Book Club: The Time Traveler's Wife

[dinahsmum]

Just a heading ready for discussion stating 8 December.

Can I put one thought? The English spelling is Traveller's isn't it? The one 'l' is US spelling. But I'll not quibble over that.

Enjoy the book. See you here on and after 8th

[angieh]

American author, DM!

[dinahsmum]

Exactly.
No problems

[dandysmom]

You know, I hadn't noticed that, DM; had to look at my library notice to verify......yep, one " l "

[Kazz]

I am enjoying this book look forward to the 8th

[calismum]

agree - much better read, I'm getting to the can't put it down, will stay up too late to read a bit more.

[mj69]

I'm hooked, not good when your trying to unpack boxes:shock:

see you back here on the 8th:lol:

mel x

[meep]

I'm only on chapter 2 :( :? !!! Not like me at all. And it's not for want of trying. I've literally not had one spare moment to myself since I bought it. May not make the deadline of the 8th, and I have friends staying that weekend too, but will catch up as soon as I can :) Even though I've read it once, it was a while ago and even in reading chapters one and two again there are things popping out that I had forgotten about.

[dandysmom]

I finished last evening .

[dinahsmum]

I've got about 20 pages to go - I read it way too quickly first time, so am finding more depth this time. Could have galloped through those 20 yesterday but I'll savour them tonight. Good timing!
That's pretty good going DM - 500+ pages from Saturday to Wednesday

[angieh]

Not getting on with reading as fast as I should to make the deadline - too much else going on I'm afraid. I have read it before however and remember quite a lot of it. Just finding the language completely entrancing this time round.

[calismum]

I'm about 3/4 way through. Should have it finished soon. Will we extend deadline for folks?

[dandysmom]

I believe the answer earlier was "yes"; assume it still stands .....

[mj69]

i've got a couple of chapters to go.. I don't want to finish it so taking my time. it's the best book ive read for a long time and totally different to my usual read!

[meep]

I'm not even half way through; hardly had any time to myself and I don't want to rush it as Im enjoying it so much, perhaps even more than the first time round. Can we extend the deadline? Maybe for another week or week and a half?? Sorry to folks who have already finished! :oops:

[dinahsmum]

What do they look like in your mind's eye?

I think it's OK to post this, rather than start discussing the book?
Do you find that if you are 'in' to a book you easily visualise the character? I had Clare and Henry pictured from an early stage.

Here they are

Henry

http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:4llzMXIslqB05M:http://a.abc.com/media/primetime/uglybetty/images/downloads/wallpaper/1280x960_ugb_henry.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://a.abc.com/media/primetime/uglybetty/images/downloads/wallpaper/1280x960_ugb_henry.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.moviewallpaper.net/wallpaper/christopher_gorham.html&usg=__KWyfHoGWJCwDJyuXtcx2u1cZAok=&h=960&w=1280&sz=346&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=4llzMXIslqB05M:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3DChristopher%2BGorham%26um%3D1%26hl%3D en%26sa%3DN)
who happens to be Henry in the TV series Ugly Bety too. He's a bit geeky in that pic (as he is in the prog) but he's my picture of 'library boy'. It wasn't till I reread this time that I learnt that Henry is actually quite a dish, although skinny. But this Henry (Christopher Gorham) scrubs up nicely too, so perhaps this is more as Henry deTamble should be
http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:F5sWwz4jReV7nM:http://handson.provocateuse.com/images/photos/christopher_gorham_02.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://handson.provocateuse.com/images/photos/christopher_gorham_02.jpg&imgrefurl=http://handson.provocateuse.com/show/christopher_gorham&usg=__28dsOwuahvG9UtrxR7BsruO2R1A=&h=600&w=433&sz=62&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=F5sWwz4jReV7nM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=97&prev=/images%3Fq%3DChristopher%2BGorham%26um%3D1%26hl%3D en%26sa%3DN)

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:-ejYvxIVTup8qM:http://estb.msn.com/i/3B/9D7C9FC757DFC781BC0AF9510BBCC.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://estb.msn.com/i/3B/9D7C9FC757DFC781BC0AF9510BBCC.jpg&imgrefurl=http://entertainment.uk.msn.com/celebrity/PhotoGalleries/gallery.aspx%3Fcp-documentid%3D6692181%26imageindex%3D10&usg=__PpCytrdRk2DBIvqSrtmin8DhGOI=&h=350&w=308&sz=51&hl=en&start=12&um=1&tbnid=-ejYvxIVTup8qM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3DChristopher%2BGorham%26um%3D1%26hl%3D en%26sa%3DN)

and Clare has always been Sally Thomsett, in Railway Children/Man About the House days

http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:pt8fQBd0tjkZ0M:http://www.moviemarket.co.uk/thumbnails/150thumbs/178512.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.moviemarket.co.uk/thumbnails/150thumbs/178512.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.moviemarket.co.uk/Photos/Sally_Thomsett_P203979.html&usg=__B5fA-EugGPhd-c8d_EN3_TLfB-o=&h=121&w=150&sz=4&hl=en&start=10&um=1&tbnid=pt8fQBd0tjkZ0M:&tbnh=77&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSally%2BThomsett%2BRailway%2BChildren %26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN)

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:6SYwFiQtr8hT1M:http://www.britmovie.co.uk/genres/drama/images01/030a.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.britmovie.co.uk/genres/drama/images01/030a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.britmovie.co.uk/genres/drama/filmography01/030.html&usg=__I_PcNu2hcm7DuoFkMIie5nk0QDE=&h=245&w=250&sz=55&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=6SYwFiQtr8hT1M:&tbnh=109&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSally%2BThomsett%2BRailway%2BChildren %26ndsp%3D20%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN)

http://www.moviemarket.co.uk/thumbnails/150thumbs/268168.jpg (http://www.moviemarket.co.uk/Photos/P203979_C68168.html)

I'll bet they're quite wrong in your imagination!

What do your Clare and Henry look like?

[meep]

I don't think I could find any celeb pictures to show what I think they look like in my mind's eye, I'd have to draw it. I am very 'visual' when reading a book though, and always have the entire scene in my head. And I'm afraid not at all like the photos you posted above :roll: :lol:

I just started the second part last night (half way through). I am soenjoying it *sigh*

[angieh]

What an interesting notion DM - I always have an "impression" in my head of how the characters look, but I've never actually thought of "casting" them. I'm going to give that some thought now!

[dandysmom]

Who's not finished yet. or are we ready to go?

[dinahsmum]

It will be nice to discuss it before our minds get befuddled with seasonal thoughts.
I'm ready!

We could, of course, even start to talk about the structure or premise of the story, or probably many other themes, without even discussing the latter part of the book ... allowing the distracted people a bit more time to catch up.

[meep]

I've got a few chapters to go (sorry everyone!) but please do start, I remember the ending ( :( ) and have found some beautiful passages that I'd love to discuss whenever, so please take it away :)

[angieh]

I'm nowhere near finished, but do have the benefit of reading it before and can remember most of it - as it's the sort of book that does stay - which, IMO, is a sign of a good book!

Can I start with saying I found the premise of the ability to time travel being genetic instead of having to use a machine just downright amazing. What an idea, and I bet that it influenced Tim Kring with "Heroes", although he didn't include the really scary bit about not knowing when or where you're going to go and arriving naked - that's the stuff of nightmares surely?

[dinahsmum]

Re: Time Travel
Isn't it amazing how simply one accepts Henry's (dis)ability? We are basically reading a Science Fiction book, yet ..... it doesn't feel like SF does it? I enjoyed it so much first time I read it I was anxious for my husband to read it too, so I could discuss it with him. So I told him it was SF (which he loves - good SF for normal, the biggest fattest rubbishest SF for whiling away the time on holiday). When he'd finished I asked him if he'd enjoyed it and if he thought it was SF - his reply? Enjoyed it very much - but it's a love story. Got it in one there, I think.
The time travel is an extreme devise, to facilitate the book, it is a pretty difficult concept and we ought to be much more sceptical of it and spend the book going "Yes, but, if x = y then surely abc?" etc but we don't - we accept it happily. Maybe we can discuss the 'what ifs' and the holes in the story later - it's much too early to start picking holes.

[angieh]

Not sure that I agree that time travel is "an extreme devise" - agree it is a love story. I love the juxtaposition of the two.

[dinahsmum]

Perhaps 'hugely original' would be better words Angie?
There are plenty of time travelling books of various standards but all sticking to sci-fi or adventure. Using it to facilitate a love story is so clever.

[angieh]

Did you also find an element of horror? eg. Clare's poor babies and Henry's feet .........

[dinahsmum]

Extreme horror with the babies .... Clare's dream, with the white silk on the floor and the creeping red.
And poor Henry's feet!

[meep]

Ah no! I knew I should have stayed away from the thread until I'd finished :roll: I remember all of hte ending APART from the bit with Henry's feet! :lol: And the next chapter I'm about to read is entitled 'The Incident in the Parking lot' or something (the second time round) and now I remember it all! Yes, I definately agree, real horror there. IMO, the only part that made me slightly akward about the book first time round reading it was Henry's feet. I felt that was one step too far, when we already know he has seen his own death, which is in itself horrific.

The part with Claire's babies really is nightmarish, it's described in such a way that makes it seem like a dream (or nightmare); really different to the rest of the book.

But one of my favourite sections is when Claire is drawing Alba, the description is simply beautiful. So it seems the section on babies produces some of the most horrific, and most beautiful, language and description. I love the sentence "I consider my daughter", right before she begins sketching her. I don't have the book on me, but once I do get down to my proper analysis of it, I will be quoting lots of wonderful bits!

But don't worry Angie, I was just about to come to the bit with Henry's feet, I just can't believe I COMPLETELY forgot about it in my re-reading. I remember everything else; the way Henry dies, Claire's meeting with Gomez afterwards, Claire's final, final meeting with Henry. How could I forget the feet??? I'm assuming because I didn't enjoy that part the first time round, I blanked it from my memory! I do still think that it was on step too far... (pardon the pun!)

[meep]

Oh and how beautiful is the phrase, used as a volume header "a drop of blood in a bowl of milk"? I puzzled and puzzled over that until I found it in the text, and it's used to describe Claire blushing; quite an innocent and purely beautiful action, yet a slightly morose and creepy phrase to use. I think that phrase, whilst used in the text to describe Claire blushing, relates to the miscarriages and all the blood lost throughout. Claire is literally surrounded by blood, which is nicely contrasted by the one 'drop'.

[meep]

I just google searched and found info on the film. The cast have been chosen, and it is currently being filmed. There are screen shots! :

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3010173184/tt0452694

Whilst I'm happy with the casting of Henry (he's neutral enough) Claire is supposed to have RED HAIR! In the book it explicitly says this is one thing Henry loves about Claire, and there are often descriptions of it 'fanned out on a pillow' or he'll play with it, and a whole passage describing how it is heavy when wet but she won't cut it off because Henry loves it. I feel they should have got this detail accurate, as whilst it sounds petty, throughout the book we are constantly reminded of Claire's beautiful red hair.

[meep]

Saying what I have above, after looking at the photos more carefully, for some reason I have a good feeling about this film. From the screenshots, and looking at who they've chosen for Gomez, Charise, Richard etc. I feel they've stayed quite true to the book.

Anyway, sorry, this is straying from our discussion of the book itself, just thought it was interesting!

[dinahsmum]

I forgot about Henry's feet until 'The Incident in the Parking Lot' too.
We've all got the same selective memory!
Yet I distinctly remember his death (at Clare's) and thought it was mentioned much much earlier in the book and was watching out for it again from quite early on.
Strange isn't it, the things that stick?

[meep]

DM, what did you think about the fact that Henry lost his feet? (or at least they were unusable? I have still forgotten what exactly happens, but I'll find that out tonight :) )

Whilst I have so many positive things to say about the book, and I am feeling teary at knowing the ending and also thinking it will be over soon, there is one thing I have felt throughout the rereading: the relationship between Claire and Henry grates on ever so slightly. They are obviously head over heels, destined to be together, true love etc. etc. and it is nice to know (not in a sadistic way) that they fell out, particularly over the pregnancies, as it shows they aren't too unrealistically head-over-heels, I did feel sorry for Claire.

The ending of the novel leaves her alone, and she has to wait 40 years or so before she sees Henry again for one last time, by which time she's very old. She is left with Alba, a piece of Henry (which she explicitly desired) but Alba can time travel and gets to see Henry, something which Claire does not. When Henry travels forward in time once and meets Alba for the first time, at the museum, Claire almost gets to meet him but he goes back in time just as shes running up to him. In this scene you get a real feeling for her distress, and depression, and Henry's leaving. Although I haven't gotten to it yet, the scene where she and Gomez have sex, and she says Henry's name (or something like that?) again, you get a real feeling for her complete despair. She has been abondoned entirely, and throughout her whole life was constantly being left in the lurch by Henry, left worrying about him and constantly waiting.

Whilst Henry does experience some awful horrors (his feet, and that brief section where he disappears for 2 - 3 months and returns one night having lost a lot of weight, which was eery in its lack of information) you get the feeling that he gets the better experience of the relationship out of the two. He and Alba get to meet more often, even after his real-time death. Claire is his anchor, around whom his time travelling revolves. No matter where in time he goes to, he soon gets pulled back to her. I almost imagine it as a rubber band being wrapped around a nail, and no matter which direction you stretch it in, it will lengthen but then contract back to its origin: the nail (or pin, whatever you will).

So Claire serves a purpose for Henry. Henry explicitly says, in the scene where he is found trapped in the cage in the Library and someone says Claire is his Lois Lane, that he would have given up a long time had ago had it not been for Claire.

Yet what exactly is Henry to Claire? A life-long love, the love of her life, but also the source of so much anguish, pain and lonliness. I know that this is part of the romance, that alongside their intense love is intense pain, yet for me the balance is ever so slightly tipped so that Claire gets the short end of the stick, and the slightly worse experience. She suffers for Henry, but does Henry suffer for her, or does Henry just suffer?

[meep]

Oh, and also to add to my above post, even though Henry's death is horrific, and so sad, at the same time it is worse for Claire as she is left alone; and at the same time, the reader feels as if Henry isn't quite dead, or at least not gone, as we know that somewhere out there in time he is alive, and travelling backward and forward, as he does in the final part of the book when he visits Claire as an old lady.

I never felt this way when I read the book the first time, but on my re-reading I have felt sorry for Claire. Not angry at Henry, as I don't think it's his fault, I just think the dynamic between the two is interesting.

But as I said, I have so many positive things I could say about it! And will do once I finish and have a copy of it in front of me.

[dinahsmum]

Am just going out but (and pardon my cynicism) isn't the author just describing the norm for male/female relationships? He gets the better part of the bargain? I'm not meaning to sound bitter, because I'm not - not at all - I have a long and happy relationship, I just feel the author is expanding on life. The woman is the rock, who keeps things together, the man does the exciting, the adventurous, the boys stuff.
This musing may be old-fashioned and not reflect relationships starting now rather than decades ago but ....

will be back later this aftie. keep chatting

[meep]

DM, interesting theory. To be honest, that doesn't strike a chord with me as I feel as a woman in a long term relationship I don't need a rock and I am not my partner's rock and we both go out and do exciting things, and I don't feel there is an imbalance; and I feel this is the norm for a lot of my friends my age in long term relationships.

But I do agree that from maybe the 1950s backwards it was the complete norm for the woman to be the rock, a stay-at-home wife who keeps the home happy for her husband whilst he goes out and does as he pleases (from the 1950s back right through the Edwardian, Victorian, Romantic, Renaissance... etc. etc. periods). So when writing my post above, that describes my take on their relationship, I didn't once think that it might be a portrayal of the stereotype of males and females roles in a relationship. Partly because their relationship is described, by both of them, in such loving and wonderful terms.

Although I guess you could say Henry was also Claire's rock as when he dies, she is a broken woman, half the woman she was before. So sad :(

[dandysmom]

Sorry to be the odd woman out, but I did not enjoy this book. Probably because it's a love story, a genre I don't particularly care for, also that it was non linear. I had no problems with the time travel per se, been a sci-fi reader since early teens, but did have a problem accepting the premise that Henry could meet himself. Had to keep muttering Coleridge's comment "willful suspension of disbelief" to myself every time it happened. In classic sci-fi, impossible. But that's the alternate universe the author has designed, and it's possible in hers.

I didn't find the main characters particularly engaging, quite stereotypical male and female roles. Usually you tend to like the heroes, but frankly I didn't really feel any sympathy for the starcrossed (time crossed?) lovers. The most human people to me were Kimy and Nell.

That aside, don't you think it was odd that Henry continued working after winning the lottery? And the fact that the library hadn't let him go because of his frequent disappearances, showing up naked in the stacks, etc? Apparently they had a very high tolerance for eccentricity.... and.in the 50s?!!

The tinges of eroticism in the scenes when adult Henry met pubescent Clare were a bit too Lolita-ish for my taste...

I thought the pool playing episode was way too long and didn't add much to the story; also the dinner at Clare's family dragged on and on.

Nitpicking over, I do admire her way with words: that expression about "small domestic comforts" was lovely and so descriptive; and loved the bit of Henry's excitement at going to the museum....exactly the way I felt as a child.

My thoughts, for what they're worth ..

[calismum]

Oh DM, thank goodness. I have just read this post through and was beginning to dread my view which is 'and here I am to say, I didn't like it'.

I did appreciate the writing and the descriptive detail that let you feel as if you were part of the story, albeit a bystander, and sometimes a very unwilling one.

Whilst I started off enjoying the story and I galloped thru' the first third, keen and eager to find out what happened next, I have to say, had it not been a book club book I would not have finished it. (I found it quite boring!)

I do, however, think it must have been a nightmare to write. Trying to keep track of who did what and when etc. shows some real skill. I can appreciate the way that time travel has been presented in a more unusual way and, I think perhaps a bit more believable? I too thought that part of the writing skill was that the reader just accepts Henry and what he is able to do.

It was, tho', just a love story - boy meets girl, falls in love, loses girl, meets girl again and then lives happily ever after (or until one of them dies.)

Didn't know it was going to be made into a film but think I'll give it a miss.

I did relate to Claire's lonliness. Thought that was quite apparent in the way some of the passages were written.

Going out tonight to drawing evening so will check back tomorrow to see how others feel.

[dandysmom]

Ah, CM. so glad I wasn't the only negative poster...huge sigh of relief!

[angieh]

It's so good that people have different opinions!

Catching up on some of what's been mentioned - have to say re casting of the film that I agree with meep. Henry is fine, but Clare is a disappointment - of course she may end up with amber hair in the film, but I doubt it. I can see in my mind's eye the woman for Clare's part ..........

Also, I have been thinking along the lines that Eileen mentioned about "The tinge of eroticism in the scenes when adult Henry met pubescent Clare were a bit too Lolita-ish for my taste..." sort of puts what I was thinking in far better terms than I could have found.

I have no idea how long it took Audrey Niffenegger to write, but it must have been a logistical nightmare keeping track of who was were when and at what age.

There is certainly some really beautiful phrases
".......must love me now in some bat-squeak echo of other time." is IMO just one.

I also loved the descriptions of Clare's paper-making - I'm sure there is another thread there running alongside the main theme, which mirrors it. Haven't thought that through yet.

I still love the book and I shall see the film, with a bit of trepidation.

Oh, and Henry's poor feet - I remember that much more clearly than his death at the moment - I knew something really tragic was coming, I could feel it and was sort of prepared. Don't think it was gratuitous.

[dinahsmum]

The paper making was really interesting - fascinating even. And the wings! Weren't you sceptics touched by the wings?

Did you notice strange similarities between our two books? Female artist as main character, studio behind the house (well Rachael had an outside studio at one place), bipolar character who you never know (Rachael and Clare's mother) - can you find others?

I loved that bat-squeak phrase too Angie, but meep's drop of blood in a bowl of milk made me shudder.

The feet give us all the creeps. Is that just as it seems on the surface, or is there a deep psychological message? I can't think of any.

I hope there's still plenty to talk about. DMs points about anomolies and holes in the story might be a path worth pursuing.

[meep]

Eileen, it's really refreshing to hear a different take and point of view! So don't apologise ;) It's actually really interesting, as I did love the book so much I found it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't (apart from my OH who isn't "into" romantic books or films...) Overall I just found the whole premise wonderfully constructed and presented, I agree that I didn't even doubt it for a minute, I just accepted Henry's ability to time-travel and all that goes with it (not being able to take things with him, not being able to control it, it being genetic).

I just finished the section last night about Henry's feet and Claire making him some wings. I was confused by this, as whilst it is a very touching thing for Claire to do, just before she gives them to him she paints them red and black and in her thoughts describes them as "for the awful angel" or something. Either way a negative description. Obviously Henry losing his feet affects her, but in a bad way? Is she slightly scared of him, or unsure how to act toward him?

Angie, you said you were bracing yourself for some tragedy. On my first reading, I thought the death was the tragedy, and really wasn't expecting the foot thing at all. As I said before, I felt it was taking it too far and had a huge element of the grotesque in it; for me, it tainted my perception of their relationship. Maybe I enjoyed the book and the description of their relationship throughout out of self-indulgence and escapism as it is so 'wonderful' in parts.

Although, I agree, the sexual scenes are slightly creepy at times. When I first read it, I was struck at how open the author was in describing the sex and sexual tension between them. It is made explicitly clear that Henry needs to have a lot of physical exericise, ie. running and sex, to remain rooted; and at one point Claire complains that they are having too much and it is hurting her to sit down! This made me laugh, but also again feel slightly akward toward their relationship. It seems part of their relationship was largely based on lust, and as Henry isn't a stable thing in Claire's life, could you cynically say a lot of it was based on lust?

Also, thinking back, I definately enjoyed the first half of the book more. The part that went over Claire's childhood and growing up and gave teasing glimpses into their future together. The section about Claire being beaten by a jock from her school, and Henry taping him to a tree and then threatening to beat him, was also quite strange. From Gomez's warnings, Henry's prior relationship with Ingrid, and Claire's notion that Henry has the capability to be very violent, you get an idea that Henry does have an 'alter ego' of sorts and he obviously needs to be able to fend for himself when time-travelling. But I felt this got left behind in the second half of the book. And in the incident where the jock is taped to the tree, there was a sure alliance between Henry and Claire and whilst this solidified their bond to the reader, it also made them seem slightly unreachable, and gave them a 'Bonnie and Clyde'-esque image in my mind.

Henry meeting Henry never really bothered me, I'm not sure why. It just seemed to strengthen the author's "reality" of time-travel. Although the brief chapter where a teenage Henry 'experiments' with himself again seems inappropriate; not that I was offended by it, but it just seemed a bit... off and not needed.

The whole story is such a tragedy, and the only real shining light in it is Alba; yet she never gets her own sections as Henry and Claire do. There isn't really one relationship in the book that 'works':

- Henry's parents are madly in love, yet his mother dies in a tragic and horrific way, leaving Henry's dad a broken man who eventually drinks himself into a rut, and ruins his ability to play cello (or was it violin?)
- Claire's parents don't seem to share any real 'love', and Claire's mother is mentally ill, putting strain on the whole family.
- Claire's brother and his fiancee are marrying out of necesity as she's pregnant.
- Gomez and Charise, Charisse knows that Gomez is in love with Claire and shows her desperation to Henry when she asks whether they stay together if anything happens to Henry.
- Henry's Doctor and his wife have a child with Down's Syndrome. Although we don't know much about their relationship, this is again another tragedy of sorts to befall the family.
- Henry and Claire have a 'destined to be together' love, yet Henry dies in a tragic way, similar to his mother.

Whilst this is a very realistic take on relationships (that a 'perfect, fairytale' marriage doesn't really exist) it does seem that each relationship not only just isn't perfect, but does suffer some deep underlying tragedy or negativity.

I still feel so much for Claire, when she's left alone after Henry's death. The fact that we don't get much of a glimpse of this part of her life (obviously the author couldn't continue for chapters and chapters of Claire's life alone and depressed) shows what an empty void this part of her life must have been; without Henry, she doesn't really have a 'story'.

One thing I wonder is, Henry was pulled to Claire when she was a small girl after he'd married her, so at a subconcious level he'd already known Claire and maybe this is why he continued to visit her throughout her childhood. But the only reason he does marry Claire is because she was visited by him as a child so when she meets him in 'real time' in the library she knows him, invites him out, tells him all this, and tells him that they will get married, so it's almost a done-deal. I have been in a similar discussion about time travel in relation to the movie "Donnie Darko" and someone explained to me that this sort of time-loop is acceptable as it's one complete loop, but that does seem to be some sort of strage hole. Henry visits Claire as a child because he loves her, but it can't be just because of that, as for Claire Henry visited her before the real Henry had met her. So if it wasn't just Henry's subconcious that was drawing him to her, could you say it was 'fate'?

[meep]

Oh and one other quick thing, sorry for the really long post above!

I just finished the chapter last night where Henry is showing Claire how to cook, and she manages a meal and Alba says "It's really good mummy!" Henry agrees "This is great Claire" and then Claire thinks "Don't leave me Henry" That really touched me, and made me well up. Such a normal, everyday, household action such as cooking a meal; for a moment they are a normal family enjoying a homemade meal together, and at the end you realise it's all being taken away from them, and mainly from Claire.

Claire's entire life revolves around Henry. She meets him when she's a wee girl. But Henry has a full 20 years before he meets Claire. So for Claire, Henry is almost more of a 'rock' for him than Claire is an anchor for Henry. Although Henry didn't choose it this way, I did almost feel that Henry was being selfish in this way. Although I know he isn't, for a moment after this section I realised just how much Claire has relied on Henry her whole life, how much she needs him for a simple task like chopping onions and peppers, and how he is taken from her. The emptyness of Claire's life afterwards is one of the most affecting things for me. What does she have to live for if her whole life, from early childhood, has revolved around Henry?

[dinahsmum]

What a pity CM and DM didn't like it :(
Don't you feel disappointed when you've loved something (not necessarily a book) and recommend it to someone else and they say .... nope, didn't do it for me?

[dandysmom]

I know what you mean, have had this happen, but we are all coming to the book from different places, and our viewpoints can't help but be influenced by our whole life experiences. As Angie said, it's good that people have diferent opinions.

That said, did anyone think it was a bit odd that Clare was so, well, obsessed may be too strong a word, driven to have a child, after all those horrendous miscarriages? And knowing that her body was rejecting the embryos for probably good reasons didn't deter her at all? Plus the risk that the child might be afflicted with the same genetic makeup as Henry. The idea of a baby teleporting (time-porting?) is too awful to contemplate .....

I just could not get into her mindset about that ....

[calismum]

thinking back, I definately enjoyed the first half of the book more. The part that went over Claire's childhood and growing up and gave teasing glimpses into their future together.


I think this was one of the reasons that the book didn't do it for me. I did like the first half, raced thru' it and was wondering how things will go, what will happen etc.

However, once the 'stage was set' I just felt it lost a bit in the impetus and became quite repetative.

Dinahsmum about the wings, yes I was touched by the description and the way it was depicted was both a wonderful yet strange part of the book. Thought perhaps they were painted the red and black to signify blood and death/loss. Also to enable Claire to throw herself into something that let her get out all her anger, grief and fear at the loss of part of Henry. This, I think was the point in the relationship where she realised that Henry was not invincible and she probably was going to lose him. I think it was here that she finally accepted she would 'lose' him in the near future.

Dandysmom, I too wondered about the obsession with having a child. Was perhaps this because Claire wanted a bit of Henry - no matter what. Or was it some attempt to prove that she could have a normal life in amongst the madness of Henry, something for her when he was away. Early in the book Henry tells Claire he knows he is alive aged (I think it was 36?) so was she somehow driven to have a child before Henry reached 37?

I think there were a number of loose ends or threads started but left dangling that could well have been deliberate in order to carry some of the characters forward.

[meep]

I wonder if the Author had lived would there have been sequels to this book which may have explained or widened some of the issues we have raised?


To the best of my knowledge, and after a few searches on the internet, the author - Audrey Niffenegger - is still alive. Sorry CM, I'm just a little confused by what you mean!

Also, I don't like the idea of a sequel - for me this book worked as a whole; the whole of Claire's life is covered apart from the part of her life after Henry dies, and as I said in a previous post, I think without Henry Claire doesn't have a story.

[angieh]

Yes, I've just Googled and as far as I can ascertain, Audrey is still with us. Also, she is American not French.

[calismum]

OMG - I am totally off my head:oops:

Had been reading a bit more about 'suite francaise' couple of weeks ago and have somehow mixed the two up - put it down to age/senility/stressed out/brain drain or just plain stupidity - sorry to have caused the confusion - certainly puts that theory out the window tho'!!

Still think there could be sequel though, using Claire/Henry/Alba - just a thought.

Have removed it from post - feel really silly now

[dinahsmum]

We spent some of last night watching the Disney xmas film from last year (I think) - Enchanted. A cartoon princess finds herself in 3-dimensional New York, present day. The cartoon princess elements (someday my prince will come, living happily ever after etc) are side by side with the cynical and the current and broken families and ruthlessness. (and Timothy Spall was his usual excellent self as the evil stepmother's henchman)

Anyway, what all this long preamble is leading to is that, not only is TTW a love story, we have failed to grasp (or mention) that it is, of course, a fairy story.Clare is the beautiful princess, Henry the handsome prince and the spell is his time-travel. Clare fell in love with a fairy story prince when she was a little girl of 6 (as she would) and stayed in the fairy story. She is a princess, she has a big house, a beautiful rather distant mother, no financial worries, doesn't cook or do practical stuff, has faithful staff in the house who raise her - not a care in the world.

Being a fairy story, those of us who accepted it haven't noticed elements the naysayers have, particularly the Lolita element, which had escaped me completely. I am now slightly bothered by that, but feel it wil be erased in time and my previous unconditional love for the book will return. I think the phrase is 'Casting daylight on magic' - CM and DM have looked at the thing with logic - the rest just accepted the crazy premise without a murmer.

The fairy story fades in the second half of the book, when cold reality and nasty stuff returns - lost babies, lost feet, ageing, death, reality.

[angieh]

What a great insight DM - you are IMO quite right about the fairy story element.

I've had a look at Audrey's website, but unfortunately much of it is still under construction - I think she is a very complex person and look forward to the finished site! The front page does have a sort of fairy tale twist - but with a rather dark element, which of course was present in the original "fairy stories" and got all saccharined by Disney.

[angieh]

Oh, and I've been thinking about the "traveling" bit - again, not thought it through yet.

[dinahsmum]

Thanks Angie - it wouldn't have struck me if I hadn't watched that film and if we hadn't been having this discussion here. I'll claim no credit or wonderful intellectual insight; I simply realised Clare was a princess and took it from there.

I think I agree with others who say - no sequel please. Unless the author did it in very J K Rowling fashion, and had a number of books and plot lines developed before publishing TTW, I feel other books would be a pale imitation.

I'll look forward to the film but ... they usually disappoint, don't they? Mostly because the characters aren't as they have been in your head but often because they just can't do justice to the wonderful situations - or worse, when they change the storyline or ending. I wonder if they will? - the test audiences they try films out on tend not to like sad endings.

[dandysmom]

DM, very impressed at your "fairy tale" insight! Hadn't thought of that aspect but makes a lot of sense. I'm enjoying this thread; very interesting all the different viewpoints. About the feet incident, as I wasn't emotionally connected to the characters I'm sorry to say I was dry eyed. Sort of like when you see a pic of a terrible car crash on TV you just think, oh, how tragic, but don't tear up...Am I making any sense here?

[dinahsmum]

I'm enjoying the discussion too - much better than the first book which we all panned - once we had said 'Didn't like, didn't like the characters etc etc' there was little left to discuss. It's really interesting hearing everyone's take on it and I think we are all getting more out of it by bouncing ideas.

[calismum]

Prince, Princess, Castle etc - yes, I can see how that makes sense. Have to admit I would never have thought of that but it fits so well.

I too think this is a better discussion than our first venture. Perhaps where there are differing views it makes for better discussion?

I do hope that the fans of the book are not too disappointed in the film. I do agree that films of favourite books very rarely come up to the mark. Trying to think of films I've seen before reading the book - can't think of any right off.

Looking back over the thread again just picked up the bit about a baby time travelling. Although the book doesn't have a starting age it just doesn't bear thinking about. It would have been hard to imagine how that could have been built in to the story.

[dandysmom]

Prince, Princess, Castle etc - yes, I can see how that makes sense. Have to admit I would never have thought of that but it fits so well.

I too think this is a better discussion than our first venture. Perhaps where there are differing views it makes for better discussion?

I do hope that the fans of the book are not too disappointed in the film. I do agree that films of favourite books very rarely come up to the mark. Trying to think of films I've seen before reading the book - can't think of any right off.

Looking back over the thread again just picked up the bit about a baby time travelling. Although the book doesn't have a starting age it just doesn't bear thinking about. It would have been hard to imagine how that could have been built in to the story.

Gone With the Wind. An all time classic great movie; but I'd read the book before and adored it: had my mental images of everyone (including the dress made from curtains!) and they were completely wiped out by the movie..

Sorry, a bit off topic here, but I never see a move of a book I loved, because it simply isn't the same.