What do you think?
Une autre histoire de la littérature française #9
Le Roman au XXe siècle
Jean d'Ormesson nous propose, à travers une éblouissante galerie de portraits, une visite guidée dans le jardin de la littérature, de ses origines médiévales jusqu'au XXème siècle. La méthode, telle que la définit son auteur : Présenter en quelques mots l'écrivain et son oeuvre ; les situer dans leur temps ; tâcher de leur rendre, sous la rouille, leur jeunesse et leur nouveauté ; montrer ce qui fait leur importance, et mieux encore leur charme ; donner quelques exemples de leur manière et de leur génie. Dans le présent volume : Gide, Proust, Colette, Martin du Gard, Mauriac, Céline, Giono, Montherlant. Autour des portraits brossés par Jean d'Ormesson, des biographies, des bibliographies, des extraits choisis et une chronologie, afin que l'édition Librio de cette Autre histoire de la littérature française devienne un commode viatique sur les chemins du plaisir de lire.
157 pages, Paperback
First published May 17, 2001
About the author
Jean d'Ormesson
137 books190 followersJean Bruno Wladimir François de Paule Le Fèvre d’Ormesson est un écrivain, chroniqueur, éditorialiste et philosophe français. Ancien élève de l’École normale supérieure. Agrégé de philosophie. Directeur général du Figaro de 1974 à 1977. Secrétaire général, puis Président du Conseil international de la philosophie et des sciences humaines à l’UNESCO. Élu à l‘Académie française, le 18 octobre 1973, au fauteuil de Jules Romains (12e fauteuil).
Jean Bruno Wladimir François de Paule Le Fèvre d’Ormesson is a French writer, journalist, columnist and philosopher. Alumnus of the École normale supérieure. Degree in philosophy. CEO of Figaro from 1974 to 1977. Secretary-General, then President of the International Council of Philosophy and Human Sciences at UNESCO. Elected to the Académie française (French Academy), October 18, 1973, chair of Jules Romains (12th chair).
Jean Bruno Wladimir François de Paule Le Fèvre d’Ormesson is a French writer, journalist, columnist and philosopher. Alumnus of the École normale supérieure. Degree in philosophy. CEO of Figaro from 1974 to 1977. Secretary-General, then President of the International Council of Philosophy and Human Sciences at UNESCO. Elected to the Académie française (French Academy), October 18, 1973, chair of Jules Romains (12th chair).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 22, 2014
This pleasant book is written in clear prose---a remarkable feat in a country where many critics think that being less literary than the books they review would be shameful.
And so it is readable, informative and concise. The goal is certainly not to go in-depth about authors you like, but rather to take a sweeping, refreshing look at a number of major novelists of the 20th century (others are to be found in the volume called Écrivains et romanciers du XXe siècle).
To be sure, what claims to be "another" history of French literature may be "just another" one. The approach remains that of "one author, one chapter", with a discussion of the author's life and writing, followed by a biography, a bibliography and a short excerpt. To that extent, it may remind you of the bulkier and drier standard series by Lagarde & Michard. But d'Ormesson's book is more conversational and more teaser-like. It will certainly make you want to discover new books you had never read.
A few questions remain open, though, after reading this volume: d'Ormesson is rather unspecific regarding a definition of what constitutes "literature" and what doesn't. Yet, this object of study is a construct which changed over time and one would expect that this would be addressed directly in each of the volumes or, even better, while discussing each author (after all, if so few made it into the list, we should understand what were the criteria for it). I will give two examples of important questions which are raised by what d'Ormesson says (and doesn't say) but which remained unanswered:
First is d'Ormesson's remarks on Roger Martin du Gard's style, which he seems to consider not literary enough to reach the level of "art". To that extent, d'Ormesson seems to fall victim to the very French prejudice holding that literature requires a "literary" style (in fact, d'Ormesson's style in his novels is quite affected indeed). I assume d'Ormesson's position is more complex but I wish he had taken this opportunity to address the issue rather than to cast a judgement on RMG without making the reasons behind this judgement more explicit (after all, does literature need to look like literature and smell like literature? And who chooses the look and smell it should have?).
My second example is d'Ormesson's discussion (or rather exposé) of Céline's antisemitism. Though commendably clear about Céline's racist and political views, d'Ormesson falls short of addressing the question of how these views interact with Céline's position in the canon of literature, and what they teach us about the relationship between prejudices and art. Does one invalidate the other? Both people who say (I simplify) "Céline is worthless because he is a racist" or "Céline is excused because he is a genius" seem to believe so. I wish d'Ormesson had asked the question, because Céline seems to present a paradigmatic case to pose the problem.
That said, the book remains a good read and a starting point to better reading of French literature, and I recommend it.
And so it is readable, informative and concise. The goal is certainly not to go in-depth about authors you like, but rather to take a sweeping, refreshing look at a number of major novelists of the 20th century (others are to be found in the volume called Écrivains et romanciers du XXe siècle).
To be sure, what claims to be "another" history of French literature may be "just another" one. The approach remains that of "one author, one chapter", with a discussion of the author's life and writing, followed by a biography, a bibliography and a short excerpt. To that extent, it may remind you of the bulkier and drier standard series by Lagarde & Michard. But d'Ormesson's book is more conversational and more teaser-like. It will certainly make you want to discover new books you had never read.
A few questions remain open, though, after reading this volume: d'Ormesson is rather unspecific regarding a definition of what constitutes "literature" and what doesn't. Yet, this object of study is a construct which changed over time and one would expect that this would be addressed directly in each of the volumes or, even better, while discussing each author (after all, if so few made it into the list, we should understand what were the criteria for it). I will give two examples of important questions which are raised by what d'Ormesson says (and doesn't say) but which remained unanswered:
First is d'Ormesson's remarks on Roger Martin du Gard's style, which he seems to consider not literary enough to reach the level of "art". To that extent, d'Ormesson seems to fall victim to the very French prejudice holding that literature requires a "literary" style (in fact, d'Ormesson's style in his novels is quite affected indeed). I assume d'Ormesson's position is more complex but I wish he had taken this opportunity to address the issue rather than to cast a judgement on RMG without making the reasons behind this judgement more explicit (after all, does literature need to look like literature and smell like literature? And who chooses the look and smell it should have?).
My second example is d'Ormesson's discussion (or rather exposé) of Céline's antisemitism. Though commendably clear about Céline's racist and political views, d'Ormesson falls short of addressing the question of how these views interact with Céline's position in the canon of literature, and what they teach us about the relationship between prejudices and art. Does one invalidate the other? Both people who say (I simplify) "Céline is worthless because he is a racist" or "Céline is excused because he is a genius" seem to believe so. I wish d'Ormesson had asked the question, because Céline seems to present a paradigmatic case to pose the problem.
That said, the book remains a good read and a starting point to better reading of French literature, and I recommend it.
January 23, 2013
Beaucoup aimé ce petit volume... il s'agit bien d'une "autre histoire de la littérature française" comme le dit le sous-titre, et non d'une anthologie classique... Ormesson mêle notices biographiques, extraits des oeuvres, un rien de contexte historique et puis surtout, sa patte, son style, son avis... c'est probablement pour ça que cela m'a plu.
Mais cela peut être relativement déconcertant si l'on s'attend à une anthologie en bonne et due forme.
Mais cela peut être relativement déconcertant si l'on s'attend à une anthologie en bonne et due forme.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews