How to Be Both - Ali Smith

Forester and Flower, 7th May 2015

This was arguably a Marmite book - though it could be said that in order for anything to be true marmite, there should be a real split between love and hate. We managed a one love and three hate split with a further three being in the 'quite liked it' category whilst one person (Mark W) was left with feelings ranging from one extreme to another.

The fundamental divide came down to a question of writing style and the connected question of what we therefore understood the book to be about. What some saw as writing that was 'irritating, disjointed and pointless' (Chris W.), along with other complaints about poor use of words that could not be justified by attempts to pretend they were in period (Rob), others saw as being 'like a painter throwing paint at a wall' (Neil) and 'trying things out - and why shouldn't she'? (Steve). What this meant was that the majority of us, even those who ended up feeling reasonably positive about the book, found it very hard work. Most people, including most of those who disliked, found parts that we liked - such as the understanding it created of the male dominated artistic world (in the earlier story), or the developing sexuality (in both but particularly the later one) and the general (probable) themes about loss and relationships.  One consequence of this was a difficulty experienced by almost all in understanding the whole thing. "I don't pretend to understand the book" (Steve) and "It's not a story - what is it trying to say apart from being clever" (Chris B) summed up much of the discussion at the meeting. Not all of us realised in advance that different versions of the book had the two stories in a different order, and we explored (without conclusion) whether that might have made a difference to both understanding and enjoyment. For example, who was Francesco's ghost watching (two of us completely missed that even being there) and was Francesco actually an (undeveloped) boy?

The exception to this that must be noted came in the form of later comments from the absent Richard who found it a 'wonderful, delightful book' (which we are sure was a view in no way influenced by him reading a free copy given to him by the author after discussing it with her over a glass or three of red wine!) He enjoyed some of the small touches about how children behaved differently in Italy to England as well as the over-arching feeling of 'the human warmth that ran through the book, which reminded me of the author herself".

At the end of the day, with scores ranging from 1 to 9, it certainly drew out varying reactions, but cannot be described as one of the resounding successes in our collective desire to find and enjoy new literature - achieving an average of 5.33 (the lowest for some time).

The Children Act, Ian McEwan

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

De Niro's Game, by Rawi Hage

The Hare and Hounds, Lansdowne Road, Bath, March 5th 2015

Note: Spoilers contained in this review.

This book was Neil’s choice from a shortlist of his favourite books that he had read as part of his book club in Dubai.  Neil introduced the book by saying that he had been drawn to it by it’s setting in Beirut, a city he has visited many times for work, and was held by the fascinating account of what war, and particularly a civil war where normal conventions are almost completely ignored, can do to two teenagers such as George and Bassam, the central characters of the book.  He found the book to be packed with drama and detail considering the relative brevity of it, which allowed him to re-read the book for the purposes of the meeting, something he hadn’t initially been sure he would.  Furthermore he found the mix of bloody action and lyrical prose to be quite interesting in its contrast.

This feature of the language used turned out to be one of the key talking points as some felt it jarred heavily, while others appreciated it much more.  Rob for instance commented that it was “disjointed, staccato and almost contemptuous use of language” while Richard felt that Hage “has a really interesting way with words and expressions” “and some of his sentences are almost Joyceian”.   And while Steve found the streams of consciousness passages quite enjoyable, Mark found himself irritated by the writing style which he found rather clunky.  Chris B also thought that some of the descriptions were almost cartoon-like.

There was more consensus about the engaging interest of the book  and what it told us about Beirut, the civil war, the horror of war and the experience of growing up through adolescence in this environment.  There was plenty going on and for people like Steve and Mark it brought back images from TV news or, in Mark’s case, a visit to Israel and the border with Lebanon while shelling had been going on.  However, despite this Mark found that after 2 weeks he had already forgotten parts.   For Chris B it illuminated certain facts, such as the Israeli involvement in training, while for Rob it didn’t tell him enough about the conflict in Lebanon or explain enough about what was going on.  The sexual awakening of Bassam was quite well observed, but several felt that the mistreatment of women in the book belied cultural differences rather than circumstances of war and children left orphaned without good role models.

There was further disagreement about the relative parts played by Paris and Beirut in the book.  For Chris W he found the contrast of the two fascinating and was disappointed that the French section of the book was relatively short, while Richard found the Parisian setting much less interesting than Beirut.  In between the two Steve found the transition between the two rather clumsy and lacking something. 

Overall it was generally felt to be an interesting, reasonably engaging if not great or particularly memorable book, while it’s brevity bordered between being a plus to being too short with Chris W being keen to know what the next chapter in Bassam’s life would have been like.  Probably only Neil will go on to read another book by the author (this was his first novel by the way and a prize-winning one at that).  But for the group as a whole it seems that the literary style was not quite to their tastes and scores ranged between 6.0 and 7.2.

Burial Rites, by Hannah Kent

The Rising Sun, Grove St, Bath. December 4th 2014

Alert for non-club readers: some plot spoilers ahead.

Six of the BBBC gathered at the Rising Sun to pick over the entrails of Hannah Kent's book (not to mention several packets of Norman's finest snacky comestibles).

Broadly speaking we liked the book a lot. In briefest summary it's an engaging, well written book that, while perhaps coming up just short of the divide between 'good' and 'great', is nonetheless a tremendous achievement for a first novel.

First impressions weren't so great – the advertised subject matter and title would have put some off. But persistence was rewarded: the characters were strongly drawn and Agnes in particular generated empathy. The female characters were perhaps more clearly drawn than the males (lots of strong, silent agricultural types, or old priests with a fondness for drink), although to be fair the principal cast list was predominantly female anyway. It was commented that Lauga was a disappointment – she was introduced as a strong and complex character but then rather faded out of the narrative. The character of Margaret was interesting as her gradual thawing towards Agnes could be said to mirror the way that subsequent history (if 'subsequent history' is a thing) has also read her story.

Hannah Kent's ability to evoke the time and place of the narrative was widely praised. Her time in Iceland had not only borne extensive research but also enabled her to write convincingly and attractively about the landscape and the weather. Those of us who have visited Iceland can see why she felt compelled to undertake this project. From fish skin for windows, straw from the roof and earth from the walls, the general 'cosiness' of a winter in the badstofa was brought bluntly and yet mesmerisingly to life.

Icelandic culture underpinned the plotting, with poetry and sagas the principal means of recording and passing on history. The use of symbolism – stones in the mouth, ravens, fire, ice, water, blood – added to the strong sense of place that runs throughout the book. Emily Bronte was mentioned as a parallel for the way Kent strove to imbue every aspect of the plot with life and meaning.

The book was also helped by its structure, using several interweaving narratives to layer up a rich composition. Despite this it was by nature a 'quiet' book, and the ending rather divided the group. For some, it was extremely thought-provoking: would you have convicted her? How would you spend your last day if you knew you were going to die? How advanced was Icelandic/Danish society to have managed to make this, in March 1830, the last public execution in Iceland? For others, it was something of an anti-climax: the depth of the research early on, and the amount of information that had been drip-fed into the narrative by the time we approached the end, meant that there really wasn't anything new to learn apart from Agnes' personal response to the situation and the story.

Talking of research, did the fact that it was based on a true story detract from the way in which we were able to immerse ourselves in the book? Does the presence of reality hinder us from willingly suspending our disbelief to the extent that we might if it was 100 percent fabrication? Not all agreed with this, and some would indeed have liked more of the back story. There was discussion too about the sudden disappearance of the young priest Toti from the story in the final third (until the very end) just when Agnes would have had need of him most. The device of a fever striking him down seemed rather an obvious way to exaggerate the sense of abandonment and isolation that Agnes needed to paint as her story reached its climax. 

And finally, those of the group using the paperback edition commented on how useful the map was, while the purchasers of the Kindle edition commented: "Map? There was a map?". We also all agreed without exception that the 'notes for book club readers at the back' were superfluous crap.

Overall widely liked – average score 7.29 out of 10, putting it in second place behind The Goldfinch (last 12 books only).

The Goldfinch by Donna Tartt

We all liked this book which also provoked a 5* discussion. Some thought it too long and we had a big debate was whether you need the author to explain what a book is about or is that down to the clever reader. There were spume differences of view about characterisation but we all found something of great resonance for us individually, professionally and/or personally.

Chris B Liked the characterisation, felt we got to know the main characters very well and minor characters were well described. Got brilliantly inside the head of a young teenage boy undergoing such terrible events and maintained a strong tension in what was going to happen next. Great descriptions of some of the major events. Does it need to be so long?

Chris W didn’t want to read it because described so many people on the take, horrible characters but became very drawn in. Too long. Where was it going in parts? Some descriptions too long e.g. with Boris. Picks up pace back in NY. Good at portrayal e.g. of drug scene.

Steve enjoyed the writing, description of bomb, Theo’s reaction, holds on to the picture as a representation of his life before. Empathised with kid. Places conjured up so well e.g. thunderstorm in NY, sand and heat in Vegas. Two characters described at length and not enough of the others e.g. Hobie. Complicated themes e.g. who is the good guy? Not who you might expect i.e. Boris. Skipped bits because description is too long. End is good event but last ten pages self serving, don't have to explain what book is about. Curates egg and a roller coaster.

Rob agreed with Steve. Lovely beautiful writing style. 2 quibbles with Steve. Felt Hobie was reasonably well drawn. Not too long. Had to read it quickly to finish and didn't want to. Big quibble: liked ending. Didn't like cops and robbers bit nearer the end. Didn't think it was realistic to be in hotel for so long without incurring suspicion. Liked ideas, concepts and life comments and found end helpful in that regard. Fleeting things that happen and which have a great impact on our lives which the Goldfinch represents. Reality and boring NY Barbours life vs. zingy things that we don't tend to do represented by Boris. 

Richard Great great book. Don't agree with criticism of length. Went into depth especially with Theo. Captured his growth and development though he didn't grow so much because of the trauma. How longstanding the effect of trauma is. Loved writing, occasionally went on a bit e.g. aftermath of explosion but could see why she did this as a description of PTSD. Opening sentences really hooked me in.

Mark T agrees. Reminded me of the Magus and Great Expectations my two favourite books. Like obsession with Pippa. Very resonant. Drug phase fine, went on a bit. Sadness, empty flat. Loved Pippa relationship. Also very resonant: “Can no more forget her than an aching tooth”, Theo buys novel Pippa mentions. Will they get together? Barber family well described. Last pages profound. Deep resonance.

Mark Th not perfect, bit immature e.g. explaining at end. Writing brill. Character description e.g. Mrs Barbour, Andy. Some characters too limited In description. Still very entertaining. Drug taking is tedious and shows that it is. Some parts tedious e.g. Boris near end. Not perfect.

Debate about whether she should have told us what book is about at the end. Condescending. Notes for a book group. R liked the fact she explained this. Books don't have to be difficult. Diary only mentioned at the end (seems inconsistent.  For Rob it increased the value of book. Intellectual arrogance to say it is up to you. Might have been better as a writer’s note?

Echoes of Russian literature, following a person through life. Very good description of needing a key person in your life: importance of Hobie to Theo.

Thank You, Jeeves by P G Wodehouse

Mark Th kicked off by explaining why he had chosen the book:  he had expected to go for the Sisters Brothers, with Sarah Waters as backup and the Woodhouse included only as a makeweight on the list.  But somehow with Ras’ funeral he had felt that it would be refreshing to read something quick, light and inconsequential - so Jeeves it was.   He had then begun – needlessly as it turned out – to worry that our discussion might be limited.  This was partly because Wodehouse was writing pure farce set in a bubble of unreality entirely separate from life in the thirties – with the Wall Street Crash, mass unemployment, advent of Hitler and so on.  It was also in view of the way that most fiction deals with significant themes and issues whether love betrayal and revenge, or war, global warming, race etc.  Wodehouse avoids engaging with much of real life and the actions of his characters are part of a general whimsy where nothing seems to have very serious consequences.  Added to this, there was the misfortune of coming up with a book that used ‘blacking up’ as a plot device, which is unlikely to sit well with any of us and to which all of us would object vehemently if written now. 

That said, the group felt that the book had a lot going for it. The consensus was that it was far from being a masterpiece, but nonetheless was ‘refreshing, the use of words is fantastic’ (Chris W), ‘light and enjoyable’ (Chris B), ‘a pleasant, quick read’ (Richard) with ‘a great turn of phrase’ (Steve) and some very funny moments (Mark T and Steve).  Early discussion particularly centred on the development of the characters of Jeeves and Wooster (other characters being stock theatrical caricatures). The relationship between them varied from mother/son to husband/wife, master/servant (with this role sometimes reversed) and friend/companion.   The farcical plot was seen both as theatrical (Mark T), televisual (Richard) and lending itself to radio dramatisation (Mark Th). Despite the escapist bubble of the setting, the group did manage to come up with some themes to chew over.  There was interesting discussion of the idea of ‘knowing one’s place’ following the role reversal implied by Wooster’s remark to Jeeves to this effect.  Chris B highlighted the disrespect inherent in the treatment by Wodehouse of characters of lower social origin in the book (Jeeves having to be super learned, Brindley a raving Bolshevik, Voules a tubby comic turn etc.).  It was noted that characters like Jeeves could rise so far but no further, whatever their merits and abilities. This lead on to further discussion of the notion of ‘the power behind the throne’, and an interesting, if improbable comparison from Richard with T Cromwell as so (brilliantly/uselessly*) depicted by Hilary Mantel.  Steve also made a comparison to a Handful of Dust in the portrait of the declining wealth of the aristocracy in the face of the rising (US) capitalist moneyed classes.

(*delete as appropriate)

The most praised aspect of the book was Wodehouse’s prose.  Mark Th appreciated the way that exaggeration and understatement were applied in almost reverse proportion to the normal rules of cause and consequence.  This meant that Wooster could not bear to be tired, hungry or meet Americans and would be ‘peeved…vexed… or a dashed sight worse....’  but a raging fire completely burning down two houses was a relatively minor worry: ‘I’m afraid you’re a cottage down Chuffy’.  Likewise Jeeves suggests ‘I was wondering if it would not be best to obviate unpleasantness by removing yourself from the yacht, sir’. Chris W saw this skill in the use of language as having influenced comedy in later years, such as the Monty Python’s Upper Class Twits.  Mark Th felt that the first person narration by such a warm, positive and naïve character added to the charm of the book.

On what turned out to be the one strongly dissenting note, Rob was unable to attend, but got right to the front of the Mr G. queue, expressing by email his clear dislike of a book which he felt was ‘a new low in book club reading’. The book was too long, tedious and contained ‘offensive racism’.  He felt strongly that while ‘some may argue that this was a product of its time, and is excusable on that basis, I don't agree’ - arguing there is a difference between incorporating racism as a contemporary description of behaviour and continuing to expect it to be a source of humour in the 21st century (as the publishers of this book clearly do).  Here he correctly anticipated the views of those at the meeting where the conclusion was that we should be wary of anachronistic censure of past generations. While the racial element was clearly uncomfortable, the book was not ruined by the blacking up. It was born of an era before racism had been ‘discovered’ and countered with the rise, for example, of the NAACP in the 1950s. There was discussion of the powerful role of blacking up in American vaudeville, and its obvious prominence in early Hollywood output.  A number of the group recalled golliwogs and the Black and White Minstrels. There was also mention of Small Island and how racism in our parents’ generation had often simply not been recognised. 

There was far less overall consensus on the important topic of what meal Jeeves would be if he were a food:  Mark T was all for mulligatawny soup starter. This was followed by Mark Th who felt a light salad with sparkling water would follow; for Richard it was popcorn.  Steve was on for a cream tea (probably taking in Chris B’s cucumber sandwiches); Chris W envisioned a Tutti Frutti ice-cream.

...and the Mountains Echoed by Khaled Hosseini

Six of us met at the Fox and Badger to discuss 'And the Mountains Echoed' by Khaled Hosseini - the first meeting since our loss of Ras. Once we'd forgiven the author for starting a book title with the word 'and', there was a generally positive reception for the book - though for Mark Th the positive experience at the time of reading was not sustained after the event (described as a bit like a Chinese meal) and Richard never achieved positivity. For others (in particular Rob and Chris B) it was a much more rewarding experience - with the rich tapestry of stories and memorable narrative equating more to a good meal at Tilley's (several different interesting things to sample, which together added up to a very fulfilling encounter).

This latter analogy came from the agreed perspective that this book is in many ways a collection of short stories, each of which is self-contained in its own right whilst contributing part of the overall picture. Whilst the general view was that this structure worked well, for some the sub-locations worked to different levels.  For Mark T and Richard the sojourn into Greece was the weakest whilst for Chris B, it was America. There was a risk that the autonomy of the different sub-plots made it confusing and difficult to follow, and Mark T certainly lost the will to understand those connections whilst for Rob it merely created a desire to start reading it again to understand and enjoy the complexities and cleverness of it all. It should be noted that Ras, in relaying his comments on the book a few days before his death, said he had found it too confusing and thus stopped reading it).  Nonetheless, the prevailing view was one of admiration for Hosseini's writing abilities and style, describing it as conveying strong emotions in non-melodramatic ways (Mark Th.), enjoying the use of traditional story-telling as an element (Chris B), and painting vivid pictures whilst using simple, clear language (Rob). The main exception to this view was Richard, who in complete contract to Mark Th described the language as melodramatic and even facile. Whilst not being so negative, Steve said he was irritated by information only being partly declared and then felt manipulated by it being released at a time designed to create maximum impact - though others suggested this could be seen as effective and good writing!

In terms of the underpinning commentary about life, Afghan life, family relationships and so on, Chris enjoyed the way in which Hosseini reminded readers of social issues and prompted them to think on their own terms rather than the book exploring them in great detail. Richard on the other hand, felt that he wore his Afghan heritage too strongly and was living out his feelings about his country through his books (surely not something that could ever be said about any British or American author!) What was indisputable was that the book's content generated a great deal of discussion - including spin offs. We found ourselves having detailed discussions about the implications of the current political and military crises in the middle east and north Africa, considering whether the western aspiration of imposing its version of 'democracy' on all societies is a fundamental mistake and how long it takes to move from one type of political or power structure in a society to another (ref. India vs Iraq).