The Book of Laughter and Forgetting is a novel written by Milan Kundera in Czech between 1976 and 1978. First published in France in 1979, the book is translated into English from French by Aaron Asher. The book does not read like a traditional novel, because it does not have a coherent plot. Instead, the book is composed of seven stories weaved together by some common themes, and the narration of these stories are interwoven with Kundera’s memoirs, philosophical meditations, and historical background, among which Kundera’s philosophy of life interested me the most. Two illuminating observations about our human condition are our differing perspectives and the nature of laughter.

Kundera invites his readers to see the world from a different perspective through the eyes of Mama. Mama is old, alone and has bad eyesight. Her son, Karel, and Karel’s wife, Marketa for many years have lived far away from Mama because they have disliked her. When Karel and Marketa finally invite Mama to stay with them for a week, Karel realizes on a walk with Mama that because of her failing eyesight, Mama mistakes boundary stones as a “pretty white village” (40).

Kundera then draws a parallel between Mama’s literal different perspective and her unique worldview. During the Prague Spring when Russia invades Czechoslovakia, when the “tanks of [the] gigantic neighboring country” roam on their homeland, nobody can think of anything else because of the shock and terror, but Mama is different. The pears in her garden are ripe and she wants the pharmacist to pick them. The pharmacist neither comes nor apologizes, and Mama has been unable to forgive him. This infuriates Markel and Marketa because they cannot understand why Mama cares about the pears when the tanks are nearing. They move out, “taking the memory of her pettiness with them” (41).

“But are tanks really more important than pears?” the narrator asks. After many years, Karel begins to see Mama’s perspective, “which [has] a big pear tree in the foreground and somewhere in the distance a tank no bigger than a ladybug, ready at any moment to fly away out of sight” (41). The narrator then concludes: “Ah yes! In reality it’s Mama who is right: tanks are perishable, pears are eternal” (41).

Mama’s “faulty eyesight” is a metaphor for the unconventional perspectives people have. Through this incident, Kundera suggests that oftentimes people neglect what is actually important and urges people to reconsider their priorities. It may seem nonsensical to say that “tanks are perishable” but “pears are eternal” since clearly the statement is contrary to our notion of the quality of tanks and pears. However, if we ponder a bit more, we will realize that when the Russian tanks approach, worrying and fearing does not help. People under those circumstances can do nothing to improve their situation, and worrying only makes the matter worse. A more fruitful approach would be to focus on what they have at that moment–like the ripe pears hanging on the tree branches. If people do not cherish the pears, they will soon rot on the trees, wasted. Therefore, the transient nature of the pears is exactly what makes them eternal.

This philosophy of life is also applicable to our daily life. In today’s world, it is easy for us to worry about the state of the pandemic, although what we can do about it is very limited. So instead of preoccupying our minds with worries, we ought to appreciate the small delights that surround us, like the blooming daffodils in front of Doherty Hall or the tiny green buds on trees.

Through this example, Kundera also encourages people to see the world through the perspective of others. He acknowledges that it is a hard thing to do, as it takes Karel many years to realize the validity of Mama’s perspective. But once we can see the world and the same event through multiple perspectives, our life becomes more vibrant and wider as well. The tanks no longer appear so terrible while the pears appear more valuable.

In The Angels, Kundera also examines the nature of laughter through the metaphors of the devils and angels. “To see the devil as a partisan of Evil and an angel as a warrior on the side of Good is to accept the demagogy of the angels” Kundera writes brilliantly. Indeed, we tend to equate the devil with evil and angels with benevolence, but the narrator suggests that the reality is more complicated. For the world to function, the “powers of the two sides” need to be “nearly in equilibrium,” because “if there were too much incontestable meaning in the world (the angels’ power), man would succumb under its weight. If the world were to lose all its meaning (the devils’ reign), we could not live either” (86).

This idea that for us to live, we need the right amount of meaning, is remarkable. We want to find the meaning of life, but it is difficult for many to find a definitive answer. For Kundera, this is not a curse of the devil but a blessing granted by both the devil and the angels. If there is no meaning at all, then it is easy for people to drift towards nihilism and lose interest in living. On the contrary, if the meaning of life is uniform and “incontestable”, then people would suffocate under the immense pressure and the lack of freedom. Moreover, if that “incontestable” meaning is somehow disproven, like the communist ideology that Kudnera first championed, then people who have faith in that meaning can easily become disillusioned and disappointed in the world. Thus, an equilibrium of these two forces is a precondition for people to live on the spiritual level.

Having established the roles that the devil and angels play, the narrator then analyzes the opposite reasons behind their laughter. What makes us laugh? The narrator says that “‘[things] deprived suddenly of their supposed meaning, of the place assigned to them in the so-called order of things […] make us laugh. In origin, laughter is thus of the devil’s domain” (86). This kind of laughter is induced by irony, absurdity and lacks seriousness. When Kundera and R., an editor of a youth magazine, laugh because a Moscow-trained, high-ranking communist leader wants Kundera to cast his horoscope, their laughter is an example of the devil’s laughter because a true communist should not be superstitious.

On the other hand, the angel’s laughter is “meant to rejoice over how well ordered, wisely conceived, good, and meaningful everything” is (87). This kind of laughter “expresses a basic human attitude: serious laughter, laughter ‘beyond joking’ “ (81). Compared to the devil’s laughter, the angels’ laughter is not cynical but innocent. People express their joy through this kind of laughter. These two ways of viewing laughter are precisely another example of seeing the world through different lenses.

Beyond these two examples, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting is filled with such philosophical thoughts and social commentary. It would be an enjoyable and thought-provoking read for anyone who wants to learn about the history of Czechoslovakia after the Second World War, peer into the life and mind of Kundera, or just have a good laugh at the absurdity and the beauty of the world.