Americanah by Chimamanda Ngozi Adiche

There was a common view that the book was slow to start and that it took time for the romantic comedy and the satirical elements to grab the reader. Ras found this to be so much to be the case that he had decided to bail out after 100 pages. Others felt that the book improved rapidly after tepid beginnings and dramatic tension grew as we came to know the 2 characters who were destined to be reunited at the end.  Many described the book as a good read and a thoroughly enjoyable novel.  Chris W saw it as one of the best books he has read for years

Adichie’s prose was widely admired as fresh and inventive and at the same time, easy to read. The satire on race, class and money was well-received and her linkage of these themes to 3 geographical settings (USA, UK, Nigeria) was generally seen as convincing.  This ranged from the bittersweet humour and irony (cash register, hair styles) to more outrageous examples of prejudice, discrimination, corruption and snobbery.

Mark T was most taken with the depiction of first love and the power it can exert.  He also emphasised the continuing impact of re-visiting early love and relationships. Chris W also saw the central love story as beautiful and very moving.

Mark Th enjoyed the way that the author used the blogs and set pieces to absorb the more polemical commentary so that the dialogue was in general about the everyday life  and instances of prejudice and snobbery as they are experienced. (Steve loved the Special White Friend blog). The dinner party was widely admired, though many of us found the American setting more convincing – perhaps because the author was writing more from experience.  However,  Richard also loved the depiction of Obinze trapped in the UK with no official papers.

Like the prose style, the characterisation was widely appreciated. There was general agreement that the female characters were stronger than the male – with Obinze as the one exception here. Many of the male characters were almost Dickensian caricatures (such as the uneducated father and his long words, or Emenike losing his Nigerian identity so completely).

On the negative side, there was a sense from some (e.g. Rob) that there was too much middle class intellectualising with the characters coming from a narrow and fairly elite group. Many also agreed with Neil that the book was too long and could have lost some scenes and blogs. There were also comments to the effect that the main characters – particularly Ifemelu – were selfish people who hurt others by summarily dropping them or cutting off from them. A further theme concerned there being a sense that she was perhaps too uncritical of Nigeria (Chris B).

Discussion was still in full flow well after 10pm and there was a sense of the book – despite its imperfections - having scenes, themes and qualities that we had not had time to discuss.  Scores were generally high.

Gone Girl by Gillian Flynn

For a book scoring above our monthly average, we were pretty critical. Steve summed it up: a readable tale with some very pertinent lines about modern life and relationships, but hampered by its length, its silly and increasingly unbelievable plot, and by being written by an American for Americans.

So we found it easy to read, creating tension well. We were hooked by the plot and looked forward to reading it. It quickly gripped as a roller coaster crime thriller with an excellent plot, a proper page-turning novel that had enough twists and turns for most people and probably too many for some. For some, despite the irritating Americanisms, destruction of English and silly punctuation, this was an enjoyable read.

We liked the portrayal of middle class America both in New York and in small town US, the effects of the financial crisis on them, the insights into the media industry and some insights into marriage: do we know the people we live with? That feeling of being stuck and powerless…The mechanics of the way it was done with the alternating points of view and the different means of communicating, her first via the diary and then later in the first person generally worked well.

But it was let down by implausible and shallow characterisation, (though some got involved with the characters, especially when they became nasty) and an increasingly unbelievable plot, a story telling mess, though Steve rather liked the gradual winding down of the tension and the ‘can’t live with ‘me, can’t live without ‘em’ sentiment, with an extra order of unease and ‘what next?' thrown in.

Incompetent police (for example, the anti-freeze poisoning would have been detectable in her hair samples, which she placed in various locations), unreal parents (Amy’s), unmemorable supporting cast were frustrating. Bring back Eagleby if you want a real sociopath, said Richard. And why all the swearing (some of us hadn’t noticed)?

Neil summed It up: for me this was a crime suspense thriller of sorts with a difference. Interestingly told and pretty well put together and I looked forward to picking it up far more than the current book I am reading (or possibly the one we will be reading next).

Richard: Such a good score because of the skilled plotting and page-turning writing; such a bad score (for me) because of the clichéd writing and the lack of any depth or substance to the characterisations.

Questions: were we just a bit jaded by all the thrillers we have been reading? Were we being set up at the end for the sequel?

Bring Up The Bodies by Hilary Mantel

Views were mixed. Some, with dark recollections of Wolf Hall still reverberating from a couple of years ago, had looked on the task of reading this book as a ordeal to be suffered rather than enjoyed, and I'm not sure any who felt like that found their preconceptions totally upended. One sceptic, not completing the book for the meeting, did resolve to persevere (and I, not a doubter, also hadn't finished despite having selected it – took me another week).

There were at least a couple of points of general agreement I think: that this was, on the whole, an easier and more involving book to read than the Wolf Hall. Some felt that her editors/publishers must have taken her to task and insisted that she sort out the style difficulty, widely reported and commented on in Wolf Hall, that meant readers struggled to work out exactly who was speaking and who was being spoken about. In this book it became clear early on that when Mantel spoke of 'he', she almost invariably meant Cromwell. Somehow this never really clicked in the first book. Similarly, she peppered her narrative with phrases like " he, Cromwell, looked over at…' – just to make sure.

So it was easier to consume. It was variously very interesting, or not as interesting as it could have been. 'Not a very interesting part of history', 'been done to death already'… 'You know how it ends'… but for others the 'camera on the shoulder' approach to a historical narrative was spell-binding and lent the period a very fresh perspective.

The book undoubtedly presented a thoroughly absorbing characterisation of Thomas Cromwell who was clearly so hugely influential in the politics of the time – and no-one has done this before. The parallel was drawn, somewhat tongue in cheek, with Tony Soprano – a kind of tragic hero, highly intelligent, totally obsessed with his role, the expansion of his influence and the fortunes of his own (what remained of them) – but also revelling in the ability to make or break others.

I think we all felt that at times there was a bit too much context, detail and innuendo being trowelled on. The line between accurate history and historical novel was constantly blurred, and for some this was an issue – do you believe in it (or doubt it) as an account of what actually happened, or do you suspend your disbelief, let Mantel guide you through her quite fruity interpretation of events and enjoy the journey?

For some this is a tremendous book – painting a vivid and utterly absorbing picture of a part of history of which we have no digital evidence, no photographs, no YouTube footage. She give you the tools to run the movie in your head, in Technicolour. Equally I don't think anyone felt this was a really awful book - or not as bad as perhaps was feared. Some wished Mantel had perhaps taken her historical 'responsibilities' a little more seriously and told us more about the direct influence that Cromwell had on the way the country was governed. Others just wished she'd get on with it and tell the story.

I'm not sure if HM has confirmed that a third part is to be published, though noises of the kind have been heard. Perhaps that is where we'll learn more about the way Cromwell worked when not managing the King's rather sad and desperate obsession with producing a healthy male heir. If it comes, I will read it, but perhaps will stop short of inflicting it on the assembled multitude!

Archangel by Richard Harris

So, to the book: as you will have seen from emails in from Mark Th, Steve and Richard, Archangel has not set the club alight, but views ranged from it being a pretty good book with a rather less good ending, to it being a dreadful book with and ridiculously bad ending.  Of those present the views were roughly as follows:

Mark T had not expected to enjoy the boo at all and found it better than expected, with insights into Russia etc, but felt that a book such as this that is almost entirely plot-driven and lacked any subtleties about what the characters feelings were about events etc was lacking and he could not forgive it for this.

Rob felt similarly and thought that in a similar fashion to Ghost, one of Harris’ other novels that has been turned into a film starring Ewan McGregor, that the author had been so set on pursuing a lot line that he had drafted up in advance that he missed great opportunities to explore other avenues that Rob was sure would have provided more interesting material.  Having said the he enjoyed the history lesson about Stalin and was comforted to know that Harris was previously an investigative journalist of some repute and that his research could reasonably be relied on to be fairly accurate.

 

Chris was a bit more enthusiastic, certainly about the first half to two thirds of the novel but felt that the ending let it down very badly.  I was slightly disadvantaged in that I had read the book a number of years ago and actually had a hard cover version of it (sorry, forgot I shouldn’t mention the H word, far too controversial) and so had to rely on distant memories.  I am a fan of Robert Harris and have enjoyed reading his books ever since Fatherland, his first, which I thought was a brilliantly conceived storyline.  I also remembered enjoying the setting for this book as it was the Moscow I first got to know only a few years before Archangel was written and I revelled in his perspective of the place.  Nevertheless, I was also disenchanted with the ending and the plausibility of it which moderated my own scoring.

 

So, overall not a very well received book, with scores ranging so fa between 2 and 6.5.  I am hoping Rob kept a note of them though as I’m afraid I didn’t so I can only reliably confirm that my own score matched Richards at 6.5.

 

Despite our small numbers it was an enjoyable meeting, especially for me having missed so many over the last 9 months, and the conversation continued and touched on subjects both closely related to the book (why did Stalin get off so lightly in historical reckoning compared to Hitler, and did Blair and Bush commit real crimes against humanity that are only lessened by virtue of scale), the book club (the H-word and electronic readers it seems will always be a topic for conversation) and beyond (retirement for example and what  to do with it, especially for those fortunate enough to have index-related, state funded pensions).