Customer Reviews

Hunger

5 star:		(60)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

This is my second reading of this groundbreaking psychonovel, in the new (and highly commendable) Lyngstad translation. Penguin has published "Hunger" in its Twentieth Century Classics line even though it dates from 1890. I hope this was deliberate, since Hamsun was definitely ahead of his time.

"Hunger" shows a man reduced by his condition to a point where physiological and mental impulses blow him around like a paper in the wind. He entertains grandiose ideas but can't sustain them for more than a few moments. He engages in pointless antics and gives way to spur-of-the-moment impulses. Though he wails and cries, it's clear he enjoys his degradation. He may be the genius he thinks he is, but could equally well be a charlatan. His contacts with other people are minimal and glancing, and only add to his degraded state. You see life as lived from the bottom, in an atmosphere where desperation acts as a kind of drug.

The book is essentially plotless, and is structured almost symphonically, in four parts (or "movements"). I can imagine a bunch of modern creative-writing types, with their Perfectly Plausible Plots and insistence on the Show-Don't-Tell rule, tearing "Hunger" to pieces. No matter: the rambling, the violent mood swings, and the violation of fictional protocols actually give it strength. Next to most of the novels of its time, "Hunger" must have felt like a blow to the face. A sometimes painful but often exhilarating blow.

"Hunger" is one of those books that most young men probably dream of writing, and which they occasionally manage to pull off. The unnamed narrator stumbles about Christiania (now Oslo), a penniless man of letters, pawning his waistcoat (vest) for a kroner and a half, munching the odd bit of bread, but basically hovering in half-starvation and scheming about brilliant articles that he'll write which will not only enable him to buy food and pay the rent but which will also make his name as one of the best young writers of, etc. etc.

It probably sounds awful. It isn't. It's a masterpiece, if only because there's a curious gap between the experience and the telling of it. The narrator is entirely without self-pity. He never whinges - he curses, he daydreams, he fantasises, but he is always aware of his folly even when he's in the midst of it. This is what gives the book its incredible readability. Everything is portrayed in a crisp, early-morning light, everything is vividly _there_, there's no Holden Caulfield-type nostalgia or sentimental reverie. (During the 1960s, it was made into an incredible film - remarkable for a book which is mostly interior monologue.)

"Hunger" remains a classic not because it was influential or important in the history of the novel, but because it still seems so readable and so true. Hamsun wrote some other books that I'm told are equally good, then declined into mistiness and didacticism, and ended up as a Nazi sympathiser. No matter. This was written in the late 1800s, and is still painfully fresh today, like a shaving cut.

I assume this is Sverre Lyngstad's translation, since he wrote the introduction. I first read the Robert Bly version, but Lyngstad is careful to point out that Bly made hundreds of errors, both great and small. Lyngstad's will be the definitive English version for some time to come.

Please read this amazing novel by Knut Hamsun, but consider purchasing the Sverre Lyngstad translation instead. Robert Bly is a poet with strong opinions, and in many cases his translation of Hamsun's work has little or nothing to do with the orginial. By all means purchase and read Bly's original writings, but if you really want to gain insight into Hamsun's fascinating and idiosynchratic world view, you will be disappointed with this translation.

If you're sitting there thinking of buying this wonderful novel, please do - but make sure you're buying Sverre Lyngstad's translation rather than Robert Bly's (or at least take the time to compare them). Bly's version is probably responsible for most of the interest Hamsun's work has generated among English-speaking readers, but, Lyngstad argues, it's also flawed to the extent of about five errors per page. For those interested in the arcane art of translation, these include: misreadings of idiomatic expressions; literal renderings of metaphors; misreadings of tone; misreadings of homophones; grammatical misconceptions; mistaken or arbitrary word meanings; not to mention a completely botched rendering of the urban geography of Oslo. Now I'm no speaker of Norwegian, but I know this: the more subtle and sophisticated a text is - and Hamsun's is both, to a considerable extent - the more tonal, metaphoric and idiomatic errors in translation will matter. Lyngstad argues that his new version corrects these errors and renders the text in an English much closer to Hamsun's nuanced Norwegian original. It's accompanied (in some editions) by a vehement introductory essay exploring the issue of translation in more detail - worth reading in its own right - and a convincing appendix of examples of where his and Bly's versions differ. Lyngstad's version is available through Penguin or Canongate. You can get the Penguin one here at Amazon - ISBN 0141180641 (if you're not already on that book's page). Paul Auster's engaging essay, "The Art of Hunger", sometimes reprinted in the Bly version, is available in Auster's book of the same name and, presumably, in his "Collected Prose" (available now in the UK and Australia, but not in the USA until March 2005). Auster also offers a nice meditation on translation in his novel "The Book of Illusions."

Here we find the birth of the anti-hero -- Hamsun's protaganist of "Hunger" -- a brilliant and scarcely recognized book. But make no mistake, he is not the anti-hero proudly glorifying his underdog status in the world as we've seen repeatedly throughout the last two centuries. He is not a martyr for the misunderstood eccentric artists of the world. He does not suffer over the far reaching philosophical questions of existence itself. He simply exists in a world that we can relate to. I would contend that men like this really exist; men like Raskolnikov do not. While Dostoevsky feeds on the desire of his reader to project an answer, Hamsun merely mirrors his own experience with honesty and innocence. I am not debating the merit of Dost. at all (he is the superior writer), but expanding upon the hidden attachement we have to characters like these. It's just not an issue for the "Hunger's" protaganist. Here is a man with gifted intelligence for reasoning and the ability to fully comprehend the life he *must* live, but is too shy and bashful to dramatize and romanticize it. He is completely human, living in a world entirely of himself. It is clear that he could make friends and earn a good wage if he chose to. But he does not, not out of the vile contempt for man's vices, but on his own acceptance that this is the man he is. Guilt is the essential problem, not hunger. At over a century old, the novel is a refreshing pleasure to read. The prose is quick without being terse. It is essential reading for anyone interested in a segway into the modernist and avant-garde movement. Not for what Hamsun represents, but for what he doesn't.

Partly autobiographical, this novel describes the life of a borderline genius whose process of writing is only fertile when his stomach's empty. He seems able to touch perfection in his art, but the very element that lends him creativity also inhibits it, as he's too hungry to properly get to work. On better days, he doesn't work either, as his stomach's too full...Hamsun explores the psychological effects of extreme hunger on this young intellectual, and, not unlike his protagonist, he touches perfection in this splendidly written, very short and concise novel that even makes the reader feel hungry. Hamsun's sense of humour is underrated - the book also has rather a lot of comedy to it.

There are a lot of writers that get propelled to classic status and the modern reader is left to ponder why. I have often struggled through so-called classics championed by the academia. I would finish with a dirty feeling that the scholars and critics pulled a fast one on me.

Now, by struggle, I refer not to a challenging read but rather to a work that is dull and seems to offer little reward. Some classics aren't bad but they don't live up to the hype. This made me a bit hesitant when I decided to tackle Norwegian author Knut Hamsun. Henry Miller and Charles Bukowski both raved over Hamsun quite often. This Nobel Prize winning author are received adulation from many other authors and poets I admire.

My expectations were sky high and I wondered if he would live up to all these accolades. I decided to start with his first novel called "Hunger". This book was originally published in 1890. It has a starkness of content that will put off many readers. The nameless narrator endures much frustration and humiliation as he tries to survive. He seeks success as an author but finds failure and rejection throughout. He must scrape for change just to get bread to eat.

There is an autobiographical strain in this novel. Hamsun went through great poverty and struggle in the ten years that precede publication of this book. Some of the experiences in the novel run parallel to Hamsun's own sufferings.

The narrator finds himself pawning clothes or anything of the slightest value. He puts off paying his rent when he can. He even feigns losing his keys to catch a night's sleep in the local jail cell. Several nights are spent sleeping in the woods outside of town.

The book focuses largely on the unconscious instincts and conscious movements of the narrator. He avoids actual work in hopes of literary success. He exists in the society of Christiana but is on the lower fringes. He is a very marginalized figure. He is anti-social--virtually a foreigner in his own land. He is very aware of his intellect and ability but seems almost helpless to do anything about it. He endures his hunger and need with great nonchalance.

But one odd quality of the book is that is not a depressing book. Rarely does the narrator resort to self-pity or whining. He has a shocking acceptance of his marginalization even as he attempts to achieve success. He is grateful when he receives chump change for articles he has written. There is little in the way of hostility toward society or culture.

Hamsun also wrote with a very swift style of prose. He is very direct in his writing. It is said that a trip to America and exposure to American slang helped influence that style. He writes in short sentences and paragraphs. This economy of style is similar to the writings produced by Hemmingway.

"Hunger" proved to be a very rewarding read. Hamsun will not please every reader. Some will be dismayed by the content and the harshness of circumstance. Hamsun will displease liberals because he does not attack society or blame society for his woes. He will also displease conservatives who do not want a 'bum' turned into a hero. Hamsun was very apolitical in his approach to writing.

Henry Miller and Charles Bukowski were right. I was enthralled by most of the book. I found that this now often overlooked masterpiece was worth the effort to track down and read. Anyone seriously interested in literature and its history should read this book. I purchased this book through Amazon.com right after another great purchase, THE LOSERS' CLUB by Richard Perez, about an unlucky writer addicted to the personals. Both are gritty, recommended books. Enjoy!

A butchering, if I may say so, of an outstanding work. Do yourself a favor and pick up the Sverre Lyngstad translation published by Penguin!!!

Published in 1890, "Hunger" represents a breakthrough from traditional romantic European writing. Influenced by Dostoievsky and Nietszche, and anticipating Kafka, Joyce, and Camus, Hamsun creates a novel with intense personal (partially autobiographical) narration (using first and third person), developing on the theme of alienation and artistic obsession. It represents Hamsun'a masterpiece in his first literary production stage, in which social/political issues are of no concern, only the individual and his stream of consciousness.

It is a plot less novel, the setting is Christiana (now Oslo), and the main character is a starving, homeless young journalist, with a mercurial personality. His reactions have no middle term, he moves from extreme joy to acute depression, from arrogance to humility, on the verge of irrationality. It clearly reflects the author's early poverty, his pathological passion with aesthetical beauty, and an enormous driving force to perfect his concept that "language must resound with all the harmonies of music." "Hunger" anticipates Freud and Jung in their understanding of human nature, and creates a new literally hero, the alienated mind.

Of Norwegian nationality, Knut Hamsun won de the Nobel Price for Literature in 1920. In real life he was ostracized by his countrymen and the literary community as a result of his radical individualism, and political/social views. Yes, Hamsun was a convicted Nazi, friend of Hitler and Goebbels, an advocate of the "pure" race (Jews should be expelled from Europe, Blacks should be returned to Africa), and he applauded German invasion of Norway. Neddless to say, when WWII was over, he dearly paid the price: imprisonment, confiscation, and poverty. When he died at the age of 92 (1952) he showed no remorse and helf firmly to his beliefs.

The question arises: to what extent can we separate art from the artist, creation from the creator? Maybe another Nobel Laureate, Isaac Bashevis Singer, himself a Jew, can answer this question for us when he states: "the whole modern school of fiction in the twentieth century stems from Hamsun."

I could not actually say whether this book is "good" or "bad". Furthermore, I am not able to discuss about the necessity of hunger and degradation to pursue art. What I can tell is that reading Hunger is a shocking experience in which the reader cannot avoid wondering why a person should be reduced to such a terrible stage of body and mind just for the sake of...art? Nevertheless, I find his book absolutely worth reading whether it may be upsetting or not.

It is like getting into a dark and narrow tunnel, which becomes narrower and darker with every farther step. It seems as if there's no way out. But sometimes it is: the main character own mind. It is in his mind where the action takes place. The rest of the characters and circumstances within the book are simple devices to stimulate his senses and sensitivity and keep the ball rolling.

Finally, I reached Hamsun through Miller's works. Now I can reach Miller through this disturbing and unforgettable book. It is clear that Hamsun was many years ahead his time. It struck me how modern his writing looks compared to that of other writers of the XX century.