll leave us soon too. This monotonous life in a dark, ageing house with only a garrulous old man and an embittered woman for company doesn't suit a young man like you.
They embark on long walks together, full of unrequited feelings and unspoken thoughts on Shmuel’s side (He ought to tell Atalia. He ought to tell her now. But what should he tell her.) through the streets of and hills surrounding Jerusalem. The city itself is invoked beautifully in the text, albeit at a detailed street-by-street level that would be more meaningful to someone who knows the modern city.
Atalia remains a larely closed book to both Shmuel and the reader, although the narrative sometimes drops rather anomalously into her thoughts, (she felt responsible for his injury although she could find no logical explanation for this feeling),. I wasn’t clear of the literary intent as it is almost as if Oz occasionally forgets that his third-person narration is from Shmuel’s perspective.
Another striking feature is the repetition of certain signature features of the characters' appearances � Shmuel’s distinctive walk with his legs chasing after his head, his stubby fingers “thick and short, as if they each lacked a knuckle [which I don’t think masks a Donald Trump reference] and Atalia’s unusually deep furrow from her nose to her upper lip.
Oz’s key theme is of betrayal but how sometimes the betrayer is the true believer.
Anyone willing to change, Shmuel said, will always be considered a traitor by those who cannot change and are scared to death of change and don't understand it and loathe change.
Shmuel’s thoughts and debates with Wald enable the novel to expand on this theories of the writings of Jewish scholars and polemicists down the centuries on Jesus. The atheist Shmuel isn’t a believer in the Gospel but is attracted by Jesus’s moral teachings, which he believes could have led to a combined Jewish-Christian philosophy rather than two warring religions:
It's a curious fact, Shmuel wrote to himself on a loose piece of paper, that however much these Jews engage with the supernatural stories surrounding Jesus' parentage and birth, his life and death, they studiously avoid any confrontation with the spiritual or moral content of the gospel. It is as if they are content to refute the miracles and contradict the wonders, and as if my this means the gospel itself will disappear without trace. And it is also strange that in all these writings there is no mention of Judas Iscariot. And yet, had it not been for Judas, there might not have been a crucifixion, and had there been no crucifixion there would have been no Christianity.
And Shmuel is particularly occupied with the topic of Judas, the disciple that anti-Semitic Christians regard as the epitome of the treachery of the Jews, but who Shmuel regards as the first Christian. The late Christian. The only Christian.
Shmuel believes that Judas engineered the crucifixion in order to prove Jesus� divinity, including to Jesus himself, expecting him to miraculously climb down from the cross. He regards the resurrection and the Christianity that emerged as a largely Pauline invention, and his version of the gospel story has Judas hanging himself from the fig tree that Jesus cursed (Mark 11: 12-14, 20-25) as Judas realises, with hindsight, that this odd incident showed that after all, he was no more than flesh and blood like the rest of us. Greater than us, more wonderful than us, immeasurably greater than all of us, but flesh and blood.
Overall certainly a thought-provoking novel although one that hangs together rather uneasily. Shmuel’s theories on Judas are rather less original than he - and I suspect possibly the author � thinks they are, although the link to the story of Shealtiel provides justification for their inclusion in the novel. Shmuel and Wald are memorable creations, but Atalia felt a little artificial and the May-to-September romance with Shmuel introduced an unnecessary element to the text.
3-4 stars and on the fringes of my personal shortlist for the MBI � although one that I suspect will stay with me longer than some of the lighter works on the list.
February 9, 2018
On Hurting God
There must seem something paradoxical to some of the religious folks in the idea that anyone could in anyway hurt God or his relative. They thus want to argue that such people who might have done something against God were, in fact, folks who just wanted to Give the God (and relations) leverage to create drama or God made them that way for drama. Many versions of Ramayana would have you believe that Ravana, in fact, was a devotee of Rama and, all he did, was to get killed from same ( talk about Machoist love!). Bible said God made Pharaoh refuses Moses' offers so that he could bring plagues to Egypt to prove his existence (and then they blame me for creating scenes!) a Borges version said Pharaoh was intentionally serving God by refusing Moses' offers (and letting his people suffer and die).
On Judas
It is thus natural that a similar argument should be visited upon Judas by some of Christians. How could anyone betray Jesus? No, it makes more sense to believe Judas was in one way or other serving Jesus.
In this case, there is a lot of room for arguments - some of them are forwarded by the author himself. Though two most obvious ones aren't - why should Judas kill himself after seeing Jesus' death? What kind of guilt did he feel if he wants Jesus to die? It would have made more sense if he had killed himself on seeing Jesus' rise again, ain't it? Again, if Jesus had foreknowledge of what was about to happen - as he showed at the last supper, then why didn't he left the place? Oz isn't the first man to see those holes in the story, they are so very old. A very impressive short story on same lines is Judas Iscariot by Leonid Andreyev.
On Traitors
Anyways, Judas has been turned into an unwilling brand ambassador of all traitors - the only others I know who have anything even vaguely approaching his popularity are Brutus and Vibhishana. Judas also came to be a major reason behind Christian prejudice for Jews though he had turned Christian (understandable - religious people do not like to think evil people belong to their religion). Though as a character in book argues that Christians would have found one reason to hate Jews one way or other.
Can a traitor be in fact serving his mater by his/her betrayal? Oz should know being labeled a traitor by some people in his own country.
For a person wants a change because he is not happy with present ways and people who are not satisfied with something are going to criticise it. Those who refuse to change think of it betrayal. Oz was called traitor because he supported two nation solution like a character, Abravanal, within the novel. The ultra-nationalists who call then that must be like those RSS-BJP supporters who think anyone differing with them is a traitor.
On Israel and Nationalistm
Abravanal was perhaps too idealist in believing that Jews and Arabs could live together without there being a nation of any sort needing a military etc - he believed there should be no nations at all. He believed that Jews and Arabs have both suffered at hands of Europe and so can be natural friends - what he forgot was that they had trust issues (understandably) with exactly because of that very reason.
Shmuel, who is a bit of baby boy, too saw how unjust it was:
In the end, that is the only argument for nations to exist - lack of mutual trust among people.
*
It is a novel of ideas and is at its best when discussing them. The plot-line is thin. The areas where it does try to have a plot are the weakest.
Finally, if you really care about my opinion, I think both Jewish claims based on their religious books and Arab's claims of owning land for having lived their for centuries are equally stupid. You do not own a land just because you were there first or have been there for centuries (which is another thing those Hindu nationalists of my country don't understand). It is inhuman to ask people to leave their home or to deny homes to those in need on basis of those absurd reasons - even if it is for two-state solution (which is just the best of bad solutions). Anyone should have a right to live anywhere (provided their innocence). Right? To me, the blame for the problem really lies with Europe. New and Arabs are just two oppressing races fighting, fighting because their histories have taught them that 'neurotic caution'.
More Quotes
"Is it really possible for us all, without exception, to love all of us, without exception, all of the time? Did Jesus himself love everyone all of the time? Did he, for example, love the moneychangers at the gates of the Temple, when in a fit of rage he violently overturned their tables? Or when he proclaimed, ‘I came not to send peace on earth, but a sword’—did he forget at that moment his own exhortation to general love and his commandment to turn the other cheek? Or when he urged his apostles to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves? And especially when he said, according to Luke, ‘But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me."
"Have you ever thought, my young friend, how right the English were when they invented the excellent phrase ‘to fall in love�?�
"The real tragedy of humankind,� Shealtiel used to say, ‘is not that the persecuted and enslaved crave to be liberated and to hold their heads high. No. The worst thing is that the enslaved secretly dream of enslaving their enslavers. The persecuted yearn to be persecutors. The slaves dream of being masters."
There must seem something paradoxical to some of the religious folks in the idea that anyone could in anyway hurt God or his relative. They thus want to argue that such people who might have done something against God were, in fact, folks who just wanted to Give the God (and relations) leverage to create drama or God made them that way for drama. Many versions of Ramayana would have you believe that Ravana, in fact, was a devotee of Rama and, all he did, was to get killed from same ( talk about Machoist love!). Bible said God made Pharaoh refuses Moses' offers so that he could bring plagues to Egypt to prove his existence (and then they blame me for creating scenes!) a Borges version said Pharaoh was intentionally serving God by refusing Moses' offers (and letting his people suffer and die).
On Judas
It is thus natural that a similar argument should be visited upon Judas by some of Christians. How could anyone betray Jesus? No, it makes more sense to believe Judas was in one way or other serving Jesus.
" And yet, had it not been for Judas, there might not have been a crucifixion, and had there been no crucifixion, there would have been no Christianity."
In this case, there is a lot of room for arguments - some of them are forwarded by the author himself. Though two most obvious ones aren't - why should Judas kill himself after seeing Jesus' death? What kind of guilt did he feel if he wants Jesus to die? It would have made more sense if he had killed himself on seeing Jesus' rise again, ain't it? Again, if Jesus had foreknowledge of what was about to happen - as he showed at the last supper, then why didn't he left the place? Oz isn't the first man to see those holes in the story, they are so very old. A very impressive short story on same lines is Judas Iscariot by Leonid Andreyev.
On Traitors
Anyways, Judas has been turned into an unwilling brand ambassador of all traitors - the only others I know who have anything even vaguely approaching his popularity are Brutus and Vibhishana. Judas also came to be a major reason behind Christian prejudice for Jews though he had turned Christian (understandable - religious people do not like to think evil people belong to their religion). Though as a character in book argues that Christians would have found one reason to hate Jews one way or other.
Can a traitor be in fact serving his mater by his/her betrayal? Oz should know being labeled a traitor by some people in his own country.
"Anyone willing to change,� Shmuel said, “will always be considered a traitor by those who cannot change and are scared to death of change and don’t understand it and loathe change."
For a person wants a change because he is not happy with present ways and people who are not satisfied with something are going to criticise it. Those who refuse to change think of it betrayal. Oz was called traitor because he supported two nation solution like a character, Abravanal, within the novel. The ultra-nationalists who call then that must be like those RSS-BJP supporters who think anyone differing with them is a traitor.
On Israel and Nationalistm
Abravanal was perhaps too idealist in believing that Jews and Arabs could live together without there being a nation of any sort needing a military etc - he believed there should be no nations at all. He believed that Jews and Arabs have both suffered at hands of Europe and so can be natural friends - what he forgot was that they had trust issues (understandably) with exactly because of that very reason.
“The fact is that all the power in the world cannot transform someone who hates you into someone who likes you. It can turn a foe into a slave, but not into a friend. All the power in the world cannot transform a fanatic into an enlightened man. All the power in the world cannot transform someone thirsting for vengeance into a lover.�
Shmuel, who is a bit of baby boy, too saw how unjust it was:
" And even if we suppose that Shealtiel Abravanel was right in his opinion that all nation-states were a disaster and a scourge, even if he was right in saying that the scourge of nationalism would soon disappear and all states would wither, surely at least until the vision of a stateless world finally became a reality, at least so long as every nation had bars on its windows and bolts and locks on its doors, was it not also ght that the Jewish nation should have a small house with bolts and bars, just like all the others? And especially after a third of this nation was slaughtered a few years earlier, only because they did not have a house or a door with a lock or a piece of territory of their own? Or an army and weapons to defend themselves? When the day came that all the nations would finally rise up to demolish the walls dividing them, then definitely, by all means, we too would willingly demolish the walls we had built around us and happily join in the general festivities. Even if, out of neurotic caution, perhaps this time we would not necessarily be the first in the world to give up our bolts and bars. Perhaps this time, for a change, we would be the third in the world or the fourth in our region. Just to be on the safe side."
In the end, that is the only argument for nations to exist - lack of mutual trust among people.
*
It is a novel of ideas and is at its best when discussing them. The plot-line is thin. The areas where it does try to have a plot are the weakest.
Finally, if you really care about my opinion, I think both Jewish claims based on their religious books and Arab's claims of owning land for having lived their for centuries are equally stupid. You do not own a land just because you were there first or have been there for centuries (which is another thing those Hindu nationalists of my country don't understand). It is inhuman to ask people to leave their home or to deny homes to those in need on basis of those absurd reasons - even if it is for two-state solution (which is just the best of bad solutions). Anyone should have a right to live anywhere (provided their innocence). Right? To me, the blame for the problem really lies with Europe. New and Arabs are just two oppressing races fighting, fighting because their histories have taught them that 'neurotic caution'.
More Quotes
"Is it really possible for us all, without exception, to love all of us, without exception, all of the time? Did Jesus himself love everyone all of the time? Did he, for example, love the moneychangers at the gates of the Temple, when in a fit of rage he violently overturned their tables? Or when he proclaimed, ‘I came not to send peace on earth, but a sword’—did he forget at that moment his own exhortation to general love and his commandment to turn the other cheek? Or when he urged his apostles to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves? And especially when he said, according to Luke, ‘But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither and slay them before me."
"Have you ever thought, my young friend, how right the English were when they invented the excellent phrase ‘to fall in love�?�
"The real tragedy of humankind,� Shealtiel used to say, ‘is not that the persecuted and enslaved crave to be liberated and to hold their heads high. No. The worst thing is that the enslaved secretly dream of enslaving their enslavers. The persecuted yearn to be persecutors. The slaves dream of being masters."
February 28, 2019
Από τα πιο δυνατά βιβλία που έχω διαβάσει, ο Ιούδας του Άμος Οζ, είναι ένα κύκνειο άσμα αντάξιο του σπουδαίου συγγραφέα. Με τρόπο λεπταίσθητο ο Οζ καταφέρνει να κάνει το πολιτικό προσωπικό κι έπειτα πανανθρώπινο, μιλά ταυτόχρονα για το μερικό και το όλον, χωρίς στιγμή να κουράζει. Φαντάζομαι πως οι Ισραηλινοί αναγνώστες θα τον βλέπουν ως μια ενοχλητική αλογόμυγα, εμείς πάντως, που το θέμα μάς αφορά κυρίως ιστορικά και πολιτικά, έχουμε πολλά να μάθουμε από καλλιτέχνες όπως ο Οζ.
Κεντρικός ήρωας του μυθιστορήματος είναι ο Σμούελ Ας, ένας εικοσιπεντάχρονος φοιτητής που αποφασίζει να αφήσει στη μέση τη διατριβή του με θέμα «Εβραϊκές απόψεις για τον Ιησού» γιατί ο πατέρας του χρεοκόπησε και δεν μπορεί να τον στηρίξει οικονομικά και η κοπέλα του τον παράτησε ξαφνικά και παντρεύτηκε τον προηγούμενο της σύντροφο, έναν αξιόπιστο αλλά βαρετό υδρολόγο. Ο Σμούελ είναι κλειστός άνθρωπος, διατηρεί μια τεράστια αφάνα στα μαλλιά του και πολλά μούσια, ήταν μέλος μιας Ανανεωτικής Σοσιαλιστικής Ομάδας που αριθμούσε 6 μέλη,- αλλά διασπάστηκε-, και βρίσκεται στην ουσία άστεγος και άεργος στην Ιερουσαλήμ. Όταν ανακαλύπτει μια αγγελία που ζητά συντροφιά 5 ωρών κάθε μέρα για έναν ηλικιωμένο ανάπηρο και προσφέρει τροφή, στέγη κι έναν ελάχιστον μισθό, αρπάζει την ευκαιρία.
Έτσι εγκαθίσταται στη σοφίτα ενός μικρού σπιτιού και γνωρίζει τους συμπρωταγωνιστές του, τον εξαιρετικά μορφωμένο ανάπηρο γέροντα Γκέρσομ Βαλντ, που του αρέσει να μιλάει συνέχεια, και να σκιαμαχεί με τους φίλους του στο τηλέφωνο επί παντός του επιστητού, και την σαρανταπεντάχρονη, αέρινη Ατάλια, μια πολύ γοητευτική γυναίκα που φαίνεται να κρύβει μυστικά. Το σπίτι των δυο τους, κρυμμένο σε ένα σοκάκι, με την πόρτα του κήπου φρακαρισμένη και το σκαλοπάτι πάντοτε χαλασμένο, μοιάζει ξεχασμένο από τον χρόνο και τον κόσμο. Ο Σμούελ Ας γίνεται και δεν γίνεται οργανικό μέλος τους σπιτιού- ενώ μοιάζει να τον απορροφούν οι δυο εργοδότες του και τους σκέφτεται συνέχεια, εκείνοι συνεχίζουν σε έναν δικό τους ρυθμό, χρόνια παγιωμένο, τον περιβάλλουν αλλά δεν τον περικλείουν πλήρως- όπως έκαναν και με τους άλλους νεαρούς που κατά καιρούς είχαν στη θέση του.
Ο Σμούέλ βγαίνει συχνά για μοναχικούς περιπάτους, η παραμονή του στο σπίτι ενισχύει την ταλάντευση, την αμφισβήτηση και την αβεβαιότητα, που είναι μέρος της προσωπικότητάς του. Φλερτάρει διακριτικά και άγαρμπα την Ατάλια, η οποία μισεί όλο το αντρικό γένος και ασχολείται κυρίως με τον πεθαμένο πατέρα της τον Αμπραβανέλ, έναν άνθρωπο που εναντιώθηκε στον Μπεν Γκουριόν και θεωρούσε πως ο πόλεμος δεν είναι αναγκαίος, πως τα κράτη δεν είναι αναγκαία, πως Άραβες και Εβραίοι θα μπορούσαν να ζήσουν αρμονικά πλάι πλάι στην περιοχή, χωρίς πολέμους και όπλα. Στο βιβλίο παρεμβάλλονται οι συζητήσεις του Σμούελ και του Βαλντ για το θέμα, η πονεμένη ιστορία της Ατάλιας, οι απόψεις του Αμπραβανέλ αλλά και οι ιδέες του Ας για τη διατριβή του, τον Χριστό και τον Ιούδα. Τον Ιούδα, που στο συλλογικό ασυνείδητο των Χριστιανών, αντιπροσωπεύει κάθε Εβραίο και καθιστά έναν ολόκληρο λαό προδότη. Ίσως όμως υπάρχει και μια άλλη εκδοχή, πολύ διαφορετική από τη συνηθισμένη, για τη συμμετοχή του στην Ιστορία;
Βιβλίο βαθύτατα πολιτικό και πολυεπίπεδο, με σκέψη διεισδυτική, από έναν άνθρωπο που έζησε την ιστορία την ώρα που γινόταν*. Τα δύο βασικά μοτίβα του είναι η έννοια της προδοσίας και η δυνατότητα ή μη συνύπαρξης δύο λαών που έχουν μεταξύ τους μακροχρόνια και εν πολλοίς άλυτα προβλήματα- θέλουν την ίδια γη και την διεκδικούν με την ίδια αγάπη και το ίδιο μίσος. Η φιγούρα του Αμπραβανέλ, παρόλο που είναι νεκρός, στοιχειώνει το σπίτι, και κατ� επέκταση το ίδιο το Ισραήλ� μήπως ήταν δυνατή μια ειρηνική λύση συνύπαρξης των δύο λαών, μήπως δεν χρειαζόταν ο πόνος, μήπως δεν ήταν προδότης; Ο Σμούελ Ας είναι ένας ολοκληρωμένος χαρακτήρας, το ίδιο κι Βαλντ, εν αντιθέσει με την Ατάλια που μοιάζει κάπως χάρτινη και συμβολική. Το μυθιστόρημα δεν χάνει στιγμή τον ρυθμό του, αν και νιώθεις πως περίπου στα 2/3 έρχεται η πραγματική κορύφωση, οι σελίδες που η πολιτική καταλαμβάνει τη θέση που της αξίζει, που φαίνεται πώς και γιατί καθορίζει τις ζωές των ανθρώπων.
Το μόνο άλλο βιβλίο του Άμος Οζ που έχω διαβάσει είναι η «Ιστορία αγάπης και σκότους»- πολλά χρόνια πριν- κι ομολογώ πως ως τώρα τον είχα στο μυαλό μου ως έναν συγγραφέα στρυφνό και δυσνόητο, χαμένο στη σκέψη του, που μπορούσες να αποκρυπτογραφήσεις μόνο μερικές φορές. Τώρα πιστεύω πως ήρθε η ώρα να ξαναδιαβάσω αυτό το μυθιστόρημα, μαζί με κάποια άλλα του. Κι ήρθε η στιγμή γιατί εγώ άλλαξα ως αναγνώστρια, κι όχι γιατί ο δημιουργός δεν είναι πια στη ζωή.
July 15, 2018
Gerusalemme, inverno 1959-60. Un ragazzo universitario di 25 anni, alle prese con una ricerca, che non riesce a concludere, intitolata "Gesù visto dagli ebrei". Questo libro parla del tradimento, non di un tradimento o del Tradimento di Giuda , ma di tanti tradimenti e a parlarcene è il protagonista Shemuel, il tradito. Shemuel, infatti, è stato lasciato all'improvviso e senza una parola di spiegazione dalla fidanzata è stato lasciato senza mezzi dalla famiglia. Così si trova a fare compagnia a un anziano in cambio di vitto e alloggio e a casa di Wald conosce la nuora di lui Atalia donna di una certa età ma affascinante. I tradimenti come dicevo sono tanti: traditore è stato considerato il nonno di Shemuel, traditore il padre di Atalia traditori i commilitoni del marito di Atalia per averlo lasciato in mano agli arabi, traditori gli arabi che lo hanno ucciso senza un barlume di pietà umana, ma traditori anche gli ebrei che occupano suolo arabo e così via, senza considerare che gli ebrei sono i traditori come popolo, i Giuda, quelli che hanno ucciso Gesù il cui sangue deve ricadere sui loro figli . E tra queste pagine Oz affronta il tema politico dei rapporti arabo-israeliani dando a diversi personaggi, diversi punti di vista, ma mi pare ritenga per lo più che l'inasprimento dei rapporti non porti nulla di buono. E cerca di riabilitare Giuda, forse perchè non vuole l'etichetta di Giuda per il suo popolo. Comunque quello che invade queste pagine è la Solitudine . E poi c’� lei Atalia una figura che si inserisce pian piano che mostra la sua indipendenza : la routine di Shemuel e il bisogno di conversazione di Wald non sembrano interessarle. Tuttavia acquista fin da subito un volto umano e realistico. Lo stile dell’autore è razionale, ricco, pulito e incredibilmente originale una scrittura austera, cioè priva di fronzoli o leziosità, una scrittura che procede senza sforzi. Mi sono persa tra la descrizione dei paesaggi di Gerusalemme , che ti toccano nel profondo :� luce invernale, luce di pini e pietra"; "i neri cipressi oscillavano come in quieta devozione" e nel silenzio "si sentono quasi respirare le pietre".
November 2, 2018
Update - After an excellent book club discussion, I am raising my rating to 3.6 stars rounded up to 4 stars. The more time spent with this novel, the more I've appreciated it and learned from it.
I am conflicted about this book. Oz uses the novel as a vehicle for his ideas about the creation of the Israeli state as well as the role Judas played in instigating Christianity. He is an excellent writer and expertly uses the characters to propagate these ideas. Yet I felt impatient with the static structure and continuous lectures. Or maybe they felt more like lectures because I listened to the audiobook. I think I would have preferred to read essays by Oz instead.
I am conflicted about this book. Oz uses the novel as a vehicle for his ideas about the creation of the Israeli state as well as the role Judas played in instigating Christianity. He is an excellent writer and expertly uses the characters to propagate these ideas. Yet I felt impatient with the static structure and continuous lectures. Or maybe they felt more like lectures because I listened to the audiobook. I think I would have preferred to read essays by Oz instead.
September 8, 2019
This story covers a three-month period, the winter of 1959 to 1960. The place is Jerusalem. There are three central characters. Schmuel, he is at loose ends � his girlfriend has deserted him and married a previous beau. His father has gone into bankruptcy and can no longer pay for Schmuel’s studies. He had been working toward his MA, writing his thesis on how Jews view Jesus. This has stalled and his participation in a socialist group had been brought to a halt too, the group having split into two opposing factions. So, he wants to take a break, put his life on hold, retreat. Schmuel is soulful, emotional, clearly intelligent, but at the moment without direction, lost. He wants to feel connection to…�..something, someone, a girl or a cause. He sees a handwritten note on the school bulletin board. A job, including room and board in a house on the fringe of the city. He is hired to be company to an elderly man. Make him tea, give him his medicine, warm up his evening porridge and to listen to what he may have to say, for five hours every evening. The rest of his time he is free. But he must tell no others of the arrangements. It is all a bit strange; there is in the house a third person, an attractive middle-aged woman. It is she that employs him. As he sees it, here, he can escape.
That is the set-up, the beginning, and then we learn about the three - Schmuel, the elderly man and the middle-aged woman. Through these three people we observe, no we experience, life in Jerusalem under David Ben-Gurion. Is it at all possible for Jews and Arabs to live together? Could it have been possible if history had taken another path? How do Jews view Jesus, how did Jesus see himself and what role did Judas play? How has Judas been seen and how should he be seen? These are the political and religious questions around which the story is built. The course of history and religious conflicts mold the people who live through the events. Relationships and love affairs and choices made are shaped by history.
The writing is vivid. In my mind’s eye, I s-a-w the people - their clothes, how they hold their bodies and move. Each one’s personality melds with what they do and say, where they live and how they dress and the choices they make.
So what gave me trouble and why not more stars? The book looks at relationships and it looks at the Jewish nation and how it came into being. The characters do not change. Why is that? Because only three months have passed? Because people do rarely change? Because history has irreparably marked them? There are different causes for different characters, but given this lack of change, for whatever reason, the book’s focus falls back on its religious themes. These themes are repetitively presented. Quite simply there is not enough in the book or just too many pages for what it says.
I do not like the audiobook narration by Jonathan Davis. This has not influenced my rating of the book. I insist on separating the two; I think this is only fair to an author. The mix of exaggerated pauses and then rapid spurts of words irritates me. You cannot hear which character is speaking; one must pay attention to who the author tells us is speaking. Men and women sound exactly the same. OK, it was never hard to distinguish what exactly was said. Each word is clear. Still, I have given the narration one star; listening was not enjoyable.
Good writing, but lacking in content. I wanted the book to say more.
It is interesting to note that the author supports a two state solution to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.
Are you curious to know what I think the author is saying? See message two below.
****
Book I have read by Amos Oz, in order of preference:
4 stars
4 stars
4 stars
3 stars
1 star
That is the set-up, the beginning, and then we learn about the three - Schmuel, the elderly man and the middle-aged woman. Through these three people we observe, no we experience, life in Jerusalem under David Ben-Gurion. Is it at all possible for Jews and Arabs to live together? Could it have been possible if history had taken another path? How do Jews view Jesus, how did Jesus see himself and what role did Judas play? How has Judas been seen and how should he be seen? These are the political and religious questions around which the story is built. The course of history and religious conflicts mold the people who live through the events. Relationships and love affairs and choices made are shaped by history.
The writing is vivid. In my mind’s eye, I s-a-w the people - their clothes, how they hold their bodies and move. Each one’s personality melds with what they do and say, where they live and how they dress and the choices they make.
So what gave me trouble and why not more stars? The book looks at relationships and it looks at the Jewish nation and how it came into being. The characters do not change. Why is that? Because only three months have passed? Because people do rarely change? Because history has irreparably marked them? There are different causes for different characters, but given this lack of change, for whatever reason, the book’s focus falls back on its religious themes. These themes are repetitively presented. Quite simply there is not enough in the book or just too many pages for what it says.
I do not like the audiobook narration by Jonathan Davis. This has not influenced my rating of the book. I insist on separating the two; I think this is only fair to an author. The mix of exaggerated pauses and then rapid spurts of words irritates me. You cannot hear which character is speaking; one must pay attention to who the author tells us is speaking. Men and women sound exactly the same. OK, it was never hard to distinguish what exactly was said. Each word is clear. Still, I have given the narration one star; listening was not enjoyable.
Good writing, but lacking in content. I wanted the book to say more.
It is interesting to note that the author supports a two state solution to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict.
Are you curious to know what I think the author is saying? See message two below.
****
Book I have read by Amos Oz, in order of preference:
4 stars
4 stars
4 stars
3 stars
1 star
March 6, 2019
Ein flüssig zu lesender Roman mit dem Manko, dass die Handlung gefühlt nie richtig vorankommt. Anfangs lässt sich das noch verschmerzen, ist doch die erzählerische Stagnation Ausdruck für die innere Verfassung der Protagonisten. Dazu umgibt die kleine Hausgemeinschaft aus dem pflegebedürftigen Gerschom Wald und seiner Schwiegertochter, in die der ehemalige Student Schmuel Asch eindringt, eine der Spannung zuträgliche Aura des Geheimnisvollen. Amoz Oz schildert das Aufeinandertreffen dieser drei Menschen und die Atmosphäre im Haus, in durchaus stimmungsvollen Bildern. Der Zauber verflüchtigt sich aus meiner Sicht allerdings spätestens an dem Punkt der Geschichte, wo die Hintergründe aller Beteiligten offen zu Tage liegen. Ab da fallen vor allem die zahlreichen Wiederholungen im Text auf. Wenn zum Beispiel das Schicksal von Schmuels Großvater zum dritten Mal thematisiert oder der Rauswurf von Ataljas Vater aus der Jewish Agency einmal mehr erwähnt wird, denkt man nur: Danke, aber ich hab's jetzt langsam kapiert! Da tritt die Handlung wirklich auf der Stelle, so dass man den Eindruck gewinnt, dem Autor ist einfach nichts mehr eingefallen. Die verdächtig vielen Szenen in denen sich Schmuel ein Brot schmiert (wahlweise mit Butter, Käse oder Marmelade belegt), sind auch nicht gerade geeignet diesen Vorwurf zu entkräften. Ganz interessant finde ich die historischen und religionswissenschaftlichen Aspekte des Romans. Man erfährt einiges über die Staatsgründung Israels und das bis heute problematische Verhältnis zu den arabischen Nachbarn. Sehr lehrreich auch die Gedanken zur biblischen Figur des Judas und der Frage des Verrats an Jesus.
March 28, 2021
Ken je dat gevoel van een boek uitlezen en het vervolgens dagen en soms weken missen? Het overkwam me met Max, Mischa & het Tetoffensief en met Het 8e leven van Brilka. En met dit boek, dat ik in 2015 las.
Ik had heimwee naar de metaforen waar Oz mee strooit, heimwee naar de 3 hoofdpersonen en heimwee naar het kleine universum dat Oz zo vakkundig en liefdevol heeft gebouwd. Dat laatste merk je aan de ruimte die hij neemt om het huis en de tuin van de oude man en de weduwe te beschrijven.
Bij het lezen van dit boek, mijn eerste roman van Amos Oz, nam ik regelmatig een pauze om het moois goed binnen te laten komen.
'Langs de muur van de tuin en onder aan het huis en ook op de vensterbanken brandden vuurtjes van geraniums, rode, witte, roze, lila en paarse. Ze bloeiden hier in allerhande verroeste pannen en oude ketels die hun dienst erop hadden zitten, kwamen op uit de oogkassen van petroleumstellen, vertakten zich tussen emmers, schaaltjes, blikken en een gebarsten wc-pot.'
Het vakmanschap van Oz, die hiermee zijn 13e (?) roman publiceerde, manifesteert zich niet alleen in zintuigprikkelende observaties maar ook in boeiende dialogen tussen Sjmoeël Asj (25) en de bejaarde invalide Gersjom Wald die hij in de namiddag en avond - tegen betaling - gezelschap houdt.
Zonder twijfel 5 sterren en zeker een boek dat ik ga herlezen.
Ik had heimwee naar de metaforen waar Oz mee strooit, heimwee naar de 3 hoofdpersonen en heimwee naar het kleine universum dat Oz zo vakkundig en liefdevol heeft gebouwd. Dat laatste merk je aan de ruimte die hij neemt om het huis en de tuin van de oude man en de weduwe te beschrijven.
Bij het lezen van dit boek, mijn eerste roman van Amos Oz, nam ik regelmatig een pauze om het moois goed binnen te laten komen.
'Langs de muur van de tuin en onder aan het huis en ook op de vensterbanken brandden vuurtjes van geraniums, rode, witte, roze, lila en paarse. Ze bloeiden hier in allerhande verroeste pannen en oude ketels die hun dienst erop hadden zitten, kwamen op uit de oogkassen van petroleumstellen, vertakten zich tussen emmers, schaaltjes, blikken en een gebarsten wc-pot.'
Het vakmanschap van Oz, die hiermee zijn 13e (?) roman publiceerde, manifesteert zich niet alleen in zintuigprikkelende observaties maar ook in boeiende dialogen tussen Sjmoeël Asj (25) en de bejaarde invalide Gersjom Wald die hij in de namiddag en avond - tegen betaling - gezelschap houdt.
Zonder twijfel 5 sterren en zeker een boek dat ik ga herlezen.
August 15, 2018
Είναι η πρώτη μου επαφή με τον συγγραφέα κ όχι φυσικά η τελευταία. Το συγκεκριμένο βιβλίο το πήρα γιατί μου έκανε εντύπωση πρώτα ο τίτλος κ εν συνεχεία η ιστορία. Είναι ένα ιδιαίτερο βιβλίο. Απαιτεί υπομονή και γνώση καθώς διαπραγματεύεται θέματα ιστορικού και θρησκευτικού περιεχομένα. Είναι ένα διδακτικό βιβλίο που σε βάζει στη διαδικασία να σκεφτείς, να προβληματιστείς κ παράλληλα να αναθεωρήσεις όσα γνώριζες.
March 17, 2025
Consumato un blocchetto di mini-post it per segnare le pagine e una matita per sottolineare...
Perché non posso dare 10 stelle ? consideratelo fatto !
Non sono brava come tante altre amiche/amici di GR a fare commenti : posso solo dire che è bellissimo ! Sarà che era il momento, sarà che l'argomento (Israele) mi appassiona , sarà che Oz è un grandissimo scrittore sarà ... non lo so ma ho cercato di " trascinarlo" un po' perché mi dispiaceva finirlo ma, purtroppo, l'ho finito e già mi manca. Grazie Oz , mi hai fatto passare delle ore bellissime, ci si legge !
Perché non posso dare 10 stelle ? consideratelo fatto !
Non sono brava come tante altre amiche/amici di GR a fare commenti : posso solo dire che è bellissimo ! Sarà che era il momento, sarà che l'argomento (Israele) mi appassiona , sarà che Oz è un grandissimo scrittore sarà ... non lo so ma ho cercato di " trascinarlo" un po' perché mi dispiaceva finirlo ma, purtroppo, l'ho finito e già mi manca. Grazie Oz , mi hai fatto passare delle ore bellissime, ci si legge !
October 22, 2019
Ora e sempre
Questo è l'ultimo romanzo che Amos Oz ha scritto prima di lasciarci. E' un libro che decolla lentamente, ma rimane impresso, per la quantità di pensieri che smuove. Il lettore cattolico rimane colpito dall'interpretazione data delle figure di Gesù e Giuda, a me non nuova.
Io sono rimasta più impressionata dalle emozioni di Oz che si vedono in filigrana attraverso le pagine. Oz è un uomo che ha vissuto i suoi 75 anni in un luogo squassato da guerre sanguinose e l'amarezza della vita l'ha gustata presto, dai bombardamenti su Gerusalemme al suicidio della madre, alla decisione di rifarsi una vita da solo in un kibbutz a 15 anni, cambiando il cognome Klausner in Oz. Mi sarebbe piaciuto che tutte queste vicende avessero un lieto fine: ne avessero rafforzato la tempra, nel senso di raggiungere un equilibrio interiore che non si fa scalfire.
Invece questo libro è tutt'altro che pacificato: ambientato nel 1959, 12 anni dopo la guerra vista da Oz bambino, ha protagonista un giovane disorientato che è scosso da ogni vento: l'abbandono della ragazza e degli studi universitari, il fascino di una donna più matura che non fa nulla per ingannarlo. Questo giovane, rimasto senza denaro per via di un dissesto economico della famiglia, trova ospitalità presso un anziano invalido in cambio di compagnia per il pomeriggio. La casa è un'antica dimora gerosolimitana con giardino, molto affascinante. Pian piano, attraverso le parole della padrona di casa, il giovane va scoprendo le vite e le speranze che avevano animato quelle stanze, prima della guerra. Un padre che era vissuto portando avanti un ideale politico di fratellanza fra ebrei e arabi, senza guerre a scavare solchi incolmabili da ambo le parti, e ci aveva investito così tanto da trascurare completamente la famiglia. Aveva perso anche la sua causa politica, indicato come traditore e cacciato dal partito. Insomma il giovane disorientato incontra i ruderi fumanti delle vite degli altri, come Amos Klausner si era trovato fra i ruderi fumanti delle vite dei genitori.
In una Israele che oggi come allora è attanagliata dai dissidi interni, dai rimpianti per possibili occasioni di pace perdute, da minacce esterne, Amos Oz sembra dire che il tempo passa ma invano; il cielo è vuoto, anche quello di Giuda, che si suicida. Ci sono in questo libro immagini di una crudezza mai vista nelle opere di Amos Oz.
Il mondo va avanti solo perchè i giovani continuano a sperare e fra questi anche il nostro, che si scuote di dosso la vecchia Gerusalemme e va a cercare lavoro in una nuova città in costruzione nel deserto, Mitzpe Ramon.
Questo è l'ultimo romanzo che Amos Oz ha scritto prima di lasciarci. E' un libro che decolla lentamente, ma rimane impresso, per la quantità di pensieri che smuove. Il lettore cattolico rimane colpito dall'interpretazione data delle figure di Gesù e Giuda, a me non nuova.
Io sono rimasta più impressionata dalle emozioni di Oz che si vedono in filigrana attraverso le pagine. Oz è un uomo che ha vissuto i suoi 75 anni in un luogo squassato da guerre sanguinose e l'amarezza della vita l'ha gustata presto, dai bombardamenti su Gerusalemme al suicidio della madre, alla decisione di rifarsi una vita da solo in un kibbutz a 15 anni, cambiando il cognome Klausner in Oz. Mi sarebbe piaciuto che tutte queste vicende avessero un lieto fine: ne avessero rafforzato la tempra, nel senso di raggiungere un equilibrio interiore che non si fa scalfire.
Invece questo libro è tutt'altro che pacificato: ambientato nel 1959, 12 anni dopo la guerra vista da Oz bambino, ha protagonista un giovane disorientato che è scosso da ogni vento: l'abbandono della ragazza e degli studi universitari, il fascino di una donna più matura che non fa nulla per ingannarlo. Questo giovane, rimasto senza denaro per via di un dissesto economico della famiglia, trova ospitalità presso un anziano invalido in cambio di compagnia per il pomeriggio. La casa è un'antica dimora gerosolimitana con giardino, molto affascinante. Pian piano, attraverso le parole della padrona di casa, il giovane va scoprendo le vite e le speranze che avevano animato quelle stanze, prima della guerra. Un padre che era vissuto portando avanti un ideale politico di fratellanza fra ebrei e arabi, senza guerre a scavare solchi incolmabili da ambo le parti, e ci aveva investito così tanto da trascurare completamente la famiglia. Aveva perso anche la sua causa politica, indicato come traditore e cacciato dal partito. Insomma il giovane disorientato incontra i ruderi fumanti delle vite degli altri, come Amos Klausner si era trovato fra i ruderi fumanti delle vite dei genitori.
In una Israele che oggi come allora è attanagliata dai dissidi interni, dai rimpianti per possibili occasioni di pace perdute, da minacce esterne, Amos Oz sembra dire che il tempo passa ma invano; il cielo è vuoto, anche quello di Giuda, che si suicida. Ci sono in questo libro immagini di una crudezza mai vista nelle opere di Amos Oz.
Il mondo va avanti solo perchè i giovani continuano a sperare e fra questi anche il nostro, che si scuote di dosso la vecchia Gerusalemme e va a cercare lavoro in una nuova città in costruzione nel deserto, Mitzpe Ramon.
September 6, 2020
4.5*
'HERE IS A STORY from the winter days of the end of 1959 and the beginning of 1960. It is a story of error and desire, of unrequited love, and of a religious question that remains unresolved.'
Taip Amos Oz pradeda savo paskutinį pasakojimą.
'And he stood there, wondering.'
... baigia.
Tarp šių sakinių yra meistriškai ir su dideliu nerimu dėl Izraelio ir Palestinos sugyvenimo ateities parašyta istorija - liūdna ir jautri, tiršta religinių, politinių, filosofinių idėjų.
Izraelio valstybės gimimas ir pirmi žingsniai atskleidžiami per trijų vienišų žmonių, gyvenančių po vienu stogu, meilę, bendravimą ir prisiminimus.
'I love Israel, but I don't like it very much', - "The Guardian" interviu prisipažino Amos.
Mane šiame romane labiausiai domino Judas Iscariot tema.
Kaip jums šitokia mintis apie Judą?
'…the first Christian. The last Christian. The only Christian.'
Žinoma, abejonė del Judo - banalaus išdaviko - simbolio jau seniai aptarinėjama religijos istorikų ir filosofų, bet tas 'only Christian' mane labai sudomino.
Beje, ši knyga yra Man Booker International Shortlist'e 2017
'HERE IS A STORY from the winter days of the end of 1959 and the beginning of 1960. It is a story of error and desire, of unrequited love, and of a religious question that remains unresolved.'
Taip Amos Oz pradeda savo paskutinį pasakojimą.
'And he stood there, wondering.'
... baigia.
Tarp šių sakinių yra meistriškai ir su dideliu nerimu dėl Izraelio ir Palestinos sugyvenimo ateities parašyta istorija - liūdna ir jautri, tiršta religinių, politinių, filosofinių idėjų.
Izraelio valstybės gimimas ir pirmi žingsniai atskleidžiami per trijų vienišų žmonių, gyvenančių po vienu stogu, meilę, bendravimą ir prisiminimus.
'I love Israel, but I don't like it very much', - "The Guardian" interviu prisipažino Amos.
Mane šiame romane labiausiai domino Judas Iscariot tema.
Kaip jums šitokia mintis apie Judą?
'…the first Christian. The last Christian. The only Christian.'
Žinoma, abejonė del Judo - banalaus išdaviko - simbolio jau seniai aptarinėjama religijos istorikų ir filosofų, bet tas 'only Christian' mane labai sudomino.
Beje, ši knyga yra Man Booker International Shortlist'e 2017
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,105 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.