Houston Readers

SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser - capitalism, poverty, luck and loneliness

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:49:02 -0600

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/

A HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh - entertaining, flawed upper class and savages too

Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:38:38 -0600

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.

INHERITANCE OF LOSS by Keran Desai - dense, fragmented, messy pathos

Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:26:57 -0600

My opinion of INHERITANCE OF LOSS by Keran Desai changed after the discussion by 14 attendees at the CentralMarket Book Club, last Monday, June 9th. This often happens and I continue to be amazed how much a discussion helps my own comprehension and appreciation of the books we read. Most are rather difficult since we are affiliated with Great Books. INHERITANCE OF LOSS was QUITE difficult, perhaps one of the most difficult I've read in sometime.

The fact that I believed the author was a great writer never changed. I found many many passages to be wonderful, enlightening, lyrical, humorous and astute among other adjectives. I can't say enough good things about the quality of her writing. But my first impression of her ability to write a good story was suspect. I thought initially that the story failed to have a good solid linear thread to make it more compelling to read. That some of the pieces of the story were contrived plot devices and not representative of quality literature. But my opinion changed for the better, thanks to Jackie who was moderator of the discussion as well as thanks to numerous other contributors to whom I am grateful for their attendance..

Jackie started our discussion asking us to focus on the characters, which ones did we care about. The cook, Biju who was the cook's son, Jemubhai who was a retired Judge, Sai who was the Judge's grandaughter, Gyan who was the granddaughter's boy friend and numerous secondary characters such as Lola, Noni, Uncle Potty and Father Booty as well as Biju's acquaintances in New York and numerous characters involved on one side or the other of the insurgency. And also characters that were part of the judge's family and past, including his dead wife Nimi and old friend Bose. And finally, can't leave out Mutt, the judge's dog.

Many attendees at the discussion including myself thought the cook was the most endearing. The consensus seemed to be that his son Biju, who immigrated to the US and whose experience working in the basement of restaurant kitchens as an illegal was not as resourceful as his father. It seems his naivete and lack of maturity caused him numerous problems where he was victimized by others who were smarter or more into hustling those less experienced.

Finally in the end, he seems to have developed some kind of "grit" missing in the first part where he is determined to return home to India. We speculated that perhaps this was a sign of his "coming of age". And even after losing all his worldly possessions while making the trip, the joy between the father and son when they are reunited in the end was powerful and effectively written as "two figures leaping at each other" seen by a third person, Sai who didn't yet know that it was the Cook and his son. This gave the passage another dimension, IMO, since the reader realizes that even though the novel has ended, there is a lot more that can be imagined that will come when the son is introduced back into the household and begins to find a new life back in his homeland.

I think Sai illustrated "the pathos that pervades the country" as described by one of those attending the discussion. Sai was an orphan, taken in by her grandfather who had lost any ability to love if he had ever had such an ability (which some doubted). She falls in love with Gyan (name meaning knowledge and who becomes a character having hope). Their falling in love was incredibly tender, I thought as they started describing each other's body parts. We discussed whether we thought she would be able to leave as she expressed a couple of times in the book. As a woman, leaving was going to be much harder than it was for Biju. She didn't seem to have an identity to lose as the title suggests. It seemed as if it was lost to her from the very beginning. She could expect nothing from her grandfather and though she loved the cook, it was clear she was very unimportant to cook compared to his feelings for his son.

Many thought the judge was a very powerful character. I initially thought he was one of the artificial plot devises because the author made him so powerful that the intensity was greatly increased whenever he came on the scene. I originally thought readers were being teased to some extent because they were left wondering so much about the judge, why he was the way he was, what he might be doing or what he might think about something.

Perhaps he might be considered by some the main protagonist but now as I'm writing this, I don't think there was a main character. I felt this more strongly once we had a short lecture from one of the attendees who was Indian and who explained some of the history of India's culture in an "easy to listen to" mode.

I came to believe that not one of the characters was representative of a typical "Indian". Apparently a good case can be made that there is no such thing. That because of India's complex history, these characters that now were described as living in India were at least as complex as their country's history. Their lives were touched by both the legacy of the British as well as non-British, the caste system, as well as the political efforts to eliminate the caste system, various religious cultures, various languages, multiple ethnicities, etc., etc.

As Jackie described it, she thought it was a thangkha which is a kind of tapestry, in this case a tapestry of the lives of these characters. All had mundane problems described often in extreme detail such as how they managed to carry on when the rains came for months as well as extremely tragic problems such as Father Booty being deported and the devastation caused by the insurgency. I described it as a collage which I think is another word for thankha. One of those attending, after the discussion having wine downstairs in the coffee shop said that he thought the book must be comparable to art by a well reputed artist named Jackson Pollack who painted collages and who baffled many art reviewers with the question "what does it mean"?

It is amazing to me that the author manages to cover so many characters, events and situations in only 350 pages. It is an extremely dense book, one of the reasons it is difficult to read and to write about. Most thought the difficulty of the book came from the fact that it didn't flow well. A few thought it "choppy". One accused it of being ADDish (i.e. unfocused).

I thought the best theory was proposed by Jackie, that the book is fragmented and choppy intentionally for a reason. That we are supposed to feel disconnected and be uncomfortable while reading it because that corresponds to how fragmented we readers are as well as how fragmented are the characters with the numerous components of their personal identities especially considering the history of their homeland. That we all have moments, sometimes instants of enlightenment, pleasure, anger, dysfunction or whatever with the focus of our thoughts often changing from one subject to another and back again.

Probably not the only way to explain the author's unusual writing style but it sounded good to me, especially in light of some outside information shared from the New York Times that the author reported having trouble finding a publisher because "It was messy, and they didn't think editing could save it.". .

Looking forward to our next discussion of SISTER CARRIE by Theodore Dreiser scheduled for July 14th, 7pm in the community room upstairs at the Houston Central Market. More info about our group, see http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket/;

THE STRANGER by Albert Camus - absurd, existential

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:02:05 -0600

The Montrose Great Books discussion was extremely well attended Thursday evening for our discussion of THE STRANGER by Albert Camus. I stopped counting at 30 attendees. I apologize to those who didn’t get a seat at the front but since we were in the large room downstairs, at least we were able to seat quite a few more than had we met in our usual place in the conference room upstairs. I will try to get the downstairs conference room for next time.

Wendy was the moderator and led a very well organized and well structured meeting with excellent questions as well as a brief intro to Existential philosophy. We started with a discussion of Meurseault, the narrator and main protagonist. Wendy asked: what was he like? Most agreed that he was literally “thoughtless”. Did he like his job? Not anymore than he liked anything else. Except for one thing he liked to do at work, he liked “washing his hands”, a symbol for his fondness for (or at least connection with) physical sensations such as water and the sun and sex (of course). He was good at his job but since he didn’t seem to really like anything, not even an offer to work in Paris by his boss (pretty incredible to most of us that he turned this down), we assume that he was competent without any passion.

Next we discussed his relationship with his Mother. It seemed strange or at least very unusual for him not to feel any grief for her death. His first response was to wonder what day she actually died, whether today or yesterday. Some wondered why he even went to the funeral but then others remembered that there were some papers for him to sign. While attending her funeral, he thought “what an agreeable walk I might have if it hadn’t been for my mother.” If he didn’t dislike her, it was very clear that he had no feelings for her but this was not a surprise as we read on since he really has no feelings, good or bad, for anyone including his girlfriend, Marie. When she asks him whether he loves her, he says “No’. His honesty here is one of his redeeming traits that allows the reader to consider him a decent fellow in some respects, certainly a step above his sleazy neighbors,

He chose to associate with or be acquainted with his neighbors such as Mr. Salamano who abused his dog as well as Raymond who is a pimp and who abused women and who was responsible for Meursault being on the beach where he killed the Arab (who originally was after Raymond for revenge for his treatment of a relative.) Meursault’s lack of judgment in being acquainted with these neighbors who are sleazy and not the sort a decent fellow would associate with is another sign of the emptiness of his thoughts. Also, one might consider the theme of the absurd being included at this point because he tends to believe “nothing matters” including whether his friends or acquaintances are scumbags.

From some background reading, I understand that Algiers was in the midst of a violent civil war that had gone on for decades, with rampant racism. Nothing was mentioned in the book about this. Some think that considering Camus’ avid involvement in the political climate and upheaval in Algiers at this time and the absence in the book of any description of the context of the war that might have been part of the conflict with Raymond and the Arabs is yet another sign of how disconnected Meursault was from what should have been his social world.

And at some point, we discussed whether the story was really very credible. We actually came back to this a couple of times. How realistic is it to believe that it was totally chance that he went back on the beach after he was tired, with a revolver in his pocket, and with the problem of the sun still being very hot, headed for the same place where he and Raymond were just assaulted a short time before? This question seems to only be satisfactorily answered by considering the theme of the absurd.

Regarding the killing, Meursault thinks: “It occurred to me that all I had to do was turn around and that would be the end of it. I took a few steps toward the spring” and with this poor choice of options, he causes the Arab to take his knife out and causes Meursault to shoot him, not once but five times. He later tells the prosecutor that the fact that he fired an additional four shots “doesn’t matter”. As was mentioned in the discussion, this exemplifies the absurd theme again but a main theme of chance or contingency is also reflected in this passage as well.

Pretty unbelievable, IMO. This is the point where I came to the conclusion that the character was more of a “stick figure” than meant to be a real “in the flesh” character. This is the point where it seemed to me that the symbolism or metaphorical attributes of the character were larger than the character himself. And now as I write this, this is the point where I believe Camus intends for Meursault not to be an “individual”, not yet anyway. He is still undeveloped without a social context. He was someone with few real connections with society as was noted at the discussion in answer to one of Wendy’s questions. And this fits well with what I understand about existentialist theory, that one can’t be a true individual unless they first have a socially derived self from which they can launch their own individuality.

The trial was the mechanism used by Camus for Meursault to be able to arrive at his own individuality. For example, at the trial, he actually recognized that others loathed him, something that in Part 1 of the book, he wouldn’t have noticed.

What was he a symbol of, then? In simple words, I think he symbolized someone without a thought in their head except for a few such as those he remembered hearing from his mother that are included in the first part of the book. One attendee commented that in Part 1 he symbolized innocence in the Genesis sense. He has not yet eaten of the tree of good and evil. In part 2, Meursault is then cast out of his innocent happy life through imprisonment.

At the trial, his lawyer never even raises the defense of “self defense”. Everyone attending our discussion agreed that Meursault was not convicted of the murder of the Arab but instead was really convicted of not grieving properly for his Mother. Most believed at the discussion that if he would have faked his grief, he would have been acquitted..

The passage in Part 2 where he finally understands that he is guilty which from what I’ve read, some write this could be interpreted to mean that he recognized he was guilty of his humanity corresponding to the Garden of Eden analysis. This recognition is the most important part of the book, IMO. But what may be more important but more difficult to understand is the conclusion. We talked at length about this. The best I can do to describe what sounded like a reasonable explanation to me from the discussion is to use a conclusion by one of the attendees, that Meursault comes “full circle”.

In part 1, he says things don’t matter but this isn’t a result of any real reflection since there are no thoughts in his head. In part 2, he actually has feelings, develops a social context as a result of the people at the trial, understands how they loathe him, develops his own feelings such as his anger with the chaplain, then develops his own individuality, and as a result of reflection using his newly developed individuality thinks that things don’t really matter. In the words of the book, he refers to this as “benign indifference” or “gentle indifference” depending on which translation. Doesn’t this seem to be what he thought in the beginning? It does to me except that now, as was commented in the discussion, he has arrived at this conclusion through reflection.

Looking forward to our next discussion of HANDFUL OF DUST by Evelyn Waugh scheduled for July 3rd at 6pm.at the Freed-Montrose Library conference room currently scheduled for the upstairs conference room but I will try to get this moved downstairs. Stay tuned.

See our web page at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/Montrose/ for more information about our group.

p.s. I may provide a link to Wendy’s questions here. Not sure yet about this.

DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP by Willa Cather - faith, tender sentiment and frontier survival

Tue, 13 May 2008 12:03:45 -0600

Because I found MY ANTONIA by Willa Cather so wonderful, I've been wanting to read something else by her. At last I had the chance when DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP was elected to be on our list of readings for the Central Market Book Club. The writing style was quickly familiar to me but the book was tedious to read for me as well as for a few others as reported in our discussion led by Connie at the Central Market Book Club meeting Mary 12th.

There were 18 of us attending and about 3 or 4 reported that this book was tedious because of the lack of action. There were several points where one felt the plot might take off such as when Kit Carson is introduced or when the problems of the Navajo tribe are introduced late in the book but doesn't really happen to any significant degree. The majority of the group didn't find the lack of action to be a problem and found the beauty of the writing more than adequate. especially regarding the sentiment between the two French priests as well as regarding descriptions of the Southwest landscape. It was pointed out in the discussion and it seemed to be the general consensus that the landscape was a major character in the book.

An attendee at the discussion reported that the author herself has declared that the book is a "narrative" rather than a novel but it seemed to me better described as fiction in biographical format. Basically it is the story of two Catholic missionary priests originally from France, their endearing lifelong relationship with each other and their job to bring territories in the Southwest previously belonging to Mexico under the auspices of the Catholic church.

In many cases, this meant bringing them back to the church as they had been prior to an uprising that had caused the death of Franciscan Catholic priests years before. The interaction between the French priests and Mexican priests established in these territories prior to the arrival of the French priests make up a large part of the story. Other parts include interactions between the French priests and the Indian culture and folklore as well as descriptions of the numerous long trips on horseback over thousands of miles, most of which were desert, that were required for the priests to do Church business or maintain "the flock" of their diocese which kept getting larger and larger.

One early scene shows the astuteness of one of the French priests, Father Joseph (second in command under Father Latour, the bishop) who bartered for two strong healthy mules from a rich Mexican rancher without negotiating for them directly. Cather makes it clear how minimal the resources are of the two priests and this particular scene makes it clear early in the book how apt they are for the job, a job that takes not only religious devotion but also "street smarts" so that they may have the resources for their own survival, let alone survival of the Catholic church.

IMO (and I seemed to be the only one thinking this), this astuteness seemed similar to the astuteness of the Indian trackers and I wonder if Cather doesn't want us to see a connection, rather like the French priests being "soul brothers" of the Indians and also part of the reason they found such satisfaction and fulfillment working in the Southwest though it was not anything like where they grew up.

Our discussion was quite active covering points such as the celibacy of the priests (and how realistic is that?), the correlation of the theatrics of the Mexican culture with theatrics of the Catholic rituals, and stereotyping by the author (or not) of (1) wise, discrete superstitious Indians, (2) poor uneducated Mexicans (3) callous, money hungry white men, and (4) vain 50 year old white women

I must admit I was one of a few (if not the only one) who felt the stereotypes lessened the book (though I enjoyed the book especially NOW after the discussion, LOL). Part of my argument concerning the stereotypes is that we were unable to find any substantive "sins" by the Indians or "sins" by the French priests. Only Mexicans and white men seemed to have flaws and the more money they had, the more flawed they were. This seemed too simplistic to me but didn't detract enough to cause me to dislike the book..

As was pointed out in the discussion, the book is not about the priests and their personalities or character development, it is about their "purposeful faith". One of the participants in the discussion said that parts of the book made him almost want to go out and "take vows". (not sure if he was 100% serious, LOL).

What I was most surprised to learn is that Willa Cather was not Catholic. I would have sworn that she wrote sensing the Catholic Church watching over her shoulder. But now as I write this, I'm thinking that her respectful treatment of the Indians and their superstitions perhaps do show her objectivity more than what appeared to me at first.

We also discussed the title and how it seemed to cause one to think that there would be violence in the story, especially regarding the Bishop but this was not the case. Almost as a subtle contradiction of the title, the bishop lives a long "purposeful" life leaving behind many, many devoted converts and followers.

Though it was a very sentimental story that seemed a little too unrealistic at times for me, I enjoyed a break from our usual fare of literature about indecent, immoral, weak, thoughtless and/or basically extremely flawed main characters which seems to be present to a much greater degree in the rest of the literature we read.

Looking forward to our next discussion of THE INHERITANCE OF LOSS by Kiran Desai on Monday, June 9th, 7pm at the Central Market Community room (intersection of Westheimer and Weslayan) . More info about our group at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket/

Writings by Mark Twain - religious hypocrisy, unexamined assumptions and more.

Sat, 03 May 2008 08:40:26 -0600

Anne led our discussion by 19 attendees at Freed-Montrose Library on May 1st starting with THE JUMPING FROG OF CALAVERAS COUNTY by Mark Twain which was fairly short, 8 or 9 pages depending upon which version you downloaded from the web. It was concluded that the story was a good example of a "yarn" where the storyteller enjoys drawing out the story to the extent that the listener or in our case the reader ends up enjoying the "telling" more than enjoying the understanding of any conclusion that one might draw from the story.

There were numerous smiles around the discussion table conjuring up the image of a super athletic and tricky frog named Dan'l Webster who was owned by a gambling addict who "if there were two birds sitting on a fence, he would bet you which bird would fly first". There was no consensus by our group on why Twain chose to have an introduction explain why the narrator was inquiring about the whereabouts of a Reverend Smiley who might or might not be the gambling addict (probably not, most agreed) who owned the exceptional frog. But as far as I could tell, most enjoyed the storytelling whether or not they agreed on an explanation of the story or its characters.

Next, a discussion of THE WAR PRAYER by Mark Twain was amazingly more substantive than I predicted. For such a short reading which was only about four pages, there were many comments about what might have been Mark Twain's position. It was reported as factual that he was a pacifist but how embittered was he actually? Some of us thought he was motivated more by proving irrationality rather than venting his bitterness. And of course, as is woven thoughout Twain's writings, the theme of religious hypocrisy was front and center as this was the story of a religious congregation gathered on a Sunday morning to pray for victory.

But Twain very aptly points out that there are two prayers, "Many of the prayers of men ask for more than he who utters it is aware of" "To tear their soldiers {of the enemy] to bloody shreds" and for "little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst" were just a couple of the clauses in the "unspoken prayer" that those who claimed to be righteous did not voice in the first spoken prayer but most certainly implied.

Of course an analogy to Iraq was mentioned but also it was mentioned that this lesson could be applied to any war. Some thought the denial illustrated by the fact that many are totally unaware of an "unspoken prayer" was more offensive when applied to imperialistic wars such as was fought in the Phillipines, which was invaded by Americans and defended for four years by the Phillipines until they finally lost rather than World War II which some thought was more defensible. The Phillipines was the war that it is believed according to book notes that Mark Twain was objecting to at the time he wrote THE WAR PRAYER.

Lots more was shared including a contribution by a participant whose brother had fought in Iraq and who was sent there by those who had no intention of sending their own children. Someone wondered out loud about why Jenna Bush had not joined the troops in combat in Iraq.

We easily transitioned into a discussion of NO. 44, THE MYSTERIOUS STRANGER because there were at least two similar themes, one being religious hypocrisy and the other being the case of hidden meanings or unexamined assumptions. Wish I could describe this last theme better because it was the more fascinating of the two. I think Mark Twain used this effectively in THE WAR PRAYER but in THE MYSTERIOUS STRANGER, it wasn't as obvious until after I completed the story.

The discussion of Twain's use of "duplicates" indicated that many of us had confusion about their meaning. Most thought they were somehow analogous to the ego and the id or to Jungian psychological concepts corresponding to the dualities of the self. It was also mentioned that the "dream self" was an interesting or clever theory attempting to explain how we dream and why our dreams seem disconnected to our consciousness and that there might be another "hidden side" that we aren't aware of that could correspond to the time travels of our dream selves.

One of the humorous stories that gave the narrator, August and the reader as well a surprise "hidden side" was the servant girl who was turned into a cat and as a result, when queried by No. 44, exclaimed how much happier she was as the cat.

In the end, it seemed that August as a result of his exposure to No. 44 (who doesn't seem to be Satan but perhaps a relative of Satan - we never really seem to know) was a more fully realized person, one who had developed from a narrow cultural environment to one who was less naive about how harmful human nature could be. Yes, he also learned along the way how No. 44 was very callous toward human life but he also learned that Christians were not always good as exemplified in characters such as Father Adolph and his co-workers in the print shop.

We also discussed intermittently, the differences between the authentic version titled NO.44, THE MYSTERIOUS STRANGER and the short story titled THE MYSTERIOUS STRANGER that one could download from the web and apparently was edited VERY heavily by Paine, an executor for Mark Twain after his death. The authentic version was much more tedious to read by all those who voiced an opinion and the shorter version apparently was more in keeping with the traditional Mark Twain style of telling a good "yarn" and as a result was more enjoyable. Mentioning differences between the two contributed significantly to the discussion especially resulting in a sense of a better understanding of Samuel Clemmons, the author.

Looking forward to next months discussion of THE STRANGER by Camus. See
http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/Montrose for more info.

MADAME BOVARY by Gustav Flaubert - ambiguous, uncomfortable, memorable

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:00:16 -0600

Jackie led our rather large group of 20 on Monday (April 14, 2008) for our discussion of MADAME BOVARY at Houston Central Market. I was surprised since I knew we were competing with Bruce Springsteen's concert on the same night. But I'm beginning to see a trend. Seems like the "tried and true" classics really bring out the crowds.

I found the discussion very interesting for several reasons, one being that we all definitely did not agree. It seems that part of Flaubert's genius was the ambiguity he presented regarding the motivations of his characters. Though from what I heard at the discussion, not everyone would agree with my phrase "Flaubert's genius".

I think the majority at the discussion were not sympathetic with Emma (a.k.a. the third Madame Bovary). Her constant search for happiness via external sources such as a new geographical location to live or new lover or new dress demonstrated some type of psychosis which we couldn't agree on. Was she sociopathic, or did she have a personality disorder or was she just narcisistic? Seem to me that Flaubert may be the originator of the concept of "geographical cure" that Emma seemed to constantly be in search of.

But I found somewhat surprising how many were critical of her poor, honest, ignorant, loving, sweet husband, Charles Bovary. Please add to your comments below any adjectives I've forgotten. Stupid?

Whether one could interpret Flaubert's intent to include issues that were feminist was very debatable and therefore didn't generate too much discussion. Feel free to debate this question also below with your comments.

Flaubert seemed to present a sort of debate of science vs. religion but then proceeded to criticize both and present neither as the winner. His main point may have been to illustrate hypocrisy in both camps which he did to the point the story was rather unpleasant to read with so few characters (were there any?) that had redeeming qualities.

One thing we know for sure, provincial life was described by Flaubert at its worse regarding the characters who lived in the small towns he writes about. His nature scenes indicated there was considerable loveliness in the countryside but not in those people who LIVED in the countryside setting of his novel.

I enjoyed the book, mainly because I like books that are not "black and white". Seems to me that Flaubert doesn't give the reader a place to "settle" for some comfortable reading. That the book is basically a well crafted "soap opera" (as someone at the discussion described it) where there were no admirable characters. One keeps looking and hoping to see admirable behaviour but there doesn't seem to be any that I could find.

One participant of the discussion thought Homais, the pharmacist was worthy of some respect because he helped people and was not like Emma who only thought of herself. But his treatment of Hypolite and near the end of the book, the blind man seemed to me to show a very petty man, even if he did win the Legend of Honour, an honor that I think Flaubert intended to be ironic.

These comments of mine are not intended to even try to do justice as a review of a novel with the credentials of MADAME BOVARY. They are mainly intended to illustrate to some degree how interesting our discussion was. Sorry if you missed it. More details about our book club at http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/CentralMarket.

Looking forward to our next discussion of DEATH COMES FOR THE ARCHBISHOP by Willa Cather on May 12th, 7pm in the Houston Central Market Community room.

MALTESE FALCON by Dashiell Hammett - great story, simplistic characters

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:11:56 -0600

My first impression of MALTESE FALCON by Dashiell Hammett was that it was certainly a book that was much more readable than most of our selections. Because we are affilated with Great Books, we tend to read serious literature. Sometimes that means the reading can be tedious, sometimes VERY tedious as some of you will probably agree. But this one went very fast for me (and I'm a slow reader).

The entertainment element was rather high but unfortunately the philosophical analytical element was rather low. Still, there is a reason that this text is still around. What a GREAT story told by a GREAT story teller. There are many reasons why a book might qualify as a Great Book. In this case, most agreed that the fact it was the first of the "crime noir" genre makes it historically significant and that fits one of the criteria for a great book.

Though another criteria is often described as whether it is worthy of a second reading where one might continue to get new and different ideas from when they read it the first time. I think the book fails in this criteria for me. I don't plan to revisit it unless I'm required (i.e. if it is on the list of one of the other groups I belong to.)

Flat or simplistic character development on the other hand was probably the most serious flaw of the book according to most participants (18 attended).

Looking forward to our next discussion of readings by Mark Twain on May 1 at Freed-Montrose library at 6pm. Titles include MYSTERIOUS STRANGER (the Univ of Calif press version), THE NOTORIOUS JUMPING FROG OF CALAVERAS COUNTY and THE WAR PRAYER. More details at: http://www.houstonbookclubs.org/Montrose/