Scan barcode
A review by colin_cox
Jacques and His Master: An Homage to Diderot in Three Acts by Milan Kundera
4.0
Kundera's Jacques and His Master would pair nicely with Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead since both plays have fun with theatrical expectations, temporality, and traditional narrative conventions. I have not read Diderot, so I suspect much of what Kundera attempts to do is lost on me. Nevertheless, Jacques and His Master is a humorous and intriguing play that while engaging, is not necessarily worth a second read.
Kundera's introduction, however, is worth reading again. This introduction is a 10-12 page meditation on adaptation, repetition, and simplification that articulates Kundera's thoughtful, if underdeveloped, understanding of textual transmission. Kundera writes, "My point is not to defend the sacrosanct virginity of works of art. Even Shakespeare rewrote works created by others. He did not, however, make adaptations; he used a work as a theme for his own variations, of which he was then sole and sovereign author. Diderot borrowed from Sterne...but in doing so he neither imitated nor adapted him. He wrote a variation on a theme by Sterne" (8). In the following paragraph, Kundera continues, "The more the adapter tries to remain discreetly hidden behind the novel, the more he betrays it" (8). Kundera's frustration with words like "adapt" is tethered to his frustration with simplification. By his estimation, an adaptation simplifies while a variation broadens. This distinction may seem negligible, but Kundura attempts to explain how adaptation and repetition regurgitate a source material rather than deviate from it.
It may or may not exist, but I want Kundera to write more about the distinction between adaptation and variation. Frankly, 10-12 pages are not enough.
Kundera's introduction, however, is worth reading again. This introduction is a 10-12 page meditation on adaptation, repetition, and simplification that articulates Kundera's thoughtful, if underdeveloped, understanding of textual transmission. Kundera writes, "My point is not to defend the sacrosanct virginity of works of art. Even Shakespeare rewrote works created by others. He did not, however, make adaptations; he used a work as a theme for his own variations, of which he was then sole and sovereign author. Diderot borrowed from Sterne...but in doing so he neither imitated nor adapted him. He wrote a variation on a theme by Sterne" (8). In the following paragraph, Kundera continues, "The more the adapter tries to remain discreetly hidden behind the novel, the more he betrays it" (8). Kundera's frustration with words like "adapt" is tethered to his frustration with simplification. By his estimation, an adaptation simplifies while a variation broadens. This distinction may seem negligible, but Kundura attempts to explain how adaptation and repetition regurgitate a source material rather than deviate from it.
It may or may not exist, but I want Kundera to write more about the distinction between adaptation and variation. Frankly, 10-12 pages are not enough.