Michel Houellebecq: LA CARTE ET LE TERRITOIRE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A number of questions remained unresolved, such as:

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

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

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

Caroline & Maren

J.M. Coetzee: DISGRACE

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

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

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

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

Phoebe

George Gissing: THE ODD WOMEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

• We love darling geek Micklethwaite!

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

Phoebe

Christa Wolf: DIVIDED HEAVEN

Another truly fantastic session!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phoebe

Divided Heaven

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maren

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

Jonathan Franzen: FREEDOM

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phoebe

Heather O'Neill: LULLABIES FOR LITTLE CRIMINALS

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

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

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

Phoebe

Jane Urquhart: THE STONE CARVERS

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

Phoebe

Annie Proulx: THAT OLD ACE IN THE HOLE

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

Phoebe

Hans Fallada: ALONE IN BERLIN

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

Phoebe

Why money wouldn’t solve Blanche’s problem

When we discussed Tennessee Williams's A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE a phrase launched out of the blue did remain more or less unresponded. But, ‘The hell - give her some money and her problem is solved!’ stayed in my mind because something felt wrong about it. I didn’t know exactly what it was at that time and it did take some thinking to get to it. Therefore only now, with much delay, a comment on this phrase.
When Blanche arrives at New Orleans to officially visit her sister and brother-in-law she never met before, sisterly love is not the only reason. As the reader learns soon, she’s pretty much broke. So money seems indeed the appropriate solution to get her out of her misfortune. But during the play it becomes clear that she did gamble away her opportunities to earn her living on several occasions. So what would make her change suddenly this attitude provided she gets a bucket full of money? To my opinion her misery is not coming from the absence of money but rather other difficulties.
But let’s take point by point about what’s going wrong:

1. Her marriage: According to the social model at the time Blanche (and Stella alike) was raised, a marriage would be the source of supply for a woman. Blanche embraces entirely that model. But by her (understandable and forgivable) choice of a 16 year old girl for an instant heartthrob and her (not excusable) own behaviour she loses this save harbour.
2. The plantation and mansion: She was neither brought up nor trained to take up the challenge of leading an agricultural exploitation and, as I suspect, she was also not willing to assume this task. The moment Blanche has to take over responsibilities, the farm is already declining, and Blanche is certainly not the person who provides the strong hand needed to bring it back onto the right track in those changing times.
   Nevertheless, the exploitation would have been an occasion to make one’s living. So yes, she could have made a living from this opportunity but she was the wrong person in the wrong place.
3. Her job: Blanche had to give up her job as teacher in consequence of inappropriate behaviour towards a student. There are several aspects to take into account: a) As she was earning at that point her own money this relationship is not at all supposed to become a source of supply (a pupil would neither be able to). Blanche is in quest for recognition and additionally these not-anymore-boy-but-not-yet-man teenagers correspond certainly also to her wistful and romantic idea about beauty. It’s worth a thought how much the need for recognition also applies when it comes to the soldiers getting in and out of Blanche’s house on a later stage. b) But recognition is not the only point. Getting close with a pupil always involves power and abuse of power. We do not know exactly what happened at that time, but the “pull/ push game” with the paperboy seems to provide the pattern or at least another example how Blanche introduces power in relations. To my opinion there is even more to it: Such a conduct does not express desire for a man, but is a defiant and stubborn statement “I can get what I want”. Having money would never ever change that behaviour.
4. Mitch: Marrying Mitch would solve her sourcing problem, at least officially. Her irritating behaviour towards him and her past, about which Mitch learns from Stanley, convince Mitch that she would not be the kind of person he would like to live with. Blanche can not change her past, but what makes her behave that awkwardly? To my opinion Blanche is denying a number of realities: The ‘southern society’ in which she grew up is gone and charming a gentlemen follows now different rules (1st, change of time and place). Although Mitch is certainly sensitive and delighted for a moment to be treated like a gentlemen from the old times (notwithstanding the fact that a woman is interested in him), he would soon be the old himself: a working class man with his down to earth character, who does not appreciate to be manipulated (2nd, disregard of the other person’s background and character). Last but not least Blanche tries to conquer Mitch and make him marrying her by bending reality to her advantage. Again she projects an image, which corresponds more to what she wishes to be instead to who she is (3rd, lying to herself). To put it in a nutshell: Blanche sees the changes in the world around her but is not able to adapt her behaviour to it.

No job, the plantation and mansion „Belle Reve“ gone, no man anymore willing to take her in, she’s literally out on the road with nowhere else to go. Trying to take her faith in hand (approaching the possibility of a marriage with Mitch) she is herself jeopardizing all attempts to save her. Trapped between two worlds, she is not able to let go the old and to arrive in the new one. A tragic figure.

YES, money would solve her problem to have a basis for living, but is this her real problem? So NO, money wouldn’t solve her problem of not being apt to live in the world as it is.

Maren

PS: Hope it is not too disturbing to have a personal comment added as a post - it was just too long for a comment and therefore technically not accepted...

Tennessee Williams: A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE

The discussion of A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE drew a gratifyingly large gathering for August: Caroline, Emma-Jane, Helen, Kathleen (!), Maren, Phoebe, and Robin (!!!). Sadly, Kathleen's suggested Southern Comfort wasn't on the menu.

The general reaction to the play (and for once we were fairly unanimous): intrigued and full of questions. Many of us had read it in school and found that coming back to it later in life and in a non-academic environment revealed new aspects; some want to explore more Tennessee Williams. A few points:

• Indefinable protagonists – Williams allows so many possible interpretations and provides a few cunning blurred areas, like the offstage moment of Stanley's violence against Stella or the final encounter between Blanche and Stanley, that we (and directors and actors) can never come to a final decision

• Steamy, louche atmosphere – thumbs up!

• Actors! Many points tied in with this: the iconic young Marlon Brando; what contemporary actor do we see playing Stanley today?; usefulness of imagining the play through the eyes of an actor playing one of the characters and thus obliged to find a logical throughline; in a related point, what did Brando think happened between Stanley and Blanche?

• Madness: how mad is Blanche? Robin brought up some interesting historical points on the treatment of (and cultural association between) women and madness.

• Money: coarsely, Phoebe suggested that all Blanche's problems could be resolved with a little money. While this is reductive, think of how many situations or apparent decisions in the play are conditioned by money: Blanche's living intimately and grossly with death, then coming to stay (and stay, and stay …) in her brother-in-law's house, Blanche's pursuit of Mitch – even Stella's choice of Stanley as a husband and apparent decision to stay with him at the end of the play.

• "Belle Rêve": a critic once remarked that, since "rêve" is masculine, Blanche seems to have taken a more prosaic name for a plantation, Belle Rive, and applied her brand of magic to it. Maren pointed out that Belle Rêve could also be interpreted as "The Beauty Dreams" – brilliant!

Esprit d'escalier: I meant to bring this to the table, but I forgot and I'm seizing the opportunity now:

During the rehearsal of the original production of STREETCAR, producer Irene Selznick suggested a change in the rape scene:

"I felt she [Blanche] would be destroyed more completely if, after resisting, she began to respond and then he changed course and repulsed her. It would be her fatal humiliation. I would have him fling her across the stage and just stand there, laughing savagely. I thought it would make the last act more valid."

Williams thought that the concept might be "dramatically sound," but Kazan vetoed the idea.

Phoebe