Timothy Mo, THE REDUNDANCY OF COURAGE

While Clare’s fabulous meeting minutes in November have no doubt raised the bar, we’re back to reality without her at the keyboard.  Inspired by Clare, I will include a note on the restaurant, Indonesia.  Most quite enjoyed the food, good and efficient service, great location, no grumblings over the prices.   And it could not have been a more appropriate venue considering the book in question, Timothy Mo’s The Redundancy of Courage.

We were 9 at the meeting:  Amanda, Caroline, Catherine (new joiner from Cynthia’s other dying book club), Clare, Michel, Mark, Robin, Maren, Cynthia.   Relatively strong opinions evenly divided:  4 of us loved the book, and 4 had varying reasons for not enjoying it. (one did not read it, but thankfully joined us anyway).  To summarize:

Robin, who recommended the book, found it well-written and particularly liked the way Mo was able to describe the details of the war — for example, how to construct and install the mines.  Ironically, this is what both Maren, (who couldn’t finish the entire book) and Caroline both disliked.  Caroline particularly thought it dragged on and on during the war scenes and needed better editing.  Maren did not see the point in all the description.  Cynthia, one of the big fans of the novel, mentioned originally not understanding why the war scenes were so long but ultimately thought they were a vehicle to further develop the characters in the book.  Catherine, who deserves extra credit for having found out about the meeting less than a week before, happened to have read most of Timothy Mo’s work while living in Hong Kong, and was also a big fan.   Only Robin has read more of his books than Catherine, and both agreed that this was his best for having captured so well the moment in history, the people, the culture, etc.

Clare did not dislike the book, but found it gruesomely real enough to have a hard time with the subject matter.   Michel seemed just fed up with the negativity, also commenting more on the subject matter being depressing, than the quality of the book.  Mark — who shares an apartment with the author of these minutes — could not stop singing the praises of this book the entire time he was reading it, yet at the meeting was only remembered for having said at one point, “Ah, yes, I really enjoyed it.”  One suspects this may have something to do with Clare showing an interest in horses, which of course means that Mark is not allowed to sit next to Clare at the next meeting.  This now makes two people not allowed to sit next to Mark, the other being Robin, because the two of them tend to discuss war books/movies all through the meetings.  Which, incidentally, is how we wound up with this selection for December, chosen at the October meeting.    So perhaps in the end it isn’t such a bad thing letting them sit together, as it turned out to be a very good book discussion, indeed.  Bravo, Robin.

One may have gathered by now that Amanda was the attendee who had not read the book, and it is interesting to note that she arrived when there were mostly fans of the book discussing it and had asked to borrow it to read it over Christmas break.  As the discussion went on, however, she realized it would not be a light holiday read and decided against it.  Further proof that we were a very evenly divided group!

Cynthia

Ernest Hemingway, A MOVEABLE FEAST

LOCATION:   L'epoque bistro, 81 rue Cardinal Lemoine,   
                      opposite number 74 where Hemingway lived for just over a year in Paris
MEAL:           Fast service, well priced ice cream, reasonable wine selection

BOOK CRITIQUE:
There were mixed reviews of the book. Some found it slightly depressing, that Hemingway didn’t appreciate his good fortune to be able to sit in cafés, drink some wine, write and meet fellow writers and artists such as Scott Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, Picasso. Hemingway appeared rather spoilt in his attitude to his life in Paris and Michel thought that the ‘I want, I get’ attitude seemed to dominate. To quote Cynthia; “what a bunch of spoilt brats!” Hemingway had inherited some money, didn’t have to earn money immediately but this lucky period (monetary wise) doesn’t come across in the book. Michel thought that wine and food dominated the book and this wasn’t always so positive.

Others thought that the book had humour in it. Maren really liked the humour that came across in certain passages, such as the description of the child in the bar. Hemingway was positive about Paris, for example his description of him wanting to enjoy the light in the café. Megan liked his attention to detail in his descriptions of places in Paris which makes Paris beautiful. Beautiful being a frequently used word by Hemingway in this book.  He seems to like to use beautiful to describe things, places and people.

Robin introduced the concept that Hemingway invented linear prose, writing in a style which is straight to the point. Hemingway wrote about what he knew about, unlike writers like Annie Proulx who likes to write about things she doesn’t know about. Robin liked the story of the trip from Lyon to Paris because it was not really a story in itself but a great anecdote. Robin and Cynthia thought there were some very good portraits of people, especially the ones of Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald.

Other points of discussion about the book were that it was a little haphazard, the stories didn’t really follow on. Clare said that she liked more guidance in books for things to follow on and hadn’t found it in this book. Megan said that, in contrast to this book, Alice Munro in her collections of short stories is very good at having recurring characters that link the stories together more. Michel said that for all Hemingway’s love of women in life he doesn’t write about them too much in this book. Gertrude Stein is different because she couldn’t be considered as a possible conquest for Hemingway. Clare raised the point as to whether the recurring theme of hunger in the book was a metaphor for hunger in other areas of Hemingway’s life, not just food.

Cynthia had read the book twice. The first time, she thought; “Wow, a great book” and then rereading it a year ago, thought quite differently. We concluded that thoughts on books can depend alot on when you read them.

In conjunction with A Moveable Feast some people had also read “The Paris Wife” and seemed to have more of an insight into Hemingway’s time in Paris; his love for his first wife, his affairs, the true financial situation of the Hemingways.

Clare

Andrei Makine, LE TESTAMENT FRANCAIS / DREAMS OF MY RUSSIAN SUMMERS

Well, the fireplace wasn't lit up this time at the Auberge du Clou when the six of us (Cynthia, Marc, Robin, Michel, Caroline and Maren) gathered for Andrei Makine's LE TESTAMENT FRANCAIS / DREAMS OF MY RUSSIAN SUMMERS. On the contrary, there were even windows open to let in the tender late summer / early October breeze…

As most of us are not living in their native country a very obvious question was if we could relate to the experience of Alyosha - being stuck in between of two worlds, not belonging to one or another and being alienated to both. Well, we didn't share this exact experience. Apparently it makes a difference having well grown up in and identifying with one country and leaving it later on from feeling alienated in the very beginning. What's different now for some of us is that we are just feeling like visitors when we travel back to our home country.

Another discussion point was about the writing. There were different opinions: From enjoying it to not enjoying it to "sounds still like another Russian author" (what he is indeed, not only in style, but it seems also in soul - even if he is writing in French).  We had both, readers of the French original and the English translation, and wondered if the translation was in for this difference because readers of the English translation enjoyed it more.  While all agreed that he did sound like he was trying to imitate the historical Russian authors, the readers of the French translation felt that he was not entirely successful.  

We talked about the irritating jumps. There were several of those, which contributed for Caroline to the feeling that the characters were not very well drawn, or at least incomplete.

There might have been quite some more points to discuss, but the discussion on siege books took all over  – our December book was amongst them! And, by the way, we learned that Stalingrad is today called Volgograd. We also tried to decide if LE TESTAMENT FRANCAIS would make a good movie, but thought it would be quite huge and expensive, given the time span / number of casts, sets, etc. We did, though, imagine the Russian scenes being somewhat like Dr Zhivago, and indeed all agreed that Julie Christie was still lovely !  :o)

We talked about a lot of books which one reads but does not consider suitable for a book club. So the idea was born to display them on the blog. Have a look: There's a new page allowing you to post all the books you liked and would like to propose to other readers. Maybe with a short comment?

Maren & Cynthia

John Williams, STONER

After the mandatory update on past travels/vacations and future plans, Caroline wondered if there would be sufficient material to discuss John William's STONER, which all three of us enjoyed. An unfounded fear, as was revealed throughout the evening. 
Amongst the discussed topics:
We admired how beautifully it was written; not a word too much, everything in its right place; the work of an excellent editor and the result of the fact that John Williams was a literary scholar? 
Especially the parts when Katherine and Stoner have to quit and his dying scene were mentioned as very touching. John Williams succeeds in bringing the reader emotionally close to Stoner. All of us felt Stoner’s wish for personal happiness and being helpless about his fights and losses. Caroline and Maren admitted an impulse to shake Stoner at times because he had a tendency to let things wash over him.   
Was he a courageous man? Although he actually does not defy social norms in general, Robin and Maren defended that he is a courageous man following his convictions where he is able to – not enlisting in the First World War was at that time a strong personal decision. Caroline was not altogether sure that his refusal to enlist stemmed from courage, given his reaction when his students enlisted during the Second World War, which was primarily one of irritation.
We talked about Stoner's passion: literature, and not teaching - as we found out. 
We couldn't agree entirely on Stoner's responsibility in the feud with Lomax: Caroline held him also partly responsible for the enmity on account of his stubbornness, while Maren defended his fight for the only passion which never betrayed him. 
His descriptions of academic life, a closed world with feuds, ambitions and rivalries carried on over decades is entirely believable (in Robin’s experience).
There was also a question of possible abuse in Edith's early life, thinking of her reaction to her father's death (she burns everything which reminds her of him). Or was it just that she holds his professional failures - and thus himself - responsible for her mismatched marriage? We were wondering about this marriage and how it survived. 
Apparently the book is an editorial phenomenon: almost entirely ignored when it was first published, it seems to be widely read now, especially in Europe. Is this because Stoner is a European character more than American? We didn't come to a conclusion on that question.

Maren, Robin, Caroline

Edith Wharton, THE AGE OF INNOCENCE

The weather outside was frightful – reminiscent of our ODD WOMEN July meeting, similarly chill and drippy – but Amanda’s hôtel privé was, as usual, delightful. She was hostess to Cynthia and Mark, Michel, Maren, and Phoebe for a discussion of Edith Wharton’s THE AGE OF INNOCENCE.

The verdict on the book was five enthusiastic thumbs up, with only Mark, who simply couldn’t get into it, abstaining. (He seemed abashed and said he might give it another try.) As usual, I missed a lot of points in the crisscrossing discussion, so please use the comments to fill in.

 We loved the detail (Phoebe noting that it was the sort of book it’s fun to read with Google open to look up furniture, clothing, and painters as they’re mentioned – her new favorite is Carolus Duran). Cynthia was especially fond of the humor as Wharton looked back on the angels-on-a-pin New York society of the 1870s. We remarked on how little her protagonists had to do – a point underlined by Wharton in contrasting it with the society of only thirty years later. Maren reminded us of those invisible workers who made it possible for the protagonists to lead their unoccupied lives. The diminuendo ending reminded Michel of Flaubert’s EDUCATION SENTIMENTALE.

This opened the floodgates to all sorts of possibilities for future selections – yes, EDUCATION SENTIMENTALE and MADAME BOVARY, but also Wharton’s friend Henry James and PORTRAIT OF A LADY, THE WINGS OF THE DOVE, THE TURN OF THE SCREW … reflect, select, and pick your months, please !

 We’ll be taking August off and resuming in September with John Williams’ STONER.

Ian McEwan, SWEET TOOTH

We were seven potlucking chez Phoebe to discuss Ian McEwan's SWEET TOOTH: Maren, Phoebe, Robin (starving for cheese, chocolate, and wine after her Asian adventures), Michel, Hélène (who had suggested the book), Cynthia, and Mark (a big McEwan enthusiast).

A general vote of thanks to Hélène for this selection: it gave everyone something to dig the teeth into.

Robin, who actually attended Cambridge not long after the novel's protagonist, was able to confirm the atmosphere and limitations described as absolutely spot on (as well as clarifying the meaning of receiving a First, Second, or Third, grammar school versus public school, and other arcana).

Michel was enthusiastic over the classically well-made overarching structure of the book and its drame cornélien of duty versus love.

Maren brought a perspective from the other side of the Iron Curtain -- the extent of the Cold War fear of the USSR described in the book was surprising to her. She was slightly frustrated by the transformation of the intrigue from espionage to romance. She also felt that the protagonist underwent shifts of mood and direction that defied reader belief or involvement -- possibly explained by the twist at the end.

Phoebe COULD NOT get her head around the Monty Hall problem and could see no difference between the two short stories constructed around it (one incorrectly, one correctly -- OR SO IT WAS CLAIMED). Explanations capable of penetrating her thick skull will be entertained with sobbing gratitude.

Mark has kindly furnished detailed explanations, after reading which Phoebe threw in the towel. http://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-the-monty-hall-problem/

Another gripe: it seemed (per Phoebe and, with reservations, Robin) that the novel's literary and historical references, allusions, and intertextuality had their eyes far too much on the gallery (or the lecture amphitheater), unlike works by, let us say, Nabokov or Angus Wilson, who use their own lexicon for their own ends without worrying about the gracious distribution of pedagogic goodies.

July's selection is THE AGE OF INNOCENCE by Edith Wharton. Should we skip an August meeting? Many exciting book possibilities were raised for the future -- please email them in (with preferred month, if you have one) and we can continue filling the calendar and sourcing our books. Cynthia has already risen to the challenge with a selection for either August (if we do indeed meet) or, failing that, October: LE TESTAMENT FRANCAIS by Andrei Makine, which I've added to the Agenda.

Related viewing: Alan Bennett's AN ENGLISHMAN ABROAD (Guy Burgess): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsdexDZgr-8

-- Phoebe

Mavis Gallant, OVERHEAD IN A BALLOON

We were a petite comité indeed at Les Editeurs – only Maren, Michel, and Phoebe to discuss the late Mavis Gallant’s OVERHEAD IN A BALLOON.

Since I selected The Book That Decimated the Book Club, I’ll draft the minutes. First, I’ll admit that after naming it, I wondered if I should have chosen a different Gallant, possibly HOME TRUTHS (which Maren presciently began reading after OIAB). I wondered if OIAB was too “special”: too distanced, too caustic, dealing with too limited a milieu. But I couldn’t resist images like the white boot kicking from the bushes in the Bois or lines like “’She died in his arms,’ wrote Grippes in an unusually confidential letter to Prism, ‘though not without a struggle.’”

Michel found the historical ambiance unbelievable – disappointing me, because it FELT real to me, and I was hoping for native confirmation. He graciously conceded that he might simply have read too fast and missed certain points. Part of the issue, for him, was the nature of a short story collection, which for him doesn’t allow the mind to really acclimate and become sensitized to the fictional milieu as it would in a novel.

Maren agreed on the short story problem. She also felt that the settings and characters were limited – “more writers writing about writers.”

All three of us agreed that the most involving stories were the Magdalena series, for a number of reasons. There was a continuity among them that made them a kind of peephole novel, with glimpses of a single story at various times, from various perspectives. The issues – survival in wartime, love, marriage, loyalty, selfishness and sacrifice – were less rarefied than those of other stories. Gallant’s use of details to convey entire worlds – the contrasted luggage of Magdalena and her young husband on the train – was especially well deployed. I loved the Colettish atmosphere of Magdalena’s Quai Voltaire apartment.

I was especially struck by the way the bottom sometimes drops out of a story, the brittle surface breaking: the memory of Algerian torture in “Luc’s Father,” Magdalena’s saying she “knew what [the Jewish star] was like” at the end of “A Recollection.” Or the matter-of-fact way Grippes waits in a café while the police beat up a pickpocket in his apartment house lobby.

I forgot to mention – even though conversation turned to the American Library in Paris! – that I once heard Gallant read the story “Grippes and Poche” there. There was a Q&A session afterwards, and someone asked why she decided to move to Paris. She said because of reading about it in books. I asked which, and she harrumphed a bit, then said, “Colette.”

Here’s a nice article on Gallant:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/19/books/mavis-gallant-short-story-writer-dies-at-91.html

-- Phoebe

Eduardo Agualuso, THE BOOK OF CHAMELEONS

4:1 in terms of appreciation. For Caroline a bad, stilted translation spoiled the joy of reading and it could be resumed as hard work for her to get through it. Others admitted, that it was difficult to get into the book, because it was not very logical or easy to understand at the beginning and irritating to a point that some read the beginning several times in order to get into the book.

According to Myriam Agualuso's other books are also tending to a more dreamy, non-realistic style. This book is very rich in allusions in many directions and hence destined for literature studies? There came up the word "pretentious" on which several people agreed, but one could also find thoughtful phrases and interesting quotations.

Robin asked the question of Why so many dreams? Do they lead to a higher level of explanation that the reader couldn't have understood otherwise?

Maybe not, although they do provide a communication channel for the gecko to share with other humans and express himself as a human being again.

Maren provided an insightful Alternative explanation: Dreams (trances) are a founding part of the African animist religions Candomblé and Umbanda. In these faiths, dreaming can be compared to travelling and conversations/exchanges with all types of creatures during such travels constitute an important element of expression of these religions.

Candomblé and Umbanda were brought to Brazil by the (soon to become) slaves from the African west coast and have evolved in South America ever since. Interestingly, they are now supposedly much more active in Brazil than in their original countries.  

(Researched after the meeting: "Umbanda" means "traditional medecine" in the Angolan languages Kimbundu and Umbundu.)

There was the question of Félix' profession and people asking for his services, wishing to leave their own past behind and start a new life, the possibility to chose their own history and references. Of course we mentioned all the opportunities such a change presents, but we did not think of the losses and especially the loss of identity also related to such a change.

This seems to be today even one of the country's major topics in a larger scale, when taking into account some effects and impacts of their colonial past (thanks to Myriam for sharing her insights):

- People dress themselves in rather western style, you won't see women in traditional clothing as in other African countries.

- Portuguese has become the native tongue for many people and trying to learn the local ("tribal") languages is not uncommon.

Many thanks to Myriam for her slide show with images from Angola! We did realize that we do not know very much about history and the current situation of this country. So Myriam's shared first hand experiences about life in Angola were very helpful!

Funny also how much one's reception of the historical background of a book depends on the personal education and background. Whereas Robin rather could relate to the colonial references in the book, Maren got reminded of the proganda text books in East Germany and the supporting slogans for "socialist" Angola after independence in 1975 which was a context entirely out of sight for the "westerner" members of the group.

Maren & Myriam

Peter Hoeg, THE ELEPHANT KEEPER'S CHILDREN

Many thanks to Phoebe for a fabulous feast of pizza and other goodies on Thursday evening.  We were seven, (Phoebe, Robin, Maren, Caroline, Michel, Mark and myself), all huddled around the famous circular table chez Phoebe, to discuss The Elephant Keeper’s Children, by Peter Hoeg, suggested by Robin.

Suffice it to say, there were no weak opinions shared about the book:  each of us either really liked it or could not even finish it, and I would estimate the opinions were fairly evenly divided.  (4 really enjoyed;  3 could not finish it.)  Those who thought favorably were able to find humor in the zany plot, with the ‘too-intelligent-to-be-taken-seriously” adolescent narrators, as well as the questionable image painted of the world’s major organized religions via the main storyline.  The critics found the humor and teen-aged hijinks too trying on their patience.   Robin pointed out how well the author described and in turn criticized the Danish middle class and also the royalty.  She also recommended his other works which some have read and enjoyed, but found quite different to this particular one.

Cynthia

Alice Munro, DEAR LIFE

We were seven this time around Amanda’s table: Amanda, Cynthia, Helen, Phoebe, newcomer Thibault, Michel and Maren.

The book had a very positive reception; only Michel liked it less, but we did not really get to know why – or he didn’t get the chance amongst all the praising and the lively discussion... ;-)

Other Munro books were even more praised; “Dear Life” was understood as a rather loose collection of some short stories quickly set up to respond to an end of life review.

I myself was somewhat afraid – and, as we learned, I was not the only one – that it would be difficult to discuss short stories. So many characters, changing stories and perspectives... How to cover this all in one discussion? A novel lets one follow the characters and their developments over many pages. How can one relate in the time of a few pages to story and characters? But there was no fear necessary. As Amanda put it: Alice Munro is considered, amongst authors, as one of the best living writers; her short stories are as rich as a novel can be. We saw that ourselves. Rarely have personal stories surfaced as often as this time during a book discussion. We were touched by one or another phrase incrusted itself in our minds, and the discussion started.

Caroline’s splendid written contribution (get well soon!) made a beautiful jumping-off place.

·       I was very conscious of the importance of houses/homes in these short stories, and particularly their demolition or conversion. Is this a recurring theme in her work, a symbol or an autobiographical allusion?
·       The mother/daughter relationships seem, at the very least, tense. One assumes this is autobiographical but I haven’t been able to find out. Or maybe there is a tendency to assume, although she is careful to say the opposite, that everything is autobiographical in this possibly final work. I see her eldest daughter has written a book about her relationship to her mother, which would give an interesting slant.
·       I liked her portrayal of laid-back, hippy husbands/partners (particularly the one she suspects of leaving her for an old flame). Although she doesn’t identify with the stepfather of the girl who drowns, who is by his own admission too stoned to go and help and then refuses to have anything to do with his biological child, she seems to be saying that he did at least live by his principles. One gets the feeling that Munro admires this; that she would like to do the same but doesn’t quite dare. In the final story, she does achieve this, however: “I did not go home for my mother's last illness or for her funeral. I had two small children and nobody in Vancouver to leave them with. We could barely have afforded the trip, and my husband had a contempt for formal behavior, but why blame it on him? I felt the same.”  

Phoebe disagreed in some measure with the last point. To her, the important phrase is I had two small children; the narrator chooses to consider their needs (as her own mother did not), even over those of her mother (in reaction to the mother). Phoebe made a parallel with the death of Père Goriot, when he is abandoned on his deathbed by his adored daughters, who, through the way he brought them up, must fight for the future of their own children.

A gender discussion also for “Gravel”: Is the narrator a boy or a girl, brother or sister of Caro? It was intriguing: The interpretation and reception depended on the gender of the reader. Women tended to read the stories from a girl’s point of view, men from a boy’s.

We came at several moments back to the story of the TB clinic (“Amundsen”). What could women do and expect at that time? How free were they to decide for their own?

Conclusion: We need as one of the next assignments an Edith Wharton novel! And another meeting with short stories!

Also much discussed was the story "Train": It tells the life from a men's perspective. We discussed if his difficulty with intimacy was the origin of his strange relation to people around him or did his performing problem become an intimacy problem.

Phoebe & Maren

Philip Roth, AMERICAN PASTORAL

We've been 8 this time at Vincent's: Amanda, Caroline, Cynthia, Maren, Michel, Phoebe and our two newcomers, Amélie and Mark. And no, it's not been the one in New York, but the one here in Paris - probably equally good as the Vincent's in the book, minus the Baked Ziti.

Well, of course the discussion could not start without a special remark to the Newark "homies" amongst us, who of course did not keep to themselves interesting stories and details about their former home city. (As example: The overpass where he found Merry is exactly the same today.)

Pratically everybody was stunned by Philip Roth's AMERICAN PASTORAL, although not everybody acknowledged to have enjoyed reading it. Hugh and difficult to digest or as Michel put it: As though it is wonderfully written, there's no way out for any of the characters of getting hurt and devastated, it's just ... depressing. There were also several questions about the structure and the general setting: Irritation about the fact that it is knowingly and intentionally set up as an invention, enjoyment starting only when Swede's story begins (so what do we need all the settings around for?), the impression that the whole diner party was not necessary to make the story a complete story, annoyance that the book does not include the Swede's life with his second wife...
We felt that there were so many topics to pick up, that it was just impossible discuss all the different aspects in just one evening. So we went on coming up with events and questions.

It was a clear statement: Such a thing as blowing up the post office of the village would have meant the end of the relation between Caroline and her daughter. There was nevertheless much understanding for the protective feelings and actions of the Swede to save his daughter, for the good Swede. One could almost sense an admiration for the will to and the actual continuation of the goodness by this man. At least, it was never really put in question although the question hung in the air: Can goodness be a bad thing?
Merry's relation with the Swede: Given the good person he was, could he have done anything differently to bring up and save Merry? In the end we agreed: Merry would have been much better off regarding her final state, if she would have been arrested by the FBI.  We also understood Swede’s brother, Jerry’s instinct to run back and take her home by force.
Everybody loved the Swede's father and his brother: Genuine characters who did not need kindness to confirm and complete their personalities. We also equally did NOT like Marcia, the wife of Swede’s high school buddy, who even the narrator admits is all talk and no action.
At different occasions the question of "criticism" popped up: The narrator's, Nathan Zuckerman, criticism of Swede…or was it Merry's criticism on her father and thus the "old style" America; Philip Roth's criticizing through Nathan Zuckerman of the Vietnam-post-Kennedy- means Johnson's- and Nixon's-America; Dawn, the New Jersey beauty (which is, as the non-Americans discovered, a cultural reference on its own already!), never quite accepted as a working class girl. Well, we didn't get to a common view and understanding. Or wouldn't there be any criticism at all and Philip Roth is just plainly giving us a 360° view on what was and did happen in America during the Sixties and Seventies?  This remained an open question. 
Several times we raised the question about Rita Cohen: What was her role, why did she continue to pop up in the story, did she really have a connection with Merry? Well, this, too, remained unanswered.
And we came to the movie question: Apparently there are preparations ongoing to make a film out of the book in Hollywood, but according to our Hollywood insider we will not see it before long on the screen. Besides, our movie experts agreed that "I married a Communist" would be the best amongst Philip Roth's novels to turn into a movie.

Cynthia & Maren