exciting, youthful, rebellious - these are the adjectives swimming around in my head when i think of Hunger. If you're a disaffected teenager, read this as a tonic - there is hope, others have been more disaffected before. If you're a disaffected parent, read this as a tonic too - there is hope, others have been more disaffected than your wayward kid.

Underneath the irresistible depression cycle of the hero here is a seriously unnerving compulsion to self-harm and mental instability. It is a novel that demonstrates an incredible ability on the part of the author to invent an original literary device - the loner monologue in this case - and carry it through with utter confidence. Hunger is a very selfish book. It obsesses about its narrator. It is no great piece of literature-as-therapy. It offers no answers to big life questions for the hungry reader, in fact, it is more likely to make you ask questions: about the mind, the "system", capitalism, social boundaries and taboos and, lastly, creativity. This is a debut to be reckoned with.

Here we find the birth of the anti-hero -- Hamsun's protaganist of "Hunger" -- a brilliant and scarcely recognized book. But make no mistake, he is not the anti-hero proudly glorifying his underdog status in the world as we've seen repeatedly throughout the last two centuries. He is not a martyr for the misunderstood eccentric artists of the world. He does not suffer over the far reaching philosophical questions of existence itself. He simply exists in a world that we can relate to. I would contend that men like this really exist; men like Raskolnikov do not. While Dostoevsky feeds on the desire of his reader to project an answer, Hamsun merely mirrors his own experience with honesty and innocence. I am not debating the merit of Dost. at all (he is the superior writer), but expanding upon the hidden attachement we have to characters like these. It's just not an issue for the "Hunger's" protaganist. Here is a man with gifted intelligence for reasoning and the ability to fully comprehend the life he *must* live, but is too shy and bashful to dramatize and romanticize it. He is completely human, living in a world entirely of himself. It is clear that he could make friends and earn a good wage if he chose to. But he does not, not out of the vile contempt for man's vices, but on his own acceptance that this is the man he is. Guilt is the essential problem, not hunger. At over a century old, the novel is a refreshing pleasure to read. The prose is quick without being terse. It is essential reading for anyone interested in a segway into the modernist and avant-garde movement. Not for what Hamsun represents, but for what he doesn't.

I could not actually say whether this book is "good" or "bad". Furthermore, I am not able to discuss about the necessity of hunger and degradation to pursue art. What I can tell is that reading Hunger is a shocking experience in which the reader cannot avoid wondering why a person should be reduced to such a terrible stage of body and mind just for the sake of...art? Nevertheless, I find his book absolutely worth reading whether it may be upsetting or not.

It is like getting into a dark and narrow tunnel, which becomes narrower and darker with every farther step. It seems as if there's no way out. But sometimes it is: the main character own mind. It is in his mind where the action takes place. The rest of the characters and circumstances within the book are simple devices to stimulate his senses and sensitivity and keep the ball rolling.

Finally, I reached Hamsun through Miller's works. Now I can reach Miller through this disturbing and unforgettable book. It is clear that Hamsun was many years ahead his time. It struck me how modern his writing looks compared to that of other writers of the XX century.

This is not a particularly well written book, more a task of love than a masterpiece. However, it is packed with detail and is a valued addition to the bookshelf of anyone interested in this Anglo Saxon saint.