⚫️ “Čia, Sent Klaude, visuomenės nėra - nėra galimybės rinktis, lyginti, kas geriau ar blogiau, kuri bemaž visada būna bet kokioje visuomenėje. Čia viskas paprasčiau, nes tai, ką turi pasirinkti, arba akivaizdu, arba išvis nepriklauso nuo tavo valios. Tačiau kaip tik dėl to, kad čia beveik nėra pasirinkimo laisvės, našlaičiai taip veržiasi į visuomenę - bet kokią"

⚫️ "Sent Klaude to, kas augdavo, ir netgi kas gimdavo, niekam nereikėjo - gimimo vyksmas dažnai būdavo nutraukiamas. O dabar Homeras buvo užsiėmęs visa ko auginimu. Jam patiko gyventi Vandenyno Vaizdo soduose, nes čia viskas buvo panaudojama, viskas reikalinga."

Nell'orfanotrofio di St. Cloud's il dottor Wilbur Larch si occupa di svolgere sia il "Lavoro del Signore" (far nascere bambini, che spesso verranno lasciati in orfanotrofio) che il "Lavoro del diavolo" (far abortire illegalmente donne che hanno deciso di non avere i loro bambini, evitando che si mettano nelle mani di macellai) Siamo nel Maine negli anni che vanno dal 193... al 195... Nel libro si fa vedere come William Larch sia giunto a questa decisione di infrangere la legge pur di dare alle donne il diritto di scegliere.
Il protagonista del libro, Homer Wells, è un ragazzo cresciuto nell'orfanotrofio che il Dr. Larch addestra per farne il proprio successore. Solo che Homer, essendo un orfano molto sensibile, è contrario a praticare l'aborto, per cui, dopo anni di addestramento, all'improvviso decide di seguire una coppia arrivata a St. Cloud's proprio per un aborto, in una piantagione di mele vicino al mare. Intanto il Dr. Larch fa di tutto per evitare che Homer Wells - che considera come un figlio - debba partire in guerra. Durante il periodo in cui vive a Ocean View (la piantagione di mele), Homer compie studi per diventare medico (che abbandona, perché si accorge che il professore a cui dovrebbe affidare la propria istruzione ne sa meno di lui, che ha studiato su numerosi libri e appunti del Dr. Larch) e presta servizio come aiuto infermiere nell'Ospedale di Capo Kenneth (anche in questo caso, si rende conto di essere più efficiente dei medici in quanto a somministrazione di etere (il Dr. Larch è un esperto e, tra l'altro, ne è dipendente, tanto che una dose di etere gli sarà fatale.) e di punti di sutura. Inoltre tornerà a St. Cloud's per un breve periodo e il lettore continuerà a seguire la vita all'orfanotrofio e gli sforzi del Dr. Larch per mantenere in piedi la sua piccola ma illegale opera umanitaria.
I temi trattati in questo romanzo sono molteplici: aborto, prima di tutto, ma anche maternità, paternità, prostituzione e malattie veneree, pornografia, omosessualità, tradimento, incesto, dipendenza dalle droghe, razzismo. Ma soprattutto si parla di scelte; scelte che a volte sono obbligate, ma anche scelte da prendere liberamente, per amore, per rabbia. Scelte ponderate o impulsive. E scelte da evitare o da rimandare, scelte dell'aspettare-poi-si-vedrà. E scelte di infrangere deliberatamente o incoscientemente le regole, sia della casa del sidro, che della vita.

"Se l’aborto fosse legale, tu potresti rifiutarti - anzi, date le tue convinzioni, dovresti rifiutare di eseguirli. Ma dal momento che sono contro la legge, come puoi dire di no? Come puoi riservarti il diritto di scelta in materia quando vi son tante e tante donne che non hanno la libertà di scegliere, esse stesse? Le donne non hanno scelta. So che sai che non è giusto, ma come puoi, tu – proprio tu, fra tutti – COME PUOI RITENERTI LIBERO DI SCEGLIERE DI NON AIUTARE CHI NON È LIBERO DI OTTENERE ALTRO AIUTO? Tu devi aiutarle perché sai come fare. Pensa, chi le aiuterebbe se ti rifiuti tu?" (tratto da una lettera di Wilbur Larch a Homer Wells)

Le descrizioni delle procedure ginecologiche e ostetriche, oltre a vari aneddoti medici sono sempre accuratissimi. Il nonno di John Irving era un medico e in più lui si è avvalso della consulenza di numerosi medici per la terminologia, tanto che pure il traduttore si è dovuto avvalere di un consulente medico per essere preciso allo stesso modo.
Sono debitore a mio nonno, dottor Frederick C. Irving, per questa informazione riguardante il dottor Ernst, il lanciatore di palle curve – e per il linguaggio medico di tutto questo capitolo. Mio nonno è autore di diversi libri di medicina fra cui Il manuale della partoriente e un testo scolastico di Ostetricia. Gli studi del dottor Ernst sulle infezioni batteriche attrassero l’attenzione di un certo dottor Richardson del Boston Lying-In Hospital (maternità) dove Wilbur Larch prestò servizio. L’articolo di Richardson su L’uso di antisettici nella pratica ostetrica certamente attrasse l’attenzione di quel volenteroso studente di batteriologia, Wilbur Larch, sofferente di scolo.

Allo stesso modo, Irving è altrettanto meticoloso per quando riguarda la raccolta delle mele, dal momento che ha lavorato in prima persona in un frutteto.
Il linguaggio, a volte, appare crudo, così come alcuni degli argomenti, ma proprio per questo è tutto molto realistico.

One of my favorite books.

A narrative can be an effective way to make a social statement, and that is certainly Irving's intention here. The story is meant to convince the reader that abortion should be legal.

But I expect Irving's story only serves to affirm those who already agree with that stance.

For one thing, Irving greatly misrepresents the realities of abortion. Rather than being clean and painless, even modern abortions involve tearing a living fetus apart. And Irving would have the reader believe that abortions are primarily sought by women who have suffered rape, abuse and incest, but the reality is that such cases account for a very small percentage of abortions each year.

For another thing, Irving attempts to compromise with those who oppose abortion by suggesting that they can allow it to be legal while refusing to be involved in it themselves. But such overt philosophically hypocrisy is enough to to make Kant roll over in his grave. And it also shows a profound lack of understanding about the convictions of those who do oppose abortion.

Beyond these rhetorical and philosophical considerations, the story is poorly written. The characters are unlikeable, they aren't given a goal to strive for, and they never grow or change as they develop. The plot is also unnecessarily slow.

In short, the book is overly didactic, intellectually dishonest and poorly written.

Šta su to pravila i ko ih propisuje? Da li svi mi živimo u skladu sa našim, ili isključivo poštujemo tuđa pravila? Zbog čega imamo sklonost ka otporu prema napisanim pravilima, dok ona nenapisana nesvesno sprovodimo u delo? I koliki je udeo inata u svemu tome?

Komotno bih mogla ceo prikaz ove knjige da koncipiram kao zbirku pitanja koja su mi nadolazila tokom čitanja. To je stvar sa Irvingom. On ne pušta svoje čitaoce da budu nezainteresovani, da zevaju ili gledaju na drugu stranu. A o preskakanju rečenica i čitanju bez koncentracije da ne govorim.

U intervjuu koji je izašao u 13. broju Laguninog časopisa Bukmarker, Irving je dao nekoliko genijalnih izjava koje su me primarno pogurale da krenem sa čitanjem njegovih gromada od knjiga. Naime, pored toga što je rekao da mu je omiljen lik iz svih njegovih knjiga upravo doktor Vilbur Larč, jedan od nosilaca „Tuđih pravila“, Irving je na pitanje ko su mu najmanje omiljeni likovi, odgovorio da, ako ih je zadržao u romanu, znači da su mu se dopali, dok je na pitanje „Šta bi čitalac Džon Irving rekao piscu Džonu Irvingu“, odgovorio „Je l može to malo kraće?“

Pored navedenog, mom dvadesetdvodnevnom čitanju njegovih (ili naših?) „Tuđih pravila“, u kom su poglavlja od po stotinjak stranica koncipirana kao otpočete i završene priče sa međusobnim poveznicama, doprineo je i Irvingov čitalački ukus i činjenica da obožava Dikensa i „Džejn Ejr“, Šarlot Bronte.

Odmah da kažem, Irving je jako, jako specifičan. Ili potpuno zavolite njegovu ekscentričnost, lucidnost, inteligenciju, sarkazam i humor, ili ga zamrzite zbog njegovog vrlo čestog rasplinjavanja, preteranog detaljisanja i potpuno neočekivanih tabu digresivnih momenata (ne znam na koji drugi način da dočaram njegovu sposobnost da u tekst unese nekakav tabu vajb koji nikakve veze nema sa samom radnjom, a opet taj isti vajb uspe da provuče kroz ceo roman krajnje neopažano).

Kad sam počela da čitam „Tuđa pravila“, prva pomisao posle nekih 30ak stranica bila mi je: „Okej, ovaj čovek piše kao kad se vozim autobusom pa mi navire gomila misli u istom trenutku koje su primarno nepovezane, ali suštinski imaju neku sponu“. E takav je on, apsolutno nepredvidiv. Vi ni u jednom trenutku ne znate šta će sledeće da se desi, koji lik je važan, koji događaj treba upamtiti.

Ni u jednom njegovom obrtu, raspletu, zapletu nema ni trunke senzacionalizma, što je potpuno i očekivano nakon njegove izjave da romane ne čita da bi bio iznenađen ili šokiran. Da, Irving piše o šokantnim temama, poput abortusa u doba kad je bio masovno zabranjivan, incesta, nasilja u porodici i slično; ali stvar je u tome što on ni o čemu ne govori na šokantan način. Nije mu cilj da sablazni svog čitaoca, niti da mu ponudi otrežnjenje. Ne, njegov cilj je da svoje čitaoce natera da razmišljaju, da se unesu u priču, da ih zanima svaki detalj ma koliko on u tom trenutku delovao morbidno ili nevažno.

Gromadom „Tuđa pravila“, Irving, poput siročeta Homera Velsa, svoje čitaoce ne pušta sve dok ne shvate šta je to sloboda izbora. Jedini izbor kad se pokrene diskusija na temu za ili protiv abortusa, ima žena. Niko drugi. Čak ni lekar koji je, prema sopstvenim uverenjima protiv, nema pravo da odbije abortus ako žena to od njega zahteva. Mogućnost izbora lekaru pripada isključivo ako je abortus legalan, pa može neko drugi to da obavi umesto njega, a sve do tog momenta, onaj doktor koji ume da odradi ovaj zahvat, ne sme odbiti. On nema izbora. I tu je kraj priče.

Druga važna stvar o kojoj Irving piše jeste rutina i potreba čoveka da se, s jedne strane, opire njenim kandžama, a s druge strane, da je hvata u čvrst zagrljaj. Činjenica da neki siročići celog svog života čitaju iste knjige, i to Dikensa i „Džejn Ejr“, da neki od njih čitavog života traže potvrdu o herojstvu u onom drugom ili da neki od njih beže od svoje prirode i svrhe koja se ogleda u njihovoj korisnosti – sve to na neki način, posredno ili neposredno, prikazuje koliko je čovek nemoćan spram rutine i koliko je zapravo moćan u odnosu na nju.

Moj prvi utisak po završetku čitanja „Tuđih pravila“ bio je „Ja ovu knjigu mrzim, ali isto toliko i obožavam“, i zato sam se zapitala – Kako je moguće imati u isto vreme dva toliko oprečna osećanja o istoj stvari? E pa, baš kao što je Homer Vels protiv ideje abortusa, ali isto tako shvata da abortuse mora da radi jer nije na njemu izbor, isto tako je moj primarni utisak ovoj knjizi bio da ne mogu da je smislim, ali sam na kraju nesvesno prihvatila da mi se uvukla pod kožu i da mi je postala bitna. Jer, jedna stvar u vezi sa njom ne dovodi se u pitanje – ovo je knjiga koja nikoga ne može ostaviti ravnodušnim.

Na kraju, moram skrenuti pažnju na jednog od meni najboljih i najtragičnijih likova, i mog apsolutnog favorita kad je ova knjiga u pitanju, a to je Meloni, devojčica (kasnije i žena) prepuna gneva, besa, borbenosti i ljubavi. I da, Homer Vels me je toliko nervirao sa svojim „Tako je“ opaskama i generalno sa svojim stavovima i odlukama, ali baš kao što Hari Poter verovatno nikome nije omiljen lik iz istoimenog serijala, sasvim je okej (čak je danas postao i trend) da nosioci radnje budu u velikoj meri odbojni široj čitalačkoj publici.

I really can't stand John Irving's style of writing. This was a six hundred page novel that should have been three hundred. Also, I found it to be a little heavy-handed. He admits that it is deliberately didactic, but I think he pushes it the the point that it starts working against him. Any character opposing his ideals is put up as a two-dimensional straw man that he villainizes and knocks down, which doesn't help convince anyone of his views. I was surprised to learn that he wrote the screenplay for the film, which I thought was excellent. If he had employed half the discretion or subtley in the novel that he did in the film it would be a great book. As it is I found it tedious and self-indulgent.

I first read Cider House Rules shortly after it was first published back in 1986. I had only read one other John Irving book back then, The World According to Garp and I loved that at the time. Irving is a consummate storyteller. His world building is epic. He can put you right into the towns that he is writing about and leave you there until you are finished. His characters become your friends. He is one of the few authors that has been able to make me feel like that. I wanted to reread Cider House Rules for two reasons, one was that I have been revisiting novels that I loved in my youth and the other was that I recalled this was a compassionate book about abortion. The setting of the novel was during WWII in Maine.

I didn't remember much except a vague feeling of fondness for Irving and that the political commentary was in line with my own thoughts back then. Fast forward 30 years and I find that it is still an interesting read, though the brilliance that I felt in 1986 was not quite as bright. I'll cut to the chase; I wasn't particularly attached to the characters. In fact, I didn't like them in a way that endears a book to me. I disliked the love triangle between Homer, Candy and Wally and the child that they raised as a threesome. That whole story was just cliched drama. I wasn't thrilled with the characterizations of the people of color in this book, however, I wasn't thrilled with any of the characterizations in the book, so it was a wash The most horrible crime in this book was rape and incest with a father and his daughter. That's a crime Irving reserves for the very rare black characters in his books. The redemption for those characters (all Irvings characters seek redemption) is murder and death. The girl murders her father who is found alive and refuses to implicate her before he dies. That's a huge issue for me with his characterizations. Irvings obliviousness to systemic racism and sexism is horrible. The abortion discussion was compassionate but somewhat superficial. The characters had discussions of women being in charge of their own body (male characters FFS). There just wasn't much nuance and in my mind the topic requires nuance.  For example I only remember one abortion for convenience and that was a couple of "decent" wealthy kids that felt they were too young to get married. All of the other mentioned abortions were under conditions few people would argue about: incest, rape, prostitutes, child pregnancy etc. And Homer Wells has moral/ethical objections to abortion, but he has an epiphany and sees the error of his thinking just before Wilbur dies. Sigh. Not that I disagree with Irving, but to me the way it was approached came across as cursory. Choice was the only frame of reference for discussion in the book and that choice was debated by males alone. Though females were the subject of the debate, they were not in the discussion at all (maybe peripherally). Lastly, this book was long. Don't get me wrong, it's an important book that takes on complex issues surrounding women's rights to reproductive health. It isn't my favorite Irving novel, but it is worth reading. It's lost its luster over 30 years.

3.25ish Stars

Listened to the audiobook. Grover Gardener was excellent.

5/5
Nie wiem jak to ubrać w słowa, ale będę o niej myśleć przez długi czas i na pewno będę robić reready. Z klasykami jest tak, że niby są ciężkie i czytam i czytam, ale nadal za mało, żeby wszystko przemyśleć za pierwszym razem.

Man vienlaicīgi gan patika, gan nepatika vairāk nekā es gaidīju, bet mana nepatika par konkrētām lietām nebija no tām, kas īpaši pazeminātu manu kopējo vērtējumu par grāmatu. Drīzāk tā papildināja to emociju klāstu, ko stāsts lika izjust.

Beigas bija visnotaļ jaukas, tikai man būtu paticis vairāk, ja tās pienāktu ātrāk.

this may be my favourite john irving book. i like his deceivingly lighthearted style, and the deadpan humour he gives his characters. the cider house rules in particular seems more real than the others, the orphanage and apple orchards seem more tangible, the emotions less idiosyncratic and the characters more human.

the direct issue here is abortion. the medical procedures to, the right to, the choice to...it's enough to make me want to cross my legs to prevent any traffic in or out.

the less direct issue is the idea of rules. the title refers to a list of regulations posted in the cider house (where they make cider) of an apple orchard. general things like keeping the place clean, no operating heavy machinery when intoxicated, etc. it later turns out that most of the labourers can't read, rendering the rules useless.

likewise, the protagonist homer welles (played by tobey maguire in the movie) has a crush on his best friend's fiancee, the director of the orphanage is pro-abortion despite its illegal status, homer's dilemma whether to follow the director's dream for him to become a obstetrician (and fellow abortionist), the town's underlying racism, homer's white son's attraction to a female labourer, all these (and more that would clearly give the game away if i were to list them) dance around societal rules that are much less clearly defined.

it's all very wittily written, disguising the very disquieting, severe themes. i wonder why they decided to make a movie out of it. i'm all for seeing tobey maguire play charmingly awkward characters, but the movie falls far short of the complex web of events and relationships of the book. why bother if that's the case?

Hey! I just plucked my first John Irving with The Cider House Rules!



Something strange happened midway through reading The Cider House Rules, my first John Irving book.* I found myself completely immersed in its world.

What’s strange is that for the first couple hundred pages, I didn’t particularly believe in this early 20th century Dickensian fable about orphans, surrogate families, an ether-addicted abortionist and the arbitrariness of some rules. But Irving’s storytelling skills eventually won me over. His prose is persuasive.

Homer Wells is raised in an orphanage in the isolated town of St. Cloud’s, Maine. Although he’s been placed with families four separate times, something has always gone wrong with his adoptions, and so he continually ends up back at the orphanage, where he eventually assists Dr. Wilbur Larch in his unusual obi/gyn practice.

Women come to St. Cloud’s to either give their children up for adoption or have the doctor terminate their pregnancies. When Homer is old enough to understand the latter, he decides to stop helping with those procedures. And when Wally Worthington and Candy Kendall, a glamorous young couple who’ve come to terminate their own unexpected pregnancy, tell Homer about the apple orchards back home near the ocean, he leaves with them, planning to stay just for a week or so to learn about orchards for the orphanage.

The book essentially recounts Homer’s coming-of-age. Out in the big bad world, he realizes that evil and temptation exist, and that moral choices aren’t so black and white. Having grown up in an old-fashioned world, presided over by Larch and Nurses Edna (who’s secretly in love with Larch) and Angela, he’s been insulated. Choices seem so much easier in the books that he used to read to the orphans: Dickens’s Great Expectations and David Copperfield (for the boys), and Jane Eyre for the girls.

In a sense, Homer sets out to realize his own great expectations, working in the orchards that Wally’s mother runs, falling in love with Candy and forging a lasting friendship with Wally. Meanwhile, Dr. Larch, who’s addicted to inhaling ether, is getting older; the board of the orphanage is looking to replace him. Will Homer eventually return?

Anyone who’s only seen the film version will be surprised by a plotline about another major character, Melony, an orphan who initiates Homer into sex and feels betrayed by his departure. She’s determined to track him down, but her motivations remain vague. Revenge? Jealousy? Again: because Irving is such a smooth and skilled writer, the Melony sections are always readable and provide a bit of tension in a plot that can sometimes feel loose.

A few other quibbles: Homer’s decision to leave with Candy and Wally feels odd, especially since he’s just met them. Often the book’s humour works, but just as often it feels contrived. And I felt cheated at the end when some big secrets are revealed – things we’ve anticipated for half the book – and we don’t get to see the characters’ responses.

But I came to love Irving’s people. I loved seeing them interact with each other, pick up experience, get older, reflect on their earlier selves. They’ll teach you about the female reproductive system or how many bushels of apples it takes to create a vat of cider. They’ll make you consider how something as simple as a Ferris Wheel might seem mysterious and magical, or how it might feel to ride a bicycle if you’ve never ridden one before.

I also liked the book’s central allegory about blindly following rules. At times the theme felt a bit didactic, but at others times it felt beautifully integrated into the story.

The author has great empathy for his characters. And he knows how to create an entire fictional world. The details might not seem true in today’s busy, cynical world, but they do in the world of the book. And that’s enough for me.

I’m looking forward to entering another one of Irving’s fictional worlds soon.

---

* I almost finished Irving’s In One Person for a book club, but still had 60 pages to go before the group met. (I should go back and finish it.) And since Cider House, I’ve also read his breakthrough book The World According to Garp

How the bigotry, insanity, and inhumanity of institutionalized stigmatization of and hatred against women, especially regarding pregnancy, marriage and the control about bastardization of humans, lead to disgusting world views and practices that were omnipresent just a few decades ago and still are in many parts of the world, is a key element of the novel.

Orphanages for kids that could have parents, but are born under the stigma of being illegitimate and thereby the societal death and endless disgrace and danger of ostracism for the mother, are a logical result and a part of the setting oft he bittersweet tragicomedy Irving serves the reader.

Strong women, emancipation, and feminism are a key element of Irvings´ writing, possibly a side effect of growing up without a father and having an even deeper relationship with his mother, which leads to an idealization and glorification of femininity.

The role of fathers. How they react, what they think, want, feel, how different their opinions and mentality are in comparison to the mothers, how stupid social conventions influence the child-father relations, and what true manliness is. Maybe too influenced by the fact that Irving had no father, he dealt with this topic with an intensity many bad, disinterested, or overstressed fathers can´t or don´t want to invest.

Autobiography and his writing are often the same and I couldn´t name a writer who added so much of himself, even very intimate and personal details, in his work. Only Irving knows how much is fictional and how much is true, but I find it amazing to use the gift of writing to make oneself immortal by taking pieces out of one's real life and make them fictional masterpieces.

Tropes show how literature is conceptualized and created and which mixture of elements makes works and genres unique:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...