The Montrose Great Books discussion at the Freed-Montrose Library last night (June 4th) of TOO LOUD A SOLITUDE by Bohumil Hrabal was led by Jo and was interesting but in the cold light of day as I'm beginning this report the next day, I realize that my understanding of the book is not much better than before the discussion. This happens sometimes, for me anyway. This book seems to be one of the most enigmatic books we've read in recent memory. There were seventeen of us and we covered many themes and opinions of the work last night and we had many questions but I don't remember too many definitive answers or conclusions.
Jo after presenting some brief biographical information about the author began the discussion by asking "How apparent is it that this is the last book of an aging writer?" The main reaction was that we were surprised to find out this was his last work. Some asked the question about why there was such a long period between the self-publication of this book in 1976 and his death in 1997? Hence the beginning of the pattern we seemed to fall into of having questions without answers.
The narrator named Hanta reminds us many many times that he has worked for thirty five years in the cellar compacting trash and educating himself on the sly using the great books he rescues from the trash. As a result of not having many definitive conclusions about the book's message, I think I will focus more than I usually do on the questions we raised, beginning with the rats and mice.
One of the numerous recurring themes was the various encounters by Hanta the narrator with the mice and rats in the cellar where he worked. Most thought the narrator was sympathetic and almost affectionate to the mice who wanted to proliferate and who possibly were a metaphor for the masses and the common man as opposed to the brown and white rats who were agressive, at least with each other and who had bitter wars that once over would always start again with never a resolution. Some in our group thought the rats might represent political leaders, in other words those with ideological axes to grind. Though Hanta was sympathetic to the mice, he still crushed them into the bales of wastepaper with his press when they got in the way. One thoughtful attendee suggested that Hanta's sympathetic but cruel actions might represent the behavior of a leader (since the narrator actually says that "I'm a bit of a rat myself"), who was demonstrating responsibility taking necessary measures but feeling sad and guilt about many of the unavoidable consequences - isn't this how all leaders should be? -rather than be insensitive to those whose lives they disastrously affect?
Someone commented that this book was a bale of crushed books, itself. We all seemed to agree especially considering the narration style which was free-flowing prose, not exactly stream of consciousness in my opinion, but especially rich in visions and illusions and fantasies made possible by Hanta's wide reading.
Someone else mentioned that even if a book is destroyed and never read, it is still an important book according to the author. And this is the kind of point that makes me glad I read the book even though I don't understand much of it. The prose is wonderful in my opinion. For example, the narrator says that "inquisitors burn books in vain", "if a book has anything to say, it burns with a quiet laugh, because any book worth its salt points up and out of itself"
I read somewhere on the web "Often, one senses that Hrabal has taken a brief comic tale heard in the pub, and exaggerated its comic essence" and "Hrabal is an early magical realist". I think this must definitely apply here. We didn't discuss the humor much. I think our time trying to understand the meaning of some of the absurdity might have been better spent simply laughing at some of these incredible contortions of human behavior - comic relief coupled with magical realism is how best I would describe this book. This in particular applies to the ending which I won't describe here since I don't want to be a spoiler.
On one key issue we disagreed which was the theme of religion, whether there was such a theme or not. I find this part of our discussion quite perplexing. How can the author have the narrator make so many references to "Christ" and "divinity" and "heavens" and "church" without considering a religious theme? Also, as pointed out by an attendee, the ending which involves messages attached to kites may also be a religious reference because kites were used by Tibetan monks to send messages to deities, (I believe that was how it was described). But as someone who has read other books by the author pointed out, his books tend to be autobiographical and his biography shows that religion isn't a significant part of his life.
We did discuss briefly that perhaps the theme was spiritual instead of religious. I don't believe there was a "Christian" theme but still seems too many references without some point being made. Of course there is always the possibility that the author is using absurdity or sarcasm. The narrator who is treated as a simpleton except for his amazing self-education perhaps is being shown to still be traditionally religious because as he is described, he is still very much a worker and member of the "old guard" (that's yet another theme, old versus modern.) This is a good time to mention one of our rules, that we don't have to agree and we definitely didn't on this point.
As I've mentioned before, the discussions for me always seem to generate more questions than answers which is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. We didn't talk about the philosophy professor or Manca very much. We talked about several other themes including gypies, excrement, communism, whether the narrator was an artist, the tiny gypsy which was the love of his life and the use of the title of the book "too loud of solitude". The narrator says that he is "alone but not lonely". The title basically seems to refer to an intensity in his aloneness when he on two occasions in the book gets extremely (obsessively) involved in his work.(These last words are mostly mine but also a paraphrase of the groups ideas on this.)
One member as we were going around the group at the end explained that for him, there were too many metaphors that he didn't understand and therefore that he didn't connect with the book. Though many liked the book, especially the writing, I believe this is one of those books written mostly for other writers with so many references that are over the head of most average readers (with average education and I'm speaking for myself here). So I agree with this last reviewer, that there were too many metaphors over my head. However, the writing was still wonderful and I'm not sorry that I had the opportunity to read and discuss.
Looking forward to next time, on July 2nd at 6pm at the Houston Freed-Montrose Library when we will discuss SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES by Ray Bradbury.
