“One may tell oneself that death is part of life, and indeed I tell myself that it is so, for there is certainly a truth in it, but it is not the case that death is an inversion of life, its shadow as it were. Rather, the opposite is true. Life is an inversion of death. It is death that rules. We are all of us death’s children.”
.
“However much you feed a wolf, it always looks to the forest. We are all the wolves of the dense forest of eternity.” This quote comes from Marina Tsvetaeva in correspondence to her friend Rainer Maria Rilke, and if you add in the literary triptych of Boris Pasternak then you will have a poetic bond that heavily influences this novel. It seems strange to think at first, what might these three have to do with Karl Ove Knausguaard’s second book in his Morning Star trilogy but their work is talked about religiously, also many of the characters names stem from relatives of the three, from Pasternak’s son, Tsvetaeva’s daughter and so on. The everlasting question of death is a main thematic element in the Wolves Of Eternity which also ruminates throughout the writings of these three very cordial friends , there Is a wonderful collection of letters written between the three of them that NYRB’s has published that I highly recommend. Now you may be thinking what does this have to do with the KOK novel, stick with me, because the most intriguing spots of this book came not from the main characters but the ones lurking in the shadows
.
As mentioned this book ponders the finality of death and the briefness of life, a little known Russian man named Nikolai Fyodorovich Fyodorov is a strange intermission with his ideas of resurrecting the dead, not just one or two people but everyone who has ever lived. His ideas in the early 20th century were ludicrous to some but Christ-like to others. He was friends with Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and many other famous writers and people and to this day in Russia some explore his ideas of the postponement of death, such a seductive endeavor by KOK to explore such relations within this alternate type world he has created ( don’t worry the morning star makes an appearance towards the anticlimactic subtle end and all these themes of death are intoxicatingly related, the man is a genius)
.
If you’ve stuck with me this long let me begin to explain the novel according to my perceptions. There are really two main characters, the first being Syvert in Norway ( whose section last 400 pages and is more dull then a documentary on a man named Syvert living in Norway) The second is his half sister Alevtina who resides in Russia ( and fear not her section is filled with scientific and biological studies, death as a construct, classical music and more highly sophisticated literary and science references to make up for the first half) However, let me digress and explain what I think KOK was doing, Syvert is nineteen at the time of his tale, he is not the most educated man and he is grappling with a sick mother and a dead father who he has just found out had an affair with a woman in Russia, spawning his half sister. His narrative gives a whiney Holden Caulfield type dialogue that is quite pedestrian and bellow par for Karl to write, I was skeptical but believe now this was done on purpose, the juxtaposition of sections creates a landscape that expresses the characters capacity to understand the world
.
If you’re familiar with KOK’s long sinewy descriptions of mundane everyday occurrences then they come back with a force during Alevtina and also her friends section ( whom has the most literarily dense yet immaculate sections, its here that Karl reverts back to his My Struggle series and gives us what we all have been waiting for) The banality and lulling dialogue heavy first section sets a precedent and lowers our standards only to be thrust into oblivion when he flips the script. I feel being able to write down from your ability is a challenging assessment and a bold move to make, but KOK dumbs down for us, for his character. Now if I’m being honest majority of this novel is anticlimactic, every part ends with a “well alright that was kinda bland” but I think that’s also the allure, he leaves you with a taste in your mouth, is it sour? Sweet? We aren’t quite sure but we know we want to continue.
.
For those wondering if you need to read the Morning Star before this, the answer is Yes and NO, it is not a continuation but a novel set in the same world as the first, however the ending leaves you with a sense that book three will combine these two to form something larger in scale so I would advise you to read the morning star even if it’s after this one. If you’re still with me here I think this novel is hard to gauge because you get both ends of the literary spectrum, people who love section one might feel it hard to engage with the following, and the people who love the last 400 pages might find it very hard to get there ( that is the camp I fall into) don’t despair, if you’re a Knausgaard fan and want to experience him at his finest then push through, I promise you the second half is enough to make you salivate and research for weeks upon completion. A transcendent look into family, life, scientific discovery, and of course the age old question of death. Also the section titled “The Wolves of Eternity” is a character written departure seemingly as its a preface to a book they’re writing, but it comes back into play twofold, also this section would be a marvelous stand alone 50 page exploration into Russian insanity, highly recommended but not without caution.