|
||||||
| Welcome to our Cat Forums! | ||||
|
Welcome to our CatForums! You are seeing this message because you are viewing our cat forums as a guest. You can continue to browse our many cat related areas as a guest but you are more than welcome to register and join our friendly community of Cat Lovers! ... And for free! Doing so will also remove this message and some of the ads, such as the one on the left. Please click here to register. |
||||
 |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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? |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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 |
|||||
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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... |
||||
|
)
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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  That would have been the 70s, so it gives me an idea of what treatment of people in asylums would have been like. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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! |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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.  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? |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
I take it that we will not be reading another of Gale's....... |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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!) |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
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. |
|||||
|
