To say Jelinek is a 'glass half empty' writer in her worldview would be an understatement. She is one of the most cynical writers I've read and makes Thomas Bernhard seem like a Pollyanna. That said, she's also a challenging writer with a lot to say. The translation though does seem a bit odd (or is it faithful to her style?) with some awkward turns of phrase. In her observations she veers between being incisive and a kind of wise gibberish. It should be said that she can be as amusing in relating the story as she is disturbing in content. There's an acerbic tone throughout which is compelling rather than depressing. The main character, a country policeman is exploitative of women and only values property. The woman he's involved with craves only love and is shown as pathetic. Jelinek seems to generalize from these two as being representative of the male and female sex and I had difficulty in sharing her views.You have to admire Jelinek's conviction but her perspectives seem without balance to me. Worth reading though if you like a good rant. ( )

A brilliant, dark exploration of the Austrian socio-political climate with an emphasis on capitalistic greed and patriarchal power, told through the eyes of an unseen, godlike narrator and her observations of the country policeman, Kurt Janisch, and his use of power against women (two in particular). The freeflowing, abrupt writing can be tough to read at times, and the story is really very brief, despite the book's length, but the poetry and political commentary shine through in Jelinek's novel. ( )

I had to put this down. The English rendition is nearly impossible. Translation and editing and even proof reading problems I think.

"Perhaps the son is more versatile and can also give orders, the way he looks makes me curious: a somewhat angular face, across which the thoughts, which in all people like to spread out, merely seem to shyly slip away. Well. But the will would be there now, what is he going to use it for?"

What are those commas doing there? Or the colon, which usually signals a proof, an explanation or a list of something that came before. Why the double use of "which"? Is this all in the original? Does a native German reader have a similar sensation of clumsiness?

Or here, which we can understand, but again, what is that comma doing?
"What am I forced to look at, when I open this old newspaper?"

Maybe another year when I have grown more patient... Or perhaps another of her books. She's highly thought of but we who want to know why need a way in. ( )