Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

The host is Jaimie for January BOTM, The History of the Siege of Lisbon by Saramago. Place reviews here,/topic/show/....

From Wikipedia, in this novel "Saramago challenges the common one-dimensional interpretations of historical events that only focuses on kings and battles and asks for a more pluralistic perspective that includes individual motives and behaviour and takes account of the role of chance in shaping history."

This novel explores ideas of history, writing, and Portuguese identity. It is a multilayered text, and an example of metafiction: fiction in which the author self-consciously alludes to the artificiality or literariness of a work by parodying or departing from novelistic conventions and traditional narrative techniques. Borges and Calvino are known for this mode of writing, and many other books on the Boxall 1001 lists are in this category.

1. Do you generally enjoy metafiction? If you have read other examples of metafiction, how does The History of the Siege of Lisbon compare with other you've read.

2. What does this novel say about history writing? What events in recent history might be represented drastically differently with minor changes such as the addition/dletion of a single word or phrase into the narrative?

3. How much is ones personal and national identity determined by how history is written? If (as in many modern countries) the way things are now is dependent on episodes of conquering, colonizing, or even genocide, how, and how much does the way these events are represented effect our individual identities?

3. How many Saramago books have you read? How does this book compare with the other Saramago books you've read so far?

4. What did you like about this book? Were there any scenes or phrases you particularly liked?

I have started reading it and am intrigued. I read Cain over 5 years ago and gave it 4 stars. I remember it had no capitalisation which I found difficult. Similarly this book avoids the usual punctuation conventions so the dialogue in the 1st chapter required close attention.

1. I can enjoy metafiction, it does depend. I enjoyed quite a few actually when I look at a list of metafiction. I enjoyed The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis more than this one.

2. History is multidimensional. My view of history also will not necessarily fit your view of history. And you really cannot believe everything you read about history because a lot of effort goes into "bending the truth" to fit the expectations. Right now reading the Anniversaries, there are bits and pieces about Vietnam war. How many twists could be made by changing small little words. One country claims a whole bunch and another downplays it, where's the truth?

3. In the case of this book and the city of Lisbon which was not before the defeat of the Moors yet Saramago was born there. What is his identity. I can see how genocide could completely alter ones identity.

4. I've now read 3 Saramago books. I think I would rate them at this point;
1. Cain
2. The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis
3. The History of the siege of Lisbon

I own a couple more books including Blindness which is not on the list.

5. What did I like? I enjoyed the historical part, the story of the Moors and the Crusades. The romance between proofreader and supervisor was a point that maybe helped keep the reader grounded within all the layers, but it was at times an annoying part of the book.

1. Do you generally enjoy metafiction? If you have read other examples of metafiction, how does The History of the Siege of Lisbon compare with other you've read?
If it is well done I enjoy metafiction, but it is really easy for this style of storytelling to come across as gimmicky.I just finished a bunch of Italo Calvino books a month or so ago, and some of those were less about telling a good story and more about being experimental, an approach that usually bugs me. I liked the storytelling, mostly, in this Saramago book, but compared to his other novels this one was less absorbing, for me. I think the complicated structure of this novel got in the way of Saramago's usually engaging style. It felt more like a Borges story, not such a bad thing, but not what I hope for in a Saramago book.

2. What does this novel say about history writing? What events in recent history might be represented drastically differently with minor changes such as the addition/deletion of a single word or phrase into the narrative?
I found myself thinking about this book while listening to an audiobook of short stories by Nicole Krauss, many of them set in Israel. Many of Krauss's characters are dealing with the tension between the accepted narratives that define Jewish history and the characters' own realities. A few stories also touch on the complicated mess between the Jewish and Palestinian residents of Israel, where the same set of historical facts are spun into two almost diametrically opposed narratives that justify all sorts of violence. The seemingly impossible exercise of showing that the Crusaders chose not to help capture Lisbon turned out to be quite possible, once Saramago's intrepid proofreader started looking for supporting evidence for this narrative, even though it ran contrary to long accepted history. More recent events with more available factual evidence have even more possibilities for constructing different accounts of what really happened, based on any researcher's pet assumptions.

3. How much is ones personal and national identity determined by how history is written? If (as in many modern countries) the way things are now is dependent on episodes of conquering, colonizing, or even genocide, how, and how much does the way these events are represented effect our individual identities?
It was telling how little anyone actually cared about whether the Crusaders helped capture Lisbon, on an emotional level. The proofreader enjoyed fact checking the documents he worked on, as an intellectual exercise, but at no time was he really emotionally invested in the stories he was marking up. His company only cared about his inserting 'not' in the history of the siege of Lisbon because it was embarrassing to have to issue corrections on their book. The detail, huge though it might have been for the men involved in Lisbon back then, for modern people the whole issue had become academic, No doubt someone could work up an emotional obsession with the Crusaders' involvement in that battle, but it would be something they chose to identify with, based on their own chosen historical narrative, and I doubt that that emotionally invested modern person would care whether some proofreader guy found an alternate narrative that also worked with available facts.

3. How many Saramago books have you read? How does this book compare with the other Saramago books you've read so far?
I've read a few of his books so far- The Stone Raft, Blindness, Skylight, The Cave, Small Memories, Raised from the Ground, and The Lives of Things. I'm also almost done with Baltasar and Blimunda. My favorites so far are The Stone Raft and Blindness, I didn't hate The History of the Siege of Lisbon, but it didn't really appeal to me either. I liked the ideas Saramago was working with, but the storytelling was too awkward to follow easily, and made it hard to really get drawn in to the novel, for me at least.

4. What did you like about this book? Were there any scenes or phrases you particularly liked?
I really liked the scene where the proofreader turns back to get some food for the stray dog. I am so used to books in which being cruel to animals is 'symbolic' and almost automatic, that it stuck out that Saramago lets his character be kind to a hungry dog, even if he doesn't bring it home and adopt it. The Cave also has a stray dog that the main character helps, and in that one he keeps the dog. I'm guessing maybe Saramago liked dogs.

Jamie wrote: "1. Do you generally enjoy metafiction? If you have read other examples of metafiction, how does The History of the Siege of Lisbon compare with other you've read?
If it is well done I enjoy metafic..."

Nice point about the dog. Is it in this one or the other Ricardo Reis that he talks about the dog being considered unclean by Islam but another part of history that isn't always concrete fact.

It was this book, where he talked about dogs being considered unclean by Moslems. They still are. When I lived in Sri Lanka Muslims always crossed to the other side of the road when I was walking my dogs.

1. Do you generally enjoy metafiction? If you have read other examples of metafiction, how does The History of the Siege of Lisbon compare with other you've read.

Yes, I can enjoy metafiction but as Jamie and Kirstel said, it totally depends on the author and the book. I enjoyed Calvino's Invisible Cities but about half way through On A Winter's Night A Traveler I began to tire....or rather I wanted to read more of each of his introductions. I appreciated The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis and it was a bit of a treat to go on to another Saramago book. The History of the Siege of Lisbon was simply delightful to me and the metafiction didn't even seem to be a big part of it perhaps because after having read Reis, Saramago had already trained me.

2. What does this novel say about history writing? What events in recent history might be represented drastically differently with minor changes such as the addition/deletion of a single word or phrase into the narrative?

JFK was NOT shot in Dallas...MLK was NOT shot...etc.
I liked Saramago's clear articulation of how history is made up of individual's stories and if we were not there to witness we have little idea what those individuals were thinking. I am finding the History of the "conquest" of the North American continent is being rewritten right now as authors attempt to capture the indigenous people's perspective and the indigenous people themselves find voice through their own authors.
I liked how Saramago wrote that Pearl Harbor came "without any warning" because the Japanese did not give the traditional three days notice of a declaration of war. A very old custom brought into the modern age and then trampled on.

3. How much is ones personal and national identity determined by how history is written? If (as in many modern countries) the way things are now is dependent on episodes of conquering, colonizing, or even genocide, how, and how much does the way these events are represented effect our individual identities?

I believe different groups of people and different cultures view identity differently. I know, for example that the people in Texas tend to identify with being Texan where in California, the identity seems to fall to the region not the whole state.
In this book, the Moors identify with their religion rather than their country it seems, although they have been living in Lisbon for over 350 years. The Christians' also identify with their religion but in Silva's perspective appear to know that they are founding a "Portugal". Mogueume identifies with his class as well as with his soldier comrades and then, and only then, with the army as a whole.

3. How many Saramago books have you read? How does this book compare with the other Saramago books you've read so far?

I have read Blindness, The Double, The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis and now this one. I would put Reis above this one in terms of the totality of the book but I did enjoy The History of the Siege. It is much more light hearted while still dealing with difficult and important themes. I did not like The Double at all but I did like Blindness although I think I would place it below The History of the Siege.

4. What did you like about this book? Were there any scenes or phrases you particularly liked?
I loved one of the opening arguments about the four kinds of errors there are in the written work. I really enjoyed Silva speaking about the muezzin and how the muezzin impacts history. Also, this is probably too sentimental for most, but I did like the bit about the roses....and the dog. And I really liked the historical themes.

1. Some metafiction I adore, such as On A Winter's Night A Traveller, Slaughterhouse Five and The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, but other examples such as The Crying of Lot 49 - not so much. I think this book compares very well with the best of them. Because of Saramago's idiosyncratic punctuation and extremely long sentences, I felt it deserved very careful reading and it has taken me almost three weeks to finish.
2. Saramago shows us that the history we learn about is reliant on the perspective of those who write and those who witness events and that there are possibilities for alternative viewpoints. Modern examples : the vaccine is NOT safe, The U.S. election was NOT fair, Boris Johnson was NOT aware that the drinks in the garden were not a work activity.
3. In New Zealand we are gradually realising that the Maori Wars were actually Land Wars as the indigenous people were egregiously dispossessed of their property, and that the Treaty of Waitangi which is our foundational document, has not been honoured. So us pakeha are beginning to appreciate Maori perspectives and incorporating them into our lives. For example Matariki, which is the Maori New Year will become a national holiday this year for the first time.
4. This is my second Saramago, after Cain a few years ago. They are both clever and original.
5. I found the ironic tone very appealing and the digressions were often absolute gems. Here are a couple of examples. Going backwards near the end (I can't quote the complete sentence because it would take too long) "for there is less obscenity in the intimate manifestations of the body than is seeing that body expire from starvation under the indiffernet and ironic gaze of the gods who, haveing stopped feuding with each other, and being immortal, distract themselves from eternal boredom by applauding those who win and those who lose, the former because they have killed, the latter because they have died" which reminds me of the gory slog of reading Metamorphosis. Another: "There would be no end to the blessed inventory of knight Heinrich's miraculous deeds if we were to list all of them in every detail, besides it would take us well beyond the scope of this narrative, which is not simply to trace out the destiny of Lisbon, something everyone knows, but to explain how we managed, without the help of the crusaders, to bring off the patriotic enterprise of our King Alfonso, the first with this name and the first in everything" which shows both the metafictional and the ironic. And finally "When it comes to human nature, you can expect anything" probably the shortest sentence in the whole novel!

If you don't find the style of this novel to your liking, don't give up on Saramago. I have read his Blindness and The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis, which are both written in a more conventional style and are not in the metafiction genre.

1. Do you generally enjoy metafiction? If you have read other examples of metafiction, how does The History of the Siege of Lisbon compare with other you've read.

Generally I don’t really warm to metafiction although I can appreciate the skill and intellectual challenge involved. I find that metafiction makes me think, but doesn’t make me feel - the constant awareness that it is a fiction puts the author between me and the book, so I don’t engage as well with the characters.

2. What does this novel say about history writing? What events in recent history might be represented drastically differently with minor changes such as the addition/dletion of a single word or phrase into the narrative?

The novel shows how history is dependent on the views and perspectives of those who choose to record it. It can be misrepresented, deliberately or accidentally.

3. How much is ones personal and national identity determined by how history is written? If (as in many modern countries) the way things are now is dependent on episodes of conquering, colonizing, or even genocide, how, and how much does the way these events are represented effect our individual identities?

Interesting question. I would think it depends on whether one accepts or challenges the way history has been written to date.


4. How many Saramago books have you read? How does this book compare with the other Saramago books you've read so far?

This is my third after Cain and The Year of the Death of Ricardo Reis. I found this one dryer and less humorous, I found the treatment of history more interesting and thought provoking in those. The themes, however, were similar such as religion, history, language and their relationships to each other.


5. What did you like about this book? Were there any scenes or phrases you particularly liked?

I liked the start best, when Raimundo Silva makes the fatal change and then worries about whether he will be found out. I also liked his interactions with his housekeeper, and his kindness to the dog. I didn’t really like the romances, either present day or in the book about the siege.

1. Do you generally enjoy metafiction? If you have read other examples of metafiction, how does The History of the Siege of Lisbon compare with other you've read.

Not really but I do love Calvino. This compares badly with Calvino I have to say based on this and Ricardo Reis Saramago is not for me.

2. What does this novel say about history writing? What events in recent history might be represented drastically differently with minor changes such as the addition/dletion of a single word or phrase into the narrative?

None of us knows what actually happened at historic events as we were not there. The version that tends to be passed down is the one the victors want told. For me looking at an English example if Henry VIII did not fall from his horse that would be a whole new take on history.

3. How much is ones personal and national identity determined by how history is written? If (as in many modern countries) the way things are now is dependent on episodes of conquering, colonizing, or even genocide, how, and how much does the way these events are represented effect our individual identities?

Tough question I think here we are so far removed from the colonial history of England that it doesn't really occur to us to think about it. When I was at school we learned about the Battle of the Little Big Horn and the Chinese revolution we learnt nothing about English or European history which seems bizarre this may have changed now but having no children I am not in touch with the educational syllabus. It is through my own reading which is almost 100% fiction that I have learned about colonialism and genocide.

3. How many Saramago books have you read? How does this book compare with the other Saramago books you've read so far?

2 both this month and both 3 stars as mentioned before Saramago is not for me.

4. What did you like about this book? Were there any scenes or phrases you particularly liked?

I liked the scene with the phone number would he call wouldn't he call that felt real.

I have read 7 of Saramago's books. I have to say this was one of the more difficult books of his in terms of sentence structure. I did love the premise as I am totally fascinated by the history of the Crusades.