Evex’s Weblog

This would have been my suggestion so I was delighted when Martin selected it as the next read! Most of us really enjoyed it, with Paddy as the main dissenting voice. The book follows characters through the civil war in 1960’s Nigeria, a subject none of us had known much about before reading this novel.

I think that we all agreed that there was a change in the way that the author dealt with the characters after the outbreak of the war. Paddy felt that the character development which had previously been very strong, lost out to descriptive writing, and that the book suffered for it. Martin disagreed, feeling that the book got better as it went along. I suggested that this was intentional and supposed to show the effect of the trauma – that the characters almost shut down everything to concentrate on survival. Pete felt that the author’s intention was to trigger emotion by adopting a more descriptive style rather than describe the emotions themselves.

We discussed the use of time shift (is that the right term?) by the author, and I think most of us thought it was used really well to build up tension. However, I’m sure that someone thought it was incredibly irritating. Not me though.

Martin felt that some of the characters were quite insipid, especially Richard. Ciara particularly disagreed, and Pete I think, defended Richard. I thought he was quite boring though and wondered what Kainene ( a very strong willed character) saw in him. We discussed Kainene’s motivations at different points of the novel, as I think most of saw her as quite an enigmatic character. I think we felt overall that she came into her own during the war and responded with excitement and energy. Her character was central to the theme of idealism vs. sacrifice in the book: we never hear her advocating the regime change but she thrives well in the upheaval, unlike intially radical characters like Odenigbo, who cannot cope with his mother’s death as a direct consequnce of the civil war. He descends even further into alcoholism and self pity.

Olanna was a likeable character, but we disagreed about the likelihood of her one night stand with Richard. Nicky found it completely unbelievable, whereas I saw it as an expression of her resentment towards her sister, which I thought she had repressed a little.

The book mainly dealt with middle class African characters, which we agreed were charaacters we had not read much about, in fiction or otherwise. This led to the depiction of the clash between middle class lifestyles and traditional village life. On the whole we felt that this was handled well, with Ugwu, Odenigbo’s ‘houseboy’, symbolising the difference. We thought it was quite amusing how he started to turn into another Philips, as he began looking down on his old way of life. I thought the discomfort of the characters, (Olanna in particular) when they visited less well off family members, was quite a universal theme and one that made me warm to the book.

We discussed how the book highlights the problem of countries that have artificially created as a result of colonialism. It showed how easily tribal rivalries and fear can come to the surface with devastating results. We discussed this further but departed quite significantly from the book so I’ll leave that to another blog!

Martin felt that it was essential to approach the book without jaded eyes and wondered whether living or travelling in Nigeria would help understanding of themes in the book. This led to a discussion about the differences in the outlook on life that people from different countries have, and how this is influenced by wealth and other environmental factors. I haven’t gone further into the discussion as it moved away from the book and was a bit too complex to be represented by my half remembered interpretation of my notes!

Overall, a fascinating read, and definitely recommended by the majority of the group.

This was Nicky’s choice of book and one that really divided the group, making for a lively discussion. If I remember rightly, Martin particularly disliked it, whereas Nicky, Paul and myself probably liked it the most out of the group. It’s a factual account written by a survivor of the Jonestown massacre, that we all found quite self-indulgently written. This really put off some people, although I found it fascinating.

It was suggested that she might be an unreliable narrator – especially as the book was written twenty years after the event. Some people wondered if she had given herself a larger role in pivotal events than she actually had. She came across as quite a weak character, who lacked self analysis and therefore was reluctant to take any personal responsibility for events. However, it was commented that as she said she was writing the book for her daughter, she may not have wanted to analyse her role too deeply. We also wondered if her unhappiness and lack of willing to take responsibility were character traits that had resulted in her being susceptible to joining a cult.

Many of us felt that the foreword was really interesting, and dealt with a pivotal moment in the story – the shooting of the congressman – far better than the book itself which didn’t cover it in much depth.

The book gave insight into the contrast between the workings of the Peoples’ Temple in San Francisco and then later in Guyana. Those of us who’d read that far, found it interesting how the focus changed once Jonestown was set up . This seemed to be the point where the religious and political element started to wane, replaced by isolationism and social control. However, we felt frustrated about why Jim Jones did this, feeling that the book did not fully relate his charisma and character. He was obviously a clever and manipulative man, (sociopathic?), however, we felt that his power did not come across in the book, especially as he is portrayed so unpleasantly throughout.

We thought that her mother was an intriguing character, although again we felt that the author didn’t analyse or reflect upon her behaviour or motivations. We wondered why she didn’t tell her daughter that she was Jewish, and we were also curious as to why she jopined the cult and went to Jonestown. We concluded that it was probably to protect and watch over her daughter, as she seemed sceptical of Jim Jones.

We thought that the ending of the book wasn’t very strong and seemed to peter out. We wondered what would have happened to Jonestown if the suicide had not taken place – would they have dispersed, would Jones have lost control. Up to their death, they seemed to be fulfilling their mission.

Overall, I think that if you can cope with the writing style, it is a really fascinating read. Paul, as a guest member, asked us to rate  the book out of ten.  We gave it a six.

Ann’s choice and a very odd read. Ann suggested it as a book of short stories, but on reading it we discovered that it is a collection of ‘book reviews of non-existent works of literature’. Unfortunately, as with the Black Book, I forgot my notebook so this is likely to be a very short post!

Everyone found the book very hard going – I think I was one of the few to finish it, as I took it on a six hour train journey! One of the main problems that people had with the book, is that it often parodied critical writing and I think that most of us just weren’t familiar enough with this writing to be able to get the joke. Also, some of these reviews contained fascinating ideas for books that I think some of us would rather have read as novels or short stories. These criticisms don’t mean that we didn’t enjoy the reviews – I think everyone had their favourites, and ones in which we didn’t understand a word!

Not all of us noticed that the introduction was also a parody, written by Lem himself (I didn’t realise until after I had read it). Lem uses this to explain what he is doing and pre-empt some of the criticisms that he anticipated would be made about the book.

It’s difficult to write an overview of the book as there are sixteen different reviews, so I think that the best approach is for me to write about the ones I particularly liked and didn’t like, and let people write their own comments about the bits that stood out for them.

My favourite reviews included Gruppenfuhrer Louis XVI, mainly because I liked the oddity of the story and wished it was a real story. I also enjoyed Being Inc. which explored the idea of being able to purchase events in your life from a company and the problems that arise when rival companies experience a conflict of interest. Some of the reviews went completely over my head, particularly  Gigamesh and Rien du tout, ou la consequence, which taxed my poor little brain.

Overall, I felt that reading this book made me want to read Lem’s fiction as I found his ideas quite radical and original. Add a comment and let me know what your favourite reviews were!

This was Paddy’s choice and really enjoyed by everyone in the group except for me. I thought it was an excellent book but unfortunately I read it on holiday when I was laid up with tonsilitis and it depressed me horribly. It’s an extremely powerful book about a father’s journey with his son through a ravaged, post apocalyptic America.

We found the style of writing very effective in creating the oppressive and frightening atmosphere. It was pointed out that no names were used by either the author or the characters, which we felt indicated that there was no need for identity in this world. we also noticed that there were few complex sentences in the book, with the author making little use of the subordinators ‘if’ and ‘but’. We discussed the effect of this and felt that gave a relentless feeling of the book, creating a world in which there are no alternatives and no surprises. We weren’t sure about the narration which was used quite erratically; it was unclear whether it was the authorial voice or the father.

The two main characters in the book are the father and son who are travelling together to find the coast. There is a sharp contrast in their attitudes to their predicament. The son has never known a different world to this, and doesn’t realise how much his father shelters him from reality. However, it was also suggested that the son isn’t given the room to express his fears or doubts by his father who needs him to keep going. The father lives in constant angst, especially as he is aware that he is dying and fears for the future of his son; he distrusts and fears other people (I think with good reason as they mostly seem to be insane cannibals, who keep their prey chained up in sheds). The son is more interested in others and shows compassion and empathy.

We though that an important theme of the book was the ending of their relationship. Throughout the book, the man is focused on their pistol and it’s two bullets – their way out that is never taken. It seemed to us that it was only with the death of the man that the boy could achieve his full potential (destiny?).

McCarthy uses biblical themes in his book: the ending of the world, the torment of existing hell, men keeping their morals while enduring hardship. We wondered whether the boy was intended as a saviour figure, with his empathy and ability to relate to others through the horror. The episode that suggested this idea to us is when the father refuses to kill his son as he is dying, telling him that he needs to ‘carry the fire’ which he holds inside. We wondered whether this was supposed to represent hope for the future.

The ending of the book, we thought, was powerfully described but I don’t think we fully resolved what it meant. It is a description of trout that lived in the mountain streams before the disaster. It seemed to return to the idea of hopelessness after the uplifting imagery of the boy meeting the family who take him in.

Overall, an excellent book, that is not a suitable read for grumpy invalids. You have been warned.

This book is a real little oddity that fascinated us all. Again, like Ignorance, it seemed more like a novella. We found the writing very spare and direct but absolutely compelling: the work of a very skilled writer. Also like the Black Book, the publishers seem to have got someone to write the blurb on the back who hasn’t read the book. So for any new readers of The Key, it is not a delightfully moving tale of a man’s rediscovering of his love for his younger wife. It is an extremely twisted little story (which, if you’re honest with yourself, sounds much more appealing doesn’t it?).

The book is broadly about the sexual interplay of four characters: a married couple, their teenage daughter and a friend of the family. The writer uses the device of a diary to allow the couple to communicate their more explicit feelings and desires to each other, although each pretends that they would be shocked if the other were to read it. However, we felt that the author was suggesting through the book that we needed to consider the couple as unreliable narrators (especially as they expected their diaries to be read by the other). The family are constantly engaging in mind games with each other, resulting in an extremely dysfunctional relationship.

We felt that the book was quite disturbing, mostly because it presented unusual and worrying events as quite normal. One of these was the relationship of Kimura to the family. The husband shares explicit material of Ikuko (his wife) with Kimura which becomes central to their sex life. Kimura then goes on to begin affairs with both Ikuko and her daughter Toshiko, and at the end of the book, Ikuko reveals that he is to marry her daughter and that all three of them are to live together. Ann pointed out that Toshiko is obsessed with her parent’s sex life and is particularly angry about her father’s ‘lustful nature’ (it is also suggested that Toshiko was watching the husband taking pictures of his unconscious wife) and wondered if the author was implying that incest had taken place. We certainly all agreed that due the diary form of the book, there were definitely events that were not explicitly stated.

We also noticed that brandy was quite central to the events in the book. I pointed out that all the characters that suffered from ‘cerebral anaemia’ also had quite a hefty alcohol intake. Ikuko regularly binges on the Courvoisier and is found unconscious in the bath during one of Kimura’s visits. These collapses allow her husband to have sex with her and take photographs. We discussed her reasons for this drinking to collapse – was it purposeful, or maybe a way to pretend that she didn’t know what was going on, a way of gaining Kimura’s attention, or maybe just a cry for help.

I haven’t made any more note but I’m sure people had plenty more to day about the book so feel free as always to add your comments.

Ciara’s first bookclub choice and a very popular one. Overall we found the book very readable and intriguing; it was almost like an essay or short story than a book. Superficially, the book seemed quite simple and straightforward but we thought that this masked quite a complex work.

The main purpose of the book seemed to be the exploration of feelings. This led to the criticisms that the characters came across as devices for this exploration rather than representations of real people: for example, Irena was intended to evoke sympathy, Gustav represented goodness etc. This wasn’t everyone’s view though with some people saying that they though Kundera had a particular gift for describing feelings.

We thought that the book was concerned with memory and nostalgia for homeland. The main characters have all emigrated from their home country driven by a need to escape. We thought that Kundera punctured the stereotypical romanticism of the voyage home, using as a theme of the book an ironic comparison with the Odyssey. Like Odysseus, Irena realises on her return home that her real life story is what happened to her while she was waiting to return home. He looks at emigrants who are alienated from their countrymen, and do not have a collective ‘folk memory’. Their memories are confused and unclear: Josef worries that if he returns, he will leave the memory of his dead wife behind, no-one will know or ask about her.

We were unsure to what the title was referring. We thought that it might refer to the ignorance that arises from disinterest, which is a big theme of the book. Irena, as an immigrant, finds disinterest in her experiences when she arrives in France: the people there have already made up their minds about communism’s atrocities, and are only interested when she reinforces these views. As a returning emigrant, she finds disinterest and resentment from those who were left behind – the wine episode, where the drink that she brings is rejected in favour of beer, we found to be a good example of this.

There were other significant events in the book that I don’t have detailed notes on – such as the suicide attempt of Josef’s girlfriend. Any posts would be welcome!

This was the first meeting of the revived book club after about a year’s break – eeek! Paddy and I remained of the old guard, and Ciara and Martin joined us. I forgot to bring my notebook for this one so this is going to be a really rubbish post. Please add comments guys because I know we had a lot to say about this one.

First impressions…if i remember rightly (feel free to set me straight) Martin hailed it as a work of genius, I really liked it and Paddy and Ciara were distinctly underwhelmed. Plotwise, it had some similarities to the Wind-up Bird Chronicle although they were very different reads. However, they both involve a man on a journey to find his missing wife, who undergoes surreal encounters and meets strange characters.

I’m really tempted just to regurgitate the plot because I really can’t remember what we said about it. However, I know that this would be really pointless for anyone who has read it and annoying for people who want to read it. So I will resist the urge to camouflage my crapness with waffle.

Ok, so briefly, those of us who like it, liked the way that Istanbul was almost a character in the book, permeating all the pages. We liked the way that folklore and storytelling was woven into the book. We enjoyed that it pretended it was a detective novel, reflecting Ruya’ s liking for these books, but was actually nothing of the sort: clues and leads were always dead ends.

I can’t fully remember the criticisms (please post!) but think that some people found it quite pretentious and heavy handed. It was certainly quite confusing at time, especially for people (ok me) who didn’t realise that the narrative was interspersed with extracts from Celal’s columns.

And for people who are going to read it and have the most recent edition, save yourself a lot of confusion by ignoring the blurb on the back – Celal is Ruya’s HALF BROTHER not ex husband. Some very lazy editing.

The last meeting of the first incarnation of the bookclub – the wine flowed, arguments raged and tears were shed. The book made a powerful impact on all of us and gave us so much to talk about. I can’t remember who chose it though! The book looks at an American high school massacre but focuses on the perpetrator’s family life rather than his school experience. This is achieved through the use of his mother as the narrator. We found that the way that the novel was structured (in the form of letters if I remember) seemed quite contrived at first but soon became very engaging – Clare felt that this was a deliberate move on the part of the author.

Eva, the narrator of the book, divided the group. If I remember rightly, Clare quite liked her, whereas I found her very dislikeable. We thought that she could be quite an unreliable narrator, and weren’t sure that other characters were as awful, or stupid as she painted them. Her descriptions of her husband Franklin are almost a caricature – he does not always come across as a real character. I found her very arrogant and unwilling to take responsibility or blame for any negative events. She has high expectations from life and feels that she has been ‘let down’.

Kevin is the most interesting character in the book, whose behaviour Eva is constantly trying to explain and rationalise. He is a clever child with few morals who shows little or no affection towards his family. He displays great cruelty towards others throughout the book, culminating in the massacre. He is possibly socio/psychopathic. His other unusual behaviours were hard to unravel, for example his wearing of tiny clothes. We thought that this may have been to embarrass his mother, or a declaration that he doesn’t want to fit in, or even a deliberate attempt to make himself feel physically uncomfortable. He is impossible to engage in a positive way and cruel acts seem to be the only way he can relieve his boredom.

The book focuses on the relationships between the characters; Eva analyses them to try and find a reason for Kevin’s horrendous act (and horrendous behaviour in general). Eva feels rejected very early on in their relationship when Kevin will not breastfeed, and takes this as an evidence of his hatred of her. I felt that this was a considerable overreaction and was an example of Eva’s self obsession. Ironically, she is the only person that Kevin bonds with, which occurs when he is ill. She is also the only person to which he reveals his worst side which we felt shows that she is the only person whose reaction he cares about. After she breaks his arm, he respects her far more. Eva’s dislike of her son seems to facilitate this bond between them; she seems to feel far less for her daughter whose quiet obedience does not register next to Kevin’s behaviour.

We felt that Kevin’s relationship with his father did not quite ring true. He goes to great efforts to delude his father about his true nature and we weren’t quite sure why he would bother to keep up this deception. Suggestions included that he may have wanted to drive his parents apart by showing them very different sides of himself, or that Eva may have been exaggerating Kevin’s behaviour in order to convince herself that he was ‘evil’.

The book takes on some quite big themes about parenthood and nature versus nurture. Eva is very ambivalent about becoming a mother and it is implied that this may have been a factor in Kevin’s development. However, the breastfeeding incident suggests that Kevin may have always been unwilling to bond with people. In my personal opinion, the book is best read as a blackly humorous drama that is a really enjoyable read. I don’t think it gives any real insights into the nature/nurture debate. Feel free to post a comment disagreeing!