Scan barcode
blackoxford's review against another edition
A Tragic Sense of Prose
I keep forgetting that interesting philosophers often write uninteresting fiction. Philosophy just doesn’t promote good literary technique. Different skill set. Or perhaps the philosophy was that interesting to begin with
Because Unamuno abjures an omniscient narrator, Abel Sanchez is mostly he said/she said dialogue. The only interior reflections occur as diary entries out of synchronisation with the ‘action.’ There are no contextual descriptions to indicate where conversations take place or any behavioural cues, given for the characters. Their demeanour is certainly a part of what they mean, but the author ain’t saying. Only some sort of ideology would prevent revealing this to the reader. The overall result is a kind of play script with no stage directions; or, even worse, talking heads in a television interview.
Each chapter is an artificial set piece conversation - between Abel and Joaquin; Joaquin and Helena; Abel and Helena; Abel, Joaquin, and Helena; Joaquin and Antonia, etc, etc, until the logical combinations are exhausted. The existential situation of each in relation to each of the others is made tediously clear. There is a definite childishness exposed in each of these conversations, progressing into a sort of teen age angst. The conversations never reach the level of adulthood. People who talk like this need therapy.
Unamuno presumably is revealing himself through these conversations. I can understand why I was attracted to him in my adolescence. Clearly I identified with his celebration of his own, largely self-generated, confusion about life. This piece is a sort of literary recruiting poster for the hormonally-challenged. Harry Enfield’s Kevin cones to mind.
The story line itself is common if not trivial: Boy meets girl; boy loses girl to best friend; boy swears and plots revenge. The effects of jealousy are passed down through generations. The two lead characters apparently have no lives outside their obsession with each other. Their pathology follows a lock-step progression which is tragic but driven more by emotional inertia than by passion. Theirs are merely misdirected emotions not the emergence of irresistible primal urges that represent the secrets of consciousness, fate, and the divine. This is chutzpah not authentic, unavoidable suffering.
One of Unamuno’s philosophical themes in much of his work is that we create the God we search for. Searching for the wrong God, that of jealousy for example, results in death (so do all the others but Unamuno prefers not to think about that as too painful). I am uncertain if this is true, but it certainly produces deathly prose.
I keep forgetting that interesting philosophers often write uninteresting fiction. Philosophy just doesn’t promote good literary technique. Different skill set. Or perhaps the philosophy was that interesting to begin with
Because Unamuno abjures an omniscient narrator, Abel Sanchez is mostly he said/she said dialogue. The only interior reflections occur as diary entries out of synchronisation with the ‘action.’ There are no contextual descriptions to indicate where conversations take place or any behavioural cues, given for the characters. Their demeanour is certainly a part of what they mean, but the author ain’t saying. Only some sort of ideology would prevent revealing this to the reader. The overall result is a kind of play script with no stage directions; or, even worse, talking heads in a television interview.
Each chapter is an artificial set piece conversation - between Abel and Joaquin; Joaquin and Helena; Abel and Helena; Abel, Joaquin, and Helena; Joaquin and Antonia, etc, etc, until the logical combinations are exhausted. The existential situation of each in relation to each of the others is made tediously clear. There is a definite childishness exposed in each of these conversations, progressing into a sort of teen age angst. The conversations never reach the level of adulthood. People who talk like this need therapy.
Unamuno presumably is revealing himself through these conversations. I can understand why I was attracted to him in my adolescence. Clearly I identified with his celebration of his own, largely self-generated, confusion about life. This piece is a sort of literary recruiting poster for the hormonally-challenged. Harry Enfield’s Kevin cones to mind.
The story line itself is common if not trivial: Boy meets girl; boy loses girl to best friend; boy swears and plots revenge. The effects of jealousy are passed down through generations. The two lead characters apparently have no lives outside their obsession with each other. Their pathology follows a lock-step progression which is tragic but driven more by emotional inertia than by passion. Theirs are merely misdirected emotions not the emergence of irresistible primal urges that represent the secrets of consciousness, fate, and the divine. This is chutzpah not authentic, unavoidable suffering.
One of Unamuno’s philosophical themes in much of his work is that we create the God we search for. Searching for the wrong God, that of jealousy for example, results in death (so do all the others but Unamuno prefers not to think about that as too painful). I am uncertain if this is true, but it certainly produces deathly prose.
ajybranr18's review
5.0
Joaquin Montenegro spends his entire life wallowing in his own self pity only to find that the life that he led chasing after his counterpart Abel Sanchez was meaningless.
This story reminds me of the stubbornness of Captain Ahab in Moby Dick and the obsession invested in Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby. These characters inevitably fulfill this fate and can never escape it.
This story reminds me of the stubbornness of Captain Ahab in Moby Dick and the obsession invested in Jay Gatsby in The Great Gatsby. These characters inevitably fulfill this fate and can never escape it.
teresa_r's review against another edition
dark
emotional
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.75
More...