Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

Please post your comments here.

I actually really loved this novel. It was not action packed and it didn't have a lot of dialogue (which makes it sound incredibly boring), but it was actually very interesting and surprisingly philosophical. It focused on the lives of a small group of people and how they think, rationalize, and approach their lives. It examines why people have such a difficult time "living in the moment" and being present instead of over-analyzing and over-complicating things. The best line in the novel has to be when one of the characters "...failed to grasp the lightness of being." Simply "being" had become "unbearable", so they would create unnecessary stress in their lives. It's really a thought provoking novel, and I have used that line quite a few times since :-)
I can't wait to see what other folks think!

Would anyone like to take a guess as to why the bowler hat is so important?

As I recall, it represented her Sabine's grandfather and the sense of his gravity.

Wow, lack of comments on this thread and an answer 5 years later! Perhaps this should be a reread one day.

I think it's called "thread necromancy."

Could be, wonder if it will revive it! I was supposed to read this in April with another group, but I'm still waiting on my library copy. I'll see if I get to it later.

Could happen. A book I haven't read. Thank you to all of our members so that we don't have nearly empty threads any more.

Ha! This is one I haven't even thought about tackling since I've heard it talks a lot about Anna Karenina, which I haven't read yet.

I'd read it if there was a group. Is it a reread or new book. Maybe I'll nominate it.

About the bowler hat, like lots of things in this novel, there seem to be several meanings to choose from. One could be that it’s about kitsch, which is described as sort of the opposite of the originality Sabina craves. Yet she keeps this hat of her grandfather’s forever, and in so doing, risks turning it into kitsch itself. So it may be an example of the heavy being light and the light being heavy …

Hope you get to read this eventually, Pink, and that this thread is revived. I'd love to hear more thoughts on this book!

This would be a revisit candidate.

Will do, good to know going into a new month.

Ugh, I hated this book when I read it 20-odd years ago.

Just started last night and read the first few pages - and liked it so far. What do we know about Tereza? Her light breath and (unbearable?) heavy suitcase.

I am reading the Danish translation.

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Just started last night and read the first few pages - and liked it so far. What do we know about Tereza? Her light breath and (unbearable?) heavy suitcase.

I am reading the Danish translation."
The focus shifts to Tereza in the Part Two: Soul and Body. I'm very glad this novel was selected after so many times coming close.

I am at approx 69%.

I was rather astonished by the strange turn of things (view spoiler)[hearing that Tomas and Tereza were dead (hide spoiler)] at around 40% (my page 105). I took a break just then so I had plenty of time to think how weird and “modern” way of writing that was. Now (from 40% to 69%) I think it is a foreshadowing - a very concrete one - of how deep we are to venture into Czechoslovakia - i.e. it was no accident.

Strange that Tereza does not have a bad conscience over bringing Tomas back to Czechoslovakia. At least I have not heard about it yet.

Notice that the novel was written in 1982 - while Czechoslovakia was still communist.

I liked the first part of the book: It was almost a long list of examples of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s language philosophy and language “games”. (We play a language game, when we talk to each other. The specific “game” help define the meaning of words. Wittgenstein argued that a word or even a sentence has meaning only as a result of the "rule" of the "game" being played. Depending on the context, for example, the utterance "Water!" could be an order, the answer to a question, or some other form of communication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languag... )

Kundera’s characters has a long list of words that are mutually misunderstood. Very impressive. I have never seen anything so well “under-their-skin”.

The second part of the book more centres of Tomas and the communist government of Czechoslovakia and what it feels like to - maybe - be surveyed all the time. I have been looking for a book like this since I saw the movie Das Leben der Anderen.

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Strange that Tereza does not have a bad conscience over bringing Tomas back to Czechoslovakia. "

Meanwhile Tereza has had a dream where she does not have eyes but holes. Likely that means that she feels very guilty, feels that she should have known better.

Finished this book, and didn´t understand why it was so popular. Tomas is an awful figure, and there was an odd mixture of theory and story, and politics didn´t occur so much.

Michaela wrote: "Tomas is an awful figure,"

Why do you say so? I don’t think it is the authors intention.

Finished. As you can see from my previous comments I had no idea where the story was going.

I liked the middle 1/3 best. All the later talk of Stalin’s son and kitsch was just.... odd.

What I liked best of all was the thinking back and forth over the theme of guilt: Can you be guilty if you are wrong but in good faith? You can be guilty in not spending the proper amount of energy in trying to finding out how things really are. I could not help thinking (this is definitely not in the book) about all those people that still believe that climate change is not occurring/not man-made/natural and none of their business anyway. Some may still be in “good faith” (compared to forcefully closing their eyes).

Michaela wrote: "Finished this book, and didn´t understand why it was so popular. Tomas is an awful figure, and there was an odd mixture of theory and story, and politics didn´t occur so much."

I agree!

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Michaela wrote: "Tomas is an awful figure,"

Why do you say so? I don’t think it is the authors intention."

Especially because of his many sexual relationships besides his girlfriend. And the worse, if the author thinks this is okay (which I have the impression).

Michaela wrote: "Especially because of his many sexual relationships besides his girlfriend. And the worse, if the author thinks this is okay (which I have the impression)."

It is 1968. I think it was general accepted.

Did you read Père Goriot last month?

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Strange that Tereza does not have a bad conscience over bringing Tomas back to Czechoslovakia. At least I have not heard about it yet."

Stick with it.... It comes back to this very, very close to the end ;-)

Just finished and am still collecting my thoughts.

During the course of my reading it went from a 2-star to a 4-star. I wanted to give up a few times. But am glad I stuck with it to the end. There are just so many topics/themes/thoughts covered in this novel. I don't know where to start.

I found the ending a very satisfying conclusion. An unusual ending as you already know what comes after the point where the novel ends.

Renate wrote: "I found the ending a very satisfying conclusion. An unusual ending as you already know what comes after the point where the novel ends.."

Did you notice the small detail: (view spoiler)[ In the letter it says a village they visited often, and in the end of the book it was the first time they were there. If both are true, they may have some years yet to live after the book ends. (hide spoiler)]

I expected to love this but I found my reading was spoiled by not having read this when it came out. As literature has progressed with time, this book has a dated feel for a postmodern novel. My second issue was that I saw the film some time ago and the film is a different animal, focussed more on the fated couple, Tomas and Tereza. I found it hard to integrate the two and harder to appreciate the book having liked the stress on romance in the film. I think I will have to try another Kundera.

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Did you notice the small detail: [spoilers ..."
Ah! No I didn't! Thanks for pointing that out. (view spoiler)[
Made me very happy. I went back and checked. One can piece it all together...

Part 3, Chapter 10 (Sabina):

From time to time they would drive over to the next town and spend the night in a cheap hotel. That passage in the letter had caught her eye. It meant they were happy.

Part 6, Chapter 24 (Simon):

...he received a letter from Tomas asking him to come and visit. The meeting was a friendly one...About four months later, he received a telegram saying that Tomas and his wife had been crushed to death under a truck.

2nd last page:

When they reached the town they drove straight to the hotel. Tereza and Tomas had never been there before.

(hide spoiler)]

I finished and, like Renata, "(d)uring the course of my reading it went from a 2-star to a 4-star." However, for me it fluctuated between those 2 star levels resulting in a 3 star read. All in all, it was a fairly interesting read with some food for thought but not quite satisfying overall.

What I liked about the book was:
1) the clear, direct prose - I found the book easy to read, especially for a book mentioned by some here as being postmodern;
2) characters living in a situation that is foreign to my experience and quite interesting; I enjoyed the references to the political situation at the time and its impact on people living through the times;
3) philosophical musings on existence that are not that difficult to comprehend so didn't overly tax my brain.

What I didn't like as much:
1) the non-linear structure (which I assume is the postmodern aspect of the book rather than the writing style) which made it difficult to latch on to a 'story,' which in turn made it difficult to latch on to the characters - I felt quite distant from them;
2) the philosophical musings, as far as I understand them, don't really amount to much that is meaningful to me; so, on second thought, I probably don't really understand Kundera's musings;

One more thing I did like alot - it had an extremely well-written penultimate ending scene that was personally meaningful and timely as tomorrow my son will be putting down his 13 year-old German Shephard named Cyrus - his vet will administer the shot in the back of his pickup truck and, like in the book, he will be burying his pet in a grave he will dig. Cyrus lived with us as a pup and it has me reflecting back on putting down one of my own dogs about 3 years ago and his licking my face while the injection goes through him. The book was very meaningful in this scene with this especially good passage:
"His look of awful trust did not last long; he soon laid his head back down on his paws. Tereza knew that no one ever again would look at her like that."
The desire for that "look" is why we bought our fourth dachshund in February.

I am just beginning this novel today.

I am starting Chapter 7 and love this book, which means by the end I may detest this book. By Chapter 2 I had to run get a red colored pencil to underline quotes. The writing is so beautiful!! I usually do not like post-modern books, but this may be the exception.


On the myth of Eternal Return:
"..how can we condemn something which is ephemeral in nature?"

"...for in this world everything is pardoned in advance and therefore everything is cynically permitted."

"The heaviest of burdens is therefore simultaneously an image of life's most intense fulfillment. The heavier the burden, the closer our lives come to the earth, the more real and truthful they become."

"...which one is positive, weight or lightness?"

I am just meeting Tomas and Tereza:
"Tomas did not realize at the time that metaphors are dangerous. Metaphors are not to be trifled with. A single metaphor can give birth to love."

There might be one negative...I usually do not like reading about sex. I do think the author is very astute to say that wanting sex is not love, but that wanting to sleep next to someone is. For instance, I thought The Lover was an absolutely hideous book. All the yucky time about the sex, with nothing - nothing else going on in the characters' lives except emptiness. This book has a little more to it.

Michaela wrote: "Especially because of his many sexual relationships besides his girlfriend. And the worse, if the author thinks this is okay (which I have the impression)...."

One does get that impression. The author does give us a whole chapter in which he tries to explain: Men who pursue a multitude of women....

It was his infidelity but at the same time devotion and love for Tereza, that set in motion events (view spoiler)[that ultimately ruined his career as a surgeon. Tereza went back to Prague, and he followed, all because of his promiscuous behaviour. One could argue that if they'd stayed in Switzerland, he might have had a long and successful career as a surgeon, and possibly a happier life. (hide spoiler)]

Done. I felt the novel to be poignant. I didn't particularly enjoy the story but I enjoyed and highlighted the numerous quotable thoughts in it.

This thread will remain open but is moving to the New School Classics section in the group page. If you are like me, and only have on partially read the book, feel free to continue to comment.

I am now at the 50% mark. The reason it is taking so long to read is that I really like it. That seems contradictory, but when I really like something I have to take little breaks to think about what I just read. If someone had written a description that went something like: "inhabitants of a European city amidst political turmoil and the art world explore different relationships" I would have refused to pick up the book. I would have never thought I could like it. What I like is this author's voice; his thoughts and his manner of being able to interpret a situation or word in multiple ways from the viewpoints of different characters. I believe the section on misunderstood words is my favorite part so far.

Michaela wrote: "Finished this book, and didn´t understand why it was so popular. Tomas is an awful figure, and there was an odd mixture of theory and story, and politics didn´t occur so much."

You are right that it is an odd mix of theory and story. That is well said.

I am on the last section of The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera. I started reading it in August. I will sometimes hold onto a book that I really like. I even reread one of the middle sections. Everytime I pick it up I see a different aspect of my life in a new way. I really like the author's insights. I currently am reading about Sabina's philosophy of life and I find the idea of kitsch amazing. I have seen this sort of idea in so many unexpected ways. It is "keeping up appearances" or "wearing rose colored glasses". It is forcing all things in society to be beautiful on the surface.... it is anti-individual. There are so many places I can think of where we see anti-individualism. One quick little example is peer pressure. Imagine the perfect golden boy and perfect golden girl in school and the pressure to keep up that image. Sorry I could go on and on about this book. There are so many places where I have underlined quotes.

I also Like Franz's idea of "Hercules Broom". I am horrified at what I see as the historical vandalism of churches, which is what inspires Franz. Yet, I totally understand his idea of purging. Every so often I do think it is exhilarating to trim activities, try new things, and reduce the overall clutter of one's life. Not that I would divorce to do that, but we have done major trimming down of holidays and holiday traditions, etc in my family.

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Finished. As you can see from my previous comments I had no idea where the story was going.

I liked the middle 1/3 best. All the later talk of Stalin’s son and kitsch was just.... odd.

What I lik..."


You mention the thought that a person can be guilty for not trying to find out true information. (paraphrasing) This is a centuries old teaching in Christianity. The teaching says that we all have a conscience but that it is the duty of people to study diligently in order to "form their consciences". Kundera does not use this terminology, but the idea is a long-standing one.

Lynn wrote: "You mention the thought that a person can be guilty for not trying to find out true information. "

Only if the lack of information leads you to do something wrong.

Lynn wrote: "This is a centuries old teaching in Christianity. "

I though the idea was that you were born guilty and that was it. What must you study?

Would it had made a difference in any of the cases? Would Tereza have been able to act differently?


Funny detail: If you asked me now what I liked best and remembered most of, it is the Wittgensteinian language philosophy “games” in the first 1/3 of the book.

The idea is that Original Sin is the separation from God that is inherent in the human condition and this sin is washed away by baptism. But as people grow into adults. adults are responsible for reading scripture and studying the catechism... for instance if a person deliberately avoids reading the Ten Commandments his or her entire life then that does not mean that person would be innocent of sin. You cant say "I am innocent of murder that I committed because no one told me it was wrong".

In the book the author focuses on elaborate manipulation power schemes where people are forced to publicly participate . The author objects to those who would say no one told me this was
wrong. He says these were so egregious. involving loss of life or livelihood just for the sake of the Party Line, that all people can or should have known it was wrong

I think both the church and our author say we as individuals have a responsibility to do right and to try to properly evaluate situations. That is all I meant.

Hmm about Tereza. honestly I was thinking about the Communist Secret Police not her.

Tereza decides to return to Czechoslovakia and thereby bringing Tomas back too.

She later has a dream where she does not have eyes but holes. She feels very guilty, feels that she should have known better.

Would reading any religious text have changed that? I doubt it. My impression is that she felt guilty because she feels she should have known better. Should have known that they would risk losing jobs for being too intellectual and risk becoming monitored. She should have known i.e. from reading a news paper.

Would catechism or any religious text have made her able to make a better decision?

Lynn wrote: "Hmm about Tereza. honestly I was thinking about the Communist Secret Police not her."

They would likely loose there job if they behave and speak anything Christian. (Or may not? Apparently you could make surveys about the subject, meaning that people where unafraid to answer. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio... )

Look J Blueflower I think we both like the book and I just meant that it is an old tradition for centuries in Europe that we read and learn to understand right from wrong. I actually think we are both saying the same thing and agree. It always perplexes me when I think I am agreeing with someone and that person takes it as an argument. I am tired of talking about this book now.

J_BlueFlower wrote: "Lynn wrote: "You mention the thought that a person can be guilty for not trying to find out true information. "

Only if the lack of information leads you to do something wrong.

Lynn wrote: "This ..."

ok yes,,, not living in sin with this doctor guy would have prevented the whole thing. Reading religious texts mighty have brought her to that decision. The entire story stops before it starts. But I was talking about the police state and whether or not to sacrifice other people to the state in order to save oneself. But the communists would still be pressuring people and the guilt I was referring to was the guilt that Tomas was struggling with. Should people turn in each other or not? He chose not, but then that weird thing happened with his son. Even the supposed "good" guys weren't

I love how Sabina was fighting against the pressure of others. Tomas did too to an extent. Tereza was in my opinion a basket case from early on in the book. Tomas somehow found that endearing.

Speaking of guilt Franz had an entire relationship with his wife based upon guilt.