Houston Readers

The discussion of THINGS FALL APART by Chinua Achebe last night May 11, 2009 in the Houston Central Market community room was attended by nineteen individuals from the Central Market Book Club who for the most part thoroughly enjoyed the book.

The group leader, Jackie led off with a question asking whether Okonkwo, the protagonist was a "good man". There were numerous responses that focused on the fact he was a good man relative to the tribal culture in which he lived. It was mentioned that he was ambitious and revered for his willingness to be violent when violence was needed. Also, his tendency to violence was a result of his being filled with anger as a response to his childhood insecurity because of the weakness of his father, Unoka who humilated Okonkwa because Unoka did not provide for his family very well. Unoka did not work or have money and instead, spent much of his life playing the flute and borrowing money that he could never pay back.

We are told that Okonkwo's father had bad chi and that as a result of his father's bad chi, Okonkwo also had bad chi. And that according to tradition, a member of Umuofia could overcome bad chi only by working very hard, thus the reason why Okonkwo was very ambitious and as described in the book was an extremely hard worker. He also demanded hard work from his children, in some cases, too harshly such as in the case of his oldest son Nwoye.

Also mentioned was Okonkwa's world view which was basically "black and white" with very little gray. Some thought his world was a rigid world especially regarding what constituted being a man and what constituted the proper way women and children should be treated. Though Okonkwa might have been rigid, he was also obedient to the laws, traditions and customs of his tribe. When he did over-reach because of his tendency to violence or anger such as beating his wife during Sacred week, or verbally insulting a neighbor at a tribal meeting when they didn't agree with him, he always apologized when it was appropriate (though not necessarily sincerely) or obediently succumbed to following the punishment as defined for his offense. In one case, when his supplies accidentally fired and killed someone, he was exiled with his family for seven years and he did not try to circumvent the punishment but gracefully heeded the terms of his exile according to custom.

Some of the problems Okonkwo encountered were due to the fact that he didn't communicate very well. One member in the group reminded us that he stammered. The person he was closest to was Ezinma, his favorite child who was the only child of his second wife. As a result of Ezinma being sickly, the reader is given the opportunity of observing Okonkwo as being a nurturing father for the first and only time in the book. Not being one who nurtures was considered a flaw of Okonkwo's by most of us but as described in the book, because he was so tormented, the reader is very sympathetic to him during this incident where he brings his daughter back to health with herbs after leaving his tent at least seven times looking for her in the night

As a result of questions from Jackie, we spent a fair amount of time discussing the paganism of the culture, the tribal nature, what type of government they had, how they ruled themselves, and what their policy was toward punishment when crimes were committed. We all agreed that their way was not the way that western civilization works. We discussed how political actions required collaboration with the elders of the tribe or else there was risk of severe punishment such as exile or being labeled an outcast. This requirement for collaboration with other tribal members was the main reason, we thought Okonkow's violent action against a messenger at the end of the book was so taboo. Not the killing itself but that he did it as a result of his own decision and not one agreed to in collaboration with other tribe members.

The reason I liked the book so much was because I thought the character of Okonkwo was very well developed especially in light of the book being a relatively short book. The seriousness he felt in undertaking his first experience at growing yams, the disappointment he suffered such as the timing of his return from exile causing him not to achieve the status within the tribe that he was seeking, the disappointment he suffered with the killing of his adopted son Ikemefuna, the disappointment he suffered when his oldest son Nwoye converted to Christianity and abandoned Okonkwo and the rest of his family, the fear he felt when his favorite daughter was ill, the joy he felt when he was visited by his best friend Obierika while in exile, the seriousness he felt in carrying out his duties as an egwugwu in the tribal ceremonies all formed a vivid picture of a decent man subject to flaws but doing the best he could trying to adhere to what he valued most in life, that being the customs and traditions of his heritage.

We also discussed at some length (among other things),

• the difference between the evangelical leaders - first Mr. Brown and then the more aggressive Reverend Smith.
• the existence or not of sexism and misogyny in the tribal culture, the phrase "Mother is Supreme" and how it was used
• the problems in the tribal culture in dealing with members with low status that led to the Christians having a base to develop their converts from
• The mistakes such as the tribe allowing the Christians to build in the Evil Forest
• the appeal of some results of the cultural exchange with the evangelicals such as the stores with palm oil for sale
• what was lost by the collonialization of the Nigerian tribes by the Europeans
• the writing style of the author which to several seemed in tune with an oral tradition rather than a written one

Our final comments centered on Okonkwo's death. Why did he have to die? What rings most true to me is that Okonkwo and the traditions of his culture were one and the same. Because the traditions were being destroyed and because other tribal members were not willing to fight as Okonkwo thought necessary as evidenced by the other messengers besides the one that Okonkwo killed being allowed to escape, he saw the end of the tribal traditions and thus because he identified so strongly with these, the end of his own life.

Looking forward to next months discussion on June 8th, 2009 of WATER FOR ELEPHANTS by Sara Gruen. For more info, check out http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket/

It is a bit difficult for me updating this blog with a description of our discussion last night, May 7th, 2009 at Houston Freed-Montrose Library but I'll do my best. The reason for the difficulty is that I was one of only a handful of attendees who didn't like the book very much. Twenty one of us met at our regular time and only about five out of the twenty-one thought the book was not very enjoyable. Normally I try to cover everyone's opinions but since I was in the minority, my opinion here is going to skew my description of the discussion I think. But I will overcome my concern and hope that what I write here will still adequately describe the discussion especially for anyone who would like to have a view of how our discussions work.

To explain why I disliked it, I will say that since we are affiliated with Great Books (http://www.greatbooks.org), I expect to either learn something from the books we read, maybe even truth and wisdom or for the book to have historical significance or for there to be significant beauty presented in some way. Originality is nice if that is included as well.

I thought after finishing reading that this book was pure entertainment. Not something I object to but if that is all it is, it becomes comparable to watching a TV sitcom or a romantic comedy at the movies. Having read the definition of "farce" from wikipedia , I learned that a farce is written to entertain and has a few standard features such as a chase scene at the end or some final scene where a catastrophe threatens. This fits exactly the outline of CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES in my opinion.

When the discussion finished, I had a few more thoughts about themes that might have been present that might have been more subtle and original adding more complexity perhaps than I at first thought. In particular, near the end of our discussion, we talked about the death of the author by suicide and some of the references in the book that were pertinent to that. My opinion was improved after our discussion since I developed more of an appreciation about how dark the humor really was though I don't plan to be reading this again anytime soon. For those not aware, getting more from a book after doing a second reading is a classic way to tell if something is a Great Book (note uppercase "G").

Our discussion was led very capably by Claudia who began by asking us about the first paragraph of the book where Ignatius J. Reilly, the protagonist is described as having a "fleshy balloon of a head", wearing a green hunting cap with green ear flaps that "stuck out on either side like turn signals indicating two directions at once" possibly indicating his mental state. Several gave their opinions of Ignatius by describing him as looking like a "baby Huey", as someone who loves to criticize everything, insecure with insecurity as a defense mechanism, narcisistic, as someone with no morals, and someone who didn't accept any responsibility for any problems in his life.

Claudia followed up her first question with a question about the relationship between Ignatius and his mother. It was mentioned that his mother was someone Ignatius could feel superior to even though she provided a roof over his head. We didn't seem to agree on whether there was love between the two. Some thought his mother really did love him but others thought she too easily arranged for his commitment to the mental hospital when he became an obstacle to her getting married and becoming more financially secure. One interesting comment was that it wasn't impossible to believe that his mother both loved him and was glad to get rid of him because he was such a burden. Claudia asked what the mother got out of the relationship since it seemed all one way. Some in the group thought that she got an identity, that she was very co-dependent. It seemed threatening to Ignatius when she made new friends with Santa and Claude and started moving outside of his control.

Also, one important point someone made regarding whether Ignatius loved his mother was that many of Ignatius actions indicated jealousy such as when his mother formed a relationship with Claude, who was financially stable and a potential candidate for marriage. We were reminded of how Ignatius tried to keep his mother from going out with Claude by expressing fear at getting robbed. How he locked himself in his room until she returned home trying to manipulate her with guilt.

When we were asked "what is Ignatius' world view", a particularly good response in my opinion was a reminder to the rest of us how Ignatius kept invoking the name of Fortuna, i.e. claiming that his bad luck was all due to fate, Fortuna thus being a mechanism for allowing him to take no responsibility for anything. Also, we're not asked to buy into Ignatius' world view, one where he doesn't consider himself a bum but does consider himself an intellectual.

One person said that as readers we don't like him, aren't meant to like him but that we think he's funny, at which time some (just a few) indicated they didn't think he was funny. The plot provides Ignatius the chance to criticize everything by going to places he says he hates but he really likes thus providing him with an unpleasant world that he loves to criticize and feel superior to. I thought that some how, the author was tricking us because the world of stupidity and absurdity that Ignatius criticizes is one that the reader also is critical of (for the most part). So my question was does that make us like Ignatius? Some in the crowd thought no because Ignatius actually liked living in this world and we (most of us anyway) wouldn't.

The character of Jones a black man struggling to avoid being jailed for vagrancy seemed very admirable to most of us. He seemed likable and the opposite of Ignatius. I think it was at this point where I brought up the issue of stereotypes being the primary mode of presenting the characters. We discussed why this was good and why this was bad. Jones was a victim of racial prejudice and a victim of greed by "whitey" here played by Lana, the white merciless, greedy bar owner.

I explained how characters in literature were an important part of my enjoyment and the characters in this book appeared to be like stick-figures. Some challenged me on this. Some indicated that the characters only needed to be developed to the point where the author could use them to give us a laugh. The author definitely wasn't trying to help us be empathetic or sympathetic with the characters, that seemed clear, except maybe for Jones who was being taken advantage by his employer, Lana the bar owner and maybe for Mr Levy who had a wife who was a parasite and a shrew. One perceptive attendee notes that the characters were "stick-figures" because Ignatius did not want to know these characters at any deeper level and this was his world, after all. He only wanted to know enough so that he could formulate his criticisms and formulating criticism seemed to be his "raison d'etre".

Other details of the discussion and/or the book which I won't be writing about here included:

• a patroman named Mancuso who was portrayed as dumb but who was rewarded in the end, in the meantime provided the author yet another opportunity to stereotype or at the very least to provide us a character who was not very interesting except for the humor of his situation.
• a passionate, promiscuous, young jewish woman named Myrna, the driving force that caused Ignatius to get into many of the absurd situations that provided the humor
• Mr Levy, Mrs.Levy, Trixie, Mr. Gonzalez and the events surrounding the pants factory where Ignatius worked until he got fired
• the homosexual character of Dorian Greene and his homosexual friends which allowed the author to portray yet more stereotypical characters
• Mr. Clyde, owner of the hot dog franchise where Ignatius worked and which was basically a plot device to get Ignatius into the French Quarter culture and encounter situations where he could act out yet more absurd behaviour with more absurd characters.
• The ending which caused us to have a lengthy discussion about whether we thought Ignatius changed, grew and became more emotionally mature by the end of the story. And how much hope did we have for his future.

Could this novel have taken place anywhere else in the world besides New Orleans, we were asked? Some thought yes, San Francisco or Houston would have worked. I brought up the theme of "kitsch" which I was very unsure about, it seemed to be ever-present in the novel but yet I couldn't really describe how. A couple of members of the group indicated that New Orleans was a very "kitschy" place.

Now as I look up the definition of "kitsch", I find that what I really think is that the whole novel is kitsch, referring to that definition of kitsch at http://www.wikipedia.org as something which denotes that type of art which is "aethetically deficient", which is "formulated by the needs of the market and given to a passive population"...and "serves its purpose of giving the audience leisure and something to watch" and most importantly in this case, something to laugh at.

Looking forward to our next meeting on June 4, 2009 at 6pm at Houston Freed-Montrose library when we will discuss TOO LOUD A SOLITUDE by Bohumil Hrabal. More details about the work and our group at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/Montrose/

I was amazed to see as many as nine attendees at our discussion last night, Monday, April 13th, 2009 in the Houston Central Market Community room. I was surprised because I found the book to be extremely difficult, the most difficult I can remember reading in my ten (or maybe fifteen) years of attending Houston Great Book discussions. I was surprised to see there were others that were willing to plow through such a difficult work as UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcom Lowry.

Even though there were only nine of us and that is less than our usual number of fifteen (or more) for the Houston Central Market Book Club, we had a very good discussion, mainly because we were all "talkers". I say that because usually there are several in the group who say very little and mainly come to listen. Well last night, most of us were quite verbal causing the intensity and energy level of the discussion to be quite high.

Connie moderated the discussion very well but from my viewpoint, this was one of the easier discussions to lead since the rest of us were so eager to jump in and comment and voice our opinions and agree and disagree, etc., all those things that make for a lively discussion. Connie started out asking about the physical appearance of the main characters which were Geoffrey who was 41, Geoffrey's wife Yvonne who was 30, and Geoffrey's half-brother Hugh who was 29.

Our conclusion was that the author didn't give too much detail and we couldn't quite decide why since he was so willing to give so many details on other parts of the book such as the Mexican landscape and animals. The question about physical appearance led to our comments about the background of the characters, such as their childhood and were they British. After some discussion, it was concluded that all three of the main characters were British, this being the reason that Geoffrey and his friend from his childhood, M. Laurelle met when they were very young vacationing in Britain.

We went over some of the facts about the family of the Taskersons, which was the family that Geoffrey stayed with when he visited in his younger days. The details made an interesting story but we couldn't figure out exactly how Geoffrey grew from being someone who disliked alcohol when visiting with the hard-drinking Taskersons to someone who was a raging alcoholic at the time the story was written about 25 years (or so) later.

This particular question or theme came up numerous times during our discussion. Why did Geoffrey drink? And why was it obvious from the beginning that he was never going to be able to quit drinking no matter what the incentive, whether to keep the love of Yvonne or to save his life?

Another question which came up numerous times was why did Yvonne come back to Geoffrey? They had divorced. She had left their home in Mexico which is the setting for the novel. He had not communicated with her though she had written him desperate letters on numerous occasions, letters that were so unimportant to him that he left them in a bar before reading and which he couldn't remember anything about. The letters were found near the end of the story and the contents were shared with the reader. They were quite well written and passionate making the character of Yvonne all the more tragic because of her great love for this man headed for self-destruction.

There were many pages devoted to descriptions of Hugh, his past, his political leaning and his mistakes made as a youth when trying to get his music published. We discussed him and for me, the most important part of his presence in the novel was to show someone who unlike Geoffrey was idealistic, not just cynical. But also, someone who became more realistic, someone who wanted to put his ideals into real action. Geoffrey seemed to give up without trying and to settle for loneliness and isolation without a fight. Hugh seemed to be quite different from this. Hugh's activism possibly was a point the author was trying to make as being a good thing.

Part of the difficulty I had with the book was the fact there was quite a bit of the Spanish language used without translations. Mainly phrases but they seemed to be important phrases and were over my head except for the ones I looked up (I didn't look them all up). One of the phrases repeated in the middle of the book and at the very end was "You Like This Garden that is yours? See that your children [hijos] do not destroy it." We thought this must be a reference to the threat of war that was on the horizon for Mexico and the U.S. and Britain. Franco in Spain was in power, someone who Hugh planned to fight against even though he might be too late.

There were many many many repetitive themes both represented by parts of or objects in the Mexican landscape or by characters or animals discovered by the threesome as they travelled on foot and bus to the Bullrun on the Day of the Dead celebrations. We tried to address all of them but in many cases, we could only guess and weren't sure such as with:

1. the barranca and numerous ravines (maybe all the same one) - perhaps symbol of an abyss
2. volcanoes Popocatepetl and Ixtaccihuatl that appear and disappear from view
3. book of Elizabethan plays (with the note from Geoffrey to Yvonne still inside the pages)
4. Indian dying on the side of the road and the pelado who stole the money from him
5. the dog
6. the riderless horse with the "no 7" on its back that caused the death of Yvonne and was also implicated in Geoffrey's altercation with the police at the end.
7. Juan Carillo, the acquaintance of Hugh while in Spain - someone he admired very much
8. William Blackstone - someone who disappeared to live with the Indians and was admired by Geoffrey
9. an eagle that Yvonne frees from a cage
10. the two bulls and the fact that Hugh went into the arena and rode one of them, much to the chagrin of Geoffrey (though Hugh came to no harm)

We wondered what happened to Hugh. We understood the ending for Yvonne and Geoffrey but why did the author leave us hanging with Hugh? No answer for this one.

Most in the group liked the book quite a bit. Guess they wouldn't have stuck with reading it to the end if they hadn't enjoyed it. I will have to remain on the fence as someone who thinks it is possible the book may only have value for literature majors and the literary elite. Or at least for those who have extensive knowledge of Mexico and the language and myths. But I say I'm on the fence because I think I would really need to read it a second time before I can be more convinced of its value or lack of value.

I am glad I read it. One of the reasons I love these book groups is if not for the group, I would never have read this. There are many many people who consider this book a masterpiece and at least now I can have some point to evaluate it for myself even though only on a very slight basis.

Following the discussion, we tallied up the votes from the ballot sheet. I will be announcing the new reading list on our website as well as in meetup.com and in our google group. Stay tuned for the new schedule thru December, 2009.

Looking forward to next months discussion of THINGS FALL APART by Chinua Achebe on May 11, 2009 starting at 7pm in the Houston Central Market community room. More details about our group at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket/

There seemed to be more varying opinions than usual reflected in our Montrose Great Books discussion last night (April 2, 2009). The subject was a play titled ROCK 'N ROLL by Tom Stoppard. Fifteen people were in attendance at Houston Freed-Montrose Library and they didn't all agree but that was okay since there is no requirement that we all agree.

I started the discussion by asking "What is the role of music in ROCK'N ROLL?" Many ideas were voiced such as it representing anti-authoritarianism and rebellion and the younger generation and anti-tradition. It represented freedom from strict cultural laws about proper behavior and speech and sex. We went on for some time adding more and more and one participant pointed to the comment by Stoppard in the introduction that many fans didn't consider rock 'n roll as music but instead as "life itself".

We spent a fair amount of time discussing Syd Barrett, a member of the Pink Floyd band in the 60's who was known and liked (or in some cases loved) by many in our group. From what we could tell, Stoppard used Syd Barett as a symbol for the non-cerebral, non-materialist, romantic and Dyonesian side of life. He represented that which Communism felt threatened by. He was depicted in the play as an aging bicyclist who was borderline, if not completely crazy, thus prompting a lot of discussion.

What was interesting for me was that eventually we discussed rock'n roll as art and the relationship between art and politics. It was said that art is often "edgy" and in this case, since it was imported from the West, controversial and potentially having the power to effectively persuade citizens in behavior not desireable by the powers that be.

One attendee brought up the similarity between the rock 'n roll culture in this play and the barbarians in our last discussion WAITING FOR THE BARBARIANS. In both cases, the groups were relatively harmless and non-agressive and also not considered to be "socially useful", a particular characteristic of art. Both groups basically wanted to just maintain their own lifestyles but were still considered a serious threat by those in power.  In the case of this play, the apathy and "don't care" attitude of the rock'n roll bands and fans who had no concern for bringing down Communism did nothing to discourage the police from arresting them at the concerts when the bands didn't follow the "ground rules". In particular, "The Plastics" was mentioned as the name of a band in the "group of a small number of musicians and artists who wouldn't compromise at all." It was noted that they could be seen as heroic in this context.

It was at a concert by the Plastics where Jan, the main protagonist, was arrested and had a major shift in his cynical and relatively apathetic attitude about Communism. He subsequently became an activist and started his own petition against the Communists, something he had criticized with Ferdinand, a close friend who collected signatures for a petition earlier in the play. Jan was no longer able to go along with his colleague and friend Max, a serious Communist who indicated he understood the flaws but it was still better than the alternatives, at least he thought this way at the beginning of the book.  By the end of the book, Max left the party and in place of his desparate allegiance to Marxist ideals, he had fallen back on biological determinism.

ROCK 'N ROLL fairly appraises the flaws of the Communist regime as well as the flaws of the western media (in the form of Nigel) but does not go so far as to praise Capitalism. Overall, participants in our discussion felt Stoppard's presentation was balanced in this regard.

Other themes or topics we discussed which I will not be including here were:

1. the Greek God, Pan
2. another Greek mythology character named Sappho
3. Max's personal dilemma in his relationship with his wife, Eleanor who had breast cancer
4. Max's daughter Esme and her hippie-like personality
5. A friend of Jan's named Stephen who was combative with Max

And themes we didn't discuss more but probably would have had there been more time were:

1. who was Ferdinand and what did he symbolize?
2. are the roles of the women in the play different than the men's?

I think most of us agreed that a major message of the play is that apathy and indifference cannot be considered as a viable lifestyle when dealing with oppressive political regimes no matter how cynical you are. That trying to live within such a regime by going your own way and trying to stay out of theirs will only lead to the necessity of having to make compromises which will ultimately go against your own humanity. That each of us must take a stand as an activist in these conditions or else risk cultural and personal values too important to lose, even if at first the danger is not obviously apparent.

The play is being performed live at the Alley Theatre here in Houston during the month of May. A group of us will be attending the play for the performance on May 3rd at 2:30pm and will be going to dinner together following the performance. For anyone who will not be attending the performance on May 3rd, but who has seen the play in one of their other performances (or not) and who would like to join us for dinner, contact me at aaman@hal-pc.org to be included in the reservation.

Looking forward to our next Montrose Great Books discussion on May 7th when we will be discussing CONFEDERACY OF DUNCES by John Kennedy Toole at the Houston Freed-Montrose Library starting at 6pm. See Continue reading ROCK 'N ROLL by Tom Stoppard - activism, art, and the personal side.

Our discussion of THE PRIME OF MISS JEAN BRODIE by fifteen attendees at the Central Market Book Club last night, Monday March 9th, 2009 in the Houston Central Market Community Room was enlightening as usual. And we definitely had disagreements which always adds interest in my opinion.

I lead the discussion, starting out with a brief introduction of the author Muriel Spark and her background starting with Edinburgh Scotland (which was the setting of the book by the way) and also with some background information about her education, strong affiliation with Roman Catholicism and her literary awards. She died in 2006.

I then read from the first paragraph of Chapter 3: " It is not to be supposed that Miss Brodie was unique....; or that...she was in any way off her head.... There were legions of her kind during the nineteen-thirties...[but] The progressive spinsters of Edinburgh did not teach in schools, especially in schools of traditional character like Marcia Blaine's School for Girls."

One of my first questions was why did Jean Brodie make considerable effort to teach at and stay employed at such a traditional school if she was such an untraditional teacher. She definitely had her enemies, a subject covered in the story. Answers to my question were basically that because she was different, it allowed her to stand out and allowed her to take pride in what she considered one of her most important personality traits, that of rebellion and disagreement with the norm.

Next we discussed generally what our opinions were about Brodie, i.e. was she inspiring, was she silly, was she petty? feminist? Four of the attendees were male and it seemed to me that all four initially at least thought fairly highly of Brodie. They respected her attempts to break from the norm and teach the girls about the real world and not just raise them to stay at home. The remaining attendees either were quiet about their opinions or were very outspoken about how they felt Brodie was inappropriate in condoning and vicariously planning an affair between one of her previous students, Rose, and one of the male teachers at the school, Mr. Lloyd who was married.

We briefly discussed Miss McKay, the school administrator who tried for most of the book to find evidence that would allow her to dismiss Brodie. It seems that both Miss McKay who was quite victorian in her values and Miss Brodie who was not, did not have problems exploiting the young girls in their strategy and using them in saving their positions.

In answer to whether Jean Brodie had an impact on the girls lives, most agreed that mainly Sandy seemed affected out of the six girls in the "Brodie set" (which was how they were known as a group as they advanced through school even after they were no longer taught by Brodie - but still socialized with her on weekends").

The Brodie set girls' feelings about Brodie seemed to change in a fairly normal manner (except for one) considering that they became teenagers in the course of the story and we all know what happens then. But one of the participants in our discussion tried to keep us on focus with Sandy (and rightly so) because she felt we needed to understand better why the story focused on Sandy in the second half as well as why Sandy betrayed Brodie as well as why Sandy seemed to forgo a normal life by becoming a cloistered nun.

Several thought that Sandy was the most like Jean Brodie, that she was manipulative and seemed to have a strong ego that made her bitter towards Brodie. Perhaps Sandy, more than most realized was offended by how Brodie had manipulated the girls. Becoming a nun might have been her way of opposing Brodie and becoming the opposite of what Brodie wanted.

We discussed the significance of the title "transfiguration of the commonplace" of Sandy's thesis in psychology and I will report here that I believed it basically was pointing to the fact that Brodie was actually fairly mediocre and commonplace, nothing special, something that someone in the group pointed out must be true since she really wasn't very successful at impacting most of the Brodie set to any great degree. Had she been smarter or more competent, she might not have been betrayed and might not have been requested to eventually leave the school.

In my efforts to keep my entries in this blog short (or at least shorter than they have been), I will only mention the other topics we discussed such as:

1. what did Brodie mean by being "in her prime"?
2. were the girls really "creme de la creme" as Brodie liked to constantly call them?
3. what is the author's opinion of Roman Catholicism?
4. how did men react to Miss Brodie? and she to them?
5. what did Sandy mean by calling Brodie a "born fascist"?
6. what should we think of Brodie regarding her relationship with Joyce Emily, a girl who was excluded from the Brodie Set?

And I forgot to ask how many in the group agreed with Jean Brodie that "goodness, truth and beauty are more important than Safety". I bet that we would not all have agreed, one of the reasons these discussions are so interesting, in my opinion.

Looking forward to our next discussion of UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry at Central Market on April 13, 2009.

We had a rousing Montrose Great Books discussion by twenty-five attendees of WAITING FOR THE BARBARIANS by J.M. Coetzee on Thursday, March 5th at Freed-Montrose Library.  As was revealed at the end of the discussion when we go around the room and ask for subjective comments from everyone, most did like the book.  

I led the discussion and started with a question about the central character and narrator who had no name but was called "the magistrate" and who governed a seeming frontier town on the outskirts of a fictitious large geographical entity called "the Empire".  I asked what was thought about the magistrate, was he likable? was he flawed? was he all good?

The first commenter indicated they didn't like the magistrate, one reason being that his poor decisions kept getting him into more and more trouble.  Everyone agreed that the magistrate was a flawed character but some thought he was the better for it, that he represented "everyman" and he illustrated how we often make decisions seeking the easier way out hoping for pleasure or comfort but that he still was a sympathetic and humanistic character.  

When I asked why the author chose to include so much about the sex life of the magistrate in the story, one of the female attendees said the passages about sex were a welcome change from the ones about torture which were quite painful to read for most of us.  Another attendee indicated that the magistrate's way of dealing with his sexual relationships analyzing them from a distance seemed to show particularly how he was unable to deal with connecting with the women on a intimate basis. It was also pointed out that he used the skills learned in his hobby of being an amateur archeologist in his relationship with the blind girl when he repeatedly attempted to decipher the details about how she was tortured as if she was an archeological ruin.  His examination of her was motivated by his lack of knowledge and experience with her culture referred to as "barbarian"  and representative of nomadic tribesman who lived nearby in the dessert in the winter and moved to the mountains in the summer.

Now that the discussion is over and this is the next day, I realize we didn't talk much about Colonel Joll, another main central character who was responsible for torturing the apparently innocent barbarians. Though only 150 pages (or so) in length, this book was very dense with events and symbols and philosophical thoughts making it impossible for me to cover most of these in my little attempt here to encapsulate our discussion.  Also, since I'm trying to start a new leaf and shorten my entries here hoping that this new strategy will encourage me to submit reviews of our discussions on a more regular basis (once again), I  will leave out further details about

-- the expedition planned by the magistrate to return the blind barbarian girl to her people.
-- the terrible hardships encountered on the expedition
-- the imprisonment and torture of the magistrate shortly after he returns from the expedition and after he is accused of colluding with the barbarians
-- the survival of the magistrate and his return to authority of the town
-- the preparations made by the town as they are "waiting for the barbarians"
-- the devastation of Colonel Joll's army when they return from their expedition after having tried to do battle with the barbarians   

This review would not be complete without a mention of a very important statement by the magistrate regarding Colonel Joll on page 133 (of my book published by Penguin) and one that I believe reveals the most important theme of the book:  "For I was not, as I liked to think, the indulgent pleasure-loving opposite of the cold rigid Colonel.  I was the lie that Empire tells itself when times are easy, he the truth that Empire tells when harsh winds blow.  Two sides of imperial rule."

Looking forward to our next discussion at 6pm at the Freed-Montrose Library on April 2nd of a play titled ROCK 'N ROLL written by Tom Stoppard, the same play that will be performed live by the Alley Theatre during the first part of May of this same year.

Opinions of twenty-five attendees were very polarized at the Houston Central Market Book Club July 14th lively discussion of SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser led by Connie. Connie's starting question asked how we thought the American Industrial Age and the Industrial Revolution played a part in the story (or something like this, I can't remember the question exactly, apologies to Connie.)

The first response dealt with the difference between this age where Carrie, the main protagonist who moved to Chicago in 1889 from a small rural town, could be somewhat relaxed about her reputation (though not totally) and earlier times where the woman's reputation was to be protected at all costs. The Industrial Age put the value of the dollar as more important over everything else. Class, education and family history were no where near as important as how much money one had. Not that this is different from current times but it certainly was different from times prior to the Industrial Age where though money could buy a lot, it could not buy everything. A comparison with MADAME BOVARY which we discussed a few months ago did come up several times. Some thought that perhaps Carrie was MADAME BOVARY in the Industrial Age. Others thought Carrie was vastly superior to Madame Bovary as a character (not necessarily the book).

It was noted that the author chose not to give us a lot of information about the history of the characters. We are introduced to Carrie's older sister and her husband who are struggling on the fringe of poverty but it seems even this relatively moral family made the choice to use Carrie as a "commodity" in a somewhat greedy manner leaving her with no money left after she pays them rent to be able to even afford car fair to her job, hence she gets sick in the cold weather and loses her job. And they are very quick to send her back home when she can't find work quickly enough. Some commented they would have liked to know more about Carrie's family back home and why was there no contact between Carrie and her family.

Also, there were questions about Hurstwood's background. Why didn't he have better skills at finding a job in New York? Why did he think of himself as above some of the jobs that would have helped pay the rent? We talked about how the author seemed intent on showing the characters as being impacted by circumstances of the current moment instead of as a result of good choices over time or as a result of family or background training. Their lives seemed to change so easily as a result of a moment's poor judgment or a moment's good or bad luck. That they had no control of any means of production seemed to be a theme. It was noted that the author became a Communist shortly before he died and some of his Communist opinions are apparent as themes in the story. Hurstwood had friends who owned banks or owned companies but he was only a manager. Drouet was a salesman so the same thing could be said about him and Carrie was an actress. She was beautiful now at the age of 23 (or so, we weren't sure exactly) but we questioned how successful she would be once her beauty deteriorated as a result of getting older.

Someone mentioned that the story did a good job of reflecting the sordidness of the Industrial Age. The depiction of Carrie roaming the streets at the beginning of the novel looking for work and her subsequent job in a shoe factory was very realistic and the depiction of Hurstwood's downfall from being a very wealthy upper middle class person (though not upper class person) with a fine home and a substantial income to a beggar on the street who is grumbling about finding someone to give him a quarter so he can have a bed to sleep on is also very realistic. As was the desperation he experienced trying to be a scab and fight the union strikers. Several people mentioned that their favorite part of the book were the realistic descriptions of Chicago and New York neighborhoods during this time.

Our disagreements in the discussion focused mainly on opinions of Hurstwood and Carrie. Did Hurstwood care about and/or love Carrie? Some said yes, some said no. How terrible was Hurstwood for being so obsessed with Carrie resulting in his kidnapping her and disregarding his own family? Some thought he should have been more concerned about his family, some thought his wife was a witch and it was very understandable that he had to leave her. How terrible was Hurstwood for stealing the money? Most thought it was basically bad luck. How terrible was Hurstwood for not taking less appealing offers of employment in New York at the same time he was allowing Carrie to handle the full load for their survival and he was lying to her about how much money he still had?

How insensitive was Carrie regarding Hurstwood? Was she totally selfish? Some thought yes, some thought no (with a lot of discussion about this, too much to include here.) Was Carrie a character that one cared about? Most thought yes. Some thought no. Did she care about Drouet (her lover before Hurstwood) or Hurstwood? We all acknowledged that the text says that she didn't love either of them, really, though she was impressed by what they could do for her. Though all thought she was superficial and only seemed to care about the accessories of wealth such as expensive clothing, fancy restaurants and luxurious living quarters, others thought that she had some decency towards Hurstwood, giving him the money in her purse and worrying somewhat. Some of us remembered that he had kidnapped her and felt she owed absolutely nothing to him. Others thought she could have been kinder. Others said she didn't fight too hard when she was kidnapped and could have gotten away. Using what money, I ask? And some thought surely it must have been obvious to her that her marriage to Hurstwood couldn't be legal since he wouldn't have had time to get a divorce. But she said nothing at the time since it wasn't in her interest to do so.

There was much discussion about the age difference between Carrie and Hurstwood. The fact that she was in her twenties with a basic optimistic type personality allowed her to have a more positive attitude toward the future. Because Hurstwood was in his forties not only hurt his employment chances which was a reflection of bad luck but it also caused him to more easily lose hope that he could ever have a bright future.

It was pointed out that one sign of Carrie's decency was her loyalty to Lola, the woman that helped her get started as an actress in New York. Without Lola, she probably wouldn't have made it and Carrie has no problem bringing Lola with her to her new fancy hotel residence once Carrie gets a huge raise. Carrie's interest in Ames was another sign that she perhaps wasn't as superficial as the story shows in the beginning. Their relationship was platonic. Ames was a male acquaintance Carrie met thru a rich girl friend and was the first person to demonstrate to her that money wasn't everything, that education and artistic sensitivity were values more important. But though interested and contemplative of these values, in the end it seems that she is unable to break out of the consumer cycle of "never having enough". She declares she is lonely and though she had opportunities, she didn't connect with men who were clamoring for her attention (rich men, by the way). Nor did she follow the advice of Ames and seek to be a dramatic actress. Someone mentioned that this would have required she have a plan that didn't involve the first opportunity that came along, something that would require her being in control instead of circumstance being in control of her.

It was noticed that she achieved financial success at the end of the story as an independent woman without needing a man to provide for her. Some believed that the reasons Dreiser had such difficulty getting the book published (took him ten years and lots of modifications) may have been more because of the feminist theme than because Carrie had affairs with men without being married and did not suffer major consequences for her immorality according to the standards of the time.

We had quite a bit of discussion on the topic of how happy was Carrie or what was her chance of happiness in the future? Most thought the book was pretty clear, especially in the final paragraph where the author writes: "Oh Carrie, Carrie! ... shall you dream such happiness as you may never feel". but some still thought because of her age that there was still hope for her to find happiness. And then of course the philosophical question that we have all heard before came up "What is happiness?" to which we all laughed.

Looking forward to our next discussion at 7pm in the Houston Central Market Community Room on August 11th of MRS. DALLOWAY by Virginia Woolf. More details at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket/