Kundera

It's not shit.

>>8343423
The title is good. The book is dogshit

>>8343720
How so?

>>8343423
It just needed some heavy editing.
The pacing is awful. The structure needs reworking and there are too many unfocused tangents.

Other than that the characters are well developed, the philosophical themes are sound and well-presented, and it was politically relevant for its time.

It's a good book, you're just a bad reader.

>>8343808
Calm down Anon. I started with that premise because it seems like a common opinion amongst intellectuals.

I enjoyed the book very much and I share your view in its strenghts and weaknesses.

Felt like stream of thought sometimes.

it's half a step above murakami

sitll not really literature

>>8343891
You say this because of the technique or the content?

It was a huge disappointment to me, although I did enjoy the philosophical themes of it. Along with that you got your etymology curiosities, fourth wall breaks and musical reference that fleshed out the narrative. It's just that a nauseating half of the book is spent dissecting Tomas' womanizing, which lead absolutely nowhere, not to mention the cringe inducing analysis of his wife's nightmare's. I mean honestly who gives a shit.

The last two chapters are what really makes the book imo. They have the strongest philosophical messages and for once you actually felt for the characters, where as before they were simply a means to make a philosophical argument about whatnot.

Also, buttholes.

>>8343910
both really.

he's a stronger writer than murakami not doubt because of technique but it's all very simple and surface (which, as I said, puts him half a step above murakami)

other than that the writing is quite similar between the two. nebulous symbolism and a lot of classical music and philosophy namrdropping. no real exploration of any deeper themes beyond an acknowledgement of existential angst. characters that are transparent deconstruction of the author, or of personalities the author wants ton"explore". kundera himself stated the four main chars in unbearable lightness are aspects of himself pushed to an extreme or whatever

ultimately nothing is resolved and nothing insightful said. both authors fail at aesthetic beauty be a useful they sacrificed tat aspect in an attempt to delve into deeper themes in a heavy handed manner, but fails at that as well

>>8343790
I just think 'The Unbearable Lightness of Being' is great.

>>8343937
I must disagree, I don't think Kundera lingers in existential angst only.

I'd also argue that Murakami excels at tying strong feelings to vulgar situations, even if he doesn't goes deep philosophically.

>>8343926
You have a good point there. I feel like the book would have been better if it was simply Kundera ranting.

>>8343423
It is a well known fact that Kundera only wrote one good book and it isn't TULOB

>>8344072
The Inmortality is not bad.

>>8343981
read more

kundera and murakami are the kinds of authors that become increasingly facile the more you read

>>8344793
I agree, I'm simply saying that your argument was reductionist and that I don't think Kundera only deals with existential angst.

What would you recommend Anon? I admit I haven't read nearly as much as I'd like and I'd say I'm very ignorant regarding «high literature».

>>8344936
Thoreau.