Laura’s Comments (group member since Apr 09, 2020)

Laura’s comments from the Irmo Branch Library - Multimedia Book Club group.

Hi there! Now that we're at the end of June, here are a few questions about the 2nd book in the Hitchhiker's Guide saga. These questions will incorporate some of the film & book discussion from the Multimedia Book Club at LCPL.

1) Originally a broadcast radio series, the plot of Hitchhiker's Guide was composed "on the fly," so it goes in some unexpected directions. As such, the radio show, book, and movie all differ significantly in terms of story! For you as reader/watcher/listener, do you find this makes it more difficult to follow the plot, or does this variety enrich the Hitchhiker's universe?

2) What do you think of the storyline the 2005 movie follows as it compares to the plot of "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe"? What elements of the books would you like to see on screen?

3) Let's talk about some of the philosophy explored in the book. While it is grounded in a humorous viewpoint, some of Adams' view of the world can be quite dark. For example, the universe of Hitchhiker's Guide seems to be a rather cruel and arbitrary place at times. How does this reflect on our own view of the life, the universe, and everything?

4) In our book club meeting this past week, we listened to some of the radio program (as released after the original broadcast). What other versions of Hitchhiker's Guide have you encountered (TV show, comics, etc.)?

Here is a video we watched for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sd-Ej...

As we roll into the summer months, we're going to continue the "Hitchhiker's Guide" series with Book 2, "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe," which rounds out the plot of the movie adaptation. I'll be getting a few copies of "The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" at the Irmo Branch Library Reference Desk if you'd like to read Book 2 and so on. We also have some audio book versions and the DVD of the movie, which is also available on hoopladigital.com right now.

Join us Thursday, June 10, at 3pm at the Irmo Branch Library for a screening of the 2005 film. We'll begin meeting in person for book clubs in June so look for our first discussion on Thursday, June 24, at 3pm here at the Irmo Branch Library! I'll continue posting questions here for discussion preparation and reflection, and for those who may not want to attend in person yet.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Hi all,

Here are more questions about "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." These questions pertain only to the end of Book 1 in the series. Next month (June), we'll move on to the Book 2, "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe."

1) Who do you consider to be the "main character" of this book? What do you think of the world/universe Douglas Adams has created?

2) The author plays a lot with our conception of logic and probability. While this is mainly to comedic purpose, what deeper truths does the book bring to our attention through the various themes explored?

3) What do you think the "question" will be for which the answer is "42"?

4) Just kidding... but let's talk more about the fun and weird elements of the series and what we think of the story so far!

Hi all,

By now you may have had a chance to get started with "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams. Here are a few questions to think about and/or discuss as we continue reading this month's book!

1) What do you think of the book so far? Have you ever read this before or seen the film? Share your initial impressions.

2) How does Adams play with the tropes of traditional (or more serious) Science Fiction with this book? What is one of the more unexpected elements of the story for you?

3) With an original publication date of 1979, Adams imagines futuristic technology within the universe that at times predicts and sometimes misses the tech that came-to-be in the subsequent years. Let's talk about the technologies presented in the book and how they hold up now.

(We'll keep Question #3 in mind in particular as we watch the film, which was released in 2005, some 25+years after the novel!)

For those interested in learning more about how the film represented Cousteau and how they went about making the underwater scenes, here is a review:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/201...

Here are some of my thoughts on the questions above!

1) Certain chapters of the book were quite sad for me to read, as they brought me renewed awareness of environmental concerns that I don't believe have been changed much in the years since this book was published. For example, I did not know about the mostly unregulated state of the fishing industry, and the chapter "Catch as Catch Can" was quite difficult to read. I am still actually working through the chapter on nuclear waste, which depicts a similarly troubling past and future. My hope, again, is that perhaps my generation and future generations will begin to address these issues in more sustainable ways. It may take a genius-level thinker to come up with solutions that can reverse some of the damage done, if that is even still possible. While Cousteau's chapter on life in a hypothetical future a billion years or two from now strikes me as somewhat silly in some ways (with his imagined future of a united human-orca community, for instance), I appreciate that we can hope for a future where life has adapted to the challenges handed down.

The autobiographical sections of the book were more fun to read, and it felt like I was living vicariously through their adventures in ocean exploration and shark encounters and so on... I feel the book gave me a good baseline knowledge to appreciate some of the biographical bullet points in the movie, "L'Odyssee." Without this knowledge, I may have missed the significance of certain things that were glossed over in the film (which assumes the viewer has some cursory knowledge of Cousteau's life).

2) I think the creative liberties of the movie were just OK. I can see why the Cousteau Society would want to distance itself from the film, because it does not always cast Jacques in the best light, with sordid affairs and an implied obliviousness to environmental concerns (until his son intervened) that did not seem consistent with how Cousteau represents himself. I would have to read other source materials, such as his son Jean-Michel's bio to determine whether these portrayals could be considered fair. They were certainly more sensational to say the least, but even so I enjoyed the movie and feel it was generally positive about Cousteau's life, family, and work. Every family, every life, has its share of difficult things to work through, and I think the film was trying to create a more dramatic arc of growth in Jacques and his relationships with Philippe and Simone specifically.

3) The film shows a struggle between family priority and success in their monumental venture to explore the oceans. The Calypso is repaired at the cost of Simone's literal family heirlooms, while the young boys have to leave the family for boarding school to allow their parents to go to sea. While this is something Jacques and Simone set out to do together, Jacques' success leads him to have affairs and do things that strain their marriage. Simone ends up claiming the boat as her home with Jacques spending time on land, away from this family, attending to constant demands on his time and ongoing funding crises of the venture. Jacques' father-son bond with Philippe is the most delicate of the family relationships represented in the film, as Philippe expresses his desire to make his own way and his disapproval of many of his father's choices. While the book gave me the impression that Jacques Cousteau arrived at his own awareness of environmental concerns through his work, the film portrays Philippe as being instrumental in bringing these to his attention. While the dynamic is probably dramatized for the film, it does symbolize something true about how one generation builds on and then informs the knowledge and awareness of past generations. This is especially resonant given the many concerns being handed down to our children's generation. Like Jacques and Philippe, successive generations will need to work together to solve the problems created in the past and present for a better future.

Continuing in the spirit of exploration, this month we'll read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams. This comedic sci-fi classic from 1979 has a major fan following and should be fun way to ease into summer. The book was adapted into a movie of the same name in 2005, and this film is now available on Hoopla at hoopladigital.com. While the book is not on Hoopla this time, I'll have a few copies of the book (#1 in the series) at the Irmo Branch Library Reference Department desk soon!

As we wrap up the month of April and our earth day topic, here are some more questions to think about and discuss. Some of these questions will include the film "The Odyssey" or "L'Odyssée," about Jacques Cousteau.

1) What are some of your main takeaways from "The Human, the Orchid, and the Octopus"? How did your knowledge from the autobiographical chapters of the book inform your viewing of the film "The Odyssey"?

2) The film presents a more narrative, perhaps sensational account of Cousteau's life, particularly with his family (so much so that The Cousteau Society has distanced itself from the film). Do you think the film took more creative liberties than is proper? How does the style of biographical adaptation strike you?

3) Taking the film as an independent work, however accurate or not it may be to Cousteau's life, let's talk about some of the themes explored. How is the struggle between family members represented in "The Odyssey"? How is Cousteau able to find meaning in his life of exploration despite the many dilemmas he and his team face? What does the main conflict between Jacques and Philippe show us about generational conflict in environmental concerns?

Just this past weekend I found out more about the exploration to Challenger Deep. Here is a short article about it: https://www.practically.com/web/blog/...
Note that this was another famous Jacques... Piccard, the "Swiss oceanic engineer, economist, and physicist, who helped his father, Auguste Piccard, build the bathyscaphe for deep-sea exploration and who also invented the mesoscaphe, an undersea vessel for exploring middle depths." More at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/...

Happy Earth Day 2021! Check out what's going on today:
https://www.earthday.org/earth-day-li...
https://www.earthday.org/news-and-sto...

1) I'm enjoying this book so far! I've especially enjoyed Cousteau's discussion about risk, both personal and public, and how he understood the ethics of taking risks (or asking his team to do so) in pursuit of improving human life. He makes a salient point that risk should always be about honoring the sanctity of life, not just taking risk as an end in itself. I was also interested in his stories of encountering sharks during their dives. While shark attacks on humans are rare, his close calls with sharks impressed upon me the wild nature of the ocean. The explorers had to be brave to face the known and unknown dangers of diving to great depths, not the least of which was the peril of breathing safely! I must say that this book has not inspired me to try diving, but I am glad to live vicariously through Cousteau and his team...

2) With a good bit of the book still ahead of me, I'm just beginning to get a sense of Cousteau's philosophy regarding his life's work. At times, like when he lost a team volunteer during a dive, he seems to have wrestled with his own ethics regarding his work. Was it worth a man's life to bring up "old jars" as he called the valuable wreckage of an ancient ship? But he finds that his team appreciates the importance of the task as another volunteer takes the place of the man who died: it is worth it to understand and preserve the past in order to chart a better future. Furthermore, Cousteau definitely sees the merit in understanding the natural world as it is now because their explorations uncovered how the world changed rapidly (for the worse) in modern times. We need to understand how our actions impact that world so that we can plan for the future generations. The chapter on risk to the public especially highlights how we take for granted that unexplored areas won't be affected by our actions, as even outer space is being cluttered with detritus from new technologies. With that said, I think space is the next area for exploration, but a lot still remains to be discovered about the earth, too. I think it's going to take a new generation to create technologies that will be less wasteful and address the pollution that already exists. This book was written already many years ago, and it's daunting to think that not much progress has been made on issues about which Cousteau was sounding the alarm several decades ago.

3) & 4) Before reading this book, I was familiar with Cousteau only as the stereotype. I had seen "The Life Aquatic" without really understanding that it was based on Jacques Cousteau; from my vantage point, the French-inflected oceanographer was just another trope of pop culture. That's one thing I like to do with this book club: go deeper than the trope that is ubiquitous in media to the real person/story behind the stereotype. I'm excited to learn more about Cousteau's life and to consider his work. One thing I'd like to do before this topic ends is watch his film, "The Silent World," which won Cannes' Palme d'Or in 1956. I have seen Neil deGrasse Tyson's "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey" a few years ago, which expanded my understanding of just how vast the universe is (and even our own small planet). The mini-series takes on a lot (as in, all of time and space) in the spirit of Carl Sagan's original: https://time.com/13005/review-of-cosm... I am also a fan of the 2016 documentary "Born in China," comfortingly voice by John Krasinski. Though some parts are a bit sad (poor snow leopards!), I was heartened to learn that it turned out alittle better than originally expected. https://butfirstjoy.com/born-in-china...

Hi again,
By now you may have gotten a chance to get started with "The Human, the Orchid, and the Octopus" (2007) by Jacques Cousteau and Susan Schiefelbein. If you are just joining us, this is a great week to dig in because this Thursday (April 22) is Earth Day 2021! As we continue reading, here are some questions to think about this week.

1) What do you think of the book so far? Have you learned anything new about Coutsteau's life and work? What about the natural world/ocean?

2) Based on Cousteau's viewpoint as expressed in the book, how does it benefit our future to understand the natural world as it is now? Do you think there is still the possibility of exploration in the world today?

3) What was your first encounter with a documentation of nature that captured your imagination? Were you at all familiar with Cousteau's work before reading this book?

4) Let's talk about Cousteau in pop culture! Have you encountered one of the parodies or portrayals of him as a public figure? How did this element inform your impressions going into this topic?

Next time, we'll discuss the biopic "The Odyssey" (2016) as well as more about the "The Human, the Orchid, and the Octopus." Both are available on Hoopla now, and you can also watch "The Life Aquatic" (2004) for fun!

1) In Part 2 of the book, we see a Silas who has come to a much better place in his community. Because of his care for Eppie, the people of Raveloe are more open to him and willing to see past his strange looks and demeanor. He is, in kind, able to establish deeper relationships with the people of Raveloe, specifically with Dolly and her family. I was moved by the scenes of Silas telling Dolly what happened to him in Lantern Yard, as this openness is key part of his healing from that past betrayal. Another key step is his return to Lantern Yard to seek resolution with the minister about the implications of casting lots to determine his guilt: when he arrives, the chapel is gone. He can never follow up to know what the lots mean or if it was fair; he just has to move forward with the life he has now. I think this is one of Eliot's main points with the book, that chance and luck and such things as we assign meaning to ultimately don't matter as much as the choices we make in our lives. While Silas may understand the gold leaving him and Eppie coming as the will of a higher power, what really changes his situation is how he responds. Similarly, Godfrey Cass comes to realize that his downfall is not in being caught in his falsehoods, which he strove so long to prevent by dint of good fortune, but in hiding the truth for too long and missing the real fortune of his life. He has lost the chance to have meaningful connection with his wife for many years and has lost the chance to be a part of his daughter's life (or any child's). While he believed in Part 1 that he had encountered good luck in his first wife dying and Silas taking the child, his own inaction in response to these events has brought tragedy on his life. In the end of the book, we see a reversal of regret, as Silas is able to let go of the regret of a lot cast that kept him apart from society, and Godfrey must live with the regret of an opportunity lost, and that by his own choice.

2) While "A Simple Twist of Fate" is in many ways a faithful adaptation of "Silas Marner" (barring the changes to bring the story into the present day, the 1990s), I was surprised by the differing ramifications of the discovery of Dunstan's remains. While the book brings in the discovery of his skeleton prior to Godfrey's resolution (and as a motive) to pursue adopting Eppie, the movie uses the discovery of the skeleton (and the money) to settle the matter at the very end of the story. Perhaps in the interest of creating more of a blockbuster storyline, the movie brings in the element of the court case in which the Newlands (the movie's Cass family) try to adopt adolescent Mathilda (Eppie) from single dad Michael McCann (Silas Marner). The judge is all but decided to rule in favor of returning the child to her biological father, in the name of financial security, when the discovery of the lost gold makes his argument unsound. On the other hand, in the book, the Cass family's offer to claim Eppie is emotional only, as the girl has come of age. It would bring a significant change of lifestyle for both her and for her adoptive father, and she chooses her bond with Silas over her claim to wealth/status. While in the movie Michael McCann's gold brings him wealth, in the book Silas' gold really doesn't amount to very much. It's not much more than Dunstan needed to cover the cost of the horse he killed! This is not an insignificant amount but not enough to drastically change Silas and Eppie's positions in life, as in the movie. I like the subtlety of the book in this way: Eppie's loyalty to Silas as a result of her lifetime of love and support from him in fact restores his own previously severed connection to humanity. The movie is more plot-focused in the ending, rather than internally focused; and I understand, because looking internally can be difficult in a medium that requires a Hollywood Ending. Overall, I like the movie as a new take on the story, but I don't think it quite gets at the heart of Eliot's story, which is the importance of choosing human connection more than the mechanisms of fate.

3) I found another article that lists some notable female authors (past and present) who used male pen names for various reasons: https://earlybirdbooks.com/female-aut...
I was surprised to see Louisa May Alcott and the Brontë sisters, given that they were introduced to me sans pen name originally. The Brontës had this to say: "We did not like to declare ourselves women, because—without at that time suspecting that our mode of writing and thinking was not what is called ‘feminine’—we had a vague impression that authoresses are liable to be looked on with prejudice." But I did not know that Alcott's connection to her nom de plume was unknown for decades after her death! It was used primarily for her gothic thriller writing: "The gender-neutral nature of the pseudonym [A.M. Barnard] afforded Alcott the freedom to explore darker subject matter deemed unbecoming of a lady at the time."

Mary Ann Evans/George Eliot wrote about the stigmatized nature of "feminine writing" in her essay "Silly Novels by Lady Novelist," in which she harshly criticizes the popular style of novel written by her female contemporaries, suggesting that many such writers don't care as much about the "sacred art of writing." She also notes that women who display true talent and genius are often torn apart by critics while the light, fluffy feminine novels are given (empty) praise. She says, "By a peculiar thermometric adjustment, when a woman’s talent is at zero, journalistic approbation is at the boiling pitch; when she attains mediocrity, it is already at no more than summer heat; and if ever she reaches excellence, critical enthusiasm drops to the freezing point. Harriet Martineau, Currer Bell [the pen name of Charlotte Brontë], and Mrs. Gaskell have been treated as cavalierly as if they had been men. And every critic who forms a high estimate of the share women may ultimately take in literature, will on principle abstain from any exceptional indulgence toward the productions of literary women." For more on this essay, check out: https://www.literaryladiesguide.com/l...

Another author who stands out to me is George Sand, whose reasons for using a pen name may have been more nuanced than just distancing her writing from the traditionally female writing of the time. George Sand, or Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin, rejected other "feminine" characteristics by adopting a masculine style of dress and by frequenting places which were generally barred to women. Here is more on her life and writing: https://www.literaryladiesguide.com/a... From this essay: In Lélia: The Life of George Sand, André Maurois writes touchingly: “Those who came to see the notorious lady who wore trousers and smoked cigars found instead a passionate and dedicated mind that transcended any of her gaudy poses. For in revolting against the conventions of the world, George Sand felt and suffered very much as a woman.”

This month, in honor of Earth Day on April 22, we're going to take a "deep dive" into the life and work of the legendary oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau. Our main selections will be "The Human, the Orchid, and the Octopus," the last book by Cousteau, and a film biopic about his adventures, "The Odyssey" (2017), both available on Hoopla at hoopladigital.com.

You may know Jacques Cousteau from his nature films about the ocean, such as "The Silent World" (1956). His career spanned six decades, with amazing innovations in the technology and art of ocean exploration, he wrote more than 50 books, and he made more than 120 documentaries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques...). His French-language films are so iconic that they have been parodied by kids' cartoons (Sponge Bob Square Pants comes to mind), and Bill Murray payed Cousteau homage as the fictional Steve Zissou in Wes Anderson's "The Life Aquatic" (2004), which also happens to be on Hoopla right now! I'm excited to learn more about him, beyond the red knit hat.

To get an idea of just how far Cousteau explored, and get a little taste of ocean exploration yourself, check out this educational/interactive site:
https://neal.fun/deep-sea/
Seriously, scroll all the way down until you find the exploration to "Challenger Deep," the bottom of the ocean! It's amazing...

Hi there,
As we finish reading "Silas Marner" and watch the movie "A Simple Twist of Fate," here are some questions to consider for our discussion. Warning: there may be spoilers in the questions/answers below!

1) First, considering the novel, how do the characters and situations change between Part 1 and Part 2 of the book? How does Eliot establish the growth of her characters over this jump of sixteen years, and how does the novel further evolve its various themes (as we discussed in our last thread: chance, luck, religion, and regret, etc.)?

2) The movie adaptation "A Simple Twist of Fate" is a modernization of the story and as such has some differences; however, one key change is the point in the plot when the the fate of Dunstan is revealed, serving a very different purpose for the narrative of the movie versus the books. Let's talk about these changes: are they necessary for the adaptation and/or do they fundamentally change the story, especially in regard to the plot and the emphasis of the narrative in each version?

3) As we finish up our conversation on George Eliot's novel, let's dig a little deeper into our discussion of pennames used by writers past and present. What other writers have you read who used pennames? Any additional reflections on our discussion so far?

Here are my thoughts on the questions! I'll try to keep my answers limited roughly the first half of the novel to avoid spoilers...

1) Silas Marner strikes me as a very relatable character. Eliot does a good job of exploring his inner motives through his backstory and his resulting fixation with earning money. It's a remarkable feat to create a sympathetic miser, a man who loves money without necessarily being materialistic in nature. It seems like he is mainly focused on the money as measure of his time and his steady progress through his work, his main form of solace. I can imagine a modern-day Silas Marner finding solace in something repetitive, meditative, but challenging like, say, getting a high score at a game like Tetris. Marner seems to have a game-ified view of his earnings. I can understand his distress on having his arbitrary measure suddenly removed from his possession, on top of the violation and material consequences of being robbed.

I can also see why the people of Raveloe would have little means to understand Marner's strangeness as an outsider. It seems they are heavily biased toward him at first, but are willing to soften toward him as soon as he shows some vulnerability, which lets them see his humanity with compassion. This made me like the people of Raveloe much more, to see how they softened toward Marner and he toward them as he lost his treasure. I'm excited to see how the story progresses with the introduction of Eppie.

Godfrey Cass is less sympathetic, with his irresolution and poor character traits leading to the main conflicts of the plot. I hope to see him develop, though, and his relationship with Nancy seems to be the area in which he will find his way to decency. Nancy is also an interesting player in all this, as a sort of unknowing victim of Cass's double life. I'm enjoying the complexity Eliot brings to each character, with each one having a bit of moral ambiguity and no straightforward "bad guy," with the exception of Dunstan.

2) Chance is a big factor in the story, especially for Godfrey, who is willing to rely on chance to deliver him from his situation. In the case of Godfrey, he has put himself in this situation to begin with, and chance may be his way out. Silas, on the other hand, has been victim of circumstance, with the bad luck that someone would rob him on one of rare nights he left his home unlocked. From our perspective as a reader, however, we can see that he is in fact being put into his situation by the choices of a bad actor, which is what happened when Silas lost his fiancée and community to the betrayal of a good friend. Silas and Godfrey are both put into the situations by actions, but they (and the people around them) tend to view it as rather by the hand of fate. I think Eliot is exploring the ways in which we make sense of things that happen to us by attributing our circumstances and destiny to abstract concepts, as though these concepts are themselves acting intentionally. In the meantime, we see in the text that the circumstances are actually the result of calculated human decisions. Perhaps Eliot is saying that it's easier to understand things as happening through the hand of fate than to accept that people do harm to each other. Indeed, Silas is unwilling to acknowledge what his friend did to him in betraying him at Lantern Yard, and the townsfolk of Raveloe are quick to blame either an outsider or "unseen forces" for his bad luck, rather than consider that someone in their community may have done it.

3) In doing research for this discussion, I learned of a project launched a few years ago by the Women's Prize for Fiction. the "Reclaim Her Name" project, which released 25 books "originally published under male aliases, that will be republished under the female authors' real names." George Eliot is among the authors featured in this initiative. https://www.cnn.com/style/article/geo...
Publishing under a male pseudonym allowed Mary Ann Evans to escape stigma surrounding what women should write, and I do think her work would have been judged differently if it had initially come out under a feminine name. But I think what is interesting is that the "feminine" qualities of her writing and work did not go unnoticed. Her contemporary Charles Dickens is quoted as saying her writing possessed "womanly touches" such that he suspected her being a female writer. In terms of stereotypes, perhaps he was correct, because Eliot does pay attention to details and nuances that a male writer of the time may have been more likely to neglect. However, some scholars would argue that examining writers through the lens of male or female is reductive. (Prof. Grace Lavery of UC Berkley critiqued the "Reclaim Her Name" project. See: https://legacywomenwriters.org/2020/0...)
Overall, I believe Eliot's work stood out then and now because of her artistic genius, regardless of gender, but also because of what she brought to her writing as a woman of her era... I'll be thinking more on this question as we continue the discussion next time.

Now that we're midway through the month, let's begin our discussion on "Silas Marner" by George Eliot/Mary Ann Evans. Here are some questions to answer and/or think about while reading the book. We will discuss the movie "A Simple Twist of Fate" in the next thread!

1) What are your first impressions of the title character, Silas Marner? What do you think of the community of Raveloe and Marner's place within it? What about the other main players like Godfrey Cass?

2) The author introduces the concept of luck, chance, or fate in a society where superstitious beliefs are pervasive. What do you think Eliot is saying about the possibility of chance acting on circumstances beyond one's control? What does the text suggest about superstition as lens through which characters understand others and interpret events?

3) As you read, reflect on how Eliot's original audience may have reacted to this story. Do you think it mattered then (or now) that Eliot/Evans published this work under a pen name? How might readers have reacted differently if her gender had been known? Are there any ways in which your knowledge of Eliot's gender influences your impression of the novel today?

As you answer #3, here is an article about the complexity of Eliot's life: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/2...

1) The film version of "Girl with a Pearl Earring" actually stayed pretty close to the plotline of the novel. Some points were simplified or condensed; for example, the film gives some of Frans' dialogue to Pieter in order to eliminate a character to develop. These kinds of changes are generally necessary to make a concise adaptation that is not too difficult for viewers to follow. Other simplifications include giving Pieter's father a unique first name and making Griet's changes to Vermeer's paintings more noticeable (moving a chair out of frame instead of the drape of a piece of cloth). I felt that the film was true to the novel, even to the extent that perhaps Chevalier composed the novel with a film in mind? With the ornate costumes and historical set pieces, not to mention the images of the paintings, the story seems better told in a visual media.

2) One area where the film improves upon Chevalier's story is definitely visualization of the characters. While Chevalier does describe the paintings and setting, I had less sense of what the characters aside from Griet look like and how they dress, important elements in historical fiction. As I mentioned in the last discussion thread, I initially didn't understand why Griet is drawn to Vermeer in the book, aside from his fame and mystery! But cast Colin Firth in the role, and suddenly things make sense, with Firth's subtle charm and stolen glances at Griet. The same is true for the casting of Cillian Murphy as Pieter and Scarlett Johansson as Griet. The actors bring life to the roles. Johansson fits Griet's youthful innocence, with understated but undeniable beauty. Murphy has an entirely different look than Firth, which fits wonderfully for the objectively attractive but less mysterious Pieter. And of course the actors bring their own interpretations to the characters, which deepens the dynamics beyond the text.

Casting makes a big difference in how viewers interpret the relationship between characters, and this was true especially for me in understanding Griet's attraction to Vermeer. In the book, while I got that she was supposed to have a soulful connection with him over art, I couldn't quite get past the "creepy professor with an adoring student" cliché of their relationship. Colin Firth is sensitive as Vermeer in a way that made me more willing to see the relationship as (possibly) a consensual love story. After all, Colin Firth is not cast as a "bad guy," but as a romantic lead! On the other hand, Cillian Murphy IS the kind of actor who is cast as a bad guy, and he undoubtedly already has a chilliness about him as Pieter compared the warmth of Firth's Vermeer. So the romantic choice for Griet is made obvious in the film while in the book the waters are muddier, with Griet herself wondering if Jan Vermeer isn't taking his cues from scenes like "The Procuress." More on this later... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pro...

3) While religion features heavily in the book, it isn’t as prevalent in the film. One scene involved Pieter joining Griet and her family at church and commenting on her being a Protestant girl instead of Catholic, but that is about the extent of the conversation. I am torn on whether a deeper exploration of religion in the film would work for this story. It's very important to the setting and context of Vermeers’ work, but without Griet's interiority (as in the novel), I don't know that the film could address it in much greater depth than they did. Certainly, if watching only the film, I would not understand that Vermeer's family being Catholic was much of an issue for Griet.

4) In both the film and the novel, the story leaves us with a question of whether Griet is exploited in the sense that she has been bought, or essentially made a prostitute, by Vermeer and van Ruijvan through the painting. Van Ruijvan has his lecherous motives, but Vermeer himself makes Griet feel like he is done with her once the painting is over. Having made her into a literal object, does not have interest in her as a person anymore. Chevalier’s exploration of this question through the ending is more nuanced in the novel than the film’s handling of it. Both the film and the book end with Griet receiving the earrings from Vermeer, but I would argue that the film’s handling leaves Griet more in an objectified role (cast in a role like the maiden in The Procuress) than the book does.

The film ends with Tanneke coming up to Griet some unknown amount of time later and handing her the earring wrapped in the fabric of her headpiece in the painting. She seems dismayed both that Tanneke doesn’t greet her warmly and that Vermeer has given her the earring. His reason for doing so is not explained in the film, with us left to assume what we will. It’s ambiguous: he may have given the earrings out of love, but certainly Griet sees it as a sort of payment for her services. This puts her in the role of the paid-for-woman, like the subject of “The Procuress.”

In the book, on the other hand, the gift of the earrings actually accomplishes the opposite: it removes her from the role of the paid-for-woman. Her husband Pieter has joked that the Vermeer family’s unpaid butcher bill accounts for the price of a maid, and Griet takes this joke seriously enough that her final act in the book is to undo the situation by pawning the earrings Vermeer has given her. The ambiguity of Vermeer’s gift remains: is this a sign of his love or of his feeling he owes her something? But the context in the book is more nuanced as well. In the novel’s version of events, we understand that the Vermeers have fallen on difficult times financially at the time of Jan’s death; giving Griet the earrings, therefore, may be a way to preserve something precious from being sold off for debts in the settling of the estate.

The irony is that this is exactly how Griet chooses to treat the earrings. Ostensibly, she sells the pearls for the practical reasons that she wouldn’t be able to wear them and having them would raise too many questions with her husband; however, selling them (and claiming the family called her to settle the butcher debt) allows Griet to reclaim her power in her situation with Vermeer and, more importantly, with her husband. She does not take it as a joke that he calls the Vermeer’s debt the price he had to pay for a maid, and Griet has the last word on the matter with the resonant last sentence of the book. In the novel, she ends the book a “free” woman who does not have to acknowledge that any man paid for her, a final triumph we don’t get in the film.

1) This book was a slow burn, especially in the beginning when Chevalier is establishing the setting and character. Given that Vermeers' paintings were about daily middle class life, giving plenty of time to the setting makes sense. Griet goes about her chores as a maid and visits the markets, and I can see how she would find the routine of a painter, a man of leisure, more interesting than her own. The author suggests that Griet has an interest in art itself, that she generally thinks and sees like a painter also, and that Vermeer recognizes this in her. Griet was not so far removed from Vermeer's world. Her father was a member of the same Guild, an artist of a different sort, but with a collegial relationship with the Vermeer family. If Griet had been male instead of female, she would have been a painter making of Delft tiles like her brother. (And so the subplot of her brother blowing his opportunity to be a tile painter is especially poignant as Griet goes through her experience.)

The limit of her station has as much to do with her gender as with her class, because if she were male, she would have more ability to lift herself out of the impoverished situation where her father's misfortune has placed her and her family. As a female, she is limited to her ability to attract a spouse for any lasting change in her station. Vermeer's and van Riujven's interest in her as an attractive object (for painting or otherwise) poses a threat to her valuableness as a prospective bride, and yet she is willing to compromise her security for greater proximity to Vermeer and his art. She is conflicted, but the author suggests that her draw is to something more noble in the artist. I never got on board with Griet's attraction to Vermeer because of the power dynamic at play. I can see how this could really happen and read the situation more as Griet being exploited by a man in position of power. But what's in it for her is the chance to be close to the paint and the process of a great artist, which would not otherwise be available to her as a woman, no matter what class she occupied. We see this in the ways Griet complies with Vermeers escalating requests and in Catharina's frustration in being barred from her husband's world of art. Griet is presented a unique opportunity for any woman, and that Vermeer offers it to her and not to his wife Catharina drives a deep wedge between Griet and the other women of the house.

2) Griet is different from the other women of her station. She is more observant and curious than other women of work, like Tanneke, and she has a unique quality of soul that attract Vermeer to her in a different way than his physical attraction to Catharina. We know from the many children in quick succession that Jan is not in need a physical partner, and he seems to seek in Griet a more soulful connection through an appreciation of art. The thing is all people have the propensity to appreciate art, but it needs to be nurtured. Griet has been lucky to have her father and now Vermeer foster this in her. Griet's brother doesn't appreciate his opportunity to paint tiles; Vermeer does not see in Catharina an equal of soul or mind. These mismatches make the story tragic for these characters.

Griet would have wanted to be a painter herself in some capacity, and I think this shows us something universal about women throughout time who have been denied the same opportunities as men to develop an intellectual and/or artistic side. Pieter the butcher's son presents one of the best possible outcomes for her, yet she resists him for a long time. In the climax of the book, she could have avoided the scandal altogether by accepting Pieter's marriage proposal on the spot and leaving instead of going back upstairs to be painted. In this way Griet takes charge of her own destiny, for better or for worse, but in the end comes to accept her role as a working man's wife.

3) Some of Griet's first impressions of the Vermeers bothered me. She seemed instantly to have chemistry with Jan Vermeer, and I didn't really understand why! He is a famous painter and notices how she sorts vegetables... why find him alluring? It's more clear as the story goes on the Griet connects with him because of a mutual interest in art, but I didn't find it convincing at first that she would find him intriguing for any other reason than his fame. Another thing was that her dislike of Catharina seemed unearned in the early parts of the book. By the end, sure, Catharina earns some of her villain status, but Griet just seems judgmental toward her at first! Being pregnant constantly and married to an artist who does not bring in a steady income would lower anyone's patience, especially with a new maid who doesn't know basic decorum between employer and employee. I felt that Griet expected somewhat special treatment, which endeared her to Vermeer but made all the other ladies of the house resent her. And slapping the little girl right off the bat? That was a bad choice and I'm not surprised Cornelia had it out for her... Griet was not as innocent as she liked to believe about herself, which I think we all manage to realize by the end of the book, including Griet.

4) I agree with Kyland that Griet is very focused on the religious differences between her family and Vermeers. As a modern and outside observer, it doesn't seem like the difference between Catholic and Protestant would be so notable, but in taking a quick look at the history, I learned that this story happened at a point in time when the Protestant Reformation had really shaken up the social order in the Netherlands. It was still a new normal, yet the tables were already turning so that Catholics were fair game for discrimination. It also had changed the culture such that artists no longer could rely on commissions from the Catholic Church for liturgical paintings. This plays into the story because of Vermeer's dependence on commissions from wealthy people. Yet Vermeer is able to find the sacred in the everyday objects he paints, which Griet notices gives the paintings something that makes them seem Catholic, as she says. Chevalier's exploration of these elements is subtle, the discussion among characters limited and understated, but it gives modern readers a lot to unpack. While the story was slow to me at first, this layering of historical context is what made the book for me. When doing even cursory research on Vermeer and the history of his art and the time, it's possible to discover new things about the story and characters. Chevalier demonstrates the richness of her research by weaving these details into the story, blending historical elements with her fictional development of the characters to give a glimpse of how people may have truly lived and felt. The book left me with even more interest in Vermeer, his work, and this period in history.

Here is a link to a short video about the painting "Girl with a Pearl Earring," with commentary about the original artwork: https://youtu.be/M-jLsoA1i_o
Check out more from this series:
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanitie...

I'm circling back to this discussion now that I'm back and in the swing of things! I remember when this book and the subsequent film made an impression in the '00s. It's interesting to read/watch now, in light of how the world has changed in the past twenty years and can't help but wonder if it isn't a different book in the post-"Me Too" cultural landscape. I look forward to jumping into the discussion!