chesil prvotno napisa
Sigurno ste Knausgarda prožvakale već tisuću puta, ali moram još malo komentirati. Naime, paralelno s čitanjem romana, čitam i puno intervjua s njim, ili pak kritika i komentara. Znam da je zbog prvog dijela i u njemu opisa očeve smrti izazvao razdor u obitelji pa mi je bilo zanimljivo pročitati što je u jednom intervjuu rekao:
He says the manner of his father’s death was the subject of bitter dispute, which caused him to doubt his own memory. Some family members insisted that Knausgaard’s father, contrary to his son’s recollection, had not been surrounded by bottles of alcohol when he died, there was nothing unseemly about the scene, and he had peacefully suffered a heart attack.
“I began to doubt everything,” he says. “Did I exaggerate it? Did I exploit it for my own benefit? Because I’ve done that in my life before. I used to talk about my father to make myself more interesting. And I knew that the shocking details in the story are good literature in themselves almost – it’s a good story.”
Then he received a letter from a health worker who, reading the first volume A Death in the Family, recognised the house Knausgaard’s father died in, and got in touch to confirm the accuracy of his description.
“And that,” he says, “was such a relief.”
Inače, taj je dio knjige toliko strašan i jak, ali, u konačnici, on me je i natjerao da poželim čitati i dalje.
