Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.15 AVERAGE
4.15 AVERAGE
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
tense
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
I think I need to read that again in English. The French was a bit too hard for me but I foolishly persevered.
One night while he was researching this book, Laurent Binet dreamt he was writing the key chapter. In the dream, he begins with a description of a black Mercedes sliding through the streets of Prague like a racer snake, slipping behind a building here, emerging from a tunnel there, but moving all the while towards the sharp bend between Vyšehradska street and Trojička street where two armed men await its arrival.
That same black Mercedes has a star role in the final version of the book too. It shows up on one page, disappears on another, re-emerges further on - but note this: it changes colour along the way from black to dark green. Binet is very concerned with getting the facts right; the colour of the car that Himmler’s second in command, Reinhard Heydrich, was travelling in on the 27th of May 1942, matters. It must not be described as black if there's any chance that it was really green.
The story of the black/green Mercedes summarises the dilemma that makes reading this book so interesting. On the one hand, Binet enjoys making the car slither through the streets of Prague like a viper. He'd like to add lots of details to his scenario: what Heydrich had for breakfast that morning, what he was thinking about as he left his home, what he said to his chauffeur as the car wound its way through the streets of the old city. On the other hand, Binet wants to deal only in facts, the colour of the car and the exact time it reached the corner of Vyšehradska and Trojička. He wants to leave his imaginings where they belong - in the realm of fiction. After all, he points out, who could make up the Nazis? Who could make up the 'final solution'?
Nevertheless, Binet reluctantly recognises that fictionalised history succeeds better with readers than fact-based history writing. He offers us entertaining commentary on the many novels about WWII he has read, and the ones that focus on the Prague assasination attempt in particular. He's both fascinated and horrified by the way authors have dramatized this episode in history. His fascination encourages him to insert fictionalised passages into his own account, passages that draw the reader right in so that we immediately forget everything he's already said about preferring to stick to the facts. Then, when we’re comfortably wallowing in the warm water of his imaginings, he pulls the plug, leaving us shivering and confused. No, it couldn't have been like that he says, because since I wrote that, I discovered this and this, and anyway, no one can truly say how it was, any attempt to guess just becomes artificial.
So why doesn't he delete such passages, you might ask? If he feels it sounds artificial or if he's found new information, surely he should rewrite the scene? But that’s exactly where this book differs from most other books. Binet’s account is a process as much as a finished product and every part of the process is included. He skillfully drives his narrative towards a satisfactory conclusion, but he insists on taking us on a huge detour along the way, a detour that includes the history of everything related to his journey, and the many cul-de-sacs he encountered along the way. And the marvellous thing is that all the detours, all the accumulated journey notes, only serve to frame more perfectly the horrific background to the attempt on the life of Reinhard Heydrich, Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia, and originator of the 'final solution', by two intrepid Czech Resistence fighters, Jan Kubiš and Jozef Gabčík.
I wouldn’t want Binet to delete a single word.
That same black Mercedes has a star role in the final version of the book too. It shows up on one page, disappears on another, re-emerges further on - but note this: it changes colour along the way from black to dark green. Binet is very concerned with getting the facts right; the colour of the car that Himmler’s second in command, Reinhard Heydrich, was travelling in on the 27th of May 1942, matters. It must not be described as black if there's any chance that it was really green.
The story of the black/green Mercedes summarises the dilemma that makes reading this book so interesting. On the one hand, Binet enjoys making the car slither through the streets of Prague like a viper. He'd like to add lots of details to his scenario: what Heydrich had for breakfast that morning, what he was thinking about as he left his home, what he said to his chauffeur as the car wound its way through the streets of the old city. On the other hand, Binet wants to deal only in facts, the colour of the car and the exact time it reached the corner of Vyšehradska and Trojička. He wants to leave his imaginings where they belong - in the realm of fiction. After all, he points out, who could make up the Nazis? Who could make up the 'final solution'?
Nevertheless, Binet reluctantly recognises that fictionalised history succeeds better with readers than fact-based history writing. He offers us entertaining commentary on the many novels about WWII he has read, and the ones that focus on the Prague assasination attempt in particular. He's both fascinated and horrified by the way authors have dramatized this episode in history. His fascination encourages him to insert fictionalised passages into his own account, passages that draw the reader right in so that we immediately forget everything he's already said about preferring to stick to the facts. Then, when we’re comfortably wallowing in the warm water of his imaginings, he pulls the plug, leaving us shivering and confused. No, it couldn't have been like that he says, because since I wrote that, I discovered this and this, and anyway, no one can truly say how it was, any attempt to guess just becomes artificial.
So why doesn't he delete such passages, you might ask? If he feels it sounds artificial or if he's found new information, surely he should rewrite the scene? But that’s exactly where this book differs from most other books. Binet’s account is a process as much as a finished product and every part of the process is included. He skillfully drives his narrative towards a satisfactory conclusion, but he insists on taking us on a huge detour along the way, a detour that includes the history of everything related to his journey, and the many cul-de-sacs he encountered along the way. And the marvellous thing is that all the detours, all the accumulated journey notes, only serve to frame more perfectly the horrific background to the attempt on the life of Reinhard Heydrich, Reichsprotektor of Bohemia and Moravia, and originator of the 'final solution', by two intrepid Czech Resistence fighters, Jan Kubiš and Jozef Gabčík.
I wouldn’t want Binet to delete a single word.
This brilliant, Goncourt Prize-winning novel by French author Laurent Binet tells the story of two things: the assassination of the Nazi Reinhard Heydrich, and the telling of the story of the assassination of the Nazi Reinhard Heydrich. For me, this post- (or post-post) modern approach works very well with a historical story that is well known. The dramatic factor of any historical novel is compromised by necessary adherence to well-known facts, but Binet has found a clever way around that. Binet's own research, opinions, and ruminations about writing the novel become a second focus, weaving in, out, and around the main narrative.
The author is at great pains to lay out his conception of the historical novel, and how he plans to address the challenge: "So I’ve decided not to overstylize my story. That suits me fine because, even if for later episodes I’ll have to resist the temptation to flaunt my knowledge by writing too many details for this or that scene that I’ve researched too much..." At one point, in the middle of the action, the author lays out a careful analysis of how he will and will not approach dialogue:
"There is nothing more artificial in a historical narrative than this kind of dialogue—reconstructed from more or less firsthand accounts with the idea of breathing life into the dead pages of history. In stylistic terms, this process has certain similarities with hypotyposis, which means making a scene so lifelike that it gives the reader the impression he can see it with his own eyes. When a writer tries to bring a conversation back to life in this way, the result is often contrived and the effect the opposite of that desired: you see too clearly the strings controlling the puppets, you hear too distinctly the author’s voice in the mouths of these historical figures."
After a dramatic scene with Heydrich and one of his underlings, Binet stops the story to examine what he has just written, and enters into one of the many self-crtitiques throughout the course of the novel:
"The dialogue in the preceding chapter is the perfect example of the difficulties I’m facing. Certainly Flaubert didn’t have the same problems with Salammbô, because nobody recorded the conversations of Hamilcar, father of Hannibal. But when I make Heydrich say: “If you think you can make a fool of me, Naujocks, you’d better think again,” all I am doing is repeating the words as reported by Naujocks himself. You could hardly hope for a better witness, for reporting a phrase, than the only other person in the room, who heard it and to whom it was addressed. That said, I doubt whether Heydrich really formulated his threat in that way. It’s not his style. What we have here is Naujocks recalling a phrase years after the event, which is rewritten by whoever’s taking down his dictation, and then again by the translator. But Heydrich, the most dangerous man in the Reich, saying, “If you think you can make a fool of me, Naujocks, you’d better think again” … well, it’s a bit lame."
Some critics have found this irritating, but I found it to be absolutely perfect. This isn't a Ludlum adventure story: it's a meditation on an act of heroism, and a meditation on the act of memorializing that act. I found the novel to be intelligent, invigorating, and extremely effective. Highly recommended.
The author is at great pains to lay out his conception of the historical novel, and how he plans to address the challenge: "So I’ve decided not to overstylize my story. That suits me fine because, even if for later episodes I’ll have to resist the temptation to flaunt my knowledge by writing too many details for this or that scene that I’ve researched too much..." At one point, in the middle of the action, the author lays out a careful analysis of how he will and will not approach dialogue:
"There is nothing more artificial in a historical narrative than this kind of dialogue—reconstructed from more or less firsthand accounts with the idea of breathing life into the dead pages of history. In stylistic terms, this process has certain similarities with hypotyposis, which means making a scene so lifelike that it gives the reader the impression he can see it with his own eyes. When a writer tries to bring a conversation back to life in this way, the result is often contrived and the effect the opposite of that desired: you see too clearly the strings controlling the puppets, you hear too distinctly the author’s voice in the mouths of these historical figures."
After a dramatic scene with Heydrich and one of his underlings, Binet stops the story to examine what he has just written, and enters into one of the many self-crtitiques throughout the course of the novel:
"The dialogue in the preceding chapter is the perfect example of the difficulties I’m facing. Certainly Flaubert didn’t have the same problems with Salammbô, because nobody recorded the conversations of Hamilcar, father of Hannibal. But when I make Heydrich say: “If you think you can make a fool of me, Naujocks, you’d better think again,” all I am doing is repeating the words as reported by Naujocks himself. You could hardly hope for a better witness, for reporting a phrase, than the only other person in the room, who heard it and to whom it was addressed. That said, I doubt whether Heydrich really formulated his threat in that way. It’s not his style. What we have here is Naujocks recalling a phrase years after the event, which is rewritten by whoever’s taking down his dictation, and then again by the translator. But Heydrich, the most dangerous man in the Reich, saying, “If you think you can make a fool of me, Naujocks, you’d better think again” … well, it’s a bit lame."
Some critics have found this irritating, but I found it to be absolutely perfect. This isn't a Ludlum adventure story: it's a meditation on an act of heroism, and a meditation on the act of memorializing that act. I found the novel to be intelligent, invigorating, and extremely effective. Highly recommended.
As already indicated by so many other readers, this is not just the historical account of the attack on Reinhard Heydrich, one of the cruelest Nazi top men, in 1942 in Prague. That account is certainly there, and is quite excitingly written and shuddering by the horrible facts that are involved. But Binet presents a much more complex book. The author formally shows how he wrote this book and how he wrestled with various aspects of the historical métier (are my sources reliable, have I presented the facts correctly, can I put fictional dialogues in the mouth of historical figures, have other authors and filmmakers given a correct version?). This hesitant approach is very disturbing for some readers, especially because Binet constantly pauses his story, sometimes returns to certain scenes and gives a completely differently version. That way he gives the impression of presenting a fair and honest story, and that seems deserving and at least interesting.
Unfortunately, Binet clearly plays a game with the reader. Because if you read carefully, you will notice that Binet - even after his corrections - constantly fools the reader. On the one hand, by his critical sense, he distances himself from his subject (as befits a historian), but on the other hand he regularly expresses his admiration for the resistance fighters who committed the attack and their helpers, for the Czech people in general (and especially the women, who are repeatedly called the most beautiful in the world), and between the lines even for Heydrich himself (who is presented as a monster, but who is also admired for its straightforwardness, thoroughness and cunning). And finally, - for the people familiar with French history -, he offers some covered and open contempt for the attitude of his compatriots in the Second World War. In other words, this is at least as much a novel about Binet himself (and his personal involvement in the world of today) as about Heydrich and the attackers. This is especially evident in Binet's unsurpassed criticism of Jonathan Littell's novel "Les Bienveillants", which also dealed with Nazi horrors, but has made it into a Wagnerian epic. That double-sidedness of Binet's book (I guess you can call it a late postmodernist novel) is quite interesting, but I do not think it is entirely successful.
Unfortunately, Binet clearly plays a game with the reader. Because if you read carefully, you will notice that Binet - even after his corrections - constantly fools the reader. On the one hand, by his critical sense, he distances himself from his subject (as befits a historian), but on the other hand he regularly expresses his admiration for the resistance fighters who committed the attack and their helpers, for the Czech people in general (and especially the women, who are repeatedly called the most beautiful in the world), and between the lines even for Heydrich himself (who is presented as a monster, but who is also admired for its straightforwardness, thoroughness and cunning). And finally, - for the people familiar with French history -, he offers some covered and open contempt for the attitude of his compatriots in the Second World War. In other words, this is at least as much a novel about Binet himself (and his personal involvement in the world of today) as about Heydrich and the attackers. This is especially evident in Binet's unsurpassed criticism of Jonathan Littell's novel "Les Bienveillants", which also dealed with Nazi horrors, but has made it into a Wagnerian epic. That double-sidedness of Binet's book (I guess you can call it a late postmodernist novel) is quite interesting, but I do not think it is entirely successful.
dark
emotional
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
No
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
No
A very original format, at times even irritating, but overall very interesting. I am glad that I read it, my perspective on what happened in Prague in 1942 is different now.
Now this was a book I did not know how to take. My dad lent it to me after I watched the film The Man with the Iron Heart which tells of Heydrich's assassination but in doing so he said it was written a bit differently. And he was not wrong. This is basically two stories in one, the first is the mostly historically accurate story of Heydrich's not so pleasant rise to power and the events leading to his assassination. The second is Binet's own struggle in telling the story of Gabčík and Kubiš and their efforts (and those of all the men, women and children that helped them) in achieving their goal and taking out one of the most powerful and most black hearted men in the Third Reich. Normally, this odd talkative style annoys the hell out of me but for some reason the way Binet has done it makes everything more real. It's as if you are both sat beside a fire and he is telling everything to you directly, answering queries that show on your face and clarifying points when you look confused. By the climax of the assassination story, you end up as invested as Binet in making sure Gabčík and Kubiš are given the recognition they deserve. And in this I feel Binet has achieved his goal.
adventurous
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes