Pobuna

by Władysław Stanisław Reymont

First published in Polish as Bunt>, this animal fable of the Polish Nobel Prize winner (1924) was inspired by the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, and the Polish-Soviet War, which had just ended a year before the novel was serialised in 1922. Comparisons to George Orwell’s later novel Animal Farm will naturally arise in the reader’s mind – and often, to the advantage of Reymont.

Genres: Fiction, Poland, Dystopia, Audiobook

211 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published January 1, 1924

About the author

Polski pisarz, prozaik i nowelista, jeden z głównych przedstawicieli realizmu z elementami naturalizmu w prozie Młodej Polski. Niewielką część jego spuścizny stanowią wiersze. Laureat Nagrody Nobla w dziedzinie literatury za czterotomową „epopeję chłopską” Chłopi. Jeden z najwybitniejszych i najważniejszych pisarzy w dziejach literatury polskiej.

Władysław Stanisław Reymont (7 May 1867 – 5 December 1925) was a Polish novelist and the laureate of the 1924 Nobel Prize in Literature. His best-known work is the award-winning four-volume novel Chłopi (The Peasants).

Born into an impoverished noble family, Reymont was educated to become a master tailor, but instead worked as a gateman at a railway station and then as an actor in a troupe. His intensive travels and voyages encouraged him to publish short stories, with notions of literary realism. Reymont's first successful and widely praised novel was The Promised Land from 1899, which brought attention to the bewildering social inequalities, poverty, conflictive multiculturalism and labour exploitation in the industrial city of Łódź (Lodz). The aim of the novel was to extensively emphasize the consequences of extreme industrialization and how it affects society as a whole. In 1900, Reymont was severely injured in a railway accident, which halted his writing career until 1904 when he published the first part of Chłopi.

Władysław Reymont was popular in communist Poland due to his style of writing and the symbolism he used, including socialist concepts, romantic portrayal of the agrarian countryside and toned criticism of capitalism, all present in literary realism. His work is widely attributed to the Young Poland movement, which featured decadence and literary impressionism.

Reviews

[Milan]

Priča oko romana „Pobuna“ Vladislava Rejmonta je veoma zanimljiva. Objavljena je čak dve decenije pre Orvelove knjige „Životinjska farma“ i govori o životinjama na farmi koje su se pobunile protiv svojih gospodara. A sam autor je, kao književni autsajder, u žestokoj konkurenciji dva Tomasa - Mana i Hardija, kao i Maksima Gorkog, dobio Nobelovu nagradu.

Što se tiče „Pobune“ usudiću se da kažem da mi se više dopala od romana „Životinjska farma“. Zašto? Valjda zato što je Orvel svoju radnju previše fokusirao na sovjetsku revoluciju, dok je Rejmond napisao mnogo univerzalniju priču. Čini mi se da je Rejmontov roman i poetičniji, snažniji, upečatljiviji. U odnosu na „Pobunu“ Orvelova knjiga deluje kao strip, karikatura, humoreska.

Možda razlog ovome valja tražiti u samim autorima. Rejmont je učio za krojača, radio je kao čuvar na železničkoj stanici i glumac u putujućem pozorištu, dok je Orvel, ipak, niko i ništa u Parizu i Londonu bio po svojoj volji. Igralo se privilegovano dete socijalizma i klošarenja. Možda je zato Rejmontov glas autentičniji, upečatljiviji, dublji…

Obratite pažnju na ovu knjigu. Odlična je!

[Kinga Gadomska · Rating 4 out of 5]

Crossover „Folwarku zwierzęcego” i księgi wyjścia

[Hiena Biblioteczna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Imagine: crossover between Orwell's "Animal Farm" and Reymont's "Bunt".

[Ioannis Korovesis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ένα παραμύθι με πολιτικό, αλληγορικό χαρακτήρα για τη μοίρα των πάσης φύσεως εξεγέρσεων και επαναστάσεων με υπέροχη ιμπρεσιονιστικη γραφή και επικριτικό ύφος για τους απανταχού τυράννους, εντός και εκτός του προλεταριάτου. Κεντρικό του θέμα η ανάγκη για ζωή, η οποία (τελικώς) ξεπερνά την οποία ουτοπία.

[Književne crtice · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nepoznato je li prije pisanja svoje satirične bajke, basne, novele "Životinjska farma", George Orwell znao za postojanje ovoga romana. Neki smatraju kako jest te prema tome njegovu bajku vide kao kopiju.

Ne bih mogla govoriti iz konteksta plagijatstva, ali da ima sličnih motiva jest istina, no intelektualnost ionako jest odlika moderne i postmoderne.

U "Pobuni" životinje postaju nezadovoljne čovjekom te ih Rex (pas) predvodi u potragu za obećanom zemljom daleko od čovjeka. Mene ta potraga za obećanom zemljom i lutanje kroz pustoš uvelike podsjećaju na odlazak Židova iz Egipta što zapravo ima smisla jer je Reymont odrastao u izrazito katoličkoj obitelji gdje je čak učio pisati i čitati uz pomoć molitvenika jer nije imao udžbenika. Bez obzira što je on u kasnijoj dobi bježao od takvoga načina odgoja, djetinjstvo je ostavilo traga na njega i taj religijski utjecaj vidim upravo u motivu "obećane zemlje".

Židove od ropstva oslobađa jedan od nekadašnje vladajuće elite, koji je odbačen i protjeran od faraona, a zatim čuje Božji glas te ga Jahve postavlja kao OSLOBODITELJA  Izabranoga naroda. U romanu pak imamo psa Rexa koji je nekada vjerno služio svoga gospodara i poštivao njegove naredbe te se u skladu s njima ponašao prema drugim životinjama. Dok je na imanju bio gospodar i Rexu je bilo dobro, ali njegovim odlaskom sve se promijenilo. Gospodarica nije naklonjena Rexu, a mladi gospodari imaju svoje ljubimce -  jazavčare. I tako poput Mojsije i Rex biva osramoćen i protjeran.  Samo pas, naravno ne čuje Boga, ali čuje ždralove i njihove pjesme i priče o divnoj zemlji bez ljudi. Stoga Rex ponutkan pjesmama ždralova odluči postati OSLOBODITELJ domaćih životinja (no pridruže mu se i neke divlje životinje) i odvesti životinje daleko od robovlasnika te im omogućiti potpunu slobodu i mir. Međutim, uvijek je sve lijepo zamišljeno, no takav pothvat je teško realizirati. Cijela potraga me podsjeća na lutanje Židova kroz pustinju pa čak i na njihove kušnje i sumnje u Boga, međutim rasplet romana sasvim odudara od Staroga Zavjeta.

Ovaj roman bavi se i tematikom ljudske sudbine, sreće, mogućnostima promjene vlastitoga života i željom za promjenom... Prije svega djelo govori o zadovoljstvu ljudi,  što je to što ljude čini sretnim, pate li ljudi uvijek za onim prošlim te prošlost uzdižu u nebesa, a ne znaju živjeti u sadašnjosti... No, rekla bih da je možda nekad lako i učiniti korak i poželjeti nešto promijeniti, ali ako prije toga nismo detaljno razgradili plan promjene i uvidili sve mogućnosti koje nam se nude od te promjene nažalost nema ništa.

[Czarny Pies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Many GR reviewers are struck by the similarities between "Bunt" (1921) and George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (1945). Indeed, the resemblance is strong. Both novels tale the story of a revolt of the animals against their human masters. There are, however, two importance differences. First, Orwell's critique is from the left; he was an anarchist criticizing the Communists for having created a society of privilege. Reymont on the other hand was a noble who felt that society had natural leaders (its aristocrats). Members of the lower other classes might possess numerous good qualities (intelligence, courage, honesty) but lack the royal jelly require to be direct society.
The animals of Bunt are very similar to the peasants of "Chlopi", the magnum opus of Reymont. They are able to revolt against the aristocrats but lack the talents needed to organize and direct. Reymont also stresses the lack of common interests amongst the insurgents. He stresses that wolves versus sheep inevitably have conflicting interests. Thus after a short period of liberty that brings them only misery, the animals look to return to a regime led by humans.
In our liberal era, Reymont's point of view shocks. However, during his lifetime many people openly proclaimed the doctrine that some classes properly ruled while others were meant to serve. I think that Mikhail Bulgakov's "Heart of A Dog" (1925) is a peer to "Bunt". Bulgakov like Reymont took a dim view of rule by the working classes. Another work in the same school is the "Admirable Crichton" (1902)by J.M. Barrie which has no animal characters but still presents a vigorous defense of the theory that society has natural leaders in the form of aristocrats.
"Bunt" is definitely work reading on its own merits. Its status as a possible precursor to "Animal Farm" is very much beside the point.

[Michał · Rating 2 out of 5]

Trochę się zawiodłem, liczyłem na szybką treściwą fabułę, a znalazłem długa i ciężka do przebrnięcia historię. Wiele razy gubiłem się, nie wiedziałem kto gdzie i dlaczego i musiałem wracać się sporo fragmenty żeby zrozumieć motywację i co się w ogóle dzieje. nie podobał mi się styl w jakim to było napisane.

[Merel Rolf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Het hoefgetrappel van de grote kuddes opstandig vee achtervolgt de lezer nog lang na het uitlezen van dit boek.

Zoveel dierengeweld en zoveel gedachtes over heel het leven en hoe het te leiden.

Uitstekende Nederlandse vertaling!

[Sanja_Sanjalica · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am in awe. How come this book isn't a part of main curricula alongside Animal Farm? Preceding the said novel by more than two decades, this political allegory packs an equwl, maybe a greater punch while depicting the disillusionment, power hunger and injustice of the world. And that ending? Wow. I will remember this one for sure. My Nobel winner marathon has thrown me on the path of some true gems.

[Dominika · Rating 1 out of 5]

Reymont wykorzystał do tego opowiadania wszystkie możliwe gatunki zwierząt i czasowniki w słowniku, pisząc kolejne zdania. Sporo archaizmów, całość dość męcząca, szczególnie w formie audiobooka.

[Michal · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The Revolt of the Animals” consists itself from many layers. There are many characters and groups with different characteristics, but they are always very distinct. As I was breaking it down to its essentials, I found that we can frame main topics in few categories, which always have its counterpart. These are: leadership vs subjection and society structures vs external and eternal laws. In both cases we can use Rex as an anchor point to break these topics further down. Sometimes he acts as a contractor and sometime as a spectator, but always we can call him main axis of the story.

Rex – the King – is obviously a leader. At first, he didn’t want to be one, but at some point of the story, he become it. We could even say, that to some extent he was pushed to become one. As he is cast away he looks for a new place for himself. It’s hard but finally he founds one in the swamps but his greed and uncontrolled desire are the reasons, why he is cast away for the second and third time. Then he become a leader, more out of need than desire. There is no other way left. He learns nothing, the only thing that motivates him is revenge and for it, he uses – maybe unknowingly – old laws of the wilderness, laws under which he never lived and never fully understood. Moreover, he is imperfect being, as all beings are. And here I ask myself can leader be a broken being. Logic tells me that this is impossible to avoid but some part of me can accept only flawless authority, which obviously doesn’t exist.

I was asking myself many times: “Should he become a leader?” And in the end – sadly – I know that “should” is a wrong word. He just did it, without asking anybody for permission. We can ask ourselves if luck played here any role, but does this question change anything? In the end all the laws can be broken in the end there is no constant. We are changing the rules as we are playing. To be a good player (human) one need to have two things: wisdom and willingness to act.

On the other hand we have subjects, and unfortunately Reymont doesn’t show them in any good way. They are week and often stupid, they have no will of their own. They want to change nothing. At many points they want even to go back to their old life which they have hated. And the humans are once more good masters. Reymont shows here one interesting mechanism. That unconsciously we don’t want to change anything about our lives, what we want is familiarity even if it means pain, we need to suffer in familiar ways, it seems much safer than change. In the end they are convinced to change, only by the promises of paradise on earth without any pain and burden. It does not pay them, however I don’t see their goals as mistake, but their way to it. There is no shortcut and nobody can give us a helping hand. We need to get there alone and moreover there are two paths, that we need to follow at the same time: spiritual and social. In this two fields we need to strive to achieve life without pain.

We are like Rex, we are both leaders and subjects. We can decide to act or not to act. Not all the laws should be broken just for the sake of rebellion. Here we need wisdom to decide. Sometimes maybe better for us to choose comfort and boundaries than freedom. But we need to choose conscious and often question our own decisions to check if we really are on the right path. Wolfs and farm animals are very similar in this way they both believe in some kind of law, eternal or human and they both cannot break it alone although it seems that internally they want to, and they need some external figure to do it, who would give them excuse for rebelling. The cause is external and that is way, it is weak. What divded them is the need of freedom and value of it. Wolfs see in it goal, which seems to be a higher moral position. But their freedom is only external, and they are always depending on the strongest wolf in the pack. That is way I assume that more important is internal freedom which is wisdom and self-knowledge.

Many times during reading I got an impression that Reymont tries to evaluate different politic systems. I put a lot of thought into it, and in Reymont criticism I cannot see any winner. Maybe the finale of the book is a criticism of communism or democracy, but on the other hand this is at the same time a strong critic of leadership – at least the bad ones – however we do not get ant good examples in this book. And every movement seem to shift towards religious fanaticism.

From the finale emerges sad conclusion, that people are mostly feeling dire need to be led. And they cannot overcome it. This seems to be against our western philosophy, that we are all independent individuals. But one excludes the other.

[Mandy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wladyslaw Reymont (1867-1925) was a Polish writer and novelist, whose works offer a panoramic depiction of Polish life in the last part of the 19th century. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1924, shortly before his death. His novel Bunt, or The Revolt of the Animals, originally appeared in serialised form in 1922, then as a novel in 1924, but was largely suppressed until 2004. Although Reymont never said so, the novel was interpreted as an allegory of the Bolshevik Revolution and as an attack on Communism. His distaste for Marxism was well known and he was horrified by the violence and anarchy that had been unleashed. This book was his response to it.
The book opens with the dog Rex being cruelly beaten and then driven out from the manor where he lives. He remains nearby as he regains his strength but from then on views humans as the enemy of all animals, both domesticated and wild. He becomes convinced that they should be freed from bondage and incites them to revolt and follow him to the “Promised Land”, a land of plenty and justice for them all. Rex grows into his role as leader and the animals decide to trust him. Sadly their journey is a long and difficult one, and their sufferings and hardships gradually become too much to be borne. Disillusion sets in and they begin to question whether their life with their human masters had been so bad after all. Slowly they begin to turn against Rex, not least because he becomes increasingly brutal and dictatorial.
The novel is often compared to Orwell’s Animal Farm, but is very different in tone, and in portraying the animals as natural animals with natural animal behaviours. What it does have in common, however, is in being a parable of how human ideals can so easily fall victim to animal instincts and in how quickly the oppressed can evolve into the oppressors. It is often seen as a reactionary work, with Reymont seeming to suggest that the vast majority of animals – or mankind –are sheep who simply need to be led and who can’t handle freedom.
It’s a compelling read, horrific at times in its depiction of animal suffering, and the writing is powerful if overblown at times. The journey is somewhat repetitive as disaster follows on disaster and it’s quite a relief when it’s all over. I found it a more complex and thought-provoking read than Animal Farm, the far more simplistic fable, and it offers a truly immersive reading experience. Well worth discovering, and all credit to Glagoslav for re-issuing this new translation.

[Pebro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Czy "Folwark zwierzęcy" był plagiatem "Buntu"? Przeczytałem taką tezę, którą postanowiłem sprawdzić.
Reymont w książce zwrócił uwagę na krzywdę zwierząt. Bicie, głodzenie i inne sposoby gnębienia zwierząt. W końcu zwierzęta buntują się przeciw człowiekowi. Ale co lepsze? Poniewierka i zmaganie się z zimnem i głodem czy ciepło i strawa w niewoli. Można traktować to, jak baśń, można jako przyczynek do zastanowienia nad niedolą zwierząt, ale też alegorię losu ludzi. Bo czy niektórzy nie są współczesnymi niewolnikami, którym obiecują cudowny świat? Pracują dla innych, tylko po to, aby spłacić kredyt i mieć co zjeść. A za obiecanki pójdą za wodzem, mimo że głodem przymierają.

"Potem, zapomną, co słyszeli, a pójdą na lep nowych obietnic i znowu dadzą się poprowadzić dalej. Muszą być oszukiwani, dla ich szczęścia".

Wracając do postawionego wcześniej pytania, wydaje mi się, że nie. Być może pomysł jest podobny, być może Orwell znał dzieło Reymonta (wszak to noblista). Jednak bunt jest różny i prowadzi do innych wniosków. Tak czy inaczej, warto przeczytać. Barwny i piękny język sprawia, że czyta się bardzo dobrze. Czytałem wydanie z 1927 roku, pobrane z wikiźródeł (https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Bunt_(...)

[Krysia o książkach · Rating 4 out of 5]

Niewątpliwie się zestarzała, momentami bardzo brzydko, ale nie da się udawać, że było to inaczej w tatmtych czasach jeśli chodzi o przemoc względem osób i zwierząt. Ale czy teraz naprawdę jest inaczej...? Kij i bat odeszły w kąt, ale czy wyzysk i niewola?

Uważam, że warto zmierzyć się z nużacymi momentami i archaizmami, bo dostaje się w zamian wielopłaszczyznową, symbliczną opowieść, która nie straciła na wartości i ważności. Można ją interpretować na wiele różnych sposobów. Na pewno wymaga skupienia i uwagi, ale z drugiej strony zostaje z czytelnikiem na dłużej, nie jest to czytadło, a prawdziwa powieść.

Ja jestem fanką języka i opisów Reymonta od czasów szkolnych i lektury Chłopów, więc ten element mnie akurat nie zniechecał.

Nie dziwię się, że trafiła na listę ksiąg zakazanych. Jest to dosyć dosadna krytyka na rewolucję. Utopia pozostanie utopią, mimo najlepszych ideałów, rzeczywistość rewiduje zamiary, a cenę płacą najsłabsi i niewinni. Rewolucja zjada własne dzieci.

[Valentina Parisi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Από τα καλύτερα πολιτικά παραμύθια που έχω διαβάσει. Δημοσιεύτηκε το 1922 στο εβδομαδιαίο έντυπο Τιγκόντνικ Ιλουστροβάνι σε συνέχειες κατά τη συνήθη πρακτική της εποχής. Το βιβλίο κυκλοφόρησε σε αυτόνομη έκδοση το 1924.
Πολλοί παρομοιάζουν το βιβλίο με την φάρμα των ζώων του Οργουέλ και πολύ καλά κάνουν. Η Κεντρική ιδέα της φάρμας των ζώων δημιουργήθηκε το 1937 αλλά ολοκληρώθηκε στο τέλος του 1943. Δεν έχει αποδεχθεί αν ο Όρνελ είχε διαβάσει την εξέγερση.
Συστήνω να διαβαστούν και τα δύο βιβλία καθώς είναι εξαιρετικά.

[João Maia · Rating 4 out of 5]

Este livro surpreendeu-me em mais do que um aspeto e não posso negar que a sua leitura se revelou um empreendimento mais complexo do que aquele que inicialmente esperava.
Ao longo desta obra vamos mergulhando num crescente desespero, abandono e solidão no meio de uma multidão. Será que Rex é realmente um tirano? Será a imensidão animal mais culpada pela sua fraca sina do que querem admitir? Deixo estas perguntas para quem possa desejar ler esta obra que tem tanto de animais como da mente humana.

[Lisa]

I wanted to read this novel by the second of Poland's six Nobel laureates, but the dog being beaten at the beginning of it put me off from the start.
I don't rate books I don't finish.

Here's a review from Michael Orthofer at the Complete Review: https://www.complete-review.com/revie...

[Bojana · Rating 2 out of 5]

sadly disappointing. too much description of nature and weather for my taste. pace was so slow and tedious, which is acceptable in a way, since I've felt like dragging along with animals. still, my expectations were much higher.

[Djordje · Rating 4 out of 5]

My rating: ★★★★

[Alen Brletić · Rating 3 out of 5]

...odlično

[Jola Cora · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite it being a metaphor, it is still a very heavy read. Beautiful language.

[cziczi · Rating 2 out of 5]

jeny nic nie zrozumiałam

[Zachary · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Animal Farm" was better.

[Magda · Rating 5 out of 5]

parabola rewolucyjnej apokalipsy

[Marceli.Szpak.]

Polecajka Grafzero

[Piotr Poreda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Do "Folwarku zwierzęcego" temu daleko. Polecam audiobooka czytanego przez Huberta Czarnockiego - piękny głos, świetna interperetacja.

[Maja]

Za mało wychodzę z domu żeby słuchać audiobooków regularnie... Przesłuchane na bookbeat ale słaby jest ten audiobook, nie polecam.

Sama książka świetna i niesłusznie zapomniana

[Ivana Hajdinić]

Ljudi nikada ne nauče...