Milan Kundera had the questionable good fortune to live through what seemed like the historic victory of his defence of the individual against the state — only to see his life’s work become shockingly relevant again before his death on Tuesday aged 94. That Kundera, the most widely read of the second generation of Soviet bloc dissident writers, never won the Nobel Prize for Literature is a stain on an award that has dwindled into irrelevance. It also hints at why Kundera’s work will continue to be read.
The reasons for the Nobel Committee’s snub, which occurred at the height of the award’s geopolitical if not literary significance, are not hard to fathom. Most obviously, Kundera was never particularly interested in or engaged by politics. Instead, his work was a passionate defence of the right to pursue one’s own individual desires and lusts against bureaucratic maniacs of whatever stripe who wished to colonise individual experience on behalf of the state. To his critics on both the Right and the Left, Kundera’s stance was borderline immoral, not to mention hopelessly bourgeois. While the Left preferred Che and the Right preferred Solzhenitsyn, Kundera insisted on the human right to be left alone.
As alienating as Cold War ideologues found Kundera’s bourgeois anti-politics, there were also plenty of writers and critics who objected to the qualities of his prose. The intense musicality of his sentences could seem like an artefact of a romantic moment that had passed. His world-class talent for aphorisms could seem similarly dated, a parlour trick that impressed college students on their junior year abroad: “there is no perfection only life” (The Unbearable Lightness of Being); “to laugh is to live profoundly” (The Book of Laughter and Forgetting). He objectified women, in a way that grew increasingly detached from dominant Anglo-Saxon sensibilities. Surely the world had better things to do with its time than to vicariously wallow in the lusts of yet another ageing male writer.
Kundera never saw himself as a political man, as a moralist, a liberal, a conservative, or as an author of texts whose highest destiny was to become movie scripts. He was, quite simply, a novelist. For him, the novel was the highest form of aesthetic endeavour, a kind of anti-scripture representing the sensibility of the individual, containing “an outlook, a wisdom, a position; a position that would rule out identification with any politics, any religion, any ideology, any moral doctrine, any group”. The faith he placed in the novel as a compass that can be used to negotiate life’s big questions can seem hopelessly antiquated. Yet if you don’t believe that, why bother to write one?
In choosing to write his later books in French, Kundera pulled off the near-miraculous feat of being expressive in a second or third language at a world-class level, putting him in the company of Vladimir Nabokov. The French returned the favour, honouring Kundera, protecting his privacy, and appreciating his uncompromising defence of the individual aesthetic at a point in history when other Western literary cultures had ceased to take novels quite so seriously. “We already had novels with a thesis,” wrote his friend and admirer, the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy. “We had so-called ‘committed’ novels in which at least one character served as spokesman for the convictions of the author. Kundera’s response was that a conviction is not novelistic, that it cannot shed the awkwardness (or worse, the vulgarity) of concepts rendered in images unless it is immediately relativized, broken, put on hold.”
It is both fitting and also a bit frightening that Kundera’s breakthrough novel, The Joke, published in 1967 in Czech, may be his most accessible — and might have a hard time getting published today in London or New York. The novel tells the story of a Prague university student named Ludvik, whose life is destroyed by a single, ill-timed joke poking fun at the progressive politics of a pretty female classmate who ignored him. When Ludvik returns to school after vacation, he is summoned before the school’s humourless ideological commissars who insist that his words were offensive. When none of his fellow students dares to speak up on his behalf, he is expelled from school.
Sound familiar? Of course it does. And with decades of communist cancel culture under his belt, Kundera can tell us what happens next. Injured and embittered, Ludvik is exiled from the class of successful young urbanites and spends the subsequent decades of his life nursing a furious grudge against those who wronged him, and plotting his revenge.
Harbouring a special contempt for a state official named Zemanek, who actively pushed for Ludvik’s expulsion from university, he returns to Prague and strikes up an affair with Zemanek’s wife. But their tryst fails to yield the compensation that Ludvik hoped for. Instead, it ends with an affable encounter with Zemanek, who appears to have no recollection of their shared history. Ludvik concludes that holding on to bitterness towards the past is futile, and that he must reconcile himself to the idea that he will never right the wrongs he has suffered.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeFollowing yesterday’s republishing of an article on Kundera by Howard Jacobson, in which he posited (among other things) that history had left Kundera behind, i commented that perhaps – as can happen with writers/artists – history would swing back. This article seems to suggest something similar.
What this further indicates is that Kundera, if he didn’t have that status before, can now (and it often happens posthumously) be seen as having a universality in his work: by that, i mean an insight into the human condition that stands in any age, amongst any company.
Kundera’s ‘genius’ was to investigate living just beyond the boundaries of the political and belief systems that are pushed at us in order to categorise and to control. The result is often to be misunderstood, perhaps wilfully, since the challenge of living one’s life without being ‘captured’ provides an uncomfortable challenge to others who’ve sought the security of such systems.
THE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE KING! Kundera could never have imagined that after a lifetime of struggle against communism, he would live to feel it back! He surely is in a better place now….
THE KING IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE KING! Kundera could never have imagined that after a lifetime of struggle against communism, he would live to feel it back! He surely is in a better place now….
Following yesterday’s republishing of an article on Kundera by Howard Jacobson, in which he posited (among other things) that history had left Kundera behind, i commented that perhaps – as can happen with writers/artists – history would swing back. This article seems to suggest something similar.
What this further indicates is that Kundera, if he didn’t have that status before, can now (and it often happens posthumously) be seen as having a universality in his work: by that, i mean an insight into the human condition that stands in any age, amongst any company.
Kundera’s ‘genius’ was to investigate living just beyond the boundaries of the political and belief systems that are pushed at us in order to categorise and to control. The result is often to be misunderstood, perhaps wilfully, since the challenge of living one’s life without being ‘captured’ provides an uncomfortable challenge to others who’ve sought the security of such systems.
He joins Graham Greene in my opinion one of greatest novelists of the 20th century in not winning the Nobel prize for literature.
He joins Graham Greene in my opinion one of greatest novelists of the 20th century in not winning the Nobel prize for literature.
“In choosing to write his later books in French, Kundera pulled off the near-miraculous feat of being expressive in a second or third language at a world-class level, putting him in the company of Vladimir Nabokov.”
As someone who writes mostly in a second (and sometimes third) language, I find this especially impressive. And it also puts him in the company of the great Joseph Conrad.
“In choosing to write his later books in French, Kundera pulled off the near-miraculous feat of being expressive in a second or third language at a world-class level, putting him in the company of Vladimir Nabokov.”
As someone who writes mostly in a second (and sometimes third) language, I find this especially impressive. And it also puts him in the company of the great Joseph Conrad.
Dear David, Thank you for this excellent tribute to Milan Kundera who left us yesterday. As a French young adult, I read The unbearable lightness of Being in the eighties. I just cannot remember what I made of it and I do not have the book in my library. Your mention about Bernard Henry Levy’s attempt to suck the great writer’s literature is probably the reason why I did not pursue reading Kundera. I have to admit that at that very time, I was secretly willing to throw a tart with a lot of cream to the pretentious philosopher, who was simply kidnapping intellectual thinking and writing for his own pretension, vanity and political objectives.
Your words make me willing to read Milan Kundera literature and carry on writing away from politics. Thank you for your contribution
“A conviction is not novelistic” Milan Kundera, a phrase to meditate and not to debate!
Dear David, Thank you for this excellent tribute to Milan Kundera who left us yesterday. As a French young adult, I read The unbearable lightness of Being in the eighties. I just cannot remember what I made of it and I do not have the book in my library. Your mention about Bernard Henry Levy’s attempt to suck the great writer’s literature is probably the reason why I did not pursue reading Kundera. I have to admit that at that very time, I was secretly willing to throw a tart with a lot of cream to the pretentious philosopher, who was simply kidnapping intellectual thinking and writing for his own pretension, vanity and political objectives.
Your words make me willing to read Milan Kundera literature and carry on writing away from politics. Thank you for your contribution
“A conviction is not novelistic” Milan Kundera, a phrase to meditate and not to debate!
“Luckily, we have Kundera’s masterworks as guides to the new-old world in which the people of the West increasingly find themselves embracing the unfreedoms of the East, in what is surely one of history’s greatest jokes — a joke that Kundera the novelist would have greeted with liberating irony.”
Of course, the tyranny of enforced speech and thought in Czechoslovakia was ultimately enforced by tanks and rifles as demonstrated by the snuffing out of the Prague spring. In our case it is perhaps that too many of us have adopted the unpolitical detachment of Kundera that has enabled the triumph of the apparatchiks of the unfreedom ideologies.
“Luckily, we have Kundera’s masterworks as guides to the new-old world in which the people of the West increasingly find themselves embracing the unfreedoms of the East, in what is surely one of history’s greatest jokes — a joke that Kundera the novelist would have greeted with liberating irony.”
Of course, the tyranny of enforced speech and thought in Czechoslovakia was ultimately enforced by tanks and rifles as demonstrated by the snuffing out of the Prague spring. In our case it is perhaps that too many of us have adopted the unpolitical detachment of Kundera that has enabled the triumph of the apparatchiks of the unfreedom ideologies.
An excellent article. Thank you.
An excellent article. Thank you.
Thank you for this wonderful essay David. I read many of Kundera’s novels in the 90s and found this tribute to his literary talent insightful. The trifecta of individuality, privacy and eros nails it. The comparison with Nabokov and latter day censoriousness is also apt. Thank you and vale Milan Kundera.
IDK but he had a view into his world in CZ land that I found unique at the time. Maybe he saw the light at the end of the Comintern tunnel in the 60s. He was not an ideologue and got out to Paris early. Did he lose something in leaving? A lot I think.
IDK but he had a view into his world in CZ land that I found unique at the time. Maybe he saw the light at the end of the Comintern tunnel in the 60s. He was not an ideologue and got out to Paris early. Did he lose something in leaving? A lot I think.
No serious person would compare Kundera to Vladimir Nabokov. Where do you find these people?
No serious person would compare Kundera to Vladimir Nabokov. Where do you find these people?