dnf.
I trieddddd but my time is precious and my tbr pile is high.
Anyone that writes chapters consistently over 20 pages long needs to be slapped - I’m a millennial gal that needs constant engagement and this just was not it. I literally slipped into a coma last night trying to give it one last go and I’ve only just recovered…

People kept telling me how amazing this book was, and I didn't think it would live up to the hype. But it absolutely did. It's amazing.

Someone once told me he felt this was the perfect novel. I think he might be right.

Great great book. One of the characters early on says, as strange as a world that makes him slave to a white man, "God had indeed set it twirling and twisting every which way when he put black people owning their own kind." Not much I can say that hasn't been said by many other reviewers, and probably the Pulitzer Prize committee, but this is a clear-eyed book about slavery in the 1850s about the moral bankruptcy that allowed it to happen and that it engendered. This novel is not a page turner and you would do yourself a disservice if you did not take the time to savor every sentence, every bit of dialogue. The novel is also an architectural wonder, apparently seamlessly flowing from story to story, the result of meticulous crafting. Even though the setting is slavery, the novel is also about the things that divide us and unite us, constrained by artficiality - slavery - or not. The themes are epic - tragedy within the larger tragedy, betrayal, ambition, unwarranted brutality, striving for a better life or to be a better person, grace arising from adapting to circumstances, disappointment in children, true love, and forgiveness. Each character is fully inhabited. I only have to look at the cover of the book, one I do not want to part with, and they and their fates - because the author has created one for each one - immediately come rushing back to me. Read this book!

This was a great book, very well written and an interesting read. Tackling the complex morale issues surrounding slavery from a new perspective, this book delves into the territory of black owners of slaves. Without preaching, the author successfully navigates barbaric treatments and offers a view into the mental justifications and rationalizations. Characters of great strength, courage and resilience are interspersed on both sides of the issue, as are truly terrible individuals.

The author continuously introduces new, inter-related characters which means he constantly has to remind us of who someone is. While a bit extraneous, it didn't detract from the book. This isn't a traditional "story book" where you follow someone's life. The author jumps around from past, present and future glimpses to facilitate quick character development. The downside to this was there weren't "cliff hangers" at the end of chapters that kept me reading non-stop.

I recommend this highly as a quality book. It definitely makes you think about how the human psyche can be manipulated, and how laws of the land and society can be used to justify behaviors.

I know this is a critically acclaimed book, a Pulitzer winner, and a book tackling a difficult and complex stain on America history: slavery and black slave owners. There are moments when the book does say some interesting things or reveal some unsavory and uncomfortable truths, but it was so hard to engage with as a reader. I mean, I hung in with DFW through the first 600 pages of Infinite Jest where nothing happens -- but because I was fascinated by Hal, Orin, Marathe, Steeply, and Mario and Madame Psychosis who all fascinated me. There were literally dozens of other characters but these all pulled me in. In The Known World, there are also dozens of characters but none that I grew any attachment too. It was as if the author Jones was using a hand-held camera and no stabilizer so that the images were jumpy and out of focus. It reminded me sometimes of how the world seems to my myopic eyes between taking off my glasses in the morning and putting in my contact lenses.

The narration also highly annoyed me. All the parenthetical "in 60 years so and so will do such as such" were meaningless because I was given neither enough time nor enough detail to give a shit. Further, there is this reference to "years later they would all turn into human torches in front of the dry foods store", but no mention afterwards of to what this referred. But the most annoying bit was in using the Canadian journalist frame at about page 130 or so (which then only briefly appears in the narrative 200 pages later in a parenthetical throwaway comment, it is said that the journalist would never marry his heart's desire yet 3 pages later, they marry and that coming to talk to Fern that there was some incomprehensible stuff that happens off-screen that morning (also never adequately explained) and so she was not going to open up to the journalist and yet we still find her filling in details about Henry, Moses and Caledonia 30 pages later. Too much inconsistency - was the editor asleep or stoned and missed these?

So, despite taking on a complex subject, Jones is no Faulkner as his South does not eve approach that of the Great William. He is not as good as Pynchon or DFW is manipulating time and space in a narrative that was 100 or 150 pages too long and felt it, and he is not Alice Walker or Toni Morrison who brought us the most amazing, poignant, and powerful images of slavery and its residual impacts generations later that I have ever read. So, read Beloved or Absalom, Absalom if you want to hear about the South and I expect you will be less frustrated, but every bit enraged at this deplorable institution that is a cancer on the American past.

Disappointing. I so much wanted to like this. One star for disjointed writing and three for what I learned about the period* for an overall generous two considering how hard it was to follow. I don’t have to like the characters when I read a story but as the author is their creator I like to sense that at least s/he does. So many acclaimed modern authors seem preoccupied with power and domination rather than love. Presumably that is what they value... But can a preference for power ever substitute for genuine love? Isn’t the former like spiritual slavery, whereas latter akin to freedom in the fullest sense of the word?

*Blacks in the antebellum South who gained their freedom become slave holders themselves; because slavery was so entrenched in the economy it was almost (but not entirely) impossible to conduct business without ‘servants’, i.e., the euphemism for slaves. Most freed blacks depicted in this story tried—at least initially—to treat their slaves differently than they had been treated by whites. The honesty in the story was in their discovery that the slavery system itself made human decency more difficult than they ever thought it would be. This theme was not developed.

Beautiful, interesting, and haunting.

[3.5]

Allora qua c'è un problema. L'inizio. L'inizio di questo libro è incomprensibile.
Lo stile è confusionario e come se non bastasse ci sono nomi su nomi e tu ti ritrovi a non capire nulla, a non capire chi ha fatto cosa, cosa sta succedendo a questo ma poi chi è questo? da dove salta fuori? ma non era morto? o era vivo e non ho capito? o sto facendo confusiona tra presente passato futuro e congiuntivo? Ecco. Mi facevo un giro in lavatrice e ne uscivo meno confusa.

Poi un po' alla volta le cose si assestano. Mi sono capita con i nomi e con lo stile, soprattutto lo stile ora della fine è quello che mi ha infastidito meno. La questione troppi personaggi secondo me rimane. A una certa non ho più avuto problemi nel distinguerli, ma non mi fregava nulla di nessuno. C'è stato un momento in cui sono rimasta male per una cosa che è successa, ma di base questo libro non mi ha fatto affezionare a nessuno e questo rimane un grande difetto per quelli che sono i miei gusti.

Di libri sul tema ce ne sono tanti, questo secondo me non è tra i migliori, nonostante abbia vinto il Pulitzer.

Edward P. Jones' Bold Vision of "The Known World"

This story would have been exciting enough based only on the fact that Edward P. Jones so boldly took the antebellum novel to a place it has never gone before; namely, to black slave-owner Henry Townsend's plantation in Manchester, Virginia. There, the "Known World" is wholly different from what one might expect. But this seemingly obviously absurd anomaly of U.S. history, wherein black masters owned black slaves, doesn’t stop with that rarely discussed fact. It is further illuminated by Jones' flights into the fantastic with observations of sentient lightning, children with the personalities of bitter grandparents, and, comically enough, freak chickens.

Mixed within this potent literary brew are some of the most original and dynamic characters, male and female, ever to step into the pages of American fiction. In fact, one of the more remarkable features of Jones’ amazing novel is his portrayal of how specific individuals sometimes managed to exploit the institution of slavery in order to indulge their own private needs, quirks, or agendas.

It's true that the alternating biblical density and epic expansiveness of details and events with which Jones builds his narrative can at times prove challenging. However, this same aesthetic ultimately delivers a triumphant satisfaction. Jones' Pulitzer--and any other awards received for this novel--was well earned and deserved.

by Author-Poet Aberjhani
author of "Encyclopedia of the Harlem Renaissance" (Facts on File Library of American History)
and "The Wisdom Of W.E.B. Du Bois" (Wisdom Library)

The Known World, Edward P. Jones
The Known World is a 2003 historical novel by Edward P. Jones. Set in Virginia during the antebellum era, it examines the issues regarding the ownership of black slaves by both white and black Americans.
تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز سوم ماه ژوئن سال 2017 میلادی
عنوان: دنیای آشنا؛ نویسنده: ادوارد پی. جونز؛ مترجم: شیرین معتمدی؛ تهران، شورآفرین، 1394؛ در 389 ص، شابک: 9786006955049؛ موضوع: درباره دنیای سیاهان امریکای سده نوزدهم میلادی از نویسندگان سده 21 م
داستان «دنیای آشنا»، درباره ی دنیای سیاهان، در آمریکای سده ی نوزدهم میلادی ست. داستان، در سال 1855 میلادی، در مزرعه ی مرد سیاه‌پوستی به نام: «هِنری تاونسند»، می‌گذرد. او یک برده به دنیا آمده، اما حالا یک ارباب است. اربابِ سیاه، به آینده ای با مزرعه ی پنجاه هکتاری، و با سی‌ و سه برده ی سیاه می‌اندیشد. او با برده‌ هایش، همان برخورد را دارد، که اربابِ سفیدپوستش «ویلیام رابینز» با خود او داشت. واژه های داستان با دو شخصیت می‌چرخند: «هنری تاونسند»، اربابِ سیاه، و برده ی سیاه او: «موسا»، هرچند شخصیت اصلی داستان را میتوان «هنری تاونسند» برشمرد، اما او قهرمان رمان نیست، زیرا ویژگی‌های یک قهرمان را ندارد، بلکه شخصیت محوری داستان است، که از زوایای مختلف، مورد کنکاش قرار می‌گیرد. در کنار زندگی «تاونسند»، قصه‌ های عاشقانه، و کمدی شخصیت‌های دیگر نیز، طی چند دهه، روایت می‌شود. «جان فریمن»، منتقد «ایندیپندنت»، درباره ی «جونز» و شاهکارش، می‌نویسد: «جونز در دنیایی آشنا از سبکی موجز بهره می‌گیرد، و هرچه داستان پیش می‌رود، ریتم آن نیز تندترمی‌شود، و لحن نویسنده نیز جان می‌گیرد. «جونز» چنان با زبان بازی می‌کند، و گاه در خلال داستان، گریزی پرشور به گذشته، و آینده‌ می‌زند، که به‌ گونه ای خیره‌ کننده، توان تسلط بر قلمش را به رخ خوانشگر می‌کشد. و چنان آگاهیش را، با شکیبایی درمی‌آمیزد، که به راستی چیزی کم از معجزه ندارد.». «هارپر پرننیال»، منتقد «گاردین» نیز، درباره این شاهکار می‌نویسد: «خواندن دنیای آشنا آسان نیست، اما یک تجربه قدرتمند و فراموش‌ ناشدنی است.». ا. شربیانی

Fino a circa la metà di questo libro sono stata costantemente sull’orlo dell’abbandono, ho proseguito per puro spirito di abnegazione.
Il problema principale è stata la mia incapacità di distinguere tra la miriade di personaggi presenti fin da subito, e che per altro non vengono minimamente diversificati tra loro con descrizioni di sorta, e i continui balzi temporali (anche di molti decenni) all’interno dello stesso paragrafo.
Tutto ciò contribuiva a rendere la narrazione caotica, confusionaria, frammentata e di conseguenza il mio interesse pari a zero per le sorti della vicenda e di tutti i protagonisti coinvolti.

A un certo punto però sono riuscita (non so se per mio merito o per intento preciso dell’autore - propendo per la seconda-) a districarmi in questo mare magnum di persone ed eventi e il libro è divenuto sorprendentemente e del tutto inaspettatamente gradevole, tanto che ci ho messo 19 giorni a leggere le prima 250 pagine e 2 giorni le restanti 250.

Credo che alla fine l’obiettivo di Jones fosse quello di presentarti questa moltitudine di schiavi come una massa indistinguibile ed invisibile, come le mucche, le vanghe, i secchi: oggetti (con i quali è impossibile empatizzare) per poi lentamente presentarteli come persone uguali a te e a quel punto l’effetto è duplice; infatti non solo ho empatizzato parecchio (soprattutto la storyline che coinvolge Augustus mi ha inumidito gli occhi) ma mi sono anche sentita in colpa per come ho disprezzato tutti quanti e mi ero annoiata fino a dieci pagine prima.

Mi piace pensare che tutto questo sia voluto e che qui risiedano i motivi di un Pulitzer a un libro che a parte questo, a conti fatti, non regge però il confronto con quasi tutti i libri che lo hanno vinto prima.

Le tre stelle per onestà intellettuale sono una media ponderata del mio personale gradimento tra la prima e la seconda parte.