thel ([info]thel) wrote on July 23rd, 2009 at 01:24 pm
Sniegs
Atminos, kāds visai viduvējs rakstnieks izteicās, ka nesaprot, kāpēc Pamukam ir iedota Nobela prēmija. Man personīgi šādu šaubu nav. Izlasīju viņa pēdējo romānu 'Sniegs'. Manuprāt, vienkāršākais (cik nu to var teikt par viņa grāmatām) Pamuka darbs, ja vien neskaita 'Balto pili'. Bet, protams, kā jau raksturīgi Pamukam - pilns ar citātiem un atsaucēm. Tātad - par formu 4/5, saturs 4/5. (Tikai tāpēc, ka fundamentālisma problēmas un eiropas/austrumu attiecības man šajos platuma grādos nešķiet pārāk saistoši. Taču jebkurā gadījumā - par sliktu nenāca iztēloties fundamentālistu psiholoģiju un argumentus pret 'ateistisko' Eiropu.)
Ja kādam interesē filozofija literatūrā, tad pietiekami jauki bija galvenā varoņa- dzejnieka mēģinājumi klasificēt savus pieredzējumus/ dzeju izmantojot Bēkona metodi.
Amazones vērtējums (1/5):
"Snow" started as promising, but gradually became boring and redundant. The story follows Ka, an alienated Turkish poet returning to his home town of Kars. The same dialogue exchanges are repeated over and over between the modern, Turkish poet and the provincial Turkish fundamentalist moslems of small town Kars. The fundamentalists are idealized as generous and pure of heart. At the point Ka, the protagonist reads his poem named "Snow" to a woman and literally asks her six times if she thinks it is beautiful, and six times she responds that it is very beautiful. The alienated intellectual Ka's spiritual quest to get in touch with his cultural and religious identity is agonizingly boring.
 
( Read comments )
Post a comment in response:
From:
( )Anonymous- this user has disabled anonymous posting.
Username:
Password:
Subject:
No HTML allowed in subject
  
Message:

Notice! This user has turned on the option that logs your IP address when posting.