La extraña vida de Iván Osokin: Una novela. (Traducido): Strange life of Ivan Osokin: A novel.

by P.D. Ouspensky

Traducción al español.
Previo a la primera Guerra Mundial, en su "búsqueda de lo milagroso", el autor escribe su primera novela basándose en las ideas de la Recurrencia Eterna ¿A dónde vamos? ¿Qué hemos hecho para estar ahí? ¿Podemos escapar del "destino"? ¿De dónde venimos?
Una excelente lectura introductoria a uno de los máximos exponentes del Cuarto Camino, P. D. Ouspensky.

Genres: Fiction, Philosophy, Russia, Russian Literature, Classics, Literature, Fantasy

138 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1915

About the author

Pyotr Demianovich Ouspenskii (known in English as Peter D. Ouspensky, Пётр Демья́нович Успе́нский; was a Russian mathematician and esotericist known for his expositions of the early work of the Greek-Armenian teacher of esoteric doctrine George Gurdjieff, whom he met in Moscow in 1915. He was associated with the ideas and practices originating with Gurdjieff from then on. He shared the (Gurdjieff) "system" for 25 years in England and the United States, having separated from Gurdjieff in 1924 personally, for reasons he explains in the last chapter of his book In Search of the Miraculous.

All in all, Ouspensky studied the Gurdjieff system directly under Gurdjieff's own supervision for a period of ten years, from 1915 to 1924. His book In Search of the Miraculous is a recounting of what he learned from Gurdjieff during those years. While lecturing in London in 1924, he announced that he would continue independently the way he had begun in 1921. Some, including his close pupil Rodney Collin, say that he finally gave up the system in 1947, just before his death, but his own recorded words on the subject ("A Record of Meetings", published posthumously) do not clearly endorse this judgement, nor does Ouspensky's emphasis on "you must make a new beginning" after confessing "I've left the system".

Reviews

[merixien · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,5/5

Özgür irade var mıdır yoksa hayat değiştirilemez monoton bir döngüden mi ibarettir sorgusu üzerine şekillenen bir kitap. Ivan hayatında yaptığı hatalar sonucu, kaybettiklerini geri almak istemektedir. Bu sırada bir büyücü ile tanışır ve sonsuz bir döngünün içerisine girer. hayatının kadını olduğunu düşündüğü Zinaida ile (ki buradaki isim seçimi de oldukça etkileyici) yollarının bir türlü birleşmemesinin sebebinin bir şanssızlık olduğu düşüncesinde. Ancak hiçbir çaba harcamadan yalnızca şans döngüyü kırmak için yeterli midir? Farklı bir yazım tarzını kazandırması ve fikir açısından çok değerli ancak dönemi ve ilk örneklerden olduğu göz önüne alındığında okurunu biraz sıkan yanları da var.

[Pia G. · Rating 4 out of 5]

insan bilmeli. ve bilmek için öğrenmeli; ve öğrenmek için fedakârlıkta bulunmalı. fedakârlık yapmadan hiçbir şey elde edilmez.
-
yaşa. tek şansın bu.

[Hulyacln · Rating 4 out of 5]

Çoğumuz zamanında yaptığımız bazı şeyleri değiştirmek ister. Örneğin sevdiğimiz birine söylediğimiz o ağır kelimeleri geri almak, seçtiğimiz bölümü değil de o hep aklımızın köşesinde kalan bölüme yönelmek.. Osokin de 12 yıl öncesine dönmek istiyor, hayatının kırılma noktasına. Sonrasını çok daha iyi bir hale getirebileceğine inanıyor. Şans mı demeli kader mi, isteği kabul oluyor genç Osokin'imizin. Tam da bu noktada oklar bize, okura, dönüyor: Sizce değiştirebilecek mi Osokin bugününü, geçmişe dönerek?
Elbette temennimiz onun mutluluğundan yana. Peki Uspenski'nin son sözü ne olacak dersiniz?
.
Ezoterizme karşı bilgim genelde batıni temelliydi. Pyotr Demyanoviç Uspenski'nin bu eseri ise ezoterizmi biraz daha araştırmamı sağladı. Çünkü İvan Osokin'in Hayatı sadece bir gencin seçimlerine odaklanmıyor. Çok daha derinlere çekiyor bizi, bir nev'i girdapta buluyorsunuz kendinizi. 'Hadi baştan alalım hayatı!' değil, 'hayatı başa saran bizler miyiz?' sorunsalı.
Ebediyet, varlık ve yokluk.
.
Benim için öyle keyifli bir okumaydı ki, bilhassa son yirmi sayfa..Osokin'i, Uspenski'yi tanımak kendimi şanslı hissettirdi. Evet evet, şanslı! Sebebi, içsel sorularımı tekrarlatmasından, unutmanın kolaylığına kaçışımı hatırlatışından.
.
Kısacık oluşuna aldanmayın, İvan Osokin'in size de gösterecekleri vardır elbet, bir bakın!
.
Ekin Uşşaklı çevirisi, Andre Kertesz kapak fotoğrafıyla~

[Sgrtkn · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Düşünüş ve kader aynı şeydir. Düşünce tarzımızı değiştirmediğimiz sürece aynı yollardan tekrar geçmek zorunda kalırız. "

[A. Raca · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Ben olduğum yerde sayarken diğer herkes kendi yolunda ilerliyor. Sanki hayatı kendimce şekillendirmek istemişim de, tek becerebildiğim onu paramparça etmek olmuş."

[Μπάμπης M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ενδιαφέρον ρώσικο φιλοσοφικό μυθιστόρημα για την "αιώνια επανάληψη". Αν και μικρό δεν είναι ιδιαίτερα πικνογραμμένο. Η καλύτερη στιγμή του είναι τα τελευταία κεφάλαια.

[Tülay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Her insan, hayatının belli döneminde yıllar içersinde kazandıği deneyimlerle icinde bulunduğu yıldan on yıl öncesine tekrar gitsem aynı hataları tekrar etmem diye düşünmüştür. Iste bu soru üzerinden hareket eden bir metin Ivan Osokin'in Tuhaf Hayatı. Osokin ailesinin ondan beklediği ümitleri boşa çıkarmış, başarısızlık icinde hayatini geçirmiş ve yaptığı hatalarla sevdiği kadını kaybetmiş bir tutunamayandir. Büyücü ile karşılaşması onun hayatında bir dönüm noktası olur .Iste yazar bu noktada okuyucuya kader sorunsalını hatırlatır. Kader değişir mi ? Kader bizim çabamıza mi bağlı ? Yoksa kaderi değiştirmeye çalışmak bir kısır döngü, bir beyhude çaba mi ?Bu sorular üzerinden metin ilerler ve okuyucuyu biraz mistik , biraz felsefi bir düşünce dünyasına çeker. Uspenski yaşamı boyunca ezoterizmle ilgi duymuş ve bu konuda çalışmalar yapmış bir yazar .Özellikle ebedî tekrar olus ve sonsuz geri dönüş konuları üzerinde düşünmüş ve Ivan Osokin'in Tuhaf Hayati kitabini da bu temeller üzerinden yazmıştır. Ezoterizme olan ilgisi ve sonsuz geri dönüş kavramıyla bana Madame Blavatsky ve Mircea Eliade 'yi hatırlattığını söyleyebilirim. Dostoyevski'nin romanlarının alt metnine bakıldığında da mistik öğeleri görmek mümkündür. Ve Dostoyevski bu öğeleri psikoloji bilimiyle harmalamıştır. Tıpkı Carl Gustav Jung gibi. Ve metni bitirdiğimde aklıma Jung 'un " dışarı bakan rüya görür ve içeri bakan uyanır sözü geldi. Ve metinde yer alan "sen değiştiğinde her sey değişir" sözü de bence Jung'u destekler nitelikte. Dili yalın akıcı bir metin Ivan Osokin'in Tuhaf Hayatı. Okumak isteyen herkes keyifli okumalar dilerim.

[İpek Dadakçı · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Eylemlerinin sonuçlarını her zaman bilirsin; ama tuhaf bir şekilde, bir şey yapmak ve başka bir eylemin sonucuna ulaşmak istersin” (s.21). “Bugüne kadar, hayata başkalarından farklı yaklaştığını düşünmeyen biriyle tanışmadım” (s.20). “Kişiye yalnızca kullanabileceği şeyler verilir ve o da yalnızca uğrunda fedakarlık yaptığı şeyi kullanabilir. İnsan doğasının kanunu bu. Yani bir kişi önemli bilgiler edinmek ya da yeni güçlere sahip olmak istiyorsa, o an kendisi için değerli başka şeyleri feda etmelidir” (s.175). 📝
Yaptığı bir dizi hata sonucu sevdiği kadını kaybeden ve şimdiki aklıyla hayatının on iki sene öncesine gidebilse bu durumu düzeltebileceğine inanan İvan Osokin’in bir büyücüyle tanışması ve onun yardımıyla bu dileğini gerçekleştirmesi üzerine yaşananları anlatıyor kitap. Bu kurguyla kader, özgür irade, şansın ve karakterin hayat döngüsündeki rolü sorgulanıyor. Nietzsche’nin bengi dönüş ya da sonsuz dönüş düşüncesinden etkilenen Uspenski bu eseri 1915’te kaleme almış. Anlatım ya da kurgunun değil, yazarın fikirlerinin ön plânda olduğu kitaplardan. Şüphesiz zamanının oldukça ilerisinde ama bence bugün de hâlâ oldukça etkileyici bir eser. Okuru hemen herkesin içinden geçirdiği ama üzerine pek de kafa yormadığı bir konuda hem düşünmeye, hem de kendisiyle dürüst bir iç hesaplaşmaya sevk ediyor. Bitirdikten sonra da zihnimi oldukça meşgul etti. Çok beğendim.

[Merve Eflatun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bir tez okuması sırasında karşıma çıkan kitap. Borges'in evren kurgusunu etkileyen romanlar arasında yer alıyor. (Zaman üzerinde tekrarlar ve sonsuzluğa doğru uzanma.) Geçmişe dönme ve biraz da kader üzerine düşünsel bir altyapı barındırıyor. Bu altyapı kitabın sonlarında karşıya çıkıyor ve kitabın da özünü oluşturuyor. Pek emin olmasam da geçmişe dönme ve hesaplaşma yönünde yazılmış ilk kitap olarak geçiyor. (1915) Aynı zamanda Ouspensky'nin tek romanı. İlklerden olmasından dolayı biraz primitif kalıyor bazı şeyler öte yandan ilklerden olması onu eğlenceli kılıyor. Bundan dolayı sonu tahmin edilebilir ama hevesimi kırmayan bir okuma sundu.

Tezde iyi bir iş çıkarılarak grafiklendirilmiş romandaki zamansal ilişkiler, referans vermeden olmaz:
Deniz Yatağan, Jorge Luis Borges Yazınında Evren Kurgusu, 2007

[Seda · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bu kitabi bugun okumamda bi hikmet var mi bilemedim, ama varsa komik bi hikmet galiba 😀 Hayatimizin uzerinde soz sahibi miyiz, yoksa zaten her sey yazilmis biz ancak cizilmis yolda gidiyor muyuz ekseni etrafinda donen, yer yer sikici oldukca da kaderci bi kitap. Bu kitap da diger her kitabin yaptigi gibi beni kendi icime itti de itti. Bundan sonrasini gunlugume de yazabilirdim ama gunlugum yok, buraya yaziyorum siz okumayin. Kendimle ilgili degistirmek isteyip, isin ilginci aslinda degistirme kabiliyetim oldugunu da dusunup yine de degistiremedigimi gordukce icin icin kendime kizip dururken, “bi dakika yahu, belki de degistirme kabiliyetim zaten yoktu?” soru isaretini cinlatti kafamda. Iyi oldu, biraz da bu sularda yururuz. Yururuz derken, kendimle beraber yurutmeyi planladigim bir arkadas var.

Tugce gel bisi konuscaz😀

Su cumleyi de buraya ekleyerek gunlugume son veriyorum simdilik: “Dusuncelerini bir anligina durdurabilse her seyi anlayacakmis gibi hissediyor, ama dusunceleri oyle hizla akip gidiyor ki, hic birini yakalayamiyor”

Hmmm… tanidik birisi.

[Y · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ouspensky gives an illustrative example of the mechanicalness of man and his theory of eternal recurrence. One can hope and dream to make things different but will still act as frustratingly self-destructive as ever, not due to anything metaphysical, but because the internal and external forces make a human react in a consistent way.

[Kyriakos S Kyriakou · Rating 4 out of 5]

Αγαπητέ κύριε Ιβάν Οσοκίν με την παράξενη ζωή σου, έχω κάποια πράγματα που θέλω να μοιραστώ μαζί σου, τώρα που τελείωσα το βιβλίο! https://anotherlookforyou.blogspot.co...

[Scot · Rating 4 out of 5]

A mind-stretching story of recurrence - the concept that we continue to repeat the same life over and over again, not quite reincarnation, actually repeating the same life. The main character has the chance to go back 12 years in life and struggles to do anything different no matter how much he wants to. Eerie when you apply it to your life, the book gets into your head a little and you start to think about in a way where this could be real, this could be me. Worth a read for anyone familiar with the ideas of GI Gurdjieff, fans of Russian literature, or general spiritual seekers who like to intake new info via fiction, not just holy books.

Note, though the Goodreads entry lists the author as Pyotr Uspensky, he is more commonly referred to in the anglicized version of his name, P.D. Ouspensky.

[D. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bir "zamanda yolculuk" kitabı. Kitabın kahramanı Osokin, geçmişte kendine göre büyük hatalar yapmıştır ve bu hatalarından pişmanlık duymaktadır. Bir büyücüden kendisini geçmişe göndermesini ister. Bu sayede içini kemiren, bugünü etkileyen hatalarını telafi etmek istemektedir. Sonrasında Osokin'in geçmişe gidip yaşadıklarını okuruz. Konusu güzel olmasına güzel fakat çok gereksiz ayrıntılar verilmiş ve konu daima aynı çemberde dönüp duruyor hissiyatı veriyor. Başlangıçta güzel başlayan kitap, ortalarda sıkmaya başlıyor. Kahramanımız çoğu yerde hep aynı şeyleri söylüyor, aynı cümleleri kuruyor. Konu ilerlemiyor, kimi yerde tıkanıyor hatta. Yalnızlık, hatalar, pişmanlıklar, kader gibi temaların derinliği iyi verilemiyor. Sonlara doğru felsefik çözümlemeler yapılıyor, o kısımlar kitabın en okunmaya değer yerleri. Okunamayacak kadar kötü değil fakat iyi de değil. Ortalama seviyede kalıyor.

[Capsguy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eh, not altogether bad. The prose itself is less than average (in comparison to the quality of work I generally read, in comparison to genre-fiction this would be better than average), however I found the little life lessons an enjoyable thing to consume this afternoon.

Certainly does make the reader think about the monotony of life, and how we really don't have a choice, but it's not something I'd live my life by.

The preaching at the end was justified, since it was sharp and straight to the point. Definitely not re-read quality for me, but I'm glad I took the time to check out this little known classic.

[Bettie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stunningly executed, and no, Groundhog Day does not equate.

[Ozge · Rating 5 out of 5]

Son 20 sayfayı soluksuz okudum. Mükemmeldi.

[Tanner Foster · Rating 2 out of 5]

WARNING! SPOILERS!
I had higher hopes for this book before I began it, to suddenly find that they’d been dashed away. My review is definitely biased since I am convinced by the Platonic tradition that the views here are absolute rubbish and nonsensical, but even if I find a premise illogical, if the story is entertaining or explores the option in an insightful way, I generally can suspend my disbelief. Sadly, that was not the case here. For those who do not know, I guess the author was somewhat of an occultist and spiritualist who believed in strange doctrines, like that of Nietzschean eternal recurrence (which is put on display here). It seems like me like the Stoic idea that the universe keeps on reforming itself and the exact same things happen over and over again for all eternity going from the beginning to the Great Conflagration and back again. It’s not exactly the same and I’m also not very familiar with Nietzsche so I can’t compare and contrast them.
It looks like I’m getting ahead of myself. The basic plot is that a man, Ivan Osokin, who keeps making bad decisions (like all of us, so an Everyman) wishes he could go back and time and fix all of his mistakes. Well, it just so happens that he knows a magician (I may be forgetting here, but I don’t recall how or why he knows a wizard) who can send him back in time although he tells him that he won’t be able to fix his mistakes. At first, I thought it would be similar to the butterfly effect or the final destination movies, the idea that even if you change some secondary details, it doesn’t matter the major events will stay the same. That is not the case as it makes very clear right off the bat. The magician informs Ivan that he will not be able to because he knew everything he needed to at the time and it was absolutely beyond his control (either that or it was in his control and he actually wanted things to turn out the way they did secretly). This is where things start to go downhill.
Ivan is convinced that “we crawl about like blink kittens on top of a table, never knowing where the edge is. We do absurd things because we know nothing that lies ahead of us. If only we could know! (pg. 14). Ivan is, of course, right as Socrates and Plato and any rational person knows. The magician however asserts but does not explain why or how he gets the absurdly and obviously incorrect notion that we have full knowledge of all the future and present ramifications of our actions. And with that, he sends Ivan 12 years into the past and the reader is subjected to 100 pages of torment with the gleam of a jewel every so often to entice you along, but it is a bleak and dreary desert most of the way. The chief reason is because this idea is so horribly depressing which should also clue one into the fact that it is probably wrong. Again, I’m showing my Platonism by insisting that Beauty, Truth, and Goodness ultimately must coincide. Another painful error Ouspensky makes is that “there is no essential difference between the past and the future. (pg. 34)” Of course there is, as even a child can tell you, one is determined the other is not.
What follows is a long, irritating, and depressing read as we follow Ivan and see him doing the EXACT same things he did before even though he saw them coming. “Everything is beginning to happen exactly as before, as though the wheel of some terrible machine were slowly turning, a wheel to which he is bound and which he can neither stop nor hold back. (pg. 42)” It would’ve been worth it, if we would’ve seen some clever way the author found to have him do the same things again, but alas that was not the case. “How could I have forgotten that?” (pg. 42) and “What the devil drives me to do all these stupid things?” (pg. 50) is all the justification given. Zero points for extreme laziness and lack of originality especially when it seems like this is supposed to be some type of apologetical work intended to convince us of the truth of his doctrine. The point could have been made with far less examples and far less of Ivan’s whining and carrying on, it really takes the wind out of your sails. You start to believe there is no redeeming quality to the book at all, it just drudges on for most of its length with depressing (and incorrect) philosophy multiplied through the lens of character we don’t even care about and in fact, somewhat hate.
Another question not dealt with concerns the time travel, but I’ve seen enough and read enough time travel to know that it’s best not to ask too many questions, especially when there are far more egregious problems. He does somewhat expand on the reason why people do the same things over again (barely) when he likens it to why a rabbit freezes up in front of snake instead of running (pg. 58). The problem with that analogy is that most rabbits on most occasions don’t do that. Also, it is just another assertion, not an explanation and smacks of voluntarism. At some points Ouspensky types into a strangely mystical and to me, unintelligible, idea that “everything has already been and therefore nothing really exists, that everything is a dream and a mirage. They understand that there never has been anything, that they themselves do not exist, and that nothing exists (pg. 90).” This is different than the more reasonable (and Platonic) idea that this life is a shadow of another, greater, and fuller world. I don’t see the logic behind the first part of the statement; how is it that things already happening make it so nothing exists? What?
After the long, boring, and depressing 2nd act, we get the resolution where you would hope the slog had been worth it and you’d be wrong. The ending is representative of the book as a whole – there are some good seeds that could’ve, under the right circumstances, bore much fruit but that were utterly spoiled and ruined by a stupid philosophy. Ivan has screwed everything up exactly as before and wants to DO IT ALL AGAIN! You as the reader are hoping this damn thing doesn’t happen all over again to multiply your torments and luckily you are clear. The magician tells him that, of course, wouldn’t fix the problem. Apparently, he can keep going into the past a finite number of times, but then suddenly he will not cross paths with the magician in one of those and will have to keep going forward in time (pg. 111). The magician then reveals to Ivan, after he asks the right question, because apparently he is also a deterministic robot slave who cannot give any info unless asked the right question, that his love interest never had any intention of leaving him, it was an adolescent ruse meant to punish him. After this revelation, our inept magician (who seems like a stand-in for God) declares that he can only offer his help to people at a particular moment in time and only once in all the eternal recurrences of the universe. He never says why; just like the rest of the nonsense in the book you must just accept that’s the way things work.
The magician also says that Ivan cannot change what has already happened but can change his future by professing absolute and unconditional obedience to him for 20 years and sacrificing what ever the magician deems necessary because sacrifice somehow “creates causes” (pg. 115). So many problems. I actually agree with the magician that “nothing can be acquired without sacrifice” but the magician’s explanation is super hokey and weird. Also, what was all that stuff about the future and past being the same and that, in fact, nothing exists, and everything is a farcical illusion? Also, why are things different now if there is a way to change things, we’ve been told this whole time we’re basically screwed—all we will ever amount to is slaves or puppets to the atoms and the void, destined to repeat an absurdly tragic and stupid play again and again for all eternity. Why does Ivan have to enslave himself to an untrustworthy mage; sounds like a trap. The magician’s final words to Ivan are bleak as hell “you must understand that very powerful forces will be opposed to you and you will be alone, always alone” (pg. 117) The last scene when Ivan is standing in a crowd and feels a wave of awe come over him, hinting that he sees beauty in all this nonsensical rubbish made my jaw drop. I’m genuinely surprised some people see this bleak and appalling vision compelling and worthy of anything more than scorn.
The book was not completely without merit, there are lots of interesting ideas, allusions, and references that crop up every now and then. For instance, I learned and laughed at something Pushkin wrote in his notes about a jester being asked whether he’d prefer to be hanged or quartered and he answered that he’d prefer milk soup. I might use that at parties. Also, like I said it had some nuggets of wisdom that glimmered about here and there dimly lighting the dark, arid desert of the manuscript. Here are some examples. Zenaida gives Osokin some actual good advice “When a man wants anything as strongly as you say you do, he acts” (pg. 4). We are shown how egotistical we can be, which is healthy, on pg. 13 “’I have never met a man yet,’ he says, “who was not convinced that he approached life rather differently from other people.” Ouspensky does show some insight into the human condition:
“There is something in us that keeps us where we find ourselves. I think this is the most awful thing of “(pg. 26) .
“I never tell her what I ought to tell her, or what I think and feel. Why? It’s as though there were a mist around me, or as though I were tied and forced to act in this way and in no other” (pg. 103).
These passages eloquently express the notion that we are enslaved by passions against our will and this idea could’ve been explored in fruitful ways. The problem is that to do this goes 100% opposite his philosophy that we make these decisions in full knowledge and freedom. If we are in bondage to demons, evil thoughts, what have you, then we are in a tragic condition. The other thing is that he leans heavily on the tragic part but doesn’t see that this is a temporary condition from which we shall be liberated, so it is no wonder that the whole book is dismal.
He also astutely notes the negative side of our adaptive superiority. We adapt so well that even if everyone on Earth died suddenly and all at once and you were the only one left alive this would astonish you at first, but then you would eventually get used to it. I find a poignant truth in that, but that’s the problem with this entire novella. Ouspensky focuses inordinately on the negative, but since he is human he tries to find some good in it, even though it isn’t logically possible so we are somehow supposed to believe the way things are as he presents them are good, we just need to accept his view to do it. It is better to “look the truth straight in the face” (pg. 85) and further to realize that there will be “charlatans who convince them [truth-seekers] that everything is very easy and simple. This is the greatest illusion of all” (pg. 113). It’s even true that “in order to change anything you must first change yourself. And this is much more difficult than you think. It requires constant effort for a long time and much knowledge” (pg. 113) The problem is that he is not offering the truth, though it is commendable that he thinks he does and valiantly strives after it. All in all, I would maybe recommend this for a one time read through if you have nothing better to do, but if you wanted more profound meditations on this subject I’d recommend going to classical sources like Plato and Plotinus, the Vedas, the Bible, Evagrius’ Praktikos, Shantideva’s Bodhicaryavatara or the Tipitaka. This is inane drivel compared to those ancient works.

Note: The kindle version is cheap but terribly formatted. You can still understand the story, but a physical copy may be better.

[Bruce]

Since I have been a student of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff , it was easy to follow this particular story written in Novel form by PD Ouspensky. However, I strongly urge any reader to read "A New Model of the Universe", or "In Search of the Miraculous" (both by Ouspensky) first. Also, it would really be helpful to read the "Fourth Way" too as the basic arguments pointed out in the story require some understanding of "eternal recurrence".

I'm not sure, but the book, "Strange Life of Ivan Osokin" seems like a translation making it difficult to read periodically. Maybe I found it difficult because I was reading the Kindle version which has some very bad formatting errors.

Anyway, it is not easy to explain the story without giving away the premise -- so I won't do that. Instead, let me say this, "It is worth reading the novel because Ouspensky brings a lot the philosophy from his meetings with Gurdjieff into a very compelling story form making the nature of "eternal recurrence" an understandable premise.

I read this novel slowly (about one or two chapters per reading) because I wanted to pour over the philosophical implications. So, does that mean it is slow reading? No, not at all. Just that it is definitely not something I would recommend skimming through. If you get to the end, it will hopefully shock you -- like it did me!

[Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the story of a young man - Ivan Osokin - who allows the love of his life to go off to the Crimea without him. There she falls in love and eventually marries another man, leaving Osokin broken hearted. He seeks the help of a magician who sends him back in time to the age of 14, to relive his life in order to avoid the mistakes he had made and ultimately get the girl. But as time passes Osokin finds himself making the same mistakes, even though he knows what is coming next in his life. This is one of the central themes of the book: there is an immutable, unchanging inevitability about life. The past cannot be changed, even if you know whats coming.
When he returns to the magician, however, he discovers that this is not quite true: changing one's future requires real sacrifice. The magician offers Osokin the opportunity to tie himself sacrificially to the magician for 15 or 20 years in order to change his life and win the girl. The final chapter of the book sees Osokin considering what to do.
The novel ends with a devastating realisation on the part of Osokin: '......suddenly an extraordinarily vivid sensation sweeps over him that if he were not there, everything would be exactly the same.' In other words, the world, Osokin comes to believe, does not revolve around him and his choices or desires at all.
The book, was reputedly the basis for the comedy film 'Groundhog Day'. Of course, in the film, love breaks the circle of repetition, not cause it, as it does in the book.
This book suffers from two problems. Firstly, unless one can speak Russian, it is a translation with all the problems of accuracy that this can bring. Secondly it is a book which is unsure whether it is a novel or a philosophical treatise.

[Oğuz Kayra · Rating 4 out of 5]

«Ne kadar şaşırırsak şaşıralım, hiçbir şey değişmiyor ve biz sanki bu durum hayret verici değilmiş gibi davranmaya başlıyoruz.»

Normal başlayan kitap «Çark Dönüyor» bölümüyle zirve yaptı benim için. Bir puanı başlangıç ve bir nebze de kitabı bitiriş şeklinden kırdım. Bunun dışında ileride kesinlikle tekrar okuyacağım.

Kitapta en sevdiğim yazarlardan Stevenson alıntıları ekstra ilgimi arttırdı.

Kolay okunan tuhaf bir kitap.

«Önce ne olduysa, yine olacak. Önce ne yapıldıysa, yine yapılacak. Güneşin altında yeni bir şey yok.»

— Vaiz 1:9-15

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found the conclusion of this novel to be incredibly pessimistic about the possibility of escaping from samsara. What are people that have guessed the great secret but are unable to meet the magician supposed to do?

[Sevgi Şen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Roman Nietzsche'nin bengi dönüş fikrini ele alıyor ki zaten kitapta da Nietzsche'nin bu yöndeki fikirlerini okuduğunu söylüyor ana karakter. Okuması keyifli, bir o kadar da düşündüren bir kurgu.

[Eda · Rating 2 out of 5]

Çok daha iyi bir şekilde işlenebilecek bir konu iken hiç edilmiş sanki. İlk başta beklentim çok yükselmişken sonunda yere çakılmış bir şekilde noktaladım kitabı.

[Nazli İkizler · Rating 4 out of 5]

3,5/5

[Esra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Şu anda en sevdiğim kitap listesinin 1. sırasında😁 morel'in buluşu 2. sıraya düştü😁😁😁

[Euan Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5/5

Really enjoyed this one, the perspective on time and existence, building off Nietzsche's "eternal recurrence" was very interesting and the overall book was well written and flowed very well. Overall a really enjoyable and interesting read but would be much much better if Ivan wasn't portrayed in such an annoying fashion (although I guess this is authorial intent - making clear his ideology of fatalism), and also the ending which makes literally no sense at all.

[Nora · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was the last book of 1915 I read. I kept putting it off because I was sure it would be incredibly boring and all about philosophy. I mean, Ouspensky, right? Surprise!! This was amazing, one of the best. Guess what? It is about time travel! I used to be obsessed with time travel and have read so many time travel novels, and even written some, and even got one published. So I thought I knew all the usual time travel tropes and tricks. But Strange Life of Ivan Osokin is completely original. It’s a completely realistic novel about time travel. This is what time travel would really be like if it were possible, or maybe it even is actually happening constantly.

You know how sometimes the character travels back in time but because of the rules of time travel, or to keep from changing the future, or because of meddling by the super-villains, nothing can be changed? This book is NOT like that. In this story, nothing changes because the protagonist is too stuck in his ways to change, even though that’s the very reason why he traveled back in time to live life again as his younger self. You think you would do things differently if you were fourteen again, but would you really? Why would you, you are the same person you were before. At first I felt very sympathetic to Ivan as he makes the identical mistakes he set out to avoid. Because being in school is so horrible. It’s easy to think if you had a chance to do it all over again you’d be a success this time, but actually it’s a no-win situation and you still wouldn’t want to do your homework. And I felt sympathetic to Ivan as he decided that this time his mother wouldn’t die. It is such an awful and impossible thing to believe, that your mother will ever die, no wonder he still can’t believe it even after he’s already lived through it. Even after he’s longed so much to see his mother again, when he does get to spend time with her, he’s churlish and uncommunicative just like he was the first time around, and he still causes her trouble that (he believes) contributes to her early death.

But it’s hard to maintain sympathy with Ivan as he spirals down through his life. The magician told him he would remember that he had traveled through time as long as he wanted to remember it, and he doesn’t want to remember anymore. Then he meets Zinaida. She’s the reason he wanted to have a second chance, a chance to win her. When we met her the first time, at the very end of their relationship, she seemed sulky and spoiled and to be toying with Ivan. But once I got to see the actual arc of their relationship, everything she did and said made a lot of sense; this was very nicely laid out. I was really just at the edge of my seat waiting to see what would happen when the loop closed. And is this the second time he’s lived through his life, or maybe the third? Can he get out of the loop? Usually, I’m pretty cavalier about spoiling the books of 1915 but I think I’ll pause here, because you probably really want to go out and read this very accessible and short science fiction novel.

I said that The Forged Note was the book of 1915 that made me think the most, but actually it was this one. This book made me think really hard about me and my life and what the hell should I do? You can’t ask for much more than that. Just in case you are too lazy to read Strange Life of Ivan Osokin, I’ll give you the fruits of my labor. Obviously, Ivan is just like me, and possibly you, so I studied his mistakes closely to see how I can avoid them. These are his problems. 1) He daydreams all the time, like me. After becoming a schoolboy again, how does he occupy his mind? By thinking about a made-up universe called Oceanis. Well, naturally. 2) He never talks to anyone about real stuff. Not once does he tell a friend, “Hey, this weird thing is happening to me. I think I traveled through time.” And he never tells Zinaida how he really feels; he just blathers on. 3) Ivan never mends fences with anyone he’s had a fight with. He just assumes they hate him forever and he writes them off. I bet an apologetic letter to his uncle would’ve gone a long way. 4) He cares what other people think about him. He gambles away his last dollar because he’s self-conscious about how he looks to a bunch of rich people. Actually, no one really cares what anyone else does and they’re all completely oblivious because they’re busy thinking about Oceanis or being caught in their loop themselves. So why bother? 5) He’s hella lazy. How about when Zinaida tries to get him a job as a civil servant and he turns it down even though he’s penniless, because he’s a poet. 6) He’s always making plans for the future, or thinking about how he did things wrong in the past. He is in the present zero percent of the time.

That’s the one that really got me, because isn’t making a catalog of your own/Ivan’s mistakes just another way to defer everything to the future or past? This one seems like the real problem, especially in a time travel scenario, which is every scenario really because in regular life you are supposedly traveling from the past into the future but all the time you are only ever in the present. Strange Life of Ivan Osokin makes it clear that everyone is going through their life as a zombie, stuck in the same patterns they’ve always been stuck in, and the only other option is to wake up. So then I got to thinking, is it really a good thing to be woke? Because if you are awake and present, that means being awake and present to a lot of extremely unpleasant experiences. Honestly there are advantages and disadvantages to being a zombie. Ultimately I decided that since being in the present is one of my wife’s very few interests I might as well be there with her since I married her and stuff.

Anyway, that’s enough about me. Another feature of Strange Life of Ivan Osokin is a recurring reference to an English fairy tale which is very haunting; I don’t know if it’s a real fairy tale or if Ouspensky made it up. And there are a few references to an upcoming revolution in Russia that are interesting. And I really like the open-ended nature of the book’s conclusion: The Gurdjieff-type magician has warned Ivan that it’s very easy to get distracted, and you can almost see it about to happen to Ivan. Because on the one hand everything that Ivan thinks he wants is available to him, but on the other hand he knows that it won’t work out and he is doomed to make the same mistakes again unless he becomes a completely different person.

I wonder what he will do? I was really pleased to learn that Ouspensky has a non-fiction treatment of the same material, called A New Model of the Universe.

[AcademicEditor · Rating 4 out of 5]

As a Russian literature major, there were some authors whose names I knew but whose works I simply did not get around to reading. P. D. Ouspensky (to use the old-style but common spelling) was one. I was therefore glad to have the opportunity to review this new publication of the text of The Strange Life of Ivan Osokin, unchanged from the 1940s Faber & Faber edition. Strangely, this edition does not credit a translator, and I cannot find one listed for the F&F edition online--perhaps it could be found in a paper copy. Anyway, not having read the original, I can't speak to the quality of the translation. I didn't notice any obvious errors or inconsistencies though.

This book has enjoyed some notoriety because Harold Ramis mentioned it in connection with Groundhog Day, and even wrote a foreword to a different edition. It is a depiction of Nietzsche's theory of eternal return, with a similar kind of pathos. Osokin was not an appealing character to me, and some of the others in his world are more unlikable still. But it is a unique story that tests the reader's imagination and sense of time.

Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for the opportunity to review a digital ARC in exchange for an unbiased review.

[Dreamer · Rating 3 out of 5]

**SPOILERS AHEAD**

This book reminded me of Nietzsche's Eternal Return. What happens if you have to repeat you life over and over again? Well, that's not exactly the case with Osokin, since he only repeats his life once, but still. While reading it I was pretty sure than in the end Osokin would once again go back in time, over and over again. Although that kind of ending wouldn't be the ideal one, it would be way too repetitive, I think it would be better than the actual ending. Don't get me wrong, I liked it when Osokin decided that he didn't want to return again, and that he would continue his life from that right moment, but after that things took the wrong turn. Like, the wizard telling Osokin that he could give him 15 years of his life, during which he would possibly have to fight with the devil (?). I didn't like it, honestly, I think I gave it 3 stars just for that, otherwise it might have been 4. I mean, okay, he decided he wanted to continue his life, I get it and I like it, why do we need all that magic-ish stuff at the very end? I'm sorry, but it was disappointing. It had so much more potential.