tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26428110.post6866729413318191016..comments2023-07-08T09:00:54.916-07:00Comments on A Common Reader: The Good Soldier Švejk discussion: Book One “Behind the Lines”Dwighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13688525659034403580noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26428110.post-44018938529122470942016-08-25T00:58:34.780-07:002016-08-25T00:58:34.780-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07720547920308398294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26428110.post-53435941858616461352010-03-10T08:22:01.677-08:002010-03-10T08:22:01.677-08:00I understand and see Hašek placing his outlook in ...I understand and see Hašek placing his outlook in the book, both in and from Švejk as well as the other characters and the situations in which he places him. There’s no disagreement from me that Hašek intended a very political and subversive work, using his own experiences as a basis. <br /><br />But I’m not sure I agree that Švejk “plays the fool in order to secure the most comfortable position for himself and also as a sort of resistance.” While he does the latter part (improve position and provide resistance), I don’t think he is playing at anything or carrying out a calculated gambit. I get the feeling Švejk is closer to a force of nature, simply playing himself as he is. While he is simpleminded, he also understands to some extent how he is undermining authority, but to what extent that is planned seems ambiguous to me. <br /><br />That he can be calculating is clear from the way he responds to different levels of authority, acting (outwardly) obsequious to higher-ups, pushy with underlings. But again, to what extent that is intended to show Švejk as simply playing the fool instead of being one is not clear to me.<br /><br />Thanks for adding to the discussion--I appreciate Hašek more and more as I see things can be interpreted in many different ways.Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13688525659034403580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26428110.post-43337465039112169662010-03-09T22:46:26.282-08:002010-03-09T22:46:26.282-08:00I agree with Jomar Hønsi. Švejk only plays the foo...I agree with Jomar Hønsi. Švejk only plays the fool in order to secure the most comfortable position for himself and also as a sort of resistance. I would not be surprised if the character was in some way inspired by African American slaves who pretended to be dumb and slow in order to hinder their oppressor's work.<br /><br />You must look at Jaroslav Hašek's commentary from his point of view in order to understand them. He was an anarchist and an atheist. Reconsider the author's political and religious ideas with this in mind.<br /><br />The author places a character based closely upon himself in the book, by the way. He is the one year volunteer that was once the editor of a nature magazine.balenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07792621713083434050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26428110.post-35481921164887960332009-10-16T13:02:10.723-07:002009-10-16T13:02:10.723-07:00Thanks for the comment. As I move on into Book 2, ...Thanks for the comment. As I move on into Book 2, I'm noticing a change in Švejk...I'll definitely keep an eye out on his development and further change.<br /><br />I was reconsidering how to describe him in Book One and your note makes me wish I had thought about it more. I think a better description would be to say he is simpleminded...most of the time. And while he makes perceptive and judgmental statements at times, he also contradicts himself quite a bit.<br /><br />(I've tried to suprress saying "Does Švejk contradict himself? Very well, then Švejk contradicts himself, Švejk is large, Švejk contains multitudes" but I can't hold it anymore. )<br /><br />Regarding the autobiographical nature, Cecil Parrott's introduction (in my copy) highlights some of Hašek's life that shows up in the book. Although I took as more the circumstances/settings of those events and not necessarily meant as a comparison between Hašek and Švejk.<br /><br />Thanks so much for the note!Dwighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13688525659034403580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26428110.post-38127476332174443812009-10-16T10:46:09.886-07:002009-10-16T10:46:09.886-07:00Thoughtful article, although I would tend to disag...Thoughtful article, although I would tend to disagree with the description of Švejk as an idiot. He certainly plays one because it suits him. I think the perspective of the authors own life story is important here: a lot of this is autobiographical (and Hašek was definitely no nitwit). The original Švejk from 1912, in a collection a short stories, was certainly feebel-minded in the Forrest Gump style, but the Švejk of the novel becomes more and more clever and nasty as the story moves on. There is no doubt that he is political, he states in part 1, chapter 14 that "such an idiotic monarchy ought not to exist". Whatever else he says and does ought to reflect this; it's about the only time he speaks his mind.jomar@honsi.orghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06902672966131195274noreply@blogger.com