On the Edge of Reason

by Miroslav Krleža, Zora Depolo (Translator), Jeremy Catto (Introduction)

During his long and distinguished career, the Croatian writer Miroslav Krleza (1893-1981) battled against many forms of tyranny. In On the Edge of Reason, his protagonist is a middle-aged lawyer whose life and career have been eminently respectable and respected. One evening, at a party attended by the local elite, he inadvertently blurts out an honest thought. From this moment, all hell breaks loose.... On the Edge of Reason reveals the fundamental chasm between conformity and individuality. As folly piles on folly, hypocrisy on hypocrisy, reason itself begins to give way, and the edge between reality and unreality disappears.
--back cover

Genres: Fiction, Classics, Literature, 20th Century, Literary Fiction, Philosophy, Novels

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1938

About the author

A leading Croatian writer and figure in the cultural life of both Yugoslav states, the Kingdom (1918-1941) and the Republic (from 1945, until his death in 1981). He has been often proclaimed as the greatest Croatian writer of the 20th century.

Reviews

[Lea · Rating 5 out of 5]

Trebalo mi je 10 godina da se povežem s Krležom ali moram priznati da je taj trenutak došao. “Na rubu pameti“ mi je do drugog poglavlja posao jedan od najdražih (najboljih) romana koje sam ikada pročitala, i konačno sam i ja shvatila zašto Krleža ima mjesto među velikanima. Toliko sam oduševljena s ovim djelom da bi odmah htjela pročitati cijeli Krležin opus, a stavljam ga sada uz bok Bernharda, Andrića, Camusa, Manna... I vjerujem da će mi zbog svoje slojevitosti ovaj roman biti još dugo u mislima.

Roman je pisan u prvom licu, kroz unutarnji monolog glavnog lika koji se sastoji od bujice riječi te karakterističnog (ne)korištenja interpunkcije. U romanu pratimo bezimenog odvjetnika, doktora prava, sredovječnog uglađenog i cijenjenog gospodina koji doživljava potpuni unutarnji ali i vanjski zaokret, u isto vrijeme realizaciju besmislenosti, ispraznosti i lažnosti svog dosadašnjeg život što ga vodi u mali čin protesta. Posljedica njegove pobune je disproporcionalna kazna od strane društva, koji na njegovu unutarnju transformaciju odgovara odbacivanjem i izolacijom. Koliko god puta obrađena, to je tema koja uvijek iznova rezonira sa mnom na najdubljoj razini.

Bezimeni protagonist ovog romana u isto vrijeme me podsjetio na Stranca kao i protagoniste Metamorfoze i Zločina i kazne. Također, kao Ivan Iljič, unutarnja promjena koju glavni lik doživljava nepovratno mu razotkriva duboki nedostatak svrhe u njegovom dosadašnjem životu, kao i licemjernost cijele njegove visokoštovane intelektualne sredine. Kao poslušni činovnik, svoj cijeli život je proživio kao bezličan, dobro prilagođen, pristojan, uglađen i uređen građanin.

“Do svoje pedeset i druge godine života živio sam najdosadnijim i najjednoličnijim životom prosječnog fijakerskog i cilindraškog građanina: bio sam uredna ništica među masom urednih sivih ništica, dosađivao sam se u takozvanom vršenju svojih ništičavih dužnosti, izvršio sam tri i po hiljade nedjeljnoposlijepodnevnih šetnja do ciglane ili do glorijete u perivoju na kraju grada, živio sam u mirnom i neizrecivo jednoličnom bračnom dodiru sa svojom zakonitom ženom, izrodio sam s njom tri djevojčice (tri glupe guske), imao sam sasvim pristojan građanski dohodak pravnog referenta u jednoj industrijskoj organizaciji, bio sam pravni zastupnik Domaćinskijevih poduzeća i kartela, u jednu riječ: o meni, o mom ličnom, privatnom ili javnom životu ne bi se moglo napisati ni jedne jedine rečenice koja prelazi okvir najnormalnijih propisa sive i bezlične sheme po kojoj žive hiljade i hiljade cilindraških ništica po čitavoj našoj rodoljubivoj domovini i po svim bezbrojnim rodoljubivim civilizacijama čitave zemaljske kugle…..

Bio sam, naime, potpuno bezimen i nevidljiv, toliko diskretan te nitko zapravo nije ni primijetio da živim.”

Ali cijela konstrukcija njegovog života se vrlo brzo ruši kao kula od karata u novoj perpsektivi koja se u njemu razvija, i ne može više opovrgnuti jad i bijedu koju razotkriva, pravu ljudsku destruktivnu i egoističnu prirodu koja se skriva iza fasade uglađenosti, prikladnosti i pristojnosti.

“Ljudi se međusobno varaju, lažu jedni drugima u lice, obmanjuju se laskanjem i prozirno pretvorljivim udvaranjem, a to im često poštenoljudski izgleda nerazmjerno hrabrije nego da jedni drugima kažu golu istinu.“

Nakon realizacije da je čitavo društvo skup glumaca s maskama te da je i on jedan od njih, to ga tjera na to da svoju masku spusti i pokaže ono što nosi u sebi, a nikada do sad nije pokazao.

“Svi smo mi maske i svi smo mi zakrinkani i svaki čovjek osjeća potrebu da skine svoju masku na jedan tren, da se raskrinka, da progovori po crti svog intimnog raspoloženja, ali da jedna jedina riječ može da ponese čitav jedan život kao balon što se otkinuo, da jedna riječ može da poleti zajedno s jednim pedesetidvogodišnjim starijim sibaritom, da ga digne iz jednog određenog apotekarskog, komoraškog, građanskog kruga, da nestane s njime u maglama i u daljinama, to bi i meni izgledalo događajem prilično nevjerojatnim, pomalo i namještenim, da ga nisam doživio i da ga ne proživljavam skoro već pune dvije godine u sjaju pomalo smiješne, a s druge strane opet - moglo bi se reći - gotovo junačke geste. ”

Poput Stranca, u otporu društvu, činu pobune protagonist romana pronalazi smisao. Zbog toga čina pobune koji se sastoji u otvorenom izražavanju svog mišljenja, kroz niz apsurdnih okolnosti, kao u Procesu, naš junak je optužen i stavljen na margine društva, iako je su svi na njega u isto vrijeme i fiksirani, te ne mogu zaboraviti čin pobune koji je učinio. Za razliku od Stranca i Raskoljnikova, koji kao protest protiv licemjernog društvenog poretka i besmisla lažnog života čine drastična djela ubojstva, čin našeg protagonista nije bio niti drastičan, niti nemoralan, nego samo jednostavno logički dosljedan njegovom unutarnjem iskustvu, zbog čega je razina kazne koju glavni lik mora podnijeti još apsurdnija. Kao u Metamorfozi, glavni lik je nakon protesta trajno obilježen, stigmatiziran te u potpunosti definiran kroz njega, što pokazuje da unutarnja promjena može donijeti tako drastične posljedica kao i fizička pretvorba u kukca. Kao u Kabanici, pokazano je da poslušni činovnik koji je cijeli život pokorno obavljao svoj posao i sve građanske dužnosti, neće biti zaštićen, nego progonjen od strane sustava kojem je vjerno služio ukoliko se trgne iz letargije svoga života. Vladajuća hijerarhija nikad nije na strani individualnih i autentičnih vrijednosti čovjeka.

Opisana je promjena temeljne percepcije svijeta - iz one koje se prilagođava, opravdava druge i život mediokriteta do one koja oštroumno, kroz sarkazam i ironiju razotkriva lažnost, ispraznost i licemjernost društva i bližnjih te traži svoj vlastiti “pogled na svijet“, onaj koji će biti odraz individualnosti i autentičnosti. Društvo sa svojim očekivanjima tjera pojedinca na prilagodbu konvencijama, na osrednjost, prosječnost, um ispunjen trivijalnostima, na vječno traganje za “uspjehom“ odnosno njegovim fantomima u obliku simbola, lažnih kopija istinskih vrijednosti.

“Sve je uopće u životu pitanje uspjeha, a uspjeh sam po sebi znači san: udoban san s toplom i hladnom vodom, san bez zubobolje i bez nekih naročitih sredstava za spavanje, miran, zdrav san, kad spava savjest, kad ne djeluje razum, kad se putuje spavaćim vagonima, a puši najfiniji duhan. Uspjeh je svrha sama po sebi, sama sebi i sama za sebe, uspjeh radi uspjeha, a radi uspjeha sve: velike i male laži, večere, čajevi, krugovi, prijateljstva, prevare, mržnje, ratovi, karijere. Radi uspjeha igraju se uloge, nose se krinke, svi strahuju pred neuspjehom, svi sanjaju o uspjehu: o katedri, o pobjedi, o lisnici, o činu, o novcu, o prodanim slikama.“

Centralan je subok između autentičnog, stvarnog, istinitog, moralnog i na kraju individualnog i lažnog, licemjernog, nemoralnog i kolektivnog. Kolektivno je u ovom slučaju definirano “ljudskom gluposti“ i na kraju nesvjesnošću i neiskrenošću koja definira cijeli društveni poredak i iskrivljuje moralne zakone.

“...i ja se ne mogu oteti dojmu da taj voštani odraz životne stvarnosti, taj matematski točan odljev, ta vjerna, pomno imitirana kopija, upravo duplikat životnog uzora, djeluje tako odvratno samo zato jer se u njemu objektivira život do onog bezidejnog, upravo bespredmetnog stupnja gađenja kakvim ljudski mozak reagira na besmislenost postojanja uopće kao takvog.”

Ljudska glupost je beskrajna i protiv nje se nemoguće boriti logikom i mudrošću, a svatko tko se ne pokori njezin pravilima i normama bit će proglašen luđakom. Društvo u isto vrijeme i guši, onemogućuje i kažnjava i “ubija“ istinski self, to jest autentičnog čovjeka i njegova slobodno postojanje.

“Upravo još preciznije: tu leži masakriran pojam o čovjeku. Zaklali su čovjeka. Izmasakrirali su čovjeka kao takvog i bacili ga jedne mračne noći u vinogradu ad acta. Sve je ostalo samo vanjska, dekorativna naprava! Oni koji su ubili pojam o čovjeku mogu imati svoje kipare koji im dižu spomenike, oni mogu imati svoje moraliste koji znanstveno obrazlažu potrebu takve političke kirurgije, oni mogu imati svoje novine, svoju štampu što krivotvori činjenice u interesu njinog kamatnjaka, o njima se mogu pisati monografije na specijalnom i skupocjenom holandskom perolakom papiru sa četvorobojnim tiskom (Lantoš o Domaćinskome pod naslovom: Život jednoga magnata), za njih se može organizirati ne samo jedan nego čitava armada svrsishodnih "pogleda na svijet", ali ipak: pod njihovim pobjedama, pod tim svečanim banketima i vatrometima, pod grmljavinom crkvenih zvona i rotacionih strojeva, pod plaćenom halabukom i svakodnevnom gungulom gluposti i nitkovluka ipak leži neoboriva i nesumnjiva istina: pojam o čovjeku zaklan, izmasakriran, silovan, raskrvavljen... ”

Kroz psihoterapijski proces slična drama se može promatrati u svakom pojedinom čovjeku - prvo dolazi pronalazak izgubljene vlastite perspektive na život, kada se na život prestaje gledati kroz leće tuđih očekivanja. Tu kreće pronalazak istinskih dijelova sebe koji se pronađeni žele izraziti, na što se javljaju unutarnje strukture nastale iz internaliziranih vrijednosti okoline, koje progone i žele uništiti istinski self, te žele nametnuti lažne vrijednosti ovisnosti o vanjskoj slici i pokornost mišljenju drugih.
Potraga za istinskim selfom nužno je čin pobune protiv društva, ali internaliziranih krivih očekivanje naše okoline. Na kraju i naš junak je život proveo kao odvjetnik čovjeka koji je simbol neispravnog i nepravednog sustava. Bez pobune, koja u sebi sadržava i elemente spremnosti na žrtvovanje i prihvaćanje izolacije i kazne, vječno ćemo biti robovi ispravnih sustava kojima ćemo se dodvoravati, ali potajno mrziti. Put junaka “Na rubu pameti“ put je slobode, slobode u kojoj povjerenje u svoj istinski self omogućava da u očima drugih budemo “na rubu pameti“, a ostanemo vjerni pozivu koji osjećamo unutar sebe.

“Jedno mi je međutim postalo jasno: treba ostati logičan, jer bilo kako bilo, logika nikada nije nepouzdan vodič. Istina je: bio sam prilično sam, ali osamljenost još uvijek nije dokaz da čovjek nema pravo.”

[Guille · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Todos los cerebros del mundo son impotentes contra cualquier estupidez que esté de moda.”
Jean de La Fontaine

La estupidez convierte a la sociedad en un cenagal de arenas movedizas en el que, si tienes la desgracia de caer, todo movimiento no hará otra cosa que hundirte aún más en el fango. Esto es lo que le pasó al héroe de esta historia, un hombre que luchó por la VERDAD sin negociar o avenirse con una sociedad en la que, como en cualquier otra sociedad, la verdad es solo un convenio social establecido entre la hipocresía y el interés de unos pocos y la estupidez de muchos.

“Los malvados difícilmente se corrigen, y es infinito el número de los necios”
San Jerónimo (en una, dicen, mala traducción de La Biblia)

Una historia con ecos kafkianos que en primera persona y en modo de flujo de conciencia nos cuenta como un anónimo Doctor, con cincuenta y dos años de vida aburridísima y monótona, un ciudadano medio “encopetado”, un “cero correcto” entre una multitud de grises ceros correctos, “perdido en la nada como una sombra” vive un momento singular, un “único instante dramático” en el que “la sombra se volvió hombre y empezó a hablar”. Y la VERDAD de la que habló era que el director general Domaćinski, para el que el Doctor había trabajado de abogado en muchos de sus chanchullos, mató a cuatro hombres por la espalda cuando huían de su casa al ser descubiertos robando vino durante una revuelta. La verdad se instituyó y la verdad decía que Domaćinski había sido un héroe por lo que fue condecorado y por lo que se le habían grabado y descubierto placas. Nuestro Doctor, respondiendo a no se sabe qué impulso y durante una cena en casa del director general, le echa en cara que se jactase de tales hechos, cosa que hacía habitualmente y a la menor oportunidad, calificándolo de bandido y criminal. Estas acusaciones cortaron de un hachazo los lazos que le mantenían “sordo y mudo” ante una sociedad que, a partir de tal rebeldía y de las muchas que vinieron después, no tendrá compasión de él.

“El problema con el mundo es que las personas inteligentes están llenas de dudas, mientras que las personas estúpidas están llenas de confianza”
Charles Bukowski.

Hasta aquí todo perfecto. Krleža dirige maravillosamente este juego de dominó en el que cada pieza empuja a la siguiente con la inestimable ayuda, todo hay que decirlo, de la valentía, la torpeza, la locura, la desfachatez, en este punto las opiniones están divididas, que nuestro doctor tuvo a la hora de colocar las fichas.

“Nunca discutas con gente estúpida, te arrastrarán a su nivel y luego te golpearán con su experiencia”
Mark Twain.

Habían quedado meridianamente claras las tesis que el autor defiende: lo nefastas que son las «visiones del mundo» tomadas como dogmas, y “la devoración canibalesca” que caracteriza las relaciones entre ellas, y la estupidez de todos aquellos que aceptan esas «visiones del mundo» sin cuestionamiento alguno, y que pasan a defender a capa y espada como propias. No sé por qué el autor decidió que había que acompañar esta convincente trama de unos discursos que, por muy bellos que sean sus párrafos, lo único que hacen es remarcar lo obvio. Unos discursos que, en mi opinión, pecan además de idealistas y en los que mezcla una supuesta sabiduría budistas de la que soy absolutamente escéptico.

“Piensa en lo estúpida que es la persona promedio y date cuenta de que la mitad de ellos son más estúpidos que eso”
George Carlin

[Greg · Rating 4 out of 5]

The majority of the people I work with are slaves to this little electronic device that you scan books with. It's called a PDT. The PDT tells you where to shelve the book, and if it does a loud sing-song series of beeps one is supposed to return the book. Most people when they hear that beep they write up a little slip with the return vendors name ASAP and get that book onto a cart to be shipped back. The problem is the PDT has no brain and it's only reacting to a list generated by some faceless entity, or a computer program written by a logical ingrate that doesn't know if a book is selling or not. Store specific sales don't matter to the PDT, it will beep because somewhere it has a file that it connects with that says when ISBN number X is scanned, beep! The book can be selling ten copies a week but the PDT signal the book be gone, and most people go right along with what the little mindless piece of plastic tells them to do.

I've been in many battles over the years with people over keeping books that are selling when the PDT tells them return them. These battles are usually waged guerilla style because it's easier to just liberate the books from return carts than to try to explain for the umpteenth time to someone the logic of keeping a book that is selling versus returning it. I've gotten 'talked' to by managers for this. I've had to usurp the attempted returns by managers. I've had to talk other people into not listening to the managers when they say get rid of something. I've had an employee go rat me out to the store manager because I wasn't listening to the PDT and instead kept books based on sales.

This is just a small example from my own life of having to deal with certain blind-obedience to illogical dictates but it's tiresome and at times it feels so much easier to just say fuck it, return everything the stupid little machine tells me to and not have to worry about having to fight with someone over trying to do what is best for the store. It would be easier to just say, yup that is the way it should be done it doesn't make any sense to me but in the hierarchical structure of the company those above me must know what is best and if they say to do something I shouldn't even think about it but just do it.

This book made me think of other stupid things that go on with the company I work for but I'll keep those things to myself for now. So many stupid things in fact that are mostly the result of a long succession of people just nodding along to idiocy. Not that this book has anything to do with bookselling or corporate retail or anything like that. This book is an absurd look at what happens when an unremarkable middle class man speaks his mind at a dinner party. The man calls a captain of industry an immoral murderer after hearing a story about how the rich man shot four peasants in the back for trying to steal some wine out of his cellar. This breach in decorum reverberates through the town and creates a series of devastating repercussions for the narrator. Previous to speaking his mind about the morality of shooting fleeing men in the back with a rifle and calling the deed heroic he had felt that confines of the groupspeak conformity he lived in to be increasingly stifling; after speaking his mind he sees that what passes for accepted opinions and acceptable decorum is going along with what passes for public opinion without any deviation.

The book is an exaggerated extreme about what happens when someone decides to let morality and truth dictate their actions rather than etiquette and decorum but I think that there are lots of little lessons contained in this slim volume and maybe even more fingers pointing that too often doing what is right is ignored because it goes against the grain. I could start listing all the ways that I cowardly and silently just go along with things that I know are wrong, but I'm trying to be less negative about myself in these reviews, so instead I'll just make myself the hero of books and pretend that I'm really a great and virtuous person who always does what is right as opposed to what is easiest, or most accepted.

Anyway, On the Edge of Reason is a great, amazing book. I think people should read it, and maybe I should have given it five stars, but it feels more like a four and a half star book. I think I went with four stars because it's so much in the same vein as Thomas Bernhard (although this came I think at least twenty years before Bernhard wrote his first novel) and I think that Bernhard does the first person misanthropic loner against society thing I bit better, but maybe it's just because I had read Bernhard first, and if I had read Krleža (I did that little z thing myself, that wasn't cut and pasted, yo!) first then I would have given this five stars.

I want to find more books by this scathing Croatian author!

P.S. A quote I meant to include somewhere in the review:

Everybody forges signatures on promissory notes, everybody bribes, tells lies, steals and cheats and amasses money, and only the shipwrecked person who were born as righteous men--that is, people whose never have been underminded to such an extent that their vital instincts have been subordinated to their brains--become rags crushed and spat on, because they do not know who to adjust themselves to the animal farm where one single rule is domiant: that the blood let out from the throat of one's neighbor is the warmest and consequently the most nourishing.... You see, I have been crushed. Why? Because I dared to opposed human folly. (ellipses in the text itself)

[Tijana]

Standardni Krleža u smislu da se uzme jedan krajnje jednostavan događaj - ovde, sredovečnom liku pukne film i on usred svečane večere kaže šefu i lokalnom industrijalcu da je bednik i ubica, i suoči se sa neumitnim posledicama - i onda se taj događaj i njegove konsekvence raspredaju elokventno i opsesivno, u strmoj spirali naniže kroz sve slojeve duhovne malograđanštine. Podrazumeva se težak austrougarski šmek iako je ovaj roman i pisan 1938. i smešten u taj savremeni trenutak.
Postoji, ipak, jedan deo u kome roman iskoči iz zgloba, i to je istovremeno najzanimljiviji ali i sa čistog stanovišta uverljivosti najslabiji deo: poglavlje koje opisuje boravak u zatvoru i susret pripovedača s Valentom Žgancem, zagorskim seljakom i krivolovcem koji će se njemu otkriti kao oličenje pravog ljudskog bića. Valent, međutim, ima mnogo toga zajedničkog sa Platonom Karatajevim, a pre svega neubedljivost - on je oličenje mudrog seljaka koji je prozreo svu taštinu ovog sveta, iz prve ruke se uverio u jad i bedu političara i vojskovođa, i sad sa zadovoljstvom sluša kako mu cimer u zatvoru čita budističke spise, odobrava i komentariše. Samo jedno spasava celu stvar: Krležina neosporna jezička genijalnost i lirski polet koji nosi čitavo ovo poglavlje koje je pisano uglavnom kajkavskim i kulminira u jednoj specifičnoj verziji Miserere.

Zanimljivo je koliko je, na kraju, Krležina vizija postojanja vezana za jedan konkretni istorijski&kulturni momenat koji je netragom nestao između njegove dvadeset prve i dvadeset pete godine; baš kao i u mnogo poznijim Zastavama, ovde se stiče utisak da se sve završilo 1918. kad je propala (trula i zla, kako on stalno naglašava) Austrougarska a nije je zamenila nikakva nova idealna revolucionarna sloboda; Krležinim junacima ostalo je samo da besciljno i po automatizmu životare, i ako se nekim čudom prenu kao ovaj bezimeni protagonista, to može da dovede samo do katastrofe.

[Ali Np · Rating 4 out of 5]

«شورش تک‌نفره» اثری از «میروسلاو کرْلِژا» اونقدر نفس‌گیر بود که بعد از گذشت یک ‌هفته از تمام‌شدن کتاب، نمی‌دونم چی درباره‌اش بنویسم.

داستان در ده فصل و به صورت یک مونولوگ طولانی توسط راوی اول‌شخص روایت می‌شه. قهرمان داستان یک وکیل میانسال هست که دکتری حقوق داره و تا پایان داستان هیچ اسمی از خودش نمی‌بره و در روایت‌هاش دیگران هم اون رو دکتر خطاب می‌کنن.

این کتاب رو شهریورماه زمان امتحانات پایان‌ترم خریدم و یک فصل خوندم. دیدم زمان مناسبش نیست و دیگه ادامه ندادم. نمی‌شه گفت کتاب سخت‌خوانی هست اما خواندنش به ذهن آروم نیاز داره. هم به دلیل محتوایی که داره و هم فرم روایت که تک‌گویی هست و جملات طولانی یکی پشت دیگری به سمت خواننده پرتاب می‌شن.

جالبه که جناب غبرایی هم برای اولین‌بار خواندن این کتاب رو نصفه رها کردند. در سال ۱۹۹۶ زمانی که به آلمان و بعد هلند سفر کرده بودند؛ در کتابفروشی‌های آمستردام به دنبال کتاب‌هایی از نویسندگان اروپای شرقی که کمتر شناخته‌شده هستند می‌گشتند که تعدادی کتاب توجه‌شون رو جلب می‌کنه. از جمله دو کتاب از همین «کرْلِژا» که به‌قول آقای غبرایی حتی اسمش هم طنین جذابی داره.

نام اصلی کتاب (On the Edge of Reason) ابتدا ترجمهٔ مستقیم شده بود به «بر کران خرد»، اما در نهایت «شورش تک‌نفره» بر اون ترجیح داده‌ شد که بنظرم انتخاب مناسبی هست.

داستان این کتاب سراسر نبرده. نبرد یک در مقابل همه. نبرد منطق (Reason) در برابر حماقت. شوریدن تک‌نفره دربرابر جماعت بی‌عقل، لاف‌زن، دوبه‌هم‌زن، ترسو، کاسه‌لیس و منفعت‌طلب. دلقک‌های کلاه سیلندر بر سری که خوش‌لباس و چرب‌زبان هستند، تحصیل‌کرده‌اند، منصب‌های دولتی بالا دارند، علاقمند به صحبت‌کردن دربارهٔ هنر و موسیقی در مهمانی‌های شبانه هستند، بریج بازی می‌کنند و شرط می‌بندند، جماعت خرده بورژوایی که به اصل و نسب سلطنتی خود می‌بالند و همیشه پشت ولی‌نعمت‌های خود (هرچقدر هم که دزد و جنایت‌کار باشند) هستند.

قهرمان داستان وکیل میانسالی هست که همیشه در مقابل مردم ساکت و خوش‌برخورد بوده. حرف‌هاشون رو تأیید می‌کرده و همیشه تلاش می‌کرده تا موجب رنجش کسی نشه. هرچند که در ذهنش همه‌ی این افراد چیزی بیشتر از مشتی کله‌پوک نبودند.
با دختر پولدار یک داروساز ازدواج کرده و پدرزنش یک خانهٔ سه‌طبقه به او داده. خودش هم یک تاکستان به ارث برده. انسانی محترم و مهمان‌نواز که هرشب درِ خانه‌اش به روی دیگر افراد محترم بازه تا در دود سیگار محو بشن و دربارهٔ هنر و سیاست و موسیقی بحث کنند.

شبی در مهمانی‌ای که مدیرکل، ژنرال دوماچینسکی ترتیب داده بود، کار غیرمنتظره‌ای از آقای وکیل سر می‌زنه. آقای وکیل در مقابل غول بزرگی که همه‌ی اقتصاد کشور رو در مشت داره و همه جلوش سر خم می‌کنن و او رو قهرمان ملّی می‌شناسند قد علم می‌کنه. دستی که سال‌ها گلوش رو چنگ زده و او رو مجبور به خفه‌خون گرفتن کرده رو کنار می‌زنه و وارد یک نبرد تک‌نفره در مقابل همه می‌شه.

نویسنده قلم قوی‌ای داره. نثر کتاب پرتلاطم، طعنه‌آمیز و خشنه و در عین‌حال در تصویرسازی و انتقال حس موفق عمل می‌کنه و بعضی جاها نثر شاعرانه‌ای داره. کتاب چیزی بیش از یک جبهه‌گیری سیاسی هست و خیلی جاها به خودش بُعد فلسفی (اگزیستانسیال) می‌گیره. کتابیه که آدم رو به فکر وامی‌داره و مُدام در برابر دوراهی‌هایی قرار می‌دتت که از خودت بپرسی اگه من بودم چیکار می‌کردم.
بسیار لذت بردم و یقیناً در آینده دوباره می‌خونمش. امیدوارم آقای غبرایی در آینده اون یکی کتاب از این نویسنده رو هم ترجمه کنند.

[Tony · Rating 4 out of 5]

Our first-person protagonist is unnamed. He's a Croation lawyer, working for a very politically connected businessman. Drunk at a party he's hosting, the businessman loudly brags about his killing of four men who were trying to break into his cellar to steal a liter of Riesling. Two he shot at the cellar door; the other two at the fence that led to safety. All were shot in the back. The incident happened thirty years before, but the businessman relishes the telling of his killing the four "mad dogs."

Our protagonist has a moment of clarity. And yet, he didn't mean to say what he said. He merely thought it, but it came out anyhow, absent-mindedly perhaps, but at the precise moment when the businessman was taking a breath between bombasts. And there it was:

it was all a crime, a bloody thing, moral insanity.


He's given the chance to retract. But, nuh-uh. Not this time.

Krleža skewers government, politics, and, mostly, human nature in what follows. He does so in a way that is accessible, funny, and profound. There's no earthly reason or excuse for not reading this.

Remember, our first-person protagonist is unnamed. Who knows, it could be you.

[Paul H. · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don't know who needs to hear this, but it just isn't mathematically possible that EVERY random novel written by an Eastern European author in the 1920s-1940s is a "lost literary classic."

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

Krleza deceptively starts off with his protagonist penning a banal self-portrait; he is, he tells us, a well-meaning nonentity who has a high tolerance for the vast folly he see around him as he drifts through life, corporate attorney for a manufacturing company. Ho-hum, you think, can anyone be this self-complacent?

Only he has a breaking point. During a dinner party he absentmindedly voices an honest thought about a vile act that his employer, the host and a crass Fascistic cad, boasts about. The town turns on him, he is sued for slander, and everything goes downhill.

His crime, as is gradually revealed through the two-faced advice from former friends, is voicing in a crowd the thoughts that everyone has on his own, or mentions only in a quiet conversation.

But liberated by his act, the hero stands firm against the growing hypocrisy of friends and institutions and follows a centrifugal course beyond the bounds of his former life. Krleza writes beautiful prose about the nature of man, where one gets an ‘outlook on life’ and what one does with it, and the living death of conformity. The deeper the exile into which society casts him, the more profound the lawyer’s reflections on how to live a true life in the morass of the twentieth century.

He also drops in shorter or longer monologues or portraits of characters who are not essential to the plot but contribute to the lawyer’s growing understanding of the tribulations outside his own bourgeois, uneventful life. These characters bring in themes from Krleza’s marxist orientation. Some of them are also amusing; there is a comic, almost slapstick aspect to some of his encounters that lead to repeated jailings as vulgar acquaintances feel free to insist on insulting admonitions, and he insists on answering with a gentleman’s slap in the face.

‘we should logically put the question: do we all lack the shame required to safeguard the daily equilibrium of our own dignity…'

[from a wonderful character the lawyer meets in jail, who has just described the ludicrous outfitting of young soldiers for duty in WWI, before sending them to the trenches] ’And this is what I think: if it came to a war again, I would not need all those things. I would cut a bit of bacon; I would shelter behind a willow tree, put two or three grenades in my pocket… and I would aim at one of those fellows responsible for being here on our straw mattresses, lying like loaves of bread. This would be my own war strategy.’

‘Since we are stuck in this confused, chaotic, and unsettled world and have our own outlooks on life, it is easier to sail with a compass, however cheap it may be, than according to the stars, especially when it is cloudy, as it is in our case.'

[Adriana · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!

Faimoasa replică din filmul Network (1976) ar fi putut fi subtitlul acestei cărţi deştepte şi oarecum incomode. Incomode pentru că ne forţează să deschidem ochii, să vedem (nu doar să privim) lumea şi societatea din jurul nostru exact aşa cum este: superficială, egoistă, falsă şi strâmbă... într-un cuvânt, defectă. O maşinărie defectă care o va lua razna în momentul în care cineva, "un burghez mediocru şi jobenat", va îndrăzni să exprime o părere sinceră. Atât. And all hell breaks loose. Sau, în cuvintele protagonistului: "Cum a decurs, în genere, viaţa mea? Ce înseamnă toate astea din mine şi din jurul meu? Ştiri, personaje, necazuri, cortegii zgomotoase, fluturi lovind cu aripile globul de sticlă al unei lămpi cu petrol atârnată de o verandă, şi un om care a dormit peste treizeci de ani, ca să se trezească apoi deodată, să se ridice, şi, sub imboldul unui mic adevăr, cât se poate de logic, neobişnuit de clar şi pe înţelesul tuturora, să pornească pe drumul derutei."

Cartea e minunat scrisă, paginile sarcastice şi chiar sardonice (anumite fraze extrem de tăioase mi-au adus aminte de Sonata Kreutzer a lui Tolstoi) alternează cu fragmente pline de poezie, nostalgie sau tandreţe. Câteva exemple:
"Acum, fie că e sau nu dată de la Dumnezeu, e sigur că prostia omenească nu se iroseşte pe măsură ce acţionează. [...] aidoma luminii unei stele stinse, prostiei nu i s-a întâmplat niciodată să nu ajungă la destinaţie."
"Războiul e, în genere, o stare ploioasă, monotonă şi plicticoasă, alcătuită din infinit de multe picături de ploaie, în faţa cărora omul e o biată pisică bolnavă şi neajutorată, rămasă fără adăpost."
"Lângă oameni pute, dar e cald. În singurătăţi e pustiu. Ştim noi destul de bine cum e sub coada altuia, dar fără această adulmecare nu se poate trăi..."

În concluzie: citiţi această carte. Citiţi această carte dacă vă frustrează prostia. Dacă nu vă deranjează adevărul. Sau dacă uneori vă vine să strigaţi: "Opriţi Pământul! Eu cobor!"

[Rebecca Duncan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Although this is a Croatian literary classic, this work definitely deserves to be included in all those "must-read-before-you-die", "best books of all time" or "read this if you want people to think you're an intellectual."

This rating may seem a bit overly patriotic and somewhat far - fetched, but once you get inside the main points of this amazing and breathtaking novel, I think you will not be reluctant to change your mind.

As the title itself suggests, the work is basically written "on the edge of reason". The main character is a respected member of the community, lives in a relatively unhappy marriage and has three children, three girls to which he refers to, at the very beginning as "three stupid geese".

He is full of resentment and scorn towards his marriage,the town he lives in,the provincials who surround him, but he is disgusted most by himself. He knows that his life is a farce, but he does not have the courage to end with it, as he is angry and critical towards himself the most, because everything aforementioned is an image of himself, and reminds him of his failures.

One evening, after having drank a couple of glasses of wine, sitting in a garden with his wife and some very important townsfolk, he makes a sarcastic comment under his breath when the host of the evening starts bragging about his criminal ventures after the First World War. Literary, all hell breaks loose, and after that, he becomes a true social outcast.

This is basically the plot, but what attracts the attention of the reader the most is a brisk critique of human stupidity, which is unlimited. The novel is written with such poignancy that the reader is left with his mouth and mind wide open after reading.

To end this review, I would like to paraphrase one of my favorite lines in the book:

"It stinks to be with people, but it's quite warm."

Enjoy your reading!

[Paul Fulcher · Rating 3 out of 5]

A recent re-issue, with an introduction by Joshua Cohen, of a 1976 translation of a 1938 novel.

Cohen describes this as an example of what he christens 'Impfic' (after The Imp of the Perverse: Edgar Allan Poe), novels 'whose plot is set in motion by an outburst' stating the key sub-genre is Soviet Impfic set during the communist regimes in the Eastern Bloc with Kundera's The Joke as the most classic example. On the Edge of Reason, set in pre-WW2 Yugoslavia, he notes as one of the earliest and most purely entertaining examples.

The Imp outburst that triggers the plot when our narrator, a respectable lawyer and unobtrustive member of the middle classes, suddenly cracking at a dinner when his boss is telling, with relish, the story of how he shot and killed four intruders in his property, soldiers caught up in the chaos at the end of WW1 and looking for food. Our narrator denounces this as "all a crime, a bloody thing, moral insanity":

Taking it all in all, everything was perfectly clear and logical; for a full thirty years I had been listening to a whole gang of such directors-general telling everybody how they had been there, how they had witnessed everything with their own eyes, how such and such had been confirmed to them by the highest authorities in the administration, how everything they had been creating, selling, buying, earning, and shooting was in the interests of a healthy nation. And to tell the truth, never until that fateful September night illuminated by the green fragrant moonlight that was so starry and warm had it ever occurred to me to see things objectively, to observe from a distance such a speaker, to separate oneself from one's own gray mask and drift down one's own stream. The secret of my own passivity could be explained in terms of my foolish, unpleasant profession. To act as a lawyer dealing with banks, chamber pots, balance sheets, promissory notes, having to defend absolutely point-less things and relations that are incompatible with higher standards brings about, in the end, a loss of the sense of reality; the feelings are dulled, both the individual and other people are dulled and turned into top-hatted people as well as dullards; one becomes the son-in-law of a druggist and is made a cuckold by a baritone; one has a feeling of being an inferior good-for-nothing, and this is ow one disappears like a shadow in a vacuum. This is how, in a unique and dramatic moment, the shadow was turned into a man who began to talk. And that was all...

Thereafter his life disintegrates, as even his wife disowns him and he finds himself accused of increasingly bizarre crimes. Perhaps the highlight is when, between trips to prison, he manages a trip overseas only to meet, while sight-seeing in the Sistine Chapel, a compatriot who informs him that he is wanted for forging money and is rumoured to be fleeing to America. Our narrator strikes the man a violent blow - thereby ending up in more trouble, arrested by the Vatican police and deported. Mind you in the next chapter he admits to having hidden a 'package' in his safe passed t him via a cellmate in his last stint in jail, which does indeed turn out to be a considerable sum in fake banknotes.

Overall, the author has a lot of fun, although at times this felt like one idea somewhat over-stretched - 3.5 stars.

[Ivana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Krleža u svome ponajboljem izdanju. Kada sam čitala ovaj roman konačno sam pomislila " Aha, zato svi misle da je genijalan." Stvarno je odličan pisac, zna pisati što je je, ali nekako imam podijeljen sud o njegovim radovima, neki mi se manje sviđaju, neki više...nekad je malo predvidljiv, ali opet nekad je potpuno nepredvidljiv. No, dobro nitko ne može biti uvijek i u svakom trenutku odličan. Znam da mi je netko pričao kako je bio težak karakter, ali opet tko nije? Znanje čini čovjeka nesretnim. Sve to nema veze sa komenatiranjem ovog romana, pa da se vratim na temu... Ovaj roman mi je bio težak za čitanje, ali vrijedan toga. Nemam nešto posebno pametno za napisati o njemu. Kad nemaju nešto pametno za reči kritičari uspoređuju, netko je rekao. Usporedila bi ovaj roman sa...s kim? možda sa djelima pisaca tipa Thomas Mann. Radi se o intelektualcu u sukobi sa društvom, kao u...pa u puno modernih i postmodernih romana.Eto ne mogu smisliti ni neku dostojnu usporedbu.

[Maja Shinigami · Rating 5 out of 5]

Krleža živi vječno.

[César Carranza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es un libro increíble, me parece que puede ser un poco complicado entrar en él, comienza con un análisis de la condición humana, de la estupidez como una característica inherente a la sociedad.

El libro va sobre alguien que por alguna razón, hace un comentario que siempre ha pensado, pero lo dice en un momento importante, el problema es que el comentario va un poco en contra del estado de las cosas, un poco crítica la moral y las estructuras de poder. Esto le traerá consecuencias grandísimas.

El libro es también un conjunto de reflexiones hechas por el protagonista, donde analiza y tiene todo un sistema de las visiones del mundo que no me parecieron otra cosa que los sistemas morales. Es pesimista en cuanto al destino, pero el libro es interesantísimo, me parece una lástima que no tengamos más de Krleza en español, es buenísimo, recuerda mucho a Kafka, a Sartre, pero con un estilo particular. Lo intenté leer en el idioma original, pero ahora que lo leo en español, entiendo que era demasiado ambicioso de mi parte, jajaja.

Lo recomiendo mucho, pero debo decir que no es una lectura del todo ligera.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perhaps a little on the nose, and a little repetitive in its critique, but some great writing and well worth your time.

[Bruno · Rating 5 out of 5]

CRO/ENG
U kontrastu sa prethodnim romanom, ''Povratak Filipa Latinovicza'', za koji sam napisao recenziju prije dva dana, ''Na rubu pameti'' je izvrstan roman, sa općom tematikom o ljudskoj gluposti/pameti (ovisno o percepciji) u središtu pozornosti i sa kojom se svatko može poistovjetiti (sumnjam da ima nekoga tko nije nikada upoznao bilo koga kome se nije zamjerio zbog isticanja vlastitog stava na sumnjive radnje). Pogotovo mi se sviđa poglavlje koje obuhvaća proces (nazvan ''Zločin i kazna'', što je dobra referenca na jedan od najboljih romana ikada napisanih) i isticanja okolnosti koje su dovele do samog odlaska na sud, jer su prezentirane kao dva različita pogleda pred čitateljem i porotom u knjizi. Problemi sa kojima se nosi glavni protagonist prije, tijekom i poslije suda su prisutne cijelo vrijeme, ali je milina pratiti njegovu reakciju (ljudi pokazuju zabrinutost ili strah i prave scenarije što će mu se desiti, dok se on bavi svakodnevnim uobičajenim sadržajima, nesvjestan ili ne pokazujući brigu o tome što se priča), kao i divljenje koje ima prema kolegi zatvoreniku dok mu prepričava svoje doživljaje koji su (ili bi trebali biti) srž svakog bića: da smo, prije svega, ljudi. Malo sam podijeljenog mišljenja jer mi je to najdirljiviji dio romana, koliko i najdosadniji zbog predugačkog prepričavanja na zagorskom (svjestan sam da Krleža želi isticati specifično narječje naših ljudi), bez stanki, crtica ili bilo čega što bi isticalo jedan dio individualnog poglavlja od drugog (skoro 30 stranica monologiziranja i opisivanja). Unatoč tome, uživao sam u ovom romanu i čini mi se znatno prikladnijim za čitalačku publiku, bilo za lektiru, bilo za osobno zadovoljstvo.

In contrast to his previous novel, ''The Return of Philip Latinowicz'', for which I wrote a review two days ago, ''On the Edge of Reason'' is an excelent novel, with an overall theme of human stupidity/intellect (depending on perception) in the center of attention and with whom everyone can corelate to (I doubt there's anyone who has never met someone with whom he/she didn't have a grudge because of stating it's own stands on doubtful deeds). I especially like the chapter which engulfs the trial (called ''Crime and Punishment'', which is a nod to one of the best novels ever written) and the emphasis that have led to arrival on the court itself, because they are presented as two points of view in front of the reader and the jury in the book. The problems the main character deals before, during and after the court are present throughout the whole time, but it's a grace watching his reaction (people show concern or fear and make outcomes out of it, while he deals with everyday common contents, unaware or not showing concern about what is transpiring), as well as his admiring towards his fellow inmate while he retells him the event which are (or should be) the core of every being: that we are, above else, humans first. I'm a little divided opinion because it's the most touching part of novel to me, but also the most boring because of it's prolonged narration in local accent, which is based in Zagorje in northern Croatia (I'm aware that Krleza wants to emphasize a specific accent of our people), without pauses, notes or anything else which might distinct the individual subchapter from another (it's almost 30 pages of narration and monologue). Despite that, I've enjoyed in this novel and it seems to me more appropriate for a reading audience, either as a part of school work, or as a personal pleasure.

[Hon Lady Selene · Rating 5 out of 5]

"It was all a crime, a bloody thing, moral insanity."

Y'all know the story of The Emperor's New Clothes - this is a well written retelling set in Zagreb, with a pinch of Bernhard and Ibsen - as Krleža continues this tale to what would realistically happen should a reasonable adult had truly spoken this Truth: he would be accused of madness, treason and slander against his Lord-Benefactor; by the same reason it stands that from there it's off with his head!

But first.

Off with his reputation. Off with his neighbours. Off with his veteran friends. Off with his wife and child. Off with his house. Off with his social circle. Off with his peace of mind. Off with his freedom.

Why?

"I cannot prove that he actually reached for his revolver. I can prove nothing at all as regards Domacinski because he is not a man, an individual. He is an abstraction - a symbol of social conditions and relations, and what sense is there arguing with guns, arsenal, steamships, funnels, patent nails and tin chamber pots exported to Persia?"

Because people don't like breaches in social decorum. They make one uncomfortable, they make one confused, and most importantly, it makes one question things and this is indeed quite terrible because people don't like to be uncomfortable and confused. It forces them to Think. The status quo is comfortable and anyone who disturbs the waters is an enemy that must be stopped at all cost - that includes sticking them in prison or in a mental institution, of course.

The witch hunt that follows this first and final strike of the Unnamed narrator who had fought in the war for several years on various fronts rivals Miller's The Crucible: A Play in Four Acts, illustrating how public opinion can be easily swayed through all manner of gossip and how any witch hunt is mostly fuelled by personal generational family dramas as well as any type of professional nonsense such as real estate deals that had fallen through or marriage proposals gone sour - a crime, a bloody thing, moral insanity.

"Everybody forges signatures on promissory notes, everybody bribes, tells lies, steals and cheats and amasses money, and only the shipwrecked ones who were born as righteous men--that is, people whose nerves have been undermined to such an extent that their vital instincts have been subordinated to their brains--become rags crushed and spat on, because they do not know how to adjust themselves to the animal farm where one single rule is dominant: that the blood let out from the throat of one's neighbour is the warmest and consequently the most nourishing.... You see, I have been crushed. Why? Because I dared to oppose human folly."

Later edit: really, it doesn't help that he keeps slapping everyone in the face...

[have read in Croatian, there is an English version but unfortunately the comedy of expression is rather lost in translation, still worth the read for the overall satire- the courtroom chapter was an absolute circus, I rarely laugh out loud whilst reading]

[Carlos B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Es la segunda vez que leo el libro y me ha gustado más que la primera.

Puede costar un poco entrar en la lectura, especialmente porque es un poco repetitivo en su crítica a la sociedad y al ser humano, pero es un libro que merece la pena leer.

Como buen balcánico, Krleža es pesimista respeto a la condición humana, pero esto no hace que la novela sea dura o triste porque no hay predicamento, al contrario de lo que pueda parecer. De tener un tono, este sería de resignación.

Lo que más he disfrutado ha sido del capítulo "También el claro de luna puede ser una visión del mundo" , donde el autor reflexiona sobre la vida y los distintos sentidos que buscamos y le acabamos dando. Me ha recordado a Albert Camus.

[Tatjana Bordukalo Nikšić · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ne znam kako mi je ovo remek-djelo dosad promaklo, ali to mi samo potvrđuje da za bezvremenske knjige nikad nije kasno. U današnje doba skraćene koncentracije i navike brzinskog čitanja Krleža je još zahtjevniji nego nekad, i ovaj tekst nije po tome iznimka, ne čita se brzo i s lakoćom. Ali treba ga čitati i vrijedi uložiti određen napor, jer po svojoj tematici, ovaj roman danas je jednako aktualan kao i u vrijeme nastanka, a kroz univerzalne rečenice očituje se Krležina genijalnost koja je očito bila ispred svog vremena.

[Tara · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this years ago, having picked it up randomly at a small, independent bookstore, and I haven't seen it elsewhere. I re-read it a few months ago, and it was as good as the first time. It's not the most inspirational tale of all time, but if you're feeling incredibly frustrated by human behavior, this is great. The author couldn't help calling it like he saw it, and from what I understand, that didn't make him too popular with society figures who wanted to flatter him in real life either. He's gruff, bored, and disgusted with hypocrisy. So I loved it. I wish I could take the narrator around with me and just have him run his mouth in that polite but snarky way. He's the best, dude. Too bad that society is just as silly now as it was eighty years ago. Still, this book is relevant, and I really recommend him. Plus, eastern European writers never seem to get enough attention, so this is a great excuse to find out more about literature from that area of the world.

[Sid · Rating 5 out of 5]

nema do krleže. i u cjelokupnoj hrvatskoj književnosti nema mu ravna. ni blizu. (a ako ćemo biti iskreni, hrvatska je književnost bogata ovakvim sličnim talentima; unatoč tome nitko nije ni blizu krležinoj književnoj veličini). kralj među piscima. (usporedba koja mu se nimalo ne bi svidjela)

[Celia · Rating 4 out of 5]

The best way to summarize this book is to quote from the introduction written by Jeremy Catto.

"The focus of Miroslav Krleža's novels and plays is the private and interior life of the individual, unhinged and distorted by the pressure to conform to various embodiments of public folly."

"...it is society in the grip of its own fantasies which is deranged, and which resents and persecutes anybody who dares to confront it with the truth."

"On the Edge of Reason is set in Zagreb. Public folly is represented by the ‘top-hatted man’,..."

"The decline and fall of the narrator is the consequence of his almost accidental statement of the simple truth that the behaviour of Director-General Domaćinski in 1918, in shooting a number of peasants who had invaded his property, had been criminal and insane."

"In the events that follow, the narrator is almost passive while the conventional world assails him with its weapons of rumour and exaggeration, its provocative ‘friendly advice’ and finally in the form of a trial where prosecutor, judge and public shout him down."

This story was so realistic as to be downright scary and depressing. I kept thinking that this kind of ill treatment based on a true statement and opinion but said against someone with power, could happen to anybody, maybe even me.

Not to be read by the faint of heart.

4 stars

[Monty Milne · Rating 3 out of 5]

My second Krleza. I had mixed feelings about it. It is quite prescient, given the madness of so much contemporary societal discourse: we are surrounded by lies and deceit and corruption, and the one who tries to confront this and speak the truth is “cancelled”, just as happens to the protagonist here. He is a man of integrity in a world of corruption, and so bound to get our sympathy. This is indeed “a cry of individual sanity under the psychopathic oppression of the public domain” – and what could be more contemporary than that?

But: there is a court scene which is, to my mind, tedious and overdone. The unwillingness or inability of the protagonist to take any sensible action to avoid his fate at first makes one admire him for his integrity, but in the end one becomes exasperated with his stubbornness and foolishness in the face of powers which will inevitably crush him. There are ways in which he could have mitigated or avoided his fate without hastening his own destruction or abandoning his integrity, surely. I can’t help feeling that although this has many interesting and apt ideas, the whole thing is a bit overbaked and verges at times on the tedious.

One of the unexpected pleasures was discovering that the Introduction to my edition was written by my former Dean when I was at Oxford, the late Dr Jeremy Catto. “Kitty�� Catto was a fine medieval historian and a much loved eccentric of considerable wit, charm and style. He was also a High Camp High Tory and had ample private wealth. It was therefore a bit surprising to find him writing interestingly about a Yugoslav Marxist like Krleza. But, as Catto says, “Krleza’s style is characteristically Yugoslav and individualist, and a far cry from the conformist ideology of the Soviet Writers Union or from the bourgeois conventions of Franz Josef’s Vienna.”

[Marija S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Re read in 2025. for a bookclub discussion

[Dina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Najteže mi pada što je ova oknjiga objavljena 1938, a apsolutno aktuelna danas. Ništa nismo naučili.

[Yuri Sharon · Rating 5 out of 5]

“... one should remain logical because logic has never been an unreliable guide.” (p 54)
Oh really? Read this and ponder.

[WillemC · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wanneer iemand in een rustig Kroatische provinciestadje - waar iedereen dezelfde mening hoort te hebben - het plots waagt om op een feest zijn baas, die net al lachend een anekdote aan het vertellen was over hoe hij ooit vier hongerige inbrekers heeft neergeschoten, ervan te beschuldigen dat hij een misdadiger is, wordt hij het slachtoffer van een hele ketting aan geruchten, processen en straffen. "Op de rand van het verstand" is een aanklacht tegen het conformisme zoals zich dat tijdens het interbellum overal in Europa in een zeer gevaarlijke richting aan het ontwikkelen was. Krleža steekt de draak met meelopers, jaknikkers, slijmballen en nazeggers en neemt daarbij ook keihard de oorlogszuchtige politiek op de korrel. Er bestaat voor hem slechts één soort ware mens: zij die ingaan tegen de domheid die zich overal verspreidt en niet bang zijn om tegen schenen te schoppen. Eén van de hoogtepunten: de protagonist bezoekt de Sixtijnse Kapel. Een grappige en tegelijk ook diepgaande roman die qua thematiek eigenlijk weinig zeggingskracht verloren heeft. Het deed me hier en daar wat denken aan "Het zwarte bloed" van Louis Gilloux. De tweede Krleža die ik dit jaar lees en alweer een schot in de roos. 4.5/5

"Tot mijn tweeënvijftigste jaar leefde ik het saaie en eentonige leven van een doorsneeburger met koetsiersmentaliteit en hoge hoed: ik was een regelrechte nul te midden van een menigte regelrechte grauwe nullen [...]."

"Wat zou men nog kunnen zeggen over deze tijd die in de doorslaggevende en zegevierende kracht van de voetbal gelooft?"

"Waarom een psychiater? Wanneer iemand zich verveelt wil dat nog niet zeggen dat hij een psychiater nodig heeft!"

"[...] zodat een nieuwe dichter, een nieuw genie en een nieuwe desperado gelanceerd zou kunnen worden; hij zou overigens eindigen zoals ze allemaal geëindigd waren: op de stoel van een corrector, in het gekkenhuis of in de goot."

[Ivan Hrvoić · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of my friends loves Krleza, other one hates him. And I, I haven’t read almost any Croatian book for more than 10 years. Why? I don’t know, some highschool nonsense revolt was at beginning which on some non-particular point silently grew simple not-explained avoidance. Week, or two ago first mentioned friend mentioned me that he liked Edge of Reason and I just woke up, like from a dream and said; well, actually why not?

I had no idea what a book is about, but one plain thing my friend told me that he feels Krleza was quite angry when he wrote it. Seeing, the first part highly decorated with insults I was amused and confused am I reading diary, one of short stories, novel or what. It turned out to be first-person narrated novel. Since Croatian is my mother-language strong, melodic rhythm can be felt in long line of insults. If someone was speaking this to me, I’d find him as annoying pestilence, but reading those lines and lines of charming insults was quite opposite. I’m not sure is that rhythm felt in translations.
Story is about 52 year old lawyer who wakes up behind his mask in masked society during one ‘’high-society’’ dinner and with one opinion said aloud changes course of his life. Rest of the book is about him being slapped by society back and forth because of that opinion.

Seems like I’ll never get bored by reading criticism of society and views on world because I liked book. Actually, I liked first part little bit more, at moment one guys starts long monologue on his world view in distant Croatian dialect novel goes bit downhill for me. And I would prefer if it was made somewhat longer, more detailed with more particulars in story, but that’s only me.
Easy read, nice pictures, delicious insults, interesting views on society and life means if you get your hands on it, I recommend to read, but hardly can tell that it is one of do-not-miss books.

[Michael Kuehn · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book for our time. A horrifying, Kafkaesque tale of pre-World War 2 Croatian-style cancel culture.

In the life of every individual human being there is a time termed by novelists 'fatal,' and I had such a fatal experience that fall. It was about two years ago. At present, I no longer remember the immediate cause that led to it, but everything started simply because I had ventured to say aloud what I had on my mind at that dramatic moment. [24-25]

It begins with an off-hand remark at a party, a truthful characterization of an influential industrialist that dispatches our protagonist, an otherwise “nameless and invisible” nobody, into a vicious maelstrom of gossip, slander, scandalmongering, denunciation, smears, insults, and ultimately criminal action. And prison? Perhaps.

“You see, I have been crushed. Why? Because I dared to oppose human folly. . . Whoever does not creep like a poodle on all fours and lick hands for three glasses of wine and soda will be crushed, uprooted, destroyed, spat on, thrown down into the mud like a dead body.”

[George · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 stars. An interesting, innovative novel set in 1930s Zagreb about the decline and fall of the narrator due to an accidental statement he made about the behaviour of Director-General Domacinski in 1918. Domacinski, at a dinner party, recalls how he shot four peasants who had invaded his property. In response to the statement, the narrator states Domacinski had been criminal and insane when he shot the four peasants.

The narrator is a passive man, a middle class, middle aged legal advisor, married with children. It is the 1930s and Domacinski has become an outstanding citizen and well respected. The narrator is asked to retract his statement about Domacinski and when the narrator fails to do so, the narrator is charged with libelous conduct and put on trial.

A clever critique of contemporary bourgeois society, exposing the social hierarchy of a nameless Croatian town.

This book was first published in 1938.