Scan barcode
savaging's review against another edition
4.0
"But the reader must leave me as a stone leaves the slingshot. I am even willing that, like a boomerang, he should come back and strike me." -- Gide's journal of The Counterfeiters
In the thick of this book I thought I didn't like it. I thought the navel-gazing Novel of Ideas had been spoiled for me by reading [b:Point Counter Point|5135|Point Counter Point|Aldous Huxley|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1386925117s/5135.jpg|954202]. Both are novels of a novelist writing a novel about a novelist, etc. (and Gide's book has the gumption to -- apparently without irony -- condemn "onanism"!). Both are stuffed with "conversations" that should have been essays.
But Gide moves past Huxley. His characters aren't out of Pilgrim's Progress. They aren't the incarnation of Ideas. They move, they are inconsistent, they are ruined and redeemed -- or not. As Gide himself writes in the journal he kept while writing this novel: The problem for me is not how to succeed -- but rather how to survive. For some time now I have aimed to win my case only on appeal. I write only to be reread."
The characters go further than anything in Huxley to feel out the question of how to live rightly. They would like to sacrifice their wills to something higher that will make this decision for them, and yet they can't give themselves up to the Authorities. Most of them have to conclude that religion is self-delusion and a disavowal of the real world, politics is mostly lies, and the Arts are where petty and cruel people try to make a name for themselves by being increasingly bombastic to hide their small and sterile hearts.
As one character puts it, after experiencing political group-think: "It seemed to me all the young men I saw there were animated by the best of sentiments, and that they were doing quite right to abdicate their initiative (for it wouldn’t have led them far) and their judgment (for it was inadequate) and their independence of mind (for it was still-born). I said to myself too, that it was a good thing for the country to count among its citizens a large number of these well-intentioned individuals with subservient wills, but that my will would never be of that kind. It was then that I began to ask myself how to establish a rule, since I did not accept life without a rule and yet would not accept a rule from anyone else."
When I write this, it sounds simplistic. But surely someone has concluded just the opposite from this book. After all, the characters who set out to make their own rules also make a mess of it. There isn't a moral here: the book's a Rorschach test.
The best characters in the book are largely in the wings (my personal favorites are old La Perouse and young Armand Vedel. Armand, the pastor's son, always ironic and attempting wickedness in his hatred of a hypocritical virtue, feeling only hypocritically vicious. He's a hipster with a heart, probably, down there at the bottom. La Perouse is a despairing maltheist: "the devil and God are one and the same; they work together. We try to believe that everything bad on earth comes from the devil, but it’s because, if we didn’t, we should never find strength to forgive God. He plays with us like a cat, tormenting a mouse. . . . And then afterwards he wants us to be grateful to him as well. Grateful for what? for what? . . . ")
In the thick of this book I thought I didn't like it. I thought the navel-gazing Novel of Ideas had been spoiled for me by reading [b:Point Counter Point|5135|Point Counter Point|Aldous Huxley|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1386925117s/5135.jpg|954202]. Both are novels of a novelist writing a novel about a novelist, etc. (and Gide's book has the gumption to -- apparently without irony -- condemn "onanism"!). Both are stuffed with "conversations" that should have been essays.
But Gide moves past Huxley. His characters aren't out of Pilgrim's Progress. They aren't the incarnation of Ideas. They move, they are inconsistent, they are ruined and redeemed -- or not. As Gide himself writes in the journal he kept while writing this novel: The problem for me is not how to succeed -- but rather how to survive. For some time now I have aimed to win my case only on appeal. I write only to be reread."
The characters go further than anything in Huxley to feel out the question of how to live rightly. They would like to sacrifice their wills to something higher that will make this decision for them, and yet they can't give themselves up to the Authorities. Most of them have to conclude that religion is self-delusion and a disavowal of the real world, politics is mostly lies, and the Arts are where petty and cruel people try to make a name for themselves by being increasingly bombastic to hide their small and sterile hearts.
As one character puts it, after experiencing political group-think: "It seemed to me all the young men I saw there were animated by the best of sentiments, and that they were doing quite right to abdicate their initiative (for it wouldn’t have led them far) and their judgment (for it was inadequate) and their independence of mind (for it was still-born). I said to myself too, that it was a good thing for the country to count among its citizens a large number of these well-intentioned individuals with subservient wills, but that my will would never be of that kind. It was then that I began to ask myself how to establish a rule, since I did not accept life without a rule and yet would not accept a rule from anyone else."
When I write this, it sounds simplistic. But surely someone has concluded just the opposite from this book. After all, the characters who set out to make their own rules also make a mess of it. There isn't a moral here: the book's a Rorschach test.
The best characters in the book are largely in the wings (my personal favorites are old La Perouse and young Armand Vedel. Armand, the pastor's son, always ironic and attempting wickedness in his hatred of a hypocritical virtue, feeling only hypocritically vicious. He's a hipster with a heart, probably, down there at the bottom. La Perouse is a despairing maltheist: "the devil and God are one and the same; they work together. We try to believe that everything bad on earth comes from the devil, but it’s because, if we didn’t, we should never find strength to forgive God. He plays with us like a cat, tormenting a mouse. . . . And then afterwards he wants us to be grateful to him as well. Grateful for what? for what? . . . ")
jlukic's review against another edition
5.0
Before french literature got dreadfully pretentious with dealing with modernity.
gosska's review against another edition
stwierdziłam, że przyszedł czas żebym oznaczyła tę książkę jako DNF
na pewno kiedyś do niej wrócę, bo podobała mi się
na pewno kiedyś do niej wrócę, bo podobała mi się
nlgeorge73's review against another edition
4.0
An original novel about deception, both literal and metaphorical. Gide focuses the story on friends Bernard and Olivier and adds supplemental characters, some of whom I am perplexed at what they bring to the table (Alfred Jarry?). Gide's alter-ego Edouard gives a unique perspective as told in the form of journal entries. The homosexuality was apparently scandalous when this was published in 1927. Very interesting read. An in-depth look at the themes and characters would make for great discussions fo a group read.
leonidasm's review against another edition
Πολλές φορές, όταν πατάω το finished σε κάποιο βιβλίο, προσπερνώ τα αστέρια. Αυτό το κάνω συνήθως σε βιβλία που με φέρνουν σε αμηχανία για το αν θα τα πρότεινα εύκολα σε άλλους.
Οι Κιβδηλοποιοί είναι ένα τέτοιο.
Είναι ένα βιβλίο που μου χάρισε στιγμές ενθουσιασμού για τον τρόπο που λειτουργεί ο αφηγητής, δεν έχω διαβάσει ξανά κάτι ανάλογο. Υπάρχει ακόμα ένας αφηγητής και ήρωας του μυθιστορήματος μέσω ημερολογίου. Υπάρχουν δύο τρεις βασικοί χαρακτήρες και αμέτρητοι ακόμα που κάνουν την συγκέντρωση σου να στάζει ιδρώτα κόπου. Είναι δαιδαλώδεις οι συνδέσεις των ηρώων, οι ιστορίες τους και αυτό μοιραία μπορεί να σε κουράσει.
Οι Κιβδηλοποιοί είναι ένα μυθιστόρημα χωρίς συγκεκριμένη υπόθεση.
Ο Ζιντ γράφει μια - δύο - τρεις - δέκα ιστορίες και στην ουσία αυτό που τον ενδιαφέρει είναι να γράψει. Να σε περάσει απ'τα στενά της σκέψης του. Να σε βάλει στη λογική της συγγραφής. Μάλλον στην φιλοσοφία της συγγραφής.
Δεν ξέρω αν είμαι σαφής. Δεν ξέρω καν αν ο σκοπός του Ζιντ ήταν να είναι σαφής και συγκεκριμένος.
Οι Κιβδηλοποιοί είναι ένα τέτοιο.
Είναι ένα βιβλίο που μου χάρισε στιγμές ενθουσιασμού για τον τρόπο που λειτουργεί ο αφηγητής, δεν έχω διαβάσει ξανά κάτι ανάλογο. Υπάρχει ακόμα ένας αφηγητής και ήρωας του μυθιστορήματος μέσω ημερολογίου. Υπάρχουν δύο τρεις βασικοί χαρακτήρες και αμέτρητοι ακόμα που κάνουν την συγκέντρωση σου να στάζει ιδρώτα κόπου. Είναι δαιδαλώδεις οι συνδέσεις των ηρώων, οι ιστορίες τους και αυτό μοιραία μπορεί να σε κουράσει.
Οι Κιβδηλοποιοί είναι ένα μυθιστόρημα χωρίς συγκεκριμένη υπόθεση.
Ο Ζιντ γράφει μια - δύο - τρεις - δέκα ιστορίες και στην ουσία αυτό που τον ενδιαφέρει είναι να γράψει. Να σε περάσει απ'τα στενά της σκέψης του. Να σε βάλει στη λογική της συγγραφής. Μάλλον στην φιλοσοφία της συγγραφής.
Δεν ξέρω αν είμαι σαφής. Δεν ξέρω καν αν ο σκοπός του Ζιντ ήταν να είναι σαφής και συγκεκριμένος.
momoyoon's review against another edition
2.0
Read for class. Clearly not my cup of tea, some things were interesting, but just...pretty boring in general and not a book that I will remember as memorable. Sorry.
louloup_reads's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
funny
reflective
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
manda2491's review against another edition
2.0
The Counterfeiters by Gide is a work of metafiction – at once the novel itself and a story about a novel, by the same name, being written by Edouard (or the guise of Gide). The novel can be a bit difficult to fully comprehend at times because of the sheer volume of characters, families, and intersecting plotlines (some reviewers have compared the novel to a soap opera and I would agree).
The novel certainly shows it's age as it obsesses over purity, the dichotomy of good and evil, and the culture of schoolboys while it's blatant homosexuality is kept on the hush hush.
The novel certainly shows it's age as it obsesses over purity, the dichotomy of good and evil, and the culture of schoolboys while it's blatant homosexuality is kept on the hush hush.
adeslibrary's review against another edition
3.0
Sorry for the spelling mistakes and grammars.
I read it for school. I still read it because the teacher said we need to read it a lot for exams in june but it's hard.
So, the first time I read "Les faux-monnayeurs", I was sceptic. (If you want to know more about how Gide wrote this story, read "Journal des faux-monnayeurs"). You read page by page and you don't know how it is going to end. Gide didn't have the idea either. You are like "what the f*ck" but the second time, you appreciate it better because you know the story and you finally understand the little things that make all the difference.
The story it's a learning novel. You grow up with the characters (and there's a lot of them !). You read them doing the worse as the best of them. I can't tell you much about this novel. It's something you need to read for sure. It's not like any other novels that you are going to read. It's special.
I read it for school. I still read it because the teacher said we need to read it a lot for exams in june but it's hard.
So, the first time I read "Les faux-monnayeurs", I was sceptic. (If you want to know more about how Gide wrote this story, read "Journal des faux-monnayeurs"). You read page by page and you don't know how it is going to end. Gide didn't have the idea either. You are like "what the f*ck" but the second time, you appreciate it better because you know the story and you finally understand the little things that make all the difference.
The story it's a learning novel. You grow up with the characters (and there's a lot of them !). You read them doing the worse as the best of them. I can't tell you much about this novel. It's something you need to read for sure. It's not like any other novels that you are going to read. It's special.
manonpalmer's review against another edition
2.0
j'ai rien compris, on parlait pas de fausse monnaie ici?