Houston Readers

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 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.

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/

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.
 

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.

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/