Tan Twan Eng, THE GARDEN OF EVENING MISTS

First of all, many, many thanks to Myriam for a lovely evening of crèpes and goodies … indeed a wonderful time was had by all. We all agree it was extremely courageous and generous to have hosted the meeting during one’s final countdown to motherhood!  

Secondly, the book was overall a 5 out of 5 thumbs up until, predictably, Phoebe arrived and added her “sideways” thumb into the mix. No one doubts, however, that it was a very good discussion, and therefore an great choice for the group.

Additionally, we give a special shout out to Robin for schlepping the laptop to the meeting to share her magnificent photos of Malaysia with us.

Administrative note: due to complexities in managing the monthly assignments for each of us to suggest a book, it was agreed that there are no more assigned months. The agenda will be open and each of us is welcome to fill in any month we choose at any time. It gives us the flexibility to allow people with a lot of great ideas to suggest books more often, while not obliging others to suggest books if they lack either the time or inclination to do so. We’ll also keep a “reserve list” for people to list great reads which could be used in a pinch. June, July and Sept are all defined. Please help yourselves to the free months…reserve list coming soon !

http://www.bookclubdeparis.blogspot.fr/p/agenda.html

The points discussed about the book were interesting and varied:

· Many were confused at the start with all the various twists/narrative perspectives. Caroline even thought the first 50 or so pages were just plain poorly written English, which could have contributed to the difficulty we had to get really hooked into book. Most agreed that once we were into it, it was quite a good read. Phoebe was left with not much strong feeling either way about the book, and felt it was merely a nice evocation of a time and place, but too many threads. Robin did point out that this is quite normal in Chinese culture.

· The male author did a good job of speaking as a woman. YunLing was not a very emotional person, and we agreed it was a deliberate characterization of her, rather than a male author being unable to describe female emotion. We were curious about how often there are female authors writing from the male point of view in modern literature. Several examples exist in the classics due to women hiding their identities, but we did not note any modern examples.

· Most of us thought the love story of Prof Tatsuji’s time in the war was interesting and pertinent. It also allowed us to see the Japanese people as victims of their own country’s military aggression. Many of us admitted to not knowing very much about the inter-connected histories of Japan/China/Malaysia, and even South Africa for a while. Another thanks to Myriam and Robin for their many insights into the subject thanks to their varied experiences in the region.

· It was agreed that Aritomo intentionally departed into the jungle, not wanting to return. We also felt that the design of the garden in combination with the horimono was a clue somehow to his involvement in the Golden Lily program. We also tried to imagine how YunLing would “destroy” the horimono before she died.

Please feel free to add/subtract/correct any info here. I am sure I did not even begin to scratch the surface. I will add these minutes to the blog very soon.

Best regards, and see you in June….location tbd, but meeting date Thurs 13^th .

 -- Cynthia

Manu Joseph, THE ILLICIT HAPPINESS OF OTHER PEOPLE

While our opinions were divided on Manu Joseph’s THE ILLICIT HAPPINESS OF OTHER PEOPLE, we were all stimulated and intrigued. We were sorry the book selector herself, Anjuli, couldn’t be there to discuss her selection and especially some questions raised about its Indian context. Some points – and, as always, please add anything I’ve missed or thoughts that occurred to you later in Comments:

• We were all impressed by the vécu quality of the physical and cultural setting. This was not exoticism for the export trade, it was an (artfully/apparently) unselfconscious immersion in a physical and cultural environment. I’m tempted to say Manu Joseph:Chennai equals Philip Roth:Newark.
• The swaths of philosophy struck us differently: some found them interesting to mull over, some thought they were snappily formulated but questionable; others found them old hat, typical dorm-room musings, and beside the point. They almost seemed like a red herring in the “detective story” of Unni’s death – but, if so, why did they take up so much of the book?
• Some of us were frustrated by the device of the absent character defined by others’ reactions to him. We learned that Unni was charismatic, but didn’t ourselves feel his charisma. This was especially marked in the context of the vividness of other principal characters. Deliberate? To what effect?
• One of the first topics to pop up in our discussion, and a point where we really missed Anjuli: how has India (or, let’s say, the slice of India shown in this book) changed since the early 1990s? Does Joseph show any kind of parti pris in his description?
• Sadly topical, the culture of sexual violence. One incident I couldn’t get a grip on: when Unni tells his mother about going to her home town in an attempt to confront her attacker (frustrated because the latter died, happy and respected, a few months earlier), he finishes his story, “Also, I squeezed his wife’s boobs” and he and his mother laugh. The irony of an avenger of sexual abuse participating unquestioningly in a system where abusing a woman is merely a way to send a message to her man – how does this fit into the book as a whole? Are mother and son laughing together or, horribly, separately?

I know I’ve skipped many fascinating points brought up in our discussion – please do help complete this summary.

-- Phoebe

Amor Towles, RULES OF CIVILITY

Our discussion began with a word from Emily as to why she chose the book: as a complement to BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY’S, a New York novel with a central, single young woman. Some points in the lively discussion that followed — as always, your additions and comments would be greatly appreciated!

• Is this one of those books that are more fun for the author to write than they could possibly be for anyone to read?
• Why did the author choose a female protagonist and narrator?
• Texts within the novel (The Great Gatsby, Great Expectations): some felt that the novel was not so much inspired by or commenting upon these works as redipping them like used teabags, with a similarly diluted effect. Maren, however, enjoyed the experience of reading them in parallel, and brought up the interesting question of how important the “canonicity” of cited works should be — does it make a difference that the reader with a non-US education can’t be expected to have an automatic knowledge of these works, even if it’s just as a background reference? This spun off into the question of canonical vs. good …
• A cinematic novel? Caroline brought this point up, and many concurred, leading to a brief casting session if the movie were to be made today.
• A New York novel? Robin, our most impassioned Gotham-lover, felt it lacked the tang (“cockroach dung,” she murmured evocatively) of lived New York and seemed more like a product of earnest research. I’d like to ask you all: what’s a real New York fiction for you? How about a real New York movie? I’d like to nominate Dawn Powell’s novels and SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS, and implore you to chime in in the comments.

 

Phoebe

 

Emile Zola, LA CUREE

February being what it is, we were a reduced group before the fire at L’Auberge du Clou: Caroline, Cynthia, Maren, Myriam, and Phoebe. It was nonetheless lovely getting together for the first time in 2013.

The book discussed, Zola’s LA CUREE, was generally well received. Here are some of the points I caught tonight – please do add to and comment on them! [Myriam just sent in a fabulous comment by email, which I'm taking the liberty of adding to the post itself.]

• The heavy detail of the book – typically thorough Zola documentation, potentially a strain for the reader, but an effective replication of Second Empire materialism. Comparison made to the accumulation of branded products in AMERICAN PSYCHO.
• Zola’s “ant farm” effect – his hereditary and environmental determinism seems to wipe out the possibility of full characters/characterization – possibly less true for minor characters? Sister Sidonie was applauded as a Dickensian grotesque.
• Renée – some distaste voiced for the emptiness of her character. I feel that, given her background and lack of inspiration (through the people around her or education [Myriam pointed out the relative unimportance of education in the Second Empire vs. its central role in the Third Republic]), she would have had to be some kind of spiritual genius to have developed further than she did.
• An Emma Bovary with money, and no better off for it? There was fairly heated discussion of whether Renée was groping for some sense of meaning and beauty or just swept brainlessly by the tide of her surroundings.
• Woman’s role in the Second Empire – diminished by the replacement of legitimacy by money as a social touchstone. The Isak Dinesen quote I forgot to bring was: “In a world to which legitimacy is the primary law and principle, woman acquires a mystic value. She is more than herself, and holds the office of the ordained priest who alone among the people possesses power to transform the grapes of common earth into that supreme fluid: the true blood.” -- Isak Dinesen, “Copenhagen Season,” Last Tales
• Second Empire vs. Third Republic: Cynthia brought up Colette, very appropriately, as we were discussing the demimonde. This led to a mention of how, in LA CUREE, courtesans model themselves on society women (as in the disappointing evening Renée crashes with Maxime), whereas by the Belle Epoque, the imitation is all the other way: Colette describes herself scolding a conventional society friend for attempting to “have it all” by being seen in the same nightspots and at the same hours as a courtesan, but still get up and take care of the household and the children like a good bourgeoise (“De quoi est-ce qu’on a l’air?,” Les Vrilles de la vigne.)
• Zola: do you have a favorite? What would you suggest as a first book in the Rougon-Macquart series?

Phoebe

Myriam's comment:

I realised that one point we did not discuss is the very title of the book (and its translation). And it got me started on a chain of thoughts, which I wished to share with you.

Probably a good portion of what I write below was obvious to you as you read the book, but I realised that I personally was wrong about the point in time where the Curée could be said to take place in this novel.

La Curée is the leftovers part of the hunt that is thrown to the dogs, after the excitement of the hunt is over and everyone (including the dogs) goes to rest. (I see there is a curée froide, after the hunt, as opposed to a curée chaude, immediately after the animal is caught by the dogs, maybe closer to the English translation of ‘the kill’).

Of course, there is the figurative sense, which is the avid scramble for any piece of wealth, food. And the verb 'curer', with probably no direct etymological link, but a near-homonynous verb which is ‘to clean through dynamic scrubbing’ (my definition of it, not le Petit Robert).

After our interesting discussion of last night on Renée, and the values at stake in the book, I realised how important it was to place the curée in its political and philosophical context.

We mentioned the Empire was a materialistic period. I think it was even more so as the Empire was only the ending of an era, but never provided for continuity nor a new beginning.

Both the Monarchy values (status through birth) and the revolutionary ones (status through Republican virtue and fervour) are down, all corrupted by Napoleonian fakes (fake dynasty, fake symbols, plated glory - status through acquired money) which nevertheless tried to grow on the remnants of the previous social orders.

In itself, the Empire offers no ideology or philosophy that would help the nation grow. It is all just a vast Curée, the hunt and spoliation of previous eras, previous eagerness to rebuild the Nation through more virtue and more justice. It is a Curée froide, and the country may be tempted to go to sleep, fed on unjustly acquired meat.

Anyway, this is the message that Zola, very much a 3^rd Republic character, could have attempted to transmit to his readers in the early days of the 3^rd Republic (the book is from 1872), which was still fragile and unsure of its intentions (it initially was meant to be a transitional regime until a monarchy could be established again).

Basically: Keep virtue, (and Zola would rather keep the revolutionary one) and you'll help the Nation grow.

In that sense, I think Renée is the Curée herself, the part fed to the Empire-business world dogs. She is the old-world values being corrupted all along by her husband through wearing the Empire demi-mondaine’s jewellery, then by falling into an incestuous relation to the father and son. She is being tread down and doesn’t realise it, until in the end she tries to distantiate herself from the company of her husband’s social acquaintances. My interpretation is now therefore that she feared her incestuous adultery would be found out because of her fear of scandal (old world fear), craved for excitement (a revolutionary creation), but never realised the worst was already taking place. She was the show herself, being degraded and unwillingly taking part in it .

My Kobo Experience

With no January meeting this year, and thus no summary, I can't resist to take advantage of the space left on the book club blog and to jump in to share my Kobo experience. 
After a long private debate (Kobo - Kindl - or still something else - or no reader at all?) I gave myself a shove and my boyfriend the tip that the Kobo would be a very welcome Christmas present.
In the end the final decision maker for Kobo was the ePub format. Although Amazon permits to convert ePub into their propriatary format I take myself for to too lazy to do so.
And, probably even more important, rummaging already in advance on the web sites of the different eBook suppliers I got annoyed by Amazon's "Sorry, this book is not available in your geographical zone." Reading in Europe also American literature in its original language I would quite often be confronted with this message - so nope, bye bye Amazon and welcome Kobo.
Well, as dreamed of, I held my new darling on Christmas eve at 1am in my hands and had the first book loaded at 2:30 am. Not to mention that in the meantime the evening festivities were to finish, farewells to bid and the way back home to be taken. In other words: It is easy to get started!
Next surprise: The lighting came in handy sooner than expected (yes, it's a Kobo Glo!). Holidays mean staying long in bed, and while my other darling was still snorring besides me I could spend long and delicious hours with Zola, our next book club assignment. Since then my Kobo doesn't leave me anymore. During the time I would have just gotten through the next reading group assignment, I went easily through 3 books!
Handling is in general easy, although by professional deformation I can not restrain myself from mentioning some points which one might need to adapt to:

• Changing pages takes a small, but still a moment.
• Somtimes changing pages induces for whatever reason a change of two pages at once. Not yet found out why.
• Gosh, how wonderful to have dictionaries and translation dictionaries directly at hand (standard), but why aren't they fully furnished? No use to have a wonderful dictionary, if you can't use it, because three quarters of the words looked up are not available (happened so for English - German dictionary).
• Strange behaviour, indeed very strange behaviour when in comes to annotations and highlighting. Sometimes they are kept and sometimes they aren't. There's no rule... which was at certain moments a real test for the quality of our relationship...

And besides the fact that I can now carry around with me a whole library in the dimensions of a paperback, here some features I love about Kobo too:

• The charge is keeping very well, even using the light, but only if you stay disconnected from WiFi.
• The additional functions: Sketchbook, Sudoku (why are they hidden so deep in the menus?)
• The Kobo support team: Even at Christmas I had a personalized answer to my question (! - how often one gets an answer with no relation to the initial question...) in less than 24 hours.
• The sleep cover.

But there are two things Kobo can not deliver: The paper contact and browsing through the pages, I can not deny, one may miss on the long. And the pleasure of lending out a book to a friend.

If you would like to share your experiences with your reader, whichever it might be, you are more than welcome to leave a comment!

Maren

Henrik Ibsen, HEDDA GABLER

We were a select group of six toasting ourselves in front of the Auberge du Clou’s upstairs fireplace for the HEDDA GABLER discussion:  Cynthia, Emma-Jane, Helen, Maren, Phoebe, and our delightful newcomer Myriam.

Some came fresh to the play, or indeed to Ibsen himself – others were rediscovering a work they had read at an earlier stage in life, whether for study or pleasure.

Myriam mentioned that she had felt a bit fearful of Ibsen’s reputation for high-flown gloom, and was relieved to find the play snappier than she had supposed.

Maren brought up the interesting issue of reading a play – especially, as Myriam pointed out, one as “well-made” (structured to begin as shortly before the climax as possible, with minimal descriptive background) as this one. Doesn’t the reader miss the dimensionality of a novel’s prose, getting only the bare bones of the action? Unless one is reading as a potential actor in or director of the play, isn’t one likely to miss the richness that acting and staging bring to the text?

Maren also noted the distinctively nineteenth-century framework of the action, which determined the characters’ social possibilities and limitations – she found this factor distancing, rather than intriguing. This made a nice segue to Emma-Jane’s re-reading of the play, which left her debating again how much Hedda was a villain and how much a victim.

I hadn’t remembered how funny the play could be, and several people agreed heartily – Tesman’s slippers and Judge Brack got special mention here. On that point, I’d like to attach the link to a series of Ibsen parodies in Punch:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35305/35305-h/35305-h.htm

Happy Holidays to All!

Phoebe

Truman Capote: BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S

We were a rather small gathering around a table at Compagnie de Bretagne. The four of us found ourselves confronted with a waiter apprentice, but took it with humour.
Talking about "Holly Golightly, Travelling" inspired of course a thought to those who could not be there because far away or not yet far away, or even somewhat nearby but nevertheless not able to join...

Although everybody seems to know BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S, very few - more honestly - nobody in our round did really read it before. We wondered if it is a book read at school? And even more astonishing: Anyboody did see the movie either! So we count strongly on our cinéphile members to resolve this bad state of affairs. At least it is very clear by now how much images, and not even moving images, effect our perception and memory! 

We agreed that Truman Capote did a genuinely beautiful construction and writing, but we had beyond that rather more questions than answers, particularly about social standards and acceptable behaviours at that particular time.
Robin had a good explanation for Holly's today definetely rather unusual trips to the girl's room, which could not serve nowadays as a resource to pay for a golden bird cage.
Talking about trips we also discussed how the book from start to finish really revolves her running around the world from one point to another. It starts and ends with her travels and a core issue is the question of her belonging somewhere.
Not finally answered was the question how she would be considered today: Call girl or escort girl? Or is she not such type of "a girl" at all, since she is following only her own moral standards and thus her own 'calls'; and being rather escorted than escort herself? Anyhow, Capote's Holly wouldn't be a role model unlike what we at least perceive the Hepburn version to be.
There was also spoken of selfdestructive behaviour. Holly is not calculating the future impact of her actions, which mostly does her no good. At least she is not constructing something of her own, just living in the here and now, reacting on opportunities and taking what she can get. As much as she is a likeable person, the reader is left somewhat irritated about so much naivety and unconcern.

But back to Audrey Hepburn: The crown of the beauty queen for the evening went definetely to Emma-Jane, arriving in a terrific little black dress!

PS: Here an additional thought by Emma-Jane:
"I forgot to bring up something at the meeting. There are some mentions of the “mean reds” throughout, which I thought must be like panic attacks, maybe even depression, or perhaps even the results of her “wild” lifestyle. Thought this was an interesting point and it would be interesting to know if these “mean reds” are a result of her previous experiences or her current lifestyle."

Maren & Emma-Jane

Holly passed by?  -  Breakfast in Burma
(c) Robin

Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf - An Alternative Meeting Summary

Too good to let it drop, Phoebe's idea of having a summary in form of a dialogue asked for some work. But now as it is ready, without hesitation or any delay, here it comes, Martha and George's morning after!

Martha and George the morning after, in bed.

G : (whisper) Shh … shh ... You still asleep ? (Pause, softly) You have to get up…
M : (sleepy) Hunh… (Pause)
G : (insisting) Remember? There’s this fund raising lunch concert thing at the faculty … with your father there …
M : Let me sleep, troublemaker  … (silence, some instants)
G : Well (monologue to himself), You need to go and take up the role of his trespassed wife… take the place of … get up little lady to be the red eyed mouse’s replacement wife. Since we are his … stuff … full attention to the faculty’s needs… (Pause)
George tries to embrace her from behind.
M : (returning quickly in his direction, outraged) Jesus, what do you think are you doing?
G : (Half joking, half serious) Huh, wouldn’t you have set up all that Walpurgisnacht tantrum for my excitement? Worth a real witch – your spell succeeded pretty much… (getting closer to Martha again)
M : (Interrupting) Oh let go! You weren’t interested at all last night, … lecher, so what do you want ! Making up for that horrible humiliation?
G : Huh, Elizabeth Taylor is out! At her best Burton times – You’ve been sooo wonderful!
M : (amazed) Really?... Wouldn’t you be happier with Audrey Hepburn?
G : Wouldn’t want to change for a tender swearword ! (look at each other, gauging; George moves with energy, turning around intending to leave the bed) Well, I’m going to make breakfast then. (sitting on the side of the bed, legs already out, casually) Want your coffee with gin or whisky, honey?
M : (pleading) No, don’t leave, just hold me a bit… (dragging him back into the bed)… for a moment… before I have to go…(they lay down front to front, looking in each other eyes) ... will be curious to see how that poor boy - what was his name, Nick? - digests last night…
G : … (reassuring) don’t worry about him…
M : … seems to be smart enough, will find his way…
G : … (slightly ironically, to himself) got the right launching…
M : … make friends in his mathematics department, start a family…
G : (interrupting, impatiently)… Biology, good damn, he’s in the biology department. And I don’t think that they’re gonna have kids. At least slim Hipped doesn’t seem too much up to it. Good news, they won’t get killed by their unwanted child driving a car the wrong side of the road…
M : (interrupting George annoyed, quick movement with the hand as to wipe away the words) Jesus Christ George, don’t bother me with that story again. I’m tired hearing it! And each time you’re bothering people with it, someone else is dying! Let me tell you right into your face: It’s a running gag at the faculty! (faking someone else’s voice)… George’s coming, let’s see who he’s going to kill by car this time!...
G : (offended) That’s all lies! (Sits up)
M : No, it is not! … (sitting up too, close to George) But don’t worry, the houseboy believed you. Try him next time... (patting gently his head. Finally she approaches George and kisses him gently. George responds with more tender gestures, becoming explicit)
M : (defending) Oh no dear, not at your age!
G : (playful indignantly) I’m six years younger than you!
M : And I have two more teeth… (both laugh, end up in a hug, Martha is liberating herself from George) ... Oh no, Georgie-Porgie, I have terrible headaches – I want an aspirin, don’t we have any tea in the house? – Why are you still here? Up peanut, into the kitchen!
G : Another day. I don’t want to. I’m not the houseboy... speaking of which... I’m not a houseboy, I did it in the sack! Yeah, but well, somebody's got to show him how the musical beds work out around here...
M : (hurt) I do whatever I want - If you had shown the slightest jealousy last night, you could have saved me from a real humiliation. Don’t you have any feelings for me anymore? You don’t have any feelings for me anymore.
G : (conspiratorially), I’m obsessed with you…
M : And I thought you loved me!
G : Jesus Christ, you are so not missing any occasion for being humiliated…
M : Oh shut up, (already indifferent, as if a usual statement) it’s you who did humiliate me... (absently minded) ... What a strange night we had, and what an ending. (Losing focus, retreating to her memories) Four people, lost, lies, a killing...
G : I had to kill our boy... to let him go...
(Martha and George in parallel, monologize to themselves)
M : Martha and George, Honey and Nick, like East and West...
G : Our loved son, left behind and gone...
M : … Washington and Khrushchev, decline and rise...
G : … the lamb sacrificed for salvation, the son to die for his people’s sins...
M : … and lies on either side...
G : … in your death we recognize our sins, give our souls salvation, kyrie, eleison...
M : … past and future, young and old, new and ancient...
G : … we ask you forgiveness for having given a life and taken it away …
M : … an end and a beginning...
G : … in eternal memory, requiescat in pace ...
M : … truth and illusion ...
G : … truth or illusion ...
M : … Martha and George, sad sad sad ...
G : … rest in peace, … the illusions gone, a new morning will approach...
M : (turned to George, mournful) Oh George, you shouldn’t have killed our son … you shouldn’t...
G : I know, I shouldn’t. … shh shh … But I had to, I had to … shh shh ...
They end in an embrace, both sitting on the bed.

Maren

Thanks to Cynthia for her advise and proof reading!

Edward Albee: WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?

First of all we have to thank Caroline for welcoming us again at her place. Professional book club hostess she received us (Emma-Jane and friend Hannah, Robin, Helen, Cynhia and Maren) with her legendary charm and warmth.
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? inspired a rather positive feedback. Here some of the topics we discussed:

• The play counts amongst those which mark people's mind, of which one will never forget when and where seen for the first time. Amongst us there were at least two people who would confirm this theory (Hannah and Robin).

• The evening of the couple was cathartic, one might be inclined to wonder why. One of the possible answers lies in the three angle conversation: The presence of Nick and Honey allowed George and Martha to address topics and thoughts to their counterpart, which would not be possible in a direct conversation.

• We had a look on Martha's really special relationship with her father. Although Martha's father is apparantly not giving too much about his daughter, she is taking over the position of a wife in his fund raising activities. And, the social standing of Martha is important to her father, since an unconventional marriage was annulled on his intervention.

• Did George really kill his family? Na..., we were not really up to believe it. The story was "used" in different constellations, so it is probably not a real story, but applied where it suits.

• Obsession versus love: What keeps Martha and George together? Difficult question, we could finally not really answer. Bets went in both directions, probably the truth lies in between...

• Honey: Looks as if she does not really want children. What are the signs which feed this suspicion?  At one point she says precisely while she is crying, that she does not want children. They also allude to the fact that she may have terminated one or more pregnancies.

• Cynthia came up with some interesting ideas from the Schmoop notes on the Kindle, which are kind of like the 21st Century Cliff Notes or Monarch Notes she used to use in High School in the United States. The play can be read with a number of double sense reading: Heaven vs hell (swearing and Christian quotations, as well as the fictitious son being portrayed as a Christ figure, having been killed for the salvation of George and Martha) and East against West (George/Martha, the first names of the Washington's in contrast to Nick equal Nikita Khrushchev).

As usual our conversation went also on to other horizons:

• Most beautiful women in cinema: Elizabeth Taylor (of course), Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, ...
• Wonderful Meryl Streep and her interpretations of different woman characters, especially her recent Oscar winning Margaret Thatcher interpretation
• Cartoons for adults: Family Guy, Simpsons, South Park

Cynthia & Maren

Edward Albee - Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

At long last, the explanation of why I chose this play.

When it came to by my turn to make the selection for October, I asked around what kind of book people were in the mood for, and it was suggested (by Emma, I think ?) that a play would be fun. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf immediately came to mind as an interesting play, and it is truly an American classic.    I think it is shocking, hilarious, and depressing all at once, and I think some of the ideas addressed should make for a very good discussion, even if not everyone enjoyed it.   It was enormously controversial when it first arrived in theaters in 1962, and won many awards.  The Pulitzer Prize for drama, however, was not awarded that year because the committee disliked the strong dialogue of WAoVW, yet they did not give the award to any other play.  An interesting statement in itself. 

Edward Albee, the play's author, has been frequently quoted as saying the title really means, "Who's afraid of living with false illusions ?"   I won't say too much about the play for those who have not yet finished it (and indeed it is a very short read so don't be discouraged to start it even the day before the meeting !) but I will try to describe the context of the times in which the play was written.  The early 1960's brought a new way of thinking to the US at a time when optimism and prosperity were pretty much at their zenith for both the country and individual families:  The American Dream was no longer a dream, but really a “given” for everyone.  JFK was president, the youngest ever, and a new generation was beginning to assert its opinions and ideas more than any generation in the past.  It was the height  of the cold war, and the older generations still tended to be weighed down by a bit of fear and cynicism, and within less than a decade the hippie revolution would be upon everyone.  

George and Martha (cleverly named after America's first couple, President George Washington and his wife, Martha) represent the old generation;  Nick and Honey represent the future….or at least on the surface.  The absurd evening of interactions between the four of them shows just how many illusions we create for ourselves, whether consciously or unconsciously, young or old, etc.  Is the American Dream itself just an illusion ?  I leave it at that for now, with the rest to be discussed on Thursday.  I realize the play is a bit strange but I hope it makes for an interesting discussion.  And if so inclined….we can one day watch the movie together.

Cynthia

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