web site hit counter ONE ULYSSES TOO MANY - Ebooks PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

ONE ULYSSES TOO MANY

Availability: Ready to download

KIRKUS REVIEW Even if, in Ithaca, a few persons remember you, or only your name, the place itself rejects, you. . . You can't go back. The country you dream about returning to isn't there."" This is the lesson learned, after the displacement of the war years, by Michael Nadzin, who now four years later joins his two oldest friends- Jan Kot and Antoni Dubiecki, in Nice. Ther KIRKUS REVIEW Even if, in Ithaca, a few persons remember you, or only your name, the place itself rejects, you. . . You can't go back. The country you dream about returning to isn't there."" This is the lesson learned, after the displacement of the war years, by Michael Nadzin, who now four years later joins his two oldest friends- Jan Kot and Antoni Dubiecki, in Nice. There Kot and Dubiecki share not only the solidarity of their past and their passionate patriotism, but also a certain hope for the future, for the magazine they will launch with the help of a wealthy young widow- Anna, which will represent the best of the old Poland to which they will some day return. Derelicts, they have also become scavengers in their attempt to attach themselves to some sort of security (Anna, with her wealth, and her intimations that she will share it). And while they welcome Michael, they never accept him without doubts. As the weeks pass, Anna falls in love with Michael and he accepts the marriage offered. But his many memories of ""rottenness, decay, sterility, exile, mutilation"" intrude and isolate him; he can find no real identification with his friends and their little magazine, nor with Anna and her gestures of largesse. He incurs Dubiecki's political suspicions when he gives a handout to a former Nazi informer, Anna's when he takes in and nurses an old love, Sophy, whom he now finds drugged and dying. And at the close, as he breaks with his friends, turns his back on Anna and the comfort of the life with her, he realizes that he is a man without a country or a cause, and that his only commitment can be to a few human beings- such as he- hopelessly adrift. . . A thoughtful theme, this is strengthened by the acrid sharpness of this emigre milieu, by a devastating awareness of the disintegration it represents, and by the saddening search of its compassionate central figure. An audience, however, beyond Storm Jameson's name may be difficult to assess and assure.


Compare

KIRKUS REVIEW Even if, in Ithaca, a few persons remember you, or only your name, the place itself rejects, you. . . You can't go back. The country you dream about returning to isn't there."" This is the lesson learned, after the displacement of the war years, by Michael Nadzin, who now four years later joins his two oldest friends- Jan Kot and Antoni Dubiecki, in Nice. Ther KIRKUS REVIEW Even if, in Ithaca, a few persons remember you, or only your name, the place itself rejects, you. . . You can't go back. The country you dream about returning to isn't there."" This is the lesson learned, after the displacement of the war years, by Michael Nadzin, who now four years later joins his two oldest friends- Jan Kot and Antoni Dubiecki, in Nice. There Kot and Dubiecki share not only the solidarity of their past and their passionate patriotism, but also a certain hope for the future, for the magazine they will launch with the help of a wealthy young widow- Anna, which will represent the best of the old Poland to which they will some day return. Derelicts, they have also become scavengers in their attempt to attach themselves to some sort of security (Anna, with her wealth, and her intimations that she will share it). And while they welcome Michael, they never accept him without doubts. As the weeks pass, Anna falls in love with Michael and he accepts the marriage offered. But his many memories of ""rottenness, decay, sterility, exile, mutilation"" intrude and isolate him; he can find no real identification with his friends and their little magazine, nor with Anna and her gestures of largesse. He incurs Dubiecki's political suspicions when he gives a handout to a former Nazi informer, Anna's when he takes in and nurses an old love, Sophy, whom he now finds drugged and dying. And at the close, as he breaks with his friends, turns his back on Anna and the comfort of the life with her, he realizes that he is a man without a country or a cause, and that his only commitment can be to a few human beings- such as he- hopelessly adrift. . . A thoughtful theme, this is strengthened by the acrid sharpness of this emigre milieu, by a devastating awareness of the disintegration it represents, and by the saddening search of its compassionate central figure. An audience, however, beyond Storm Jameson's name may be difficult to assess and assure.

7 review for ONE ULYSSES TOO MANY

  1. 5 out of 5

    Jonathan

    Excellent. I have put the Kirkus review as the book description on here, which should give you an idea. Reading this, and thinking about why she has never had the revival, the success, she richly deserves, I think part of the problem is that her novels are rather like chocolates filled with something sour, bitter. The problem is, if one wants chocolate one does not want the sourness, and if one is looking for something sour one would not reach for chocolate. Stylistically and structurally this, Excellent. I have put the Kirkus review as the book description on here, which should give you an idea. Reading this, and thinking about why she has never had the revival, the success, she richly deserves, I think part of the problem is that her novels are rather like chocolates filled with something sour, bitter. The problem is, if one wants chocolate one does not want the sourness, and if one is looking for something sour one would not reach for chocolate. Stylistically and structurally this, as with many of her other novels, has the surface of something light, pleasant and traditionally diverting, but it contains unpleasant, difficult, ugly and complex truths (particularly as she saw them from her political perspective). The characters are not likeable, the "romance" is not developed in the manner one would anticipate. And yet the "romance", for example, and the language some of it is couched in, would turn off those looking for something more "intellectual". It is also concerned with very difficult ideas related to exile and the romanticisation of the lost nation, not to mention the self-delusion and vanity of so many of those “intellectuals in exile”, puffed up with their own nobility of purpose, none of which would be of much interest to someone looking for a pleasant piece of entertainment. But she cares so deeply about helping people to see the bitterness of the world, to experience the sourness and be spurred into action by it, that she crafts these chocolate coverings to make them appeal to those she wants to listen. I also quite liked the following analysis, taken from here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.... "One reason why I’m interested in her is because, in my view, she offers a much-needed counterbalance to Virginia Woolf and the high modernists as regards the practice and perceived function of fiction. For there has been something very restrictive in the way academics in the Western anglophone world have tended to categorize the literature of the twentieth century. My argument is that Storm Jameson’s novels, like those of Christina Stead and Angus Wilson, for instance, have in part suffered because of this mania to define fictions by such labels as modernist, postmodernist, realist (this last usually in a derogatory sense and cited as in opposition to modernism, implying a medium which is incapable of manipulation, being in essence conservative, reactionary, old-fashioned). Throughout the twentieth century, the tendency to pigeonhole fiction within one of these categories has shown remarkable resilience, despite lessons to be learnt from postcolonial and diasporic writings – and as a result, writers who cannot be slotted into one or other of these categories have tended to be at best viewed with suspicion, at worst dismissed as ‘middlebrow’, by many academics in the West. I am not of course denying that these labels have a function – but when they are treated as ultimate determinants of what is and what is not admirable in fiction, often without precise definition (are they being used as tied to a particular period? Do they imply a specific attitude to content and style? Or a precise attitude to ‘modernity’?), they can blind us to many texts which we neglect to our very great loss. Reasonably enough, work which is textually complex is very attractive to the academy, since it both invites and is enriched by analysis of various kinds. But why is this complexity so often perceived as only functioning on the level of style or of interiority – why is realism so often perceived (perversely, in the light of the evidence) as by its very nature reactionary, incapable of moulding from within? And why have fictions which have engaged with social and political issues too often been regarded with suspicion? " Why indeed. And, particularly, why have novels written by politically and socially engaged women (Kay Boyle being another example), keen to use their work to engage with the "real" as it surrounded and buffeted against them, been so often dismissed and neglected?

  2. 4 out of 5

    Katherine Dykes

  3. 5 out of 5

    Diane

  4. 5 out of 5

    michael

  5. 5 out of 5

    JCP

  6. 5 out of 5

    Alexander Pavlikovsky

  7. 4 out of 5

    Jane

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.