Colm Toibin, BROOKLYN

Overall most liked it. Michel, as fervent "defender" of the book and, above all, Eilis, had read and discussed it with another book club and thought it would be good to share with us.  
Robin especially liked the portrayal of the immigrant experience and noted that even we are (almost) all immigrants (and lots of talk about how today’s immigrants differ from immigrants in the 1950’s...)
We noted the strong Catholic religious pressure from the priest and the Irish community overall.
We all debated her passivity for quite some time then Monika helped us conclude that in the end she managed to evaluate each decision, in a way sort of realizing that choosing to let others decide was in itself a decision. We could not agree to which extent she was just lucky, noting that the American dream was just at its greatest moment in the 1950’s so it was the best possible moment to create your own success.
Mark loved the ending being sort of open, and also shared stories of how his Italian-American father experienced ethnic prejudice on more than one occasion….even in the 1960’s in NJ.
Lot’s of speculation on whether she would be happy or not in the US with Tony, and also what the photo she kept of Jim really signified/how it would play a role in the future if Tony ever found it.
Cynthia at first thought the writing was too flat but then having read other books by Toibin realized it was a deliberate device. For Monika the device of the flatness was to mimic her passivity. Artistic medium or not, this flatness created for Clare and Maren a disappointment about the consequently missing emotional impact on the reader.
And, last but not least, we shared a universal disdain for the shop owner in Ireland !

A question Cynthia wish we had discussed: How did to interpret the final scene with the mother, when Eilis says she’s leaving back to the US. Another question could be about what signify the expectations Eilis' mother has apparently towards her daughter to take care of her.

Cynthia (& Maren)

Elisabeth de Waal, THE EXILES RETURN

We should have been 5….then we were 4…..and just nearly at the end we were 6 altogether, meeting to discuss The Exiles Return, by Elisabeth DeWaal.  Philippe, Monika, Mark and Cynthia met at Indonesia (once again all thumbs up !) and were joined later on by Catherine and her husband, Richard.

Philippe summed it up best by saying the book was more a testimony of a historical moment in time, rather than a book of character development.   We all agreed that it evoked the mood of post-war Vienna very well.   We also agreed that perhaps the last 20% of the book was not necessary.  We could have done without the melodrama about Kanakis and Resi, and would have liked to read more about Adler, who for all of us was the most interesting and relevant character.  His story seemed most symbolic of the returning exile, and having been Jewish it was easier to see the reason for his exile.  It was also interesting to observe the interactions with him and his superior, Kreiger.  We could not seem to agree whether he ever really fully acknowledged the atrocities of the Holocaust in which he participated, although indeed he was aware that the events were certainly perceived as having been atrocious.  Adler’s wife was also interesting and it could have added to the story to have more about their former life together, or her life without him in the U.S.

The characters:  Resi herself was a bit of a mystery.  What really happened to her in the U.S. that caused her to be sent to Vienna?  Was she a badly developed character or a simple, naive young woman whose life has not yet begun and whom the other more mature individuals can easily manipulate ?  As for Kanakis, he was considered cold and calculating, but probably more fun and interesting than Bimbo, who was desperate to marry into money, as he was broke.  We were not sure who was the more culpable of the two men.

Some of us thought that the entire Kanakis / Bimbo / Resi story was not necessary, but it could have been a way to show the faded glory of the Austrian royalty.  The world of people with titles and no wealth was quite relevant at that moment in time in Vienna, and perhaps the author was interested in showing this aspect through the characters.  Princess Nina, however, was nearly the opposite of her brother, Bimbo, being studious, hardworking, unobtrusive, etc.  Bravo to her for not being talked out of her life with Adler by the family priest !

The novel must have taken a lot of courage to write.  Subject matter such as homosexuality and abortion were not easily discussed in the early 1950’s, and we wondered whether this could be part of why the book was not published until now.  It’s not clear if the success of her grandson’s book played a role in getting this novel published.  We all agreed that even if the plot was not always interesting, the quality of the writing always was.

As a salute to Maren’s suggestion last month that we list the aspects we could have discussed but didn’t, we didn’t discuss the cocktail parties/salons held by Kanakis, nor did we discuss the famous episode of Bimbo brining the pornographic photos to the art critic.  What purpose did that serve?

As always, please feel free to add to or modify anything I may have missed or misunderstood !

Cynthia

Adam Johnson, THE ORPHAN MASTER'S SON

We were a group of 7 at the meeting on Thursday evening:  Maren, Robin, Philippe (Welcome !!), Michel, Catherine, Mark and myself. An enthusiastic discussion of The Orphan Master’s Son took place despite the strange table configuration and flaming beef in the center of the tables. All things considered, most of us were pleasantly surprised by the food, and we discovered that there is such a thing as white sesame ice cream. Merci once again to Caroline for the restaurant suggestion.

Mixed reviews of the book helped stimulate the conversation. Three of us loved it  (Catherine, Mark, Cynthia), Michel read it earlier this year and seems to still have quite unpleasant memories of it,  Robin was a bit more than half-way through and was not having fun with it, Maren was very nearly finished with it but was mostly enjoying it, and the conscientious-student-

combined-with-brilliant-diplomacy award goes to our new joiner, Philippe, who came well-organized with written notes summarizing his positive and negative points about the book.

A good portion of the discussion concerned how the chronology of the story and multiple narrators was extremely confusing. No one denied this fact, but those among us who enjoyed the book said it was worth putting up with it, but that overall it was kind of a pain until you figured out what was going on.  Indeed Mark read the book after me and said that he may not have enjoyed it so much if I had not explained what was happening when he reached the confusing bit with the change of narrator. In reviews that some of us read online, it was the most widely criticized point about the book, however it did win the 2012 Pulitzer Prize.

The other subject widely discussed was whether or not the story was realistic. Robin had the sense that the first part of the book seemed to be a collection of random events patched together to make a story, but without success, which makes it perhaps not realistic that all this could happen to one individual. It is probably true that the narrator was a vehicle to present the ensemble of atrocities on could find in North Korea. For example, a few of us read an interview with the author included at the end of the paperback version in which he says he spent many years in North Korea and based a lot of the novel’s events on what he observed while there. (The starvation and armed guards protecting the fish in the pond, the loudspeaker, the specific event of the tattoo being sliced off of a prisoner, etc.)  

Catherine, who has actually been twice to North Korea, confirmed that the author did manage to capture a good bit of the mood of the place.  I am afraid to put all the details of it in writing, but she did entertain us with the exciting story of how one of her photos wound up on the cover of Time Magazine ! Philippe also acknowledged that he perhaps would have appreciated the book a bit more if he had had a better notion of what was realistic and what wasn’t. Robin, our reigning expert on Asia, did make the comparison with Laos, where people will eat literally anything they can get their hands on. I suppose that for the large majority of us we learned a lot about North Korea by reading this book, but because what we learned was so depressingly negative, it was not so easy to believe. We did admit, not surprisingly, that despite the fact that the book became a real page-turner near the end, the grand finale was was a bit over-the-top. 

On the positive side, we mostly agreed that the writing was quite good and we enjoyed several of the images:  the woman rowing the boat throughout the night, the journey to Texas and observations on the American way of life, the comments about how none of the senior citizens have ever been seen on those beaches, and the related story of the torturer who fed his parents the poisonous canned peaches so that they wouldn’t continue to suffer.  

No one among us seemed to believe that the opera singer was Jun Do’s mother or that the orphan master was his father. As for the title, the author mentions in an interview that children in North Korea are taught to have their first loyalty to the state, and their second loyalty to their families. This sort of makes everyone an orphan, and the Great Leader by design is the orphan master of everyone.  So it sort of makes sense that the main character would be named Jun Do, a reference to the anonymous John Doe, who represents the everyday, average, anonymous face in the crowd.

One new twist to the summary is a list of subjects we could have, but didn’t, discuss.  Maren calls it the “self-criticism section”. We all have loads of ideas about the book but the discussion takes many twists and turns, so it is a good opportunity for everyone to contribute.  (HINT: Strong encouragement for comments !) Some initial ideas are:

• The evolution of the main figure Pak Jun Do - While the concatenation of all events in his life seems just to be improbable/lacking credibility, do we at least believe in the evolution of his character? And why? Same question about the evolution can be asked for the interrogator. 
• Sun Moon, we didn't talk about her at all although a main character
• How someone would live in a society of denouncement and what does this do with relation between people?
• Effect of systematic torture, as means of “education” - What does this do to a population? Can it be expected that someone really elevates oneself above such a situation? 

Cynthia

 

 

Jane Gardham, OLD FILTH

Thanks for being at the last book club meeting! For those not there: We were an extra-ordinary 9 in attendance - Caroline, Catherine, Clare, Hélène, Michel, Monika, Robin, newcomer Sabine and Maren.
The venue, Au Pays du Sourire, got mixed reviews. Robin found back the tastes and textures of her recent traveling to South East Asia, whereas others were surprised by the huge fried spring rolls or the thick wrappings of the dumplings. And there was different reception of the same event by different people: While Caroline was puzzled by the vociferous announcements of the delivered platters and how to organize the table, Maren was rather taken aback by the fact that this happened always exactly when we were about to have a real dip into a topic on the book.

Due to the long table and the big number of participants, the discussion split at different occasions into "local" exchanges which can only partly be reproduced here. So if you are missing some aspects you would like to be shared, don't hesitate to comment on the blog on the related post (www.bookclubdeparis.blogspot.fr)

Very positive feedbacks on Jane Gardam's writing, thumbs up from every side. Most people had read OLD FILTH and at least 3 participants were through all three books (THE MAN IN THE WOODEN HAT and LAST FRIENDS). Quite a number of people had the intention of going further and reading the other books as well. The positive reception and discussion did just reinforce these intentions. What seems interesting is the shifting perception the three books produce on the reader. Listening to the three-book-readers they seem to have a more balanced view on the story, the different characters become rounded up, more comprehensible and their relationships clearer.
Some moments of the evening were used to enlighten and put right some of the glimpses into English society which the book brings to the non-native-English reader (for example about "Inns" which are not hotels, Raj orphans and their upbringing far from their parents but in a place called Home, the class system in Great Britain). For more details on the life of judges, here a recommendation of Caroline: the latest Ian McEwan book THE CHILDREN ACT.
Shortly mentioned but not extended was also the question how much Hong Kong has changed since, knowing that some participants have lived in Hong Kong themselves.
Another big topic was the triangle Filth - Betty - Veneering. Those having read the three books were clearly at an advantage and could explain more about how Filth and Betty met, how they got married and finally what had happened between Betty and Veneering. It was also clearer to them how Filth and Veneering could end up being neighbors in far away Dorset, which seemed rather far fetched to those equipped only with the knowledge based on the first book. Besides, there was also the opinion that life consists of just such coincidences.
There was also the question of HOME and the somewhat strange thing that Filth comes Home for his last days, but dies finally in that officially foreign country, apparently more dear to him than his - on paper - native country.
I personally regret a bit that we drew only very little attention on the character of Filth himself. But maybe it was not necessary to discuss his character for those having a thoroughly understanding of the whole story - and Filth's character and becoming - through all the three books.

Maren 

Arundhati Roy, THE GOD OF SMALL THINGS

We were six in attendance:  Maren, Caroline, Catherine, Clare, Cynthia, and we welcomed new joiner, Brianna, who definitely helped to move the discussion along, and who has finally interjected a new name that does not begin with either M or C. We met at the Indian restaurant Kashmir House, in the 10th, and I believe it received 6 thumbs up.  Several tables full at all times, despite the holiday season, food reasonably priced, attentive service. Embarrassing level of drama created by our lengthy goodbye and the arithmetical hurdles posed by 6 methods of payment. But a smiling, cooperative staff throughout the ordeal. And yes, I think we all enjoyed the food, too.

And, yes, we managed to discuss the book. Overall most appreciated at least the lovely writing, but we did agree that it was surprising for it to have been selected for a Booker Prize. We admired the way she was able to describe the inner lives of children, and how neglect and abuse can impact the way children perceive the world and develop mechanisms to cope. Although she did appreciate the writing, Catherine confessed that the book was a bit too depressing to finish, and that she did not learn anything new from it, especially in light of the slew of books set in India in the same period of time.  Brianna did not believe that it was necessary to learn from a book to enjoy it.  Clare wanted it to be known that she did like the book, although she thought it would have been better had she not known the ending at the start.  She used Love in the Time of Cholera as an example of why it is nice not to know the ending in advance. Cynthia basically thought there was no problem with any scenario (depressing/knowing the end at the start/not learning anything) as long as the writing was beautiful and the characters interesting.  She also acknowledged that depending on one’s mindset at a certain moment in life, some books just click, and others don’t. We can start a book at one moment and not be able to continue, yet pick it up months or years later and love it.

The God of Small Things is indeed the only novel written by Arundhati Roy, but she has kept writing essays on politics and other subjects.  Caroline enjoyed the book but thought it overrated.  She also brought along a humorous article from The Guardian which poked fun at the writing style.  Apparently there was very strong reaction on both sides when the book won the Booker, and its merits continue to be debated even now.

As for the characters, we agreed on the following:
Ammu – most well-developed, best-designed character.  Most human and well-rounded/multi-faceted.
Chacko – stereotypical male taken in charge by women. We debated whether there were any male characters in the book who aren’t entirely either “bad guys” or victims.  He was the only one that was not 100% one or the other, and we did not fault him in the end for being a stereotype, because in a way neither he nor the women around him had a choice in the matter. He lived in two worlds at once (Oxford vs India) and at times transposed the values of one world into the other while at other times failed to do so. (e.g., protecting Mamachi from his father but remaining a terrible macho nonetheless with manly needs and driving the family business into ruins.)
Velutha – baptized Christian and is clearly a victim on many levels (victim of other people’s malicious behavior, as well as an example of society’s unjustness.) We never quite managed to discuss whether his Christianity was “inherited,” as his baptism was done by his father, and we did fail to explicitly discuss the impact of what is inherited, and what is not.
Rahel/Estha – Rahel was recognized as a storyteller, more imaginative and resilient than her brother.  Estha was recognized as another victim, both at the hands of the molester as well as Baby. We did not quite find a lot of ambiguity in the characters (except maybe Ammu). Their relationship was extraordinary and culminated in the act of incest at the end of the book which was not 100% clear to have taken place (but perhaps 99% clearly took place?).
Baby – quite simple to agree on this character:  just awful how she wrongly accused Velutha AND then manipulated the children to implicate him. Her suffering due to unrequited love did not generate a lot of sympathy for her in the end.

We arrived at the discussion of whether or not people can ever really change, and whether people can ever really have a drastic, life-altering change. We ultimately agreed that actually yes, it is possible to have an experience that can impact you suddenly and severely. Maren also noted that while we discussed the setting in India, the vegetarian kitchen, and the communist activities in the region, we did not discuss India itself very much. We did, however, agree that yes, the small things in your life can have an enormous impact.

Cynthia & Maren

Jane Austen, MANSFIELD PARK

In honour of Jane Austen's origins we picked up Clare's idea and organized a Mark&Spencer inspired picnic on the Champs de Mars. Caroline, Catherine, Clare, Cynthia, Maren, Mark, Michel, Monika and Robin enjoyed the sunny, not too fresh evening.
A thought goes out to Phoebe: We missed you here dearly!!!

The appreciation of Jane Austen's MANSFIELD PARK was very varying: From Caroline claiming it to be her favourite Austen work to Mark surrendering on page 8 on account of the book's style, all degrees of appreciation could be found within our group.
We could agree on the sense of Austen's fine and subtle sense of humour, and, too, that it is a rather difficult read today. As Maren admitted, it was difficult to hold back the red pencil and not to correct what seem today to be grammar errors. Also, in terms of expression, Austen's style brought us closer to the convention of that period: It was clear at any moment who were Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram. But who were Mr or Miss Bertram depended clearly on the circumstances.  

A discussion flamed up on Clare's declaration that she found Fanny Price somewhat insufferable for not being straighter forward, demanding and self-assured. Several defended Fanny by mentioning her difficult situation of being parted from her own crowd and put into a foster family, which had apparently no particular interest in her. Rather suspicious was judged Sir Thomas' change of attitude towards Fanny on his return from West India. But on the other hand, a girl grown into a handsome young lady will probably always attract a middle-aged man's attention and sympathies.

Unanimous, well almost, was the 'warm' reception of Lady Bertram, the matron. She, being depicted overwhelmed and exhausted by a day on the sofa, was an image Cynthia very much loved and others joined her. The only critical mention: her passiveness, not being able to decide on anything on her own, despite being the mistress ("Sir Thomas, could I do for an evening without Fanny?").

Some laughs in response to Cynthia's question, of how many times everybody of us would have liked to shoot Misses Norris to the moon. Everybody agreed about her being the most unsympathetic character of the book. What brings us to the conclusion that Austen's drawing of her characters seems still working and effective even 200 years after actually setting it up.
Mentioned, but not discussed in depth, were the settings: Very figurative, describing, almost theatre like.

Robin mentioned the role and the treatment of a human life at the time: West Indies needed human capital because there was a huge drain. It was "customs" and so there was no big fuzz about people being sent away and not coming back. 

The travel of Austen's protagonists to Bath gave occasion to exchange on personal experiences for some of us having travelled to or have actually even lived in Bath.

Very amusing:
Clare brought a book called MISS JANE AUSTEN'S GUIDE TO MODERN LIFE DILEMMAS by Rebecca Smith, which does exactly what the titles suggests: describing how to address nowadays' issues according to the "morals" of Jane Austen's era. Especially Catherine had a good laugh about the advices how to deal with young adults.



© Maren

Maren

June Modiano Stroll

Dear All,

Thanks Myriam for organising the walk this afternoon, especially ensuring that we stopped near a very good ice cream place!  Robin and Caroline, you missed the opportunity to taste gorgonzola ice cream. According to Cynthia, it's like having a whole plate of pasta.  We were:
Myriam
Caroline
Claire
Robin
Michel
Catherine
Mark
Cynthia

Attached are some photos from this afternoon, with a few comments. Visual minutes. I'm afraid that I'm not savvy enough how to put the photos on the blog and thought that whilst there are no names on the photos, better check whether anyone objects to the photos being online. If there are no objections, then I trust that Cynthia has the know how for updating the blog.

It was only at the end of the walk that I realised that you are all French nationals, thank you so much for conducting the walk in English for the British national! As the book for the next meeting is by Jane Austen I guess it is up to the British contingent (French passport holders or not) to come up with somewhere suitably English to meet. If my flat were a little larger I would suggest a Marks and Spencer themed meal at my place but that might be a tight fit. I'll put my thinking cap on. 

Enjoy reading Mansfield Park.

Clare



© Clare Pearson



Anthony Doerr, ALL THE LIGHT WE CANNOT SEE

On Thursday 7 May, Caroline, Clare, Cynthia, Maren, Mark and Michel gathered at Creperie Gus, 19 rue Gustave Courbet, Paris, to drink, eat galettes and salad (and dessert for  Mark...) and discuss Anthony Doerr's novel, All the Light We Cannot See.

Mark started things off by stating that he had been enjoying the book and thought it would make a good book club choice, but then started reading / enjoying The Narrow Road To The Deep North, by Richard Flanagan and became concerned that “All the Light” was perhaps a bit too light (sorry) for the book club. He nonetheless stayed with his recommendation since he hadn't finished reading “The Narrow Road”. The general consensus of everyone who read all or part of “All the Light” before the meeting was that it was indeed a good read but, yes, a bit light. The fact that “All The Light” was awarded the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for fiction after our selection of the book was a bit of a mystery to all.  It was good but not that good. The plot was considered a bit too formulaic and some of us were concerned that perhaps it had been written as a potential movie. Some of us loved the idea of the German children listening to the great-uncle Etienne's lectures on the radio while some thought it too far-fetched. Most of us thought the diamond was perhaps superfluous but in an interview the author felt he needed it to pull the story along. Was the diamond the “light we cannot see” as proposed by Maren? Interestingly , while typing these notes Mark read an op-ed piece

http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/hc-op-thorson-light-we-cannot-see-0514-20150513-column.html

where the author gives his take on the light we cannot see – about halfway through he diverts on a tangent away from the book – you have been forewarned but the piece is worth reading. Caroline thought the model of St Malo made by Marie-Laure’s father, with its interlocking parts, could reflect the interlocking parts of the narrative. Everyone liked the character, Volkheimer, who brings the duffel bag to Jutta at the end, and thought he was the best developed. Conversely, we didn’t know Werner's sister Jutta very well although she did play the part of his conscience quite often. Was the friend Frederick, who gets horrifically injured, a metaphor for the collateral damage of war as was perhaps Volkheimer? The author's writing style allowed one (as was the author's purpose) to see the wonder in common objects – a lump of coal that really represents the sunlight from millions of years ago that allowed a plant to grow and eventually have a metamorphosis into coal.

Caroline had some interesting thoughts after the meeting. Taking the model of St Malo one step further, she thought that perhaps the crushing of the model under the boot of the enemy symbolized the crushing of France / Europe? Posters of heavy military boots immediately spring to mind. Caroline found a few examples on the web (see below).

http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://obeygiant.com/images/2008/08/tyrant-boot-poster.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.obeygiant.com/headlines/revok-tyrants&h=599&w=450&tbnid=9HsRl7PSfDsrBM:&zoom=1&tbnh=95&tbnw=71&usg=__hrMjD5oXqfZy-LcfRBazl_w4H8c=&docid=hbQ4EzhiPSq57M

http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.war-stories.com/images/war-posters/wwii/poster-wwii-fight-were-fighting-to-prevent-this.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.war-stories.com/war-posters-wwii-2.htm&h=412&w=290&tbnid=-Ln-CHs3mk_myM:&zoom=1&tbnh=94&tbnw=66&usg=__WWKHAx-VfU4cUYU69AzsM_VJxg8=&docid=De0M-M8_ty94BM

http://www.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://web.stanford.edu/~nauerbac/ddr%2520kunst_exhibit_sept10/exhibit/GDRposters/helpnic.jpg&imgrefurl=http://web.stanford.edu/~nauerbac/ddr%2520kunst_exhibit_sept10/exhibit/GDRposters/nicaragua.html&h=310&w=218&tbnid=9ANF84zrSWN1eM:&zoom=1&tbnh=94&tbnw=66&usg=__Sc7-klBQdCggoGzXmh2z5VuWn8M=&docid=n7xifA0M3xYu2M

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/16/boot_symbolism_imprint/

Caroline also supposed that one could extrapolate even further by saying that the spread of von Rumpel’s cancer is also a metaphor for evil being “eaten up” and thought it seems tenable, given that the book has a definite moral undertone.

Maren also followed up after the meeting with a list of literature concerning war that was part of the curriculum at East German schools (- giving examples why she doesn't like read books on war).

Dieter Noll "Die Abenteuer des Werner Holt"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Werner_Holt
(probably not translated)

Nikolai Alexejewitsch Ostrowski "Wie der Stahl gehärtet wurde"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_Steel_Was_Tempered
Translation available as PDF ("External links"):

Bruno Spitz "Nackt unter Wölfen"
Naked among Wolves, translated by Edith Anderson, Berlin 1960, Seven Seas Publishers

Chingiz Aytmatov "Jamila"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamila_%28novel%29
with a link to a translated online version and reference of a translation in book format

Erich Maria Remarque "Im Westen nichts Neues"
"All Quiet on the Western Front"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Quiet_on_the_Western_Front
References on translations available there

Mikhail Sholokhov "Destiny of a Man"
Other titles: "Fate of a Human", "Fate of a Man"
Movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_of_a_Man
On the author: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Sholokhov
"One Man's Destiny, and Other Stories, Articles, and Sketches", 1923–1963, 1967

Mark

Where is LOVE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA set?

Dear All,

In response to our discussion this evening on where exactly Love in the Time of Cholera is set, I think the city is based on Cartagena and Baranquilla, cities on the Colombian carribean coast. As for the river Magdalena, it's the river that has its mouth on this coast and comes from the south. Attached is a photo of a boat I saw last year on the river Magdalena, from which you can make up your own minds as to whether you think the boats have changed much in the last century.

Regards,
Clare

(c) Clare Pearson

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, LOVE IN THE TIME OF CHOLERA

We met at Juanchito - a proposal of Caroline (Thank you again!), and I think nobody was disappointed by the tasty and copious dishes we were served.

The seven of us (Caroline, Cynthia, Clare, Michel, Mark, Maren and Robin) mostly liked, if not to say, loved the book. Only Clare was hesitating if she likes in general books which give away the end at the very beginning. In the end she gave in to the general very positive reception of the book and showed thumbs up. The only criticism heard concerned the structure of the book. The very long chapters were not very much appreciated for several reasons.

Some interesting points came up during the discussion, only to mention some here:

The setting: We could not find a compromise on where exactly the story is taking place. 

The setting in time was also somewhat difficult to grasp for Maren. The book covers a large period during which many technical changes introduced into society, but socially it does not change that much. Old fortunes are mentioned, founded during the exploration era and which are now fading or the use of grandma's petticoats, balls, life as well in cities as on haziendas give a strange mixture with travels in baloons and electricity.  

• Cynthia found an article stating that the city very closely resembled Cartagena, and that it took place 1880-1930
  
• Also remarkable were the very vivid descriptions of colours and odours; one could almost see and smell, feel like being there. But, besides the famous eggplant, there was not much about food or cooking in the book.
  
• When mentioning the humour present everywhere, even if sometimes subtle, everybody started citing its favourite passages. It was really something palpable for everybody.
  
• The names of the people were somewhat funny or at least unusual. To give some examples: Transito, the pope's names, even Florentino sounds unsual to Westerner's ears.
  
• We didn't find the explanation why Fermina Daza is called throughout the book by her maiden's name, very well knowing that the naming conventions in hispanic countries are complicated (combination of parent's names which change at mariage).
  
• Clare reminded as that in Spanish the word "Cholera" stands for the disease and for "anger". So how to understand the book when translating the title as "Love in the Times of Anger"? Or should love be considered as a kind of incurable disease?
  
• The most discussed character was Florentino. And this not out of sympathy but he was the most interesting. Although his saintly love for Fermina, he provoked also bad things for his acquaintances. Maybe he could be understood as a victim of love. But how sane is to be obsessed with one single woman over decades and nevertheless consume women lightheartedly through all the years? And speaking of which: the sanitary disaster of STDs does not seem to have a big impact on Florentino, although Caroline deciphered the mention of 5 different incidents. Which seems not too bad for 622 documented contacts over the 50 years.
  
• What's the moral to take from the book, asked Clare. Or how Maren put it: Meandering all the time amongst the different lifes, where does it go to in the end?
  Not much of an answer was found to it, except eventually by Cynthia, who mentioned the difficulties to find the balance between what one desires and to be content with what one has - if ever such a balance is achievable / attainable.

 

 Maren & Cynthia

J.M.G. LeClezio, DESERT

First things first: the venue. Riad Nejma was quite a luxurious setting for the meeting, and for sure no one left hungry. Definitely a six-thumbs-up rating, and thanks to Caroline for the suggestion. And speaking of six, we were Caroline, Robin, Michel, Clare, Mark, Cynthia.

Michel recommended Desert, by J.M.G. Leclezio when we were discussing Nobel prize winners in autumn. He found the writing beautiful and poetic, having read it in French twice and once in English. His concern about whether the English translation was able to capture the language’s beauty was debated throughout the evening. Caroline, who very much appreciates Leclezio, also found the language beautiful, but did not think this was his very best novel. Robin enjoyed the book but did not think the English translation was very beautiful, as the language seemed flat to her and noted that he often reused the same word several times in the same description. She did, however, think many of the descriptions were wonderful (e.g., the boy who died running from the police after stealing from cars). Clare took on the challenge of the French version and absolutely agreed that the language was very poetic. Mark initially found it difficult to get into the book, then felt the stories began to carry themselves, making the reader feel as if he were with the characters in the two main story lines.  Essentially that the writing made the reader feel what the characters felt, and gave a strong appreciation of people living under that type of stress.  He did believe that the English translation maintained a good degree of the beauty of the language (e.g., the blind warrior walking away from the sheik after having been “cured”). Cynthia felt that the English version was perhaps longer than it needed to be (perhaps because of the translation) but that it was extremely well done, with vivid descriptions of the lives of everyone in both stories. And yes, she was thirsty reading the desert stories!

Regarding the two intertwined stories, we were not sure precisely how they were related. It was stated that Lalla was a descendent of the blue men, but how? Was it the sheik’s wife, also named Lalla, who was the connection? Also it bears noting that there were two confusing elements, perhaps the price one pays for the poetry. First, what was the relationship between Nour and the sheik? And his father? We felt it was not clear whom Nour was following early on in the book. Secondly, the notion of time seemed a bit off. The sudden move of Lalla to Marseille, the aunt already being established there, Lalla’s mastery of French and her subsequent return all took place within 9 months?! That didn’t seem realistic to most of us.

Indeed more than the words were different between the two translations; even the physical page layout was different. In the French version, one story had the narrower column on the page and the other the full page. The English version presented the two stories identically on the page.  I’m not sure if this would have made a difference had we known.

The setting and the era in history was also an interesting part of the discussion, and some related movies/exhibitions were suggested:

• Suggested movies
  The Wind and the Lion (Sean Connery/Candace Bergen) and
  Fort Saganne (Gerard Depardieu/Catherine Deneuve)

• Suggested exhibition
  Indigo exhibition in Paris at the library:  http://www.paris-bibliotheques.org/expositions/indigo/

Cynthia

 

Joan Didion, A BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

Thank you for this enjoyable meeting! The five of us (Catherine, Clare, Robin, Michel and Maren) discussed Joan Didion's A BOOK OF COMMON  PRAYER in the as always welcoming "Les Editeurs".

The appreciation of writing and content was not shared equally. While Catherine and Robin were entirely taken in (both long time fans of Joan Didion, Robin even drew up a family tree for the Mendanas), Michel liked the book in general, but not especially the writing. And Maren appreciated the writing, but not what it said. Clare will decide when she has finished the book :-)

The writing was compared and related to Philip Roth, and this not only because of the book's theme (see American Pastoral, on the agenda in January 2014), but also in its form. Robin admired her ability to master both, being short and poignant as well as composing descriptive but comprehensible sentences long as a paragraph.

Apparently it is not easy to feel connected with any of the book's characters. Maybe some of us could have some sympathy with the narrator, Grace and Charlotte's second husband, Leonard. But in general the reader stayed in a position similar to Grace's: An observer and outsider.
Of course the main caracter, Charlotte, was most discussed. The ethereal woman who knows how to break a chicken's neck with bare hands. A character difficult to fathom for Maren, who lacks the experience of diplomatic cocktail parties and constant travellers, a world rich in "Charlottes" according to Catherine. Even more mysterious: Grace. What draws her to Charlotte? And why does she want to be a witness?

Robin shared many details about Joan Didion's life and from there we drifted into politics, its actors in history and today, English and American political commentators - in short: a real crash course for non-native English speakers! Thank you!

Maren

Elena Ferrante, MY BRILLIANT FRIEND

Thank you for the wonderful meeting last Thursday in Geoffroy L'Olive's "pizza paradise"... ;-)
This time we were six plus one, after Helen's mystery star guest entry later in the evening.

There were loads of praise for the book. And this to a point that those who did not read it expressed their intention to read it even after the book club. Amanda read it twice, and then the full trilogy; Michel wants to read it again; Cynthia herself and according to her report also Catherine are longing for the second book - so Elena Ferrente has definetly some fans in our book club. But not only: Caroline, who shortly before the meeting sent her comments by email, didn't like it that much (see her arguments in the message which will be put on the blog as
comments - maybe we can have a discussion in the blog then?).

The book was noted by Amanda as being interesting, an easy read, yet well-done, although Michel and Maren admitted to have sometimes difficulties to follow the various characters.

Different psychological aspects mentioned in the book marked the readers: the "dissolving margins" and the very detailed childhood memories which allow to go back to one's own thinking of that time. Also the knowledge and authentic description of the changes from girl to woman made us women agree that the author cannot be a man despite the ongoing speculations because of her secretiveness. But we await the final information on the author¹s real identity.

The secrecy of the author brought up also some questions about how much of her description of life in Naples is fiction or not. Our own travel impressions mingled with the imaginary
impression of an Italian city in the 50s. Naples is described as being a very poor, very violent place, even among loved ones and particularly in the 50s. Recall the gunfire after the fireworks.

We discussed the nature of the plebs, and how if you don¹t have anyone really interested in your life you cannot easily escape a life of poverty/lack of opportunity.  We drew parallels to today¹s world not being much different, but also contrasted the theoretical (yet more difficult to achieve lately) American dream vs. the French notion that if you are born poor/uneducated you are not going to gain respect even after you attend a grande école. Also we noted that in this culture
women had to be protected as property, young men would become violent just to protect their honor.

Cynthia & Maren