Ratings1
Average rating4
The fictional masterpieces of the great Yugoslav writer Danilo Kis-Hourglass: A Tomb for Boris Davidovich: Garden, Ashes; and The Encyclopedia of the Dead - established him as a figure of incomparable originality and eloquence in the spectrum of contemporary European literature. With this posthumous selection from his non-fiction made by Susan Sontag, who was a friend of Kis, the English-language reader will be able to admire an equally original, more polemical aspect of Kis's genius.
Here is Kis on nationalism as kitsch and collective paranoia, on the dilemmas of a Central European identity, on the dangers of censorship, on literature's struggle against banality, as well as on writers as different as Nabokov and Sade.
Reviews with the most likes.
I possibly should have read more of Kiš's fiction, especially [b:A Tomb for Boris Davidovich 217983 A Tomb for Boris Davidovich Danilo Kiš https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1494242301s/217983.jpg 1454313], before reading this collection of his essays and interviews... But no time! And I still got a lot from it, only having read his Family Cycle so far. For those who don't know, Kiš was a Yugoslav writer; his father was a Hungarian Jew, and was killed in Auschwitz, and his mother was an Orthodox Serb from Montenegro. Like any collections of this type, some essays/interviews were stronger than others. Some of the essays were on writers I have no knowledge of, but in general the issues he brought up were illuminating and well-considered, in particular:- Nationalism as a "collective paranoia" (p.15), a commitment to a cause that utterly strips a person of individuality, and as a comfortable position and a choice requiring no effort.- The "documentary" approach and use of documents in his fiction in order to the convince the reader of the "truth" behind his work: "Making your readers believe in the truth of your story, making them believe that what they are reading actually happened, that, I repeat, is the main goal of every work of literature." (p.193)- The problems of literary criticism and "its anti-individualist stance; hence the constant need to treat literature in terms of generations" (p.47)- The problems of being defined as a "minority" writer: "Any qualifier next to the noun "writer" diminishes its significance, its sovereignty, and I didn't want—nor do I want—to be a minority writer." (p.183)- His need to find a new "obsession" and variety in technique, theme and style to entertain himself while writing, meaning he cannot write "in response to the demands of the market" (p.198) and in any way repeat his past works.- Literature as a means to correct the "indifference" of history: "History is manifold, literature individual. History shows no concern for passion, crime, or numbers. What is the meaning of "six million dead" (!) if you don't see an individual face or body—if you don't hear an individual story?" (p.206)- Writing as "therapy" and a means to find understanding on past traumas: "Writing is my way of finding release from obsessions, and the device that triggers the consolation mechanism is suffering." (p.225)- His use of "defamilirization" as a technique: "making what is familiar strange" (p.265)