Wilkie Collins, THE WOMAN IN WHITE

Thanks for having joined last Thursday for our discussion of Wilkie Collins' THE WOMAN IN WHITE. Cynthia, Robin, Caroline, Philippe, Monika, Helen and myself have enjoyed a quiet (we supposed school holiday induced) "English" evening at the T'Cup which had the thumbs up from all attendants. There was a general agreement that this place was much more suited for us than the often overprized traditional brasserie, although Collins and Dickens liked to take a break from England and enjoy the liberal Parisian air at their time. 

Also all thumbs up - in general - for this month's book selection (correct me if I'm mistaken - I had the impression of a very positive reception). Although it is an English classic, it was not known to everybody or a welcome opportunity to come back to it for others. On the side of the English native speakers even some small personal stories related to the book were shared - in short: A very good and appreciated choice!

Only "negative" remark came from Philippe, who found the book somewhat meaty and even bulky, seeing the large vocabulary (with many unknown words Kindle kindly provided explanation and translation for). On the other hand it was judged to be a pageturner, easy to read with a very enjoyable style. Good to know: It's first publication took place in chapters as a series in the newspaper! Apparently it is Collins' most easy to read novel, but it was not excluded to put another of his oeuvres later on the list.

Surprising for that period is the inventiveness and freedom of writing of the author: The format of the diary, enriched with the accounts, notes and letters in different styles from the different figures participating in the story!

The descriptions of places, nature and situations were very well done. Monika felt almost like being in Blackwater forest with Marian and Laura! Some also had the same effect we had about Zola's Paris in NANA when reading about St John's Wood: Strange to think of the place as only a suburb of London when it is now entirely part of the city!

Of course we also talked about the fate of women in England's mid-nineteenth century. Robin shed light on how easy it was to shuffle off women to an asylum and how corsetts constrained their physical well-being and capacity to move.  

We discussed Marian and here admirable force to take things in hands. Easy to think that she would be the real hero of the story. We know much more about her character than about Laura's.

The men in the novel were rather shortly discussed: We shared our different ideas about how Walter Hartright would look like. And Fosco's corpulence lead us to envision the actors who incorporated him in the different television screen plays.

All in all a very enjoyable evening - for the book and the venue!

 Maren

 

Julien Barnes, THE SENSE OF AN ENDING

Finally the curse is lifted !   Despite there being only four of us (Caroline, Robin, Mark, myself) we had an excellent discussion of The Sense of an Ending, by Julien Barnes.

No doubt I am missing some of the points we covered so I invite the other attendees to add comments to this rather quickly-drafted list. Additionally, it was a very thought-provoking novel and therefore we’d love to hear other people’s comments. 

• Captured well the era and the culture, including some of the humor.  (e.g., the episode with the lime tree and the insurance company)
• Great writing style – no superfluous words.  Characters well-developed and many of their actions believable.   The mean-spirited letter was very realistic.
• Tony’s life seemed quite unremarkable but it wasn’t necessarily a problem for him.  He did not seem to have many regrets.
• Veronica was unjustifiably nasty and no character seemed really very normal/nice except the ex-wife Margaret.   Well, Tony was nice but a bit too passive.
• We could not understand why Veronica called herself by two different names?   Was she only known as Mary to her brother?  It seemed an unnecessary device.
• The way that memory works and the nature of conflicting memories between two people and even two moments in time in the mind of the same person were of course discussed.   The example of the incident on the banks of the river – was Veronica really there ? – was a great example.   Not to mention all the great debates in the history class early on in the story.
• The closing sentence of the book about accumulation and responsibility and unrest was a nice sum-up of the novel.
• Nearly unanimous agreement that Tony had zero reason to feel guilty, BUT on the other hand Mark lost all respect/sympathy for Tony after the letter was revealed.  Is that a difference in the male/female perspective ?  (Philippe – your take on that?)   Having mostly agreed that Tony should have no guilt, it seems unlikely that Adrian was driven to suicide because of the letter.
• Tony did not love Veronica by our conventional definitions of love but considering his age, she was his first real passion / obsession.   We were not sure why his relationship with her was so important that he could not tell his wife about her until two years after they were married.   We also could not be sure whether he held some burning feelings for her all his life or whether he had put her out of his mind until he received the letter from the mother’s solicitor.
• We assumed the diary contained information about the mother’s pregnancy, Adrian’s reflections on several things, likely Veronica herself.   We’re not entirely convinced she really burned it – she is just the kind of manipulative person who would lie about that just not to share it with Tony.
• Some of us could totally understand Adrian’s decision to commit suicide from a philosophical point of view:  if one doesn’t believe in an afterlife, one could argue there’s more negative than positive over time so what’s the point.  However, the reader never really knows whether he killed himself because the mother was pregnant, or if he ever knew she was, or if he was alive after the child was born, etc.
• What was the meaning of the title ?  Did the word “sense” mean the “feeling” of an ending, as in bringing about closure,  or did it mean the “logic” of an ending, as in the rationale for Adrian and Robeson to bring their lives to an end ?   It could have meant both.

Cynthia

 

Carol Shields, DUET

Not only the five of us who attended (Maren, Robin, Catherine, Mark and myself), but anyone else who read this book or others by Carol Shields.  We truly missed the participation of our Canadian members, particularly Amanda who recommended this book, to have their view on the depiction of the Canadian lifestyle.

There was universal appreciation for the book, most notably the writing style.  We all seemed to feel that Shields had a fantastic ability to transform ordinary events into something interesting.  She captured a moment or an event really very beautifully.  Wonderful descriptions like the train journey, the moment when Charlene meets the police at home, etc.   While we acknowledged both books did in fact have two plots which moved forward (beginning…middle…end), we did kind of felt as though the backdrop of Canadian stability gave the reader the impression that nothing much was happening, when in fact, there were real events taking place in both novels.   The plot twist in the first novel was interesting:  there was a novel published based on her stolen plot, and the author from whom she stole it actually finally managed to publish a novel which turned out to be about her and her family staying in his home.    The author’s point about there not really being any original stories anymore was also appreciated.

Indeed it was two separate novels, with two sisters driving the stories, and each sister referenced by the other.  In fact, we even got to see Judith’s children in a more mature light in the second novel, which took place approximately two years after the first one ended.  The son was over his heartbreak from the English letters, and the daughter was now 18 and a young lady.  While the novels were originally published separately, they worked very well together.  Judith seemed far more in control of her life, while Charlene seemed less in control and more affected by their relationship with their mother.   We also discussed “degrees of craziness” between the two, and also between all the characters in the second novel.  (The ex-husband, the friend who kidnaps the son, etc.)   We could not agree whether the mother’s character needed to be developed more, or if the stereotype was a good enough way to give the reader an idea about her.   That is, the stereotype of a mother of that era, overlaid with a decorating obsession.    She was quite a contrast from the parents of Judith’s husband, who seemed to be the epitome of loving, supportive parents.

Cynthia

James Baldwin, THE FIRE NEXT TIME

Six of us (Cynthia, Mark, Monika, Philippe, Robin and Tracey) met at Coffee Parisien in the 16th to discuss The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin.  In addition we also discussed The Atlantic magazine article "The Case for Reparations," by Ta-Nehisi Coates.  

Mark explained the choice of the book came after reading "The Case for Reparations" and seeing Ta-Nehisi Coates speaking at the American Library in Paris.  The Fire Next Time is a favorite of Mr. Coates and that led Mark to read Mr. Baldwin’s book.  

The book itself was well regarded by the group.  Some had never previously heard of James Baldwin and were glad to make his acquaintance, all enjoyed his writing style and it was noted that although the writing was steeped in the events of the ‘60s during which it was written, it could have easily been written during the current year.  In credit to the book group, the topics discussed in the book and article are rarely discussed in the United States, one need only look to the failure of bill H.R. 40 which has been introduced every session of the US Congress since 1989 but has never been passed into law.  

We discussed that it seems people cannot ignore the racial / color aspects of slavery, and this prevents society from focusing on the human aspects of the situation.  It is a situation that is certainly not unique to the Unites States but the United States was a significant economic beneficiary of the institution of slavery, not only from the standpoint of having virtually free labor but also from the businesses / jobs that were created due to slavery, such as a lending industry to help one to purchase slaves, interest paid on those loans, insurance policies sold and sales taxes paid.   And a lot of that cotton went to Great Britain to keep the textile mills there quite busy.  It came out in our discussion that Great Britain paid reparations to slave owners after slavery was abolished.   Also discussed was the fact the the United States armed forces were segregated even after World War II with white officers often in command of black troops but never the reverse.  Most of us had stories of neighborhoods that were segregated by race or nationality (Black, Indian, Chinese, Jewish) and some often because of a desire to live amongst a familiar way of living, but it seemed that only in the case of African-Americans was there the force of governmental policy to encourage segregation and exploitation.   In the ancillary history portion of the discussion it was mentioned that while slavery was not legal in Mexico while Texas was a part of that country, the constitution of the new Republic of Texas made slavery legal and forbade slave owners to free their slaves without the approval of Congress.

Some of our favorite quotes from The Fire Next Time: 

“It is so simple a fact and one that is so hard, apparently, to grasp:  Whoever debases others is debasing himself.  That is not a mystical statement but a realistic one, which is proved by the eyes of any Alabama sheriff - and I would not like to see Negroes ever arrive at so wretched a condition”.   

“There are too many things we do not wish to know about ourselves.  People are not terribly anxious to be equal (equal, after all, to what and to whom?) but they love the idea of being superior.”

“It is rare indeed that people give.  Most people guard and keep; they suppose that it is they themselves and what they identify with themselves that they are guarding and keeping, whereas what they are actually guarding and keeping is their system of reality and what they assume themselves to be.”

“What it comes to is that if we, who can scarcely be considered a white nation, persist in thinking of ourselves as one, we condemn ourselves, with the truly white nations, to sterility and decay, whereas if we could accept ourselves as we are, we might bring new life to the Western achievements, and transform them."

Administrative matters:

Coffee Parisien was once again a comfortable place to hold a meeting.  We were fortunate that the room was not crowded and so noise from other customers was not an issue. .  The only problem noted was the wine refrigeration.  Our bottles of Chinon were a “bit” cooler than room temperature on arrival but we managed to polish it all off. 

US president-elect Donald Trump’s photo was indeed included in the collection of American presidents’ photos on the placemats (even though the Electoral College has yet to meet).  Tracey was able to find some placemats where the photo for the 45th president was left blank on the opposite side and there is suspicion that perhaps the placemats with Hillary Clinton’s photo are already for sale on eBay alongside “Dewey defeats Truman” headlines.

For those interested in an exhibit on race in America, we refer you to The Color Line at the Musée du quai Branly.

Mark

 

Kate Atkinson, LIFE AFTER LIFE & A GOD IN RUINS

This time a telegram style book club summary (Do we launch a literary genre... ? ;-) )

• Attendees :    Monika, Maren, Amanda, Tracey, Robin, Hélène, Mark, Cynthia
• All agreed Atkinson is a great writer, although some found the literary devices a bit difficult.   Some thought there could have been more editing in Life after Life, others thought God in Ruins jumped around unnecessarily.   We also debated whether she was in a rush to publish (which often happens) or whether she has enough credibility with her publishers to miss a deadline if necessary.
• We pretty much all agreed that the Hitler episodes in Life after Life were contrived and unnecessary.
• It was noted that both Sunny and Viola actually witnessed a parent dying, yet they both reacted very differently.   Also it was ironic that Viola was well-treated as a child and grew up selfish as an adult, yet Sunny was poorly treated and turned out the opposite way.   Perhaps the brutality and anti-male/anger-filled feminist movement (well portrayed in the book !) played a strong role in Viola’s subsequent self-absorption.
• The role of mothers was discussed and debated.  Some of us with less-ideal relationships with our mothers questioned how one should forgive one’s mother for the mistakes she may have made…and even questioned if it is necessary to do so.  Does Sunny ever forgive Viola or does he just move on?  Did Bertie?  Did she need to ?   Others of us recognized the blessing it can be to have a wonderful mother and how it has shaped our lives.
• Everyone loved Izzy !!  We thought she was a good example of people consciously re-inventing themselves, as well as being an early feminist.  It was interesting that she never wanted to share the fact that she earned a war medal, which made us question why some people hush up about their experiences (Teddy as well), and others share everything.
• Perhaps the biggest discussion centered around the ending of A God in Ruins.   Many groans of disappointment and pretty clear agreement that Teddy really did die in Life After Life.  The entire book A God in Ruins was a hypothesis of what his life might have been like, based on his imagination.   This is supported by a scene when Ursula and (is it Nancy?) are walking in London in 1947 and mention that Teddy would have loved to have seen something with them.  It is way beyond the date when he would have been released.    Or does Teddy have the ability to live multiple lives? 
  
• Relating to this point, some of us noted that Sylvie may also have had this ability.  Example:  her saying, “practice makes perfect” as the doctor cuts the umbilical cord during the second birth of Ursula.  Also the fact that she is seen by Ursula, aged 13, leaving on the arm of a gentleman from a hotel, however, in the second book, she leaves the hotel alone.   

Cynthia

Kurban Said, ALI AND NINO

Three of us, Tracey, Maren and Philippe, met for an intimate evening at La Colchide, a Georgian restaurant in the 18th. The first impression was confirmed when we got our dishes: This place really merits a visit. They certainly deserve a mention in our "Good Eats" corner! Never expected a beetroot salad could be that tasteful - because I never tried the spiced up version at La Colchide.  Or that eggplant rolled in a mixture with nuts and pomegranet would taste delicious !

Now,  to the book: Surprisingly, two thumbs down and one thumb up. After all the advocating before the meeting we couldn't help but wonder - where were the fans of the book? 

In the end however we realized that there was not a big difference between the thumbs up and down. The appreciation of the writing was quite similar,  on the positive side, it gave a good introduction to a region and a cultural context one is rarely exposed to.

We all agreed that the writing was at moments lengthy, or as Philippe said: he discovered himself skipping pages. And we all felt it to be somewhat strange that a couple with such big differences in their cultural background could have such a harmonious relationship. No signs of real struggle or fighting - best word we found for the feeling the book conveyed about the relationship was "flat". There seems to be no psychological depth in the description of what's happening between two people, love seems to "conquer all" and is responsible for smoothing out every incidence where one might expect some conflict.  On the other hand: The book is written from the male point of view, who often have the reputation of not lingering long on those kind of questions (sorry guys, it's our impression). Ali seems to belong to that species too.  

Tracey was also lost in the many details of the historical back and forth - on that point we definitely missed Catherine's insights! We missed also the historical backgrounds to understand why the Armenians were presented as the bad guys.

A question Maren picked up from the book: What defines an Asian, what a European? What does Ali's father mean, when he tells his son that he's not an Asian anymore? We didn’t get to a conclusive answer.

There was also the question about the mysterious author. Here a link to a Kansas University document which treats the question : https://crees.ku.edu/sites/crees.ku.edu/files/docs/Ali%20and%20Nino_ALandry%20Article.pdf 

Maren & Tracey

And here some of Tracey's delicious pictures:

Albert Camus, THE STRANGER - Kamel Daoud, THE MEURSAULT INVESTIGATION

There were 8 of us in total:  Maren, Catherine, Philippe, Caroline, Monika, Michel, Mark and Cynthia.

Grand merci to Catherine on the book suggestion, as the meeting discussion was indeed a very good one.  Everyone agreed that The Mersault Investigation was quite extremely creative, well-conceived and presented some interesting and important facts and points of view from the Algerian perspective.  We also agreed that it should be read after The Stranger, however, some of us felt that The Mersault Investigation could not quite stand on its own the way that The Stranger did. 

Maren was the lone person among us who did not read The Mersault Investigation, and the reason was that she disliked The Stranger so much that she had not the courage to read a follow-up novel.  Her precise comment about The Stranger:  “It was the first book I ever loathed….”  On the complete opposite side of the fence, Caroline has always loved The Stranger and did not like The Mersault Investigation at all.  (even having read it a second time !)   The rest of the group’s opinions varied in between the two points of view, with most of us having enjoyed both books.

Why is Camus still relevant ?  Or is he no longer relevant?  This was the subject of some debate with the general consensus being that the book was very well-written and that he did an excellent job of portraying a completely “detached” person, who did not live within the social mores of his contemporaries.   Some of us even thought Mersault would be classified in today’s world as someone with Asperger  Syndrome.  It is as though he had no idea how his actions impacted other people or even himself.   He had zero attempt at pretense and could not help being honest even when it cost him dearly.

Regarding The Mersault Investigation, Michel noted some interesting reasons why Algeria was different from Morocco and Tunisia, with more obstacles to overcome.   The book did a great job of helping us feel the point of view of Harun, but some of us felt it was a bit heavy-handed and could have been more interesting had a different technique been used than the storytelling from the bar, and if other characters had been a bit more developed. (e.g., the little images of the man who beat his dog in The Stranger were much appreciated.)   The parallels between the two books, (the mothers, the presence of the sunlight, events taking place at 14h00, etc.) were clever, but some of us thought a bit gimmicky.   Overall, though, we give the author enormous credit for the fantastic originality of the idea for this novel.

Some questions we debated but were never resolved were:

• Would it be harder or easier to exist in today’s world as Mersault did?
• While we agreed he was not a victim, was he just in the wrong place at the wrong time and therefore in a sense a “victim” of bad luck ? 
• Did he have actual emotions or was he just unaware of them?  
• Does Mersault ever understand why the murder was even committed? 
• Was it unrealistic in The Mersault Investigation that the victim’s body was never found ?  (Although here Monika did raise the interesting point that it was a driver for the story, since the body being found would have brought closure for the family and therefore taken away part of the novel’s power.)

Cynthia

 

Michel Houellebecq, SUBMISSION

Thanks to Caroline for the recommendation of la fourmi ailée at 8 rue du Fouarre. We were a group of eight with sole possession of the restauant’s mezzanine. Caroline, Catherine, Maren, Mark, Michel, Monika, Philippe and Tracey were in attendance. Service, by the way, was cheerful and efficient. 

The evening’s discussion centered on "Submission: A Novel" by Michel Houellebecq.  The meeting began with a comparison of Voltaire’s “Candide" and Houellebecq’s "Submission: A Novel”, and how, through a provocative style of writing, each turned the spolight on contemporary French society and, in Houellebecq’s case, particularly the notion of creeping Islamization aided by a morally bankrupt political class and a dull, accepting public. Everyone enjoyed the book, which was read in both French and English, and, for some, Houellebecq’s sense of humor, including the protagonist’s obsession with TV dinners. In line with that perhaps, it was suggested that the book might be a good subject for a Woody Allen movie. Note was made that the description of life in academics was quite accurate even though the author did not attend university. It was mentioned that if you want to be a star in academics, it is often convenient to have a peculiar subject as your area of expertise.   Those among who had read other books of Houellebecq’s and were acquainted with the author noted that much of the traits of the the protagonist were shared by the author (autobiographically as it were), that the main characters and story line fits in with the author’s usual characters and that while Houellebecq is politically provocative here, his range of provocation goes much wider in his other books. We discussed whether the novel would have been so successful if not for the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, what would Huysmans have done in the protagonist’s position and whether or not the protagonist had a grand plan or just took advantage of opportunities (the protagonist doesn't want to be considered an intellectual but is happy to reap any benefits of the same). For some, the protagonist was in some ways reminiscent of the main character in Camus’ “The Stranger”. Everyone agreed that the trip by the protagonist to the monastery (from which he is brought back by his smoke alarm) was a bit out of place. Credit was given to the appropriate choice of François Bayrou as Prime Minister as he is regarded as someone seen as desperate for high office. We thought the novel would have created a bigger scandal in Great Britain (the thought that someone, a politician even, would have three wives would be completely unacceptable). We also gave credit to Houellebecq for being a visionary - we saw parallels in Belgium’s Flemish and Walloons uniting against a common foe as did the French left and right in the novel against the far right common foe.

All in all, we thought it was a good read that presented a scenario that is perhaps not far from plausible.

Postscript - while writing these notes I found what I thought to be interesting blog post on the book which I found quite interesting and perhaps you might too. It contains some points that we mentioned and some others that we didn’t.

An excerpt - "Houellebecq has in effect taken France's history of collaboration with the Germans under Vichy and transposed its attitudes of acceptance to a contemporary threat. Likewise, Submission recalls Voltaire's Candide: Or Optimism, with Rediger in place of Dr. Pangloss and Francois in Candide's role. As such, it is very, very, very French. And again, Submission is also the title of the 2004 Dutch film by Theo Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali that led to his murder and her exile. The gist of their film was that Islam literally meant submission. The full blog entry is here - http://laurencejarvikonline.blogspot.fr/2015/10/michel-houellebecq-submission.html.

And then I found this http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/what-houellebecq-learned-from-huysmans. One could go on and on.

Mark

Milan Kundera, THE JOKE

The six of us met at MyPierogis, a Polish restaurant. With no one else than our book club being present, the place was a very quiet and pleasant place to meet. We all followed Monika’s competent advice and had Pierogis (Polish dumplings filled with meat - Clare and Philippe’s favorites- or potatoes and mushrooms - Monika’s favorites) and Polish beer, plus desert for the greedy ones. 

Since the book was originally written in Czech (some of us (half)read it in English, others in French or Polish), we started things with a discussion on the translation and wondered whether, and if yes, to what extent, an author is always aware of the quality of his translated works. As for Kundera, whose level of English is good enough, he had his « Joke »  retranslated five times (the sixth being the definite Kundera-approved version, if I’m not mistaken) so, in the end, we were not even sure if we had read the same translated English version.

Maren and Monika found it a bit hard to get into it because it reminded them of the painful moments that they, or rather their parents, had lived under a communist regime. None of the characters is very likeable, except for Jaroslav, the musician. Philippe pointed out that the book is very much about the powerlessness of man under a bullying regime. Caroline who read the French version found the style a bit stilted.

Nobody seemed to have totally disliked the book but no one was a great defender either. We all agreed that « The Joke », with its post-war communist backdrop in Czechoslovakia, is not funny at all but rather a grim, pessimistic book but all the same very much worth reading, not least because it gives insight into a very dark period of European history.

Philippe

Ian McEwan, THE CHILDREN ACT

In the end there were 9 of us: Hélène, Robin, Caroline, Monika, Maren, Claire, Mark, Amanda, Cynthia. Three others who could not attend sent their feedback by email, and we read/integrated this feedback at the meeting (see below for comments from Philippe, Michel and Catherine).   Congratulations to Hélène for the book suggestion and to Caroline for the restaurant suggestion.   Despite our fears of having a large group on a long, skinny table, it all worked well. As always, feedback is welcome, as I am sure I am missing (mis-stating?) at least a bit, and I did arrive a bit late.

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

Paul Torday, SALMON FISHING IN THE YEMEN

Autour du Saumon was a very pleasant place to meet for the six participants gathering: Caroline, Mark, Philippe, Clare, Robin and Maren. A small place with just about 20 seats, the restaurant provides delicious dishes all made from and with salmon. And if one had not enough, it’s possible to leave with take-aways from their adjacent epicierie. Well, no shopping for us that night because when leaving we were busy passing around another treat: a freshly imported box of chocolates from Brussels (thanks to Maren’s employer to send her away sometimes).

And not only the restaurant was delightful, also the discussion went on very smoothly. The discussion started with the movie, which stars the very appreciated (a special reference to our British expatriates) Kristin Scott Thomas. Not everybody did see the movie – and Robin did not have the occasion to read the book due to a delivery dysfunction at the French postal service - so that we had much occasion to exchange about the differences between both and particularly about the seemingly completely altered relations of the characters at end of the book.

We talked of course about the different figures:

• Dr Alfred Jones, lovely guy, but isn’t he a bit simple-minded?
  And of course the question: he and Harriet, did it or did it not happen? No answer found…
• His wife, Mary Jones, for whom nobody had really sympathy – why did Alfred stay with her? (at least in the book, as the film choses a different ending)
• Kristin Scott Thomas’ character 
in the film, but a man in the book: Peter Maxwell, also a figure which seems overdone, but is he?
  This character led to: Do politics really work that way? General conviction: YES, but how horrible !!!
  This couldn’t pass without a short dip into current developments in French and British politics, especially elections and the Brexit referendum to come.
• Harriet Chetwode-Talbot for whom Clare didn’t have any sympathies but who was very much defended by Caroline. From here we took on about the way military impacts family life and the destiny of people, and some of us could even contribute by some personal experiences (thanks, Robin and Clare!).
• the cheikh, Muhammad ibn Zaidi bani Tihama, who made deep impression on everybody and earned a lot of sympathy.
  The longer he thought about the book and the cheikh’s character, the more it got for Mark a serious and philosophical touch : What does it take to believe in the impossible? At this he would share a personal story as well about trust in a public institution.
• the cheikh’s gillie, Collin McPherson, who was adorable and « such a great guy » for Robin,
• and, last but not least, the poor guy assigned to be an assassin, who chose the wrong tartan.

We also shortly mentioned the author's choice of seemingly overdescribing some characters, giving them a satirical trait.

There was a moment when we talked about the events in the wadi and Maren admitted her disappointment, which transformed almost into a general feeling of betrayal by the author. The phenomenon described seems to be a well-known type of incident, which all people living close to a wadi are likely to know about. So it seems completely unthinkable that with all the preparation work, and even the cheikh being involved, such an event was completely left out of consideration. It just doesn’t seem to be realistic.

All in all the book was much appreciated, with some reservations on Maren’s side. This book was a real page turner for everybody, thanks to Philippe for this selection!

Maren (& Philippe)

Abraham Verghese, CUTTING FOR STONE

Nine of us met to discuss Cutting for Stone, by Abraham Verghese, on Thursday night at Menelik, an Ethiopian restaurant in the 17th. It was perhaps the first time we had unanimous agreement from everyone that the book was very, very good, so bravo to Caroline for the selection. And as no one left the meeting hungry, bravo to Myriam for the recommendation the venue.

After several failed attempts to weave the discussion points into a meaningful narrative, I’ll simply list them all below. Not unsurprisingly, this list contains the collective recollections of Maren and myself, but we invite — and indeed encourage — all of you to share your comments as well.   Overall, it was easy to maintain a healthy discussion, but at the end we sort of wished there had been more disagreement to get our blood flowing !

• It was a story of forgiveness — both Ghosh’s forgiveness of Stone, as well as Marion’s forgiveness of, well, Shiva, Genet and indeed Stone.
• The language was much appreciated by all.  Example from the scene where Shiva helps the fistula victim and her father to find Hema:  “In the way children understand their own, we knew her to be innocent of her terrible, overpowering odor.  It was of her, but it wasn’t hers."
• Unanimous crush on Ghosh — what a fabulous guy!  Also a lot of appreciation for the other characters in the book, particularly Matron, Tsige and Gebrew.   While there were comments about the lengthy details of the characters, one book review noted/implied that “ he loved his characters too much”.   The group was divided on whether all the detail was necessary.  (i.e., did we need all the background on Sister Mary Praise’s journey?) No one denied, however, that the characters were very well described – we knew who they were.
• We discussed the differences between Marion and Shiva — and how Shiva was completely detached from people’s emotions and the cause and effect of one’s actions.  Did he have a mild form of what some refer to as Asberger’s Syndrome?  In today’s world, he probably would fall into this category.
• Genet was an interesting character who we felt was well-developed, but perhaps she belongs on the list of topics we could have discussed in more depth?  Could the same thing be said of Hema?
• And speaking of Hema…what was the point of the airplane scene?  Most thought it was a way to show her character and her metamorphosis which allowed her to be determined to see Marion and Shiva as a timely gift in her life.  She had a revelation that children were symbols of hope.
• Most of us agreed that the history of Ethiopia was not a familiar subject, and therefore the crash course offered in the novel was much appreciated.  Interestingly, despite us being an eclectic/well-travelled group, it was noted that none of us had been there and all the “personal” anecdotes shared at the meeting were about friends-of-friends or distant cousins, rather than about anyone physically around the table.
• That said, we did discuss the religious aspects of the culture, with interesting comments on the patterns of immigration from India, as well as the differences between the Western/Eastern Orthodox Christian religions.
• We could not precisely agree what the current political situation is like in Ethiopia.  We don’t hear of many problems so it is perhaps stable, or do we only perceive its relative stability because of its location amongst so many unstable countries?  For anyone interested in more information, including how the restaurant apparently got its name, here’s a good wiki site.  Long as hell but well-indexed to facilitate choosing your area of interest:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ethiopia
• Perhaps the greatest area of disagreement was the amount of detail given in the book, particularly the medical details.  Some of us thought the book should have been better edited, while others among us felt the details were interesting and generated a level of suspense.  None of us disagreed that the book was long, not all of us minded.  (Some found it too long and others loved every minute of reading it.)
• The sad commentary about wealthy hospitals vs neighborhoods in poor neighborhoods could not escape notice, and sadly, none of us sees this problem capable of being solved.
• Lots of questionable coincidences in the book (running into Tsige in Boston…who connects him to Genet;  Needing the life-saving procedure for which his father happens to be an expert) but we all did love the ending when Marion and Hema had an unanticipated moment in front of the St Theresa statue.  (NB:  the irony of the evening goes to the fact that the very person wearing the Virgin Mary medal was commenting on the unambiguous eroticism of this statue in Rome, and encouraging all to see it !)
• In the end, the way Marion was living in NY and his reluctance to get close to people and lack of true friends, led us to conclude that ultimately he turned out to be a lot like Stone.

So overall, 18 thumbs up…. please let us know what we missed and/or misstated !

Cynthia