Milorad Pavić (1929–2009)

At risk of sounding trite and pretentious, I would say this book is more of an experience than a novel. As with his earlier work, "Dictionary of the Khazars", Pavic uses his unique style to bewitch readers. Pavic is the consummate story-teller. In fact, at times, his "telling" overshadows his story. One can never be sure where Pavic's "story" is going next but one can be sure the ride will be wondrous.

"Landscape" is full of both wisdom and foolishness. It also abounds in complex and, for show more lack of a better word, bizarre characters. If you are insistent on a well-formed plot, consistent characters, and transcendent meaning, this is NOT your book. If you enjoy unremitting surprises, unpredictable twists, and a somewhat disjointed reality, this is your book.

Undoubtedly a unique author with unique talent. show less

WARNING:

Just as smoking is bad for your health,
so is the reading of a hundred endings
of the same book.
It is almost like gaining one hundred
deaths instead of one.

This book is described as a delta novel, with the story having a hundred possible endings. The endings were originally published in a separate book, but this English translation has everything in one volume.
An odd book, but odd in a good way, as I did enjoy it, but I was weak and read all the possible endings before choosing the show more one I liked best. My favourite editing error was 'rubble' for 'rabble'. I'm fairly sure that Pushkin's characters were attacked by an angry mob rather than having a building fall on them!

My favourite ending was number 26, which left Chief Inspector Stross with his suspicions about the suspects' degrees of guilt and innocence but no proof.

Erlangen is less guilty than could be concluded from the sentence he received. Distelli is more guilty than he seems, and than can be proven. Lempytzka had to have somebody else behind her as well, but we don't know whom. Klozewitz is the most suspicious of them all, but there is almost no tangible argument against him. show less

I'm not sure I'm smart enough to read this. Then again I'm not sure anyone is, maybe not even the author. I'll say what others may not: this is language for the sake of language, language as paint, not as narrative. Everything is metaphor and everything is descriptive of something else. Or is it? We may never be sure.

Even after I read the story, or rather: both of them, I had to go back to the cover to find out what I had just read. Supposedly we read a story about to lovers who can get in show more each other's orbit but can never get close without destroying each other. You can read the story from her perspective or from his, depending on which end you start and which way you hold the book.

Maybe this book is an experiment in prose poetry and I would be ok with that. Having said that there are enough sharp logical observations to blow that argument out of the water. Then again, to me it reads best as if reading poetry.

If you like to read a text for its impressions and allusions, then this is the perfect book for you. If you want a narrative with a plot and clearly delineated characters and story, then it isn't. show less

It's fiction that pretends to masquerade as fact, and I don't think I've ever enjoyed fiction more. The density of connections in "Dictionary of the Khazars" is astounding; it commonly references mythological themes and tropes, some of which originate in our "real" myths and some of which seem wholly confined to the book. These allusions are made indistinguishably, and that only helps to break down divisions between fact and fiction (what, after all, is a "real" myth?) and also to break down show more divisions between subjective and objective. show less