Discussion at the Forester and Flower in Combe Down on Thursday 4th August 2016
All 7 of us (except for MarkT, on holiday) met at the Forester and Flower in Combe Down on
Thursday 4th August to discuss A Little Life. Only 2 of us had completed it, one did not
wish to, and the rest did want to but felt they could discuss it anyway.
Richard
kicked off, describing it as “a seriously good book, one of the best I’ve read
in a very long time.” He said that he found it “gripping, extremely
interesting, with very well drawn characters developed in depth (Jude of
course, but also Willem, JB, Malcolm, Harold, Andy, and a host of minor
characters), written extremely well and with an engaging and interesting style,
and getting to drips with a host of hugely important issues, including:
·
friendship
and its various forms,
·
the
nature of resilience (a special interest of mine),
·
questions
about the possibilities of recovery from early and later childhood damage,
·
Child
abuse and child sexual abuse,
·
the
nature of depression and self-worth,
·
existential
questions about the will to live and the nature of suicide,
·
love
and sex and their inter-twinness,
·
how
much can be expected of psychotherapy,
·
self-harm
and cutting. So much about cutting – the detail, the psychology of it. DSH: About 1 in 10 young people. Plus, In a study of
over 4000 self-harming adults in hospital, 80% had overdosed and around 15% had
cut themselves. In the community, it is likely that cutting is a more common
way of self-harming than taking an overdose.”
Richard said
that it reminded him in some ways of other books which have had a major impact
on him – Sophie’s Choice (William Styron), for example, also grappling with the
aftermath of awful experiences and the nature of love and friendship. He said “I
loved lots and lots of it: the wonderful monologues which each character had
with themselves as they struggled to come to grips which who they were and
where they were going in life; and of course Jude, with all of his
complications.” When later the fact that some of the characters were gay was
raised, Richard stated that it did not seem a central issue in the book – yes,
some were gay, but … so what?
Chris
B went next. He was 94% of the way through it, and “loved it”. He felt that it
could have been shorter, and found it frustrating to start each chapter without
knowing who was speaking – but these were minor quibbles. When later the fact that some of the
characters were gay was raised, Chris said that, for him, this was not in any
way important.
Mark
W went next, stating that he had read about 50% of the book and had decided to
go no further. “I don’t remember ever reading a book that I have hated as much
as this one. I could not get past
certain things that meant I couldn’t engage.” Mark explained that he was on
holiday, so it was not the length or the lack of time which led to this – he
had time, just hated the book. So, what
were those things? “Pretentious, contrived, characters were caricatures, hated
this aspect of USA culture (which aspect? Swearing – the F word a lot). Half
way through the book, I still hated it. It was just too gay. So much political
correctness – I don’t want to read a book about people cutting themselves and
gay relationships and everyone having unusual names.”
Neil
had finished it, and said he was somewhere between Richard/ChrisB and MarkW. He
did want to pick it up and read it; but there were elements that were less
alluring: “really – do I have to read through this again” (cutting)? “You don’t
have to go through that detail again and again – so it was physically
unpleasant and difficult.” Neil also thought that it could have been shorter
and lost nothing. He also felt that it
was very USA Upper-Upper Middle Class – “Just so perfect together, all
brilliant people, just one is a bit damaged. I’ve never met anyone with that
level of friendship – especially among men. So overall, bits grated and bits
felt very good.”
Steve
was at 70%. He had “dark, bad thoughts about this at the start – like a USA
film – 2 families stuck in a farmhouse and bickering together. But the very very clever way she structured
the narratives built up a layering effect – built up the depth of the
characters. This is a very expert bit of writing – the drip feeding of bits of
information – a classic detective novel structure, and strangely with this, I
didn’t object to this.” Steve later
finished the book and sent round his later thoughts: “Despite still being
mildly astonished at the slow rate at which the % readout increased, I do think
it was worth it - indeed I found it a quietly remarkable book. I thought the
descriptions of the intricacies of deep friendship, love and the agonies of
loss were very well described. Her style is understated, and while based around
digression and diversion to fill out the story, this worked for me as a way of
adding layers of complexity and detail. One of the interesting aspects of the
book was to make Jude a really demanding, not-necessarily-likeable character,
apparently self-centred and distant... while gradually peeling back the skin
that conceals his back story and revealing some of the reasons why, and as a
result prompting sympathy and understanding. For once I didn't mind being
'manipulated' by the author as she drip-fed crucial details of Jude's past,
because all the other characters were also learning this as they went along. I
particularly liked the character of Harold and Julia. And so many different
ways of saying sorry, and such a range of things to apologise for! The ending
is not unexpected in some ways but manages to pull many of the storylines and
character developments together. I had to work hard to finish it but have a
feeling I'll remember it for some time. So I'll stick with my score at the
meeting.”
Rob
was on 60%, and was “enjoying the book, albeit in a slightly unhappy way. The book is writing about difficult issues
which are usually shied away from. There is very good writing. But my problems are that the construction is
unrealistic – 4 characters, all leading lights; why was Jude so well liked? –
he is an irritating shit – a boring little sycophant. It is long – it could
have been shortened by cutting lots of the little vignettes; and the
description of the Gay community – there seem to be more gay people in their
social circle than in the circles I know in (eg) London.” [Subsequently, Rob finished the book and
wrote: I found I got into it more as (a lot of) time went on and in particular
liked and enjoyed the last 150 pages or so. Having said that, my previous
criticisms still stand, namely (i) ridiculous that four people who were college
friends are all going to end up being so pre-eminent in their fields (ii)
apparently everyone in the US is either gay, or has a gay family member or, if
not gay, occasionally sleeps with a member of the same sex (about as likely as
everyone being heterosexual), and (iii)
I still don’t see why everyone fawned over Jude so much - he was blatantly
extremely irritating. However, it was a good piece of writing so I’m giving it
8.1]
Chris
W was only about 30% through, but “I echo Richard and Chris – some very good
bits – I just enjoy the characters; it is written in such depth that I get into
the thoughts behind; and it is beautifully expressed – her skill – I didn’t
even know if it was a ‘her’ – the book seems very ‘gender-free’). But I also
agree – it would be good not to have yet another book about Ivy League; and too
many ‘He’s’ so one doesn’t know who is speaking.
The
evening generated many discussions, including
·
How
unrealistic it was to have 4 characters, all leading lights - Steve argued that
“it was done deliberately, to create a level playing field” and Richard argued
that many people could talk about old school- or University-friends and
describe them in ways that would make them appear very successful, even though
there will be many elements of their lives that are less so; and
·
The
cutting and (masked) depression – how common it is, and how many of us knew
people who either had cut, or who were very depressed.
Richard
Velleman
August 2016
