Who is our protagonist here? This novel, although being
about two Czechoslovakian parachutists sent from London on a mission to
assassinate Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the Nazi secret services and living in
Prague, is more than an historical novel. It is also a novel about our novelist
struggling with the concept of writing a truly historical novel. Is Binet our
protagonist, I would like to think so, or are our hero assassins or even
Heydrich our main thread? Personally I hope Binet never stumbles across this review as he did have a tendency to attack certain websites, writers etc. throughout his novel - if he didn't want to be our main character I could be in for it!!
Reinhard Heydrich (the HHhH of our story – “Himmler’s brain
is called Heydrich” in German spells HHhH) is the evil Nazi chief, also
commonly known as the “Hangman of Prague”, “the blond beast” and “the most
dangerous man in the Third Reich” and our novelist wants to portray an accurate
historical novel. How can you remain true to historical fact without making things
up?
Natacha flicks through the latest
issue of Magazine Litteraire, which
she has kindly bought for me. She stops at a review about the life of Bach, the
composer. The article begins with a quote from the author: ‘Has there ever been
a biographer who did not dream of writing, “Jesus of Nazareth used to lift his
left eye-brow when he was thinking”?’ She smiles as she reads this to me.
I don’t immediately grasp the
full meaning of the phrase and, faithful to my long-held disgust for realistic
novels, I say to myself: Yuk! Then I
ask her to pass me the magazine and I reread the sentence. I am forced to admit
that I would quite like to possess this kind of detail about Heydrich. Natacha
laughs openly; “oh yes, I can just see it: Heydrich used to lift his left
eyebrow when he was thinking!’
This novel has no page numbers and is made up of 257
chapters, some of which are only a sentence long (the quote above is chapter
30) and moves from tight action about our parachutist heros to details about
Heydrich’s meetings with various Nazi Chiefs and his ultimate “Final Solution”
back to Laurent Binet’s struggle with writing an accurate or memorable novel.
The dead are dead, and it makes
no difference to them whether I pay homage to their deeds. But for us, the
living, it does mean something. Memory is of no use to the remembered, only to
those who remember. We build ourselves with memory and console ourselves with
memory.
I have read a few reviews of this novel which are highly
critical of this writing style, the meta-narrative being frustrating and
distract us from “the true story”. I tend to disagree as I see Binet’s struggle
with the genre of historical fiction being central to the plot, may that, in
itself, be the “true story” – how can somebody write an accurate historical
novel without making things up? There are numerous references to other writers
including the 2006 Prix Goncourt Winner:
I wonder how Jonathan Littell, in
his novel The Kindly Ones, knows that
Blobel had an Opel. If Blobel really drove an Opel, then I bow before his
superior research. But if it is a bluff, that weakens the whole book. Of course
it does! It’s true that the Nazi’s were supplied in bulk by Opel, and so it is
perfectly plausible that Blobel
possessed, or used, a vehicle of that make. But plausible is not known. I’m
drivelling, aren’t I? When I tell people that, they think I’m mental. They don’t
see the problem.
Personally I learned a lot about a period of World War II
history that I didn’t know a lot about, the involvement of the Serbs and the
Croats, the exiled Government being housed in London, the assassination attempt
on Heydrich and oh so much more. At the same time I entered the mind of a
writer who is struggling with his craft, his obsessive research, and his
inability to commit to the page, the meanderings and the later notes telling us
to forget earlier sections.
To me this novel was a revelation in writing styles and
Binet’s commitment to the art. One I thoroughly enjoyed.
This novel is also on the long list for the Independent
Foreign Fiction Prize for 2013 along with:
A Death in the Family – Karl Ove Knausgaard
The Detour – Gerbrand Bakker
The Sound of Things Falling – Juan Gabriel Vasquez
The Last of the Vostyachs – Diego Marani
Cold Sea Stories – Pawel Huelle
The Fall of the Stone City – Ismail Kadare
Black Bazaar – Alain Mabanckou
Bundu – Chris Barnard
Dublinesque – Enrique Vila-Matas
In Praise of Hatred – Khalid Khalifa
The Murder of Halland – Pia Juul
Satantango – Laszlo Krasznahorkai
Silent House – Orhan Pamuk
Traveller of the Century – Andres Neuman
Trieste – Dasa Drndic
The shortlist for this prize will be announced next Thursday
11 April and given I thoroughly enjoyed last year’s shortlist I will attempt to
read and review as many of the list as possible before the prize is announced
in May.
3 comments:
I read a magazine piece which claimed that Binet initially intended to write a straighter version of the book - only for 'The Kindly Ones' to come out before he had finished it! Which explains why it's critiqued at times here...
Glad you liked it, but I'm standing by my verdict ;)
That could be true - as he does give Littell quite a serve in one "chapter", I thought I'd leave that revelation to the readers themselves.
I don't have a concern at all with your verdict, a very valid opinion, Binet as a character didn't unsettle me as much as yourself that's all.
Thanks for your comments they are all welcome here - especially from fellow readers of similar works.
I finally got around to reading this and thoroughly enjoyed it. I wish more historical novels were written this way. I found the constant 'commentary' was a strong feature of the novel which allowed the author to emphasise the more important events and facts. I'm sure Binet would have a positive reaction to your review!
Post a Comment