The Quiet American – Graham Greene

Late April 2009

In broad terms we didn't disagree much with what Richard said in his note below - so that will have to do as a summary plus whatever anyone else wants to send around by way of addendum. I recall some discussion about the pre-American Vietnam and how generally (expect for the History Teacher Man) we knew little of that era and so were interested to find out more - albeit from the perspective of Greene which some of us, myself included, suspected of a degree of personal political bias. The male/female power relationship element noted by Richard was also discussed (though without getting into comparing notes on numbers of partners) along with a conversation about how times have and have not changed in terms of social attitudes and norms. Rob found the juxtaposition of good and bad in terms of personalities and sense of moral judgement between the two prime characters quite interesting. i.e. Pyle had a high sense of personal moral behaviour in his direct dealings with people but no sense of moral right or wrong in the wider impact of what he did, whilst the central character (can't recall his name - sorry) was clearly unpleasant to almost everyone around him but had strong and generally sound moral judgements on wider society. Was Greene trying to make a point here I wonder?

Generally felt to be a good book without completely stirring people into paroxysms of delight.

From RV:

There were lots of things I enjoyed about this book:

* it was quick and easy to read;

* it was very interesting to read about Vietnam before the USA Vietnam war;

* Greene was very interesting on relationships (p 100) and how relationships are infused with hurt and pain and possession etc, and his writing on religion is especially interesting given his conversion to Catholicism;

* It was really interesting to read about people's views of 'old age' in the 1950s (p 96): "I've reached the age where sex isn't the problem so much as old age and death. I wake up with these in mind and not a woman's body. I don't want to be alone in my last decade." - and yet he is meant to be in his 50's! I could imagine now someone writing that about someone in their 70s or 80s!

* It was also interesting to read about Greene's view of the average number of sexual partners people have! (pp 94-96 in my edition) - the character says he has had sex with about 45 women (and this is in the 1950s!) and then says "I'm sure it is below the Kinsey average". UK surveys show that the mean number of partners over a lifetime is actually 9.5! USA averages are between 6 and 8.

*many of his descriptions are incredibly real and vivid - for example, the brilliant brief description of a plane destroying a boat on the river and the dead civilians (page 142), or the one of the bomb exploding in the market (pp 151-155).

The worst bit of the book was Zadie Smith's boring and rather verbose introduction! But her last paragraph is very good - too long to write here, but her last two sentences will suffice:

"There are many natural storytellers in English literature, but what was rare about Greene was the control he wielded over his abundant material. Certainly one can imagine nobody who could better weave the complicated threads of war-torn Indochina into a novel as linear, as thematically compact and as enjoyable as the Quiet American."

However Richard did not really warm to any of the characters, so it was not a brilliant book for him, just a very good one.

7.46

When the Rain Comes – Jonathan Coe

Bath Big Read – optional extra book for March 2009

Most had read it and four of us (Neil, Mark, Chris and Rob) had gone to hear Jonathan Coe talk about it in the festival - being almost the only men in a room full of several hundred women book club members. The majority view (interestingly those who had read it and been to the talk) of it was very positive, with the device of using the pictures as chapters to describe the story as working and creating a nice, readable framework (but with a contrary view from Mark and Steve). Similarly, the use of the picture as a tool to describe the scene worked for most, but not all (Steve thinking the words became a bit predictable). The only bit that really grated with people was the fate of Imogen - repeating an earlier scene in the book. The ratings put the book around the top quarter.

7.01

According to Queeney – Beryl Bainbridge

Late March 2009

A general view that it was hard going - certainly the first half, though both Mark Th. and Chris E got into it more as the book progressed. Some of the things discussed were:

Some good descriptive bits (dogs, rain and diamonds springs to mind) but a contrary view that an occasionally inspired sentence doesn't make a novel

Some very funny passages and in particular some good one-liners from the folks living in Johnson's house

Does a novel set in a historical context need to tell /inform you anything about the history (Chris - no, me - yes). Whichever, a general view that it didn't.

Felt to be an interesting book about social behaviour and settings of the period (if you're interested in that kind of thing)

Given our oft-discussed point about whether we warmed to the characters - a general view of not doing so, whether that be Johnson, Queeney, Mrs Thrale or whoever.

Apart from the somewhat strained concept of returning to the theme at the end when Johnson died, some confusion about the point of the opening scene (though was widely felt to be the best bit of the book).

So, not highly rated, though Steve, Mark Th. and Chris enjoyed it to an extent.

3.94

The Reader – Bernhard Schlink

Late February 2009

Thursday night's discussion was one of the best we have had - driven by a book with much to talk about.

Only Chris amongst those present had seen the film of The Reader, so we came to the book free from too many images of Kate Winslet to distract us. Before getting into the content, there was much comment on the writing style, which worked for everyone with perhaps the exception of Steve. THe precise adjectives used escape me two days later, but things like 'spare' and 'precise' were used. The basic drift was Schlink's ability to write about complex issues is clear, concise ways and cover ground over a few pages that other authors would have taken an opus magnus to cover was generally complimented. Steve had his traditional problem with being disconnected from the writers pen through the translator and found some of the description a bit clunky - 'Germanic' I think was the phrase. However, equally everyone found some very clever and insightful one liners in the book (e.g. the one Richard identified about remembering beauty).

To the subject matter. There were essentially three different story-lines identified in the book:

· The tension between different German generations in relation to their response to, and culpability for the atrocities during the war (e.g. Will)

· A love story (e.g. Chris)

· How a person's communication problems create barriers between them and the world around them, resulting in an inability to sustain relationships and even understand personal responsibility for actions such as murder (e.g. Rob)

Or indeed was it about all three?

(Post meeting note: Neil added a fourth option - it was about how women can screw up men's lives)

There was much discussion about Hannah, and our reactions to her. which varied from strong dislike from the outset, to those who quite warmed to her. The former saw her as an essentially evil woman who preyed upon an innocent young man for her own needs, then abused and denied him, rendered him unable to sustain a relationship for the rest of his life, and was basically a murderer who not only saw no personal responsibility for her actions but didn't even show a willingness to consider anything other than herself. The latter saw a woman damaged by society's responses to her illiteracy, unable to cope or know how to handle that other than to run away and ultimately destroyed by (for example) the legal systems need for an easy victim in the court case and then her inability to handle the shift in the power relationship with her 'kid' on her potential release from prison.

Other issues covered ranged about and beyond the book itself, including:

Neil's question about the outcome for Hannah. There was no consensus but suggestions ranged from (i) the above point about not being able to accept the shift in power in her relationship with her former child lover in him being the person in control and providing upon her release from prison, (ii) it was her final rejection of him (iii) her having learnt to read meant she no longer had anything in life to strive for (iv) her new-found ability to read meaning she had begun to understand the implications of her actions in the war and thus finally accepted responsibility and did what she did. Who knows?

The difference in 'acceptability' to readers between a woman in her mid thirties seducing a boy of 15 compared to a man in his 30s seducing a girl of 15 (inevitable comparison with the seediness of Humbert Humbert in Lolita) but of course Hannah was really doing him a favour by initiating him into the delights of sex (allegedly)...

The extent to which people are responsible for their actions when their life and/or the world around them creates situations whereby the degree of 'free choice' they have over their decisions is debatable.

So in conclusion a general thumbs-up, other than from Ras and with Steve not completely certain yet having only just finished the book that morning and wanting to give some time for it to mull or ferment in his mind (or other alcoholic analogies).

7.04

Never Never – David Gaffney

Late Jan 2009 (double header with Engleby)

Unusually it received a range of opinions, and I think was unique as a book if only in its ability to move Mark Th to passionate dislike; I would go as far as to say it annoyed him. A rare thing. Equally rare was Richard's disliking and his score. Despite these firsts, the general opinion was that there was little merit in his writing abilities: unbelievable characters, unlinked plot lines, sneering in the place of humour.

On the positive side, he definitely captured West Cumbria, for those of you who have been. And he provoked a lively debate amongst us about debt, its management, and its power to alter and destroy relationships. The general feeling, however, was that instead of a sympathetic dealing of people with genuine interesting dilemmas, he created absurd one's and invited us to 'enjoy'.

From RG: 'Never Never' didn't really do a lot for me. Despite being fairly easy reading in some ways, I found it difficult to get into in a chunky way and neither the characters nor the story line really grabbed me. What struck me after a while was that the style was strangely reminiscent of Tom Sharpe novels i.e. taking a largely realistic scenario and then applying unbelievable and extreme occurrences to it, with an amount of attached slapstick. However, he didn't take this as far as Sharpe and thus failed to genuinely get into the surreal humour, whilst by stepping beyond the realistic he blew it on both counts. I ended up not knowing whether he was trying to present a realistic account of what happens or not. I was surprised to read at the end he was once a debt counsellor in Moss Side as I had assumed that the debt counselling materials were an extreme parody (maybe they were not) - though I could see some parallels between the people and settings from the advice centre with those whom I met and worked with in my days of developing and funding the voluntary/charitable sector. Talking of which, he finally blew any credentials to be writing an informed story when he did the grant application bit - completely divorced from what really happens. Similarly the Bennett character was totally unbelievable - people like that just don't exist and operate in the field he was supposed to be in.

3.73

Engleby – Sebastian Faulks

Was an 'extra' book and was very well received by all. Faulks has amazing versatility and may have found his comfort zone with abnormal psychology (we read Human Traces a while ago). His portrayal of Engleby's detachment and general lack of social judgement and empathy, coupled with partial insight and intelligence was for me alarmingly accurate. In general the whodunit plot was well received with most people thinking he did it, and some arguing it was one more fantasy, perhaps his biggest fantasy. Perhaps, someone suggested, the whole story was his fantasy.

His description, and the humour, from 80's London was enjoyable and accurate, and sparked a discussion about how difficult it is to capture events in recent memory and the relative merit of introducing real characters in fiction (eg., Archer, Mandelson).

The highlights for Rob, who hadn't finished it at the time of the meeting, were his brilliant description of Engleby's (first?) breakdown and the references to both the music and the culture of that period when I was a late teenager/student. Very evocative. The tirade about ELP was wonderful.

7.61

A Plot Against America - Philip Roth

A Plot against America provoked some of liveliest discussion we've had to date. Several layers of the 'plot' concept meant that we read the book in slightly differing ways. There was (i) the Nazi plot against the Jews (ii) the plot against American democracy (iii) the German plot to effectively take control of America through Lindenburgh (iv) the Jewish plot to undermine American society. Take your pick as to which was (i) real - in the counter-fatual story as opposed to real/real, (ii) in people's minds (iii) became a reality as a consequence of the reactions of sections of American society to one of the other actual or imagined plots. Given that, there was little dispute that the book did actually have a plot (or several) unlike some other recent reads and was all the better for it.

An issue for some was the story being told from the perspective of a nine year old boy. Juxtaposing a phenomenally perceptive child and the complex political developments didn't work for some (Steve in particular). Similarly, the interweaving of family/teenage growing up narrative with politics/societal change was generally felt not to be a great success - but with differing views. Some (Neil, Mr Pink) felt the former created the book's highlights, whilst others (Rob & Ras) thought the book only really got going when the political shifts became more seismic after a somewhat turgid first half . Still others (Mark TH. by email) liked the way the two were put together.

In terms of the style and quality of writing, a general thumbs up for Roth's clear use of the English language (the 'keep it simple, stupid' brigade i.e. Will & Rob were particularly happy), but his tendency to use overly long sentences was not welcomed by everyone (Neil, Steve). He clearly has an ability to portray characters well - almost all the main characters came to life and were felt to be plausible (with the possible exception of Lindenburgh - who never made a direct appearance anyway). His technique of revealing key outcomes part-way through a chapter and then going back to describe how they happened was an interesting one that generally worked (Rob)

Most of the real discussion and debate was, not surprisingly, around the counter-factual political story. No doubt partly energised by having a group member (Richard) who had several members of his Jewish family killed in the war in Europe either by fleeing too late or not at all, the book provoked lively discussions on things like:
- Could it have really happened in America? (split verdict)
- How the book (in particular the 'real history' at the back) highlighted for some of us an anti-Semitism in the USA we had previously been aware of, because America has re-written and concealed that part of its history from the world (and current-day Americans)
- Why people would or would not have fled to Canada when faced with the growing tide of anti-Semitism and what would we do in the circumstances? (General consensus we would have no doubt held on and left it too late)
- Why the book makes no reference or acknowledgement to other forms of overt discrimination and oppressed groups in America i.e. the black population
- One of the underpinning issues to the novel: Is the congregation of one racial or religious group together in society a positive or negative thing and are moves to forcibly integrate people with society as a whole ever justifiable?
- The roots of discrimination against sections of society and how, given the opportunity, it is scary how much of society will turn against groups that appear to be an easy target.

So, despite the book prompting of much discussion and a general thumbs up for the writing style, it was interesting that only Richard gave it a high mark. The analogy that appeared to strike a chord (with apologies to the imminent potential sexism - blame Will, it was his idea) was that with a woman who has all the right attributes when looked at objectively (I assume he meant intelligence, charisma .....), but who you just don;t find sexually attractive. The book was well written, good plot, good characters, action, nice sub-plots or story-lines - but somehow it just didn't add up for most of us into a book that we really liked or even recommend to others.

An average score of 6.01 - about two-thirds down the rating list of our 37 books to date.