View Full Version : Book Club: Notes on an Exhibition
Are we already to begin discussing our first book? :)
I think we originally said Friday 14th to begin discussing it and have just realised it is past that already, time has flown by this month! Sorry for not picking up on that sooner.
I'm not sure how people would like to progress with this. At Uni, in English Lit. tutorials, we'd move from issue to issue and theme to theme. I suggest we all list the 'issues' we particularly would like to discuss then we could discuss them one at a time to save confussion and make sure everything is covered. Does that seem too methodical? I'm sure the conversation will flow naturally and we'll work out on our method in discussing it!
---------------------------------------------------
My overall feeling toward the book was one of frustration and boredom. I hate to be negative in the first book we discuss, and don't want to affect other people's opinion too much; but there were several reasons it was an unsatisfying read.
The book was written from several different characters point of view, and was a story of the characters. It relied very heavily on the characters in the novel to give it substance, feeling and plot. But for me, the characters were all one-dimensional, not developed fully, stereotypes of themselves, and I didn't connect, sympathise or empathise with any of them. Or 'miss' any of them after I'd finished reading; a sign that I've enjoyed a book when I've finished is I miss one or two of the characters. For a novel and plot focussing almost solely on the characters and their interactions (in this instance, a family and their relations), it feel very flat at the first hurdle.
Developing from this, the characterisation of women really irritated me. I don't want to seem defensive of women and therefore appear an outright feminist in defending any characterisation of women, but for it seemed to me, there was no one woman in the book who was sane, nice, attractive, sympathetic etc. Each woman was a stereotype of her personality and not very appealing:
1. Rachel. A manic-depressive, sexually deviant, artist. She was the biggest stereotype in the book. I felt we never saw more than this portrayal of her. There were one or two scenes with her children as young kids where we may have begun to see a maternal feeling, but it was lacking. She was portrayed as 100% one way, one-dimensional. No maternal feeling (apart for Petroc perhaps), uncontrollable moodswings, tortured artist, tortures her family. The lack of maternal feeling particularly stood out for me. She seemed an 'unwoman'. And this was only who she was. We never saw another side to her.
2. Morwenna. A younger version of her mother. See above. Again, a stereotype of herself. Sexually questionable behaviour, abondons her family (who are full of men apart from her crazy mother). Has a lesbian relationship but acts as a stereotypical 'man' would by leaving her with no answer, just disappearing. Also mentally unstable, attempts suicide. A stereotypical 'mad woman' heralding back to Victorian values: any woman that showed pleasure during sex was considered insane, such as the mad wife in the attic in Jane Eyre
3. The black female artist (I forget her name and don't have the book with me, apologies!) She's unattratively portrayed through (Lord! again I forget his name, the gay son)'s eyes, she steals his lover, whenever we hear her talking again through the gay son's ears she is rude, ill-spoken, a monster almost. A lustful woman only out for herself.
4. The woman who seduces Garfield. She explicitly tells him what she wants, no-strings sex. My feelings about her are mixed. She's not unattractive per se but again has only one dimension to her and appeared to be a straw dog, there to serve one purpose.
5. Garfield's wife. She's prim, proper, and embarasses Garfield by announcing their attempts to have a baby at Friend's meeting. When she does get pregnant, perhaps the only sane mother in the book, she disappears from the narration and doesn't reappear.
6. Dame xyz (I forget her name again) is another crazy female artist, unappealing to the young girl Morwenna. She seems barren, childless. Interestingly, her art is of the female genitals and sex. Morewenna admires her sculptures without realising what they are. I haven't given enough thought to this, but I'm sure there could be interesting discussion around it.
7. Rachel's sister. A pretty 'doll', never stands up for herself, marries a 'safe' man. She seems the stereotype of a perfect 1950s woman. good to look at and not much else there!
The men have much more attention given to their characters, and whilst they're still flat are slightly more intriguing.
The only time I felt compelled to keep reading and felt interested in a character was Morwenna as a young girl. She seemed to have real feelings, musings, thoughts, emotions. Mature for her age. Loving. The Morwenna we see as an adult is, as I said above, a bland stereotype.
----------------------------------------------------
I hope that wasn't too long! I dont mean to dominate the conversation before it's begun! I just felt so strongly about this book whilst reading it. I was bored by it, the plot was flimsy, the characters were stale and one-dimensional. I didn't feel any sense of homecoming or satisfaction, or even a clever frustration at a twist or open ending when I finsihed it; just a 'meh' feeling. There have been books I've read that I didn't enjoy (for many reasons) but still appreciated the quality of writing or craft involved, but I'm afraid I didn't even feel that for this book.
Anyway, I'll stop now and see what everyone else thinks :) If anyone feels otherwise, do say!
ETA: Rachel's sister to the list above. Forgot to include her!
angieh
18-11-2008, 05:02 PM
That was brave of you meep, to start us off. Not having had the benefit of having done an Eng Lit degree, although I did do it for A level, I am afraid that my initial crit is not nearly as encompassing. I took it from a different perspective too.
I was disappointed generally with the book and thought it finished very abruptly.
Generally, I liked the "arty" bits - the descriptions of Rachel's paintings and especially near the beginning the description of hanging the exhibition in the small gallery. Having hung 2 of my own (student) exhibitions and helping out hanging one for a professional artist friend, the feelings and anxieties were, I felt, spot on. Uncomfortably so, when describing the people who may attend the private view. I felt Gale's descriptions here were perceptive.
I didn't really feel any affection for any of the characters, except perhaps for Petroc (is that a Cornish name?) I really liked the episode in the story of his birthday on the beach and him struggling home with the stones.
I have problems with the part of the story that involved Dame Barbara Hepworth. I always feel uncomfortable when fictional characters come up against real life ones - although this is of course a commonly used ruse (?) in fiction. I remember feeling the same in The French Lieutenant's Woman when the main female character became a model of Rossetti's. I have actually visited Hepworth's studio at St Ives though and the bit where Rachel and Jack went back to the studio was quite vivid for me.
The issue of bi-polar disorder is not one that I know enough about to comment on, although I do have a friend with a daughter who is bi-polar and the symptoms she exhibits from time to time seem much more extreme than Rachel's - but that could be a deficit on the part of Gale's description that didn't nail it well enough.
I liked the part about the Quakers - that did IMO produce a counter-balance of serenity and calm to the rest of the story. Holding someone's image in light in your mind sounds like a lovely type of blessing.
I found from a story-thread view, there were also things that were not explained sufficiently to my liking - may just be me being dense. For example, I gathered that Rachel had disowned Morwenna for her part in Petroc's death but there was something about a parting on a station that was glossed over and never really came out. Don't like those sort of loose ends.
Didn't much care for Garfield (kept seeing a large ginger cat in my mind's eye!); Hedley was OK. Most of the subsidiary figures were very roughly sketched and nothing seemed to have the perception of the early chapters for me.
Angie, those are all really good points. I had forgotten briefly about Petroc's stone collecting passage, and thought it very lovely and touching. It actually seems to be the pivitol moment in the book, as the final paintings Rachel is painting in her final, manic moments before her death is of these 6 stones. Also, am I reading into it too much to say Petroc = Roc = Rock. And Petroc was the rock that held the family together, but once he died it fell apart? After he died Morwenna left, and Rachel could no longer paint in the way she used to.
If that is feasible, it's an interesting device to use, but again I felt it didn't work as I felt no connection to Petroc and he wasn't built up enough for me to feel his absence was important.
The description of Quaker life was interesting, I agree Angie. And I never thought about how it was a balance to Rache's turbulant life, although it is so obviously portrayed in her husband's quiet demeanour. Although, again, he for me was one of the most frustrating characters as his calm submisiveness meant I almost didn't realise he was there or forgot about him. He was almost invisible. But this could have been intentional on Gale's part.
Angie, it's interesting that the sections on art, and hanging the art, were so evocative for you. Maybe this is one of the major strengths of the novel but sadly I can't relate to it. Maybe Gale could have made these sections more vivid for the unexperienced reader?
What did everyone think of the sequence the events are unravelled? It jumps about through time. Good or bad?
dinahsmum
18-11-2008, 05:21 PM
Oh I'm so glad it isn't just me!
Thank you both for those very well thought out and expressed viewpoints.
Overall, I was very very disappointed by this book. The picture (no pun intended) painted in the thumbnail we read when we made our choice (and I will own up to being one of the three who voted for it) made it seem quite mystical and full of intertwined family-type memories. Instead I thought it was like the short stories they used to print in magazines like Womens Own thirty years ago.
I did like the device of starting chapters with the description card from the exhibition and, although it irked me at first, I grew to like the way the family were introduced to the book, one by one, and some very late. Were you, like me, impatient to meet the elusive Morwhenna? (but disappointed when you found her?)
I like the way meep has started her review by discussing the female characters. I agree wholeheartedly with her disappointment with Ruth. This was indeed 'a character' and a very shallow one. A bipolar character, so that's alright - explains everything and excuses everything. And if Ruth is a shadowy non-character, then the other females are even less.
I won't say all I feel now but I'll end on a positive. I enjoyed some of the language, none of which I can remember now, and especially enjoyed the six stones and the way they featured - in a sad way they had more about them than Hedley and Garfield. I also enjoyed the exposure to Quakerism - the book would have been less without that.
So, ladies, I guess we won't be following this up with Mr Gale's Cat Sanctuary? Just reading the thumbnail of it, I see we have a similar formula, with obligatory lesbian couple etc etc. Oh dear - cynical aren't I? Maybe future books should be ones that at least one of us can recommend from experience. Hooray for The Time Traveller's Wife!
Edit: posted at the same time as your second post meep
Oh and speaking of 'unfinished' story lines. The only interesting part of Rachel's madness was her seeing things that weren't there. One was the baby, and the other was an old woman in the corner of the studio. I understand that the baby she saw was the baby they took out of her in the asylum, but where did the old lady come from?
Also, one quite poetic thing was that the book begins and ends with Rachel not taking her pills in the same manner. She sticks them to the side of her palm and hides them. This is how she 'gets free', from the asylum and also from the stupour that's come over her artistic creativty, and I guess also eventually free from life.
DM, I echo that! The Time Traveller's Wife is a whole different kettle of fish!
I too was impatient to meet Morwenna, found her the only interesting character when we met her as a child, then found her to be wholly predictable when she appeared as an adult.
Overall, I was very very disappointed by this book. The picture (no pun intended) painted in the thumbnail we read when we made our choice (and I will own up to being one of the three who voted for it) made it seem quite mystical and full of intertwined family-type memories. Instead I thought it was like the short stories they used to print in magazines like Womens Own thirty years ago.
I feel entirely the same way. When I read the back of the book it actually seemed to suggest an entirely different story. That Rachel had a secret that would be unearthed in her paintings. But it's not the family that discover the secret, but us. The only secret that is discovered is her true past, through her sister, and the fact she was in an asylum. But this was by no means shocking and even expected. There was no twist. The back of the book set high expectations and they fell flat.
angieh
18-11-2008, 05:32 PM
Ah - the baby! Now I thought that there really wasn't a baby that was aborted in the asylum, but the baby was Rachel's twin that was strangled at birth with her umbilical - that her mother had accused her of when she was a young child. Now wouldn't that haunt anyone? [Reminded me of Kate Atkinson's Behind the Scenes at the Museum]
On a broader issue - does anyone find the tone of recent novels to be very similar? Can't really explain this more fully at the moment.
Oh Angie, I totally forgot about that! (the twin that is). Yes, that would make more sense. But I was quite confused by the 'abortion' incident. And also, did it imply that she was actually gang raped by those boys, and her sister only saw it as something different? Or that she allowed it, and then it turned into gang rape?
That is how unforgettable parts of the book were. But yes, the strangling of the twin makes sense! Oh, and that's another woman who is horrble and unlikeable; her own mother.
And Angie, yes, I agree many modern novels have the same tone, which I would be so harsh to say as they all have no tone whatsoever. Lacking in personality. No wit, no sarcasm, no 'enlightened narrator'; it just seems to be a story loosely strung together. In more classical literature, the idea of the narrator and tone of narration often played a major role in the book. From the first-person narrative of the Victorian novels ("Reader! I married him.") to the subtly shifting narration from one person's viewpoint to another in Virginia Woolf (she has a wonderful style of narration, particularly in Mrs. Dalloway), to the omniscient narrator who is is league with the reader and almost controls the characters fates (Faber in the Crimson Petal and the White). Sadly, I feel Gale was lacking in any tone whatsoever, and that's a major reason I was so disinterested in the novel. Good point!
dinahsmum
18-11-2008, 05:57 PM
Oh Angie, I totally forgot about that! (the twin that is). Yes, that would make more sense. But I was quite confused by the 'abortion' incident. And also, did it imply that she was actually gang raped by those boys, and her sister only saw it as something different? Or that she allowed it, and then it turned into gang rape?
Oh dear, I'd forgotten that too. Doesn't that say something about the book - remembered the stones, which seemed to be important as I was reading but forgetting the dead twin? And again, I don't know if she was raped or a willing participant or whether she was preganant as a result.
The general - mm, grumble, must get back to the book - over the last couple of weeks made me fear this was going to be the result. I'm not sure if books are getting 'samey' or not. I guess most of the Great Themes have been used time and time again, but that doesn't stop someone reworking in a great style. I read the Rebus book on hols and thoroughly enjoyed that, but of course it was a crime thriller; also a book called The Last Chronicle (I think) which was a sort of da Vinci Code-alike. It was 'alright', but not great literature. btw meep, your man Faber's latest book is on the same theme - Jesus was around but was only a 'good man', nothing divine about him. I can't remember the title - it might be The Fire Gospel
dandysmom
18-11-2008, 09:18 PM
I was expecting not to enjoy this, but surprisingly I did. I didn't expect great writing, just an interesting view into a dysfunctional family....and this one was a poster child for dysfunctional!
I agree that the female characters weren't well developed, and certainly unlikeable characters in themselves as depicted; and the only character I felt any empathy for was Hedley. Do you suspect that the author being gay was probably the reason?
Hated the ending! You're left wondering what's going to happen next! I'm used to fiction with endings that wrap things up...I normally read medical/legal thrillers, psychological suspense, that sort of thing...so found it disappointing.
I wouldn't reccomend it to anyone, truthfully.
angieh
18-11-2008, 10:28 PM
Yes, I am also used to neat conclusion drawings - you do really need that with crime writing and as I said I was so disappointed with the ending.
When I said about the tone of modern novels being samey - I am not sure whether I actually mean English modern novels. Have to say I don't actually include Rankin (Scottish) or the American/Canadian crime writers that I have recently read in that criticism.
dandysmom
18-11-2008, 10:50 PM
Angie. did they show The Sopranos on TV in the UK? I didn't watch it (no cable) but there was a great uproar here at the end of the last episode...just faded to black; everything left hanging. I couldn't help but think of that at the ending of Notes. I do so like a tidy ending.
calismum
19-11-2008, 12:54 AM
Just catching up.
Overall I'd agree the book was a disappointment. No point in reitterating all that has been said, most of which I am in agreement with.
Read the back of the book and thought 'ooh, this sounds interesting' - actually found myself rereading it to see if I had somehow got it wrong!
I felt all at once the plot was too complex and too simple.
I hate books that leave so many ends that you are left with a sense of dissatisfaction and I think that clouds the whole book.
There were, however, bits I really liked.
At the beginning the Anne Sexton 'Live' made me smile - I've been there and could relate to that.
Some of the descriptions are just so good - can't you just imagine a 'furiously teutonic bathroom cabinet'?
I also enjoyed Petroc's birthday and the Art cards at the start of each chapter.
Loved the whole episode of the first meeting of Rachel and Antony in the museum where she removes the little bowl. His total horror, I thought, was described so well.
I have lots of little bits in the book that were enjoyable for me, or I thought were well described. To me that was one of the books strengths, the descriptions were quite detailed and enabled you to view what the characters were seeing/doing etc.
This was let down by a weak plot - I certainly would find it hard to offer the book to someone else to read.
Usually I start off by reading quite slowly, once the book grabs then I will sit up late just to read a bit more. Unfortunately I had to force myself to finish this.
Did any of you enjoy any other bits of it?
dandysmom
19-11-2008, 03:31 AM
That bit about Antony, Rachel and the bowl have me the horrors also; the idea that she'd even contemplate doing that! I'm a museum buff and a fan of Chinese porcelain also...started me out with a negative feeling about her which was only reinforced the longer I read. She was an incredibly difficult person to live with; it's a wonder the children didn't turn out even worse.....very strange childhoods.
Eileen, it's nice to hear a different take on the book :) I would agree with you and CM that certain sections of the book were more interesting in the language choice and descriptions. But they still didn't speak to me.
For the ending, although it's left semi-open we do know that Petroc gets hit by a speeding car don't we? It's just the gap between that and Morwenna leaving home that we don't know what happens, but it's kind of easy to imagine.
I think what irked me slightly, Eileen, is the family were toodysfunctional. Not in a melodramatic way, not in a satirical way, not in a symbolic way (although he tried at symbolism with the pebbles and rocks), just in an overt way. And for this reason it seemed unbelievable. Families like this do exist but, due to the one-dimensional aspect of the characters, Gale's family seemed a little too like straw dogs in my opinion; all of them.
Interesting that I think Petroc was the most believable character, and others think Hedley was. Hedley's depth of feeling was most intense, especially on his jealousy for his lover and the female artist. And it is probably true that Gale's personal experiences lended toward this slightly more in-depth characterisation.
As for open endings, I think books or programmes can be open to a certain extent but they should provide leads or suggestions so that you can make up your own conclusion and wrestle with what you think happened. By the sounds of it, The Sopranos didn't even do that but just 'faded to black' as you said Eileen. I didn't see it, but we did have it over here. Sounds incredibly frustrating!
I've read one or two brilliant novels where the ending was left open or not entirely concluded, and I've felt that lended the book strength. Sadly, Gale's open ending just seemed an abrupt halt in a meandering narrative.
angieh
19-11-2008, 02:46 PM
Just one more comment from me before I put this book on the ReadItSwapIt shelf ....
I had to keep reminding myself of the time it was meant to be set in ....... does it actually say anywhere? Hepworth died in 1975, so I suppose it was set in late 60's, and 70's and the grown up family presumably 80's. I kept thinking whether Gale had got general attitudes right - eg. to mental illness or homosexuality. It seemed almost too "now" IMO.
Interested in all your comments Group!!!
Hi everyone,
well I've finally finished the book and to say it was a struggle would be under-estimating it, usually I can read a book in a week but not this one! I will admit I voted for it, as the others have said reading the blurb I feel didnt describe the book at all. I've been left feeling very dissapointed with it.
There IMO was no real story line and I only finished it last night but can only remember a fraction of the book and thats not how a good book should leave you you should want to read it again and pass it on but this one will definatley be put on the shelf and left there.
I totally agree with everything you have all said regarding the characters so there's no point in repeating it again. Like so many of you my favourite part is the beach party for petroc's birthday and the way it was written described to a tee how children think and react in situations when Rachel tried to leave the two larger stones behind he exclaimed " they're Wenn and Antony" If only the rest of the book had been written in the same tone i feel it would have been a lot more enjoyable.
dinahsmum
19-11-2008, 04:07 PM
What an unhappy start for our book group but not an unmitigated disaster. It's been interesting reading others' thoughts and fascinating to see that, although not huge fans of the book in general, there were aspects we liked and that we tended to like the same parts (the beach party, the stones etc). Were these the only bits which seemed to 'ring true'? Or the only parts where Ruth is seen behaving as a mother?
Angie - the setting in time. What an interesting question and possibly a reason why the book didn't engage - it didn't ring true to its period. I think we could work it out if any of us were bothered to go back to look up Ruth's early life etc. Was she born in the fifties? So the 'happy family' was sixties/early seventies - the only time frame I can recall is the old 'shooting brake' they went in to visit Ruth in the mental hospital. Sixties would be fine for that. That being the case, I think the events may have been anachronistic and the characters rather 'ahead of their time - in Cornwall if not in London.
Off topic - meep, here's that link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/11/17/bofaber117.xml) to the Michael Faber article I was wittering about yesterday
angieh
19-11-2008, 04:53 PM
Angie - the setting in time ...... I think the events may have been anachronistic and the characters rather 'ahead of their time - in Cornwall if not in London.
Absolutely! Now probably the presence of B Hepworth et al and all their arty set may have altered the attitudes of some in St Ives, it would have been so much more engaging if it had been set in the community as a whole, whereas the only group the reader comes across is the Quaker group and a few down at heel farmers. No one else exists - the whole thing is set in a vacuum. There, I have my opinion in a nutshell thanks to you all!
(And I said I'd made my final comment! :lol: )
dandysmom
19-11-2008, 05:11 PM
One reason I'm enjoying this discussion is that people mention things I'd missed! Good point about the 70s - 80s attitudes to mental illness/gays. At least here, there wasn't the openness that there is now, and I assume probably in the UK?
dinahsmum
19-11-2008, 05:19 PM
That's right DM. Male homesexuality illegal until the mid 60s (I think) (Female homesexuality never illegal - allegedly because Queen Victoria refused to believe in such practice; I'm not so sure about that). Large, prison like mental hospitals (or the safe 'village' facilities as described in the book) until well into the seventies, maybe early eighties.
St Ives has always had an "arty" community and a degree of bohemianism. The Hepworth group (Moore et al) would have been at the forefront. I agree with the member who found the sudden appearance of GBH to be jarring.
See - we're finding intersting points to mull over? No matter what the book, there's always something
Absolutely! Now probably the presence of B Hepworth et al and all their arty set may have altered the attitudes of some in St Ives, it would have been so much more engaging if it had been set in the community as a whole, whereas the only group the reader comes across is the Quaker group and a few down at heel farmers. No one else exists - the whole thing is set in a vacuum. There, I have my opinion in a nutshell thanks to you all!
(And I said I'd made my final comment! :lol: )
That is such a good description Angie, in a vaccum. It really does feel like that, and I think that's why I felt bored reading it as it was so stifled and narrow.
DM, thanks for that link. I tried Googling Faber yesterday and there wasn't one main website for him so I couldn't find the book you mentioned. I'll read that link when I get home tonight :)
I also agree about the strange lack of time or attitudes. That's again another reason the book felt empty to me, there was no dynamics to it, or 3 dimensional aspects to any part of the book, whether it be the characters, setting, themes, plot...
I wouldn't say it was a disastrous start ;) Maybe slightly discouraging, but I'm an avid reader and won't be swayed by one book! We'll have to work out what one we're reading next... ;)
That's right DM. Male homesexuality illegal until the mid 60s (I think) (Female homesexuality never illegal - allegedly because Queen Victoria refused to believe in such practice; I'm not so sure about that). Large, prison like mental hospitals (or the safe 'village' facilities as described in the book) until well into the seventies, maybe early eighties.
St Ives has always had an "arty" community and a degree of bohemianism. The Hepworth group (Moore et al) would have been at the forefront. I agree with the member who found the sudden appearance of GBH to be jarring.
See - we're finding intersting points to mull over? No matter what the book, there's always something
Absolutely DM, often a negative reaction or a book you don't like will spark much more talk and debate than a book everyone likes.
To be honest, my knowledge of societies attitudes to the mentally instable and homosexuality in those periods is iffy. My mum was a nurse, and when training was put in a 'mental ward'. She said the treatment of the people was shocking. The childs ward just had all the children classed as 'insane' bunched together regardless of their state of mind. So one boy who was very slightly, mildly autistic but perfectly healthy, intelligent and aware of everyting around him was made to eat breakfast beside a boy who was severly mentally impaired, and (this is a horrible story that my mum told me) used to do a number 2 in his breakfast cereal then eat it :shock: That would have been the 70s, so it gives me an idea of what treatment of people in asylums would have been like.
angieh
19-11-2008, 05:32 PM
oh ..... I've just had a thought .... I keep thinking that on the front cover Stephen Fry is quoted as saying "This book is complete perfection" ...... we obviously do not agree with Mr Fry ...... BUT ....... What if living with someone with a bi-polar disorder makes the whole family FEEL as if they are in a vacuum - isolated from those around them???? If that's the case that Gale is trying to make, well then he does do it perfectly!
Angie, on the note of recommendations, I noticed that all the major reviewers, including Times Literary Supplment, had given it glowing reviews. obviously it was one sentence from each and it may be paraphrased, but still. That confused me.
I was wondering if it was just me that was wrong in my reading of it, fearing I'd become a literary snob, but the fact that almost all of us had a major gripe about it seems not.
The idea of Gale trying to create a vaccum in order to mimic the feeling of living with someone with bi-polar is intersting but if he was doing something like that, I feel as if he should have delved into Rachel's personality more. I feel like I never really got to know her just her disorder.
Also, I'm a bit confused. I am calling her Rachel incoorectly? I don't have the book with me and noticed DM is calling her Ruth :shy: Just to check!
dinahsmum
19-11-2008, 05:50 PM
You're right meep. Unfortunately I got a picture in my mind of Ruth Kelly the former Minister for er Things in my mind whilst I was reading, which just added to my dislike/lack of empathy with the character. :oops: Ray or Rachael ... that's what the nasty selfish cheat/unfortunate bipolar sufferer called herself.
There are obviously a lot of people who do like Gale's work - wonder why this small sample didn't?
dandysmom
19-11-2008, 05:56 PM
I take it that we will not be reading another of Gale's.......
angieh
19-11-2008, 06:40 PM
How can our opinions differ so much from those reviews? (I've just read a couple) I worry that I am missing something - or is it just that the reviewers got paid to say something nice? (I am just going to wash my mouth out with some very tasty soap!)
calismum
19-11-2008, 08:12 PM
Just in from work and catching up again.
Timeframe - the Art notes at the start of each chapter are dated so yes 70's/80's is correct. That got me thinking about the party Petroc was at just prior to his death. ALthough I am well aware that type of party has always been around. If the last chapter had been read in isolation then I would have guessed present day.
One positive about the book for me (mentioned it briefly in other post) - I love to have a mental image of things. I found generally the book was very descriptive. This enabled me to visualise the house, the garden, the paintings, etc.
If the same care had been given throughout the book then it would have perhaps been a better read.
morning all,
Well in all good book club's and reviews there as to be negative's it wouldn't do for us all to like the same thing i think the main gripe is the style of writing and how the characters lack substance but yet in ceratin chapters gale has used a different style and you feel as if you are there in the book but on the whole the book lacks substance which ends up leaving you with a negative feeling and dissapointment towards the book.
I think we just put it down to experience and at least it got us all talking about the issues the book raised regarding mental health and homosexuality which im sure was one of Gales aims when writing the book.
I will still be joining you which ever book we decide to read and have just started on The time travellers wife having read three chapters last night and fell asleep whilst reading i would say this one shows promise and im hooked already..
How can our opinions differ so much from those reviews? (I've just read a couple) I worry that I am missing something - or is it just that the reviewers got paid to say something nice? (I am just going to wash my mouth out with some very tasty soap!)
I was thinking th esame Angie! Not so much paid by the author directly, but the editor of the entire newspaper may have said "we want a nice review". As book reviews are so few and far between they generally only publish the nice ones and there aren't many scathing ones.
I don't think we missed anything, I just think the standard for modern literature as dropped drastically :(
I agree, that there were small gems within the book but overall I felt too negatively toward it.
So, choosing the next book. Could I suggest The Time Traveller's Wife, as I have read it before (a while ago) and would highly recommend it, so hopefully at least a few of us will actually really enjoy the book this time! I think that came second on the poll we did...
angieh
20-11-2008, 03:10 PM
Yup - I'm sure The Time Traveller's Wife is next - what's our reading finishing date to aim for this time????
(Although I have read this one before and LOVED IT! Will be worth reading it again.)
I'm the same Angie, I adored it. I was so sad when it had finished too. I read it on a holiday so read it really quickly as it was so addictive. I'll try and pace myself this time to draw the enjoyment out!
how does everyone feeling about Monday 8th December? Gives everyone a chance to buy the book this weekend and two weeks to read.
dinahsmum
20-11-2008, 03:30 PM
Fine by me too - I also read it on holiday and will be pleased to return for a more leisurely re-read. I think I was also trying to finish it quickly to pass it over to my husband and say 'Do you like it? Where are you now? etc' - so a book club perusal will be an extra treat.
I may be wrong but I don't think there will be pleas for time extensions on this one - maybe the opposite, and requests to start early :)
Interesting what someone said earlier about how not liking a book doesn't mean you can't find interesting points to disuss. Hope the opposite is not true and we just sit around saying 'Isn't it good? Isn't it clever?'
I've flipped through 'Notes' again this morning, and re-read the cover notes and the commendations. Mmmm.
Oh I'm sure I'll have lots to say on it DM! Although I must try and (symbolically) bite my tongue, as the English Lit student within me is still as eager as ever, and used to writing 4000 word essays! Even if we do all like it and make comments such as "Isn't it clever?" I think we'll have a lot to say too!
I actually don't own a copy, as I borrowed it from a friend on holiday. I'll buy it this weekend and start as soon as I get it. I'm currently reading Rebecca and nearly at the end of that, so perfect timing :)
If everyone does finish the book early then we can start discussions early! I'm just aware that some people are really busy and might not have time to dedicate to it. But I agree, it is addictive and so hard to put down...
dandysmom
20-11-2008, 05:18 PM
Our library system has TTW, just placed a Hold on it. I'm #2 in the queue, so should get it fairly soon. I'm a fast reader, shouldn't be a problem.
Hopefully it should become available soon Eileen :) I do remember reading it fairly quickly as it was so addictive. But we can easily wait a wee while for anyone who's still to finish.
I've started TTW last night and I'm really into it already, I wont say to much and give the pot away to anyone whse ot read it
Never read the time travellers wife but will get it...Promise.
I have to say I could not get into Notes on an exhibition which is not like me at all.
calismum
20-11-2008, 09:52 PM
Oh I'm sure I'll have lots to say on it DM! Although I must try and (symbolically) bite my tongue, as the English Lit student within me is still as eager as ever, and used to writing 4000 word essays! Even if we do all like it and make comments such as "Isn't it clever?" I think we'll have a lot to say too!
I actually don't own a copy, as I borrowed it from a friend on holiday. I'll buy it this weekend and start as soon as I get it. I'm currently reading Rebecca and nearly at the end of that, so perfect timing :)
If everyone does finish the book early then we can start discussions early! I'm just aware that some people are really busy and might not have time to dedicate to it. But I agree, it is addictive and so hard to put down...
Old habits die hard! - couldn't believe how well you set out all the characters in your first post. Made me think my notes I made were just not serious enough :lol: :lol:
As post has grown though I think one way or another we were all in agreement.
Will go out and buy TTW this weekend. I guess by the comments already made it will be a more enjoable read.
I am also quick reader so 8/12 seems like plenty time. Just need to be sure DM gets the library copy in time.
dandysmom
20-11-2008, 10:01 PM
I've been out of college for so many years that I didn't do a formal critique like Meep,,,,excellent BTW, been meaning to say that! Not to worry about the library copy, sure I'll be OK.
:oops: Thanks CM and Eileen! To be honest, I'd been thinking my comments over for a while waiting for the time to come around when we could start discussing it, but when I wrote the comment it was very rushed, at work, without the book in front of me. I'd been planning on a more coherent post rather than rambling, but glad it made sense!
I'm very much looking forward to TTW, will buy it tomorrow :)
dandysmom
22-11-2008, 10:38 PM
I just checked my library account and I've moved up to #1 in the queue. As there are 14 copies in the system should be getting it soon; hopefully by my visit next Saturday.
Hopefully you'll get it soon DM! I bought mine on Saturday but haven't had a chance to even read the back cover yet! :shock: I'm really looking forward to starting.
dandysmom
24-11-2008, 04:58 PM
Just out of curiosity, how many pages in TTW? As I've said, I'm a fast reader ......
dinahsmum
24-11-2008, 05:15 PM
518 - quite small type too
But you will love it and speed through.
And if you(or anyone) really can't finish it before the allotted date - just give a shout!
calismum
24-11-2008, 08:41 PM
Have we agreed a 'finish by' date for TTW?
Looking forward to it - everyone seems to think it is a good read.
angieh
24-11-2008, 08:57 PM
I think 8th December is proposed CM - but if anyone is finding that hard, then to shout!
calismum
24-11-2008, 09:03 PM
I think 8th December is proposed CM - but if anyone is finding that hard, then to shout!
Thanks ........ should manage that ok.
Yep I agree, we can easily just push the date later a bit if people aren't finished. Wouldn't want anyone to rush through it just to get it finished, and not enjoy it in the process :)
dandysmom
27-11-2008, 04:16 AM
Woo hoo! Just got an e-mail from the library, my copy of TTW is in; will pick up Saturday!
dinahsmum
27-11-2008, 11:10 AM
I'm sure you'll be gripped DM.
I'll start a TTW thread but stress that there's no discussion till 8 December at the earliest
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.