Blindness – José Saramago
It’s taken me a while to get to writing about last month’s choice – Blindness. This was Ciara’s pick and one that everyone at the meeting seemed to have really enjoyed. The story takes place in an unspecified country where an epidemic of blindness takes hold. Initially, sufferers are held in an old asylum, but as the illness takes hold of the entire population, society starts to break down.
Nicky thought it was a disturbing but thought provoking book that reminded her of Day of the Triffids. Paddy compared it to The Road, in that although they are excellent books, they can provoke a feeling of desolation in the reader! I wouldn’t be surprised if Blindness was an influence on The Road as some of the same themes and devices are used. Saramago writes with in very distinctive style, eschewing paragraphs and speech marks. I felt this this was intentionally disconcerting, reflecting the chaos depicted in the book.
I felt that the author was trying to show us how near we all are to complete chaos in our supposedly civilized society: systems can break down completely after an unexpected event or deprivation of some kind. Martin felt the book was about our lack of awareness of our own reality and how we can’t actually cope with anything out of the ordinary, needing a familiar structure around us for survival. Ciara thought that the author was illustrating how fundamentally connected to our human instincts and needs we are, which becomes more clear as the layers of normality are stripped away as the epidemic takes hold. This was symbolised by the fact that no character is referred to by name – their constructed human identities are stripped away. Paddy referred to Wikipedia’s comment on this, that the descriptions given (‘the girl in the dark glasses’, the boy with the squint’) are sharply ironic considering the predicament they find themselves in.
The rape scene was, for me, the most shocking part of the book. Martin thought it was a fundamental moment, but Ciara expressed some concerns about the tone it was written in. I felt that the author held back in his depiction of the rape of the doctor’s wife, compared to how he wrote about the other women. Nicky disagreed with me on this, feeling that it was shown to be just as brutal. Martin questioned whether the doctor’s wife was justified in killing the rapist and whether this implied that it is morally right to be able to take revenge in a wider context e.g. when at war. I think a few of us found this scene difficult to read, although I think the author made the right choice in portraying rape as a violent expression of control, stripping it of sexuality.
We discussed whether the book was an allegory. I wondered whether the blindness symbolised that people in society are ‘not seeing’ the systems that they live under and the way that they rely upon and relate to them. Martin saw the book as representing freedom from the old order, through the asylum scenes, and moving towards a new reality shown through the reclaiming of their humanity when they break free, although he wondered whether the spiritual redemption would disappear if their sight was regained. Paddy brought up the powerful scene in the church, where the statues are ‘blinded’ by scarves, wondering whether it symbolised a breakdown in faith in whether God is watching over humanity.
Paddy and Nicky didn’t think that the characters would regain their sight, whereas myself and Martin did (Ciara must have been at the bar). I won’t reveal who was right in case anyone reads this who hasn’t got to the end yet! I think we would all recommend this book and it is definitely a good choice for a book club as it generates lots of discussion. I haven’t covered some of the discussions we had, especially when we talked about some of the characters. When I leave it this long there’s always the danger that I won’t understand my notes, which has happened!
The Stars Look Down – AJ Cronin
This month we read ‘The Stars Look Down’ chosen by Ann. We were all swept off our feet by this tale of a manly professor of medicine winning the heart of a impressionable young woman… hang on, that was Paddy’s version. The rest of us read an epic tale of a north east mining community. And very gripping it was too. It’s set in the not too well disguised city of Tynecastle, although we did wonder if we would think about it if we lived in a different city.
Martin was incredibly impressed by the book, describing it as a timeless masterpiece. The rest of us took issue with that at first feeling that it was very rooted in the time that it was written. Ann and I felt that it was dated, but saw that as a strength: we recognised it as a book that probably wouldn’t be written now. However, Martin countered by saying that he felt that the themes were universal rather than the style of the writing. Considering the themes: love, sex, money, class struggle, war – I think he may be right. Martin read it in one go -I almost managed to equal that, reading the first 500 pages on a train journey to Cardiff. Ann felt that the middle part dragged a little, skimming over events.
The book had a large cast, and there was a general feeling that character development was a strength of the book. We discussed the male characters at first, with Ann feeling that the author demonstrated great skill in developing them, commenting on how you could trace how David grew up to be the man he was as he was Robert’s son. The narratives of David and Joe were possibly the principle stories of the book: very different men who both tried to leave their mining background behind, David through education and political activism, Joe through opportunism and his (ahem) natural charms. We felt that the author was able to show their flaws without being overly judgemental or moralistic. Joe is a deeply immoral man but is able to transcend the financial, sexual and class based restraints that bind the other characters. We debated Arthur’s character and motivation: why he refused to go to war and his conflicted attempts to atone for his father’s misdeeds. Nicky felt that his actions were motivated primarily by guilt, and we never fully resolved whether he was driven by cowardice and bravery. Ann thought the the author was representing the ambiguity of the characters he had created.
I felt that the author had a very complex relationship with the female characters that he had created. Ann felt that they were considerably weaker than his male characters, and Nicky wondered whether this was a reflection of the time in which they were written. We were dubious about the seeming equivalence of beauty with weakness and manipulation, while the female characters who had brains, talent or heart described as not particularly good looking. Hilda in particular was at times portrayed as a clever, ambitious woman, but in one rather odd passage described as a psychotic feminist. I had a bit of a soft spot for wayward Jenny, feeling that later on in the century a penchant for booze, dining out and having a couple of boyfriends in young adulthood wouldn’t have resulted in a mysterious STD/mental illness death. Martin thought that Jenny wanted to be like Joe but couldn’t manage it . Annie was probably the most sympathetic female character.
We felt that the sex scenes in the book were more straightforward and explicit than we were expecting from a book written in this time, especially Jenny’s predilection for doing it in public places, and some of the unusual settings. Again this was an example of the author showing us something about his characters without being overtly judgemental. Saying this, we wondered whether the author was being a little coy by suggesting Hilda was a lesbian rather than discussing it explicitly. Ironically, we couldn’t find any sex scenes in Paddy’s Mills and Boone book which we expected to be racier
The mine disaster stood out for us as a powerful and shocking part of the book. I had to skim read it because I found it too upsetting to fully engage with it. We all felt that the author had successfully given each man a realistic and compelling response to their predicament.
Cronin is unafraid to tackle the big themes, and to weave them together. Ideology, and its impact on people’s lives runs through the book. Martin felt that it was a strongly anti capitalist book, but Ann disagreed, saying that unlike The Jungle, it doesn’t offer an alternative, just holds up a mirror to society. Martin and Ann had a debate about whether David as misguided in his beliefs and actions. Ann thought that he believed in the system and in working hard to escape poverty, which ultimately brought him nothing. However, Martin saw him as an idealist who stood up for his beliefs. The beginning and end of the book mirrored each other, with David and his mother preparing for him to go down the mine. We debated whether this represented his return to his community where he belonged, or the futility of his attempts to escape.
We all really enjoyed this book and would definitely recommend it. There’s also a film adaptation but it’s crying out to be a TV miniseries. Think I will read The Citadel next.
Borderliners – Peter Hoeg
Pete chose this one. Most of us had read some Hoeg before but hadn’t heard of this: an unsettling story of a young orphan growing up in ‘progressive’ Danish society, moving from institution to institution, and placed in an elite school as part of an social experiment. The response of the group was mostly positive, although at times the book did confuse and exasperate some of us. We weren’t sure whether the book was supposed to be semi autobiographical, which was definitely hinted at, although I wondered whether the more extreme events in the book were an exploration of wish fulfilment. We all enjoyed the book, although Paddy and myself felt that it dragged at times, and Seth and Nicky felt that the end went on for longer than it should’ve. Ann was still in the process of reading the book and was very impressed at the point she was at.
The school’s experiment involves the rigid control of time to turn the children into model citizens: constant surveillance maintained through a strict regime of timetables, charts and bells. Nicky and Pete felt that the experiment was not explained clearly enough, but Paddy and I disagreed. The experiment is never explained to the narrator, and we are only given his perspective. Despite this, I found the counter experiment that the pupils use to rebel quite confusing although Pete thought that it was reasonably explicit. That’s got worrying implications for my teaching practice! Paddy pointed out that despite the harshness of the regime, there was a distinct lack of malice in the teachers. I felt that this portrayal of the staff carrying out the experiment ‘for the best’ was much scarier than if they had been characterised as monsters.
Hoeg creates the feelings of disorientation and isolation very effectively. Time and the way it can be manipulated is definitely the major theme of the book, and as well as treating us to his theories on the subject, the author distorts the chronology, deliberately confusing us. At the end of the book the narrative finishes and we are given a short academic essay about time. I think we all felt a commitment to finish it and carried on, but it alienated some of us. Seth felt that it didn’t properly explain the concept of time, but Paddy disagreed, feeling that it made the difference between linear and circular time quite explicit. Peter’s struggle against linear time can make the book difficult disjointed reading at times. Objects such as the bell and two way loudspeaker that are used to implement the regime are used as powerful motifs. The way time was dealt with in the book led on to lengthy discussion about how the way we measure time is different to how we structure time, and how we try to impose a sometimes arbitrary structure onto abstract time.
We debated the significance of ‘the child’ in the book, whether he was actually referring to his own child or, as Seth suggested, a personification of a feeling inside him. Ann felt that the detached language used towards ‘the child’ and ‘the woman’ actually suggested extreme attachment – a raw emotion that he does not want to share with the reader by allowing us to picture them. Paddy pointed out that he appears much closer to August and Katerina than the woman and the child. We could have discussed the significance of the August and Katerina much further: his idealisation of Katerina, and his protective feelings towards August but I think we drifted off subject through talking about time. Peter’s friend from his previous institution occurs at different times in the narrative, in memories and in the present. Seth and Nicky suggested that he may be imaginary which hadn’t occurred to me but made a lot of sense, especially as he turns up in situations of great stress to save or comfort Peter .
Seth thought it was markedly different from the more magical style of his other books. Ann felt that it was deliberately quite sparsely written, pointing out the lack of adjectives. I think we had much more to discuss in the book but time marched on, the pub got busier and conversation turned to other topics. This book is quite a harsh and at times disorientating read but overall it is worth it. Not one to pack for your summer holiday, and maybe not the best place to start with Hoeg.
Out Stealing Horses – Per Petterson
Martin chose this after reading an interview with the author in the Guardian.We all really liked it, especially Ciara and Pete, although Martin felt disappointed at times by some of the melodrama. The story is told from the perspective of an old man who experiences a return to episodes from his past after the deaths of his wife and sister.
The writing is beautiful: sparse at times, and tumbling at others when he is in the middle of a reverie. Martin and Pete both felt that the contrast in sentences reflected the sensory experiences and emotions experienced by the author, as Pete put it ‘less words more meaning’. Daniel thought that it brilliantly described what it was like to be a male teenager – the milkmaid’s knees seemed to strike a chord with the male members of the group…
I found it intriguing, in a book that was dealing with so much tragedy and high emotions, that all of the big confrontations are hinted at and never described. I suppose as the narrator was a child when most of them happened they would have been hidden from him anyway. Even so, the author does not give into the temptation of writing an overly dramatic scene between Trond and Lars when they acknowledge that they know each other’s identity.
The meaning of the title caused quite a bit of debate. Pete wondered whether it was an allegory for the relationships between the characters but we never quite pinned that down. I thought it was too much of a stretch that Jon’s invitation to Trond would coincidentally be the same phrase used as a code during wartime, but the rest of the group had theories why the phrase appeared twice – that the boys may have overheard it from their parents and found a fascination in it, or as Pete suggested, it may have been a common phrase at the time.
We all agreed that loss was one of the main themes of the book, but we weren’t all convinced that he was suffering from depression. Dan thought he was depressed, and dwelling on the death that had followed him throughout his life. I agreed – what convinced me was the appearance of his daughter at the end. He had moved away without telling her where he was going, yet they obviously had a loving relationship. I felt that the author brought her in at the end to show us that Trond’s rural retreat was darker than we had suspected earlier in the book. Dan thought that he was enveloped by darkness and threat. Martin thought that Trond was content in his retreat however, and had made a decision to lead a quieter life. Martin also pointed out that every character was dealing with loss in the book, whether through death, betrayal, abandonment or the experience of living in wartime. Ciara though that it was interesting that Trond did not seek out Jon after the tragedy – Jon was an interesting character that we could have discussed more. Dan thought the symbolism of the crushed eggs was used effectively.
The relationship between Trond and his father underpinned the whole story. Martin felt that there was overlap between the two characters, with Ciara pointing out that Trond may have been trying to complete the circle by moving out to the country, as he had done with his father as a teenager. Male relationships were explored in great detail – teenage friendships, sibling rivalry, sexual jealousy and competitiveness…but where were the women? I wondered whether this was deliberate – relationships with women just weren’t the point of this book. Dan thought there might have been a hint of misogyny, and Ciara pointed out that women were mainly discussed in terms of their physiology. Dan thought that the log cutting scene was used well to hint at occurrences that we weren’t privy to as readers: as Ciara pointed out, Trond is completely innocent of the real meaning of the competition and we are left to piece it together. Martin felt that Jon’s dad was a flimsy character; I agreed thinking this was mirrored in his physicality, breaking bones all over the place!
We probably should have discussed Lars a little more (like Jon); Ciara was intrigued by the relationship he had with his disobedient dog, and his reflection of the narrator – both old men who had a lot to deal with. Trond seemed to occupy us the most – maybe a sign of his strength as a narrator. Ciara wondered why he had been ‘the boy with the golden trousers’ – didn’t seem to fit with our hermit. Dan asked, ‘Who the hell is Franz?’ something I think we had all asked ourselves at some point. He was a bit of a Literary Device, but this was explained by having Trond’s father asking him to reveal all to his son at an appropriate time.
This is a great book – it’s a rare occurence when we all agree! And, as Dan pointed out , it’s an excellent translation. Definite recommendation.
The Stepmother’s Diary – Fay Weldon
Ann chose Fay Weldon’s latest novel to be this month’s read: the story of a young writer’s experience of marrying the widowed husband of her successful mentor, and becoming the stepmother of the children that she used to look after. Confused yet? The story unfolds through the eyes of Sappho’s mother Emily who has been left with her daughter’s diary following a crisis, and just can’t resist a peek. Emily is a Freudian analyst which makes for interesting interpretation of what Sappho and the other characters have been up to.
This book has had some good reviews but we weren’t impressed as a group. I didn’t actually find it that boring to read – parts of it were quite enjoyable and created suspense well, but I came away thinking ‘what is it for?’ I didn’t know what it was trying to say or be. The best that I could come up with was that it is a misfired attempt at high brow chicklit. The cover definitely seems to be going for the chicklit market – we didn’t really know who the character on the front was supposed to be!
Daniel probably disliked it the most, expressing hatred of all the characters who he felt displayed a lack of humanity, and in his words ‘had no redeeming features’. Martin felt that Dan was being a bit harsh. A number of people found Sappho the protagonist quite vacuous, and none of the major characters seemed to catch anyone’s imagination. Seth really liked the literary agent, who unfortunately did not play a big part in the book. Ann felt that Weldon is a director of characters, rather than someone who focuses on character development, but that she had not pulled it off well in this book.
Seth felt that the plot was like ‘a dying man’s pulse’, and wondered what process the author went through before writing it. Martin agreed, saying that he enjoyed the beginning and end of the book, but that overall it had been full of interesting ideas that had not been brought to fruition, amd that it hadn’t been particulary well written.
Ann felt that although the book had made more of an attempt to go into the psychology of the characters more than in The Jungle, it had actually been much less effective. I found the references to Freudian and Jungian theory really irritating – Ann made the point that these were the extent of Emily and Barnaby’s personalities! We wished that Paddy had read the book so that we could get a psychologist’s viewpoint – Paddy feel free to comment later!
At times we all wondered if we had missed the point. Dan suggested that it might be a dark satire of the chattering classes with their literary pretensions, and Seth wondered if it was a play on Freudian feminist theory. However, after we had discussed these possibilities, we decided that if the satire was so subtle that none of us could pick it up, it hadn’t really worked.
Martin pointed out that the main theme of the book was whether people had seen and experienced what they thought they had. I felt that the unreliable narrator would have been a good way to explore this – after all there are several in the book, but that we weren’t given any subtle hints about when to suspect people’s interpretation of events. The step-daughter was portrayed as a complete monster but other sides of her personality weren’t explored at all. Martin thought that it was a feminist book in that all of the major roles were given to women, and the male characters were definitely in the background. I thought that Weldon was attempting to use the family house as a motif – with Ann suggesting that it was used to represent a sense of self.
Well in Dan’s words – ‘Chekhov it ain’t!’ Bizarrely, this is the only book club choice that has given me nightmares, considering some of the grim themes we’ve dealt with! Both Ann and I felt that Weldon can write better than this, so I would recommend trying one of her another novels if you have never read any of her books before.
The Jungle – Upton Sinclair
Daniel chose this early 20th century fictional expose of the horrors of the American meatpacking industry (and of the capitalist system in general). All of us attended the meeting due to the combined lure of Ann and Seth’s chilli and taties and our secret Santa presents. Only half of us had managed to read the whole thing (very impressive in Paddy’s case as his version had six extra chapters!) as Christmas was getting in the way of literary pursuits. Most people had read at least a bit and the response seemed overwhelmingly positive which is unusual.
Paradoxically, we all thought that part of the appeal of the book was that it was absolutely of its time, yet we were all able to find modern parallels. The book paints a really vivid picture of the struggle of a particular people at a particular time. The use of the title is obviously metaphorical, considering the setting, but the author doesn’t go for metaphor or allegory in his writing, choosing to baldly and literally describe the dreadful situation of his characters. I thought that description was the main point of the book, with the author creating vast panoramas of sweltering factories and freezing, dangerous streets.
The main character of the book was Jurgis Rudkus, a Lithuanian immigrant, whose experiences represent the iniquities of capitalism. We debated about whether he was a passive character, whose principles changed with his circumstances: embracing socialism only when it was his only option. Martin saw this as a positive characteristic : that he was extremely adaptive, but also pointed out that Jurgis seemed happiest when out on the road. Ann felt that Jurgis was so trapped that he was focused more on survival than socialist principles. The other characters seemed to serve more as examples of the issues that the book was highlighting, regularly meeting grim ends. I was interested in discussing the significance of Marija, who, with her strength and her survival, seemed to be a parallel to Jurgis throughout the book, until the end, where continues with her life of addiction and prostitution instead of finding redemption through socialism. However, I was unsuccessful in leading the discussion in that direction!
We also found it interesting how the characters in the book were stratified socially along ethnic lines. Eastern Europeans seemed to be at the bottom of the pile – as newer immigrants they had yet to discover that ‘working harder’ did not make them wealthier or more socially acceptable. Other, more established, ethnic groups such as the Irish were painted as heavily involved in corruption. We discussed whether this was racial stereotyping, or an intentional reflection that each wave of immigrants would have to learn that becoming corrupted was a necessary part of survival. Jurgis, Ona and Marija are all forced at different parts of the book to abandon their principles in order to stay alive. Ann felt that it was ironic that emigrants were setting up and becoming part of the very systems they had tried to leave behind.
The main point of the book was to denounce capitalism and introduce readers to the alternative that is socialism. Daniel loved the end of the book, where Jurgis fervently embraces socialism, whereas I didn’t feel that it was a real ending. Martin and Paddy disagreed over the role of socialism in Jurgis’ life, with Martin feeling that he was not affected by socialism throughout the story, embracing it only as an opportunity at the time, and was happiest as an itinerant worker in the countryside. Paddy, however, thought that Jurgis’ discovery of and conversion to socialism was his driving force. Ann thought it a dark irony that the characters in the book (and many people in the world today) both want and need the capitalism that will exploit and use them up, as the alternative – starvation, illness etc. is far worse.
Paddy’s differing views from Martin may have been due to the fact that he had a version with six extra chapters about socialism. This version heralds itself as the uncensored version that Sinclair was forced to suppress in order to get his beloved book published. However, others argue that this copy is actually the unedited version, and that Sinclair is able to get his political message through perfectly adequately without the extra chapters. Why not read both and make up your mind!
Nicky and I both found it as grim as The Road with its relentless portrayal of horrors, although as Nicky pointed out, The Road is fantasy, whereas the events in this book have been people’s reality. Daniel found the relentless style of the book very effective in conveying its message. The Jungle also led to a change in legislation due to its depiction of the practice of food adulteration. Ann liked it better than The Road at the point she was at, finding it interesting how the author jumped between tenses and manipulated language playfully. Paddy felt that the switches between narrative and report style helped to provide a rationale for what was happening in the story. I felt that the style of the book was very much of its time, redolent of authors like Dickens and Zola, who were very much the product of industrialisng nations. I don’t think a book could be written in this style now.
This book is a definite recommendation as we all really enjoyed it. Unfortunately I don’t think we’re going to hear the author’s viewpoint this month as Mr Sinclair is no longer with us, but as always comments are welcomed!
Veniss Underground – Jeff Vandermeer
The group’s introduction to the New Weird courtesy of Paddy: a short novel that provoked a fun and lively debate. Seth also joined us for the discussion too. Paddy would probably be better at describing the New Weird than me, but I guess it would be fiction that subverts traditional fantasy/sci-fi/horror etc. and offers more experimental, political and visceral work within ‘weird’ genres. There’s a blog on the guardian which discusses the movement further.
Paddy loved the book and defended it throughout the discussion. Dan, Martin, Seth and I enjoyed it but had some criticisms, with Martin feeling that it ebbed and flowed at different parts of the book. Pete, Ciara and Ann were bored by it and poor Nicky didn’t respond well to it at all! Nicky isn’t a sci-fi/fantasy fan in general and felt that she couldn’t believe in it at all. Paddy didn’t classify the book as sci-fi but was met with general scepticism from the rest of the group. My main issue with it was that I felt that it didn’t work well as a novel, cramming too many inventive ideas in without exploring them fully. Daniel also recommended page 47 as giving a four line explanation of the plot if anyone is reading it and isn’t sure of what is going on! Seth felt that the author was trying to knit too many good ideas together in one book, and rushed it, which is why he needed the epilogue to explain what was going on. Nicky thought that it lacked internal logic and found this very frustrating, wondering how Nicola got her leg back after being rescued from the organ bank. Paddy completely disagreed with this. However, Nicky and I were still confused about why the legs in the organ bank weren’t used for more practical purposes. Perhaps they had too many.
Character development was the subject of a lot of debate. The book was split into three sections, each from the perspective of one of the main characters. Paddy liked the fact the Nicola’s section was written in the second person, however, Ann felt that this didn’t work at all. Paddy thought that the characters were well developed, as the shift in perspective revealed different aspects to them. Martin and Ciara disagreed, feeling that the characters weren’t developed at all, especially the evil Quin, who in (I think) Ciara’s words was described as a ‘numpty’. John the Baptist seemed to be people’s favourite character, with Daniel saying that he identified with his perspective the most (and thought he was too cute as a meerkat to be a bad guy!). Seth actually felt that the relationship between the meerkat and Shadrach was the only interactive relationship in the book. I agreed, missing his acidic comments once he was gone. Martin thought that the background of Shadrach and Nicola’s love affair was well set up, but the relationship was not further developed. Seth pointed out that they were never fully together at any point in the story, but thought that there were some good moments described. Ann thought that Shadrach worships rather than loves Nicola, stemming from his meeting of her as he first steps out of the underground. Ciara felt that Quin was a bit disappointing after his impressive build up and that he was disposed of too quickly. Seth felt that the decline in the creatures that he was making signified the collapse of Quin’s powers. Most of us found Nicholas quite an irritating character, and wondered whether making him the first narrator was the best way to get people into the book. However, we found Quin’s alteration of him into one of his own childhood creations very powerful and disturbing. I was disappointed by the lack of insight into the relationship between Nicola and Nicholas, which for me lessened the impact of his betrayal.
Vandermeer’s books and short stories are set in worlds of his own creation, and I think most of us felt that his strength as a writer is in the images and visions that he puts on the page. Ciara was very critical of character development but said that she loved the world that it was set in. Martin and Daniel both highlighted the giant fish, that contains Quin’s laboratory, as an amazing concept. Both Pete and Ciara felt that the amount of gore in the book was unnecessary but Daniel really liked the disturbing imagery that was present throughout the narrative. Both Martin and I highlighted the organ bank as a powerful image that was rushed through too quickly. I thought it was strange that the author would spend so much time constructing it, just to have Shadrach run in, grab Nicola and leave. Especially as the endnote makes it clear how key these scene was in the author’s construction of this world. Paddy found the imagery fascinating and powerful, bringing up the scene where Shadrach makes the train jump (although Seth was curious as to how he got back up on his return).
I think that the author was definitely aiming to have some allegorical dimension to the book. Daniel and Martin noted some parallels to Heart of Darkness, however, Ann felt that Vandermeer did not pull this off at all. Martin thought that the book was looking for a universal truth. Seth thought that people were missing that there was an intentional dark comic effect to part of the book. Ann, who along with Nicky was probably the harshest critic of the book, completely disagreed, feeling that any comedy was accidental. Ann did say that the action in the book really grabbed her at times, but disliked the writing, saying that it was more like a set of stage directions than a novel. There was an attempt at a religious allegory in the book, with Quin as a devil creator figure, imagery of crucifixion, and the references to John the Baptist and priests. However, I felt again that this was jammed in with too many other ideas.
Martin asked us all to sum up the book at the end of the meeting. This probably would have gone better if it hadn’t been Bonfire Night and we hadn’t been distracted by lighting our sparklers (yay!). However, Dan felt it was a heroic attempt to fuse genre whereas Ann and Nicky were very disappointed. Paddy pronounced himself a big fan of the book who was astounded and fascinated by it. I wouldn’t recommend this book to anyone who finds themselves put off by genres like sci-fi and fantasy. I also think there are better place to start if you want to read some Vandermeer – maybe Shriek, or some of his short stories.
Girl Meets Boy – Ali Smith
Unbelievably, my first choice for the book club. I don’t usually like picking, as I enjoy it when I have to read something that I would never normally choose. Despite that, I was sure that I had picked at least one of the books before, but a quick flick through the blog told me otherwise. Girl Meets Boy is part of the Canongate myths series, where a well known author puts their own spin on a familiar myth. I had previously read The Penelopiad by Margaret Atwood, and Weight by Jeanette Winterson and been really impressed, so had high hopes for this one. The full list of publications can be found on http://www.themyths.co.uk/.
Girl Meets Boy professes to be a contemporary retelling of the myth of Iphis (check your Ovid), which is a tale of gender transformation through divine intervention, allowing two women in love to marry. There was some debate about whether it actually achieved this, which I’ll return to later. I think that everyone liked the book, although Ann was probably the most sceptical about whether the author had achieved what she set out to do. Daniel was the most passionate defender of the book; I don’t think I’ve ever seen him that enthusiastic about a work of fiction!
From the first line onwards, it was clear that thematically we were on the same territory as Lee Cotton. Gender, identity and transformation were the main concerns of this tale, and as Nicky pointed out, it is not as straightforward as the title suggests!
Ann didn’t feel that it was successful as a retelling of the story of Iphis. Pete and Nicky pointed out that although the myth itself was told by one of the characters, the storyline was not at all similar. I agreed, feeling that the book played off ideas contained in the original rather than telling the myth. Nicky contrasted it with the Penelopiad, which tells the original story from a different perspective and with a contemporary voice, saying that she’d expected something similar. Ann initially felt that it didn’t work as a myth as it lacked the clear, formal structure that she thought was essential to this form of writing but Paddy disagreed, feeling that its modern structure was what made it a successful retelling. Ann thought that these changes from the traditional model i.e. stock characters, intervention by the gods, fixed structure etc. to a looser, self referential style was a post modern approach. However, she still felt that there wasn’t enough of a balance between the traditional and modern forms in this story. I wondered whether, by removing the divine element of the myth, the author was making a comment on the human rights- that people are allowed to choose their own destiny, and do not need to be transformed by the gods in order to be with the person that they love.
This was a very political book. It was definitely written from a feminist standpoint and, as Daniel mentioned, this was set out quite clearly at the beginning of the book with the grandparents’ stories about the suffragettes. Pete pointed that the male figures in the book were either portrayed as misogynists, or were very feminised, which I think we all agreed with. Midge’s boyfriend was supposed to be the most sympathetic male character in the book (with the exception maybe of the grandfather, who I’m not even sure counts as male…) and he was extremely bland. Anthea and Robin protest about issues that still affect women around the world. Daniel enjoyed what he called their ‘naive sloganeering’ feeling that this added idealism and passion to the book. Nicky felt that their protests about the killing of female children around the world cleverly linked back to the original myth, where Iphis faced death simply for being female. We found it quite shocking that this issue is still relevant today.
The author also tackles the issue of the commodification of water. The Pure water company where the sisters work allowed the author to put in some good gags. Paddy particularly enjoyed the Creative team’s Scottish branding of bottled water, with ‘Och Well’ and ‘Eau Caledonia’ raising a few giggles. Different people responded to the political element in different ways, with Ann feeling that it was included at the expense of the story.
Overall I think we found it a charming book. We were a little unclear about the role of the grandparents, and there were different reactions to the wedding scene at the end but it certainly provoked debate. It is also very short which is always good when choosing something for a book club!
The Ballad of Lee Cotton – Christopher Wilson
Pete chose this one: if I remember rightly, he’d read it before and wanted to share it with the rest of us. It’s set in 1960s America, and centres around the titular hero who, through very odd occurrences, is constantly put at odds with society. Which is ironic as fitting in should really be easy for him as he can read people’s minds (sometimes). We all agreed that it was very readable, however, I think that Ann, Pete and Nicky enjoyed it the most, whereas as Ciara and I thought it had irritating elements. Ann enjoyed the second half more but agreed that at times it could be very clumsy.
I think that my main problem with the book is that the author tried to cram far too many ideas in. Most of us had noticed that Lee’s ability to hear voices was only used in certain parts of the book, leading us to wonder if he author didn’t really know what to do with this device (or forgot it at times!).
There was some disagreement as to which was the better half of the book – male or female! Ann felt that there were better gags when Lee was a woman, and Ciara thought it was amusing that he presented himself as a very stereotypical ’sexy’ woman after his change.
Pete brought up the character of Angelina who united us all in annoyance. I picked up that her name was a reference to Lee’s discovery of his own heavenly nature, but only Ciara had worked out that he was her guardian angel! That got me thinking about Lee’s changes of colour and gender etc, and I realised that these all occurred in response to her situation at the time. Presumably in order to enable him to fulfil his role in her life. I wasn’t particularly impressed by the other characters in the book but Ann was a big fan of Doc in particular, the drugged up, suspended sex-change happy medic.
I found it very surprising that the author was English – something that I wouldn’t have picked up just from reading the book itself. Ann felt that this was a question of setting, and the treatment of racial identity would have had to be treated very differently if it was set in Britain. She thought that the author was able to use cliches and turn them into a likeable and funny stories.
There was a strange element of medical science fiction running through the stories with the effect of Lee’s brain operation and his enrolment in the psy-corps during the war. This took us away from the book for quite a chunk of the evening discussing weird science. Chimeras loomed large if I remember correctly.
The Ballad of Lee Cotton does take on lots of really weighty themes: American identity politics such as civil rights and radical feminism, poverty, the Vietnam war. However, it does bounce quite merrily through them so pick it up if you’re hoping for a light, comic read otherwise you might be quite disappointed!
The Mezzanine – Nicholson Baker
Unsurprisingly, Dan chose this very unusual book. I had to miss the meeting (for the first time – eek), so will hand over to Dan to describe the meeting (my comments will follow later).
