October 2009 Archives

It was an interesting discussion as usual at the Houston Central Market Book Club on Monday, October 12, 2009. We discussed THE GOOD SOLDER by Ford Maddox Ford. As usually the case, I had a much better understanding of the book by the time we finished the discussion. Jackie led the discussion of ten attendees starting with a question about the first sentence of the book which is a famous one: "This is the saddest story I have ever heard." She asked "what is the sad part?".

I thought the first responder in our group was very enlightening when she noted that this sentence used the word "heard" at the end of it indicating that the narrator of the story was distancing himself from the story when in fact, he was a very key participant and not just one on the periphery listening. This was one of the first indicators of the immense denial that the narrator suffered from.

Others in our group described him as a "pushover" and also as guilty of "lying by omission". The comment about "lying" led Jackie to ask us about the credibility of the narrator. Did we believe him? Was he telling us the truth? It was noted that at one point, the narrator whose name is Dowell tells us that Florence, his wife, was never out of his site and then shortly after that, he comments that in fact, yes, she definitely was out of his site, especially since she locked her bedroom door every evening, a bedroom that was not shared by both the narrator and his wife. What are we to think?

In response to this, we also talked about how the narrator changed his opinions numerous times from one extreme to another as he told the story. The key characters about whom his opinions changed were Edward and Leonora Ashburnham, a married couple whom the narrator classifies, numerous times as "good people". It was their dysfunctional marriage and the fact they were so mismatched that was also an example of the "saddest story" in my opinion. At times, the narrator loves them and other times, he hates them. It was at this point, I think that it became clear or clearer to me that the author was showing the "silent reader" how someone can psychologically change their mind based on events, change again and change once more. It happens. It was pointed out that this is actually a very realistic type of phenomenon. That people have both good and "dark sides" which is a theme that I greatly enjoy reading about whenever it comes up and it comes up very often in Great Books (uppercase "G" and "B").

And Edward Ashburnham definitely had a dark side. Initially, the report by the narrator is negative and in my opinion, it grows more positive and then with a diversion represented by a "vulgar" affair, becomes negative again with a final conclusion of being positive. (And maybe even more changes back and forth than what I've described here.) I don't want to provide any "spoilers", i.e. details that will impact the suspense that someone will experience not knowing how this ends so I won't continue further with events concerning Edwards mistakes or missteps or with events that were positive. But we are privy to quite a bit of information in this regard which basically constitutes most of the substance of the book.

Reading this, one might ask, what makes this story special since immoral characters or ambivalent ones are very commonplace in literature. We talked about one of the key aspects of the story being the way the author has the narrator ramble back and forth in time. It is somewhat confusing but I believe the author is simply letting us participate in the confusion the narrator experiences as he reflects on what has happened. We are viewing how the narrator arrives at an understanding about himself and the other characters. This is often something that happens in real life only after some "mulling over" or ruminating about details until things become clear. And oftentimes, the ruminating is not "linear" but instead consists of re-tracing occurrances trying to view them from different sides from the viewpoint of different people recognizing ones own lack of certainty along the way, something that the narrator does very often. This is the best part, I think - the part where the reader is privy to the psychological machinations of the narrator's mind, how it works at arriving at conclusions about himself and others after being in denial for so many years, at least twelve to be exact which was the number of years he was married to Florence. The author describes this psychological journey very well, in my opinion.

We covered details about the nine years that the narrator didn't remember really doing anything. One attendee suggested that he might be gay and I agreed this might be a possibility or at least thought that he was passive and effeminate because of his references to inadequacies in the realm of "sexual instincts". The narrator was married to Florence who didn't love him, and who was an invalid because of a heart condition or at least this is what we are led to believe in the first part. This caused the narrator to basically become her nursemaid, something that he did very well but he owns up to the fact that if he had a choice, this was not something he wanted to be.

Jackie led us back to her earlier question asking us again about "What kind of an unreliable narrator was he?" I spoke about his unreliability being due to the fact that he was not consciously aware of his real feelings and hence this ignorance impacted his reliabilty. How can you be credible about things you don't know or understand? Someone else mentioned that they couldn't imagine him not on some level understanding that his wife was deceiving him. I wonder if this isn't the weakest part of the story, that the author really stretched credulity in having us believe the narrator was deceived for so long. There were many in the group who nodded their heads at this point.

Other parts of the story we discussed included:

• the character of his wife Florence. There was quite a bit to talk about here.
• the character of Leonora, Edward's wife. There was even more to talk about here.
• the theme of a woman's role being either a "madonna" or "whore" except for Leonora who started out as a "madonna" and ended up as a "whore" or worse (the way the narrator describes her) as a "normal person".
• the predicament of women, especially Catholic women in not having Divorce as an option in a bad marriage
• the theme of "good people" and how their appearances were very civilized but beneath their surface, very much less so. Someone in the group said she wouldn't mind living in the time the story covers (early 20th century) if she could have been one of the "good people" and everyone laughed.
• the theme of being British versus being American which we concluded the author wrong on some of his points
• what is meant by the term "sentimentalist" as the narrator described Edward
• lesser female characters who were part of Edwards extra-marital life including the servant girl in the Kilsyte case, the mistress of the Duke, Mrs. Basil and Maisie and Nancy Rufford
• Jimmy - who was a lesser male character without any dialog in the story but important in his participation in the deception of the narrator
• the character of Nancy Rufford who was the ward of Leonora and definitely a female character falling in the category of being a "madonna"
• the ways in which Leonora and Edward were different - regarding business and their idea of loyalty when it wasn't in their own self-interest
• what happens to the characters in the end (which I don't want to explain here so those who haven't read this won't have the ending spoiled)
• the theme of Catholicism which was mentioned many times (We didn't spend as much time talking about this as we probably should have.)

In going around the room at the end of the discussion when everyone has a chance to make final comments, I learned that many didn't like the book very much. But I will conclude my report here by saying that I loved the book. I may go so far as to say it is one of the top ten best books that I have ever read but I probably need to think about that a bit more. I make no claim that this report does justice to this classic. Hope anyone reading this takes time to read the book for themselves and enjoys it as much as I did.

A couple of the other attendees seemed to enjoy it as much as I did which I was glad about so I didn't feel so out of tune. Someone else had said to me they thought it was a soap opera which I don't disagree but I have never read (or seen) a soap opera with the complexity of characters described along with the complexity of the narrator's mental processes described so well and so realistically. And it was also pointed out in our discussion that there was some humor included along the way mostly in the form of British understatements. I hope to read more by this author. Books like this really contribute to my being grateful that I belong to this discussion group.

Besides the discussion, we also elected new books for our reading list. Check out our web page at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket to see the list. (Though it may take me a week or so to get the dates coordinated and posted so stay tuned. Haven't done this yet as of this writing.)

Looking forward to our next discussion of THE HEART OF THE MATTER by Graham Greene next time, November 9, 2009 at 7:00pm in the Community Room upstairs at Houston Central Market.

Why did the author write the novel LET THEIR EYES BE WATCHING GOD as a story that is told by the protagonist, Janie, to her best friend Phoeby? Why didn't the author just tell the story as it happened?

One reason offered by one of twelve attendees of the Montrose Great Books book club at our discussion last night on Thursday, October 1, 2009 at Houston Freed-Montrose Library was that since the story was about Janie finding her own voice, it was appropriate to have that happen as she told the story. Even in the courtroom scene at the end of the novel, her testimony and voice wasn't recorded in the book. It was pointed out that some of the revelations uncovered as the story unfolded might not have been uncovered during the novel if Janie hadn't of had the benefit of time and more maturity to discover later exactly what self-revelations she really experienced. Her journey in the novel "reframes her whole life" as someone said and this can best be understood with hindsight. This seems to support a very significant theme: that introspection and looking inward is a very good thing in order to find happiness and self-satisfaction and even more importantly to find yourself and your identity.

Some pointed out that there was more than one narrator or that Janie wasn't really the narrator. That there was an omniscient narrator even though at the beginning it is explained that Janie is telling the story to Phoeby. For example in Palm Beach after the storm when Tea Cake was "kidnapped" by two men with rifles and ordered to help dig graves for dead bodies. Janie wasn't there but the reader hears the details about the events along with Tea Cake's frustration about not being able to get back to Janie. No one felt this was confusing, just "poetic license" more or less.

One of the first topics to surface as a result of a contribution from an attendee and not as the answer to a question was the opinion voiced by one person that the book was an extremely derogatory portrayal of black culture. The discussion got very animated with nearly everyone in the room disagreeing except the person who voiced the opinion originally. What is rather amusing is that initially, I also disagreed and didn't think the portrayal was so negative but as we ended the discussion, I remembered my opinion that the portrayal of the black people at least at the end of the book during the trial WAS very negative. Funny how opinions and comments can come full circle with disagreement at first and then sometimes followed by agreement later. Discussions are always very dynamic and can be quite a learning experience, they are for me anyway. And as I've said numerous times here and at our meetings, there is no requirement that we all agree.

We talked about the symbol of the Pear Tree. On page 11, Janie remarks as she sits under a pear tree: "Oh to be a pear tree, any tree in bloom!" This would be much more desirable to her than as she goes on to say later, the "things" that her grandmother wants to offer her via a marriage to Logan Killicks, a very old and relatively prosperous landowner and widower.

Why was Janie so hostile to her grandmother about the marital arrangement? Couldn't she see that her grandmother loved her and wanted what was best for her? Some thought maybe it was because she felt like she was "sold to the highest bidder". Others thought she basically was in a loveless marriage and once she realized this, her desperation was understandable, especially given her young age.

The book, as everyone agreed, is a "coming of age" story and Janie's drive away from the "things" her grandmother wanted for her becomes stronger and stronger as time passes as reflected in passages such as on page 89 where she explains that she is "getting ready for her great journey to the horizons in search of people".

Some thought her statement on page 89, where she says "she hated her grandmother" (after she had time to think after her second marriage) was too strong, and not understandable. Others in our discussion reminded us of Janie's words: that her grandmother, Nanny, had taken the horizon and tied "it about her granddaughter's neck tight enough to choke her." "Horizon" is a strong theme and is brought up again in the end symbolizing freedom and independence and the search for ones identity plus the satisfaction of having found and strengthened ones identity with more opportunity always being just out of reach. Her grandmother had been an obstacle and almost prevented Janie from her self-discovery, something she valued more highly than anything. even her blood-relationship to her grandmother who had raised her because her own mother disappeared.

It was noted in our discussion that the fact that Janie didn't have children allowed her freedom that she otherwise wouldn't have had. Some thought no matter how much she loved Teacake, (the love of her life) she wouldn't have gone off with him had she had children to take care of. Also, if she had had children, she probably would have understood her grandmother better.

We moved on in the discussion to the subject of Jodie her second husband who everyone thought was very domineering. Despite this negative trait, most in our group didn't think of him as a bad guy. He was an exceptional leader for the town, though his pinnacle of success seemed to be when he had unequivocal power with no threat from anyone else. As someone in our discussion described him, he was a "big fish in a little pond" and seemed just fine with that and didn't seek other channels to try to improve himself or his town. In other words, his horizons were basically limited despite his initial ambitions when he first met Janie. He was of course flawed and for cultural reasons, perhaps reasons embedded in the black culture during this time (1937), his attitude toward women and how a marital relationship should be was seriously flawed also. It was commented that Janie might as well have been a slave. She was in yet another loveless marriage that as passages in the book explain, she didn't feel she had any other options. This low point basically showed that she still had a long way to go on her journey in finding herself.

I reported some biographical information at the beginning of the discussion regarding the fact that this book by Zora Neal Hurston was vilified by many in the black community including most famously by Richard Wright, author of NATIVE SON because there was no focus on rascism and on the anger of the black community. When we next talked about the theme of sexism in the book, most if not all thought that any anger in the tone of the book was focused more on the sexism as demonstrated by the black men in the little community of Eatonville, Florida where Jodie was mayor and where Janie was expected to be on a pedestal above the common black folk rather than on racism by whites.

We noted there were a few negative descriptions of white people, especially right after the storm but for the most part, most negativity was aimed at men. Even at the trial at the end of the book, the author is very generous with the white folks who side with Janie and not very generous with the black folks who unfairly turn out against Janie until all is finally forgiven. For me anyway, it became clear that the author was ahead of her time regarding the issue of sexism and that spokesmen for the black culture who were all male at the time held her accusations of sexism against her preventing them from being able to appreciate the quality of her writing.

Included at the beginning of the story were details about Janie's growing-up and about the fact that Janie's mother was half white. Janie's light and somewhat Caucasian features with straight hair contributed to Janie's isolation. As a result, she wasn't accepted so easily by blacks and of course not whites. She was accepted however by Mrs Turner, a black woman Janie met while traveling in Florida to the "muck" with her third husband, Teacake. Janie didn't welcome the friendship. Mrs. Turner was another example of the author being critical of her own race. Mrs. Turner felt herself better than most of the other blacks who unlike herself did not have Caucasian facial features and hence Mrs. Turner was a clear example of internalized racism.

This character was part of the broader picture that the author paints regarding the black community. That there are parts of this community that are dysfunctional, including sexism and their own brand of racism that contributes to the reader having a sense as described by one person in our group that we are getting a view of an anthropological study and I couldn't agree with him more. This best described what I liked best about the book, a view of the black community that I have never been shown before so eloquently. Many in our group found the story very upbeat and for some even "joyous". Just as there was negativity in this "anthropological study", there was also a lot of positive community connections in Eatonville as well as in the last part of the book that covers the time Janie spends in "the muck" with the "real love of her life" named Teacake whom she met after her second husband died.

We also talked about

• the major theme about loneliness by women who are isolated in loveless marriages including talk about the other women in Eatonville and their lives
• the style of the writing and whether it was similar to a Harlequin romance novel (most didn't think so but not all)
• the use of colloquialisms and Black dialect
• whether Janie was a risk-taker or more of an adventurer (the latter most agreed)
• the physical violence Janie experienced at the hands of both Jodie and Teacake
• the hurricane as a metaphor for what (some thought love as powerful as that between Teacake and Janie, others thought a God similar to that worshipped by native American Indians, i.e. nature)
• what kind of religion did Janie follow? (several mentions of God in the book)
• why the book was called THEIR EYES WERE WATCHING GOD (one interesting comment, that titles sometimes are more for selling a book than for having meaning)

We ran out of time and didn't talk as much as we should have on the topics of:

• the death of Janie's second husband, Jodie
• Teacake and Janie's marriage, and
• what kind of person Teacake was,
• their experience working as field hands in the "muck" along with
• the topic of the trial at the end of the book.

We continued discussion to some extent afterwards at The Black Labrador restaurant which is adjacent to the library where we meet but were unable to come to any conclusion about the significance of the author being so positive about the white people supporting Janie's position at the trial and negative about the black people who did not.

As we went around the circle as we usually do at the end of every discussion, inviting final comments and judgments, most of the attendees enjoyed the book. Not all of them "loved" the book, some liked it better after the discussion, some liked it better before the discussion and others found the book to be one of the best selections made by the Houston Books On the Bayou city wide reading initiative in recent history. Thanks to the Houston Public Library.

Looking forward to our discussion next month, Thursday, November 5th at 6pm at Houston Freed Montrose Library. The book we will discuss is HARDTIMES by Charles Dickens. See www.houstonbookclubs.org/Montrose/ for more info.