You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.88 AVERAGE
3.88 AVERAGE
challenging
dark
fast-paced
Middle 20th century Polish noir -- who knew? Not me. Great stuff.
There'a a lot of talking in this book. And all that talking unfolds the story. So patience is necessary; although it is a short book! That being said, the dialogue is quite good. I kept thinking of "Before Sunrise" -- except this one has a little more edge.
I really enjoyed getting to know the characters. Everyone had a past, one that made them who they were in that moment, steering their decisions, their attitudes, their perspectives. Even if we didn't fully get to know everyone, they all existed beyond what was on the page.
It's fascinating to read literature from another country. I feel like I heard a brand new voice reading this book!
I really enjoyed getting to know the characters. Everyone had a past, one that made them who they were in that moment, steering their decisions, their attitudes, their perspectives. Even if we didn't fully get to know everyone, they all existed beyond what was on the page.
It's fascinating to read literature from another country. I feel like I heard a brand new voice reading this book!
Hłasko has a way with storytelling that makes reading his work a compulsion.
This is the Tinder-swindler of the 1950s. It's dark, it's depressing, it is every-man-for-himself. It's about two characters who work in tandem to con women out of money. There's Robert, the dramaturge and architect of the cons, and there's Jacob, the player (hah). To a certain degree, this is all they know, but their vocation is also a reflection of what they really love. For Robert, it's the théâtre. For Jacob, it's... I'm not sure. He kinda just goes with the flow. He fell in with Robert and plays his part well. Gets his and gets out. Tries not to be too cruel.
In the end, there's an element of inevitability. Jacob tries to spoil the whole thing, tired of the charade, not wanting to do anything with the mark (which is, conveniently, also in line with the con), but she doesn't believe him; she falls in love with him even more. He can't get out. He's trapped. Everything he does is pushing the con further along.
And that's when he kills the dog. He disappears. He's both furthering the con and leaving it. Robert then finishes the job in Jacob's absence, which is — I shouldn't have to say — *also* furthering the con.
I'd say that it's not a life-changing book, but it's still too soon to tell. I might find myself thinking of it more as time goes on (à la "Monogamy" by Sue Miller — milquetoast to read but... I'm unable to stop thinking about it, and I draw lessons from its scenes).
I'd need to read this book again in order to better understand the themes and character parallels; someone smarter could do it in a single pass.
This is the Tinder-swindler of the 1950s. It's dark, it's depressing, it is every-man-for-himself. It's about two characters who work in tandem to con women out of money. There's Robert, the dramaturge and architect of the cons, and there's Jacob, the player (hah). To a certain degree, this is all they know, but their vocation is also a reflection of what they really love. For Robert, it's the théâtre. For Jacob, it's... I'm not sure. He kinda just goes with the flow. He fell in with Robert and plays his part well. Gets his and gets out. Tries not to be too cruel.
In the end, there's an element of inevitability. Jacob tries to spoil the whole thing, tired of the charade, not wanting to do anything with the mark (which is, conveniently, also in line with the con), but she doesn't believe him; she falls in love with him even more. He can't get out. He's trapped. Everything he does is pushing the con further along.
And that's when he kills the dog. He disappears. He's both furthering the con and leaving it. Robert then finishes the job in Jacob's absence, which is — I shouldn't have to say — *also* furthering the con.
I'd say that it's not a life-changing book, but it's still too soon to tell. I might find myself thinking of it more as time goes on (à la "Monogamy" by Sue Miller — milquetoast to read but... I'm unable to stop thinking about it, and I draw lessons from its scenes).
I'd need to read this book again in order to better understand the themes and character parallels; someone smarter could do it in a single pass.