We had a very, very good discussion, and all agreed it was an enjoyable read, but perhaps not all agreed to what extent. Most of us were positive about it, some were a bit lukewarm, but no one really regretted reading it. Some thought “good but not his best”, others thought it was a touching deep dive into the main character’s thoughts and emotions. Most of us enjoyed the legal bits, and Philippe agreed with both of those points via email with his comments prior to the meeting. (see below) Most thought it somehow made sense that Fiona had no children, as it made the story and the legal cases more relevant. Robin pointed out that perhaps in order to be a successful judge, Fiona had to sort of analyze herself like a judge, which made sense.
We all agreed that Fiona was not responsible for Adam’s death and indeed it seemed obvious that the family was grateful he was alive. It was as if they could not allow themselves to make the decision but were pleased that someone else made it for them. We also discussed the difference between being raised within a certain religious context and actually choosing one’s own religion as an adult, which was the case for Adam’s parents. Clare made an interesting point (referring to the other religious cases mentioned in the novel), about McEwan possibly trying to say that no religion can save you …. you have to make your own decisions.
Regarding the affair, and the way Jack admitted it/warned Fiona in advance, we could not agree whether it was an ultimatum to her or a request for permission from her. We were also not sure how or even if it influenced her decisions in her rulings in divorce cases. No one thought well of the husband and indeed we asked Mark — the only male attendee — to comment on whether he thought that was a common/realistic mid-life crisis instinct, and he said he didn’t think so, nor did he know anyone who had expressed this “need". We invite Michel and Philippe to comment as well, since perhaps Mark was just being polite in front of his wife. Still, Fiona and Jack’s relationship remained close despite everything. It was interesting how when he returned, she thought to herself, “oh, if only he’d stayed away a little longer,” indicating that she knew all along there would be a reconciliation, and wanted one, but just had in mind having a bit more time on her own.
Regarding Catherine’s point about the scene at the hotel up north, there was unanimous agreement that the kiss between Fiona and Adam was absolutely unrealistic, but perhaps not entirely so the scenario of the stalking and eventual refusal of the transfusion. Maren was wondering what Fiona’s obligation was regarding acknowledging his letters or not. Should she have intervened? Most of us thought she had no obligation but it’s a tough call. Most believed the transfusion refusal was a suicide. Regarding Catherine’s point about the judge having a choice on how to decide in the case, it was pointed out that it would be surprising if McEwan had his facts wrong.
Michel characterized the book as a tragedy. I don’t think we disagreed, and while we didn’t discuss the aspect of the book being well written at the meeting, both Michel and Philippe share the same observation. Michel seems to have had the view that this book was indeed better than some of his others, which is somewhat in contrast to the group’s view. Overall, the book had most thumbs up, and overall most seem to like McEwan as a writer.
NB: Robin mentioned the following film, La Tête haute - film about judges in France: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_T%C3%AAte_haute_%28film%29
Comments from Philippe:
The Children Act is a rather short, very well-written (by a man about a woman) and thought-provoking book (a lot of issues to think about and discuss). The book is a beautiful character study of a complex woman. It actually has two main stories, the case of Adam and Fiona’s marriage. Unlike other books I’ve read that involve legal proceedings, it didn’t bore me. It gives an insight into the difficulties faced by judges in reaching their conclusions (what would I have done if I had been in Fiona’s shoes ?). I enjoyed reading the first half but from the moment the court decision was made it lost a bit of interest. I found the ending a bit abrupt and the character of Jack rather poorly developed but nevertheless it was a very pleasant read.
Comments from Michel:
I think the book is very much a tragedy since
1/Fiona has devoted her life to her job, but she has jeopardized her sentimental/sexual life
2/ thanks to her talent and expertise she is able to save the life of the boy, Adam.
3/ she is taken aback when Adam wants to live with her: the situation is not provided for in the children Act. She knows perfectly well that agreeing to it would be criticized by the media, the family, a s o ... She maintains a low profile, and then is sanctioned.
There was nothing much else she could do.
Overall the book is well written, remains intense. Mc Ewan avoid the risk of being pedantic. This was not the case in some other books of his: Enduring love (the Clerambault syndrome), Atonement, between others.
Comments from Catherine:
The book had several failings for me. The main one being none of the characters were particularly likeable; I couldn't really feel sympathy with any of them.
I think it was the subject and the writing that bothered me most. It seemed to me that McEwan was trying to explain to his readers a contemporary issue (religion -v- human rights) that comes up in the Guardian all the time and he sort of shoe horned facts around that. I felt it was a kind of short letter to Guardian readers.
I thought the moving of the scene at the hotel up north was beyond belief, it wouldn't happen to a circuit judge.
I didn't care much for the undertone of female judge, no children, marriage crumbling suddenly feeling the need to save a child. Or maybe that was me being hyper sensitive. The idea that the judge had a choice on how she could decide on this case is plain and simple : wrong. The law is very clear.
Anything good to say...it's better than Sweet tooth his previous novel.
Cynthia
McEwan's book had several failings for me. The main one being none of the characters were particularly likeable; I couldn't really feel sympathy/empathy with any of them. That isn't always necessary but given this book was more of a letter than a novel, I'd have preferred it.
ReplyDeleteThe subject and the writing bothered me. It seemed to me that McEwan was trying to explain to his readers a contemporary issue (freedom of religion intersecting with the requirements of civil law) that comes up in the Guardian all the time and shoe horned facts around that. I felt it was a lazy, short letter to Guardian readers given that public thinking/attitudes on the role of faith in public life has developed considerably beyond the confines of this book over the last ten years in Britain.
I thought the scene at the hotel up north was beyond belief, it wouldn't happen to a circuit judge. As for the letters...well, that happens to judges all the time.
The idea that the judge had a choice on how she could decide on this case is plain and simple : wrong. The law is very clear. Judges don't make laws, parliament does. Judges interpret them. That said, judges are defining pluralism and rule on notions of tolerance and reasonableness as plaintiffs seek to expand or scale back the place of religion in the public sphere.
I think Jehovah Witnesses are a soft target. I'd have preferred if McEwan had chosen another case showing how courts adjudicate on matter of belief that would have been more interesting and more relevant.
For example,in the Re G (Children) 2012 decision, the Court of Appeal rejected an application by the father of five children from the Chareidi community of ultra-orthodox Jews against his ex-wife. The father wanted his children to attend a single-sex school run for the Chareidi community, while the mother wanted to enrol them in a co-educational establishment. The judge ruled the school chosen by the mother offered a better chance of an objective education and equality of opportunity, deemed the guiding principle in the case (Re G (Children) [2012] [2012] EWCA Civ 1233 [2012] All ER (D) 50 (Oct) : 88).
McEwan could have used a case such as of Re G (Children) to highlight an appeal judge having to decide on which faith-based school while (this is just perhaps) having a secular, state school in the same catchment area which had better results but neither parent wanted to sent their child to. He could have dealt with issues such as the relationship between the secular, independent courts and religious tribunals which have no legal status or state recognition, yet carry much weight in their respective communities. The importance of Jewish halakhic courts and Muslim tribunals within their respective communities has prompted their members to call for these fora to be granted additional jurisdiction under English law, but this principle has never been accepted (Ahdar and Aroney 2011: 11; Williams 2008). Another example, in 2013, an English court for the first time referred a divorce for arbitration by a Beth Din (rabbinical court) on the grounds that a decision would be in keeping with their religious beliefs and would be supportive of the welfare of the children and the parents. The judge subsequently endorsed the Beth Din's decision, making it legally binding (AI v MT [2013] EWHC 100 (Fam) Art. 37). That would have been very interesting and provocative. But that would have meant McEwan dealing with a sect within a mainstream religion that has been re-establishing itself in Britain since the seventeenth century.
Anything good to say...it's better than Sweet Tooth his previous novel.
DECLARATION : I used to work at the Guardian. My 2015 research thesis (which received a Cambridge 1st) was entitled : Accommodating religious and secular values in France and England
Catherine