You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.68 AVERAGE
3.68 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
informative
slow-paced
adventurous
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
adventurous
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
reflective
slow-paced
Helaas was dit boek niet wat ik er van verwacht had. Je verwacht bij zo'n verhaal toch op zijn minst een beetje geïnspireerd te worden, maar hoewel er duidelijk een poging gedaan werd, was het naar mijn mening niet succesvol. Het was mooi om te lezen over zijn bevindingen en hoe zijn dagelijks leven eruit zag, maar ik denk dat dit in een aantal pagina's al duidelijk was, dus het was erg repetitief.
adventurous
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
adventurous
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
Un retrait de six mois au fond de la Sibérie, pour se découvrir soi même, revenir à l'essence même de la vie, s'émerveiller dans un océan de solitude. Une expérience très étrange à lire, que l'on envie à moitié qu'on la craint, extrêmement enrichissante sur bien des points.
"Qu'est-ce que la société ? Le nom donné à ce faisceau de courants extérieurs qui pèsent sur le gouvernail de notre barque pour nous empêcher de la mener où bon nous semble."
"Qu'est-ce que la société ? Le nom donné à ce faisceau de courants extérieurs qui pèsent sur le gouvernail de notre barque pour nous empêcher de la mener où bon nous semble."
(Small spoilers about general points, I tried however only to skim these and not go into detail)
It's not often that I read a book and I'm able to pin point why I don't like it, but this book is the exception.
First I have to give credit where it's due: Tesson's description of the nature around him and the complete solitude is beautiful and pleasant to read. The flow of time through the pages feels as organic as it should be in a diary, and the reader can be nearly as excited as Tesson is with the small things nature gives each day. Furthermore, Tesson's encounters with the Russian locals are some of the highlights of the book and gives a insight to the people and the culture.
And this is how I think the book should be: a description of a place and its people over a few months. But Tesson is looking for something more fundamental: he is looking for an escape from the western society. And although he is completely isolated, this is exactly what he ultimately fails to do. To put it simply, in the book Tesson appears hypocritical of his motives and quite out of touch with the wider society.
Tesson creates an idealised image of a hermit who lives in complete harmony with the nature, taking what he can but not harming it at all. He completely assumes this role and goes on to ask us, why don't we all leave our consumerist lives behind and move to the forest. but Tesson fails to acknowledge that it is the consumerist society, that he is inherently part of, which has enabled him to be in isolation in the first place. Sure Tesson fishes and finds food from the forest, but his survival and comfort is largely based on the rations he brought from Irkutsk. Furthermore, he talks of a lifestyle in which you can have luxuries of the western world (in his case fine cigars) but in isolation in harmony with, which is quite contradictory with his many philosophical passages about the nature of a hermit. Tesson does not discuss these clashes, but also does not seem to recognise that his 6 months as a hermit away from the society is a product of the society and in particular his middle-class status. Most of us couldn't simply leave the society for extended period of time to live in a forest, meaning his call for people to leave the society appears quite out of touch. Also, his social commentary of the Parisian suburbs later on in the book further cements the image of a painfully middle class person who does not understands the kind of lives people live outside his bubble.
I'm also annoyed the way he appears quite arrogant in reference to the few locals that live with him in the general area. There are a few moments where, during his idealised hermit talks, he condemns the actions of the Russians that live by the lake Baikal permanently. This comes from his idea that a hermit should not damage the nature, more or less, at all. He allows himself to fish, but does not accept that the locals may want to kill a bear. What is increasingly hypocritical is that some of the people described are more hermits than he is, yet he judges them by the very things one needs to do to survive outside the society. Tesson thus elevates himself to a moral high ground above the locals, from where their actions seem detestable (in Tesson's defence, some the actions and words said are dubious to the extreme). From a western point of view some of the ways the Russians live may seem wrong, but that's exactly the problem; Tesson, a French man, moves to an extremely remote part of Russia, but does not try(or might not be able to as he is lives with the luxuries from the west) to understand the people who live there. By failing to understands the locals, I feel he misses something about the nature as well, which in parts has shaped the people who live there.
Ultimately, as Tesson attempts to define himself as a hermit, he fails to recognise the extreme privilege that he has by simply being there in the immense beauty and isolation in the first place. I think that it is telling, that the major crisis in the book is due to the society, rather than the wilderness; Tesson cannot escape the western world as he fills the isolation and solitude with western materia and thoughts.
It's not often that I read a book and I'm able to pin point why I don't like it, but this book is the exception.
First I have to give credit where it's due: Tesson's description of the nature around him and the complete solitude is beautiful and pleasant to read. The flow of time through the pages feels as organic as it should be in a diary, and the reader can be nearly as excited as Tesson is with the small things nature gives each day. Furthermore, Tesson's encounters with the Russian locals are some of the highlights of the book and gives a insight to the people and the culture.
And this is how I think the book should be: a description of a place and its people over a few months. But Tesson is looking for something more fundamental: he is looking for an escape from the western society. And although he is completely isolated, this is exactly what he ultimately fails to do. To put it simply, in the book Tesson appears hypocritical of his motives and quite out of touch with the wider society.
Tesson creates an idealised image of a hermit who lives in complete harmony with the nature, taking what he can but not harming it at all. He completely assumes this role and goes on to ask us, why don't we all leave our consumerist lives behind and move to the forest. but Tesson fails to acknowledge that it is the consumerist society, that he is inherently part of, which has enabled him to be in isolation in the first place. Sure Tesson fishes and finds food from the forest, but his survival and comfort is largely based on the rations he brought from Irkutsk. Furthermore, he talks of a lifestyle in which you can have luxuries of the western world (in his case fine cigars) but in isolation in harmony with, which is quite contradictory with his many philosophical passages about the nature of a hermit. Tesson does not discuss these clashes, but also does not seem to recognise that his 6 months as a hermit away from the society is a product of the society and in particular his middle-class status. Most of us couldn't simply leave the society for extended period of time to live in a forest, meaning his call for people to leave the society appears quite out of touch. Also, his social commentary of the Parisian suburbs later on in the book further cements the image of a painfully middle class person who does not understands the kind of lives people live outside his bubble.
I'm also annoyed the way he appears quite arrogant in reference to the few locals that live with him in the general area. There are a few moments where, during his idealised hermit talks, he condemns the actions of the Russians that live by the lake Baikal permanently. This comes from his idea that a hermit should not damage the nature, more or less, at all. He allows himself to fish, but does not accept that the locals may want to kill a bear. What is increasingly hypocritical is that some of the people described are more hermits than he is, yet he judges them by the very things one needs to do to survive outside the society. Tesson thus elevates himself to a moral high ground above the locals, from where their actions seem detestable (in Tesson's defence, some the actions and words said are dubious to the extreme). From a western point of view some of the ways the Russians live may seem wrong, but that's exactly the problem; Tesson, a French man, moves to an extremely remote part of Russia, but does not try(or might not be able to as he is lives with the luxuries from the west) to understand the people who live there. By failing to understands the locals, I feel he misses something about the nature as well, which in parts has shaped the people who live there.
Ultimately, as Tesson attempts to define himself as a hermit, he fails to recognise the extreme privilege that he has by simply being there in the immense beauty and isolation in the first place. I think that it is telling, that the major crisis in the book is due to the society, rather than the wilderness; Tesson cannot escape the western world as he fills the isolation and solitude with western materia and thoughts.
So much to love in this book. Some quotes:
"People who find time's swift passage painful cannot bear the sedentary life. In activity they find peace. As the scenery streams past, they feel that time is slowing down... The alternative is the hermitage. I never tire of studying my landscape... I look for three things: fresh nuances in this well-explored tableau, deeper understanding of my remembered idea of the place, confirmation that my move here was a wise decision. Immobility compels me to perform this exercise of virginal observation." p. 166
re Robinson Crusoe:
"Cast up once again on the short, he understands that he will not escape and, at peace, discovers the limitation brings joy. He is then said to resign himself. Resigned, the hermit? No more than the city dweller who, haggard, suddenly realizes beneath the twinkling lights of the boulevard that his whole life will still not be enough for him to sample all the attraction at the party." p. 112
"People who find time's swift passage painful cannot bear the sedentary life. In activity they find peace. As the scenery streams past, they feel that time is slowing down... The alternative is the hermitage. I never tire of studying my landscape... I look for three things: fresh nuances in this well-explored tableau, deeper understanding of my remembered idea of the place, confirmation that my move here was a wise decision. Immobility compels me to perform this exercise of virginal observation." p. 166
re Robinson Crusoe:
"Cast up once again on the short, he understands that he will not escape and, at peace, discovers the limitation brings joy. He is then said to resign himself. Resigned, the hermit? No more than the city dweller who, haggard, suddenly realizes beneath the twinkling lights of the boulevard that his whole life will still not be enough for him to sample all the attraction at the party." p. 112