i have to say frankly and up front that i find the history of love absolutely astonishing. [but i'm discovering that i must be a sucker for romanticizing things.] apparently the book didn't go over so well, now that i dig into some reviews. the new york times wasn't complimentary at all, and managed to talk more about krauss's husband, jonathan safran foer, than about her. in any case, i'm undeterred. i could still read this book every day and never get sick of it.
why?
her writing is ironic and intoxicating and funny and lyrical and perfectly brief. how can you resist sentences like these:
"the soft down of your white hair lightly playing about your scalp like a half-blown dandelion. many times, bruno, i have been tempted to blow on your head and make a wish."
"night fell and still i was lost. i hadn't eaten all day. i called mr. tong. twenty minutes later, i was alone with my spring rolls."
"when i was a boy i liked to write. it was the only thing i wanted to do with my life. i invented imaginary people and filled notebooks with their stories. i wrote about a boy who grew up and got so hairy people wanted him for his fur. he had to hide in the trees, and he fell in love with a bird who thought she was a three-hundred-pound gorilla."
the book resonates for me, too, because of love. i think muranda hinted at it a little in her post -- but i can't read this novel without thinking that it is about one person. leo and alma and bruno and litvinoff and charlotte and everyone else are all bits of leo himself. ergo, there all bits of me, the reader. and each love relationship isn't complete by itself: it's only complete when you combine them. it only comes full circle when leo loves bruno and his son and alma, when alma loves bird and her mother and leo, etc etc etc. and so, sarajane, it's okay [in fact it seems perfect] that the book is titled the history of love because it is leo's book. and it's my book. and it's your book.
and i love this book.
[would it be stretching too far to say it loves me back?]
Friday, April 27, 2007
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Very Inadequate
Me, that is! I am not even close to being as insiteful as the two of you, but I did enjoy the book. I am sorry it took me so long to post. This book is very popular at the library. I was on a wait list all the way until last Friday.
First off. Sarajane, I was thinking the same thing as you, with the title of the book. But then as I was thinking about it a little more, I feel like in a way, this book was showing how all of the characters love someone just like in the "Real" History of Love. How every character is living to love or be loved. They are either Leo (the author) or Alma Mereminski. Which in my opinion is the case in real life. What is there to life without love?
Leo, for example, is living his life to be loved. He doesn't care who loves him, he just needs someone. Even if the love comes from someone that just "sees" him somewhere. It is very interesting that you guys caught on to Bruno being imaginary. I didn't pick up on that until the end of the book. It seems that Leo has made him up to feel loved, and to feel a sense of peace that he would be missed if he died.
Alma Singer, is living to love, in my opinion. She loves her mother and her brother so much, that she will do anything in her power to help them feel loved. She wants to find her mother someone to love her so that she can mend her broken heart after her father died. She wants Bird to be normal so that he can have friends and be loved. The one relationship that I couldn't quite get a handle on, was between Alma and her uncle. I kept trying to get over that fact that it was a little creepy, but I just couldn't. Any insite?
I agree with whoever talked about Zvi's love for Rosa being the most common. I definitely feel like he was doing whatever he could to make her love him. He had such a strong desire to feel love that he lied and lived a life that haunted him night after night.
This was a great book. More of a thinker than a page turner in my opinion. Sorry I am not the best book reviewer.
**Muranda
First off. Sarajane, I was thinking the same thing as you, with the title of the book. But then as I was thinking about it a little more, I feel like in a way, this book was showing how all of the characters love someone just like in the "Real" History of Love. How every character is living to love or be loved. They are either Leo (the author) or Alma Mereminski. Which in my opinion is the case in real life. What is there to life without love?
Leo, for example, is living his life to be loved. He doesn't care who loves him, he just needs someone. Even if the love comes from someone that just "sees" him somewhere. It is very interesting that you guys caught on to Bruno being imaginary. I didn't pick up on that until the end of the book. It seems that Leo has made him up to feel loved, and to feel a sense of peace that he would be missed if he died.
Alma Singer, is living to love, in my opinion. She loves her mother and her brother so much, that she will do anything in her power to help them feel loved. She wants to find her mother someone to love her so that she can mend her broken heart after her father died. She wants Bird to be normal so that he can have friends and be loved. The one relationship that I couldn't quite get a handle on, was between Alma and her uncle. I kept trying to get over that fact that it was a little creepy, but I just couldn't. Any insite?
I agree with whoever talked about Zvi's love for Rosa being the most common. I definitely feel like he was doing whatever he could to make her love him. He had such a strong desire to feel love that he lied and lived a life that haunted him night after night.
This was a great book. More of a thinker than a page turner in my opinion. Sorry I am not the best book reviewer.
**Muranda
Monday, April 23, 2007
a life's work
First I have to say that Nicole Krauss is brilliant.
From the contemporary style to the characters themselves I love the book.
Leo Gursky the man who devotes himself to trying “not to die on a day when I went unseen.” What a character. I think we can all relate to his fears; going unnoticed, being left behind, not mattering , being unloved.
Alma Singer is Leo Gursky’s counterpart. Similar yet opposite. Where Leo accepts defeat {when he finds Alma in America and discovers his son- he walks away} and retreats. Alma on the other hand steps up to the challenge. She will discover who Alma is and draw her mother out of her comatoseness if it takes a lifetime. Her determination is strong. She will survive like the spring flower that came up too soon, she will hold on and survive.
They are both survivors. Alma with her survival lists, and her love of all things related to it. Leo the Holocaust survivor has held out through all of lives misfortunes. His desire to Exist is strong but his ambition to Thrive has been submersed under the past. There is a difference between a live that is gone through and one that has been lived. What makes that difference? Did Leo lose his thirst for life after his heart was broken? Did it come with old age? Will Alma follow his path? Or will she hold out strong to the end and keep the sparks of life alive?
I hope that you all caught the part at the art class when Leo poses for the art class, Alma was the student in the oversized sweatshirt. It was so fitting that the book ends with Leo and Alma together with no words. Like in one of the chapters in “The History of Love,” when Leo wrote about the birth of communication. Where did it begin? With touch,- tapping. Circles are said to be the most pleasing shapes to look at. All good things come full circle, rings, suns, roses, and noses & great novels.
Things I would change about the book; 1. Alma’s mother, Charlotte went uncaptured throughout the novel, perhaps to illustrate how aloof she was to Alma, but the effect could have been achieved even if we had a little introduction to her as a character. 2. The title of the book. On it’s own makes a fine title, but the fact that Leo’s book is called The History of Love and it is an entirely different book from Krauss’ made me feel like it was a copout to use the same name.
Sarajane
From the contemporary style to the characters themselves I love the book.
Leo Gursky the man who devotes himself to trying “not to die on a day when I went unseen.” What a character. I think we can all relate to his fears; going unnoticed, being left behind, not mattering , being unloved.
Alma Singer is Leo Gursky’s counterpart. Similar yet opposite. Where Leo accepts defeat {when he finds Alma in America and discovers his son- he walks away} and retreats. Alma on the other hand steps up to the challenge. She will discover who Alma is and draw her mother out of her comatoseness if it takes a lifetime. Her determination is strong. She will survive like the spring flower that came up too soon, she will hold on and survive.
They are both survivors. Alma with her survival lists, and her love of all things related to it. Leo the Holocaust survivor has held out through all of lives misfortunes. His desire to Exist is strong but his ambition to Thrive has been submersed under the past. There is a difference between a live that is gone through and one that has been lived. What makes that difference? Did Leo lose his thirst for life after his heart was broken? Did it come with old age? Will Alma follow his path? Or will she hold out strong to the end and keep the sparks of life alive?
I hope that you all caught the part at the art class when Leo poses for the art class, Alma was the student in the oversized sweatshirt. It was so fitting that the book ends with Leo and Alma together with no words. Like in one of the chapters in “The History of Love,” when Leo wrote about the birth of communication. Where did it begin? With touch,- tapping. Circles are said to be the most pleasing shapes to look at. All good things come full circle, rings, suns, roses, and noses & great novels.
Things I would change about the book; 1. Alma’s mother, Charlotte went uncaptured throughout the novel, perhaps to illustrate how aloof she was to Alma, but the effect could have been achieved even if we had a little introduction to her as a character. 2. The title of the book. On it’s own makes a fine title, but the fact that Leo’s book is called The History of Love and it is an entirely different book from Krauss’ made me feel like it was a copout to use the same name.
Sarajane
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Love from all angles
Well I just finished The History of Love this week and I thought it was a very interesting read. I was hoping Sarajane would post first because I am not sure how this online book group thing goes - but here are some of my thoughts anyway.
One aspect that I liked was that Krauss describes love from so many different angles.
I think one type of love we see is the all consuming love. Leo's love is one that consumed his life but it was a lonely love. He was unable to move on after Alma was married. Perhaps this is a true and deep love but it is certainly a love that he allowed to overtake him so that he led a life of solitary. Also at the end of the novel he indicates that she may have even been saying good-bye to him forever when she left for America and perhaps didn't love him as he loved her. Charlotte Singer also has a love that is all consuming. She and her husband certainly l0ved each other but after his death she is unable to move past her love - to the detriment of her and her children. I think the all consuming love is intriguing because it seems like the love that one would want - to be completely dedicated to one's love - but the book shows how this type of love can be very detrimental. Perhaps she is saying that one should love without losing one's own identity?
I think Zvi's love for Rosa is one that many people would relate to. He felt inadequate. He was sure of his love for Rosa but was also afraid that once she knew him well enought she surely could not love him. This led him to copy Leo's manuscript and led a life of guilt. However, I thought it was interesting that at the end we learn that he had no need to feel inadequate because Rosa loved him so much that she flooded her house to keep from him the knowledge that she found out he copied the manuscript.
Alma Singer's love/need for love is interesting as well. She loves her father, mother and brother very much but feels a need for both normalcy and for, maybe not even love but attention, from her mother. She needs her mother to give up her longing for lost love and to live in the present and help both Alma and Bird to deal with their love and sense of loss from their father's death - a loss in many senses of both parents.
Well this is getting very long and I don't think it is that insightful. But I am excited to read what others thought. My other question/thought is about the ending. I felt like the ending brought out so much without delving into it very much. Maybe I am just not an insightful reader, but I certainly thought Bruno - although an unusual friendship - was alive and living above Leo. He was just imaginary the whole time? I also thought she brought up a lot of interesting parts of the relationships between the characters right at the end of the story that left me wanting to know more details.
Good pick on a book Sarajane. I really enjoyed it and hope I am not the only one to post!!
---Camille
One aspect that I liked was that Krauss describes love from so many different angles.
I think one type of love we see is the all consuming love. Leo's love is one that consumed his life but it was a lonely love. He was unable to move on after Alma was married. Perhaps this is a true and deep love but it is certainly a love that he allowed to overtake him so that he led a life of solitary. Also at the end of the novel he indicates that she may have even been saying good-bye to him forever when she left for America and perhaps didn't love him as he loved her. Charlotte Singer also has a love that is all consuming. She and her husband certainly l0ved each other but after his death she is unable to move past her love - to the detriment of her and her children. I think the all consuming love is intriguing because it seems like the love that one would want - to be completely dedicated to one's love - but the book shows how this type of love can be very detrimental. Perhaps she is saying that one should love without losing one's own identity?
I think Zvi's love for Rosa is one that many people would relate to. He felt inadequate. He was sure of his love for Rosa but was also afraid that once she knew him well enought she surely could not love him. This led him to copy Leo's manuscript and led a life of guilt. However, I thought it was interesting that at the end we learn that he had no need to feel inadequate because Rosa loved him so much that she flooded her house to keep from him the knowledge that she found out he copied the manuscript.
Alma Singer's love/need for love is interesting as well. She loves her father, mother and brother very much but feels a need for both normalcy and for, maybe not even love but attention, from her mother. She needs her mother to give up her longing for lost love and to live in the present and help both Alma and Bird to deal with their love and sense of loss from their father's death - a loss in many senses of both parents.
Well this is getting very long and I don't think it is that insightful. But I am excited to read what others thought. My other question/thought is about the ending. I felt like the ending brought out so much without delving into it very much. Maybe I am just not an insightful reader, but I certainly thought Bruno - although an unusual friendship - was alive and living above Leo. He was just imaginary the whole time? I also thought she brought up a lot of interesting parts of the relationships between the characters right at the end of the story that left me wanting to know more details.
Good pick on a book Sarajane. I really enjoyed it and hope I am not the only one to post!!
---Camille
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
