Henrik Ibsen, HEDDA GABLER

We were a select group of six toasting ourselves in front of the Auberge du Clou’s upstairs fireplace for the HEDDA GABLER discussion:  Cynthia, Emma-Jane, Helen, Maren, Phoebe, and our delightful newcomer Myriam.

Some came fresh to the play, or indeed to Ibsen himself – others were rediscovering a work they had read at an earlier stage in life, whether for study or pleasure.

Myriam mentioned that she had felt a bit fearful of Ibsen’s reputation for high-flown gloom, and was relieved to find the play snappier than she had supposed.

Maren brought up the interesting issue of reading a play – especially, as Myriam pointed out, one as “well-made” (structured to begin as shortly before the climax as possible, with minimal descriptive background) as this one. Doesn’t the reader miss the dimensionality of a novel’s prose, getting only the bare bones of the action? Unless one is reading as a potential actor in or director of the play, isn’t one likely to miss the richness that acting and staging bring to the text?

Maren also noted the distinctively nineteenth-century framework of the action, which determined the characters’ social possibilities and limitations – she found this factor distancing, rather than intriguing. This made a nice segue to Emma-Jane’s re-reading of the play, which left her debating again how much Hedda was a villain and how much a victim.

I hadn’t remembered how funny the play could be, and several people agreed heartily – Tesman’s slippers and Judge Brack got special mention here. On that point, I’d like to attach the link to a series of Ibsen parodies in Punch:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35305/35305-h/35305-h.htm

Happy Holidays to All!

Phoebe

Truman Capote: BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S

We were a rather small gathering around a table at Compagnie de Bretagne. The four of us found ourselves confronted with a waiter apprentice, but took it with humour.
Talking about "Holly Golightly, Travelling" inspired of course a thought to those who could not be there because far away or not yet far away, or even somewhat nearby but nevertheless not able to join...

Although everybody seems to know BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S, very few - more honestly - nobody in our round did really read it before. We wondered if it is a book read at school? And even more astonishing: Anyboody did see the movie either! So we count strongly on our cinéphile members to resolve this bad state of affairs. At least it is very clear by now how much images, and not even moving images, effect our perception and memory! 

We agreed that Truman Capote did a genuinely beautiful construction and writing, but we had beyond that rather more questions than answers, particularly about social standards and acceptable behaviours at that particular time.
Robin had a good explanation for Holly's today definetely rather unusual trips to the girl's room, which could not serve nowadays as a resource to pay for a golden bird cage.
Talking about trips we also discussed how the book from start to finish really revolves her running around the world from one point to another. It starts and ends with her travels and a core issue is the question of her belonging somewhere.
Not finally answered was the question how she would be considered today: Call girl or escort girl? Or is she not such type of "a girl" at all, since she is following only her own moral standards and thus her own 'calls'; and being rather escorted than escort herself? Anyhow, Capote's Holly wouldn't be a role model unlike what we at least perceive the Hepburn version to be.
There was also spoken of selfdestructive behaviour. Holly is not calculating the future impact of her actions, which mostly does her no good. At least she is not constructing something of her own, just living in the here and now, reacting on opportunities and taking what she can get. As much as she is a likeable person, the reader is left somewhat irritated about so much naivety and unconcern.

But back to Audrey Hepburn: The crown of the beauty queen for the evening went definetely to Emma-Jane, arriving in a terrific little black dress!

PS: Here an additional thought by Emma-Jane:
"I forgot to bring up something at the meeting. There are some mentions of the “mean reds” throughout, which I thought must be like panic attacks, maybe even depression, or perhaps even the results of her “wild” lifestyle. Thought this was an interesting point and it would be interesting to know if these “mean reds” are a result of her previous experiences or her current lifestyle."

Maren & Emma-Jane

Holly passed by?  -  Breakfast in Burma
(c) Robin

Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf - An Alternative Meeting Summary

Too good to let it drop, Phoebe's idea of having a summary in form of a dialogue asked for some work. But now as it is ready, without hesitation or any delay, here it comes, Martha and George's morning after!

Martha and George the morning after, in bed.

G : (whisper) Shh … shh ... You still asleep ? (Pause, softly) You have to get up…
M : (sleepy) Hunh… (Pause)
G : (insisting) Remember? There’s this fund raising lunch concert thing at the faculty … with your father there …
M : Let me sleep, troublemaker  … (silence, some instants)
G : Well (monologue to himself), You need to go and take up the role of his trespassed wife… take the place of … get up little lady to be the red eyed mouse’s replacement wife. Since we are his … stuff … full attention to the faculty’s needs… (Pause)
George tries to embrace her from behind.
M : (returning quickly in his direction, outraged) Jesus, what do you think are you doing?
G : (Half joking, half serious) Huh, wouldn’t you have set up all that Walpurgisnacht tantrum for my excitement? Worth a real witch – your spell succeeded pretty much… (getting closer to Martha again)
M : (Interrupting) Oh let go! You weren’t interested at all last night, … lecher, so what do you want ! Making up for that horrible humiliation?
G : Huh, Elizabeth Taylor is out! At her best Burton times – You’ve been sooo wonderful!
M : (amazed) Really?... Wouldn’t you be happier with Audrey Hepburn?
G : Wouldn’t want to change for a tender swearword ! (look at each other, gauging; George moves with energy, turning around intending to leave the bed) Well, I’m going to make breakfast then. (sitting on the side of the bed, legs already out, casually) Want your coffee with gin or whisky, honey?
M : (pleading) No, don’t leave, just hold me a bit… (dragging him back into the bed)… for a moment… before I have to go…(they lay down front to front, looking in each other eyes) ... will be curious to see how that poor boy - what was his name, Nick? - digests last night…
G : … (reassuring) don’t worry about him…
M : … seems to be smart enough, will find his way…
G : … (slightly ironically, to himself) got the right launching…
M : … make friends in his mathematics department, start a family…
G : (interrupting, impatiently)… Biology, good damn, he’s in the biology department. And I don’t think that they’re gonna have kids. At least slim Hipped doesn’t seem too much up to it. Good news, they won’t get killed by their unwanted child driving a car the wrong side of the road…
M : (interrupting George annoyed, quick movement with the hand as to wipe away the words) Jesus Christ George, don’t bother me with that story again. I’m tired hearing it! And each time you’re bothering people with it, someone else is dying! Let me tell you right into your face: It’s a running gag at the faculty! (faking someone else’s voice)… George’s coming, let’s see who he’s going to kill by car this time!...
G : (offended) That’s all lies! (Sits up)
M : No, it is not! … (sitting up too, close to George) But don’t worry, the houseboy believed you. Try him next time... (patting gently his head. Finally she approaches George and kisses him gently. George responds with more tender gestures, becoming explicit)
M : (defending) Oh no dear, not at your age!
G : (playful indignantly) I’m six years younger than you!
M : And I have two more teeth… (both laugh, end up in a hug, Martha is liberating herself from George) ... Oh no, Georgie-Porgie, I have terrible headaches – I want an aspirin, don’t we have any tea in the house? – Why are you still here? Up peanut, into the kitchen!
G : Another day. I don’t want to. I’m not the houseboy... speaking of which... I’m not a houseboy, I did it in the sack! Yeah, but well, somebody's got to show him how the musical beds work out around here...
M : (hurt) I do whatever I want - If you had shown the slightest jealousy last night, you could have saved me from a real humiliation. Don’t you have any feelings for me anymore? You don’t have any feelings for me anymore.
G : (conspiratorially), I’m obsessed with you…
M : And I thought you loved me!
G : Jesus Christ, you are so not missing any occasion for being humiliated…
M : Oh shut up, (already indifferent, as if a usual statement) it’s you who did humiliate me... (absently minded) ... What a strange night we had, and what an ending. (Losing focus, retreating to her memories) Four people, lost, lies, a killing...
G : I had to kill our boy... to let him go...
(Martha and George in parallel, monologize to themselves)
M : Martha and George, Honey and Nick, like East and West...
G : Our loved son, left behind and gone...
M : … Washington and Khrushchev, decline and rise...
G : … the lamb sacrificed for salvation, the son to die for his people’s sins...
M : … and lies on either side...
G : … in your death we recognize our sins, give our souls salvation, kyrie, eleison...
M : … past and future, young and old, new and ancient...
G : … we ask you forgiveness for having given a life and taken it away …
M : … an end and a beginning...
G : … in eternal memory, requiescat in pace ...
M : … truth and illusion ...
G : … truth or illusion ...
M : … Martha and George, sad sad sad ...
G : … rest in peace, … the illusions gone, a new morning will approach...
M : (turned to George, mournful) Oh George, you shouldn’t have killed our son … you shouldn’t...
G : I know, I shouldn’t. … shh shh … But I had to, I had to … shh shh ...
They end in an embrace, both sitting on the bed.

Maren

Thanks to Cynthia for her advise and proof reading!

Edward Albee: WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?

First of all we have to thank Caroline for welcoming us again at her place. Professional book club hostess she received us (Emma-Jane and friend Hannah, Robin, Helen, Cynhia and Maren) with her legendary charm and warmth.
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? inspired a rather positive feedback. Here some of the topics we discussed:

• The play counts amongst those which mark people's mind, of which one will never forget when and where seen for the first time. Amongst us there were at least two people who would confirm this theory (Hannah and Robin).

• The evening of the couple was cathartic, one might be inclined to wonder why. One of the possible answers lies in the three angle conversation: The presence of Nick and Honey allowed George and Martha to address topics and thoughts to their counterpart, which would not be possible in a direct conversation.

• We had a look on Martha's really special relationship with her father. Although Martha's father is apparantly not giving too much about his daughter, she is taking over the position of a wife in his fund raising activities. And, the social standing of Martha is important to her father, since an unconventional marriage was annulled on his intervention.

• Did George really kill his family? Na..., we were not really up to believe it. The story was "used" in different constellations, so it is probably not a real story, but applied where it suits.

• Obsession versus love: What keeps Martha and George together? Difficult question, we could finally not really answer. Bets went in both directions, probably the truth lies in between...

• Honey: Looks as if she does not really want children. What are the signs which feed this suspicion?  At one point she says precisely while she is crying, that she does not want children. They also allude to the fact that she may have terminated one or more pregnancies.

• Cynthia came up with some interesting ideas from the Schmoop notes on the Kindle, which are kind of like the 21st Century Cliff Notes or Monarch Notes she used to use in High School in the United States. The play can be read with a number of double sense reading: Heaven vs hell (swearing and Christian quotations, as well as the fictitious son being portrayed as a Christ figure, having been killed for the salvation of George and Martha) and East against West (George/Martha, the first names of the Washington's in contrast to Nick equal Nikita Khrushchev).

As usual our conversation went also on to other horizons:

• Most beautiful women in cinema: Elizabeth Taylor (of course), Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, ...
• Wonderful Meryl Streep and her interpretations of different woman characters, especially her recent Oscar winning Margaret Thatcher interpretation
• Cartoons for adults: Family Guy, Simpsons, South Park

Cynthia & Maren

Edward Albee - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

At long last, the explanation of why I chose this play.

When it came to by my turn to make the selection for October, I asked around what kind of book people were in the mood for, and it was suggested (by Emma, I think ?) that a play would be fun. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf immediately came to mind as an interesting play, and it is truly an American classic.    I think it is shocking, hilarious, and depressing all at once, and I think some of the ideas addressed should make for a very good discussion, even if not everyone enjoyed it.   It was enormously controversial when it first arrived in theaters in 1962, and won many awards.  The Pulitzer Prize for drama, however, was not awarded that year because the committee disliked the strong dialogue of WAoVW, yet they did not give the award to any other play.  An interesting statement in itself. 

Edward Albee, the play's author, has been frequently quoted as saying the title really means, "Who's afraid of living with false illusions ?"   I won't say too much about the play for those who have not yet finished it (and indeed it is a very short read so don't be discouraged to start it even the day before the meeting !) but I will try to describe the context of the times in which the play was written.  The early 1960's brought a new way of thinking to the US at a time when optimism and prosperity were pretty much at their zenith for both the country and individual families:  The American Dream was no longer a dream, but really a “given” for everyone.  JFK was president, the youngest ever, and a new generation was beginning to assert its opinions and ideas more than any generation in the past.  It was the height  of the cold war, and the older generations still tended to be weighed down by a bit of fear and cynicism, and within less than a decade the hippie revolution would be upon everyone.  

George and Martha (cleverly named after America's first couple, President George Washington and his wife, Martha) represent the old generation;  Nick and Honey represent the future….or at least on the surface.  The absurd evening of interactions between the four of them shows just how many illusions we create for ourselves, whether consciously or unconsciously, young or old, etc.  Is the American Dream itself just an illusion ?  I leave it at that for now, with the rest to be discussed on Thursday.  I realize the play is a bit strange but I hope it makes for an interesting discussion.  And if so inclined….we can one day watch the movie together.

Cynthia

Michel Houellebecq: LA CARTE ET LE TERRITOIRE

This meeting saw the return of one of our regular haunts, Les Editeurs. Six of us (Anke, Caroline, Cynthia, Helen, Kathleen and Maren) were there to discuss Michel Houellebecq’s La Carte et Le Territoire, aided and abetted by our cheerful waiter Steve (aka Helen). Most of the participants would probably admit that the content of the book itself was enough to warrant our two-hour discussion, but Anke's wonderfully organized ROUND (!) table had a major impact as well.

We had hardly finished greeting one another when the discussion on the book started. It was mostly very positively received, with the exception of Helen who found it very difficult to relate to the characters and admitted having “skimmed” through it. In our animated, even sometimes passionate exchanges, we touched upon many different points. Here is a selection:

• Houellebecq's alter egos:
  - Jed,
  - Houellebecq,
  - the police inspector,
  - Michou, the small, impotent, but entirely happy dog (perhaps the only figure in the book who is allowed to be happy?)

• Some found Jed an intriguing character, others found him passive and emotionally dysfunctional. Apparently incapable of experiencing real emotions, he provided a perfect mirror for the evolution of society. The very early loss of his mother was certainly one reason for his apparent coldness (and the resulting indifference of the reader) but was there more to it than that?

• We all agreed on the fact that Jed's father was by far the best developed character in the book and the easiest to relate to. This also triggered a discussion on the pros and cons of euthanasia. Was his father conceived simply as a counterpart to Jed with the father-son relationship becoming almost irrelevant? Are son-father relationships always that difficult (or indeed, daughter-father relationships, as one member ruefully claimed?)

• Of course, we also had to mention Olga. Was she really in love or was she just a trophy mistress in a “m'as-tu vu” world?
  Why did she put him to the test in that typical female way? And as for Jed himself, how come he failed to react to her announcement of a well-paid job in Moscow even though he appeared to be affected by her departure?

• We also wondered if everyone would be able to cope with sudden wealth or whether it helped to have been born into a materially comfortable world like Jed. Michael Jackson and Mike Tyson, as well as lottery winners, cropped up as examples.

• We talked about plagiarism, not only Houellebecq’s acknowledged quotations from Wikipedia but the less publicized ‘borrowing’ of his title from a friend. Some of us were struck by other literary similarities, such as Fred Vargas for the murder scene, and the industrial vision of Christa Wolf’s Divided Heaven.

• We were amused by Houellebecq’s vitriolic portraits of TV personalities and fellow-authors (including Beigbeder, who is theoretically a friend!), not to mention the art world in general.

• Nature seemed to play a large part in the book, particularly by contrast with the encroaching industrialized world. We also all agreed that Houellebecq is a very visual writer.

A number of questions remained unresolved, such as:

• What made him slap the woman in the euthanasia organization when he had been so passive following the discussion with his father about his intentions?
• Why did this book get the Prix Goncourt? Maren tried to find the jury’s reasons for awarding the prize but apparently they don’t feel the need to justify their decision to the public.
• What's life like for a writer in the suburbs? Why is Michel Houellebecq living there?

If you have an answer to any of these questions, please share them with us on the blog!

To sum up, the evening was a real success, although we were very sorry to learn that Kathleen will soon be leaving us as her job is taking her to the States. On the administrative side we may shift the date of our next session some days if it means that Anjuli can join us (currently fixed on Thursday, 11th October).
There has also been a change of order in the book selection: Emily and Maren are switching, so the November session will be dedicated to Truman Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany's. So it’s time to start thinking about a movie session and that little black number... ;-)

Caroline & Maren

J.M. Coetzee: DISGRACE

The session began with a presentation by Maren of the blog she has been setting up to serve as our public vitrine and – possibly – a members-only communication tool: www.bookclubdeparis.blogspot.com.

We then moved on to a discussion of J.M. Coetzee’s DISGRACE. This book choice was universally applauded: apparently we all felt, from the first page, that we were in the hands of a master. Discussion ranged widely. How about using our blog’s comments function to complete and fill out the elements noted below?

• Elegant storytelling: how much information Coetzee packs into just the first sentence (“For a man of his age, fifty-two, divorced, he has, to his mind, solved the problem of sex rather well.”)!
• Pragmatism and morality: this is what will happen vs. this is what should happen
• The quixotic fixations of David and Lucy, he on his erotic infatuation, she on the land
• David’s refusal to confess himself to the disciplinary committee, Lucy’s refusal to report her rape
• David’s apology, upon his return, to Melanie’s family – why not to Melanie?
• Melanie’s rape, Lucy’s rape
• David’s decision, at the end of the book, that Driepoot’s time has come: compassion or despair?

Rather than including the schedule of future meetings and book selection responsibilities, I direct you to the Agenda tab of our blog!

Phoebe

George Gissing: THE ODD WOMEN

Anke, Caroline, Cynthia, Emma-Jane, Helen, Maren, and Phoebe gathered, despite the chill Parisian summer rain (!*?#!), to enjoy Caroline's delightful welcome and discuss George Gissing's THE ODD WOMEN.

The group was generally intrigued by what Helen described as "Gloria Steinem meets Jane Austen" and touched on a number of points:

• Gissing's unusual parcours and romantic history; did it make him exceptionally aware of women's issues? Misogynist? Even-handed in his treatment of male and female characters? (Yup, we ran the gamut.)

• Rhoda Nunn: our literary BFF or inviting a good slap? Idealistic or stiff-necked?

• Everard Barfoot: the man Gissing wouldn't have minded being?

• The 19th century English class issue – were "ladies" worse off than manual laborers as working women?
  (I'm including an O. Henry [fave PG author] story, "The Trimmed Lamp", written about a decade after TOW and set in New York, but dealing with the same question: http://www.literaturecollection.com/a/o_henry/207/ )

• We love darling geek Micklethwaite!

Additional comments invited, especially from those who read the book but couldn't attend.

Phoebe

Christa Wolf: DIVIDED HEAVEN

Another truly fantastic session!

An unusually long, detailed, and interesting discussion of DIVIDED HEAVEN seemed to demonstrate that (1) it IS possible to work with a limited number of available copies, advance notice and cooperation provided; (2) additional material supplied before the session, such as Maren's introductory essay and the article raising translation issues, really add substance to our sessions. I believe Maren has a proposal on this very subject …

At any rate, here are just a few of the issues discussed. Please add and comment, I know I missed a lot of the back and forth!

• The setting – which was far more than a setting – of the GDR as the wall went up: the newness of this subject and viewpoint to most of the book group. Questions as to why someone studying to be a teacher would be assigned to a factory – the proletariat as "ruling class" – the aftermath of fascism and the war.

• Women's relative freedom and equality in the GDR – was this contradicted/undermined by Rita's breakdown?

• The characters – were they flat? Stereotypical? Determined by their environment in a way we're not used to (with the exception of Zolaesque naturalism)?

• The shifting perspective, from "one" to "Rita" to "we" (elided in the English translation) – a collective mentality?

• Manfred's parents – seen by some as the most rounded, developed characters in the book, by others as a stereotype of the bourgeoisie.

• Manfred and Rita's situation vis-à-vis his parents – living and sleeping in their home, but causing a minor domestic scandal by holding hands under the diningroom table. An interesting discussion of the boyfriend/girlfriend/parents relationship in different cultures.
  
• The faulty English translation (Emma-Jane supplied alternative translations of passages cited in the article, which seemed reassuringly closer to the French translation).

Phoebe

Divided Heaven

The June session is dedicated to Christa Wolf. As introduction, "reading help" and preparation for our meeting here some words, why I came to this selection:

Christa Wolf sets a story about coming of age in the German Democratic Republic of the late fifties and very early sixties, a time when the difficulties and contradictions of the 10-year-old GDR were becoming more and more apparent. Rita, a young girl raised in a protected rural environment, discovers life in the city, industrial production, and love, all at the same time. The Berlin Wall has not yet been built, but the conflicts which lead to this event are already present in Rita’s life. Why choose this book for a reading club? There are several reasons.

1. The author died in December 2011. Christa Wolf was well known in Germany, both East and West. But although acknowledged as a writer, her greatest impact on Germany seemed to come from her political activity during the post-Wall period, when Germany was still separated and the path to the future was to be found. Her death was reason enough for me to want to get to know her literary work at least a little bit and I went to the library without thinking of making this a book club selection. What I then discovered left me to wanting to discuss it with people coming from a different background than mine.

2. DIVIDED HEAVEN was a “spare-time read” which was immediately followed by the STONE CARVERS. The difference of style struck me immediately. To transmit an idea, it might well be more commercially appealing and comforting for the reader to chose a pleasant and easy style, but the "dry" approach of Christa Wolf corresponds to the subject, independently of the fact that at this time and in this political context it was wished and fashionable to submit to a realistic, untempered (objective?) view and presentation of reality. Does this translate also to an Anglo-Saxon reader? Is it allowed to tell a love story in such a cold/harsh manner? Was there any kind of (neo-?)realistic writing movement also ongoing in the Western world in the sixties?

3. Reading the book, I was touched in a way I had never experienced before. It felt like returning back to childhood and the smell, feel, and taste of things and situations I had forgotten about a long time ago. Although I did not myself live at that specific period, it marked strongly the minds of people and appeared in school books in various ways. The spirit of this moment was always present in the collective memory. Whether it came up in discussion or was remained silent about, the Wall was palpable in everybody’s life, without any question. My own growing up was thus strongly influenced by this period, consciously or not. In this sense I'm very interested to know whether Christa Wolf succeeded or not in translating by literary means the values of that time. Can it be understood, by anybody and independently of the background of the reader, why and how people took decisions; what led to the motivation of a Meternagel to continue and Manfred to leave? Are these topics that can be understood universally? How does the shop floor smell for you; can you understand the events there?

4. Finally, I have to admit, that DIVIDED HEAVEN is surely not the most fun book I ever read. Nevertheless I got hooked up – and started to think about what makes a book good for me: that I understand or even identify with the characters? That I get distraction or new views on the world? Am entertained, have fun, or live big emotions? … What do you need in a book to call it a good one?  

Maren

PS: Thanks to Phoebe for her editing and proof reading!

Jonathan Franzen: FREEDOM

Monday night we had, I believe, the BEST BOOK CLUB MEETING EVER.

There were ten of us gathered in Amanda's extraordinarily lovely and welcoming apartment (with balcony!) – some of us getting a special guided tour of the historic nooks and crannies of the hôtel privé, courtesy of Tristan.

We began with a toast to Elisabeth, our newest bas bleu, whom we forgive for keeping Anke away this time. We are less indulgent towards Anjuli's exam. Fingers crossed for June and the discussion of Divided Heaven!

Discussion of Freedom was heated, as we like it. Most people who were around when the group read Franzen's The Corrections preferred this later work, finding its style less virtuosic and theme less self-consciously Great American Novel, if I followed the interweaving comments correctly. Emily was impressed, detail by detail, but unmoved by the big picture. Caroline was not alone in finding Patty a pain. During a discussion of how different characters were handled – Walter, Patty, Katz, and Joey getting full internal explorations, characters of different class (Carol, Blake, Coyle Mathis) and ethnicity (Lalitha) getting external presentations – Maren brought up Joey's sister, Jessica, who indeed gets short shrift. Is it simply because, like a Tolstoyan happy family, she doesn't have enough problems for a full description? And, hey, why didn't we touch on Tolstoy, since Franzen waved War and Peace under our noses? I confess that in my case it's because I've never read it. Future selection?

We never did get around to discussing in full Anke's questions – is this a self-absorbed novel, or a novel about self-absorbed people? Cynthia brought up the fact that the novel brought up (even if refracted through possibly unappealing or obsessive characters) some genuine issues (overpopulation/overconsumption). We talked about the comic and pathetic self-importance of some of those middle-class characters – Walter's "Positive social change works top-down … Rosa Parks sits down on her bus, college students hear about it … and suddenly there's a national civil-rights movement" or Patty's worrying about cloth diapers – and how it expressed a feeling of responsibility as well as solipsism, a sort of bourgeoisie oblige. In short, good choice!

Another good choice is our next selection, which has people excited and cooperating. I think we're demonstrating that a less accessible book choice can work if it's announced a few months ahead. (Do remember that availability in English is non-negotiable: we have several members who can't read a whole book in French and apparently a significant number who find it very difficult.) And, while it shouldn't be mandatory for every selection, Maren's essay was inspirational and a big bonus for readers!

Phoebe

Heather O'Neill: LULLABIES FOR LITTLE CRIMINALS

Yesterday's meeting was delightful. We were sad to miss Anke and Maren (family), Kathleen (work), and Anjuli and Robin (academe), but we remaining 7 had a contentious and stimulating discussion of LULLABIES FOR LITTLE CRIMINALS. Reactions ranged from positive – for the empathetic portraits of characters who might seem stereotypical and the moments of lived-in sensation (Helen mentioned the description of children crowding around their foster mother to be able to smell her presence); to slight disappointment with a wildly popular book; to horrified incredulity at the milieu; to extremely negative – a boring book, a badly written book, and the smarmiest self-regarding author I ever hope to have literary dealings with (dixit Phoebe).

All six guests combined the skills of traiteurs and contortionists to provide wonderful food and get it served up and cleared away gracefully.
Chapeau!

Incidentally, we began a discussion of what each of us thinks makes a given book a good book club selection -- what are your thoughts?

Phoebe

Jane Urquhart: THE STONE CARVERS

Jane Urquhart's *The Stone Carvers* inspired spirited discussion. Everyone appreciated the writing's intelligence, craft, and heartfelt aesthetic emotion, but there were cavils as to the "Disney ending" and the love stories that, at least to some, seemed thrown in as a sop to some kind of generic "novel reader". As discussions zinged around the table, I believe the idea of a field trip to Vimy came up – exciting!

Phoebe

Annie Proulx: THAT OLD ACE IN THE HOLE

Reaction to the book was mixed, with everyone noting a distinct separation between the Texas background and the characters frolicking in front of it. Robin, Caroline, and I loved the deep-dish description and sense of place, while Amanda (sending her critique by email when it turned out she would be detained at work – this is dedication!) felt enough was enough. Robin brought up Annie Proulx' atypical method – not "write what you know" but "write what you'd like to know", with all the research that entails. Amanda thought that effort showed obtrusively. A few other features were noted – the "we townspeople WANT a prison", "the Klan wasn't all bad" remarks – was this Proulx' "Get to know your fellow Americans, effete New Yorker readers" or "Don't be fooled by my cuddly, quirky characters"? And Proulx' frank sexuality in describing men. All in all, excellent food for discussion – thank you Robin!

Phoebe

Hans Fallada: ALONE IN BERLIN

The book selection was positively received. People were variously struck by the style (flat? deliberate "degree zero" presentation? translation?), the characters (didactically good/bad? nuanced? all too human?), and the author's biography. Some were swept away, either immediately or after a dutiful plod through the opening. Anke and Maren felt they were reliving certain hectoring childhood school sessions. Many appreciated the sense of population and complexity of the book, with Robin especially citing the "feel" of the apartment house settings. Overall reaction: an excellent choice for discussion -- thank you, Emma-Jane.

Phoebe