Customer Reviews

Jules et Jim

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a book that I continously recommend to people who like literature. The author does a superb job in showing how everything can be very simple if people abandon their prejudices and preconcieved notions of "how things should be." People create most of their problems themselves - because they cannot accept the fact that there is an alternative. And Roche exposes this brilliantly. The effect is coming not only from the plot of the story (a love tirangle), but also from the incredible simplicity of his writing style. If I remember correct, the author went through numerous revisions until he eliminated all unnecessary words. The only regret that I have is that I don't read French.

This novel taught me so much it sits on my shelf next to To The Lighthouse, A Passage to India, Moby Dick. What I got out of it was the full realization of what it means to tell a story in certain way. Style, voice, and how those translate into words on a page. One striking thing about Roche's way of telling is that he uses so little dialogue, which I think is why the voiceover of Truffaut's great film is so right. It's a story told looking back through the mists of time to before the war before the war, to an ideal friendship in youth. It's a story remembered. Another striking thing is that Roche moves so easily from moment to moment and never stops to "flesh out" a scene that never really needed more than a few lines. He doesn't bog down in his own words, as so many of us do. Really for the first time after reading it, I said to myself, "There's no just telling a story; there's always a question of how." Few novelists really stand apart stylistically, but Roche is one of the few. If you write, this book can teach you something. Take Me With You When You GoNutty to Meet You! Dr. Peanut Book #1

Or, Free Love for the Idle Rich in Early 20th Century Pre-Depression Europe.

This engrossing little book (though it's often tiresome with repetitious dilemmas for the lovers), which is written with a gorgeous economy of words rarely found, is both intriguing and horrifying. I did NOT like the end. If that ending is the result of the open, everything-is-ok kind of love relationship among the principals, then "thanks but no thanks." The ending was a huge shock and terrible let-down.

The story is often hilarious and sad, invigorating and deadening, uplifting and depressing. At its core, "Jules et Jim" is a fairy tale about the ability and the absolute failure of human beings to sustain love of others with even the best of intentions and a clear absence of traditional rules.

All of the characters are immensely flawed human beings, harmed by their world, by each other, by their ingrained personalities and by their moral fiber. Their fervor to love and be loved by any and all, and yet remain judgmental of and ruthless with each other and all others, seems to have no bounds.

The author is to be lauded for his simplicity of style and his consistency. The translation is flawless. Every useless word was removed. Even the use of past-tense description, such as "Jules was excited by the prospect" worked. The minimalist dialogue was wonderful.

The story is fanciful and ethereal. Happiness is correctly shown to be fleeting and brief, something easily killed by indulging it. And, as in all relationships, one of the members loves more than the other. Jim was that one here. Kate, in the end, can only be viewed as psychologically troubled, with a serious set of deep problems. Her malicious manipulation of men was both masterful and horrid. The author writes tellingly about the psychology and pathology of relationships.

There are no explicit sex scenes in the entire book, though at least half the book is devoted to the intimacies between and among the principal players and others they meet along the way.

In a sense this is a cruel story, one filled with a dreamy fantasy on one hand and devastating reality on the other, where almost every scenario developed by the author finally meets an unseemly finale. As so eloquently stated on Page 139, "So, in the end, they had created nothing." Indeed. Italo Calvino would be proud of the biting commentary this book renders on a frail humanity.

There are many beautiful passages and memorable lines. Examples include, Page 67, "Direct personalities see the other person as a whole." Page 120, "In their different ways they were both fruit produced by the tree of the past, a counterpart and counterpoise to each other." Page 158, "All their personal forces were under an eclipse."

The enduring question is, of course, was either Jim or Jules homosexual? Did they ever consummate THEIR love? Was the passion of their enduring friendship based on actual overlapping interests and platonic love, or was there indeed a physical element to it? The author avoids anything directly addressing these questions, whereas, on the other hand, the book is replete with heterosexual love - at least at the prim-and-proper level.

And I ask finally, what do poor people do, who cannot afford the luxury of travel, several homes, staying for 4 weeks or 6 months in an idyllic place, or feeding the mouths of everyone in the household - if they desire something similar to the bourgeoisie lives of Jules et Jim? Are an open relationship, free love, and the full acceptance of each and everyone as equal and valued a privilege for only the rich? How would the author have written this story about very poor people trapped in urban slums or eking out a living on a small farm? Wouldn't the reality of poverty crush the themes inherent in this little story?

Nonetheless, because it is provocative, has a unique style with a minimum of words, and is beautifully written and translated, I think it deserves a 4. I'll have to see the movie again. The first time I saw it I couldn't get past the first 15 minutes!

In the beginning this book seems as if it will be interesting, or scandalous, or something, but it quickly proves to be an endless series of repetititive vignettes about the two title characters and their innumerable attempts to find love, or passion, or a reason to live, or something. The second half of the book is centered mainly on Jim's long affair with Kate, Jules' wife. Jules completely approves of and even facilitates their relationship, so there's really no conflict there. The conflict comes from their innumerable break ups and reconciliations. When I say innumerable, I mean it. After a point I found myself not really caring whether they stayed together or not, but just praying for the relationship to be resolved one way or another so that the descriptions of their silly, melodramatic fights would end. The book is kind of interesting in terms of its style and its commentary on social and moral values in early 20th century Europe, but overall I found it a bit of a bore.