July 2008 Archives

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/

Our discussion by 15 attendees of the Montrose Great Books book club at Freed-Montrose Library on Thursday, July 3rd was interesting and helpful for me in understanding A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh but as sometimes happens, several attendees including myself felt as the discussion came to a close, we still had missed something especially since this book has a very good reputation and is on all the "main lists" of important books (for whatever that is worth).

One attendee mentioned the allusion to the poem by T.S. Eliot titled THE WASTE LAND from which the title comes. I think a familiarity with THE WASTE LAND would have helped  illuminate the story to a much greater degree than I was able to grasp.

Carol led the discussion with a question about the main protagonist, Tony Last. She said she noticed that many of the names of the characters seemed to be indicative of the character's interests or personality and so asked if we thought Tony's name was supposed to mean something more than just a name.

The first response referred to the fact that he had no progeny because his son died and therefore he would be the last in his line of "Last's".  But also, it indicated he was the "last of a kind".  The "kind" here being someone who belongs to the upper class, is very very traditional, considers his homestead sacred and something that must be maintained for his namesake even if it causes him financial difficulties.  He was someone who hires and maintains a large number of servants and employees and considers them his reponsibility, i.e. he doesn't ever economize and lay some of them off in order to save money because he would be seriously affecting there financial security.  He is someone who goes to church very regularly because that is what he is supposed to do, even if he isn't really very religious as shown by his response to the vicar's visit when his son died.  He was someone who at least at first tried to do the right thing by his wife by publicly claiming the guilt in the divorce even though it was she who wanted the divorce.

Though Tony is characterized as a decent guy, he says about himself that he wasn't "the cleverest of men".  His taste was mediocre as reflected in his love of his very big house that was written up in the local guide book as being "devoid of interest". Someone in our discussion expressed the opinion that all of the male characters in the book were mediocre. One of the members of our discussion suggested that they all were emasculated.  Seems that Tony fared just as poorly among the savages at home such as Brenda and Mrs. Beaver as he did among the savages abroad when he became ill with jungle fever as he followed Dr. Messenger seeking a mythical lost city and ultimately becoming imprisoned by Dr. Todd and destined to read Dickens for the rest of his life.

Tony's wife, Brenda is definitely not as likable as Tony according to most participants in our discussion. Some thought she was "flaky" especially given her choice of men to have an affair with such as John Beaver, a man who was younger, poorer and much less decent than Tony.  Though many in our discussion were sympathetic with her boredom living in the country, her insensitive response when her child died seemed to cause most of us to think ill of her.  We still weren't too sympathetic even when later she is struggling financially after Tony leaves on his trip and after John Beaver leaves her and she hasn't enough money to eat (because she can't get her divorce from Tony and the big alimony payment that Beaver says they need.).   

We discussed the fact that the final chapter had been a previously published short story and apparently a new alternative final chapter had to be written for American publishers.  The alternative ending was universally disliked by those of us who had read it.  It completely changed the nature of the book and gave it a much happier ending where Tony and Brenda are actually re-united instead of the original version where Tony goes on a trip, becomes ill in the jungle, is held hostage and everyone at home believes him to be dead.  The alternative ending has Tony becoming unfaithful to his wife after they reunite but the effect is very light compared to the horror of the original final chapter. Most of us seemed to feel the horror of the original final chapter was the best part of the book.  

Several of the members in the discussion indicated that they found the book quite funny. Examples of this include the seaside visit to Brighton by Tony when he tried to simulate an affair and where he has breakfast with the young child of the woman he is supposed to be having the affair with, the visit by Tony and Jock to the restaurant where they pay women to dance, the Galihad room in Tony's mansion which is so uncomfortable, and some of the absurd characters Brenda meets at the parties. The humor wasn't something that some of us had thought much of.  As one member pointed out,  Americans are not always good at picking up on some of the hilarious aspects of British humor and now as I write this, I'm inclined to agree that that probably applies here (and reminds me of a discussion here at Montrose library we had not so long ago where several of us had issues with the play by Pinter titled THE HOMECOMING because we didn't fully grasp the humor.)

The fact that the rooms in Tony's mansion are named after characters in a work by Tennyson was mentioned as well as the allusion to Tony as King Arthur, Brenda as Guinevere, and Beaver as her lover, Lancelot.  And the fact that Tony becomes an explorer (even if it is rather absurd) is an allusion to King Arthur's search for the Holy Grail.

We also discussed the fact that there were several characters that Waugh develops to some degree but then drops before it seems that they are allowed to make any significant contribution to the main story.  Such characters included Ben, the stable hand (who helped Tony's son, John Andrew with his horse),  Mrs. Rattery (the American pilot), and Pricess Abdul Akbur (who thought she was responsble for the death of John Andrew).  I think these characters were probably allusions or at the very least symbols that weren't obvious to us.  

One wonders how many allusions included by the author might have been picked up by someone more familiar with THE WASTE LAND, or with the British literary world of the 20's or 30's, or familiar with different segments of the British class structure that was crumbling during the 20's, or familiar  with the literary world during Dickens time or with British history or with mythology or Biblical references, etc.  Though I include myself among those who lack much familiarity with these elements,  I still felt it was a good story and that the writing was of very good quality, maybe not a "Great Book" IMO but still enjoyable reading. 

Now as I write this after the discussion, I wonder if the structure of this story isn't a bit like many of Shakespeare's works where a story for the common masses is written within a much larger story that more erudite readers are able to grasp.  Count me as one of the commoners, I guess.

I found this quote from Waugh on how the novel came to be written.  I think it gives a good high level summary:
   "I had just written a short story about a man trapped in the jungle, ending his days reading Dickens aloud. [...] eventually the thing grew into a study of other sorts of savages at home and the civilized man's helpless plight among them."

Looking forward to next month's discussion of THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers on August 7th at 6pm at Freed Montrose Library in Houston Tx.  See http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/Montrose/  for more info.