Gumble's Yard - Golden Reviewer > Books: 2020-women-longlist (16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
my rating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3.93
| 100,935
| Jun 25, 2019
| Jun 25, 2019
|
liked it
| If this family had taught him anything it was that people could get mad at each other and then make up again. I read this book due to its longlisti If this family had taught him anything it was that people could get mad at each other and then make up again. I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize. The book is a debut novel, a 500+ page story of an American family, one I have seen described by the Guardian (not inaccurately I think) as the love-child of Jonathan Franzen and Anne Tyler. As an aside I find it impressive that a debut author of only 30 can write such a lengthy and detailed family saga (one she started when she was mid-20s) but contrastingly also perhaps surprised a debut author of 30 was not subject to a stricter editing process – its hard not to think this book might work better as a 300 page book and with less circling/repetition of the same phrases/ideas/character quirks. I found this essay by the author very helpful as background to her and to the book ( https://www.readitforward.com/authors...). In it she says “It has become somewhat of a joke, among those who know me and my fiction well, that I am a particular kind of writer. “Claire’s stories are all very long,” it would be fair to say. “And they don’t have plots. And everyone in them loves each other a lot?” My debut novel, The Most Fun We Ever Had, is no exception: It’s over 500 pages long, and the heart of the book, for me, has always been married couple David and Marilyn Sorenson, who have been happily together for nearly 50 years, and whose happiness is the source of much of the tension and forward motion in the narrative. I once described the novel as being about “good love”—that is, the Sorensons are a family who endure a fair amount of emotional hardship, but the ties that bind them are woven from real, deep affection” And this serves as a great introduction to the book. It is perhaps not quite right to say that this novel does not have a plot – more that what it effectively does is to set up a family situation with its various complexities and then add an additional dynamic (something that to be honest could have been lifted from a TV drama mini-series - the book is I understand already being adapted for an HBO series) and explore this situation in two ways: looking back at how it arose and developed over many past years, and looking at how it plays out over around a future year. The family set up, revolving around the four Sorenson sisters, is helpfully summarised late in the book by one of the few complete outsiders to the family (a boy interested in dating the youngest daughter Grace (like the author herself much younger than her siblings). Grace has moved away from Chicago, completely failed in her applications to law school and then doubled down on her failure by telling her family she is actually at law school and enjoying a life of study and holidays with her myriad but unfortunately non-existent friends. Of the others: “Liza; she’s the one who—” And the additional dynamic (occuring in 2016) is Wendy locating the “illiegitimate lovechild” – Jonah who Violet had in secret some 15 years earlier (actually conceived on the evening before Wendy’s ill-fated wedding) and gave up for immediate adoption. During her pregnancy (in a piece of deception unwittingly copied years later by Grace) Violet pretended to be travelling in Paris while actually living (completely unbeknownst to them) close to her parents with Wendy and her rich husband. In probably the worst plot element of the novel (which takes us firmly into soap territory) not only did Jonah’s adopted parents both die in a car crash but now (just as Wendy locates him, without asking Violet) his long term foster parents (the first with which he has had a stable relationship) have decided to find themselves in South America, needing Jonah to find a home or go back to care. Wendy and Violet are only one year apart and the complexity of their relationship over the years forms much of the more obvious tension of the novel – particularly as they explore their different views on what happened both 15 years earlier, what motivated Wendy’s actions and how Jonah should now fit back into their famlies (Wendy living a singleton lifestyle and living of her now dead’s husband’s inherited wealth; Violet living a rather smug – but also prosperous - married with two children existence). Wendy is perhaps the most memorable character in the novel: more than happy to play the “tragic” card, with an at times viscous and scathing sense of humour, accompanied by outrageous language, and which serves on one level to keep pain at a distance and to resist intimacy, but also on another level to make people laugh, and to expose the pretense of others lives. If this very difficult relationship between the older sisters provides the tension in the book, the incredibly close, still very physical, relationship of their parents – David and Marilyn – adds a more subtle tension to the novel. We explore the relationship, in chapters that start in 1975 and carry on through to 2014: how it began, the birth of their children, the difficulties of the marriage and then as each grows up the difficulties of their children. As the author says in her interview, their “Ironclad marriage … is a benevolent shadow under which all the four daughters attempt to make sense of the world”, but actually the situation is more complex than that. But what becomes clear, particularly in the interwoven 2016 chapters, is that the strength of the marriage sets out an unobtainable level which intimidates the daughters (and some others with whom they come into contact – notably Gillian, a colleague of David’s, who effectively saves Marilyn’s life during the birth of Grace, before adding a complexity to his marriage and then resurfacing at Liza’s request) She regarded the crests of her knees beneath her belly. “I really am sorry,” she said. “I don’t—I feel terrible for acting how I did. But it’s been a—particularly awful time for me. I’m facing down being a single parent and that would be hard enough on its own, but when you grow up with parents like mine—parents who are in love like mine … God, these stable, perfect, desperately infatuated—It just …” She shook her head. “I’m falling so short of the mark.” “Yes,” Gillian said mildly. “It was hard for me too, when I was your age. Trying to figure out my own life while bearing witness, every day, to such an idyllic marriage.” Liza looked up to find Gillian staring at her squarely. It occurred to her that this woman may have been one of the few outside of their family who understood the magnificent albatross that was her parents’ love, who had suffered her own pains in its wake. A truth delivered to her Mum in typical Wendy style: “We’re all emotionally stunted because you and Dad love each other more than you love us,” Wendy added conversationally. Marilyn hadn’t noticed her standing in the doorway, and now she came to sit beside her sister at the table, twisting her limbs yogically, her gorgeous and radically unpredictable eldest, the button pusher. “Lord, what a thing to say. Is this some kind of intervention? Merry Christmas, Mom.” “Do you disagree?” Liza asked, the two of them tag-teaming her now, apparently, her two sharp-eyed, honey-haired daughters. “Of course I—” “It’s not necessarily a bad thing,” Wendy said. “I’d rather be ****ed up because my parents are hot for each other than because they’re, like, keeping me chained to a bike rack overnight and feeding me raw oats. But you have to admit that there’s a gradient of preference.” Overall I found this an enjoyable book. The strength I think lies in the dialogue (the author is good at how people interrupt each other), in the characters (there is little doubt that the author has conceived and lived with each character for years – and all four daughters and their parents are revealed as believable and complex characters), and the structure of the book (as set out above). It is a book which perhaps lacks a sense of time and place. On one level its actually enjoyable to have a book set in chapters over 40 years, which does not resort to cheap devices (clunkily inserted references to contemporary events, heavily signalled use of period-expressions, changes in technology) to signal the passing of years: however reflecting on the book after completing it I wonder I fit went too far the other way – do the chapters in the 1970-1980s really read sufficiently differently from those in 2016). And it feels like the book could have been set anywhere – although on one level that is good; as someone who does not know the city at all - I did not feel any sense of barrier. It is also a book that sets out rather a privileged lifestyle – although Jonah, having spent years in care adds a clear perspective on that, informed I am sure by the author’s 6 years working for the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless. Not my favourite on the Women’s Prize longlist by any means, and not my choice for shortlist, but a good addition to the longlist and ultimately one which combines black humour and sometimes provocative language with a positive message celebrating forgiveness, acceptance and love in a familial context. It wasn’t that she hadn’t grown up around love. Rather, love was constant, a nearly assaulting presence that confronted her each morning when she came downstairs and her parents were huddled together in front of the coffeepot; in the evenings when her dad was in his office and her mom would yell out, “Darling, the gas bill!” and her dad would reply, “Paid it on Monday, kid.” This wasn’t the norm, she knew. But her sisters were pretty normal, relatively speaking, and they had each had at least a couple of quasi-healthy longish-term relationships in their history. Grace was growing more and more anomalous by the day, a twenty-three-year-old non-Amish virgin who had never had a real boyfriend. Wendy had Oak Park’s high school elite and then Miles, and she was still sexually active, Grace thought, judging by the amount she drank and how often she critiqued the construction of the butts of various strangers she saw on the street. Violet had Matt, and the guy who had come before him, the scientist guy who’d fathered her newfound nephew. Liza had been with Ryan at least since she was Grace’s age. And her parents: her father had loved her mother for decades, and vice versa, but it wasn’t like all of those years had been sheer perfection. Her mother was beautiful—she knew this even objectively—but she’d had four children and smoked for the better part of her adulthood and spent much of her twenties and thirties (and forties, thanks to Grace herself) in a state of frenetic exhaustion, things that cumulatively amounted to a sort of protruding belly and veins on her hands and lines around her eyes. None of these things had ever seemed to bother her father, whose own decades of sleeplessness rendered him perpetually heavy-eyed and occasionally bedheaded. And still her mother would rub his shoulder at the kitchen sink or kiss his ear on the front porch and say things like You missed a spot, handsome, or Gosh, do I like you, mister. All of her memories of her parents’ affection consisted of a particular look that her dad often gave her mom, one that said, baldly and inarticulately, You’re the best person ever. They were both equally, aggressively sanguine about the imperfections of their union, which meant that someone, somewhere, someday probably had to accept Grace....more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 11, 2020
|
Apr 13, 2020
|
Apr 10, 2020
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||||
3.53
| 7,606
| Sep 12, 2019
| Sep 03, 2019
|
really liked it
|
I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize. The book itself is relatively easy to summarise – Edna O’Brien tells the story of t I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize. The book itself is relatively easy to summarise – Edna O’Brien tells the story of the schoolgirls infamously abducted by Boko Haram, that abduction leading to the “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign whose social media “likes” and retweet success was tragically much more successful than its success rate in returning the girls. O’Brien only obliquely examines the reason for that failure. Her aim is to tell the stories of the girls themselves, stories she gathered by extensive on the ground research and interviews before taking the literary decision to combine what she had heard and “give the imaginative voicings of the many through one particular girl”. So we read the account of Maryam from her abduction, through her captivity and repeated rapes, through her forced marriage, the birth of her daughter, her escape (in a bombing raid), her return first of all to acclaim and then to the difficulty of settling back to a family. The book is told in a fragmentary fashion – sometimes explicit, at others more oblique. Reality is mixed both with dreams and nightmares; at times Maryam deliberately tries to distance her mind from what is being done to her body, at others sheer physical immediacy dominates; at one stage (ironically well after her escape) Maryam almost breaks down (when her daughter is taken from her) and the text undergoes a similar breakdown. I found the technique very powerful. I have heard two criticisms levelled at the book. The first is cultural appropriation, a charge of course more famously levelled at “American Dirt”. I have some sympathy with this concept in that case, particularly with the points made around the way Latino authors are overlooked, but the the cause (as I point out in my review of that book) is not helped by the two most widely quoted critiques of the book’s errors containing accusations which are somewhere between misunderstandings and being genuinely misleading. Here the concept seems even less valid – as surely O’Brien is showing English language audiences of what the girls really underwent, giving a voice to them, and reminding us of the lack of a resolution, even for those girls returned. The one criticism I might raise would be at the Women’s Prize judges – after a 2019 longlist with two Nigerian born authors writing about their country-of-birth, the lack of any African authors (alongside the inclusion of this book) is not a great look for the 2020 longlist. But this is a book which gives a voice to the voiceless, which empowers the powerless. In the book after the Nigerian President uses the return of the narrator as a cause for a political speech, she thinks: When he stopped talking there was a hushed silence. The fact that they had been within reach of him had given them something, a sprig of hope. But I wanted to speak, to say, Sir, you are only a few feet away from me, but you are aeons from them in their cruel captivity. You have not been there. You cannot know what was done to us. You live by power and we by powerlessness. The second criticism is that the book would be better told as a non-fiction book – I cannot agree at all: I am the first to criticise novels that would be better as lengthy magazine articles: this I think is the opposite: using her literary skills (and though this is the first book of hers I have read) O’Brien conveys the voice of the girls and what they endured brilliantly – some of the scenes are unforgettable in the way they convey horror in such an economical fashion: for example a two page description of a stoning. If there is a criticism which I think is valid it is around the language. In her LA Review of Books review of “Little Red Chairs”, Claire Wills said the language seemed very dated and that “O’Brien appears to believe that interiority is timeless, that the emotional inner world, the sensations of consciousness, remain the same even while the world changes around them. But the difficulty is that even if we accept that such desires may be primordial (which is debatable), the language in which desire is expressed, and arguably in which it is felt, is surely not.” Here we have the issue of place as well as time, and an early paragraph finishing like the one below (my emphasis) does not really serve to place the reader in 21st Century Nigeria: Other drivers have arrived and there is wild talk and conferring as to which girls to put in the different trucks. Terror had paralysed us. The moon that we lost for a time reappeared high up in the sky, its cold rays shining on dark trees that stretched on and on, bearing us to the pith of our destination. The book has I feel much in common with another of the longlist “How We Disappeared” which, among other themes, tells the story of a Singapore girl forced into being a Japanese soldiers’ prostitute. First of all and most strikingly and shamefully, both the “Comfort Women” and “Bush Wives” are labelled in a way which simultaneously de-emphasies the horrors of what is inflicted on them (which is simply repeated mass rape), and somehow implies a complicity or consent that is completely lacking. Secondly both find that their ordeal does not stop when they return to their families but if anything gets worse – both are largely shunned both by family and friends, both (at least for a period) lose their child. Finally returning to the theme of cultural appropriation. At one stage the narrator is given a book to read which does not connect with her culturally In the city an American woman, who ran a charity organisation, took her in and helped her to rebuild. She encouraged her to read and to write out the words she did not understand. She was given a series of English stories that concerned the dippy adventures of a dog, and though it was a nice story it was not for her, it did not touch her heart. Well this book is a not a nice story by any means (in fact quite the opposite) but it did touch my heart. Recommended. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 10, 2020
|
Apr 11, 2020
|
Apr 10, 2020
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||||
1474616461
| B07XBQP7XT
| 3.97
| 79,906
| Sep 17, 2019
| Sep 17, 2019
|
really liked it
|
I read this short, powerfully themed (if not always to my taste perfectly executed) novel due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize; a prize f
I read this short, powerfully themed (if not always to my taste perfectly executed) novel due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize; a prize for which I think it has a strong chance of being shortlisted. The book opens, in New York in the Spring of 2001, at the lavish sixteenth birthday coming-of-age party in the family home of the maternal grandparents Melody – born to her mother Iris and father Aubrey (son of a single drifting poor mother) when both were around the same age. From there the book moves in time (mainly backwards but also forwards) in a series of first and third party chapters told from the viewpoints of Melody, Iris, Aubrey and Iris’s parents and including Iris’s time at college a few years after Melody’s birth. The core setting in time and place leads to a rather inevitable outcome although the author does her best to avoid cliché in a number of ways: Firstly in showing that the events did not just hit the families of white businessmen but also people like black office mailmen. Secondly (and more impressively) by linking the events to those 80 years earlier in the (largely forgotten) Tulsa Massacre, of which Iris’s maternal grandmother was a near victim, particularly in the role that (astonishingly to me) planes carried out in that attack. Listen. Those Tulsa white folks burned my grandmama’s beauty shop to the ground! They burned up the school my mama would have gone to and her daddy’s restaurant. They nearly burned my own mama, who carried a heart-shaped scar on the side of her face till the day they laid her in the ground. Imagine them trying to set a two-year-old child on fire. That’s all my mama was—just two years old and barely running when the fire rained down on her. Her own daddy snatching her up, but not before that piece of wood from her mama’s beauty parlor landed on her cheek and left its memory there all her life. Two years old. Those white folks tried to kill every living brown body in all of Greenwood, my own mama included. Every last one. That was 1921. History tries to call it a riot, but it was a massacre. Those white men brought in their warplanes and dropped bombs on my mama’s neighborhood. God rest her soul, but if she was alive, she’d tell anyone listening the story. And thirdly, and relatedly, by one of the key themes of the novel – that too often in US history black wealth, carefully built up, has been destroyed – something which causes Iris’s parents to invest in something more defensive and permanent, Those white folks came with their torches and their rages. … . Turned my people’s lives and dreams to ash. So my mama taught me all I know about holding on to what’s yours. I know you hold on to your dreams and you hold on to your money. And I know that paper money burns, so you put it into rolls of quarters and nickels and dimes. And when those grow to be too many, you find the men who sell you the blocks of gold. And you take those blocks of gold and stack them beneath your floorboards and way up high in your cabinets. A theme which reemerges at the simultaneously tragic but uplifting end of the novel when Iris and Melody are the last standing after a series of family losses. The book tries hard (perhaps too hard?) to overcome stereotypes. Rather than the common themes of either absent low-income black fathers or absent fathers busy pursuing their careers – we have in Aubrey a father who is diligent, ever present and close to his daughter, and who happily sacrifices any college or professional aspirations to a mailroom job which allows him to see much of his daughter. And instead we have in Iris someone for whom unplanned motherhood does not cause them to drop out of school and derail their ambitions, but instead ignite their desire to escape and to concentrate fully on their studies to the extent that Melody, even before her mother goes away to college, simply calls her Iris. And earlier we find it’s the middle class, respectable, stable Iris who has been sexually promiscuous from a very young age. Overall there is plenty to like in the novel’s conception. My reservations about the book are about my reading experience – this was a book where writing a review was I found considerably more enjoyable than reading it. Some books have an opening sentence which immediately draws you in – makes it clear to you that you are in the hands of an author that you will identify with, that you are at the start of a journey you will enjoy. This was the opposite for me: an opening page (or two) with references to sorority/pledges/Greeks (which immediately reminded me – not in a good way - of “The Red Word”) and the rather gratutious inclusion of explicit Prince lyrics (which seemed to me at the time a children/YA author proving she could write more adult books, as well as that she had the money to be able to pay the royalties). My immediate reaction was to turn to another book and only revisit this later. I am glad I realised that both areas did fit the themes of the book. The sorority part is a class notifier – Melody’s maternal family (really the only side left to her other than her father) are middle-class blacks, and this is very important to one of the key areas that the book explores (as discussed above). The explicit Prince song generates an examination of the complexity of generational differences and tensions: Melody upsetting Iris with her sexual song, but then too embarrassed to even refer to her parents sleeping together – and this in turn leads to a sudden moment of revelation as she realises that her beloved maternal Grandparents would have forced her mother to abort her had they realised Iris was pregnant earlier. And song lyrics do play a part in the novel – perhaps most importantly when Iris and Aubrey in the flush of their early relationship dance at an open air party in the park to the hedonistic lyrics of “The Roof is on Fire” – lyrics which of course take on a very different context when viewed in the light of 1921 and 2001. One of the issues I struggled with throughout the book was the writing style. I am all in favor of sparse writing edited down ruthlessly to really bring out the novel’s ideas – but I felt in this case the wrong parts survived the editing process. In an interview discussing the book, and when asked what she had learnt from her children/young adult writing that she bought to her adult writing, the author said “I think I've learned the importance of an economy of language. You know, kids don't want a whole lot of adjectives until - I mean, some kids - I guess they do. But I know I don't, and I know my readers don't.”. I think on the whole I do appreciate an adjective, especially if the alternative is brand name clothes and food types (as well as the aforementioned pop lyrics). For example I would have edited out (especially as I had to Google four aspects of the second sentence) They ate bologna-and-cheese sandwiches, barbecue potato chips, and Oreo cookies sitting on the library steps. Washing it down with Coca-Cola. But overall a worthwhile addition to the longlist. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 04, 2020
|
Apr 06, 2020
|
Mar 29, 2020
|
Kindle Edition
| ||||||||||||||||
1472223799
| 9781472223791
| 1472223799
| 4.20
| 273,581
| Mar 31, 2020
| Mar 31, 2020
|
it was amazing
|
I read this ahead of a Book Group in June 2021 having previously read it in early April 2020 (just after the start of lockdown). In the comments below
I read this ahead of a Book Group in June 2021 having previously read it in early April 2020 (just after the start of lockdown). In the comments below the review I have added my notes from the author’s brilliantly produced interview with Peter Florence at the 2020 virtual Hay Festival. This book was on my radar since the Guardian’s Alex Preston in his 2020 preview said it was the book that might beat Hilary Mantel to her third Booker. The book of course beat Hiliary Mantel won the 2020 Women's Prize, the 2020 Waterstone's Book of the Year (from the UK's best bookseller), the National Book Critics Circle Award (one of the very few US awards open to UK writers), the 2021 British Book Awards Best Fiction "Nibbie" and so on. It was also, to the considerable deteriment of the Booker not even longlisted for that prize (which was distinguished in 2021 only by its Winner). That omission I think resulted in its unusual shortlisting for the 2020 Guardian Not The Booker (unusual in that the Guardian website BTL votes which are used to pick half that shortlist are normally dominated by author and publisher lead campaigns on small books) - a prize for which the judges (of which I was one) decided it was too good to be a winner. -------------------------------------------------------- My thematic thoughts on the book - including some extensive quotes, best read after completion of the book. COMPARISONS TO MANTEL (AND GREGORY) – STYLE OF FIRST TWO THIRDS And comparisons to Mantel’s book are inevitable – a book set in the 16th Century, featuring a famous Englishmen in an unfamiliar way, and written in a third person point of view present tense. A comparison made even more inevitable when the book’s opening lines include a confused child and the words “He stumbles as he lands, falling to his knees on the flagstone floor” which to the reader immediately evokes Mantel's opening words of he trilogy “he has fallen; knocked full length on the cobbles of the yard” which follow the now-famous ”So now get up”. There however the two books depart – both in subject matter and style. Whereas Cromwell is the sole focus of Mantel’s book(s), so much so that the third party style is really as close as possible to a first party narrative; Shakespeare, while featuring as a point of view character, is very much a tertiary one (and in fact only ever referred to in indirect terms (the tutor, the husband, the father) , with the narrative initially started by his son Hamnet (twin to Judith) and largely sustained by his wife – Agnes (perhaps better know to us as Ann Hathaway). With as an aside a throwaway line later in the book which links to almost all we know of her (via the reference in her husband’s will) [She] refuses to give up her bed, saying it was the bed she was married in and she will not have another, so the new, grander bed is put in the room for guests. Agnes herself is portrayed as following her dead mother as something of a white witch/folk and natural healer/forest folk/mystical diviner. I was inevitably reminded less of Mantel and more of that other great modern day chronicler of the Tudor Court – Philippa Gregory, and in particular her Cousins War series and particularly the character of Jacquetta of Luxembourg and her relationship with Elizabeth Woodville in “White Queen” and “Lady of the Rivers”. That is not to damn the book with faint praise, both books are excellent, but it was a little unexpected in a purely literary novel. Like Gregory, O'Farrell uses this as a way for a female to gain strong agency in a fundamentally patriarchal society (at least in this section we see that Anne's pregnancy, resulting marriage and even Will's move to London are all engineered by her). And while Mantel’s tale sustains throughout a sense of immediacy, of imminent peril, of ever present danger in a court subject to the arbitrary caprices of a tyrant, for the first two thirds of the book, this is written in an indirect, very distanced style. The style of course reflects the character – not a necessarily paranoid man-of-the-world, painstakingly aware of the precariousness of his ascent and the multitude wishing his fall; but instead someone who is by their very identity other-worldly, possessed of both ancient knowledge and foresight and who therefore operates at a necessary remove from both the here and the now. This style though does make the first two thirds of the book at times a rather too languid experience. MIRRORING One interesting break is a section where we trace the course of the plague For the pestilence to reach Warwickshire, England, in the summer of 1596, two events need to occur in the lives of two separate people, and then these people need to meet. The first is a glassmaker on the island of Murano in the principality of Venice; the second is a cabin boy on a merchant ship sailing for Alexandria on an unseasonably warm morning with an easterly wind. And this account is very cleverly mirrored a little later – in an account of the convoluted passage of a letter sent to Shakespeare telling him of Judith’s seemingly imminent death with even some small details mirrored (such as some unevenly balanced baskets). Mirroring being a crucial theme of the book – with Judith and Hamnet as slightly odd twins (seemingly identical other than in their sex) It’s like a mirror, he had said. Or that they are one person split down the middle. Their two Ideas which the author expands into a plot point which of course draws on the use of mistaken identity and doubles in their father’s work: Then the idea strikes him. He doesn’t know why he hadn’t thought of it before. It occurs to Hamnet, as he crouches there, next to her, that it might be possible to hoodwink Death, to pull off the trick he and Judith have been playing on people since they were young: to exchange places and clothes, leading people to believe that each was the other. MODERN DAY RESONANCE Another fascinating aspect of this first section – which effectively leads up to the (real life) death of Hamnet – is the many accidental resonances with our present day situation, resonances which I suspect increase the already high chances of this book winning literary prize acclaim. The way the plague spreads not just in England but also in Northern Italy (and the links between the two) The fleas that leapt from the dying rats into their striped fur crawl down into these boxes and take up residence in the rags padding the hundreds of tiny, multi-coloured millefiori beads (the same rags put there by the fellow worker of the master glassmaker; the same glassmaker who is now in Murano, where the glassworks is at a standstill, because so many of the workers are falling ill with a mysterious and virulent fever). The inadequacy of Personal Protective Equipment for English medical staff: It is tall, cloaked in black, and in the place of a face is a hideous, featureless mask, pointed like the beak of a gigantic bird. ‘No,’ Hamnet cries, ‘get away.’ .. Then his grandmother is there, pushing him aside, apologising to the spectre, as if there is nothing out of the ordinary about it, inviting it to step into the house, to examine the patient. Hamnet takes a step backwards and another. He collides with his mother, ‘Don’t be afraid,’ she whispers. ‘It is only the physician.’ ‘The . . .?’ Hamnet stares at him, still there on the doorstep, talking with his grandmother. ‘But why is he . . .?’ Hamnet gestures to his face, his nose. ‘He wears that mask because he thinks it will protect him,’ she says. ‘From the pestilence?’ His mother nods. ‘And will it?’ His mother purses her lips, then shakes her head. ‘I don’t think so.’ Lockdowns The spectre is speaking without a mouth, saying he will not come in, he cannot, and they, the inhabitants, are hereby ordered not to go out, not to take to the streets, but to remain indoors until the pestilence is past. The guilty upside of the events for children of busy parents If the plague comes to London, he can be back with them for months. The playhouses are all shut, by order of the Queen, and no one is allowed to gather in public. It is wrong to wish for plague, her mother has said, but Susanna has done this a few times under her breath, at night, after she has said her prayers. She always crosses herself afterwards. But still she wishes it. Her father home, for months, with them. She sometimes wonders if her mother secretly wishes it too. Misplaced faith in unlikely treatments (hydroxychloroquin anyone?) ‘Madam,’ the physician says, and again his beak swings towards them, ‘you may trust that I know much more about these matters than you do. A dried toad, applied to the abdomen for several days, has proven to have great efficacy in cases such as these. And the realisation that whatever contingency planning healers have done is powerless in the face of what they are confronted with She thinks of her garden, of her shelves of powders, potions, leaves, liquids, with incredulity, with rage. What good has any of that been? What point was there to any of it? All those years and years of tending and weeding and pruning and gathering. She would like to go outside and rip up those plants by their roots and fling them into the fire. She is a fool, an ineffectual, prideful fool. How could she ever have thought that her plants might be a match for this? FINAL THIRD & GEORGE SAUNDERS Any frustration at the slightly slow pace of the first parts, is really overcome in the final section, which deals with the aftermath of Hamnet’s death. Following on from Agnes’s realisation both that her healing powers were inadequate in the face of plague and that her foresight has actually mislead her and forced her to concentrate on the wrong risks (Judith rather than Hamnet) she is thrust back into the real world and the removal of time and place is taken away. What we get instead is a fierce and painful examination of the grief of a mother and a more oblique examination of how that grief played out in the work of her husband. Of the way it unmoors all of our pretensions to control What is given may be taken away, at any time. Cruelty and devastation wait for you around corners, inside coffers, behind doors: they can leap out at you at any moment, like a thief or brigand. The trick is never to let down your guard. Never think you are safe. Never take for granted that your children’s hearts beat, that they sup milk, that they draw breath, that they walk and speak and smile and argue and play. Never for a moment forget they may be gone, snatched from you, in the blink of an eye, borne away from you like thistledown. That includes a moving burial scene which cannot help remind the reader of another Booker winner - “Lincoln in the Bardo” It is even more difficult, Agnes finds, to leave the graveyard, than it was to enter it. So many graves to walk past, so many sad and angry ghosts tugging at her skirts, touching her with their cold fingers, pulling at her, naggingly, piteously, saying, Don’t go, wait for us, don’t leave us here. And then moves into helplessness And Agnes finds she can bear anything except her child’s pain. She can bear separation, sickness, blows, birth, deprivation, hunger, unfairness, seclusion, but not this: her child, looking down at her dead twin. Her child, sobbing for her lost brother. Her child, racked with grief. HAMNET AND HIS FATHER’S WORK Agnes realises that rather than bringing her family together – her husband will instead move away from her and be absorbed in his work (her influence over him declining with her powers) – leaving her not so much for London but ‘the place in your head. I saw it once, a long time ago, a whole country in there, a landscape. You have gone to that place and it is now more real to you than anywhere else. Nothing can keep you from it. Not even the death of your own child. I see this,’ That (and this was one of the inspirations for the writing of this book) that he will never reference plague directly in his work (as has already been noted by his daughter even in his speech) It is also plague season again in London and the playhouses are shut. This is never said aloud. Judith notes the absence of this word during his visits. That a playwright who gave so many words to the English language is not even available to help his family find the words that they need What is the word, Judith asks her mother, for someone who was a twin but is no longer a twin? But, in a tour de force ending to this excellent book that he will examine the death in his own way and via his most famous play. Hamlet, here, on this stage, is two people, the young man, alive, and the father, dead. He is both alive and dead. Her husband has brought him back to life, in the only way he can. As the ghost talks, she sees that her husband, in writing this, in taking the role of the ghost, has changed places with his son. He has taken his son’s death and made it his own; he has put himself in death’s clutches, resurrecting the boy in his place. ‘O horrible! O horrible! Most horrible!’ murmurs her husband’s ghoulish voice, recalling the agony of his death. He has, Agnes sees, done what any father would wish to do, to exchange his child’s suffering for his own, to take his place, to offer himself up in his child’s stead so that the boy might live. Overall - magnificent ...more |
Notes are private!
|
2
|
Jun 04, 2021
Mar 30, 2020
|
Jun 05, 2021
Apr 06, 2020
|
Mar 29, 2020
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
1786075954
| 9781786075956
| 1786075954
| 4.20
| 9,896
| Apr 04, 2019
| Feb 06, 2020
|
really liked it
| This not-knowing when it came to my parents; things I’d never thought about, even if they were clear as day, clear as the fact that my parents had This not-knowing when it came to my parents; things I’d never thought about, even if they were clear as day, clear as the fact that my parents had their own parents, had their own childhoods and histories. And then one day you open a drawer and out come all the secrets that have just been sitting quietly, waiting to be found, even though you never thought about them, never suspected they existed in the first place. I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize. I timed my reading to co-incide with what should (but for the coronavirus) have been a business trip to Singapore – a country I visit around twice a year for a few days, my visits confined to the business district, luxury hotels and ex-pat haunts; far removed in time and place from the world portrayed here. The book starts with two extremely well chosen epigraphs: Margaret Atwood “The best way of keeping a secret is to pretend there isn’t one Li-Young Lee “I’ll tell my human tale, tell it against the current of that vaster, that inhuman telling” It then opens in 2000 with a character lifted (I think) largely from the pages of the author’s novella “If I Could Tell You” – a 70+ year old “carboard woman”, displaced from her state flat. Wang Di’s modern day account (told in the third person) begins with three different stories she has been told of her birth – all of which make it clear that her parents (particularly her father) would have preferred a boy – something her name (which as she grows she realises means something like “Hoping for a boy [next]” makes part of her very identity. It is the 100th day since the death of her (older) husband – who she married as a widower immediately after the war (via the assistance of a matchmaker) and still refers to as “The Old One”- and she still regrets that she and he were never able (despite 50 years of marriage) to fully share their secret hurts with each other – the traumas each suffered during the war. Just before his death, The Old One did encourage her to share some of her story with him – and the second chapter (which it seems is part of this retelling) is a first party account going back to 1941 – Wang Di is 16, living in a small village with her parents and brother, but any thoughts of marrying her off and overtaken by the start of the Japanese attacks on the Island. The third chapter switches back to 2000 – and a first party character Kevin, a 12 year old boy whose beloved paternal grandmother is dying in hospital. If Wang Di was literally lifted from another of the author’s works, Kevin seems lifted from a different genre altogether – a rather geeky, bullied boy who turns detective. The book then settles into a pattern of alternating chapters – with the first and third sets both turning into modern day mysteries and the second into a harrowing history. Wang Di determines to find out more about what befell The Old One in the war and what lead to his regular absences on a fixed day each February – something she is sure relates to the wartime fate of his first wife and wider family. Kevin’s grandmother gives what appears to be a garbled confession (mistaking Kevin for his father) – and which seems to relate to her finding of him as a baby. In 1942 Wang Di is seized by the Japanese and forced to be a “comfort woman” for the duration of the war. I found both sets of Wang Di passages sensitively written and at times moving. The author brings across the horror of Wang Di’s wartime plight without having to resort to gratuitous description and the passages are all the stronger for that. Her difficult existence in 2000, disorientated by the loss of her husband and her habitat, and shunned by her new neighbours due to her eccentricities, is also conveyed in a moving way. Particularly strong (and mixed between both sections) are some of her memories of the post war years: the birth and then loss of a son at the war’s end; her immediate repulsion on sensing the male smells of her father and brother (after three years of continuous rape); her own family’s shame at her and her sudden realisation that the only thing that made her bare her ordeal – deliberately choosing to believe it would win her family favour or even money from the Japanese – was always a mirage; her quiet marriage to the older widow, his lack of insistence on physical contact and the trauma induced hysterectomy that condemned them to childishness. By contrast I simply did not like the Kevin chapters to the same extent. They seemed too derivative of other novels and not as well written. His investigations seem to proceed via an odd combination of coincidence and ghostly intervention. Unlike the other boy-detective in the Women’s longlist (Jai) I simply could not see that it worked as a framing device to tell the other story/societal secrets that the author was looking to explore. The two story lines and mysteries do coincide in the third section; at times this is presented like it is some kind of emerging revelation. However instead it is obvious from the first time that they are both set out given the lack of branching narratives; I was reminded of a murder novel when there is only one other character other than the victim and the detective. There are some touching scenes between Kevin and Wang Di in this part but what really rescues the book is a moving closing chapter – which mirrors the book’s opening in its set of three possible origin stories, while adding the level of ambiguity which I think the book had largely missed until then. Overall the novel handles a difficult (but important) storyline very well, conveys brilliantly a sense of how shame can drive long lasting suppression and secrecy in a small society but falls short of being a great book (in my view) due to a sub-optimal framing device. I would rank this book around half-way on the longlist. It had only taken her more than fifty years, she thought, and what was fifty, when the words of the people you grew up with mattered so much they formed the breadth and depth of your life, shaped the path ahead of you. All of it had begun with her waking to the world, the name she had been given. The fact of her upbringing. And then, after the horror during what was supposed to be her best years, how her mother’s words, the shame foisted on her by herself, her family and everyone around her, had dictated the silence that shadowed her every move after the war....more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Apr 08, 2020
|
Apr 10, 2020
|
Mar 14, 2020
|
Paperback
| |||||||||||||||
0062963678
| 9780062963673
| 0062963678
| 4.10
| 471,721
| Sep 24, 2019
| Sep 24, 2019
|
really liked it
|
I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize. The book is narrated in the first person by Danny Conroy. He largely grew up in a h I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize. The book is narrated in the first person by Danny Conroy. He largely grew up in a household with his property developer Father, his 7 year older sister Maeve and two servants, his mother having left, for India, when he was young. They lived in an ostentatious house in a Pennsylvania town, something she never reconciled herself to, given her altruistic/charitable mindset. The house was originally commissioned by a Dutch family who made a fortune in cigarettes after the First World War. When their family all died out, and the house fell into disrepair looked after by Fiona (the daughter of their driver and cook) before being purchased by Danny’s father shortly after the Second World War (using money he had secretly amassed in some speculative but informed property deals). Danny’s parents took on Fiona as a nurse for Maeve and the soon-to-be-born Danny. Fiona left when Danny was young (not before an affair with their father) after striking and injuring Danny with a spoon one day. The book opens with Danny remembering the day his Father bought home another divorcee – Andrea (to whom Maeve in particular took an immediate dislike), later followed by introducing Andrea’s two children, with marriage and further alienation from Maeve then following. When their father dies of a heart attack, and Andrea is almost the last to know, Danny now 15 and Maeve (working as an accountant in a local frozen vegetable manufacturing firm, a job Danny considers beneath her) realise they have effectively lost both the house and their role in continuing their father’s business (something Danny had set his heart on) – as Andrea had persuaded their father not only to give her joint ownership but also not to write a will – their only provision an educational trust fund for Danny and Andrea’s two children. Danny ends up at boarding school and then expensive medical school, at Maeve’s insistence as a way to spend as much of the fund as possible, his own dreams of property speculation and development deferred. The book, narrated in the first person by Danny, jumps around time (although with a largely forward impetus). Danny marries and his wife Celeste (who largely builds her life around caring for him) and Maeve grow to dislike each other over time – so that he effectively meets them both separately, although there is a warmer relationship (and physical relationship) between Maeve and his daughter (an ambitious dancer turned singer turned actress). Maeve remains obsessed with her hatred and resentment of Andrea – and frequently, over many years, she and Danny wait in a car looking at the house – in fact much of their relationship is forged during those times, as Danny finally realises (many many years after Celeste and around 250 pages after the reader) “We had made a fetish out of our misfortunes, fallen in love with it”. “Like swallows, like salmon, we were the helpless captives of our migratory patterns. We pretended that what we had lost was the house, not our mother, not our father. We pretended that what we had lost had been taken from us by the person who still lived inside” Although narrated by Danny and (in its final incarnation) named after the house, the book is really about neither. The real key character at the centre of the book is Maeve (and I believe that was the author’s preferred title, “The Dutch House” being picked more for commercial reasons, that the author, as a bookshop owner, could appreciate). It makes sense that a picture of Maeve, which is important to the book, is on the front cover, rather than the house. The author has also said that this was deliberate (and the description of the house in the book is left limited) as the author really wants readers to think of a house that they have seen. Maeve herself is a complex character. A life-long sufferer from diabetes, but with a partly reckless attitude to her own health. Having to witness her mother leaving home (without perhaps ever really understanding why at the time). Her own attempts to stand on her own two feet (by forging her own career rather than taking money from her father) are simply ignored by him (he is too busy involving Danny in his business). Her father’s relationship with Andrea is just for her another rejection. She never comes to terms either with Andrea being worth to marry her father (something Andrea’s behaviour hardly disabuses her of) and then later that Celeste is worth to marry Danny – someone whose life until then she had effectively used as a petty instrument of her own revenge. She also becomes obsessed with her own loss of the house. We do see some hope in her life though – a strong series of hints that perhaps she had a hidden lover for many years. Themes include: - Fairytales – with of course a wicked stepmother, a magical but cursed house and two siblings. There are links also to “Nutcracker” and “Turn of the Screw” which both feature in the narrative. It’s like you’re Hansel and Gretel. You just keep walking through the dark woods holding hands no matter how old you get. Do you ever get tired of reminsicing? - Self-centredness – particularly of men Danny is someone who spends most of his time reflecting on the irrationality and selfishness of the women around him (his mother who he does not remember but cannot forgive for her desertion; his sister and wife who thinks are both unfair on the other leaving him to pick up the pieces) while seemingly unaware they (and others like the ex-Dutch house servants) are largely doing nothing other than supporting him. - The unreliability of memory, and particularly competing versions of family memory, some of which simply comes from different ages and experiences. Maeve still loves her mother’s memory but hates Andrea; Danny resents the first and is more indifferent to the second. Do you think it’s ever possible to see the past as it actually was …….we overlay the present on to the past. We look back through the lens of what we know now, so we’re not seeing it as the people we were, we’re seeing it as the people we are, and that means the past has been radically altered - The superficiality of an obsession with wealth, particularly property wealth. Ann Patchett has said the book was partly inspired by how this idea seemed to dominate the last presidential election – a candidate should be elected simply because he had more (property) wealth. - Sainthood/altruism – and what affect a rejection of riches and embrace of poverty relief has on your family – and why that is considered acceptable for a man but not a woman, and particularly not a mother As the book gets closer to a conclusion, relationships long buried or conducted at a distance suddenly are forced into resolution (particularly Maeve/Danny with Andrea, Andrea’s children, Fiona and their own mother) or in the case of one relationship (Maeve and her lover of many years) revealed to us (although oddly it seems not to Danny). The ending of the book I initially found difficult – some people have called it a little twee or a surprise happy resolution, for me it was a continuation of a family tragedy – and obsession with property over people. Overall an extremely competently written and thoughtful book – if not one where I really empathised with any of the characters (which is always a limitation ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 19, 2020
|
Mar 21, 2020
|
Mar 14, 2020
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
1784743089
| 9781784743086
| 1784743089
| 3.81
| 11,148
| Feb 04, 2020
| Jan 30, 2020
|
really liked it
|
I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize. The story is narrated in a simple first-person present tense (although one strewn w I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize. The story is narrated in a simple first-person present tense (although one strewn with Hindi slang terms) by a nine-year old: Jai. Jai who lives with his parents and elder sister Runu (Runu-didi) in a basti (temporary turned permanent, slum district) in India. Runu is (to the extent Jai is a fan of real-life crime reenactment shows like “Police Patrol”, his two best friends are Pari (a bright girl) and Faiz (a Muslim, and believer in djinns). Runu is (to the limited extent her parent’s permit it) a keen and proficient athlete (relay runner). The narrative starts with one of Jai/Pari/Faiz’s classmates – the stutterer (a son of an abusive drunkard, who escapes home frequently to work at a TV repair stall) Bahadur going missing. Jai sees an opportunity to impose his imaginary life to bring some order to his real one. He proposed to Pari and Faiz that the three of them form a detective trio (with he as head detective). Their first lead is to assume Bahadur (a fan of Bollywood) has escaped to Mumbai and they travel on a train for the first time (Jai having stolen his Ma’s emergency money) from the metro line that ends near their basti to the main railway station (Faiz still convinced that djinn’s were at fault) – hence the book’s title. That part of the book ends with a section told from Bahadur’s viewpoint narrating the events immediately prior to his disappearance (but with not the disappearance itself). And from there (and for the first 250 pages of the 350-page book) we have two issues with the book: - It starts to feel repetitive; the book follows a pattern: another child disappears, the basti reacts, the police are indifferent, Jai and his friends try to investigate (now staying closer to the basti but with very limited success) and we get a section from the viewpoint of the disappeared child (but with no real hints as to what happened to them). - It is very hard not to see the book as a piece of well written children’s fiction – in fact it becomes very reminiscent of books that are read at lower school book groups, like say “The London Eye Mystery” (only with added colour and Hindi). At the same time, stepping back while also acknowledging that a convincing voiced account of a poorly educated, non-school focused 9 year old is by definition going to read like a piece of children’s fiction, there is in fact much more even to this part of the novel. Where the book is strong is in its authenticity (at least as far as I can tell) and in the way that we get a child’s view of a troubled society and a difficult life. The author was an award-winning journalist in India, specialising in the impact of poverty and sectarian violence on children (and their education). Since moving to England and taking a creative writing course, she has I think found in fiction a way to both articulate themes that her journalist bosses were not so interested in her covering; and to draw on the many slum children she interviewed as part of her research to capture something of their voice and spirit, something pure word count and style restrictions prevented her ever conveying in her journalism. And through Jai’s voice, sometimes cheeky and naïve, other times confused and fearful we get a colourful picture of life in the vasti as well as non-polemical account of some of the wider forces at play around it: - The wide network of Chachi and Chacha (“Auntie’s and Uncle’s) that provide an extended family but also a gossip network and surveillance unit on the activities that children would rather keep from their parents – for example a tea-shop job Jai takes to try to pay back his Mum’s money; - The social issues of alcoholism, prostitution, gambling, domestic violence; - The ingrained sexual bias which ranges from career expectations to divisions of home labour to routine harassment - The divide between the slum dwellers and the rich (the “hi-fi”) in their luxury gated tower blocks; - The overcrowded school run more by school gangs than the teachers, but which still serves as a route to advancement via exam and escape from the basti; - The local police force, completely disinterested in solving the disappearances and who see it more as an opportunity to extract greater bribes from the basti (under the threat of forced slum clearance – which only adds to the panic in the basti); - The local basti prachan (boss man) and his network of enforcers and contacts among the authorities - Hindu-Muslim tensions and the Hindu priests and saffron clad followers that stoke it; What really makes the book though is the closing section – where the book takes a much darker twist. Firstly with the disappearances coming even closer to home for Jai and with secondly a likely (although still open ended) resolution of the terrible truth behind the disappearances. And in this section, we fully I think understand the additional themes and motifs that the author is exploring – in particular around story-telling. The book starts with a legend (told by some railway urchins) of a now-dead ragpicker boss whose secret name if invoked leads to supernatural assistance. The second section starts with a legend (told by two beggar-cripples) of the now-dead mother of a murdered child who now offers protection to women and girls. The third with a tale of the assistance of djinns. Each is called “THIS STORY WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE”. Jai we understand also really uses the idea of being a detective as a way to tell himself a story, to impose a narrative on the chaos he experiences in order to give himself agency (or as we see, the illusion of agency). Later, when the full horror of the situation can no longer be denied, he says: “I’ll never watch Police Patrol again. When they act out real stories of people getting snatched or killed, it will feel as if someone is trying to strangle me. I just know it. A murder isn’t a story for me anymore. It’s not a mystery either” Making the book a brutal coming of age story about the harsh realities of the world. “Believe me” the badshah says, “today or tomorrow, every one of us will lose someone close to us, someone we love. The lucky ones are those who can grow old pretending they have some control over their lives, but even they will realise at some point that everything is uncertain, bound to disappear forever. We are just specks of dust in this world, glimmering for a moment in the sunlight, and then disappearing into nothing. You have to learn to make your peace with that.” I also think that the “Police Patrol” quote is an acknowledgment by the author that she has made a story and mystery out of a terrible real-life issue (the frequent disappearance of poor children in India) albeit to bring it to people’s attention. And we also I think see how the author acknowledges the challenges she sometimes faced in doing the same with her journalism. Ma crumples to the ground. The camerawoman bends down so that she can catch Ma’s sadness for the news at nine. Shanti-Chachi runs to his side and puts her hand on Ma’s back before Papa can. Overall a much much stronger book that it seems for much of the time you are reading it. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 16, 2020
|
Mar 18, 2020
|
Mar 13, 2020
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
1509836195
| 9781509836192
| 1509836195
| 4.07
| 74,940
| May 02, 2019
| May 02, 2019
|
liked it
|
Now published in paperback. I’m not offering him the story of one woman during the Trojan War, I’m offering him the story of all the women in the waNow published in paperback. I’m not offering him the story of one woman during the Trojan War, I’m offering him the story of all the women in the war. Well, most of them (I haven’t decided about Helen yet. She gets on my nerves). I’m giving him the chance to see the war from both ends: how it was caused, and how its consequences played out. I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize - for which it has now been shortlisted. I had already been drawn to it by: my enjoyment of other female-viewpoint retellings of connected events (such as “Silence of the Girls” and “Circe” – both of which I enjoyed); the author’s excellent chairing of the 2019 Booker shortlist readings. The opening quote to my review sets out the basis of the book – and is spoken by Calliope (who Haynes believes must be the Muse in the opening line of Homer’s “Odyssey”) to Homer as she forces him to consider an alternative history. Homer is not actually named in Haynes’ text – just of course as the Muse is not named by Homer – and this small detail gets to the heart of Haynes’ aim here, which is to focus the story on the true (or at least equal) heroes of the Trojan War – the suffering women of Troy, the women of Greece waiting years for their husbands or sons to return. Even here, as the aside reference to Helen shows, she tries to give equal prominence to female characters mentioned only in passing in the classical sources as to those much better known. The book skips between the stories of these characters – mainly told in a third party point of view style. There are also three sets of recurring chapters: - Calliope’s comments on her interactions with the writer – which effectively serve as an opportunity for Haynes to review the previous set of chapter (since Calliope last spoke) and expand on her themes and ideas. These sections are in my view the strongest of the book And would he really have overlooked Laodamia, as so many poets have before him? A woman who lost so much so young deserves something, even if it’s just to have her story told. Doesn’t she? There are so many ways of telling a war: the entire conflict can be encapsulated in just one incident. One man’s anger at the behaviour of another, say. A whole war – all ten years of it – might be distilled into that. But this is the women’s war, just as much as it is the men’s, and the poet will look upon their pain – the pain of the women who have always been relegated to the edges of the story, victims of men, survivors of men, slaves of men – and he will tell it, or he will tell nothing at all. They have waited long enough for their turn. And for what reason? Too many men telling the stories of men to each other. Do they see themselves reflected in the glory of Achilles? Do their ageing bodies feel strong when they describe his youth? Is the fat belly of a feasted poet reminiscent of the hard muscles of Hector? The idea is absurd. And yet, there must be some reason why they tell and retell tales of men. If he complains to me again, I will ask him this: is Oenone less of a hero than Menelaus? He loses his wife so he stirs up an army to bring her back to him, costing countless lives and creating countless widows, orphans and slaves. Oenone loses her husband and she raises their son. Which of those is the more heroic act? - A progressive narrative “The Trojan Women” – Hecabe and her family (including Cassandra – who I found one of the most compelling characters) wait on the shore while Troy burns, as the Greeks divide their spoils (including the women and their children). These sections often serve to give a narrative structure to the story and to introduce/set up other chapters - An epistolary series – Penelope’s unanswered letters to Odyssey, as she wonders why he has still not returned and recounts the stories she is hearing from the bards of his adventures and escapades. These sections are played somewhat for laughs, Penelope often incredulous at what she is hearing (despite it exactly matching the Odyssey as we know it – eg Cyclops, Circe, Scylla and Charybdis). I found this a high risk strategy by Haynes: we know from her other work that she is a great believer in the Classics and in the importance of people reading them, but this approach seemed to me to run the risk of showing exactly why we should not read them, by pointing out their general preposterousness. And I think it’s a gamble which does not entirely pay off – I kept thinking that the author (a renowned comedian) would make more of these sections than she actually does. The other chapters are largely self-contained chapters, focusing on one (or a small number of) characters - these characters include Greeks, Trojans, recent Gods (the Aphrodite, Hera, Athene chapter on The Judgment of Paris is a particular strong point and a favourite of the authors) and the more ancient Gods (Haynes subscribes to the theory that Eris’s missed-wedding induced insertion of a golden apple designed to create her signature strife between the three aforementioned Godesses, was actually a plot by Themis and Zeus – of course in her telling the invention of the former). Three asides here: - This latter story matches the opening quote – tracing back the cause of the war, past Paris’s abduction of Helen, back via the Judgement of Paris, via the actions of Eris to their really originating cause. The book also goes many years past the war in the story of Andromache. - In what I think is pretty-well the only area where Haynes departs from any classical source (although even here I may be incorrect and have just not found the reference) and adds instead more of a deliberate contemporary/topical link Themis and Zeus are motivated by the need to thin out the ranks of mankind as Gaia is finding it too hard to carry the weight of mankind and their expansion - When deciding how to kill of some of mankind, and in what is clearly a completely accidental topical link, Themis and Zeus reject plague as “Too inexact. Sometimes it just picks off the old, who would be dead soon anyway” The issue with these chapters though is that due both to their sheer number and brevity, I feel that in many cases the author does not really capture the voice or character of the chapter’s subject. Too many of the chapters I felt ended up reading like expanded Wikipedia entries, running through the basic story, and often to be honest just recounting the more normal men’s story just observed by a woman. Two classic cases (and which link to other recent books) are: - The chapter on Briseis and Chryseis, which almost reads like a plot summary of “The Silence of The Girls” but without the latter’s clever deliberate anachronisms (although also without its misjudged switch to male viewpoint). - The chapter on Iphengia (which echoes the opening of Colm Toibin’s “House of Names”) in which we wait to see how the horror of her fate gradually unfolds on her, only to find its in a single paragraph And then she saw the glint of her father’s knife in the morning sun and she understood everything in a rush, as though a god had put the words into her mind. The treacherous stillness in the air was divinely sent. Artemis had been affronted by something her father had done, and now she demanded a sacrifice or the ships would not sail. So there would be no marriage, no husband for Iphigenia. Not today and not ever. Overall I think this book works very well as a female-centric survey of and intrroduction to the Greek legends – and hence I think succeeds exactly on the basis on which it was formulated and written. I was less convinced of it as a piece of literature and would rank behind both Pat Barker and Madeline Miller’s books which were longlisted for last year’s prize – it was nevertheless enjoyable. And I have sung of the women, the women in the shadows. I have sung of the forgotten, the ignored, the untold. I have picked up the old stories and I have shaken them until the hidden women appear in plain sight. I have celebrated them in song because they have waited long enough. Just as I promised him: this was never the story of one woman, or two. It was the story of all of them. My thanks to Picador for an ARC via NetGalley. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 21, 2020
|
Mar 22, 2020
|
Mar 12, 2020
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
125020593X
| 9781250205933
| 125020593X
| 4.11
| 35,499
| Sep 03, 2019
| Sep 03, 2019
|
liked it
|
I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women's Prize - a prize for which it has now been shortlisted. Other than a brief prologue, the bo I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women's Prize - a prize for which it has now been shortlisted. Other than a brief prologue, the book is set in 1965 and written in a simple first person present tense, the narrator a fifteen year old (Ana) from a family in the Dominican countryside. Her older sister already hooked up to a local without prospects, Ana accepts her mother’s instructions to accept a proposal of marriage from Juan (who with his brothers is something of a local big-shot – with connections, a nascent restaurant in the Capital and with frequent trips to New York). Ana’s mother’s has a clear strategy for Ana: move to New York where she will join Juan in his more prosperous life there; insist, using her feminine wiles and determination, on education, the opportunity to start her own business, money to send back to her family; pave the way for the rest of the family to join her and live the American dream. The reality is somewhat different – both in Juan’s circumstances (he lives in a run-down apartment, flits between various unsecure jobs and illegal moneymaking schemes) and in Ana’s ability to execute the plans (she is quickly cowed into a resentful submission by Juan’s forcefulness and by her own lack of confidence founded around her inability to speak English and lack of knowledge of American society and New York geography – an inability and lack of knowledge Juan is keen to maintain as it gives him greater power over her). When Juan’s force turns to violence, Ana who has been finding ways to save small amounts of money herself plans an escape back home, but is persuaded to stay by Juan’s darker-skinned, easy-going brother Cesar (particularly as they realise she is pregnant). Juan returns to the Dominican Republic to try to sort out his affairs leaving Ana finally free, with the encouragement of Cesar, to explore the City and learn the language and begin to form her own life as well as, more dangerously, her own attachment to Cesar. Later Ana’s mother is able to travel to America and the strongest scenes of the book I think are when she first arrives and is cowed by unfamiliarity and her sadness as she realises the realities of Ana’s life in America and the sacrifices she has made. All of this plays out against two backgrounds. The first and most immediate is personal to Ana: her pregnancy, Juan’s trials in Dominica and the prospect of his return, and the increasing pressure from Ana’s mother to facilitate the wider family’s passage to American. Ana herself always has to juggle her own wants and ambitions against her family responsibilities. The second is events in the wider world: The Assassination of Malcolm X (which rather coincidentally takes place almost on Ana’s doorstep) and the events leading up to and around the 1965 Civil Rights Act (this leads to the Dominicans discussing their own interactions with black rights activists – are they a fellow minority or in some ways interlopers on a historical struggle for freedom; as well as bringing out the racism inherent in Dominican society itself – the advancement of those like Juan with lighter skin) The First American troops in Vietnam: this takes away the husband of Juan’s love, his relationship with her and her frequent calls to their home (silent when Ana answers) cast a poison over what Juan and Ana’s already limited relationship. Further of course the American controversy over their troops presence in Asia is contrasted with indifference to their presence in Dominica that year, intervening in the Civil War which calls of all Juan’s plans into doubt and claims the life of Ana’s younger brother The Beatles first stadium concert, the Immigration bill (stopping national quotas and we know now the start of increased Hispanic migration), The New York World fair (where Ana and Cesar try and fail to make a fortune selling unofficial snacks but gain a glimpse of a future world), events in Baseball and the fall of a Dominican hero (https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/1...) This is overall a fairly simple tale and in many ways a familiar one – its difference I think largely stemming from the concentration on Dominican immigrants. For me the strongest aspect was around the importance of language teaching – a Nun giving English language to an assortment of immigrants plays a crucial role in Ana developing some confidence and freedom. It is I think interesting that its mainly right wing, immigration-sceptical politicians who emphasise the need for language learning to aid assimilation (or testing to act as a barrier to entry) and yet what the book shows (and what I have also seen recently) is that a lack of language teaching can be discriminatory to female immigrants, particularly those from (even) more patriarchal societies where the women can end up largely helpless and housebound. My thanks to John Murray Press for an ARC via NetGalley. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 13, 2020
|
Mar 15, 2020
|
Mar 09, 2020
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
0007480997
| 9780007480999
| 0007480997
| 4.39
| 40,611
| Mar 05, 2020
| Mar 05, 2020
|
it was amazing
|
Last night I had the pleasure to watch the stage version (having seen the first two plays some years back) - Mantel’s ability to adapt her work for th
Last night I had the pleasure to watch the stage version (having seen the first two plays some years back) - Mantel’s ability to adapt her work for the stage only adds to my appreciation of this brilliant final part of a triumphant trilogy. It also shows her ability to extract and condense the novel (which demands - possibly over demands - patience, knowledge and interest to extract its considerable rewards) for a different medium. ——————————————————————— Simply magnificent – in my view the strongest of a Trilogy whose first two volumes were among the most deserving winners in Booker history. A book which shines a light into history and in doing so holds up a mirror to our present day. Last Winter, a group of colleagues from around the world visited the UK for an internal conference in Windsor and in a break from the formal proceedings we took a trip to Windsor Castle. One of the many interesting parts of the Tour for me was St George’s Hall – and its ceiling studied with the coats of arms of every Knight of the Garter since its foundation in 1348. I say every Knight – but in fact some of the shields are numbered but blank – these I was told represent Knights expelled from the order (in the early days typically accompanied by execution), and I enjoyed conversing with one of the guides asking which Knight each shield represented and seeing if I could identify the reason for their expulsion. I particularly remember a conversation around the Earl of Monmouth and how his expulsion for trying to overthow a King who only a few years later was overthrown to popular acclaim, was itself a perfect example of revolution (in the true and original meaning of the word) and the wheel of fortune. One of the shields of course represents Thomas Cromwell (his election by the King into the order being one of the high points both of this book and Cromwell’s career; if in some ways designed to legitimized Cromwell’s being effectively made the King’s Uncle with the marriage of Gregory to Lady Ughtred (the Queen’s widowed Sister). And the idea of Cromwell as something of a blank canvas is one which partly lies at the heart of the conception of this fabulous trilogy – Mantel writing what must rank as one of the greatest character studies of all time, of a character who as his biographer Diarmaid MacCullough says is elusive even for a historian due to what he believes to be “deliberate destruction .. [when] Cromwell’s household heard of his arrest .. they began a systematic process of destroying the out-tray of his principle archive”. The result is that “amid the torrent of paperwork through which the conscientious biographer wades to recapture what is left of Thomas Cromwell, the man’s own voice is largely missing”. He then goes on to say “Hilary Mantel has sensitively captured this quality in Thomas Cromwell’s archive in her novels: her Cromwell is pre-eminently an observer, even of himself, not ‘I’ but ‘he’”. But in a different way Cromwell is not a blank canvas at all. Any historian writes with the background of previous biographers (as well as other historians who have included Cromwell – often far from sympathetically – in wider accounts of this pivotal period in not just English, but World history”. And any novelist writes similarly on top of previous fictional realisations of Cromwell – perhaps most notably the pro-More, anti-Cromwell account of “A Man of All Season”, an account which I can only comment seems to make as a hero a man who died in an attempt to ensure common Englishmen could not read the Gospel (and was canonised as a result). So this trilogy is not just a novel but a palimpsest – and in this last section of the trilogy Mantel brings the idea of history being re-written, re-evaluated but always in a way which can only imperfectly erase previous versions out explicitly. We have for example: - The frequent references to the devices of the fallen Queens and their intertwined initials with Henry’s, needing constant repainting; - Cromwell’s interrogation taking place in a room he decorated “for Anne Boleyn to lodge before her coronation. It was he who reglaxed them, and ordered the godesses on the walls; who had their eyes changed from brown to blue when Jane Seymour came in”; - As the book nears its end Cromwell first due to the strictures of fever and then his imminent death, revisits his life story - Mantel accompanies the reader on a revisit of the previous two volumes – in one bravura section of only 2-3 pages we have both the opening and closing sentences of “Wolf Hall” repeated; we also get the full story behind the opening and the young Cromwell’s escape abroad - And Cromwell is very conscious of it as he attempts to re-model England: “Can you make a new England? You can write a new story. You can write new texts and destroy the old ones, set the torn leaves of Duns Scotus sailing about the quadrangles, and place the gospels in every church. You can write on England, but what was written before keeps showing through…” - And finally this idea that history is written in layers, is the reason why this fabulous trilogy is so vital – and despite its historical fiction nature, of far greater relevance to today’s world than the supposedly more contemporary fiction that surrounds us. While reading the trilogy (a third re-read of the first volume, a second re-read of the second) I came across the following quote in the New Statesman taken from a letter written to Machiavelli (a contemporary of Cromwell and whose book increasingly features as the trilogy progresses) “I earnestly believe that only men's faces and the outwards aspect of things change, while the same things reoccur again and again. Thus we are witnessing events that happened earlier. But the alteration in names and outward aspects is such that only the most learned are able to recognise them. That is why history is a useful and profitable discipline, because it shows you and allows you to recognise what you've never seen and experienced" Since the trilogy started we have had the following: Brexit – and the divides both without and within Europe, Nick Timothy/Fiona Hill/Dominic Cummings, #metoo, Trump, Covid-19, Fake News, Austerity My view was that the main themes of this trilogy, are the following areas of the 16th Century: - Swings in Britain’s relationships with Europe, tension between the countries in Britain on that topic, shifting power blocs in Continental Europe itself - The North-South divide of the Pilgrimage of Grace - Advisors and councillors to leaders – their rise, fall and their emnities - Sexual harassment and belittling and subjugation of women - Braggart leaders with self esteem issues emerging in fiery denunciations of their critics - Plagues hitting London - Manipulation of news sources, propaganda and debates around what is true and what isn’t - Government spending cuts impacting on the poor and the tension with the well off as to whether they should support the less fortunate Just an example: Interesting for those of us in the UK in late May to reflect on what happens when an advisor (on whom a leader completely relies for political judgment and did his European policy) alienates large parts of the country including the people, powerful Bishops and other politicians - and then behaves in a way which both outraged them further and gives them an opening to being him down. No Rose Garden press conference here more an interrogation in the the Tower by the agents of the Tudor Rose. Interesting for those of us in the UK this weekend to reflect on what happens when an advisor (on whom a leader completely relies for political judgment and did his European policy) alienates large parts of the country including the people, powerful Bishops and other politicians - and then behaves in a way which both outraged them further and gives them an opening to being him down. No Rose Garden press conference here more an interrogation in the the Tower by the agents of the Tudor Rose. If only Cromwell had thought to explain his fondness for sourcing Lutheran texts as just to help with checking his eyesight. only Cromwell had thought to explain his fondness for sourcing Lutheran texts as just to help with checking his eyesight. ------------------------------------------ ORIGINAL NOTES I attended an event at the Royal Festival Hall tonight to launch the book. The evening started with two of the actors from the TV series reading first from Wolf Hall and then Bring Up The Bodies. Then Hilary Mantel read the opening part of The Mirror and The Light. She then had a long, detailed and very informative interview with the journalist Alex Clark and finished the evening by reading almost the end of the book (p866 if you have a written copy). A few points I found of interest and remembered (I did not take notes so I missed much more): On the length of the book: she emphasised that readers were not reviewers - they did not need to rush to finish the book in 48 hours so they could write a review. (Some on Goodreads may disagree!!). In particular the book is deliberately set out in five main parts (before the closing Mirror and Light chapters dealing respectively with Cromwell’s death and execution). Each of the parts is in three sections (mirroring the trilogy) and structured with an arc something like a novel. In other words she is encouraging people to read one section at a time. While writing the book she was in regular dialogue with Diarmaid MacCullouch and the biography he was writing. I read they biography earlier on the year and it sounds like it is an ideal companion as they used many of the same sources. Intriguingly she mentioned that all six wives feature in the book (I was unclear if book in this context meant The Mirror and The Light or the three volumes - she said elsewhere in the evening that she often talks about “the book” and even “Wolf Hall” meaning all three of the novels as separately published). In particular she said that the sixth wife (Catherine Parr) is in The Mirror and The Light and “not all readers will find her but you will be very pleased with yourself if you do”. So there is a challenge! UPDATE- a fairly easy one by most accounts. The writing of the plays had a big impact on her - in particular realising the importance of placement in a scene reflecting the power dynamics and of how and where dialogue is spoken changing its meaning. The influence of this involvement (which happened after the first two books were published) changed the way she wrote this third book. Often when starting a scene / idea she would imagine how she would write it if she had two actors on a stage and two pieces of dialogue and then expand it from there. She still regards her most impressive achievement as explaining the French East India Company scandal in “A Place of Greater Safety” and when faced with difficulties in this book with how to represent difficult ideas (which were more common here than in the first two volumes) she reminded herself that “you are the woman who ....) She regards her rewriting of the historical consensus verdict on Cromwell as a bad man, as a long overdue correction to an incorrect view perpetuated in secondary sources and which did not stand up when going back to primary sources. From writing the books she has gained a profound respect for those who fought for the reformation and the Gospel in England and has come on a journey much closer to a faith herself. The book is full of references back to images, ideas and scenes in the first two books. “Every character has its arc. Every pigeon comes home to roost”. The night before she finished the book she did not sleep as she felt all of the characters coming back to her demanding she accounted for completing their journey. The next morning went she went down her picture of Henry VIII had fallen from her wall, which have her the sense that The character of Cromwell had our survived even Henry and gave her the impetus to write the closing chapter (which was “more of an assembly job” as she had already written it in pieces). From the first conception of the book she had always imagined it bookended with the “So now get up”. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
May 10, 2020
|
May 17, 2020
|
Mar 06, 2020
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
0525510877
| 9780525510871
| 0525510877
| 3.64
| 84,239
| Jun 18, 2019
| Jun 18, 2019
|
liked it
| That was what I knew for sure, that this was the only way to get someone to listen to a woman – to tell her story through a man; Trojan horse yours That was what I knew for sure, that this was the only way to get someone to listen to a woman – to tell her story through a man; Trojan horse yourself into a man Longlisted for the 2020 Women’s Prize. It can be very hard at frequent points during this novel to understand how that was appropriate, but the above quote (and a related back cover blurb from last year’s judge Dolly Anderton) provides the answer – although one that is not entirely convincing. Toby Fleishman is a successful (by most people’s standards – albeit his $275K salary does not go far by the standards of the New York area where he lives) Hepatology (liver-specialist) Doctor at a New York City hospital. Married and with two children (Hannah and Solly – 11 and 9) he is facing the Summer break having recently split (and in the process of finalising a divorce) from his wife Rachel. Rachel is a fabulously successful (15 times Toby’s income he reflects) agent – who broke away from a famous agency founding her own niche agency, whose success was centred on a play about Edith Wilson which she persuades the one-woman actor to turn into a play which turns into a Broadway sensation. The play was about the way a woman could only really have her own story if she did it through a man – in this case, Edith Wilson’s half-dead husband, Woodrow Wilson. Edith ran the country after his stroke and only got credit for it much later. Toby is discovering the world of on-line dating apps – and the first part of the book (which I have seen described as funny but is equally somewhere between tedious and offensive) is littered with sexting and sexual encounters, alongside a backdrop of Toby’s bafflement at Rachel’s behaviour and particularly her focus on money and status to the detriment, if not close to neglect of her marriage and particularly her children. Toby’s feelings turn over this section into fury at her abandonment – as Toby realises that Rachel has dumped the children on him, initially early for a weekend, and then it seems for the whole Summer, while apparently heading for a Yoga retreat and not returning any of his texts or calls. His own increasing self-righteousness is slightly undermined by his unanswered texts to Rachel being interspersed with the receipt of nude selfies; and his frustration at her imposition of child care on him being largely about the way it causes him to have to improvise alternative arrangements to continue his sexual escapades. The book is told in the third person, but not by the traditional omniscient narrator, but by an old friend of Toby’s – Libby (Elizabeth Epstein Slater), a former features journalist for a men’s magazine now a stay-at-home Mum, married to the stable Adam and with a daughter. Toby contacted her when he split from Rachel as well as a mutual friend Seth (the three having met in Israel) – Seth is a serial womaniser and is still stuck in that mode, throwing lavish and decadent parties albeit increasingly considering settling down (just as Toby is divorcing and Libby – always the negative one of the group – is experiencing increasing existential angst at the inevitable safe and conventional trajectory of her life). The first section ends with Toby realising that not just that Rachel is back in New York but has not contacted him or the children but that Rachel went on the retreat with the husband of a school Mum: a husband who had previously tried to get Toby – who regards his career choice as worth and principled – to take a highly paid health role for his pharma company lobbying against alternative treatments (which Toby believes to have some benefits) – an incident which lead to an breach between Toby and Rachel when Toby refuses and then is furious when he realises Rachel was aware of and had encouraged the offer. The second section “What an idiot he was” examines, still from Toby’s viewpoint, more around their relationship, how it developed and broke up, and how pretty well all of it was Rachel’s fault – Toby genuinely baffled as to what Rachel must be telling people about his part in the breakup. Increasingly Libby’s own voice starts to emerge. Meanwhile, in a deliberate piece of role reversal, Toby’s career suffers from his need to prioritise day care, in contrast to his entirely work focused female boss. The third “Rachel Fleishman is in trouble” is when the trojan horse is revealed – in a manner which is partly (but only partly) reminiscent of Lauren Goff’s “Fates and Furies” – we get a different take on the relationship as Rachel’s side of the story is told, still by Libby who meets her in a park, as well as Libby’s own take on the wider lessons. The problem with using a Trojan Horse as a literary device is that the Trojans at the heart of the horse are only revealed at the end – most of the time we are dealing with a horse. And similarly, here, we simply get too much of Toby, and far too much of his self-justification and sex life, and the reversal of viewpoint simply comes too late. And the second issue is that the reversed viewpoint is itself not convincing. In Rachel’s case, neither in the writing (a rather awkward attempt I felt at conveying a nervous breakdown); or in the explanation of her behaviour (which while it does put Toby in a worse light, and does contain a devastating and cleverly different portrayal of patriarchal imposition on women’s bodies and reproductive rights - with an obstetrician carrying out an unconsented invasive action to force Rachel into a caesarean) still makes her come across as superficial and materialistic. And perhaps this gets to the heart of the book and what makes it an unsatisfactory read: all of the characters are really likeable, all of them seeming caught up less in the affluent lifestyle per se than in a sense of always wanting what they don’t have both in material and relationship terms – something which Toby realises but a long time after the reader. He’d forgotten something essential about life, which was to make sure your children understood your values. No matter how many times your values to them, the thing that spoke louder was what you chose to do with your time and resources …. You could hate [the posh area, apartment and private school] but your kids would never know because you consented to it. You opted in, You didn’t tell them about the asterisks, how you were secretly and privately better than the world you participated in, despite all the outward appearances. You though you could be part of it, just a little. In fact all the characters, in what by the end it becomes clear, is Libby’s attempt at a novel using her friends (and particularly Toby) to explore her own line, are unlikeable. I’d send two or ten or forty pages to my agent and he’d say the same thing, that none of my characters were likeable ……. I thought of Archer. His characters weren’t likeable. He wasn’t likeable. Archer in this context, is a writer who wrote a still legendary (despite its sexism) article for the men’s magazine where Libby spent much of her career Archer [Sylvan] had written .. “Decoupling” in 1979, fourteen thousand words following a man .. through his divorce …. calling out women for changing the rules on men with no warning because of their vapid women’s lib and their stupid sexual awakenings [which] were not supposed to extend beyond what was merely an upgrade in enjoyment for men. Libby realises over time that the features where she is most successful are of famous men – where she can use their lives to explore her own similar issues, something which then changed with motherhood I realized my problems were now different. They could no longer be grafted onto a man because they were so unique to the problem of being a woman. It was time for me to leave the magazine. And which caused her to come to this book I would write my book, and it would have something in it that Archer was incapable of, which is all the sides of the story, even the ones that hurt to look at directly – even the ones that made me to angry to hear them. And to a section towards the end where Libby comes completely to the fore and the novel feels like it turns into more of a magazine article by Taffy Brodesser-Akner (fitting her own main job) with her ultimate theme (although not one I think the book really delivered on) When Rachel and I were little girls, we had been promised by a liberated society that almost ratified the Equal Rights Amendments that we could do anything we wanted. We were told that we could be successful, that there was something particular and unique about us and that we could achieve anything – the last vestiges of girls being taught they were special mingled with the first ripples of second-wave feminism …………. Even back then I knew that the boys tolerated it because it was so clear it wasn’t true. It was like those t-shirts all my daughter’s friends were wearing to school now, the ones that said THE FUTURE IS FEMALE … the only reason its tolerated is that everyone knows it’s just a lie we tell to girls to make their marginalization bearable. They know that eventually the girls will be punished for their futures so they let them wear their dumb message shirts now. Overall this is a very hard book to rate. There is no doubt that the author is a skilled writer. I don’t think I ever really enjoyed it but at times I found it gripping simply because I could see how carefully the author had thought through the themes in the book and was intrigued about where she was going to take it and what I could take from the book. Only then to be disappointed in the result. But then perhaps my inability to appreciate the book for my own enjoyment and edification actually fits the theme of the book. Toby didn’t want to talk about Rachel anymore. He didn’t want to think about her. But he didn’t want to talk about me either....more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 09, 2020
|
Mar 12, 2020
|
Mar 06, 2020
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
0008314454
| 9780008314453
| 0008314454
| 3.91
| 2,898
| Jul 08, 2019
| Jul 25, 2019
|
liked it
|
I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize. It is the debut novel by a schoolteacher and previous winner of the Costa Prize sh
I read this book due to its longlisting for the 2020 Women’s Prize. It is the debut novel by a schoolteacher and previous winner of the Costa Prize short-story award. The author has a Dutch husband and the book was inspired by the Bijlmerramp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_F...), gaining extra resonance with the Grenfell Towers disaster. The story is set on the eponymous East London high rise housing estate, starting in May 1996 and is told in the present tense (and after an introductory chapter to the estate) in alternating-narrator third party point of view chapters. The alternating narrators are: Mary – a Philippine nurse, married to a itinerant (and martially unfaithful) singer, she has herself quietly started an affair. Malachi and Tristan, two orphaned brothers. Malachi is twenty one and studious, having had to grow up very young as their (now dead) mother was barely able to look after herself, let alone them and eventually committed suicide. With their Nan having returned to the Island he now is the sole adult in the household (albeit Mary keeps an eye on them both). Tristan is fifteen, dreaming of being a rap star and hanging out with the wrong kids, he despairs of Malachi’s straightness, and Malachi of his waywardness. Pamela – a white, athletic sixteen year old girl, a class mate of Tristan. Pamela and Malachi who started a brief love affair with Malachi which was broken up by her over-protective father (already sensitive to her being prayed on by older men after an incident with a coach, he is also a racist). After a confrontation where Pamela threatened to leave home and the overwhelmed Malachi was not ready to take her in, she is sent away to her mother, although unbeknownst to Malachi she has returned, wanting to speak to him. Elvis has just moved to the estate as part of the care-in-the-community initiative – he is obsessed with rules and routine, and frightened by confrontation – early on he gets bullied by Tristan after telling him off for smoking. A large part of the book is on the fatal day in May 1996 – but future sections are set in the immediate aftermath and then Ten Days Later, One Month Later, Three Months Later, Six Months Later, Five Years later as the residents come to terms with the events of the day and their repercussions. The present tense and multi-narrator structure I think capturing the characters individual pre-occupations and concerns that are suddenly overtaken by a communal catastrophe, but also contributing towards my feeling that this is a very straightforward and easy-reading book. At the same time it is competently written and full of empathy, and it explores interesting themes, in particular the aftermath of cataclysmic events and how time is not always a healer. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 04, 2020
|
Mar 06, 2020
|
Mar 03, 2020
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
1787332063
| 9781787332065
| 1787332063
| 3.43
| 6,442
| Mar 03, 2020
| Feb 06, 2020
|
really liked it
| Among the images of my mother that exist online is a black-and-white photograph of me, watching her from the wings. I am four or five years of age, Among the images of my mother that exist online is a black-and-white photograph of me, watching her from the wings. I am four or five years of age, and sitting on a stool, in a little matinee coat and a bowl haircut. Beyond me, Katherine O’Dell performs to the unseen crowd. She is dressed in a glittering dark gown, you can not see the edge so her or the shape her figure makes, just the slice of cheekbone, the line of her chin. Her hands are uplifted. Longlisted for the Women’s Prize. Anne Enright is an author I have never really clicked with – I read her Booker prize winning “The Gathering” and her Booker/Women’s Prize longlisted/Dublin Literary Prize shortlisted “The Green Road” and both were three stars for me. I read this as it appeared in a number of 2020 Previews and I wanted to try her again. The opening quote of my review, which is reproduced on the front cover of the version I read, sets the scene (pun intended) for this novel perfectly. The story is told in the first person by Norah, the daughter of a once famous, then notorious, actress Katherine O’Dell. The phone was otherwise silent in Dartmouth Square, though phones were, at a guess, ringing all over Dublin. The gang of people my mother called friends were now busy being a gang without her. The difference between inside and outside was so swift, it was almost the same thing. She was, from that moment, more spoken about than to. She was the talk of the town. Katherine was born in England to two travelling players, an English mother (family name Odell) and an Irish father. She then became an actress herself, starting by playing parts in the same company as her parents during the war in Ireland, and then in London post war where she almost overnight became a West End star, before transferring to Broadway (where she reinvented herself as the green-wearing, red-haired, Irish country-accented O’Dell) and then Hollywood and a brief flirtation with stardom, a studio-arranged marriage to a gay co-star, before the birth of Norah and a return to Ireland, and a gradual diminution of her fame, accelerated by the natural sexism/ageism of the entertainment industry. Later she ended almost as an embodiment of an Irish girl (most famously in an advert for butter) and then involved in art theatre and even her own writing, the rejection of which lead to her infamy, the shooting of a Theatre Impresario, At the time the book is written, Norah is in her late fifties, living in Bray in County Wicklow with her husband (of 30+ years) and two teenage children (a son and a daughter). Incidentally, a quick check of Wikipedia, shows all of that to be also exactly true of Enright. Like Enright, Norah too is a novelist, albeit the resemblance ends there as her: “five neat volumes about love and life” feature characters that are “nondescript. They rarely have sex and certainly do not attack each other” – which is a deliberate nod (I assume) to the exact opposite occurring in much of Enright’s work (including this). After an interview about her mother, by a young twenty something journalist, Norah realises (with her husband’s encouragement) that she needs to write the story herself, “the story of my mother and Boyd O’Neill’s wound”, her own age (the same as her mother’s death) a contributor. The book then proceeds, biographically through Katherine’s life, career and relationships; while also covering Norah’s relationship with her mother and her mother’s friends. In a way which since the book was originally conceived is now mainstream, we are exposed not just to the sexism/ageism in the entertainment industry but to the unacceptable sexual conduct endemic to it (something to which both Katherine and Norah fall victim). We see Katherine’s flirtation (even possible involvement) with the IRA , for example leading a protest march “She had a kind of housewife scarf knotted under her chin, although it was in fact Hermes.”, and her complex relationship with a priest turned psychologist turned possibly something much more. I understand that Enright has not previously addressed either the Troubles/IRA or had a misbehaving Irish Catholic priest in her book, and alongside the central #metoo theme, this felt like at least one resonance too many. Where, however I felt the book really faltered was due to its fidelity to form. I cannot imagine wanting to read a biography of a real life theatre and film star, and in fact I would not even want to read a Sunday newspaper magazine article. So a novelisation of such a concept, and one which contains lengthy convincing sections of detail on plays, films, co-stars, parties attended etc. simply was not interesting to me. I would be happy with the level of detail in a brief paragraph (perhaps like my own attempt starting at "Katherine ..." above). Where, it seemed to me, the book succeeded was in the structure surrounding the surplus staged detail. The novel is effectively written for Norah’s husband and, from time to time, she addresses her husband directly, reflecting on their relationship in a way which, particularly when set alongside the superficiality of the world in which her mother lives, quietly celebrates a long marriage, with all its tribulations and changes. And further as Norah explores her mother’s life, she also understands more of how her own relationship with her mother (and with the father she never knew) have affected her own life choices and relationships. It was gone. Up in our bedroom, I sat on the edge of the bed and put my head in my hands. If I could just stop looking, I knew, I might remember where it was. You must let the thing go, in order to find it. Overall my favourite Enright and I think one that would add gravitas to the Women’s Prize shortlist if included, but not one that would make me revisit her past canon. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Mar 06, 2020
|
Mar 07, 2020
|
Feb 27, 2020
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
0385351100
| 9780385351102
| 0385351100
| 3.55
| 37,102
| Feb 11, 2020
| Feb 11, 2020
|
really liked it
|
Now shortlisted for the 2020 Women's Prize. I joined a Radio 4 Book Club virtual discussion of Jenny Offill’s 2014 second novel “Dept of Speculation” ( Now shortlisted for the 2020 Women's Prize. I joined a Radio 4 Book Club virtual discussion of Jenny Offill’s 2014 second novel “Dept of Speculation” (shortlisted for the Folio Prize); and, this, her third novel “Weather” appeared on a number of 2020-preview lists. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m00... This book is very much in the style of Dept. of Speculation – which I described in my review of that book as an elliptical and aphoristic style. Offil said in many interviews around Dept. of Speculation that she enjoys wandering the non-fiction aisles of university libraries, pulling books and random, and noting any facts which catch her interest and she can use in her books. Here she embraces that idea by making her main character a University librarian. Lizzie gets a side job supporting her ex research supervisor - a climate change podcaster Sylvia. She accompanies her to summits and meetings, meeting the super-rich and their response to the climate emergency, a world of rewilding, technological singularity, transhumanism, floating cities, geo-engineering. She also answers her emails and post, which in turn introduces her to a different approach to the same topic – the world of survival hacks, doomsteads, doomsday preppers. Lizzie’s marriage falters a little – due to her excessive involvement (at one stage she takes an “enmeshment” test) with the life of her addict brother, which takes a more dramatic turn as he struggles with being a new-father. Her insistence on taking on the burden of her brother, is I think reflected in her views on climate change – taking on the burdens of the human race. “I let my brother choose the movie for once, but then it’s so stupid I can barely watch it. In the movies he likes there is always some great disaster about to happen and only one unlikely person who can stop it.” And climate change, in keeping with the book’s style is addressed elliptically and aphoristically, some examples: First they came for the coral, but I did not say anything because I was not coral Of the anthropological driver of climate change: Sometimes I bring her books to read. She likes mysteries, she told me. Regular-type mysteries. But this last one I gave her was no good, she says. It was all jumbled up. In it, the detective investigated the crime, tracked down every clue, interviewed every possible suspect, only to discover that he himself was the murderer. You don’t say. Of her own attempts to process the emergency: The disaster psychologist explains that in times of emergency the brain can get stuck on a loop, trying to find a similar situation for comparison. Of the difficulty of understanding the time frame over which climate change is emerging: A turtle was mugged by a gang of snails. The police came to take a report, but (the turtle) couldn’t help them. ‘It all happened so fast,’ he said.” It seems almost impossible to review this book – without comparing and contrasting it to Lucy Ellmans’s Goldsmith Prize winning, Booker shortlisted “Ducks, Newburyport”. Both feature an American female wife and mother as a narrator, both focus almost obsessively on environmental issues, on the election of Trump and what the two together say about modern America, both obsessed that this is the worst-of-times (in direct contradiction to almost every possible statistical measure that can be used), both mix the profound with the mundane, both interleave trivia with domesticity and with world events. However whereas Ellmann has a comprehensive, all-inclusive, stream-of-consciousness style, representing the narrator’s though process, with nothing edited or filtered; by contrast Offill’s style is all about the filter and edit – it is a book which has been edited down to almost nothing, where much of the action takes place in the spaces between paragraphs. I am not clear which book I enjoyed the most. This is a much easier and more intellectually stimulating read, but also a more ephemeral and insubstantial one. Why only four stars. My disconnect with this book, as with Ducks, Newburyport ultimately I think comes down to the narrator’s (and I assume author’s) worldview, which in its despair lacks a faith in the future that I feel. In “Weather” in particular this is captured in a dismissal of a profound challenge (which in the appendix is correctly assigned to John Piper) with a curt “Yup”. And that unfortunately is a “Nope” to a fifth star. My thanks to Granta Publications for an ARC via NetGalley. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Feb 09, 2020
|
Feb 14, 2020
|
Jan 08, 2020
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||
1409180050
| 3.86
| 148,010
| Mar 19, 2019
| Apr 11, 2019
|
liked it
|
Now (not surprisingly) longlisted for the Women's Prize. A book which makes no pretence of its attempt to be Bridget Jones meets Black Lives Matter (wi Now (not surprisingly) longlisted for the Women's Prize. A book which makes no pretence of its attempt to be Bridget Jones meets Black Lives Matter (with a touch of workplace #MeToo). And that is not in any way an insult. I acknowledge few people as being more authentic Bridget Jones fans than me. Unless you read the very first Independent column, bought the paper every Thursday and then switched to The Telegraph after 2 years: then you simply jumped on a bandwagon. The similarities include: the heroine “working” in media albeit without any work actually occurring, a frustrated boss, work place harassment, disastrous dates and abusive relationships fuelled by low self-esteem, a group of close confidants albeit with a WhatsApp group (Queenie’s three closest non-family confidants who she names The Corgis) effectively and cleverly substituted for hasty phone calls and ansaphone messages. More explicitly one of the close confidants and workmates is called Darcy. It also has a lack of diversity in the friendship group and even in its wider milieu. Bridget Jones suffered from being too white and up per middle class, this book (surprisingly for a book which explicitly name checks intersectionality and an author who in a pre-publication interview in the Guardian said “I’ve yet to read a book by a white woman where she’s written a diverse set of friends”) appeared to me very hetro-normative - Girl, Woman, Other without the Other. This is, however, a darker and deeper book than Bridget Jones, and an attempt to use (even embrace) a familiar genre/theme (chick-lit/twenty-something dating) to explore wider issues both of family trauma/mental illness and of race relations (particularly the way in which black women are subjugated in sexual, particularly inter-racial, relationships). One element I did like is that Darcy ends up being referred to Urban Dictionary by another Corgi (the sassy Kyazige) so as to understand her slang: exactly what I sometimes do to follow books e.g. last year’s multi-garlanded Tale of London youth “In a Mad and Furious City”. Overall there is a lot to like here and a book which I think will resonate with many who see themselves under-represented in literature; while simultaneously entertaining (if never I have to say laugh out loud funny) and intriguing those of us all too over-represented. 3.5 stars, but rounded down. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
1
|
Nov 29, 2019
|
Dec 2019
|
Nov 27, 2019
|
Hardcover
| |||||||||||||||||
0241364906
| 9780241364901
| 0241364906
| 4.28
| 240,100
| May 02, 2019
| May 02, 2019
|
it was amazing
|
Now shortlisted for the prestigious international 2021 Dublin Literary Award Winner (jointly) of the 2019 Booker Prize - perhaps appropriately given it Now shortlisted for the prestigious international 2021 Dublin Literary Award Winner (jointly) of the 2019 Booker Prize - perhaps appropriately given its closing words this is about being A book I have read and loved three times so I was delighted to be present for its win and to get these photos [image] [image] When hearing the winner announcement I immediately thought of a passage very early in the book when it says Amma then spent decades on the fringe, a renegade lobbing hand grenades at the establishment that excluded her At the Foyles/New Statesman Booker Winner reading on the Thursday of the award I asked the author if she had also reflected on that passage when the announcement was made and how it applied to her own situation. Her answer was: that she had in fact been reflecting on it for some time (including when she was completing the book), but crucially that when she first started writing the book she did not think it was true for her at all - she did not expect any positive reception from the mainstream as she did not think it had moved far enough or the book would be seen as topical enough. However the #metoo and #blacklivesmatter movements shifted the ground significantly in her view and meant that the mainstream was ready for a black woman writing about black women. MAIN REVIEW The book is written as a series of twelve chapters, each featuring a named character. These characters are Black (although in one case not aware), British (although in one case no longer thinking of themselves as such) and Female (although in one case no longer identifying as such) They are however of different age, sexuality and sexual identity, formative experience, family unit structure (both parental unit and their own family unit), ethnic make-up, ancestral origin, shade, region, occupation, cultural background, class, and degree of activism (as well as journey along the activist/conventional spectrum over time). This is a novel of polyphony, polygenetics, polygenderism. But crucially it was not one that at any time I felt was a forced attempt to represent diversity but more of a natural attempt to examine the core shared identity of the characters alongside their differences and their journey; and more crucially an attempt to give visibility to black British women in literature. The author has described the style she chose to adopt here as “fusion fiction” – a fluid form of prose poetry, with a dearth of conventional sentences with capital letter openings and full stop endings I found this style very effective – form matching content, style matching theme. Evaristo has always been someone who challenges convention in art (as captured in Amma – the most autobiographical of the characters). The fluidity of the prose enables her to range within the characters thoughts and across time, and between stories and characters. The characters are grouped in four sets of three – with clear and immediate links between the characters in each set, but less obvious and emerging links between the characters in different sets. The first set has Amma (a provocative theatre director), her daughter Yazz (studying literature at the UEA) and Dominique (now based in the US but at Amma’s original partner in disrupting theatrical culture). The second Carole (who pulled herself from difficult origins, via a Maths degree at Oxford to a banking job in the City), Bummi (her mother) and La Tisha (her one time schoolfriend now working in a supermarket as a young Mum of three children by three absent fathers). The third has Shirley (a friend of Amma’s since school, now veteran teacher whose greatest project as a teacher was Carole), Shirley’s mother Winsome (now retired in Barbados) and Penelope (a now retired colleague of Shirley’s who resented the increasing multi-culturalism of their school for many years, while secretly struggling with finding out on her 16th birthday she was a foundling). The last has non-binary Megan/Morgan (they are a social media influencer and activist), Hattie (their great-grandmother, a 90-something Northumberland farmer) and Grace (Hattie’s mother). Thee are only the main characters though and Evaristo also brings in the backstories of their parents, their closest friends and even the parents of their closest friends. She has said in an interview ”At one point I thought maybe I could have one hundred protagonists. Toni Morrison has a quote: ‘Try to think the unthinkable’. That’s unthinkable. One hundred black women characters? How can I do that? I need a more poetic form. Now there are only twelve main characters.” and while adopting the poetic form the novel still retains strong elements of her centurion ambitions. And the backstories are important I believe in what the author is trying to achieve. From the same interview: ”Even though I don’t have a protagonist who’s a young teenager, a lot of the characters went through that stage. So you have a sense of who they were as children, how they became adults, and then how they are as mothers. I’m deeply interested in how we become the people we are. Coming from a radical feminist alternative community in my 20s, and then seeing these people in their 40s and 50s, I’ve seen people become extremely, almost, conservative, establishment, having lost all the free-spiritedness, oppositionality and rebelliousness of their younger years. To me that’s fascinating. When I meet young people today and they are a certain way, I think: ‘You don’t know who you’re going to be.’ That feeds into the fiction. How do we parent our children? What are our ambitions for our children? How does that link to how we were raised? How does gender play out?” Amma is perhaps also the most central character - and it is in the after-party on the opening night of her first play at the National Theatre “The Last Amazon of Dahomey”, that the various characters and their stories converge and interact (Carole as her partner is a sponsor of the National, Morgan invited to review the play by tweet for example). A final epilogue reveals a final link via an examination of hybridity of origins and finishes with the quote with which I open my review. I found this a strong novel – there is polemic and challenge, but also warmth, humour and self-awareness. Carol’s idea of bed-time reading includes “also monitoring the international news that affects market conditions, the weather conditions that affect crops, the terrorism that destabilizes countries, the elections that effect trading agreements, the natural disasters that can wipe out whole industries” which could simply not be closer to my own work-related reading, but she also comments “and if it isn’t related to work, it’s not worth reading” which could simply not be further from my own view of literature – and a book like this is why wider reading is worthwhile. At the after-party we are told: a five-star review has already been uploaded online from one usually savage pit-bull of a critic who’s been uncharacteristically gushing: astonishing, moving, controversial, original Well as my profile picture shows I am more Golden Retriever (incidentally one such Humperdinck features as Penelope’s loyal companion – “always there for her, always eagle for a cuddle, who’ll listen to her for hours without interruption .. greets her as soon as she steps in the door”) than savage pit-bull of a critic (although I have my moments) but five stars from me. ...more |
Notes are private!
|
3
|
Sep 27, 2019
Aug 2019
Jun 21, 2019
|
Sep 30, 2019
Aug 02, 2019
Jun 22, 2019
|
May 31, 2019
|
Kindle Edition
|
Loading...
16 of 16 loaded