Howard Jacobson (1)Rezensionen

This book is pretty funny. Its a novel mainly about a long term friendship between 3 men and their interactions. Its also about one of them being attacked and called a Jew, and how this affects his sense of who he is. I don't remember a lot of the detail, but I did enjoy reading it.½

A very intellectual and elegant re-imagining Merchant of Venice. In this version, the events we know from the play have occurred and Shylock finds himself in the home of a non-religious Jew Strukowotsky (or something like that, I forget how to spell it). Shylock is more or less a household name. However, events extremely like those of Shakespeare's play happen in this version and Shylock gets to comment on the why and how his story unfolded like it did, plus he gets to advise on how he might do it differently if he was faced with the situation again. There are lots of "line dropping" (lines from the play inserted into the novel) sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly. The parallel characters all have similar names, so that makes the parallels easy. Plus, if you're Jewish, you'll probably get more out of the discussions about what it means to be a Jew or not, traditions or religions, than I did. I suspect this book is more intelligent than I could discern (mainly for the Judaism discussions), and it uses big words. The writing style is also a bit different, though I couldn't put my fingers on it. I really like this one, but its audience is definitely Shakespeare-lovers.

A fairly simple premise: 3 friends- 2 Jewish, 1 gentile. 2 recently widowed, one never married. The gentile wants to be a Jew, one of the Jews is an antisemite. This is discussed, sometimes to an agonizing length, for 300 pages. Much of the writing and the deep intelligence presented here are very admirable, which is why it probably won the Booker Prize, but the never-ending angst and handwringing began to wear me down about halfway through and didn’t let up. That said, I am glad I finally read it and it can finally free up space on my shelf.

Very smart. Very, very smart. Just like the Jews.

OK, so that comment only makes sense after you've read the book, but it's funny and worth reading (the book, not the comment).

This is a sharp and clever exploration of identity, love and family. The humour fades as the book goes on, but books that are funny throughout are very rare, so that can be forgiven.

The vibrant, crisp prose and the hilarious characterisation are the two best features of the book. It's not as good as The Finkler Question, but it's a great read in a similar vein.

Somehow this was all too preposterous for me, which is ridiculous because Howard Jacobson is always preposterous and that's what I love about him. Maybe I'll try it again some day.

From the previews I read of this book I thought I was going to be reading about an unmarried men helping two of his married friends cope with the loss of their wives. Seemed interesting to me, and while the book does begin with this, it pretty much turns into a non stop discussion of what it means to be Jewish in today's world. Virtually every conversation in the book is centered around the Jewish question not the Finkler question. If I had come into the book knowing this I might have been able to tolerate it better, perhaps even enjoy it. Because it is funny and amusing at times. But unfortunately, that wasn't the case, and for the most part, I found myself bored with the endless rhetoric.

Bizarre and somewhat tedious with some (too rare) interesting or amusing moments. Another textbook example of why one should be wary of the Booker prize decisions.

Howard Jacobson is obviously an excellent author but this novel is pointless. Not worth your time.

Felix Quinn se autodefine como un hombre feliz. Proviene de una familia de anticuarios de libros y es un bonvivant, que no podía concebir siquiera la posibilidad de vivir a más de unos centenares de metros de todo lo que quieren el cuerpo y el alma del hombre: galerías de arte, salas de conciertos, buenos restaurantes, proveedores de vino y queso, hospitales, burdeles. Sin embargo, su mujer, Marisa, le es infiel. Claro que, y ahí está la particularidad que define a Felix, todos los maridos desean secretamente que sus mujeres les sean infieles. Felix no siempre ha sido un masoquista. Desde el momento en que lo rechazaron por primera vez en su infancia, sobrevivir a los efectos destructivos del amor y los celos se ha convertido en objeto de estudio para él, pero algo sucede mientras que su esposa y él están de luna de miel, algo que lo cambiará todo. De un plumazo pasará de aborrecer la simple idea de que alguien le ponga la mano encima a la mujer que ama a no poder parar de pensaren ello con cierto gusto. Desde ese momento se convertirá en un esclavo de los celos y no tendrá paz hasta que su mujer lo vuelva a traicionar y después lo vuelva a traicionar de nuevo. Pero, ¿cómo se le puede llamar traición a eso, si es exactamente lo que él quiere?

This book won the Man Booker Prize in 2010 but personally I was unmoved by it. Perhaps if I was Jewish I would find it more relevant or maybe if I was a philosopher I would appreciate the questions about faith and religion raised by it.But I am neither of those things and I was disappointed in the novel.

Julian Treslove dined with two friends who had lost their wives recently. Libor Sevcik was much older than Julian and the other widower, Sam Finkler, and he had been their teacher. Sam had studied philosophy in university while Julian dabbled in this and that. Julian worked in various arts institutions including the BBC but Sam achieved fame writing a series of philosophy books for the mundane questions of life like The Existentialist in the Kitchen and The Little Book of Household Stoicism. Libor also became somewhat famous for writing about celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe and Ava Gardner. When the three friends met Libor and Sam always argued about Zionism with Libor taking the view that the Jewish creation of Israel was justified while Sam was ashamed of how that had displaced so many Palestinians. Julian, as a non-Jew, took neither side. After he left the dinner party he was assaulted and robbed by a women who uttered "You Ju" to him making him wonder if she had thought he was Jewish. Julian had never been married although he did have two sons by diiferent women with whom he had lived for some period of time. His relationships with women never seemed to last but when he met Juno, a great-niece of Libor's, it seemed like he had finally met the love of his life. He even contemplated converting to Judaism and then he wondered if he perhaps wasn't actually Jewish because some ancestor covered up their Jewish origins. He often discussed the religion with Libor and Sam and when Libor committed suicide he was bereft and also guilty as he wondered if he had driven Libor to it by confessing that he had an affair with Sam's wife. His preoccupation with this quandary leads him to suspect Juno and Sam of having an affair. Just like with all his previous failed relationships he withdraws from Juno.

I found Julian to be quite unlikable although I'm sure in person he would have seemed quite charming. I truly hope that Howard Jacobson doesn't treat his female intimates the way Julian does. I am somewhat mystified by why the prize committee chose this book to win the Booker. I've only read one of the other books on the shortlist but that was Room by the wonderful Irish-Canadian writer Emma Donoghue which I certainly found much more satisfying thant this book.½

Makes me lose my faith in the Man Booker Prize. Tedious. Occasionally mildly amusing. Jonathan Safran Foer thinks Jacobson is very funny - enough said. Jacobson is certainly no Philip Roth.

Jacobson's modern day version of The Merchant of Venice for the Hogarth Shakespeare series falls short. He makes use of Nazis and Anti-Semitism themes in a rather raunchy tale with a modern merchant Simon Strulovitch, father of Beatrice. I do not recommend this to anyone, and I'm glad this completes my read of the series because I would not have read others including Margaret Atwood's brilliant installment if I'd read this one first.

Will try another book by this author, but the humor of this one struck me as mean-spirited somehow, so I didn’t read beyond the first 50 pages. Just not what I was in the mood for, with all that is happening in the world, I guess.

As the name suggests, this is a modern author's take on retelling The Merchant of Venice for a contemporary audience. I often enjoy Shakespeare adaptations that are done well, so of course I figured I'd check this one out. Unfortunately, I wasn't as impressed with this one as I'd hoped. Jacobson's take on the story is confusing, incredibly complex, and difficult to wade through. I'm not sure if he intended it as more of an intellectual take than a literary one, but it came across to me as highly inaccessible in the writing style and overall storytelling.

That said, it is a creative take in comparing the original tale to how a similar situation might play out in the modern world. For the concept alone, I do have to give the author some credit. And that's why this pulls three stars from me when I probably would have been inclined to rate it lower based on my overall enjoyment and reading of the book.

[Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book from the publisher via BloggingForBooks in exchange for an honest review.]

We had a rather lively discussion of this novel last night. Some people hated it, for one reason or another. I had trouble in the first part of the book, because the main character is so 'not there', as one attendee described him, a 'no-where man'. And that is one of the themes of this book, not knowing where you belong or what you want.

This character, Treslove, is a Londoner of no particular handsomeness who earns his living as a stand in at look-alike events for any celebrity. His fantasies are all about beautiful women dying in his arms, while the women in his life are anything but that fantasy. Curiously, he is one of three friends, two of whom are actually widowers, both of whom are Jews, and in this they seem to belong to clubs Treslove cannot join. Treslove and Finkler were in school together and studied philosophy, under the third friend, Libor.

'the Finkler question' is Treslove's term for trying to understand his friends, and whether he can find a way to belong. It is also the term for Finkler's struggle with his feelings toward his Jewishness, toward Israel, toward Britain. For Libor, it is a question of the benefits of survival.

Many people found this book very funny, especially in the first half, but death and loneliness predominate for me. And the book gets darker as it goes, ending with a depth of feeling that shocked me and affected me deeply.½

First things first: I must confess that I have not read "The Merchant of Venice."

Second: I'm having a really hard time with this contemporary fiction challenge that I've set for myself this year.

Third: I know very little about modern Judaism (and certainly not anything near what I've studied about modern/post-modern/emergent Christianity).

Four: I still enjoyed this book. I wasn't entirely sure what was happening with the character of Shylock being actually present in the modern era, or how the modern characters were portrayed in comparison to the ones in the play. However, I found the discussions about religious vs secular expression of faith relatable and interesting in the non-Protestant framing. There are a lot of quirky characters in this novel -- perhaps a little too over-the-top to be believable -- but I imagine the Shakespearean originals were the same way.

I'm looking forward to future novels in this Hogarth Shakespeare series.

I'm reading all the winners of the Booker Prize since its inception. Follow me at www.methodtohermadness.com.

Let me clear this up right away: “Finkler,” in this novel, is a character’s code word for Jew. Julian Treslove has two Jewish friends, and falls in love with a Jewish woman. In fact, after being mugged by a woman who says something that he hears as “You Jew,” he begins to think he is Jewish.

The Jewish characters help explore the two sides of the Zionist debate, and it is clear which side Jacobson wants us to be on. Sam Finkler is a pop culture philosopher who joins the Ashamed Jews, who protest the Isreali takeover of Palestine and particularly Gaza. Finkler is an empty, clownish figure, whose wife cheats on him with his friend Julian. Finkler’s wife tells her husband to get off his high horse: now that Isrealis have their own country, “they are now just ordinary bastards, half right, half wrong, like the rest of us.”

The other Jewish characters, Julian’s friend Libor and lover Hephzibah (aka Juno), are more interested in simply being Jewish and celebrating the positive. Hep is working on opening an Anglo-Jewish culture museum, which she insists is NOT another Holocaust museum. I liked Hep more than any of the male characters, by the way.

However, the fact that the author uses Finkler’s name in the title to stand in for Jewish, and not one of the other two characters’ names, seems to indicate that the world sees Jewishness in the negative way represented by Finkler. It’s an interesting story of friendship and love and I learned a lot about anti-Zionism, though I still don’t feel well informed enough to take sides.

Another disappointment. This could've been really good but it didn't really go anywhere and it took a long time not to get there. A book about a young man with a conceit about himself which I thought proved unfounded. One of the biggest frustrations with this book was the use of many words in another language either Yiddish or Polish or maybe German or maybe something else I don't know. I don't have a problem with writers using the occasional word from another language if it clarifies their meaning. But in this case they were used so prolifically that it made some sentences completely unreadable and not understandable. I couldn't understand the point of using language like this if it clouds the meaning instead of enlightening it. And no appendix or glossary to help out either

I think in essence the book came down to 2 things, A nostalgic reminiscence of childhood which was entertaining but repetitive. And a study of someone growing up with an idea or expectation about themselves that doesn't materialise. The latter part could've been interesting if explore deeply enough but I think it reflected the overall superficiality of this entire book.

Got to page 72. Not my cup of tea.

Howard Jacobson's latest novel is about two nonagenarians who find unexpected new life when they find each other.

They couldn't be more different; Shimi, a most private bachelor, forgets nothing and ruminates relentlessly over every shameful transgression that's ever occurred in his life, whereas Beryl, who has left multiple lovers in her wake over the decades, cares little of what anyone thinks of her but is infuriated at her increasing forgetfulness of words. She's delighted that for the first time she's met a man who realises he has flaws, while he's delighted to have met someone who doesn't mind.

The pair only cross paths in the last third of the book, which is a shame. The first two thirds didn't overly work for me. Having heard Jacobson talk about this book, he described Beryl as the character he's had most fun with ever, but the humour in the first part of the book felt too try-hard. Beryl's a privileged white old lady who's constantly making sardonic colonial-esque quips at the expense of her African and Eastern European carers, and whilst the joke was on her and her ignorance rather than condoning racism it just felt wrong time for these types of remarks. The story wasn't going anywhere beyond her constant sharp tongue, and equally Shimi's story wasn't pulling me in.

Once the pair become friends the book shifted up a gear and became much more enjoyable. Through their meeting of minds we discover hidden depth to Beryl, and there's plenty of gallows humour between the two as Beryl encourages Shimi out of his shell of shame, and he in turn brings new light to her life.

3 stars - an enjoyable last 100 pages, but I can't forgive a book taking for taking too long to reel me in.

typical of his style, leery husband trying to write and womanise. Fun

The dialogue is everything in this book; the stories are OK, but the dialogue is the best. To me, Sam Lipsyte produces better fiction but the dialogue us the enthralling stuff. I tired of the book towards the end.

Parts were great, parts were really annoying.

Great: some insights into issues of Jewish identity.

Really annoying: main character, a whiny non-Jewish schlimazel who decides that he's actually Jewish after an odd incident that I won't bother describing; some of the supposedly comic elements which just irritated me.

I can understand, I suppose, why it won the Man Booker Prize, because some reviewers could tell themselves it said something deep about the modern Jewish condition. It's worth reading for people with an interest in that subject, but I can't say that I "really liked" it.

Read all my reviews on http://urlphantomhive.booklikes.com

Recently, I'm going through a Shakespeare period, its climax probably the three plays I'll be seeing in the Globe in two weeks time (For those of you who're interested: A Midsummer's Night Dream, The Taming of the Shrew and Macbeth). The Merchant of Venice, upon which Shylock is My Name is based, however is one of those plays that I still rather unfamiliar with. Both the story and the character of Shylock to be honest.

It felt like a great miss when I was reading Shylock is my name. Not only was I unable to see all the parallels between the story and the play, I also didn't know what to expect at all. Strangely enough, perhaps for those who're familiar with The Merchant of Venice, I didn't expect this story at all.

Most of the dialogue, most of the story even, surround about the two main characters, Strulovitch and Shylock, two old men who above all seem to be angry at the world. Due to their negative world view, the whole back has something depressing over it, which for me caused it to be not an easy read at all. I kept putting it away, because it was so depressing. This is why it cost me months to finish it. It's not what I would call a nice or enjoyable read. At least not when reading. Now that I'm finished, I can't say that I regret reading it. The prose was very beautiful, and would certainly be a reason to pick up another book by Howard Jacobson, but only if the theme is less depressing.

Thanks to Blogging for Books for providing me with a free copy of this book in exchange for an honest review!