Min Kamp 1 - Part 1 (May 2016)

[Whitney]

Here is the discussion for Part 1 of the book, which encompasses slightly less than the first half. I’ve written a few questions for discussion, but as usual please post anything you would like to about the book and your reaction to it.

Knausgaard has said this book is a novel, not a memoir or autobiography. On the other hand, he is presenting the events and people straight out of his life. How does declaring it a novel change the reading experience, or the way that you respond to it?

Part one begins with a meditation on death and the contradiction between how people view death and how they view the dead (something that will come up again later in the book). “We know this is how it is, but we do not want to face it. Hence the collective act of repression symbolized by the concealment of our dead.” Knausgaard transitions from his poetic exploration of death to his more mundane descriptive prose via a face that Karl Ove sees in the water on the TV during a report on a boating accident. Did the first part fit with the rest of the book? Why so you think Knausgaard’s started this way, instead of simply diving into his life story?

Most of the book is almost pure description, with little attempt at psychological dissection. Did you think this style was distancing, or did the level of detail give you enough insight to understand Karl Ove?

[Sandra]

I read this book a while back, in the fall. I don't have a physical copy as it was a library book and I'm, at this moment 2000 miles away from home! So I have to go by memory alone, and at my age, it's slippin'!

This book left quite an impression on me and I don't really know why. It's quite simple, almost boring at times but it, at the same time, somehow, cuts right to the very heart of the human experience.

I'm not sure why Knausgaard considers this more akin to a novel than a memoir, when the whole time I was reading I couldn't escape from the cover of the book, a picture of Knausgaard with the most worried, almost pained look on his face. So I never could put much distance between the man and his words. It was straight from his heart. But maybe he wants us to forget about him and just consider the story itself for whatever it is.

Death is the big boogyman lurking in dark corners the whole of our lives. Once we find out the reality of its inevitability, our lives kind of take a turn from fairy tales to reality. And we usually find out about death and can actually grasp the concept of it when we start school. So since it's basically with us from the beginning, what better way to start a book about a life? Haha

Like I said, I could not ever forget about Karl Ove as I read. This is one of those weird books, I think, that you either "get" it or you find it unbarebly tedious reading the details, details and the constant inner scrutiny.

[Hugh]

The first section on death drew me in very quickly, but as you say it seems out of character with what follows. I'm about two thirds of the way through the first part, and finding the book very readable without yielding any major insights into the overall structure and Knausgaard's motivations, beyond a form of cathartic self-analysis. I suspect this will become clearer as the book continues. I would agree that the young Knausgaard is not very likeable, but I don't think that matters. As to in what sense this is a novel and not a memoir, I really have no idea!

[Whitney]

Hugh wrote: "The first section on death drew me in very quickly, but as you say it seems out of character with what follows. I'm about two thirds of the way through the first part, and finding the book very rea..."

In most interviews, he seems to imply cathartic self-analysis as a big motivation as well, ignited by his father's death. I'm also still struggling with what to take away from this as a novel instead of a memoir. We read them differently, in a novel you question what is represented by a particular action, whereas in a memoir you wonder more about motivations and results of actions. Knausgaard said that he wanted to write about his father, not about fathers. But then he calls it a novel and implies that universality he's previously denied.

[Whitney]

Sandra wrote: "Like I said, I could not ever forget about Karl Ove as I read. This is one of those weird books, I think, that you either "get" it or you find it unbarebly tedious reading the details, details and the constant inner scrutiny. ..."

I'm also very taken in by the whole thing without being able to say exactly why. It definitely does seem to flirt with tediousness while managing to somehow avoid it. He catalogs many of the trappings of any teenage life; sneaking beer to a party, playing in a bad band, trying to get with girls, etc.. Do you think he's adding any particular insight to these things? To me, it sometimes seems like he's studiously avoiding offering any insights or self-analysis beyond what he's feeling at the time.

[Sandra]

I'm not sure. I wish I had the book handy so I could go back and reread some of these sections. I think perhaps he was highlighting some of the utter banality of being a teen. We think we are so damn original and uncompromising when we are that age. Everything we do is so fraught with this weird dichotomy of the boredom of school and family and homework juxtaposed with the excitement of getting drunk and attending parties and (hopefully) hooking up with and experimenting with a sexual partner. It feels so immediate these interludes, so exciting and fresh because we ourselves are only now experiencing these revelations of life and love, but really, teens since the caveman days have been doing this stuff... Breaking away from the family, living dangerously by taking chances with drugs, booze, sex, bad driving... Forging this "unique" identity based upon what is considered cool by one's peers. Ho-hum. We all go through this in one form or another, these formative years. They are at the same time unique seeming to the individual and ubiquitous to the human experience. (Well at least as far as western culture). Though I'm sure the whole teenage world has rights of passage.

Tl;dr- Knausgaard is showing us how boring and alike we are at this age, even though at the time we think we invented this stuff.

[Hugh]

I'm a few pages into part 2 now and starting to understand a little more - better not say too much about that yet but I did like "Writing is more about destroying than creating".

The last few pages of part 1 are quite moving, as the father's human weaknesses are partially explained.

[Whitney]

Sandra, I think that's insightful about Knausgaard being intentionally mundane. While a lot of discussion of this book is how he goes into painstaking detail of his life, he's still picking and choosing which aspects to dig into, otherwise it would be 600 volumes instead of 6.

I do think that maybe his intent was a little different than to show how everyone's youth is mundane and typical. Going back to his quote about wanting to write about particular people and events, and not the idea of people and events, perhaps he's trying to demonstrate how HIS youth was largely typical. There are definite hints in the first part of the book as to why he might want to do that, and some stronger ones emerging in part 2 (I've only just started, so I'll refrain from further comment until the next section).

[Marc]

One of the things that stood out to me from Part 1 is the way the father looms large as a kind of threat or unpredictable force without the reader actually seeing anything menacing (I think the worst he does is verbally poke fun at Karl Ove a few times). But we know Karl is deeply uncomfortable around him, doesn't want to live with him when the parents get divorced, etc. I was trying to figure out if the father is portrayed this way because the young Karl Ove doesn't really know what to make of him or whether the reader is intentionally being left in the dark about more abusive/violent aspects of their relationship. Any thoughts on that (might be hard to comment w/out spoilers, but i haven't read to the point where I'd know if there were spoilers)?

His youth does seem fairly "typical" in terms of socializing, drinking, wanting to be cool, etc. But there's just this edge of off-kilteredness: family members he's never met or heard of before; what seems like a deep love for his mother, yet they hardly speak in Part 1 (I think it's not till they discuss his falling for a girl that they exchange anything besides coming-and-going pleasantries); etc.

[Whitney]

There is more in part 2 that relates to your comments. Regarding the paucity of his mother's appearance, K has said in interviews that one of the reasons is that she was still alive so he was more restrained, and also ".... my mother gives me something. It's harder to write about what people give you."

The above quote is from this interview, which has what could be considered spoilers: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ent...

I did think his dad was being portrayed as a bully in the first part. I can see where the nervousness that he shows encountering his father could be seen as not knowing what to make of him, but having recently read Alan Cumming's Autobiography where he talks about how they had to tip-toe around his abusive father that was the first thing that came to mind. Also, making fun of your son's speech impediment - maybe not father of the year material.

[Marc]

Whitney wrote: "There is more in part 2 that relates to your comments. Regarding the paucity of his mother's appearance, K has said in interviews that one of the reasons is that she was still alive so he was more ..."

I forgot about the speech impediment ridicule! I guess that's the thing with abusive personalities--they're not always mean (like in the beginning where Karl thinks his father is going to mock him for seeing the face in the water and asks him if it was Jesus, but then the father doesn't give him a hard time at all and actually seems kind of... considerate?). Interesting points about being more restrained when writing about those still alive as well as those who "give you something". Thanks for the link!

[Hugh]

Interesting thoughts. Having read quite a lot of part 2 now, it is very difficult to go back and think about how the father is presented in book 1 without thinking about what is revealed later. It would have been too easy to set him up as the villain right from the start. Is it time for a part 2 thread yet?

[Whitney]

I will go ahead and open it for interested parties, but I'm still reading so won't be around much initially.

[Lauren]

Whitney wrote: "Most of the book is almost pure description, with little attempt at psychological dissection. Did you think this style was distancing, or did the level of detail give you enough insight to understand Karl Ove?
"

This is something I noticed, and I was a little disappointed since so many people have compared his writing to Proust's. I found the style to be a little distancing and not very engaging. Even the description, I found a bit bland. Going to give Part 2 a shot and see if my opinion changes.

[LindaJ^]

I finished Part I. Reading about teenage angst is definitely not my favorite thing to do. This almost feels like a journal, except that the author goes off on tangents in the middle of telling about an event, such as his New Year's Eve escapade. I thought it odd that his father sent him stay in the grandparent's apartment when his mother went off to Bergen. Dad is odd but then we are only seeing him through the son's eyes. I can't seriously consider this a novel, at least at this point. I'll go on to Part 2 since some of you have said it improves.

[Whitney]

It seemed like he was using things like the New's Year's escapade as more of a kind of framing device. Instead of a bunch of (seemingly) disconnected events, there's an overriding narrative that branches into remembered details. In a way, and maybe not particularly successfully, replicating the way our memories of past events jump around.