Everything Is Illuminated

Her şey Aydınlandı, yarı otobiyografik bir eser. Yazar Jonathan Safran Foer’in bizzat karakterlerden biri olarak karşımıza çıktığı roman, Foer’in İkinci Dünya Savaşı’ndan karısı ve çocuğunu arkasında, Ukrayna’da bırakıp, bir arkadaşının yardımıyla ABD’ye kaçarak burada yeni bir hayat kuran dedesinin geçmişinin peşine düşmesiyle gelişen olayları anlatıyor. Bu yolculukta Foer’e rehberlik ve çevirmenlik yapan, Ukraynalı bir genç, Alex’in de eşlik etmesiyle, kurgunun büyük bölümünü bu yol hikayesi ile ikilinin mektuplaşmaları oluşturuyor. Bir yandan da Foer, birkaç asır öncesinden başlayarak, o zaman Ukrayna’nın bir köyünde yaşayan ailesinin hikayesini, dönemin inançları, yaşayışları ve çekilen acıları da dahil ettiği, Marquez’in anımsatan şekilde gerçeküstü unsurlarla bezeli bir masal tadında anlatıyor.

Konu oldukça tanıdık aslında ama hikayenin aktarılma şekli romanı çok özel bir yere taşıyor. Postmodern edebiyatın en iyi ve yaratıcı örneklerinden biri bana göre. Foer kurgu içinde kurgu tekniğiyle iç içe geçmiş iki hikayeyi (Foer’in ailesinin kuşaklar öncesinde Ukrayna’nın bir köyünde başlayan hikayesi ve günümüzde geçen, dedesinin geçmişinin peşine düşmesinin hikayesi) iki anlatıcıyla aktarırken, zamanın bükülmesi aracılığıyla da adeta klasik romanda her şeyi bilen Tanrı anlatıcının rolünü üstlenen bir yazar karakter olarak kendini kurguya dahil ediyor. Teleskopla uzaya bakıp, şimdiki eylemlerinin yansımalarını asırlar sonrasında, farklı mekanlarda görme metaforu -romandaki diğer birçok metafor gibi- çok başarılıydı. Böyle dâhiyane inşa edilmiş kurguyla, tarihten kimsenin elinin temiz çıkmadığını, tarihin aslında elimizdeki bu kirin sürekli kendini farklı zaman ve mekanlarda tekrarlamasından başka bir şey olmadığını ve bizim de bu gerçekle yüzleşip yine de yaşamaya devam etmek zorunda olduğumuzu gösteriyor. Foer’in zekasına ve yaratıcılığına hayran kaldım. Romanı sadece 21 yaşında kaleme aldığını öğrenmek ayrıca heyecanlandırdı beni. Postmodern edebiyat seviyorsanız mutlaka tavsiye ederim.

Inedit modul de naratiune - de la umorul si naivitatea din scrisorile lui Alex, la realismul magic din pasajele lui Jonathan, am trecut prin toate starile si am descoperit pe parcurs o (posibila) istorie de familie, cu traditii si mituri locale, iubiri si tradari, regrete si speranta.

,,Asta inseamna iubire, nu? gandea ea. Cand observi absenta cuiva si urasti acea absenta mai mult decat orice altceva? Mai mult chiar decat ii iubesti prezenta?"

Premesso che non sono una lettrice facile al riso, devo ammettere che questo libro mi ha regalato momenti di autentico divertimento.
Non mancano, a mio avviso, alcuni difetti che ne limitano la chiarezza, specie nelle parti del racconto delle vicende del passato; o alcuni eccessi, ad esempio nell'insistenza su particolari raccapriccianti e un po' irritanti.
Tuttavia il romanzo è molto originale ed il personaggio di Alex particolarmente riuscito. Con la sua ingenuità ed il suo ingarbugliato e irresistibile linguaggio, mi ha conquistato, commosso e fatto ridere fino alle lacrime.

You can tell in different ways to say about sad and scary things so much that the consciousness refuses to perceive them but if it is important not just to say, but to be heard, perfect seriousness is not the most successful. People avoid information that can unsettle them for a long time, upset their mental balance, and make them suffer. Compassion and empathy provoke emotional discomfort, which we are ready to accept at a specially designated time for this: "This is a hard movie / book, I cried so much," - once every six months or a year. The rest of the time, entertain us.

Let the phrase in the epigraph not seem the most elegant, it is an intentional device associated with the peculiarity of the structure of the book. Epic, serious, dramatic and unbearably sick fragments from the history of the Jewish village of Trachimbrod in Ukraine are neatly wrapped and laid here with comical episodes of the epic of an American who came to worship the graves of his ancestors. And his Ukrainian Russian-speaking guide, who considers himself also English-speaking, which confidence serves as a source of much fun for readers.

Because the effect of a damaged phone, directly related to various kinds of translation difficulties, amuses us almost on a par with slipping on a banana peel or even the word "ass", which for some reason is out of competition in the humorous genre. The American Jonathan Foer (the coincidence of the names of the author and the hero is one of the unusual features of the book) first needs to find his native ashes. Here the idiom should be taken literally. During the war, the Germans first turned a Jewish village into a ghetto, driving Jews from all the surrounding towns there, and then killed everyone. And so, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, the grandson of the sole survivor comes to find the woman who saved his grandfather then.

И все осветилось
Юмор - единственный правдивый способ рассказать печальный рассказ.
Так и есть, о вещах грустных и страшных настолько, что сознание отказывается их воспринимать, можно рассказывать разными способами, но если важно не просто сказать, а быть услышанным, совершенная серьезность не самый удачный. Люди избегают информации, которая может надолго выбить из колеи, нарушить душевное равновесие, заставить страдать. Сострадание и сопереживание провоцируют эмоциональный дискомфорт, который мы готовы принимать в специально отведенное для этого время: "Это тяжелый фильм/книга, я так плакал(а)", - раз в полгода-год. В остальное время развлеките нас.

Пусть фраза в эпиграфе не кажется самой изящной, это намеренный прием, связанный с особенностью структуры книги. Эпичные, серьезные, драматические и невыносимо больные фрагменты из истории еврейской деревни Трахимброд на Украине аккуратно обернуты и проложены здесь комичными эпизодами эпопеи американца, приехавшего поклониться могилам предков. И его украинского русскоговорящего гида, который сам себя считает еще и англоговорящим, каковая уверенность служит источником много��о веселья для читателей.

Потому что эффект испорченного телефона, напрямую связанный с разного рода трудностями перевода, веселит нас едва ли не наравне с оскальзыванием на банановой кожуре или даже словом "жопа", которое почему-то вне конкуренции в юмористическом жанре. Американцу Джонатану Фоеру (совпадение имен автора и героя - одна из необычностей книги) прежде нужно разыскать родные пепелища. Зздесь идиому стоит понимать буквально. Во время войны немцы сначала превратили еврейскую деревню в гетто, согнав туда иудеев со всех окрестных городов, а потом убили всех. И вот, в начале двадцать первого века внук единственного выжившего приезжает, чтобы разыскать женщину, которая спасла тогда его деда.

А поскольку ни русским, ни украинским он не владеет, то решает воспользоваться услугами частной конторы "Туры наследия", специализирующейся на организации сопровождения с трансфером и переводом для еврейских эмигрантов. Отец, глава семейной фирмы, перманентно в объятьях зеленого змия, потому везти туриста на раздолбанных фамильных жигулях выпадает дедушке (слепому) и семнадцатилетнему внуку Саше, который мечтает уехать в Америку, закончить там бухгалтерскую школу, преуспеть и зажить достойной своих амбиций жизнью, прячет неуверенность в себе за бравадой,любит прихвастнуть, выдавая желаемое за действительное, и, в общем, тот еще словотворец.

Их уморительно смешные дорожные приключения, а после не менее забавные письма, которыми Алекс пишет Джонатану, занимают значительный объем толстенького шестисотстраничного тома, и да, это необходимо, потому что без такой перебивки трагедия Трахимброда была бы невыносима. И здесь нельзя не сказать о восхитительном переводе Василия Арканова, он и с первой книгой Фоера "Жутко громко и запредельно близко" был хорош, но там не было таких семантических игр, основанных на неверном словоупотреблении самоучки, сначала раздражающем, а после обретшем странное очарование.

И этими двумя линиями "Полная иллюминация" не исчерпывается.Потому что по сути это еврейская книга, вмещающая историю Трахимброда от начала до конца в совершенно макондовом стиле "Ста лет одиночества" с поправкой на национальный и географический колорит. История прекрасной Брод образец украино-еврейского магического реализма, достойный восхищения. Но и это еще не все, линия фриковатой семьи Алекса, которая поначалу кажется решенной в исключительно фарсовом ключе, внезапно взрывается высокой трагедией и ты, читатель, просто не знаешь, куда смотреть, что запоминать, чему отдать предпочтение.

Все хорошо в этой книге, и замечательно, что я наконец прочла ее. Чего и вам желаю.

I watched the movie of this first and loved it. It was basically a movie about cultural misunderstanding and how people can be cruel without really knowing it. It is a story about what happens when you put an American and someone born out of the Soviet era in the same room and try to make them explain to one another why the other one thinks the way they do. In a word: hilarious.

After reading the book, I still like the movie, but it seems obvious to me that the filmmakers missed the point entirely. The book, while still a hilarious exploration of an American immersed in post-Soviet culture, is so much deeper and weirder.

The story is (sort of) about the author, Jonathan Safran Foer. He is an aspiring writer in his early 20s who travels to Ukraine to try to find the small Jewish village of Trachimbrod where his grandfather grew up and to find the woman who helped him escape the Nazis during the war. He speaks no Ukrainian or Russian, and his only maps of the area are 60 years old, so he enlists the help of Alexander, an Odessa native of about the same age, his blind grandfather, who acts as their driver (if you have read any modern Russian literature you will understand not to question this kind of thing) and their deranged seeing-eye bitch Sammy Davis Junior, Junior.

Half of the story (the half on which the movie is based) is ostensibly written by Alex. He write in English with an accent, in that (I assume) it was written, then rewritten by looking up every third word in the thesaurus and replacing it with the least appropriate synonym. This section is a humorous, touching, narrative touching on the nature of friendship, grief and regret, among other things. It is accessible and easy to understand.

The other half (which is entirely ignored by the movie) is written by Jonathan, and covers the history of the village from the day it got its name in 1791 until its destruction by the Nazis in 1941, following the exploits of his ancestors. All of these sections have a very surreal quality. They jump around in time, different eras have glimpses into the past and future. Everything that happens is completely bizarre and makes no sense. It explores much more difficult topics, such as the nature of life, love, and art, and is in general much more philosophical and harder to get your head around.

These sections are split by letters from Alexander to Jonathan commenting on Jonathan's sections and introducing his own next section.

The weird thing about this book is that, at least for me, it gets frustrating to read the author's crazy attempts at philosophy. He wanders around so much, it seems like he is trying to write a little mini-story for every emotion he's every experienced in his entire life. Normally, I would discard a book like this and say, "Well, it's a young author's overeager first attempt, and he tried to cover too much." However, there are so many parts in Alex's letters and narrative where these things are addressed (once Jonathan says something like, "I want to be a writer, but I'm not good yet.") and Alex asks a lot of questions like Why do you write like this? and Why did you have the characters do that? The incoherence of it all becomes a part of the greater logic of the novel, which in turn provides an answer to the question, "Why did Jewish people stay in Poland and Ukraine when they knew the Nazis were coming?" This books answer, I imagine, would be, "Because nothing anyone did in the village's 150 year history made sense, why should they have done the sensible thing in 1941?"

The book is hilarious, moving and disturbing among other things. I can't help but be annoyed by its weird narrative and pointless philosophical musings, but given that it bathes itself in its own strangeness, it raises itself up and becomes a pretty awesome book.

‘Love me, because love doesn't exist, and I have tried everything that does’

I adore this book. It's original, funny and touching. After many years since reading it I still find myself thinking about parts of it. It's definitely a book to be read and reread.

Probably in the top 3 best books I've read in the past 5 years. It is not an easy book to read, and it is at times bizarre and vaguely offensive. But it is also hearbreaking and heartwarming and funny and thought-provoking.

Throughout the novel, Jonathan is referred to as the "hero" by Sasha/Alex, but I believe that Sasha ends up being the real hero. I don't think that Jonathan becomes some sort of terrible person, but it is telling that Jonathon and Sasha stop writing to each other. I believe it is because Sasha has come away with a much deeper understanding of himself from their trip, while Jonathan seems to have mostly come away with good writing material. Sasha becomes so angry with Jonathon's story because it is not truthful in the way that Sasha is truthful. Jonathan wants to take pieces of what he knows for sure, and embellish and expound and fictionalize it to make enticing fiction. In doing so, he does make his grandfather out to be a pretty bizarre person, taking only his supposition that his grandfather had a dead arm and a lot of teeth as a baby, and looking through his journal, and then making up this whole ridiculous story about how the Safran had affairs with over 2,000 women because they were strangely attracted to the dead arm. Sasha, on the other hand, comes away from the trip with a better understanding of, and deeper love for, his grandfather, and a commitment to truth. He realizes the value of truth in seeing what his grandfather had to live with and in coming clean on certain aspects of his life. For instance, he admits that he is a virgin, though he boasted in the beginning of how many women he was "carnal" with. And he is not especially tall, as he also boasted about in the beginning. He also embraces his love for Ukraine, giving his savings away and deciding to stay there and take care of his family. And he is finally able to stand up to his drunken father and banish him from the family.

So, I believe that the title refers to the way the past illuminates the present, and the present illuminates the past. But differently for our two "heroes". For Jonathan, he has found the material he needs to become the writer he believes he was born to be. For Sasha, he has found the truth he needs to become the man he wants to be. You could argue the value of each. Jonathan writes everything down, documents the names on all of Lista's boxes, reads guidebooks on properly dealing with Ukrainians. Sasha listens to the stories, takes it all in, doesn't think to worry about each little detail to remember forever. Sasha is more concerned with understanding the heart of the truth, in short, while Jonathon wants the material to use later.

In one final thought, I remember that Ernest Hemingway was mentioned at some point in the novel, I believe by Sasha in talking about Jonathan becoming a great American writer. I took an American Lit class in which we discussed the novel Garden of Eden by Hemingway, and the way in which Hemingway addressed the guilt of the writer who puts themselves and those they love in emotionally reckless positions in order to create good writing material. I just thought it was interesting that his name comes into this novel because of Jonathan's intentions. Not that Jonathan creates any sort of emotionally reckless situation, but he in some way sells out his family history in order to write an interesting book.

On a side note, don't see the movie if you want it to be like the book. The movie felt like the screenwriter thoroughly read the first half of the book, and then skimmed the rest in about 8 minutes and threw the movie together from that. I felt like it missed everything that was important about the story.

I think Jonathan Safron Foer (sp?)is greatly overrated.

I felt like he was constantly saying, "ooh, aren't i smart, isn't that clever? do you like that?" he was too close to his material somehow.

I also felt compelled after reading this to do some writing of my own. His voice is being heard, now, where's a voice that i feel speaks for me, for my experience. hopefully that will yet happen!

tt