What do you think?
Rate this book
Being There
A modern classic now available from Grove Press, Being There is one of the most popular and significant works from a writer of international stature. It is the story of Chauncey Gardiner - Chance, an enigmatic but distinguished man who emerges from nowhere to become an heir to the throne of a Wall Street tycoon, a presidential policy adviser, and a media icon. Truly "a man without qualities," Chance's straightforward responses to popular concerns are heralded as visionary. But though everyone is quoting him, no one is sure what he's really saying. And filling in the blanks in his background proves impossible. Being There is a brilliantly satiric look at the unreality of American media culture that is, if anything, more trenchant now than ever.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1970
281 people are currently reading
7995 people want to read
About the author
Jerzy Kosiński
61 books610 followersKosiński was born Josef Lewinkopf to Jewish parents in Łódź, Poland. As a child during World War II, he lived in central Poland under a false identity his father gave him to use, Jerzy Kosiński. A Roman Catholic priest issued him a forged baptismal certificate. The Kosiński family survived the Holocaust thanks to local villagers, who offered assistance to Jewish Poles often at great personal risk (the penalty for assisting Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland was death). Kosiński's father received help not only from Polish town leaders and churchmen, but also from individuals such as Marianna Pasiowa, a member of the Polish underground network helping Jews to evade capture. The family lived openly in Dąbrowa Rzeczycka near Stalowa Wola, and attended church in nearby Wola Rzeczycka, obtaining support from villagers in Kępa Rzeczycka. They were sheltered temporarily by a Catholic family in Rzeczyca Okrągła. The young Jerzy even served as an altar boy in a local church.
After World War II, Kosiński remained with his parents in Poland, moved to Jelenia Góra, and earned degrees in history and political science at the University of Łódź. He worked as an assistant in Institute of History and Sociology at the Polish Academy of Sciences. In 1957, he emigrated to the United States, creating a fake foundation which supposedly sponsored him; he later claimed that the letters from eminent Polish communist authorities guaranteeing his loyal return, which were needed for anyone leaving the communist country at that time, had all been forged by him.
After taking odd jobs to get by, such as driving a truck, Kosiński graduated from Columbia University, and in 1965 he became an American citizen. He received grants from Guggenheim Fellowship in 1967, Ford Foundation in 1968, and the American Academy in 1970, which allowed him to write a political non-fiction book, opening new doors of opportunity. In the States he became a lecturer at Yale, Princeton, Davenport University, and Wesleyan.
In 1962 Kosiński married Mary Hayward Weir who was 10 years his senior. They were divorced in 1966. Weir died in 1968 from brain cancer. Kosiński was left nothing in her will. He later fictionalized this marriage in his novel Blind Date speaking of Weir under pseudonym Mary-Jane Kirkland. Kosiński went on to marry Katherina "Kiki" von Fraunhofer, a marketing consultant and descendant of Bavarian aristocracy. They met in 1968.
Kosiński suffered from multiple illnesses towards the end of his life, and was under attack from journalists who alleged he was a plagiarist. By the time he reached his late 50s, Kosiński was suffering from an irregular heartbeat as well as severe physical and nervous exhaustion. Kosiński committed suicide on May 3, 1991, by taking a fatal dose of barbiturates. His parting suicide note read: "I am going to put myself to sleep now for a bit longer than usual. Call it Eternity".
After World War II, Kosiński remained with his parents in Poland, moved to Jelenia Góra, and earned degrees in history and political science at the University of Łódź. He worked as an assistant in Institute of History and Sociology at the Polish Academy of Sciences. In 1957, he emigrated to the United States, creating a fake foundation which supposedly sponsored him; he later claimed that the letters from eminent Polish communist authorities guaranteeing his loyal return, which were needed for anyone leaving the communist country at that time, had all been forged by him.
After taking odd jobs to get by, such as driving a truck, Kosiński graduated from Columbia University, and in 1965 he became an American citizen. He received grants from Guggenheim Fellowship in 1967, Ford Foundation in 1968, and the American Academy in 1970, which allowed him to write a political non-fiction book, opening new doors of opportunity. In the States he became a lecturer at Yale, Princeton, Davenport University, and Wesleyan.
In 1962 Kosiński married Mary Hayward Weir who was 10 years his senior. They were divorced in 1966. Weir died in 1968 from brain cancer. Kosiński was left nothing in her will. He later fictionalized this marriage in his novel Blind Date speaking of Weir under pseudonym Mary-Jane Kirkland. Kosiński went on to marry Katherina "Kiki" von Fraunhofer, a marketing consultant and descendant of Bavarian aristocracy. They met in 1968.
Kosiński suffered from multiple illnesses towards the end of his life, and was under attack from journalists who alleged he was a plagiarist. By the time he reached his late 50s, Kosiński was suffering from an irregular heartbeat as well as severe physical and nervous exhaustion. Kosiński committed suicide on May 3, 1991, by taking a fatal dose of barbiturates. His parting suicide note read: "I am going to put myself to sleep now for a bit longer than usual. Call it Eternity".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,388 reviews
June 24, 2020
If you listen to audio books you will enjoy this classic performance by Dustin Hoffman. Perhaps you are familiar with the film based on the novel; if you are unfamiliar with the short novel itself, here's your chance to experience a truly insightful and compelling work of literature through the voice of an outstanding actor.
And from what author Jersy Koskinski writes in the first few pages, a reasonable take on the back-story goes like this: main character Chance’s mother died in childbirth, probably giving birth in the lawyer-father’s house so as to leave no record or documentation (as opposed to hospital record-keeping) since the old lawyer aimed to avoid anything official about his being the father. And then over the next several years, probably the result of some type of brain-damage, observing the baby develop (or not develop), the little boy is labeled simple-minded.
And, thus, when the simple-minded little boy grows into a simple-minded big boy, we read how the lawyer-father decrees: “Chance must limit his life to his quarters and to the garden; he must not enter other parts of the household or walk into the street. . . . Chance would do exactly what he was told or else he would be sent to a special home for the insane where, the Old Man said, he would be locked in a cell and forgotten.”
There you have it – what French philosopher Michel Foucault calls a normalizing judgment: don’t deviate from what we decide is normal or we label you as mad and lock you away. Nothing like an ominous threat to keep your simple-minded son within the walls of your property, spending his life tending the garden and watching TV in his room.
But what happens years later, when the simple-minded boy becomes a handsome, well-mannered, simple-minded man in his 30s and is ordered to leave the house and garden when his lawyer-father dies and doesn’t leave a word about his son in his estate plan? Thus we have the starting point for Jersy Kosinski’s novel, a novel that proves page-by-page to be a caustic satire on modern society and individual identity.
No sooner does Chance leave the old man’s house then he is hit by a limousine owned by one Benjamin Rand, a wealthy business tycoon with political connections reaching up to the president. Since the novel is written in objective third-person, we are given a clear view of how everybody around Chance aka Chauncey Gardner is duped by his honest, straight-forward manner and his speaking about his gardening and watching TV as he answers questions on such topics as the economy and international politics and life and death. Such is the power of projecting what one wants to see and hear onto a person who is a perfect tabula rasa, a blank slate.
By way of example: Chance at dinner talking to Benjamin Rand about his recent expulsion from house and garden and dealing with his current life. Rand takes Chance’s comments about Chance’s gardening as a metaphor for business production and he takes Chance’s statement “. . . all that’s left is the room upstairs” (the room on the 2nd floor Rand provided Chance to recover from the auto accident) as Chance speaking about his own death.
In a way, what follows in the novel is a repetition of this misinterpretation of Chance’s simple, concrete words combined with a misreading of Chance’s simple-minded emotional neutrality. And with each misinterpretation and each misreading, Chance’s importance within the political and economic sphere along with perceiving him as a profound, insightful, extraordinarily well-educated American is raised several notches.
Now a man of such importance and potential political power requires the American and Soviet governments to run a thorough background check. But what all those high-powered government fact-checkers find for Mr. Chauncey Gardner is zero -- no family, no address, no driver’s license, no service record, no educational, industrial, political affiliations, nothing.
Well, my goodness. We as readers can see what it is like for a person to escapes the categories and structures created by society, a society where there is a place for everyone and everyone in their place, where everyone is automatically assigned specific numbers and definitions and labels and the various powerful institutions within society can exert minute control of each individual’s activity.
Observing the process of categories and structures and how the powers within society disciplines and punishes people who are deemed fit for discipline and punishment, Michel Foucault said, “Visibility is a trap.” Again, Mr. Kosinski’s novel explores what it means for an individual to escape the trap, to be invisible to all society’s numbers and cross-checks. The power people see how Mr. Chauncey Gardner has nothing in his background to work against him and conclude he is supremely qualified for an influential position within the corporate community or high political office. Did I mention the author’s caustic satire about society and politics?
On the subject of identity, knowledge and language, Michel Foucault writes ““Do not ask who I am and do not ask me to remain the same: leave it to our bureaucrats and our police to see that our papers are in order.” Like many 20th century French philosophers, such Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, Michael Foucault is concerned with self-expression and exercising freedom and how governments and social institutions restrict expression and freedom.
Who are you? Where did you come from? What did you do ten years ago or twenty years ago? Well, we can consult the files and papers and documents to answer these questions and judge you accordingly. – What?! Any sensitive, thinking person rebels against our very human identity being reduced to numbers and documents. Jersy Kosinski expressed his rebellion in Being There.
August 26, 2021
En las primeras páginas de esta breve novela se dice del protagonista:
Mr. Chance (oportunidad, suerte, azar) poseía la habilidad innata de moverse a favor del viento, viniera este de donde viniera, no había premeditación alguna. Todos veían en él aquello que deseaban ver, oían en sus palabras aquello que necesitaban oír, seducía con su sola presencia.
Un libro cortito, sugerente, una fábula que posee uno de esos personajes que no se olvidan y escrito con esa frialdad y distancia con la que están narrados esos encantadores cuentos “infantiles” que son capaces de mostrarnos, muchas veces de un modo cruel, un poquito de lo que somos.
“Chance debía trabajar en el jardín, donde cuidaría de las plantas y el césped y los árboles, que allí crecían en paz. Sería como una de las plantas: callado, abierto y feliz cuando brillara el sol, y melancólico y abatido cuando lloviera.”Y esa era justamente la esencia de Chance o lo que la confluencia de la semilla y el terreno creó, una fría planta que vivió y creció en soledad, teniendo a la televisión como su único sol. Aun así, cuando las circunstancias lo forzaron a enfrentarse con el mundo exterior, demostró tener algunas valiosas cualidades, unas cualidades que nadie hubiera imaginado si alguna vez alguien se hubiera tomado la molestia de pensar en él.
Mr. Chance (oportunidad, suerte, azar) poseía la habilidad innata de moverse a favor del viento, viniera este de donde viniera, no había premeditación alguna. Todos veían en él aquello que deseaban ver, oían en sus palabras aquello que necesitaban oír, seducía con su sola presencia.
“Él evocaba en ella innumerables seres.”Chance es una fría y bella planta capaz de entusiasmar sin entusiasmarse, de enamorar sin sentir nada, de estimular desde su absoluta apatía, de provocar deseo desde su naturaleza asexuada, de hacerse comprender sin comprender a su vez, y de no necesitar apenas nada más que sentarse y recibir la luz y el calor del televisor.
“Ni un solo pensamiento turbó la mente de Chance. La paz reinaba en su corazón.”Porque pensar fue la primera y gran equivocación de nuestra especie.
Un libro cortito, sugerente, una fábula que posee uno de esos personajes que no se olvidan y escrito con esa frialdad y distancia con la que están narrados esos encantadores cuentos “infantiles” que son capaces de mostrarnos, muchas veces de un modo cruel, un poquito de lo que somos.
October 4, 2018
عنوان کتاب توی انگلیسی اینه:
Being There
آن جا بودن
این که معنای این عنوان چیه؟ و ارتباطش با داستان چیه؟
من دو تا احتمال به ذهنم می رسه.
اولین احتمال ساده تره. در زبان انگلیسی به کسی که عقلش پاره سنگ بر می داره، می گن:
He's not all there.
آن جا نبودن، به معنای ناقص عقل بودنه و شخصیت اصلی این کتاب هم به نوعی ناقص عقله.
دومین احتمال، یه مقدار فلسفی تره و راستش نمی دونم چقدر درسته.
Being There
به آلمانی میشه:
Da-Sein
آن جا بودن.
اما دازاین یه اصطلاح به شدت فلسفیه، مخصوصاً از زمان هایدگر به بعد. در فلسفۀ هایدگر، وجود انسانی دازاین نامیده میشه. اما چیزی که بیشتر مدّ نظر منه، استفادۀ کارل یاسپرس از این اصطلاحه: در فلسفۀ یاسپرس دازاین به معنی انسان نااصیله. کسی که وجودش عمقی نداره. هنوز فقط «چیزی در آنجا»ست، بدون این که از خودش و در خودش وجودی داشته باشه. چنین انسان نااصیلی، توسط دیگران ساخته میشه، توسط اجتماع و محیط و رسانه و... از خودش فکری و تصمیمی نداره، غرق در جهان بیرونیه، با جریان دلبخواهی حوادث (شانس، اسم شخصیت اصلی) پیش میره، و خودش رو به عنوان وجودی مستقل و منفرد و دارای عمق و سنگینی درک نمی کنه. در مقابل اگزیستانس، که تنهایی و جدایی خودش از جهان رو درک کرده و به اصالت رسیده.
شخصیت اصلی داستان تا حد زیادی شبیه به این دازاین یاسپرسه: موجودی که تمام جملات و حالات و رفتارهاش توسط تلویزیون ساخته شده، هیچ احساسی نسبت به هیچ کسی نداره، هیچ درکی از اتفاقاتی که در اطرافش می افته نداره، حتی میشه مطمئن بود که از وجود خودش خبر نداره. فقط همراه با جریان دلبخواهی حوادث و غرق در جریان دلبخواهی حوادث پیش میره، و این خصوصیت در اسمش هم نمود داره: شانس.
چند نفر توی ریویوها متذکر شده بودن که این داستان در ستایش شخصیت اصلی نیست و «شانس گاردنر» در حقیقت نماد انسان پاک و طبیعی و دست نخورده نیست، بلکه برعکس، نویسنده داره این شخصیت رو با تمام موفقیت های بادآورده ش به تمسخر می گیره، و «شانس گاردنر» در حقیقت نماد انسان بی خبر از خود و ناهشیاره. فکر می کنم این تفسیر با عنوان کتاب همخوانی بیشتری داره.
Being There
آن جا بودن
این که معنای این عنوان چیه؟ و ارتباطش با داستان چیه؟
من دو تا احتمال به ذهنم می رسه.
اولین احتمال ساده تره. در زبان انگلیسی به کسی که عقلش پاره سنگ بر می داره، می گن:
He's not all there.
آن جا نبودن، به معنای ناقص عقل بودنه و شخصیت اصلی این کتاب هم به نوعی ناقص عقله.
دومین احتمال، یه مقدار فلسفی تره و راستش نمی دونم چقدر درسته.
Being There
به آلمانی میشه:
Da-Sein
آن جا بودن.
اما دازاین یه اصطلاح به شدت فلسفیه، مخصوصاً از زمان هایدگر به بعد. در فلسفۀ هایدگر، وجود انسانی دازاین نامیده میشه. اما چیزی که بیشتر مدّ نظر منه، استفادۀ کارل یاسپرس از این اصطلاحه: در فلسفۀ یاسپرس دازاین به معنی انسان نااصیله. کسی که وجودش عمقی نداره. هنوز فقط «چیزی در آنجا»ست، بدون این که از خودش و در خودش وجودی داشته باشه. چنین انسان نااصیلی، توسط دیگران ساخته میشه، توسط اجتماع و محیط و رسانه و... از خودش فکری و تصمیمی نداره، غرق در جهان بیرونیه، با جریان دلبخواهی حوادث (شانس، اسم شخصیت اصلی) پیش میره، و خودش رو به عنوان وجودی مستقل و منفرد و دارای عمق و سنگینی درک نمی کنه. در مقابل اگزیستانس، که تنهایی و جدایی خودش از جهان رو درک کرده و به اصالت رسیده.
شخصیت اصلی داستان تا حد زیادی شبیه به این دازاین یاسپرسه: موجودی که تمام جملات و حالات و رفتارهاش توسط تلویزیون ساخته شده، هیچ احساسی نسبت به هیچ کسی نداره، هیچ درکی از اتفاقاتی که در اطرافش می افته نداره، حتی میشه مطمئن بود که از وجود خودش خبر نداره. فقط همراه با جریان دلبخواهی حوادث و غرق در جریان دلبخواهی حوادث پیش میره، و این خصوصیت در اسمش هم نمود داره: شانس.
چند نفر توی ریویوها متذکر شده بودن که این داستان در ستایش شخصیت اصلی نیست و «شانس گاردنر» در حقیقت نماد انسان پاک و طبیعی و دست نخورده نیست، بلکه برعکس، نویسنده داره این شخصیت رو با تمام موفقیت های بادآورده ش به تمسخر می گیره، و «شانس گاردنر» در حقیقت نماد انسان بی خبر از خود و ناهشیاره. فکر می کنم این تفسیر با عنوان کتاب همخوانی بیشتری داره.
March 13, 2019
A man's past cripples him: his background turns into a swamp and invites scrutiny!
I kind of wish I could start my reading of Kosiński with that title, alas, what's done it's done and nothing can change that. Sadly my first novel by the author and for over thirty years the only one was his (in)famous The Painted Bird. I can't even describe how I hated reading it and how repulsive it felt. I thought then about Kosiński to be the worst author I ever read, hands down. Though to tell the truth I shouldn't be so harsh in my opinion for I hadn't even bothered to finish the book. So much I loathed it.
But Being there is quite different story. It's funny and entertaining on the surface but let it not obscure the wider picture. Because underneath very serious questions are hidden. In fact, despite that playful note it's quite disturbing to think how easily in this time and age one could be acclaimed an economic genius and get position of president's adviser and consultant in almost every vital field. Just pause for a moment, all of a sudden an unidentified individual, man of whom we know nothing, becomes a national treasure and guru in every area. Impossible? Not that much, I guess.
We don't laugh at Chance, that's his name, how could we ? We may laugh at themselves only. Chance, an humble and shy guy by some strange combination of events is taken for someone else. But he doesn't pretend the person he isn't, he doesn't want privileges, he doesn't demand honours. In fact he feels rather uncomfortable with all that undeserved attention. Due to life he led so far he doesn't understand people want his opinion on every subject, journalists apply for interviews and women drag him to bed. Well, guys too. Poor, poor Chance! He doesn't know at all how the world works and is quite unaware of what is happening around him.
Just the opposite in real life. There are plenty false prophets who make use of overwhelming interest around them. I remember such a case in my country years back. In presidential election completely unknown somebody, a real nobody just sprang out of nowhere, well, from Peru actually, and almost won! I still can't fathom how it could even happen and I didn't forget a shame I felt then at such a naivety, oh hell, stupidity from quite a number of my compatriots!
Being there is a satire of course and very enjoyable one. Had Chance been malevolent and spiteful figure the novel for sure would feel biting and agressive. But it doesn't change the fact it's always timeless, and now, in day od Internet, Twitter and other social media it is even easier to create a media star, a darling of thoughtless followers. And it gives me the shudders.
April 20, 2017
Kosinski's 1970 satire about a simple gardener who rises to become an influential political pundit, commentator and presidential advisor is considered a classic, and rightly so.
It's especially relevant today, when the level of nonsensical wankery by our leaders or so-called celebrities has reached an art form. Chance/Chauncey's "wisdom" he dispenses from his knowledge of gardening or his constant watching of TV is consistently amusing – as are the reactions of the people around him. Kosinski writes in a dry, unadorned way that lets the humour come out naturally.
It's intriguing that because Chance/Chauncey has taken/inherited his former wealthy employer's expensive (if old-fashioned) suits, people make assumptions about his own social station and wisdom. Plus: even more than half a century ago, we all "like to watch" (TV, that is, or our smart phones or tablet screens).
I was surprised that Chance/Chauncey is much younger and handsomer than he is represented in Hal Ashby's famous film. That fact makes the various amorous adventures he gets into a little more believable. (There's a same-sex encounter in the book that I don't recall from the film.)
Also: I don't remember how the movie ends, but the book's ending could be... sharper. Still, this is a very funny, biting look at how an idiot can get to the White House... which of course would never happen in real life.
It's especially relevant today, when the level of nonsensical wankery by our leaders or so-called celebrities has reached an art form. Chance/Chauncey's "wisdom" he dispenses from his knowledge of gardening or his constant watching of TV is consistently amusing – as are the reactions of the people around him. Kosinski writes in a dry, unadorned way that lets the humour come out naturally.
It's intriguing that because Chance/Chauncey has taken/inherited his former wealthy employer's expensive (if old-fashioned) suits, people make assumptions about his own social station and wisdom. Plus: even more than half a century ago, we all "like to watch" (TV, that is, or our smart phones or tablet screens).
I was surprised that Chance/Chauncey is much younger and handsomer than he is represented in Hal Ashby's famous film. That fact makes the various amorous adventures he gets into a little more believable. (There's a same-sex encounter in the book that I don't recall from the film.)
Also: I don't remember how the movie ends, but the book's ending could be... sharper. Still, this is a very funny, biting look at how an idiot can get to the White House... which of course would never happen in real life.
May 17, 2019
Kosinski left his native Poland for his adopted American homeland in the 1950s. Being There is his first attempt, in a novel, to reflect upon the USA and its infatuation with mass media.
Our focus is on an early middle-aged male named Chance. How he got this name; what Kosinski means by choosing it; and, how it morphs into Chauncy are major tent poles holding up this plot.
Chance is a foundling who has lived in a rich man’s house all his life. By “lived in a rich man’s house,” Kosinski tells us that he has never been outside of it except to work in the garden. The rich man has told him from the time that he could understand that he could have his room in the house and his meals in exchange for his work as a gardener. Chance spent a “little time” with the previous gardener before becoming (at less than ten years old) the sole person responsible for the care and upkeep of the mansion’s garden. He has no education, he has never been ill and he has known no one besides the “old man” and the mansion’s help. What he has is a television in his room and all that he knows of the “outside world” is through that screen.
The plot moves early by having the old man die and Chance being forced to leave his “friendly confines.” From that point on Kosinski plays with two plot elements:
1. Chance trying to adapt to this larger world by applying what he has learned through his television education; and,
2. Those with whom he comes in contact trying to “profile” Chance from what they see and hear from him.
This gives the author the ability to comment on both American society and on the then fairly new phenomenon of television/mass media. This is a dark comedy with the satire being how “Chauncy” becomes a commentator on American life and a pundit on the American economy.
Thanks to my GR friend, Glenn, for suggesting that I ask my library for the audiobook read by Dustin Hoffman. It added significantly to my enjoyment.
Our focus is on an early middle-aged male named Chance. How he got this name; what Kosinski means by choosing it; and, how it morphs into Chauncy are major tent poles holding up this plot.
Chance is a foundling who has lived in a rich man’s house all his life. By “lived in a rich man’s house,” Kosinski tells us that he has never been outside of it except to work in the garden. The rich man has told him from the time that he could understand that he could have his room in the house and his meals in exchange for his work as a gardener. Chance spent a “little time” with the previous gardener before becoming (at less than ten years old) the sole person responsible for the care and upkeep of the mansion’s garden. He has no education, he has never been ill and he has known no one besides the “old man” and the mansion’s help. What he has is a television in his room and all that he knows of the “outside world” is through that screen.
The plot moves early by having the old man die and Chance being forced to leave his “friendly confines.” From that point on Kosinski plays with two plot elements:
1. Chance trying to adapt to this larger world by applying what he has learned through his television education; and,
2. Those with whom he comes in contact trying to “profile” Chance from what they see and hear from him.
This gives the author the ability to comment on both American society and on the then fairly new phenomenon of television/mass media. This is a dark comedy with the satire being how “Chauncy” becomes a commentator on American life and a pundit on the American economy.
Thanks to my GR friend, Glenn, for suggesting that I ask my library for the audiobook read by Dustin Hoffman. It added significantly to my enjoyment.
October 18, 2024
تا به آدمها نگاه نکنی، وجود ندارند. نگاهت را که به سمتشان بچرخانی پیدایشان میشود، درست مثل تلویزیون، و آنقدر در ذهن میمانند تا تصاویر جدیدی آنها را از بین ببرد.
کتاب در مورد باغبانی است که عاشقانه از باغش مراقبت میکند، رمان کوتاهی با طنز تلخ در مورد هستی، بودن و آدمهاست...
کتاب در مورد باغبانی است که عاشقانه از باغش مراقبت میکند، رمان کوتاهی با طنز تلخ در مورد هستی، بودن و آدمهاست...
January 4, 2022
هم کتاب خوب بود و هم فیلم اقتباسی آن
Being there (1979)
Being there (1979)
May 17, 2019
Amazing book. Recommended.
October 26, 2025
A simple but beautiful and funny story of a simple gardener, Chauncey/Chance, that becomes prime advisor of the president of the United States. This short novel clearly is an underestimated gem. For starters, it is a biting satire on the American media, the political system, and in general, on the state of human relationships. But secondly, it's also a great illustration of how people's behavior is created by and in the interaction with others.
I'm not the first one to see it as an illustration of a sociological theory that was popular in the 1970's: symbolic interactionism. This theory was very much inspired by George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), and here I cite Wikipedia: "Symbolic interactionism is a frame of reference to better understand how individuals interact with one another to create symbolic worlds, and in return, how these worlds shape individual behaviors. The interpretation process that occurs between interactions helps create and recreate meaning. It is the shared understanding and interpretations of meaning that affect the interaction between individuals. Symbolic Interactionism refers to both verbal and nonverbal communication."
In this book we see how our enchanting naive gardener, for the first time introduced to the outer world, responds to the overwhelming incentives he's confronted with. Again, this is compliant with Symbolic Interactionism: "When faced with a new situation, individuals observe the symbols and actions of others to understand what is expected. They then adjust their own behavior to fit in, a process of continuous adjustment and organization that is essential to social life. " In his case, his answers and behavior create a chain of misunderstandings that are really hilarious, but in the end also tragic.
I'm not sure Kosinski intended this to be an illustration of this form of social constructivism. I read that this is regarded as a non-typical work of him. But it is well done ànd funny. Of course, I also loved the film version with Peter Sellers and Shirley MacLaine as protagonists. Link to the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXyTj....
I'm not the first one to see it as an illustration of a sociological theory that was popular in the 1970's: symbolic interactionism. This theory was very much inspired by George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), and here I cite Wikipedia: "Symbolic interactionism is a frame of reference to better understand how individuals interact with one another to create symbolic worlds, and in return, how these worlds shape individual behaviors. The interpretation process that occurs between interactions helps create and recreate meaning. It is the shared understanding and interpretations of meaning that affect the interaction between individuals. Symbolic Interactionism refers to both verbal and nonverbal communication."
In this book we see how our enchanting naive gardener, for the first time introduced to the outer world, responds to the overwhelming incentives he's confronted with. Again, this is compliant with Symbolic Interactionism: "When faced with a new situation, individuals observe the symbols and actions of others to understand what is expected. They then adjust their own behavior to fit in, a process of continuous adjustment and organization that is essential to social life. " In his case, his answers and behavior create a chain of misunderstandings that are really hilarious, but in the end also tragic.
I'm not sure Kosinski intended this to be an illustration of this form of social constructivism. I read that this is regarded as a non-typical work of him. But it is well done ànd funny. Of course, I also loved the film version with Peter Sellers and Shirley MacLaine as protagonists. Link to the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXyTj....
January 15, 2015
سه چهار سال پیش توی یکی از شبهای بد زندگیم به طور اتفاقی فیلمی رو دیدم که حالم رو از این رو به اون رو کرد. پیتر سلرز تو اون فیلم نقش باغبون بینام و نشونی رو بازی میکرد که همهی عمرش رو تو خونهی یکی باغبونی کرده بود. «چنسی گاردینر» تو همهی زندگیش از اون خونه بیرون نیومده بود، مریض نشده بود، چیزی نخونده و چیزی ننوشته بود و تنها راه ارتباطیش با دنیای خارج تلویزیون کوچیکش بود و حالا با مرگ پیرمرد باید اون دنیای کوچیک قشنگ خونگیش رو ول میکرد و وارد دنیایی میشد که هیچ رد و نشونی ازش نداره
.
گاهی بعضی از رمانها شخصیتهایی رو پیشنهاد میده که میخواد ما رو یاد اصل خالص و سادهی انسانیمون بندازه. شاید یک جور بازگشت به خویشتن غیر فلسفی. برگشتن به همون سادگی و صمیمیتی که گاهی شاید توی وجود یه سمبوسهفروش یا حتی مادربزرگت میبینی و بهش حسودی میکنی. ماها به آدمهایی مثل چنسی نیاز داریم تا یادمون نره هر چی و هر کی که هستیم اون قدری نیستیم که خیال میکنیم
.
.
گاهی بعضی از رمانها شخصیتهایی رو پیشنهاد میده که میخواد ما رو یاد اصل خالص و سادهی انسانیمون بندازه. شاید یک جور بازگشت به خویشتن غیر فلسفی. برگشتن به همون سادگی و صمیمیتی که گاهی شاید توی وجود یه سمبوسهفروش یا حتی مادربزرگت میبینی و بهش حسودی میکنی. ماها به آدمهایی مثل چنسی نیاز داریم تا یادمون نره هر چی و هر کی که هستیم اون قدری نیستیم که خیال میکنیم
.
August 6, 2022
I never saw the movie, but I enjoyed this clever satirical novella about an illiterate gardener who becomes an adviser to the President of the United States and to captains of industry through his enigmatic pronouncements. People of all political leanings and sexual interests project their own feelings onto him as the media makes him a star. Dustin Hoffman was an excellent narrator of the audiobook.
July 8, 2017
کسی که گفته "ترجیح میدهم خوششانس باشم تا یک آدم خوب" بینش عمیقی به زندگی داشته. مردم از روبرو شدن با این حقیقت که بخش عمدهای از حوادث زندگی به شانس بستگی داره میترسند. تصور اینکه چیزهای زیادی در زندگی خارج از کنترل ما هستند هراس آوره. در مسابقه تنیس لحظاتی هست که توپ به بالای تور برخورد میکنه و در طرفهالعینی به جلو میره و یا برمیگرده و میافته. با کمی خوششانسی، توپ به جلو میره و تو برنده میشی، یا اینطور نمیشه و تو میبازی. - برداشت آزاد از دیالوگ فیلم امتیاز نهایی (2005، وودی آلن)
یک - ماجرای آقای شانس
داستان ماجرای مرد میانسال باغبانی به نام شانس را روایت میکند که برای تمام عمر در باغی مشغول هرس کردن گل و گیاهان بوده و با چیزی جز درخت و گیاه سر و کار نداشته. تمام ارتباط او با دنیای بیرون، در ارتباط یکطرفه تلویزیونی خلاصه میشود. پیشامدی ناگهانی باعث آواره شدن او در خیابان میشود، اما این شروع توالی خوششانسیهای اوست. سلسله وقایعی که او را از یک باغ ایزوله به سازمان ملل و کاخ سفید و ریاست جمهوری آمریکا میکشاند. محور اصلی تمام وقایع داستان یک چیز است: شانس. مخاطب باهوش در چند صفحهی ابتدایی به ارتباط میان نام شخصیت داستان و پیرنگ آن پیمیبرد. به هر صورت، این احتمال وجود دارد که منطق داستانی اثر برای خواننده غیرقابل قبول واقع شود، اما من ترجیح دادم خودم را به پر و بال جادویی شانس بسپارم تا بدشانسیهایم را مدتی بدست فراموشی بسپارم و ببینم همراه با آقای شانس تا کجا قرار است پیش برویم
دو - فیلم امتیاز نهایی، فهرست شیندلر و فارست گامپ
در حین خواندن کتاب بارها یاد فیلمهای امتیاز نهایی وودی آلن، فهرست شیندلر اسپیلبرگ و فارست گامپ زمیکس افتادم. داستان "بودن" در شانس و احتمالات با فیلم امتیاز نهایی، در شخصیت ساده و صادق آقای شانس با فارست گامپ و در شیوهی مطرح شدنش با اسکار شیندلر وجه مشترک دارد. چه هم آقای شانس و هم اسکار شیندلر نخست بواسطهی حضور جعلی در کنار شخصیتهای مهم و رسانهای شدن تصاویرشان در اذهان عمومی برجسته و قابل اعتماد شدند، وگرنه هیچ کدام برای موقعیت خود پشتوانهی واقعی ندارند
سه - اقتباس سینمایی
اضافه میشود
#کتابخوانی_در_مترو
August 26, 2014
Peter Sellers’s last (and best?) performance was in Being There—directed by Hal Ashby with Kosiński’s screenplay—one of my favourite American tragicomedies. The original novella compresses the meat of the movie into straightforward and simple chapters, mimicking the simple mind of Chance, the anonymous simpleton whose plain-talking homilies propel him into the top of American life within four days. The film brings the character of Chance into being through Peter Sellers, who expands upon the simple phrases and bland dialogue in the book to make the character an unforgettable, profound, hilarious and tragic figure, not unlike Sellers himself. So these five stars are for the screenplay and novella. If you haven’t seen the film it’s a beautifully paced, slow-moving and surreal satire, exquisitely performed by all and with a moving melancholy tone, and perhaps one of the most spine-tingling endings in all cinema. Bravo.
January 26, 2018
Primer libro que leo de Jerzy Kosiński, y qué gran sorpresa. Chance Gardiner, jardinero e inadaptado social, es hallado por una sucesión de hechos completamente satírica y delirante en una trama que lo va llevando progresivamente hacia las más altas esferas de la sociedad, todo eso sin siquiera saber leer y escribir. Nadie sabe quién es y todos encuentran sabiduría en sus muy escuetas palabras, aunque Chance apenas entienda lo que le dicen.
Divertido, bien escrito y mordaz. A pesar de su brevedad, Desde el jardín es un enorme relato sobre el arte de escuchar lo que se quiere escuchar y cómo la humanidad necesita referentes para librarse de responsabilidades y vivir con menos preocupación el día a día. Lo recomiendo ampliamente.
Divertido, bien escrito y mordaz. A pesar de su brevedad, Desde el jardín es un enorme relato sobre el arte de escuchar lo que se quiere escuchar y cómo la humanidad necesita referentes para librarse de responsabilidades y vivir con menos preocupación el día a día. Lo recomiendo ampliamente.
February 15, 2008
Kosinski was one of my instructors in college. He taught a seminar on Camus and Sartre.
I remember he said, "The only moment of true freedom I ever experience was on airplane suspended between the two collectives."
The movie version was excellent but with much of the thematic weight of the book missing. And it's not that the book is too voluminous. That part is just unfilmable.
I remember he said, "The only moment of true freedom I ever experience was on airplane suspended between the two collectives."
The movie version was excellent but with much of the thematic weight of the book missing. And it's not that the book is too voluminous. That part is just unfilmable.
September 13, 2020
C’era una volta un giardiniere…
Chance ha cinquant’anni e ha trascorso tutta la sua vita nella villa di un ricco uomo d’affari che l’ha accolto in casa propria quando era bambino. Chance ha un lieve ritardo mentale, ma si è amorevolmente preso cura del giardino e tutto il suo mondo è lì, quello esterno lo conosce solo attraverso la televisione. Fino alla morte del suo benefattore: poi arrivano gli avvocati e lo sbattono fuori di casa.
Romanzo breve (poco più di cento pagine) che è una deliziosa commedia e una satira della società dell'immagine; si sorride e si sogghigna leggendo il libro e alla fine l’impressione che rimane è quella di essere stati in una favola. Quasi una favola. Per un pizzico di poesia in più, però, consiglio la visione del film che ne è stato tratto (sceneggiato dallo stesso Kosinski), in cui giganteggia (emozionando) un (come sempre) eccellente Peter Sellers.
Per saperne di più su Kosinski, sul libro e sul film:
https://youtu.be/UEkQA5riVsE
Chance ha cinquant’anni e ha trascorso tutta la sua vita nella villa di un ricco uomo d’affari che l’ha accolto in casa propria quando era bambino. Chance ha un lieve ritardo mentale, ma si è amorevolmente preso cura del giardino e tutto il suo mondo è lì, quello esterno lo conosce solo attraverso la televisione. Fino alla morte del suo benefattore: poi arrivano gli avvocati e lo sbattono fuori di casa.
Romanzo breve (poco più di cento pagine) che è una deliziosa commedia e una satira della società dell'immagine; si sorride e si sogghigna leggendo il libro e alla fine l’impressione che rimane è quella di essere stati in una favola. Quasi una favola. Per un pizzico di poesia in più, però, consiglio la visione del film che ne è stato tratto (sceneggiato dallo stesso Kosinski), in cui giganteggia (emozionando) un (come sempre) eccellente Peter Sellers.
Per saperne di più su Kosinski, sul libro e sul film:
https://youtu.be/UEkQA5riVsE
August 29, 2019
This is one of the more unique stories whose film adaptation was spot on. Chauncey Gardener's sheltered life, mild manner and view of the world is unlike others. His unusual metaphor of 'life's seasonal changes' is profound; so much so the president embodies it. As a film buff, this was one of the best roles for Peter Sellers especially when adding Shirley MacLaine and countless other Oscar winners to the cast. A classic in its own right, I highly recommend this book for those who seek to be uplifted.
December 1, 2025
Imagínate un mundo donde la nada puede ser un héroe y donde el vacío lleva corbata y se gana votos sin pronunciar una idea propia. ¿Inverosímil? No tanto. ¿Y si el hombre más influyente del país no supiera leer? ¿Y si, en vez de carisma o inteligencia, bastara con que alguien repita obviedades aparentando aplomo aunque no las entienda? ¿Y si la política, los medios y el poder fueran un patio de colegio donde todos corren detrás del que parece más seguro, aunque no tenga ni idea de qué está hablando? ¿Te suena todo esto?
Pues bienvenido a Desde el jardín, la novela en la que Jerzy Kosinski se rió antes que nadie del culto a la apariencia, de la televisión como religión moderna y de la locura colectiva que transforma a un hombre que no sabe ni quién es en un gurú.
La historia, en esencia, es sencilla: un hombre llamado Chance, jardinero de profesión y teleadicto por vocación, se ve de pronto expulsado del pequeño paraíso cerrado en el que ha vivido toda su vida, cuidando el jardín de un millonario que acaba de morir. Y ahí está: en la calle. Vestido de forma impecable y con una maleta llena de ropa de su antiguo jefe, que le queda como un guante. Pero sin identidad, sin papeles, sin pasado. Un hombre que entiende el mundo con la misma simplicidad con la que lo riega. Y por accidente —literalmente— tropieza con el mundo real, y este mundo, desconcertado ante su comportamiento anodino y sus frases simples sobre jardinería, lo convierte en algo que no es.
La sátira empieza cuando nadie se detiene a hacerle una pregunta real, porque todos están demasiado ocupados proyectando en él lo que quieren oír. Chance es un espejo sin voluntad, y todos caen enamorados de su propio reflejo sin que él siquiera lo entienda. No se puede contar más sin estropear la experiencia, porque la gracia está precisamente en el desconcierto: uno no lee Desde el jardín para saber qué pasa, sino para observar ‘cómo’ pasa… y cuán fácil es engañar a una sociedad desesperada por encontrar significado donde no lo hay.
Pero más allá de la trama —que es bastante simple— la novela es una sátira social y filosófica que se construye sobre la ambigüedad del personaje y la percepción que tienen los demás de él. Kosinski escribe con bisturí —pero no con el que corta sino con ese otro que abre despacito— y sonríe mientras observa el interior. Su prosa no quiere ornamentos. No los necesita. Es seca, contenida, como si el autor supiera que la historia se cuenta mejor cuanto menos ruido haga.
Esa sobriedad calculada, que podría pasar por desinterés, es en realidad parte del juego: cuanto más plana parece la narración, más ridículo se vuelve el mundo que la rodea. Todo está contado desde una distancia irónica, sin subrayados. El narrador omnisciente nunca interfiere, nunca da pistas, solo muestra. Porque no es cuestión de darle vueltas a si Chance es un sabio zen o un pobre ignorante: eso lo tienes claro desde el principio. Lo que te acaba dando un vuelco es caer en la cuenta de que, aquí, esa diferencia es irrelevante. Porque Chance es las dos cosas a la vez —o ninguna— y, sin quererlo, refleja el caos en el que vivimos. No es un error ni una excepción, sino una consecuencia lógica de un mundo que se conforma con las apariencias y que confunde ruido con sentido.
Chance es, sin exagerar, uno de los personajes más inquietantes que he leído últimamente. No porque actúe con malicia, que no; sino porque actúa sin comprender. Su pasividad no es una estrategia: es su única forma de estar en el mundo. Y, sin embargo, todos le atribuyen profundidad. Aquí es donde Desde el jardín se convierte en algo más que una sátira: es una fábula filosófica sobre la interpretación. Como en El extranjero de Camus, el protagonista es una pantalla vacía donde los demás proyectan sus deseos. Pero mientras Meursault aún tiene un yo —un rechazo, una negativa, una postura mínima—, Chance ni eso. Ni emociones, ni voluntad. Solo frases prestadas de los programas que ha visto en la tele. Su jardín es su mundo, y cualquier cosa más allá de eso le resulta ininteligible. No porque la rechace, sino porque simplemente no la entiende. Pero lo alucinante es que, en una sociedad mediática como la nuestra, un tipo como él puede acabar de presidente. Y lo más escalofriante: puede lograrlo sin abrir la boca, siempre que lleve el traje adecuado.
Porque oye, ¿y si Chance hubiera salido a la calle con un chándal viejo o una chaqueta de Zara? ¿Habría causado el mismo revuelo? ¿Alguien le habría prestado atención? No lo creo. Porque aquí el traje no es solo ropa: es discurso, es máscara, es autoridad prestada. Chance no dice nada, pero viste como alguien que podría decirlo todo. Y en una sociedad donde el envoltorio importa más que el contenido, eso basta. Kosinski lo sabía: el personaje no se queda con la casa ni con el jardín, solo con los trajes del millonario. Y con eso ya tiene medio camino hecho. No hace falta decir nada si pareces el tipo que lo diría.
Y, claro, basta mirar a nuestro alrededor para ver que Desde el jardín no es solo una sátira: es también una radiografía. Lo que para Kosinski era una distopía absurda hoy nos puede parecer una profecía demasiado real. Porque es imposible no pensar en la actualidad política y mediática leyendo esta novela. El jardín de Chance se ha multiplicado en forma de perfiles públicos huecos, influencers que repiten frases hechas o tertulianos que no dicen nada pero lo dicen con una seguridad aplastante.
El mérito de Kosinski es haber comprendido, antes que muchos, que la vacuidad no es un defecto sino una virtud en un sistema basado en la imagen. Chance triunfa precisamente porque no dice nada. Y no dice nada porque no tiene más lenguaje que el aprendido de la televisión. Pero eso no impide que los demás escuchen en su silencio toda la profundidad que necesitan. En un mundo hambriento de sentido, hasta el silencio se convierte en discurso si el traje es caro y se mira a cámara con convicción. Y, paradójicamente, es esa limitación la que lo convierte en el recipiente perfecto para un mundo ansioso por encontrar profundidad incluso en el vacío. Es la página en blanco donde todos escriben su propio cuento. Aquí, la nada no es la ausencia de ideas: ‘es’ la idea.
Y esa capacidad para mostrar lo absurdo con tanta precisión es, en parte, lo que hace tan venenoso el humor de la novela. Un humor corrosivo pero sutil. Kosinski no necesita sarcasmo explícito, le basta con mostrar lo absurdo sin adornarlo. Uno de los momentos más brillantes es cuando alguien interpreta por primera vez una frase de Chance sobre jardinería como una metáfora económica, y todos asienten con reverencia. Es una escena que no desentonaría en El maestro y Margarita de Bulgákov o en el universo de Kafka, donde la lógica interna del sistema ya no tiene relación alguna con el sentido. También alguno encontrará aquí ecos de Un hombre que duerme, de Perec, por ese protagonista que vive sin conflicto, sin impulso, sin deseo. La diferencia es que, mientras Perec lo lleva a lo abstracto, Kosinski lo inserta con precisión en la maquinaria social.
Pero por debajo de esta sátira mordaz, discurre una verdad más incómoda. Porque lo verdaderamente grotesco no es que Chance se convierta en figura pública, sino que a todos les pase inadvertido que no hay nadie ahí. Lo escalofriante no es su silencio —que es ignorancia prudente y no mutismo táctico—, sino la elocuencia con la que los demás lo llenan. Desde el jardín no es solo una crítica a los medios o a la política; es una burla despiadada a la incapacidad colectiva para detenerse y mirar de verdad. Todos queremos creer que hay una intención detrás de cada gesto, pero Kosinski nos recuerda que a veces, simplemente, no la hay.
Quizá lo más perturbador de esta novela es lo bien que resiste el paso del tiempo. Escrita en 1970, Desde el jardín podría publicarse hoy sin cambiar ni una coma y causaría alborozo pues a nadie se le escaparía su mensaje vitriólico de rabiosa actualidad. Porque el mundo no se ha vuelto más absurdo: simplemente se ha puesto al día con lo que Kosinski ya había entendido. Que la verdad no importa si el envoltorio es convincente. Que el contenido es irrelevante si la superficie es brillante. Que basta con decir que el invierno acabará para parecer sabio, aunque solo estés describiendo el ciclo de las estaciones.
Y sí, cinco estrellas. Y no porque sea una obra total, ni por su profundidad psicológica —que no tiene—, ni por su ambición formal. Sino porque Desde el jardín hace exactamente lo que se propone hacer... y lo hace con un personaje inolvidable, una precisión endiablada, un estilo afilado y una lucidez que sigue doliendo más de 50 años después. La sátira es demoledora, la idea central está ejecutada con maestría, y el efecto que deja —esa risa incómoda que se congela en la garganta— es justo lo que uno espera de una gran novela alegórica. ¿Podría haber tenido más matices, más capas, más desarrollo? Sí. ¿Los necesita? No. Es una fábula cruel y perfecta para nuestro tiempo. Y por eso, aunque te deje incómodo, se lleva mis cinco estrellas.
Porque al cerrar el libro, uno se queda en silencio, como si hubiese asistido a un truco de magia que no sabe si admirar o temer. Y lo peor —o lo mejor— es que no sabes si has leído una fábula, una sátira, un chiste cruel o simplemente una radiografía certera de lo que somos. Como Chance, no tienes respuestas. Solo preguntas. Pero al menos tú sabes que las tienes. Él ni eso. Él es solo una superficie pulida: nadie en casa, pero con traje, sonrisa y cámara. Y nosotros, encantados, aplaudiendo… desde el jardín.
Pues bienvenido a Desde el jardín, la novela en la que Jerzy Kosinski se rió antes que nadie del culto a la apariencia, de la televisión como religión moderna y de la locura colectiva que transforma a un hombre que no sabe ni quién es en un gurú.
La historia, en esencia, es sencilla: un hombre llamado Chance, jardinero de profesión y teleadicto por vocación, se ve de pronto expulsado del pequeño paraíso cerrado en el que ha vivido toda su vida, cuidando el jardín de un millonario que acaba de morir. Y ahí está: en la calle. Vestido de forma impecable y con una maleta llena de ropa de su antiguo jefe, que le queda como un guante. Pero sin identidad, sin papeles, sin pasado. Un hombre que entiende el mundo con la misma simplicidad con la que lo riega. Y por accidente —literalmente— tropieza con el mundo real, y este mundo, desconcertado ante su comportamiento anodino y sus frases simples sobre jardinería, lo convierte en algo que no es.
La sátira empieza cuando nadie se detiene a hacerle una pregunta real, porque todos están demasiado ocupados proyectando en él lo que quieren oír. Chance es un espejo sin voluntad, y todos caen enamorados de su propio reflejo sin que él siquiera lo entienda. No se puede contar más sin estropear la experiencia, porque la gracia está precisamente en el desconcierto: uno no lee Desde el jardín para saber qué pasa, sino para observar ‘cómo’ pasa… y cuán fácil es engañar a una sociedad desesperada por encontrar significado donde no lo hay.
Pero más allá de la trama —que es bastante simple— la novela es una sátira social y filosófica que se construye sobre la ambigüedad del personaje y la percepción que tienen los demás de él. Kosinski escribe con bisturí —pero no con el que corta sino con ese otro que abre despacito— y sonríe mientras observa el interior. Su prosa no quiere ornamentos. No los necesita. Es seca, contenida, como si el autor supiera que la historia se cuenta mejor cuanto menos ruido haga.
Esa sobriedad calculada, que podría pasar por desinterés, es en realidad parte del juego: cuanto más plana parece la narración, más ridículo se vuelve el mundo que la rodea. Todo está contado desde una distancia irónica, sin subrayados. El narrador omnisciente nunca interfiere, nunca da pistas, solo muestra. Porque no es cuestión de darle vueltas a si Chance es un sabio zen o un pobre ignorante: eso lo tienes claro desde el principio. Lo que te acaba dando un vuelco es caer en la cuenta de que, aquí, esa diferencia es irrelevante. Porque Chance es las dos cosas a la vez —o ninguna— y, sin quererlo, refleja el caos en el que vivimos. No es un error ni una excepción, sino una consecuencia lógica de un mundo que se conforma con las apariencias y que confunde ruido con sentido.
Chance es, sin exagerar, uno de los personajes más inquietantes que he leído últimamente. No porque actúe con malicia, que no; sino porque actúa sin comprender. Su pasividad no es una estrategia: es su única forma de estar en el mundo. Y, sin embargo, todos le atribuyen profundidad. Aquí es donde Desde el jardín se convierte en algo más que una sátira: es una fábula filosófica sobre la interpretación. Como en El extranjero de Camus, el protagonista es una pantalla vacía donde los demás proyectan sus deseos. Pero mientras Meursault aún tiene un yo —un rechazo, una negativa, una postura mínima—, Chance ni eso. Ni emociones, ni voluntad. Solo frases prestadas de los programas que ha visto en la tele. Su jardín es su mundo, y cualquier cosa más allá de eso le resulta ininteligible. No porque la rechace, sino porque simplemente no la entiende. Pero lo alucinante es que, en una sociedad mediática como la nuestra, un tipo como él puede acabar de presidente. Y lo más escalofriante: puede lograrlo sin abrir la boca, siempre que lleve el traje adecuado.
Porque oye, ¿y si Chance hubiera salido a la calle con un chándal viejo o una chaqueta de Zara? ¿Habría causado el mismo revuelo? ¿Alguien le habría prestado atención? No lo creo. Porque aquí el traje no es solo ropa: es discurso, es máscara, es autoridad prestada. Chance no dice nada, pero viste como alguien que podría decirlo todo. Y en una sociedad donde el envoltorio importa más que el contenido, eso basta. Kosinski lo sabía: el personaje no se queda con la casa ni con el jardín, solo con los trajes del millonario. Y con eso ya tiene medio camino hecho. No hace falta decir nada si pareces el tipo que lo diría.
Y, claro, basta mirar a nuestro alrededor para ver que Desde el jardín no es solo una sátira: es también una radiografía. Lo que para Kosinski era una distopía absurda hoy nos puede parecer una profecía demasiado real. Porque es imposible no pensar en la actualidad política y mediática leyendo esta novela. El jardín de Chance se ha multiplicado en forma de perfiles públicos huecos, influencers que repiten frases hechas o tertulianos que no dicen nada pero lo dicen con una seguridad aplastante.
El mérito de Kosinski es haber comprendido, antes que muchos, que la vacuidad no es un defecto sino una virtud en un sistema basado en la imagen. Chance triunfa precisamente porque no dice nada. Y no dice nada porque no tiene más lenguaje que el aprendido de la televisión. Pero eso no impide que los demás escuchen en su silencio toda la profundidad que necesitan. En un mundo hambriento de sentido, hasta el silencio se convierte en discurso si el traje es caro y se mira a cámara con convicción. Y, paradójicamente, es esa limitación la que lo convierte en el recipiente perfecto para un mundo ansioso por encontrar profundidad incluso en el vacío. Es la página en blanco donde todos escriben su propio cuento. Aquí, la nada no es la ausencia de ideas: ‘es’ la idea.
Y esa capacidad para mostrar lo absurdo con tanta precisión es, en parte, lo que hace tan venenoso el humor de la novela. Un humor corrosivo pero sutil. Kosinski no necesita sarcasmo explícito, le basta con mostrar lo absurdo sin adornarlo. Uno de los momentos más brillantes es cuando alguien interpreta por primera vez una frase de Chance sobre jardinería como una metáfora económica, y todos asienten con reverencia. Es una escena que no desentonaría en El maestro y Margarita de Bulgákov o en el universo de Kafka, donde la lógica interna del sistema ya no tiene relación alguna con el sentido. También alguno encontrará aquí ecos de Un hombre que duerme, de Perec, por ese protagonista que vive sin conflicto, sin impulso, sin deseo. La diferencia es que, mientras Perec lo lleva a lo abstracto, Kosinski lo inserta con precisión en la maquinaria social.
Pero por debajo de esta sátira mordaz, discurre una verdad más incómoda. Porque lo verdaderamente grotesco no es que Chance se convierta en figura pública, sino que a todos les pase inadvertido que no hay nadie ahí. Lo escalofriante no es su silencio —que es ignorancia prudente y no mutismo táctico—, sino la elocuencia con la que los demás lo llenan. Desde el jardín no es solo una crítica a los medios o a la política; es una burla despiadada a la incapacidad colectiva para detenerse y mirar de verdad. Todos queremos creer que hay una intención detrás de cada gesto, pero Kosinski nos recuerda que a veces, simplemente, no la hay.
Quizá lo más perturbador de esta novela es lo bien que resiste el paso del tiempo. Escrita en 1970, Desde el jardín podría publicarse hoy sin cambiar ni una coma y causaría alborozo pues a nadie se le escaparía su mensaje vitriólico de rabiosa actualidad. Porque el mundo no se ha vuelto más absurdo: simplemente se ha puesto al día con lo que Kosinski ya había entendido. Que la verdad no importa si el envoltorio es convincente. Que el contenido es irrelevante si la superficie es brillante. Que basta con decir que el invierno acabará para parecer sabio, aunque solo estés describiendo el ciclo de las estaciones.
Y sí, cinco estrellas. Y no porque sea una obra total, ni por su profundidad psicológica —que no tiene—, ni por su ambición formal. Sino porque Desde el jardín hace exactamente lo que se propone hacer... y lo hace con un personaje inolvidable, una precisión endiablada, un estilo afilado y una lucidez que sigue doliendo más de 50 años después. La sátira es demoledora, la idea central está ejecutada con maestría, y el efecto que deja —esa risa incómoda que se congela en la garganta— es justo lo que uno espera de una gran novela alegórica. ¿Podría haber tenido más matices, más capas, más desarrollo? Sí. ¿Los necesita? No. Es una fábula cruel y perfecta para nuestro tiempo. Y por eso, aunque te deje incómodo, se lleva mis cinco estrellas.
Porque al cerrar el libro, uno se queda en silencio, como si hubiese asistido a un truco de magia que no sabe si admirar o temer. Y lo peor —o lo mejor— es que no sabes si has leído una fábula, una sátira, un chiste cruel o simplemente una radiografía certera de lo que somos. Como Chance, no tienes respuestas. Solo preguntas. Pero al menos tú sabes que las tienes. Él ni eso. Él es solo una superficie pulida: nadie en casa, pero con traje, sonrisa y cámara. Y nosotros, encantados, aplaudiendo… desde el jardín.
June 14, 2017
Chance is a gardener in the house of the "Old Man", a job that he has had for as long as he can remember. Chance is uneducated, he cannot read or write, and he has never been outside the garden. He watches television obsessively.
Then the old man dies. His executors close up the old man's estate and send Chance out into the world. He is wholly unprepared.
A series of improbable events propel Chance into the upper echelons of American society. He meets business leaders, the President, foreign ambassadors and the Secretary General of the United Nations. All are impressed by Chances simple yet seemingly profound comments. In reality he has no idea what is going on and is simply repeating platidudes learned from TV or is talking about the only subject he knows, gardening. As the book ends, Chance is on the verge of great things. Who knows, maybe he is in line for candidacy for the role of President.
A simple and compelling tale, gently amusing and almost profound - a bit like Chance I suppose. Of course where it falls down is in the plot line - the premise that an uneducated TV obsessed imbecile, a dolt, a moron mouthing nothing but platitudes could rise to power in America is simply preposterous
Then the old man dies. His executors close up the old man's estate and send Chance out into the world. He is wholly unprepared.
A series of improbable events propel Chance into the upper echelons of American society. He meets business leaders, the President, foreign ambassadors and the Secretary General of the United Nations. All are impressed by Chances simple yet seemingly profound comments. In reality he has no idea what is going on and is simply repeating platidudes learned from TV or is talking about the only subject he knows, gardening. As the book ends, Chance is on the verge of great things. Who knows, maybe he is in line for candidacy for the role of President.
A simple and compelling tale, gently amusing and almost profound - a bit like Chance I suppose. Of course where it falls down is in the plot line - the premise that an uneducated TV obsessed imbecile, a dolt, a moron mouthing nothing but platitudes could rise to power in America is simply preposterous
April 9, 2021
بسته به اينكه با چه ديدگاهي به اين روايت نگاه كنيم ، تعداد ستاره هايي كه بهش ميديم متفاوته.
اول اينكه نويسنده در درجه اول سعي داشت به سياست پوزخند بزنه ، يجورايي ميشه گفت اول اين ايده رو گذاشته وسط بعد شروع كرده دورش كلمه چيده و داستان نوشته
از نظر پيوستگي داستاني ، فضاسازي و ارتباط داستاني كه به نوعي بتونه روايت رو براي مخاطب باورپذير بكنه و اجازه بده كه با فضا و محيط و اتفاقات ارتباط ذهني برقرار كنه ، بسيار ضعيف بود .
اما از ديدگاه يك داستان نه چندان رئال ، خيلي هم بد نبود ، نويسنده به هدفش كه پوزخند به سياست بود به طور كامل دست پيدا كرده بود، شايد نه چندان محكم و تاثير گذار ، اما در حدي كه خود نويسنده داشت داستان رو متناسب با اون پيش ميبرد.
اگر قبل از اين كتاب ، كتابِ "نقطه ضعف" ساماراكيس رو نخونده بودم ، شايد به "بودن" ٤ ستاره ميدادم
جوري كه ساماراكيس داستان ساخته بود و سياست رو به بازي گرفته بود ، بشدت تاثيرگذار و بي نظير بود.
نميدونم اين اتفاق به صورت خواسته داره ميوفته يا ناخواسته ، اما اخيرا سه كتاب با فضاي نسبتا مشابه به هم خوندم
"بازش كلاه مكزيكي" براتيگان
"نقطه ضعف" ساماراكيس
و "بودن" كاشينسكي
توصيه م اينه اگر هركدوم از اين سه كتاب رو خونديد و دوستش داشتيد سراغِ دوتاي بعدي هم بريد.
در كل تجربه خوب و جذابي بود
نه چندان قوي و عالي و نه چندان ضعيف و مزخرف...
اول اينكه نويسنده در درجه اول سعي داشت به سياست پوزخند بزنه ، يجورايي ميشه گفت اول اين ايده رو گذاشته وسط بعد شروع كرده دورش كلمه چيده و داستان نوشته
از نظر پيوستگي داستاني ، فضاسازي و ارتباط داستاني كه به نوعي بتونه روايت رو براي مخاطب باورپذير بكنه و اجازه بده كه با فضا و محيط و اتفاقات ارتباط ذهني برقرار كنه ، بسيار ضعيف بود .
اما از ديدگاه يك داستان نه چندان رئال ، خيلي هم بد نبود ، نويسنده به هدفش كه پوزخند به سياست بود به طور كامل دست پيدا كرده بود، شايد نه چندان محكم و تاثير گذار ، اما در حدي كه خود نويسنده داشت داستان رو متناسب با اون پيش ميبرد.
اگر قبل از اين كتاب ، كتابِ "نقطه ضعف" ساماراكيس رو نخونده بودم ، شايد به "بودن" ٤ ستاره ميدادم
جوري كه ساماراكيس داستان ساخته بود و سياست رو به بازي گرفته بود ، بشدت تاثيرگذار و بي نظير بود.
نميدونم اين اتفاق به صورت خواسته داره ميوفته يا ناخواسته ، اما اخيرا سه كتاب با فضاي نسبتا مشابه به هم خوندم
"بازش كلاه مكزيكي" براتيگان
"نقطه ضعف" ساماراكيس
و "بودن" كاشينسكي
توصيه م اينه اگر هركدوم از اين سه كتاب رو خونديد و دوستش داشتيد سراغِ دوتاي بعدي هم بريد.
در كل تجربه خوب و جذابي بود
نه چندان قوي و عالي و نه چندان ضعيف و مزخرف...
January 25, 2012
At a scant 128 pages, this is a small book with enormous implications. Although written in the seventies (with a movie starring Peter Sellers in the eighties), the storyline is very prescient today. Before reading this slim novel, think about the myriad of ways people continue to infer incorrectly important issues, or how they get their information pertaining an issue.
A slender gem that needs to be read by all.
VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
A slender gem that needs to be read by all.
VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
February 18, 2019
I will concentrate more on the background to this novella, than the actual story. Many others indulged in the meaning of the ethical message in their reviews.
This is a novella, published for the first time in 1970. Being There was meant as a satire, a parody of politics, media and the promiscuity of the era. A simpleton is thrown into the world of powerful politics and media scrutiny and becomes the ultimate flavor of the moment.
The content of this novel baffled me. My instincts made me wonder what the author was trying to say-what he was not saying which screamed all over the text. My impression was that he wanted to send a message which was not outright verbalized. The author was unknown to me.I could not even remember why I chose to read this book. It was probably Peter Seller's ironic smile and outfit on the cover that lured me in. The abrupt ending, without even an indication that the story ended, intrigued me even more. It was deliberate, and for what reason, I wondered.
I found the answers on the internet, sleuthing through numerous articles and Youtube videos. Jerzy Kosinski was an enigma; (a fake as his critics called him); a conman, a plagiarist for some others.
In one of his interviews, he described himself as genderfree, non-gendered individual, who could be female or male, or nothing at all. He first acknowledged to not write about himself, then admits the semi-autobiographical elements in all of his works. His background was questioned... and on and on it goes.
Whatever or whomever he was, throughout his life he made sure that he did not fit into the tight little boxes of the social order. His writing also portrayed the rise of post-modernism in literature.
This fits in perfectly with the theme of this book. A Thirty-something man, without a real name, no birth record, no identity whatsoever, lands up in the dog-eats-dog world of the media and politics. His unblemished opinion on the economy and life charms everyone who is unable to escape their own little boxes. Kosinski himself had an unsatiable lust for sex, and often sadistic tendencies towards the women he engaged in the act. Power and control? Insecurity? Who knows! He had an obsession with night-walking the streets and involving himself in the dark dungeons of sexual underworld. He liked to watch, he said in his interviews. In the book, Chance, the character, also likes to watch: television, people, and his garden. Chance could not read or write. (It might hint on the allegations against Kosinski that other people wrote his books for him, or adapted his plagiarized material). Kozinsky also indulge in self-mockery by 'exposing' the willingness of publishers to appoint the right editors to write his books for him. Whether it was an effort to be honest, or just playing his critics, one will never know, since Kosinsky committed suicide in 1991 and left the world confused...
This plagiarism issue made me wonder how far it can be taken. Since the Sixties, and even before that, a multitude of writers 'plagiarized' Shakespeare. Some did it openly in the name of postmodernism. Others skillfully hid it. Where does plagiarism end really? The stealing of ideas, plot, content, characters. Mindboggling isn't it?
Kosinski was a multiple-award winning author, play-write and actor.
I am adding a spoiler here with some of the opinions on this controversial author. The good news is, we live in a postmodern world where anyone and everyone can make up our own truths and it will be okay...
I found the story lacking. It neither impressed, nor disappoint. Perhaps it was the wrong era to read it. So much has happened since the book was published. Perhaps so many thousands of other books were published doing a better job. There was just nothing new to be excited about. That's why I wondered what the hidden story was. It was written with a purpose. I imagine that the novel attracted much debate and discussions around the role of the media and politics in individual's lives at the time. It certainly attracted a lot of attention in selected circles.
The book was made into a movie, starring Peter Sellers. What a joke. Kosinsky regarded himself as an Adonis, a Fabian, a knock-their-socks-of sexual animal. Why an older Peter Sellers was chosen for the role of Chance baffles the mind even more. Besides that, the movie was brilliant and so was Sellers in the role.
I wonder what Mr. Kosinsky would have thought of the current political and media insanity.
An interesting documentary about the author: Sex, Lies & Jerzy Kosinski
This article appeared in the NY Times around Jerzy Kosinski's death: In Novels and Life, a Maverick and An Eccentric by Mervyn Rothstein, May 4, 1991
And that's it for today ;-)
This is a novella, published for the first time in 1970. Being There was meant as a satire, a parody of politics, media and the promiscuity of the era. A simpleton is thrown into the world of powerful politics and media scrutiny and becomes the ultimate flavor of the moment.
The content of this novel baffled me. My instincts made me wonder what the author was trying to say-what he was not saying which screamed all over the text. My impression was that he wanted to send a message which was not outright verbalized. The author was unknown to me.I could not even remember why I chose to read this book. It was probably Peter Seller's ironic smile and outfit on the cover that lured me in. The abrupt ending, without even an indication that the story ended, intrigued me even more. It was deliberate, and for what reason, I wondered.
I found the answers on the internet, sleuthing through numerous articles and Youtube videos. Jerzy Kosinski was an enigma; (a fake as his critics called him); a conman, a plagiarist for some others.
In one of his interviews, he described himself as genderfree, non-gendered individual, who could be female or male, or nothing at all. He first acknowledged to not write about himself, then admits the semi-autobiographical elements in all of his works. His background was questioned... and on and on it goes.
Whatever or whomever he was, throughout his life he made sure that he did not fit into the tight little boxes of the social order. His writing also portrayed the rise of post-modernism in literature.
This fits in perfectly with the theme of this book. A Thirty-something man, without a real name, no birth record, no identity whatsoever, lands up in the dog-eats-dog world of the media and politics. His unblemished opinion on the economy and life charms everyone who is unable to escape their own little boxes. Kosinski himself had an unsatiable lust for sex, and often sadistic tendencies towards the women he engaged in the act. Power and control? Insecurity? Who knows! He had an obsession with night-walking the streets and involving himself in the dark dungeons of sexual underworld. He liked to watch, he said in his interviews. In the book, Chance, the character, also likes to watch: television, people, and his garden. Chance could not read or write. (It might hint on the allegations against Kosinski that other people wrote his books for him, or adapted his plagiarized material). Kozinsky also indulge in self-mockery by 'exposing' the willingness of publishers to appoint the right editors to write his books for him. Whether it was an effort to be honest, or just playing his critics, one will never know, since Kosinsky committed suicide in 1991 and left the world confused...
This plagiarism issue made me wonder how far it can be taken. Since the Sixties, and even before that, a multitude of writers 'plagiarized' Shakespeare. Some did it openly in the name of postmodernism. Others skillfully hid it. Where does plagiarism end really? The stealing of ideas, plot, content, characters. Mindboggling isn't it?
Kosinski was a multiple-award winning author, play-write and actor.
I am adding a spoiler here with some of the opinions on this controversial author. The good news is, we live in a postmodern world where anyone and everyone can make up our own truths and it will be okay...
I found the story lacking. It neither impressed, nor disappoint. Perhaps it was the wrong era to read it. So much has happened since the book was published. Perhaps so many thousands of other books were published doing a better job. There was just nothing new to be excited about. That's why I wondered what the hidden story was. It was written with a purpose. I imagine that the novel attracted much debate and discussions around the role of the media and politics in individual's lives at the time. It certainly attracted a lot of attention in selected circles.
The book was made into a movie, starring Peter Sellers. What a joke. Kosinsky regarded himself as an Adonis, a Fabian, a knock-their-socks-of sexual animal. Why an older Peter Sellers was chosen for the role of Chance baffles the mind even more. Besides that, the movie was brilliant and so was Sellers in the role.
I wonder what Mr. Kosinsky would have thought of the current political and media insanity.
An interesting documentary about the author: Sex, Lies & Jerzy Kosinski
This article appeared in the NY Times around Jerzy Kosinski's death: In Novels and Life, a Maverick and An Eccentric by Mervyn Rothstein, May 4, 1991
And that's it for today ;-)
September 24, 2022
Love this book’s concept. Loved the Peter Sellers movie based on the book. Did not love this book, and don’t understand all the love that it gets.
Two stars only because of a great concept, but the writing is utterly pedestrian. This is a rare case where the movie is far superior to the source material. Watch the movie. Ignore the book.
Two stars only because of a great concept, but the writing is utterly pedestrian. This is a rare case where the movie is far superior to the source material. Watch the movie. Ignore the book.
July 14, 2021
یک آدم بیسواد و بیهویت و ساده که براساس یکسری تصادفات و سوءبرداشتها تبدیل به یک چهره معروف سیاسی و تلوزیونی و مطبوعاتی میشه!
October 12, 2023
اینکه چی میشی دقیقا بستگی مستقیم با این داره که با کیا بُر میخوری
نتیجه ای که از این کتاب میشه گرفت همینه که گفتم
مهم نیست کی هستی! مهم اینه که کیا سر راهت قرار بگیرن. اگه مثل چنس گاردینر خوش اقبال باشی با همسر راکفلر مانندی تصادف می کنی و با سکوت و آرامشِ خودت و با سلام و صلواتِ یه مشت خنگ، زندگی همین طور برات رو شانس پیش میاد
حالا اینا که قصه و داستانه. ولی روایت لذت بخشی بود
راستی فیلمش هم با عنوان
Being there
خیلی ساله ساختن. دیدنش خالی از لطف نیست
و ترجمه خیلی مسخره🤦♀️ و سرشار از سانسورهای عجیب غریب بود
✨📚✨
نتیجه ای که از این کتاب میشه گرفت همینه که گفتم
مهم نیست کی هستی! مهم اینه که کیا سر راهت قرار بگیرن. اگه مثل چنس گاردینر خوش اقبال باشی با همسر راکفلر مانندی تصادف می کنی و با سکوت و آرامشِ خودت و با سلام و صلواتِ یه مشت خنگ، زندگی همین طور برات رو شانس پیش میاد
حالا اینا که قصه و داستانه. ولی روایت لذت بخشی بود
راستی فیلمش هم با عنوان
Being there
خیلی ساله ساختن. دیدنش خالی از لطف نیست
و ترجمه خیلی مسخره🤦♀️ و سرشار از سانسورهای عجیب غریب بود
✨📚✨
July 9, 2018
کتاب از واقعیت تلخ فاصله گرفته بود تا بهتر بتونه نقش آفرینی شخصیت اول که نمایانگر انسان واقعی هست رو ممکن کنه، این حالت برای من یادآور مرد فیل نما بود که توی ۱۲ سالگی خوندم و با تو��ه به سنم از همچین فضایی لذت بردم... اما الآن این حالت یه مقدار برام غیر قابل درک بود... ولی نویسنده خیلی خوب تونسته بود اون انسان واقعی رو ترسیم بکنه.
February 7, 2010
Very different from other novels by Kosinski. After the death of his employer, Chance, the gardener, is forced to leave the mansion where he lived all his life - and he has never left it before. Unaccustomed to the booming City and lively street, he is jostled by a car. The woman travelling in the car offer to take him into her house, so her doctor can take care of him. While Chance gets back to health, both the woman and her husband start discovering extraordinary qualities that he posesses.
Very short and entertaining, gives an interesting insight into how much the beauty depends on the eye of the beholder.
Very short and entertaining, gives an interesting insight into how much the beauty depends on the eye of the beholder.
February 25, 2014
I saw Hal Ashby's movie "Being There" about 20 years ago and I still remember the huge impression it made on me. Peter Sellers was magnificent as Chance the gardener. I have just finished reading Jerzy Kosinski's book, on which the movie is based, and I find the book much weaker than the movie.
Kosinski's short novella is a one-gimmick book: a simple gardener who has never been outside of his employer's residence, who knows first-hand only about gardening, who learns about people and the world from TV shows, and who is just being there, suddenly becomes a respected political pundit, whose opinions are sought by most prominent business leaders and politicians of the highest level. The entire book is devoted to the exposition of this one simple premise. It is a very short book (117 pages, paperback) yet a better writer would have created a richer literary structure, one with more depth. True, the original "joke" (the premise) is very funny, but the fun evaporates, when the same "joke" is retold time after time.
The novella is a satire on the power of people's preconceptions, on how we judge based on appearances, how a man named Chauncey must be wiser than one named Chance, and how we are controlled by what the media tell us. The target of Kosinski's satire is well chosen, but the implementation lacks; the writing is competent yet pedestrian, and already at about the middle of the book one gets the whole point that the author wanted to make, so why keep reading? I kept reading only to find out that there is nothing more there.
Film is a perfect medium to handle such a one-gimmick premise; the actors and the visuals supply the depth the text does not have. "Being There" - a wonderful movie and an OK book.
Two and a half stars.
Kosinski's short novella is a one-gimmick book: a simple gardener who has never been outside of his employer's residence, who knows first-hand only about gardening, who learns about people and the world from TV shows, and who is just being there, suddenly becomes a respected political pundit, whose opinions are sought by most prominent business leaders and politicians of the highest level. The entire book is devoted to the exposition of this one simple premise. It is a very short book (117 pages, paperback) yet a better writer would have created a richer literary structure, one with more depth. True, the original "joke" (the premise) is very funny, but the fun evaporates, when the same "joke" is retold time after time.
The novella is a satire on the power of people's preconceptions, on how we judge based on appearances, how a man named Chauncey must be wiser than one named Chance, and how we are controlled by what the media tell us. The target of Kosinski's satire is well chosen, but the implementation lacks; the writing is competent yet pedestrian, and already at about the middle of the book one gets the whole point that the author wanted to make, so why keep reading? I kept reading only to find out that there is nothing more there.
Film is a perfect medium to handle such a one-gimmick premise; the actors and the visuals supply the depth the text does not have. "Being There" - a wonderful movie and an OK book.
Two and a half stars.
November 26, 2016
A somber message underlies Kosinsky's playful, deceptively simple fable. He sketches out a preposterous situation. The main character has spent his entire life confined to his room in a mansion and its walled garden. He was born there. His sole occupation is tending the garden. His sole view of the world is from watching the TV in his room. That complacent existence is disrupted when the recluse who dwells in the mansion dies.
Although Kosinski tells this story with a third person voice, the point of view is almost exclusively from Chance's perspective. His narrative is constricted. Chance reacts to events totally in the context of his experience as a gardener and the images he sees on the television, which he observes with an eerie detachment. Here is how he reacts to his final view of the recluse: “His shoulders sloped down at sharp angles, and his head, like a heavy fruit on a twig, hung down to one side. Chance stared into the Old Man's face. It was white, the upper jaw overlapped the lower lip of his mouth, and only one eye remained open, like the eye of a dead bird that sometimes lay in the garden. The maid put down the receiver, saying that she had just called the doctor, and he would come right away. Chance gazed once more at the Old Man, mumbled good-bye, and walked out. He entered his room and turned on the TV.” (Location 82). Kosinsky's disciplined writing deflects any impulse toward doubt.
Kosinski sets in motion a cascade of misunderstandings. Venturing out into the world, Chance wanders into the path of a limousine. He is taken in by its distraught passenger, a wealthy socialite married to a prominent businessman. When she asks his name, he mumbles he is Chance...the gardiner. She understands it as Chauncey Gardiner. It's just like TV he thinks — he has been cast in a new, unknown role! His lack of affect is mistaken for tranquility. His ambiguous responses are interpreted as restrained elisions. The gardening metaphors resonate as pronouncements about economic cycles and productivity. He ascends from house guest to presidential confidant to media superstar.
Kosinski's wit is precise and pointed. His third person narrative encourages us to laugh at the luminaries awed by Chance's zen-like responses. The meteoric escalation of his fame is ludicrous. On closer scrutiny, however, Kosinsky is forcing us to look into a mirror. Chance's brevity mimics the sound bites we hear on TV. He questions our perception of reality. Do we often stop to ask whether the fluid images and glib utterances of “reality TV” reflect an actual reality? He exposes our susceptibility to packaging. Chance is accepted into the coterie of wealth and power because of his appearance. When he leaves the mansion he is dressed in one of the Old Man's expensive, tailored suits chosen from his wardrobe of hand-me-downs. Chance had learned from TV that appearances were important. The absence of any record of his past is ideal. He is a blank slate on which anything can be written.
Kosinski anticipates our growing reliance on metaphor to simplify and clarify an increasingly complex and incomprehensible world. Metaphor is a short-cut to explanation. Kosinski subtracts the explanatory substance and shows us how we are content with the empty shell of evocative metaphor.
Kosinski confronts us with our assumptions about celebrity. At a certain point, everything Chance does or says is golden. His dazed demeanor is healthy emotional adjustment. When he admits he doesn't read newspapers (he is illiterate), he is congratulated for his refreshing candor. In one of Kosinski's rare departures from the voice of his character, he presents an introspective Chance preparing for his first television appearance. “Television reflected only people's surfaces; it also kept peeling their images from their bodies until they were sucked into the caverns of their viewers' eyes, forever beyond retrieval, to disappear. Facing the cameras with their unsensing triple lenses pointed at him like snouts, Chance became only an image for millions of real people. They would never know how real he was, since his thinking could not be televised. And to him, the viewers existed only as projections of this own thought, as images. He would never know how real they were, since he had never met them and did not know what they thought.” (Location 532)
Kosinski's wit has the sting of a paper cut. We don't feel it at first, but later.... Even as I laughed, I felt the pain. It's a lasting pain impossible to ignore.
NOTES:
Many readers will no doubt remember Peter Sellers' brilliant performance in the film BEING THERE. Here is a perceptive review by Roger Ebert. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gre...
Interview with Jerzy Kosinski analyzing the effects of television on our perceptions of reality.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/19...
Although Kosinski tells this story with a third person voice, the point of view is almost exclusively from Chance's perspective. His narrative is constricted. Chance reacts to events totally in the context of his experience as a gardener and the images he sees on the television, which he observes with an eerie detachment. Here is how he reacts to his final view of the recluse: “His shoulders sloped down at sharp angles, and his head, like a heavy fruit on a twig, hung down to one side. Chance stared into the Old Man's face. It was white, the upper jaw overlapped the lower lip of his mouth, and only one eye remained open, like the eye of a dead bird that sometimes lay in the garden. The maid put down the receiver, saying that she had just called the doctor, and he would come right away. Chance gazed once more at the Old Man, mumbled good-bye, and walked out. He entered his room and turned on the TV.” (Location 82). Kosinsky's disciplined writing deflects any impulse toward doubt.
Kosinski sets in motion a cascade of misunderstandings. Venturing out into the world, Chance wanders into the path of a limousine. He is taken in by its distraught passenger, a wealthy socialite married to a prominent businessman. When she asks his name, he mumbles he is Chance...the gardiner. She understands it as Chauncey Gardiner. It's just like TV he thinks — he has been cast in a new, unknown role! His lack of affect is mistaken for tranquility. His ambiguous responses are interpreted as restrained elisions. The gardening metaphors resonate as pronouncements about economic cycles and productivity. He ascends from house guest to presidential confidant to media superstar.
Kosinski's wit is precise and pointed. His third person narrative encourages us to laugh at the luminaries awed by Chance's zen-like responses. The meteoric escalation of his fame is ludicrous. On closer scrutiny, however, Kosinsky is forcing us to look into a mirror. Chance's brevity mimics the sound bites we hear on TV. He questions our perception of reality. Do we often stop to ask whether the fluid images and glib utterances of “reality TV” reflect an actual reality? He exposes our susceptibility to packaging. Chance is accepted into the coterie of wealth and power because of his appearance. When he leaves the mansion he is dressed in one of the Old Man's expensive, tailored suits chosen from his wardrobe of hand-me-downs. Chance had learned from TV that appearances were important. The absence of any record of his past is ideal. He is a blank slate on which anything can be written.
Kosinski anticipates our growing reliance on metaphor to simplify and clarify an increasingly complex and incomprehensible world. Metaphor is a short-cut to explanation. Kosinski subtracts the explanatory substance and shows us how we are content with the empty shell of evocative metaphor.
Kosinski confronts us with our assumptions about celebrity. At a certain point, everything Chance does or says is golden. His dazed demeanor is healthy emotional adjustment. When he admits he doesn't read newspapers (he is illiterate), he is congratulated for his refreshing candor. In one of Kosinski's rare departures from the voice of his character, he presents an introspective Chance preparing for his first television appearance. “Television reflected only people's surfaces; it also kept peeling their images from their bodies until they were sucked into the caverns of their viewers' eyes, forever beyond retrieval, to disappear. Facing the cameras with their unsensing triple lenses pointed at him like snouts, Chance became only an image for millions of real people. They would never know how real he was, since his thinking could not be televised. And to him, the viewers existed only as projections of this own thought, as images. He would never know how real they were, since he had never met them and did not know what they thought.” (Location 532)
Kosinski's wit has the sting of a paper cut. We don't feel it at first, but later.... Even as I laughed, I felt the pain. It's a lasting pain impossible to ignore.
NOTES:
Many readers will no doubt remember Peter Sellers' brilliant performance in the film BEING THERE. Here is a perceptive review by Roger Ebert. http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/gre...
Interview with Jerzy Kosinski analyzing the effects of television on our perceptions of reality.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/19...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,388 reviews