Reviews

One man's story of the loss and brutal murder of his wife and of his work in peace negotiations. Insightful/familiar for anyone who has experienced or knows the power plays and banalities of peace talks, but also of the lonely life of people on the (high level) road. Melancholic, pensive, rambling at times, honest and touching.

char1otte's review

Go to review page

emotional reflective sad slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? A mix
Strong character development? No
Loveable characters? It's complicated
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated

2.75

I had to really force myself to keep going at times, but there is wonderful descriptions of landscapes, of ennui, of deep human emotion in here that lead me to read on. And the final chapter made it really worth it.

Content Warnings

karrative's review against another edition

Go to review page

emotional funny reflective slow-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Strong character development? Yes
Loveable characters? Yes
Diverse cast of characters? No
Flaws of characters a main focus? No

3.5

I am somewhat surprised by the relatively low rating I gave this book. It certainly looked like a higher scorer at the start. I was laughing out loud within the first few pages, I LOVED the marital 'dialogues', a lot of the material I found thought-provoking and there's a chapter about taking a shit in this book which is one of the best things I ever read. I suppose I am lucky enough to not related to the issue of bereavement. Despite that, I certainly found the depiction of love in this book to be very close to my heart, my admirations and my understanding of it should entail. That moved me.
And yet... Something didn't grip me till the very end. I found myself almost losing interest in the end. Whilst the very end, both the chapters and the further readings, satisfied me and gave a sense completion, I was not as involved in the story as the start of it made me think I would. Hence the rating.

Then we breakfast rather later, behind the copies of the International Herald Tribune, The Times, Frankfurter Allgemeinde Zeitung and the rest. It was Baudelaire - I looked it up online - who railed against this 'revolting aperitif that the civilised man starts his morning meal with'. 'War, crime, rapine, shamelessness, tourture... a delirium of universal atrocity.' The point is well made, but the word aperitif has always troubled me. At breakfast? If you're a Symbolist poet, I suppose.

And that's it or this one. I just wanted you to know the good news and to say you shouldn't worry about me. I was feeling pretty low last time. You know how I get sometimes? But I have recovered my spirits.

(I can see the look on your face, by the way, How I love that look. How I love the cry of Ed! You scrunch your nose, shiver in disgust, act as if you are appalled, but you know very well that a love story truthfully told would be as full of shared poos and farts and bottoms and willies, as it would indeed of fuck me harders and suck my dicks and eat my pussys. And don't Ed! me about those either because I know they really turn you on. Make me wet, oh Jesus, I'm coming, coming... One might almost say true love only exists when two people share without inhibition such baby talk, such dirty talk; when there are no limits to filthy intimacy.)

Personal goodness did not come into being a 'good man', I realised. For 'good man' was not a shortening of 'you are a good man' but rather of 'good, you are a man'. In other words, 'good' was not an adjective that attached to any individual because of heir own virtue, but rather it attached to all men by virtue of their being men, assuming that they behaved in a suitably male way, which was very much to be assumed, hence the general approbation inherent in the expression. [...] All of which I instinctively warm to, for whatever you say about English maleness - and I sense you are poised to come up with quite a list - it has the virtue of not being aggressively macho, but rather characterised by a certain restrained, an essential decency and a genuine - if self-regarding - sense of ridiculous.

You never liked me recommending books. And I can imagine you saying, Look, I have just finished this one, don't start telling what to read next. But books have been referenced - the usual ragbag - and so I am risking it.
I remember you admitting to me once, years after we first met, that one of the things you most like about me at the beginning was that I was so bookish. Bookish and good-looking. A man never forgets a thing like that.
Do you get to read at all? The thought that you certainly don't is just another thing that breaks my heart.

nickelini's review

Go to review page

dark emotional funny reflective sad medium-paced

Plot- or character-driven? Character
Diverse cast of characters? Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes

4.5

More...