Name: Hunger
Rating: 3.875 (4 reviews)
ISBN: 9783548291093

Knut Hamsun

Hunger

One of the first things I noticed about this novel is that it's very similar to that of Dostoyevsky's works. The protagonist lives in a small, rented room, is short on cash, and tries to move quietly down the stairs in order to avoid his landlady as he owes her money - just like Raskolnikov! I feel that Hamsun's style of writing is very similar to Dostoyevsky's in general, with the protagonist having vivid//frequent internal monologues, dreams, troubles, and exclamations. 

One thing I will say, though (and this was also mentioned in the afterword of the novel I bought, it was the canongate edition), is that I noticed Hunger is essentially a novel where nothing happens. Our "hero" - whose name is never revealed - works tirelessly, writing article upon article in spite of rejection, eventually earns money, spends that money, and then returns to being in debt, hungry, and even homeless. He was in a brief romance but it ultimately concludes in nothing, and he eventually, right at the end of the novel, leaves Kristiania altogether and goes to England. This isn't to say that I don't like this aspect of the novel, though - I, surprisingly, didn't find this mode of storytelling boring. The reader follows our hero throughout his struggles - his life is one big struggle which ultimately results in nothing, regardless of the effort he puts in. I felt it was still entertaining to follow.

The scene where our hero is in jail stuck out to me. Although he had finally secured a sleeping place, he was still mentally tormented and pondered extensively over the meaning he would assign to a completely made-up word  - it was essentially a problem he made up himself. Our protagonist, even after his conditions have been even slightly ameliorated, suffers all the same. His problems are caused by his socioeconomic status and his resulting starvations, but it has to be said that he also has a role in exacerbating his difficulties - he refuses meals and pawns off his own clothes, only to give the money to beggars as be believes he is an elite genius above other people, and it is for this reason that he refuses to work a normal job.

Overall, although there isn't much of a plot/resolution to this novel, if you enjoy the works of Dostoyevsky or enjoy descriptive, internal narratives following the protagonist, I'd recommend checking it out. Our "Hero" is, imo, still interesting to follow and analyse, despite his behaviour being absurd at times!

One of the first things I noticed about this novel is that it's very similar to that of Dostoyevsky's works. The protagonist lives in a small, rented room, is short on cash, and tries to move quietly down the stairs in order to avoid his landlady as he owes her money - just like Raskolnikov! I feel that Hamsun's style of writing is very similar to Dostoyevsky's in general, with the protagonist having vivid//frequent internal monologues, dreams, troubles, and exclamations. 

One thing I will say, though (and this was also mentioned in the afterword of the novel I bought, it was the canongate edition), is that I noticed Hunger is essentially a novel where nothing happens. Our "hero" - whose name is never revealed - works tirelessly, writing article upon article in spite of rejection, eventually earns money, spends that money, and then returns to being in debt, hungry, and even homeless. He was in a brief romance but it ultimately concludes in nothing, and he eventually, right at the end of the novel, leaves Kristiania altogether and goes to England. This isn't to say that I don't like this aspect of the novel, though - I, surprisingly, didn't find this mode of storytelling boring. The reader follows our hero throughout his struggles - his life is one big struggle which ultimately results in nothing, regardless of the effort he puts in. I felt it was still entertaining to follow.

The scene where our hero is in jail stuck out to me. Although he had finally secured a sleeping place, he was still mentally tormented and pondered extensively over the meaning he would assign to a completely made-up word  - it was essentially a problem he made up himself. Our protagonist, even after his conditions have been even slightly ameliorated, suffers all the same. His problems are caused by his socioeconomic status and his resulting starvations, but it has to be said that he also has a role in exacerbating his difficulties - he refuses meals and pawns off his own clothes, only to give the money to beggars as be believes he is an elite genius above other people, and it is for this reason that he refuses to work a normal job.

Overall, although there isn't much of a plot/resolution to this novel, if you enjoy the works of Dostoyevsky or enjoy descriptive, internal narratives following the protagonist, I'd recommend checking it out. Our "Hero" is, imo, still interesting to follow and analyse, despite his behaviour being absurd at times!

Tim Pendry

I appreciate that this is an important work of Norwegian literature and that it is highly regarded by many people but my reaction was like that of the little boy observing the Emperor walking around with no clothes. It did not ring psychologically true (though clearly the author's experiences were instrumental to the writing) nor was it, ultimately, interesting. The technique (such as stream of consciousness) may be innovative but that may not be enough for the general reader. This is not to say that it is not mostly very well written. It also has a certain physical quality that enables you to feel that you are 'in' the Kristiania of 1890 (although the modern non-Norwegian could probably enjoy the book more with some multimedia support). But mostly suggests a lack of consistency. The 'romantic' scenes are so trite and unreal that I assumed that it would be revealed that our 'hero' was fantasising - if so, it might become good writing in character. Sadly, there was no confirmation that he was. This leads us to the characterisation because this man, the 'hero', is so limited in his intellect, so vain, so 'silly' that it requires more insight than we get into how he hangs together. The man falls between stools - prize idiot and literary creation. In the end, one is left with the impression that the author wishes to self-flagellate one of his own past personae, an aspect of being a failure, rather than present us with someone who is a failure in his own right and comprehensible as one. But I would not discourage anyone from reading it because others will get more out of it than I did. One should consider it a string of incidents, some affecting and others less so, rather than a traditional novel, precisely why so many people praise it. Two parts stand out - a voluntary experience of prison and the terror of the dark that ensues in Part Two and the submission to others caused by desperate poverty in Part Four which captures the essence of how poverty degrades people. It is not just about being hungry. The Fourth Part is masterful in this - a story common in Europe at the end of the nineteenth century and common throughout the world today. Some have expressed surprise that, embarrassingly for Norway, Hamsun turned into a Nazi sympathiser during the War but, like Celine observing poverty as a doctor in Paris and seeing it for it was, there should be no surprise at all. His whole life was a preparation for it. Fascism is often an attractive response to the despair that arises from seeing human nature at its most raw. Brechtian Marxism might be another hard line response but being liberal is often the child of comfort, sincere enough but observing matters from outside. The Fourth Part - alongside perhaps a reading of Fanon, Celine, Brecht and others who saw or experienced poverty at first hand as participants in the drama rather than as NGO activists with a cosy family to return to - is worth reading carefully and pondering. In a boarding house, our 'hero' has nothing and lives in fear of being thrown onto the street. The costs of that fear - of hunger and homelessness - turn him into a cringing servile being. Such beings often want someone to express their 'ressentiment' for them. If you cannot adopt the heroism of socialist struggle and sacrifice or find God and displace the servility, then you may lock into your head a belief that somebody else must be to blame or must be hurt or both - a sort of 'you kick me and I can kick the dog' mentality. When the order and social provision of fascism or national socialism appear, then someone is taking away that fear, asserting that it was never your fault and kicking the dog for you - what's not to like if you are inadequate, angry, lonely and frightened. We must not make the mistake of automatically associating the 'hero' with the author but the book tells us that Hamsun could imagine this situation either because he saw or experienced it and that it touched something in him. It relates to his 'stance' in the face of the world. To the literary mind, this is going to be a classic work that helped the author both win a Nobel Prize for Literature and become a favourite of Goebbels but to the modern reader it may not ring so true. It strikes me as a literary evasion in which truth breaks out despite the style and self pity. An odd work that is probably as culturally important as it is made out to be but rather unappealing and riddled with inauthentic moments. This Canongate edition is padded out with lightweight introduction (Jo Nesbo) and afterword (Paul Auster) and one of the most turgid and pedantic essays on translation that I have ever come across - it is just a polemic against a previous translator with boring detail.

Hunger

Reviews

Highlights