Discussed Thursday, 2nd April 2015, Forester & Flower,
Combe Down
Present: Chris B, Chris W, Mark W, Mark T, Neil, Richard,
Rob, Steve.
Beer was good, wine was expensive - £10.70 left in the kitty
for next time! (although that might have been before they discovered that we
owed more: Rob took the kitty for next time).
4* (****) discussion.
All of us were there, including Mark W, our new member. Richard chaired (as it was his book choice)
and unfortunately, no-one mentioned until much later that it was MarkW’s first
meeting, so there were no introductions – apologies all round.
This book concerns Fiona Maye, a Senior Judge in the Family
Division, and describes both her relationship with her husband as they reach
their 60s, and some of the difficult judgements she has to make. The novel that
was written in the third person, but one that in fact was all narrated from
inside Fiona Maye's awareness.
The book was generally liked, with a number of those present
liking it a lot (Richard, ChrisB, MarkT, ChrisW, Rob, Steve); and with others
having a larger number of reservations (Neil, MarkW).
Everyone agreed that the writing style was excellent: “I
loved his writing, his descriptions of the music, of the boy … I liked the
description of their marriage”; “it was very believable”; “I liked it,
especially as the writing was so good, so accomplished, so enjoyable”; “I
enjoyed reading it, easy to read, beautifully written, his ability to introduce
a concept (eg the religious vs scientific argument) and build it into the plot:
his economy of writing and the effectiveness of his writing”. Even those who
liked the book less argued that “I respect his talent and his writing skill and
ability: it was not a chore to read”; “relatively simple and plain language to
put over complex pictures”.
The excellent style of writing flowed over into what he
wrote as her judgements – “This has been no easy matter to resolve. I have
given due weight to A's age, to the respect due to faith, and to the dignity of
the individual embedded in the right to refuse treatment … ”.
McEwan also introduced many little touches and comments:
“she was intent on her phone, reading, tapping, frowning in the contemporary
manner”; “She had a N. Londoner’s ignorance of and disdain for the boundless
shabby tangle of London south of the river.”
Although all agreed that the writing was extremely polished,
for some that was a virtue, and others less so. On memorable analogy was with
Led Zeppelin-I vs -IV: by LZ-IV the band were extremely polished, but some felt
that they had lost some of the edge and spark that made LZ-I such an amazing
album; and some argued that the same was true of this book vs some of McEwan’s
initial ones. Hence this was “very polished; lots of research; interesting; and
easy read; great prose …. But did I care about the characters? – not really”.
Much discussion revolved about why the book was so
short. Everyone agreed that it was “very
well researched”, and it was compared to Human Traces, another well researched
book by Sebastian Faulks, an author from the same period and country as McEwan.
But whereas in Human Traces arguments (and the author’s compendious research)
were expounded at great length, here the book was extremely short – almost a
short story.
Many really liked the legal detail, and the fascination of
the cases she described and worked with (or sometimes simply heard about, eg
when John, her singer Barrister, recounts a serious miscarriage of justice).
There were a host of complicated facts and sustained arguments, and many
present really enjoyed this.
One element that many liked a lot was his descriptions of
music, and the playing of music: “I liked the music”; “I remember learning to
play a piece, as described in the book”; “the description of the concert was so
real and lifelike”; “Her love of Keith Jarrett; her inability to play jazz – ruined
by classical piano”.
Another element that some liked a lot was the
relationship(s) – although there was disagreement over this element: some felt
that “I liked the relationships” (and that comment related to both the
wife/husband one, and the judge/boy one: “when you are 18, a kiss can be very
important”); “the relationship was so well described: it made me think about my
own marriage”; “”I enjoyed the relationship”.
But others felt that both relationships were problematic: there was some
disagreement about the marriage, and the husband’s departure for (and rapid
return from) his affair, with some feeling that it was “too convenient – him
leaving his wife and then and coming back so soon”.
There was also disagreement about the plausibility of some
of the elements: for example, that she would have rejected the boy after
getting so close to him. One person argued that “it was unbelievable that she
would not have written to him” – whereas others felt that it was completely
believable, and indeed that to write to him might have crossed a number of
ethical lines. Indeed, some people felt
that this was the crux of the entire book, and was a good attempt to describe
and discuss a key issue in many professionals’ lives: the separation of
personal and professional life.
Another disagreement was over the book’s intellectual
content: some felt that “the book had no intellectual ideas” whereas others
felt that it raised some of the most interesting intellectual ideas in any book
we had recently read: “One of the most thought-provoking books I’ve read”; “I
felt that the novel grappled with hugely serious issues: Does the state have
the (moral) right to insist on treatment of its choice, even if it transcends
religious or moral rules?”
The main criticisms of the book, however, revolved around
two elements:
· the “middle
class bubble” in which the story was set – “assured, successful people standing
in judgement over the feckless”: some felt that it was simply “too upper middle
class”; - “I admired the book but it was too upper middle class – everyone was
so cultured!”
· and the
emotional tone: some felt that “it left me cold”, and/or that it was in some
way “smug” – “there was too much icing on the cake – all the classical music,
and the concert – I’d hate to be married to her – no emotional empathy”; “it
was interesting, but had no emotional pull-in”; “I was not into the characters
– I was detached from the book”. One
person suggested that the book, although superbly written, was almost “tedious
– every word is nuanced, and so carefully presented. It was an amazing book,
but also very … predictable – not at all edgy”.
Most of the group had read a number of McEwan books before,
and there was therefore much comparison.
Some argued that whilst Atonement or Chesil Beach were very good, others
(such as Saturday, and the present book) were much less emotionally satisfying:
“this book felt like an episode of a legal drama, not a book”. One person went so far as to state that “this
is the same book as Saturday: exposing the hypocritical life-style of the N.
London legal system”.
The discussion was long and excellent, and covered many of
the elements above, including the rules of engagement (or not) that are being
produced to cover eventualities whereby professionals meet clients/patients
outside of work. The discussion also raised the issues of her childlessness,
and the difficulty for a successful professional woman to jump off the
bandwagon – especially so for one on the legal profession; and it was raised
that the discussion would have been very different (and far more focussed on
this and related issues) if this had been a female book club.
Richard, April
2015
