summaries 1999-2001

I am a little late with my notes on "Ben in the World" which we discussed in the middle of December at my house. It was too close to Christmas for me to find the time to write something about the evening immediately afterwards.........but here I am at last, not really too sure,though, if I can remember very much of what was being said during the course of the discussion.

I myself found "The Fifth Child" much more disturbing and compelling than its sequel "Ben in the World" and I would also think that "The Fifth Child" should be read first, for "Ben in the World" to make any real impact. In the first book Ben is referred to as a goblin, a troll, a dwarf, a freak, an alien, a savage and a monster and his birth destroys the happy family that he is born into. Even before his birth, Harriet, the mother knows instinctively that her fifth child is turning out to be different. Seen through the eyes of the mother and the immediate family, we are somehow made to dislike Ben and also to be a little frightened of him.

"Ben in the World", however, is written in such a way that we want to feel sorry for this strange youngster who is at the mercy of unsympathetic people in a mostly selfish and cruel world.

Most of us were convinced that our emotions were changed through the author switching around the role of the "victim" and the "perpetrator". In "The Fifth Child" we perceive Ben through the eyes of the parents and relatives, whereas in "Ben in the World" we look at the outside world through Ben's eyes. In the first book, Ben incorporates something alien and evil which manifests itself in what he "does" to his family, but in the second book he is the victim of a mostly evil world.

Both books show us by "looking through different windows" how difficult it is to be accepted and loved when one is the odd one out, and also what a powerful impact "being strange or different" can have: within families emotional ties can be torn apart, and within a wider social structure selfishness and human disregard become painfully obvious. In my own experience I know of many couples, for instance, who got divorced because of the birth of a handicapped child.

Doris Lessing is always prepared to put her finger into the burning social wounds of humanity, and reading the above books can make one feel very uncomfortable: those that appear to be the best prepared and equipped to care for the weak show the least empathy! Whereas the needy and downtrodden members of society have the heart to embrace those that are even more in need of help than themselves.

We had a good discussion and a very nice evening with almost everyone present. Unfortunately Eva and Froukje had to miss our last get-together in 2001 because of flu. It was also Jill's last book meeting with us because her job etc. has made it very difficult for her to attend our discussion evenings on a regular basis, and so her decision to leave the bookclub became inevitable. However, when she was able to join us her contributions to our discussions were always very much appreciated! She doesn't live far from the Castelli members of the group and we hope to stay in touch with her, irrespective of her decision.

Have a wonderful 2002 with lots of exciting new books. RM

Just a very quick comment...more on the event than on the book. Our first book club meeting in Tuscany where a lovely time was had by all and we all appreciated Helle's hospitality. Some of us were even able to spend the night and have a real (I suspect) pajama party! Waiting for some other more intellectual comments (M)

Comments are up to me, ladies, and I am simply pleased to be doing an update so you must forgive me. We had a lovely evening and all things considered a pretty good discussion. The short story format isn't a favorite but the fact that all the stories ( or most anyway) were connected made it more acceptable. A lot of us didn't finish and so the short story format was convenient for that (and in fact one of the reasons for my choice). Everyone agreed about Grace Paley's style and use of language... ot I should say everyone but Gillian who thought there must have been a million better choices....oh well, Gillian that's the luck of the draw. Anyway the traditional strawberrshortcake was a success and we are all looking forward to trip to Tuscany for our next book.(M)

Although I got pretty fed up with the endless "might've"(s) and "must've"(s) and "could've"(s) and "maybe"(s) and "probably"(s)and "conceivably this" and "unlikely that" and "could-be"(s) and "should-be"(s) when I was reading "M", I will concede that Peter Robb's book on Caravaggio provided us with lots to talk about and discuss. I would have preferred him to have written a historical novel with "M" as his principal figure, in which he could have given free rein to his obviously very vivid imagination fuelled by the prevailing historical and social background of the latter part of the sixteenth century. The 567 pages might then not have been quite so repetative and laborious! However, they did make us more curious about Caravaggio's paintings than a very short and dry resume by an art historian might have done. And thanks to Margie's information about a webpage on Caravaggio's works of art, we were able to really study the respective paintings that were described in the book whilst we were reading it. For our out-of-town members this site might be of interest, too,
http://www.kfki.hu/~arthp/html/c/caravagg/index.html as well as a further site with extracts of an interview with the author :
http://www.duffyandsnellgrove.com.au/extracts/m_interview.htm !!!

We were only a small group for our bookevening at Eva's house, with Margie, Gillian and Helle unable to attend, but our discussion was therefore not less lively. We all agreed that Peter Robb likes to be sensational and is often exaggerating especially with his interpretations regarding Caravaggio's sexual tendencies and alleged involvements with his male and
female models. But we also agreed that after having read his book, we look at Caravaggio's pictures in quite a different light! Which is neither good nor bad, main thing is we look more carefully than before! ( See, what a few juicy innuendoes can do to some eager book-worms !!!!) RM

"White Oleander" by Janet Fitch provided us with ample topics for an interesting discussion, the major one being the mother-daughter relationship; a theme that has never failed to unleash deep emotions in all of us as daughters of
mothers and (some of us) mothers of daughters!

Astrid Magnussen lives alone with her poet mother who teaches her daughter that they are proud Vikings and superior to almost everybody else. Her world is full of art and beauty until Ingrid Magnussen murders her unfaithful lover and is subsequently put into prison, leaving her almost 13-year-old daughter to fend for herself in a row of fairly disastrous foster homes.

Her growth into a vulnerable but very self-aware young woman runs parallel to her growth as a painter and sculptor. The author's language is beautiful and the unfolding story becomes very gripping, especially since the beginning of the book feels quite episodal at first and hesitant: just like Astrid who is initially at a total loss without her beautiful and overpowering mother but who gradually finds her own personality in spite of extremely adverse circumstances.

We were commenting on just how powerful an influence a mother can have over her children, especially a daughter! Some of us felt that Ingrid was totally evil in crushing Astrid's own personality. Astrid was for ever comparing and measuring herself against her mother's standards and, of course, found herself lacking. At the same time she began to learn to become critical of
her mother's ability to charm and manipulate once she was physically distant from her through Ingrid's imprisonment. Other members of the group thought that Ingrid wasn't such a bad mother at all inspite of her many faults, because she introduced her daughter to a life full of art, exciting journeys and a strong idea of freedom. She treated her like an equal from a very
early age with an astonishing frankness and honesty. The Bohemian and somewhat eccentric lifestyle of Ingrid Magnussen is far from what most of us have experienced in our childhood. Yet we all recognize Astrid's need to free herself from her mother's ghost, her need for independence and her need to find herself.

I was amazed at the various foster homes Astrid was sent to, thinking that all of them needed "social care" themselves rather than fostering a young girl who had just gone through some pretty traumatic experiences. It seemed almost like a miracle that Astrid managed to emerge from all these homes as mature as she did, each time a little bit closer to discovering her own
inner strength.

Some thought that the least damaging home Astrid went into was that of Rena Grushenka who teaches her wards to recycle everything they find and possess and value all their belongings only in the light of how much money they can get for them. Although I can't deny that with this attitude Rena teaches the girls some kind of survival technique in a very hard world, I still find her fosterhome equally unsuitable for the job as all the others before or after.

In discovering her sexuality, many of us felt, that Astrid was quite lucky to have come across Ray who was kind and loving to her. In the extreme circumstances she found herself in, she could very easily have become a victim of violent abuse and rape. But Ray was not only the person to satisfy her sexuality, he was also the father figure she longed for. We were not
convinced that in the end Astrid had emotionally matured as far as her relationships with men were concerned, in the same way as she had worked through the relationship with her mother! Everybody thought she would ultimately leave her artist friend Paul Trout who she lived with in Berlin when her mother was set free again in California.

We were sad that Eva, Jill and Gillian could not ( for various reasons!!!) be with us on the book-evening and are hoping to see them at our next get-together at Francoise's house in the middle of this month. RM

I'm really sorry that I can't manage tonight, but any way I really enjoyed the book., as yet unfinished!
A few impressions:
Skill of writer to ensure intricate plot leading to tragedy, but with absolutely no 'baddies'. Each character is handled so sympathetically that our humanity forgives even conventional 'bad' actions such as Behrani's violence, Les' lying and bullying.
Fascinating interplay between old and new Americans. Seemed to encompass the whole of American society in microcosm - its strengths and its weaknesses.
Author researched incredibly well Asian speech patterns, Asian values etc Is he half Asian?
Plot: one really has no idea how it is going to end. Writer maintains mystery of plot development.

HAPPY DISCUSSIONS!!!! ( J)

Frankly J. did such a good job of commenting that I feel like I could just leave it at that, but that would be too easy! And besides, since she unfortunately wasn’t able to be with us , I will have to fill everyone in on the evening. First of all I thought we did a very good job of rearranging ourselves at the last minute and only lost one of us (as Froujke wasn’t able to come anyway) …too bad certainly but a good record any way. We also, because of the change, missed a comment from Diane which arrived in time for the original date but didn’t make the meeting. You can all read it on the comments page.

Well, I seem to have redeemed myself by choosing a book that appealed to everyone and I must say I was pleased. Our discussion in the mild Castelli evening air was pretty good and we especially all admired the author’s ability to keep us in suspense about the outcome until the very last page. We felt that he did a very good job on all the character’s as well and did make it very difficult to choose who was right and who was wrong. In fact I don’t think anyone was willing to take sides. The only real loser we all obviously agreed upon was the son and he was perhaps the only one who wasn’t at all at fault. We all agreed that this was very sad and Eva in particular wondered why there always has to be such sad things in a book (in life?) We all felt that the writer’s sensitivity to the Persian way of life and values was true to life and Helle having lived in Iran confirmed this.

It was interesting to see the contrast of how the various things were interpreted from two different points of view and how communication was really quite impossible between the major players. Though there were glimpses of understanding they could never quite grasp each other’s ways of thinking or being. And this is kind of what happened perhaps to the reader as well and what was what kept you from being able to side with one or the other. Froukje, too, seemed to like the book though she found it "very American" (but apparently not too!) Certainly it was an interesting portrait of the immigrant’s life even if he was a rather special immigrant this made it more interesting and brought home what we are often reminded of…that your windshield washer might be a PhD. The life of an immigrant is perhaps not so different from country to country.

I think we all enjoyed the fact that the book was a thriller and a "page turner". Though we have had other books that have a had an element of this it is a long time since we have read a book of this kind.

And I must say just one word for having been able (after trying for years) to get the book club back in the strawberry season. Why was half of my strawberry short cake un-eaten???!!!! (M)

The book club met at Dominique's place on the 11 May 2000.

The overall group agreed that not only the surrounding of the family described was poor but worse was poverty and alcoholism in a context of a poor economy. Young Frank watched three of his brothers/sisters die in infancy. The four surviving brothers grew up hungry( tea and bread) and ragged in the city of Limerick. In spite of a very distress situation, the reader is kept interested as the story is interpreted through the mind of a young boy with intensive imagination. The useless father still provided a lot of affection and stories helping Frank 's imagination and fantasy. Hunger was ever present for Frank who one day felt so starved that he licked grease from a piece of newspaper someone used to wrap fish and chips. In spite of the strong Catholic environment it seems the priests did very little to assist the family

.
The same applies to the close relatives who intervene only in case of necessity i.e. The ticket paid by the mother to allow the family to move from N.Y. to Ireland, the care of the children when the mother is sent to the Hospital...It was felt that everybody was so poor that it became very difficult to feed extra children. The first time in his chilhood that Frank experienced daily baths, clean sheets amd three meals a day, was when he was hospitalised with typhoid fever.It was also during that time that Frank discover Shakespeare and friendly love.

At school one teacher saw his potential and praised him for his writings, however he had to quit at 14 to help support his family as by that time his father abandoned the family. He read whatever books he could borrow under street lamp at night as no electricity was available. It is also a period where Frank could not bear his mother's new life and revolted against mendacity and stepfather or sort of.

It seems that in overall the book was appreciated in spite of sadness surrounding this sordid chilhood with all the miseries and betrayals. It is very well written and for sure Frank is a born storyteller.

Questions were raised concerning the title. Different interpretations were proposed such as the ashes as remembrance of his Mother but also the cigarettes she was used to smoke in front of the fire.(D)

We all enjoyed this little book which tells how the friendship between Clive and Vernon deteriorates into a tragic ending.

Domenique pointed out the question of the rights of journalists to intrude into politician's private lives and if it was the correct thing to publish the photos.

Naturally we spoke on the way it had been done - a particularly disgusting way -and George's personality emerged as the one almost all of us considered as the devil. But was there a need for Vernon to enter into George's game and create a real mess? At this point we asked ourselves is aggressiveness unavoidable for professional journalists who are pushed to sacrifice other people for their own achievements?

However, did Clive react in a better way when, during his mountain walk, emerged in his own thoughts, his "creation", he refused to hear the cry for help of the lady being assalted? Both Vernon and Clive were selfish and put their own careers first.

Clive is disappointing, and the only person who has the sympathy of almost all of us is Molly, even though she can be seen as responsible for what happened, as she had tried to keep all her lovers around her and on good terms. But, after all, are we sure that Vernon and Clive were real friends, or where they fundamentally jealous of each other and mutually hated George and Garmony even more. Their only link was Molly and after her death they started to quarrel.

We also wondered how a nice person like Molly, full of fantasy and generosity could take Garmony as a lover! These things happen!

We had a few words to say about the Clinton - Lewinsky affair and how politicians deal with journalism and vice-versa. How cleverly Garmony managed to reverse the situation using his wife, Rose, and the way she accepted to play the role (e.g. Hilary Clinton).

We then had a long discussion about the end. Some of us wondered if it is really possible in Holland to kill people like this. What the law really says ? We agreed that, even if these type of "doctors" do exist, the conclusion is a little bit unplausable. Even if the previous exchange of letter solved the legal aspect,we wondered how the"doctors" could put an end to the lives of two healthy young men ? But were they so young and healthy ? Clive was perhaps already declining. After all, it was getting difficult for him to concentrate and create music. A creative young man maybe would not be so fussy about his environment while composing ?

At the end we have no respect and no warmth left for either of them. Their meanness culminates when they both chose to get rid of their "friend" offering him a glass of champagne and a smile, and with the law on their side!

We also, away from the discussion on the book, spoke about euthanasia, medicine and doctors, bringing in our own various experiences. (Fran)

Super book. I really couldn't put it down.
Plot: very cleverly manipulated and skillfully designed to gather all thethreads together toward the climax of Amsterdam. I found the actual denoument of the interactive euthanasia less plausible than the predicaments which each man found himself in - the idea was clever but to my mind slightly recherche. i wonder what everyone else thought. Actually, having just been a party (remote) this month to a case of self inflicted euthanasia it was particularly relevant for me.

Characters: All the males, without exception, I think, were gradually revealed as exceptionally egoistical, hypocritical and
unpleasant, even though at the beginning one was drawn to them as high flying power figures with a certain attraction.
The only character who displayed warmth, tenderness and even a certain integrity was of course Molly - as a result, genuinely loved by all four. She presumably shares the reader's initial attraction for these powerful high flyers and is equally deluded until she realises their egoism and leaves. her relationship with George could have been further explored, I felt.

Looking forward very much to discussing a fascinating book! Thanks Francoise. I haven't forgotten that I owe lots of people money, either!! (J) (new one)

her end of the world. Dominique got operated on in France and we had a lot to ask and to know.

But eventually we started with the book discussion, which was very lively, I would say, or maybe only I had the impression ?? because I liked the book very much ???

I chose this book because my daughter gave me an inspiration having seen the film "Eyes Wide Shut", made by Kubrick from this book. I try as often as possible to present a German-speaking writer and I liked the social and erotic aspect as well.

Only one of us saw the film. She said, that, although Kubrick transferred the scene into nowadays New York, the attitude of men towards women was still very similar to the one in the society almost a 100 years ago - either angel or whore - and men allow themselves more freedom in mind and deed than women - Schnitzler is talking about it in his book.

We spoke - about the possibility that men, behaving like that, might feel somehow deep inside inferior towards women, and asked why, but did not find a solution

- about our Society very much influenced by our Christian Church , which condemns desire and rejected ( and still does ?) women as being sinful

- the importance of women as mothers raising children. This subject arose after we read Diane's comment : "The idea of separating fantasy from reality is much in the news in the USA...at least in the good old Freud days people seemed to be hooked on love and sex rather than guns and blood".

- about dreams and that people sometimes make you feel responsible for them

I can't remember everything now and hope that other comments will contribute more and different aspects.

For me this book is very revolutionary, still today.

I, personally, am convinced that the sexual desire in human beings is very similar to the one of animals. The problem with us is only that we learned to feel ashame of it - who knows why. And I am always pleased when there are publications freely writing about it - to ease the pressure of society and church.

Schnitzler, being very sensitive, managed in his time to empathise with a married woman and although, being a man, was able to draw a refined picture of her soul and desires.

Although he always is on Fridolin's side, describing his wrath and hatred towards his wife after she admitted her dreams and with them her unfulfilled desires, Schnitzler - at least for me - is able to encourage women to admit their desires to themselves and to their partners.

Fridolin is a victim of his time and his education - he considers his wife as his property, never considering her being an independent person. His, maybe even unconcious, male claim of power gets threatened by her unexpected desires, because the " problem" with desire is, that you can neither judge nor control it. He obviously never thought of a "married woman" having any other desires than being well cared for. He behaves rather immaturely, chased by his own shock and surprise.

Albertine is more quiet and secure in herself and lies, with arms folded under her head, telling him quietly her revolutionary dreams, giving him a tender hint about her inner self and her desires. She is very courageous, because in her time it must have been much more difficult than nowadays, to first accept your desires for yourself and then to express them in words to your husband.

I read a German copy of the book which had other comments than the English version. I want to translate one part, the end of an attached essay 'The Bride', because I think, it reflects very much what I think, Schnitzler wanted to say (please have patience with my translation):

"....and when a woman slowly wakes up from her highest ecstasy, don't we see, how she looks at us incredibly astonished, no!, how she realizes us again, as if to remember us, because in the moment of her taking off into most marvellous raptures, we, who conquered her with all our own special qualities, with our wit and our beauty, with all our virtues and all our vices, in that moment we were indescribable unnecessary, fulfilling only an eternal task, which has to appear in the mask of an individual to be able to act : the short and unconscious moment , in which Nature knows how to fulfill its purpose, this moment only needs a man and a woman, and even if we have the whole performance sparkled with a thousand lights of our personality - they all get blown out when we are gently wrapped into the dark night of fulfilment."

In my opinion courting and flirting and choosing one's partner is part of an eternal cycle which we follow instintively and desire is a beautiful trick from Nature to make sure that mankind continues reproducing.

And I don't see why men and women should feel guilty to follow this instinct. (E)

Dream Story chosen by Eva gave us a good discussion which we hadn't had for ages - well done Eva for chosing such an interesting book. (G)

Like Diana (see "Read Everyones' Comments"), I hadn't read a book by Toni Morrison until Jill had chosen "Paradise" for our last book discussion evening. Unlike Diana, though, I didn't like the book that much, simply because it didn't get hold of me in any significant way. I felt the setting and the story within totally contrived. Some of the characters were interesting but the author did not manage to let them be really convincing (at least not for me)! The problems were such obvious ones with no new dimensions that could have made the book more gripping: the story is all about conformity and rebellion within a quite isolated and insular community, and the resulting problems of such a set-up were in the relationships of men versus women, old against young, racial conflicts between black and white as well as past against present. To let the story develop the author created another isolated "place", the converted Convent, 17 kilometres away from Ruby, where social "mis-fits" found a refuge: four women each with her own sad story happened to pass by this lonely house ( not very convincing!) and decided to stay there. Intolerance and social prejudice are put on top of the already existing conflicts and the story ends with disaster.