I’ve wanted to read The Unbearable Lightness of Being for a long time, but other seemingly ‘more urgent’ books got in the way. I read my first Kundera book two years ago. It was funny and smart - two words often used to describe books that don’t live up to the cliché. But Kundera did, and I promised myself to read another one.

Yesterday, while perusing my sister’s library, I stumbled upon a Kundera book I had heard a lot of good things about. I sat down, began reading, and was instantly confused. That had to have been the most bizarre first chapter of any book I’ve read. Maybe I'm just slow, but I think I read it three times and was still not sure I fully grasped what was said. Like John Cusack said in High Fidelity, I'd like to think I'm capable of understanding a book like The Unbearable Lightness of Being. I'm just not sure I could explain it to anyone and I'm not sure how long it may take me to let it sink in.

Kundera’s style is what is currently keeping me glued to the book. The story is not in any way spectacular (yet) but I enjoy the way he tells it. He also has a philosophical tendency I’ve come to expect from Eastern European authors, especially the Russians. The difference between Kundera and, say, Dostoyevsky, is that Kundera takes this philosophical element lightly- almost in jest. He uses it in an offhand manner, suggesting that it’s all just ‘talk’, but will come in handy later in the story (or life). Dostoyevsky, on the other hand, treats it like an academic, forming structured arguments for his characters that drive the story. His characters stand by their philosophies and Dostoyevsky uses them as a soapbox with which to advertise his own ideas. As the novel’s name suggests, The Unbearable Lightness of Being does nothing of the sort, but rather takes itself lightly, using wit and cynicism to keep the reading fresh and sharp, with the ideas planted firmly in the background.

Here's a review from blogcritics.org.

Stay tuned for Maya pictures.