Maggie’s Comments (group member since Aug 30, 2015)

Maggie’s comments from the Operation Book Club group.

hi guys! so first off, i struggled with this book. i had heard such good things going into it so i had high expectations. i was never able to connect with it in the way i would've wished. i'm the type of person who connects most to characters above even plot and his character descriptions (or lack thereof) never allowed me to connect to any of the characters. sarat could be so interesting but she just fell flat.

i was also so annoyed by the fact that he always cut away from the action to have the big moments told by historical documents. just as i thought i was getting into it, it would take me out of it.

i would love to hear from someone who liked this book though....

Hi Ana!! Welcome! So happy to have you on board :)

This was the second time I read this book and I loved it even more this time than I did the first. I've just written a novel is response to these questions... Oh boy here we go...

1. Did you like the book’s structure? Did it make sense to you why the nine sections were divided up the way they were, or did this division feel arbitrary at any point?

To be honest, neither time I read it did I pay attention to the way the book was divided. I probably should've but on a surface level I don't think paying attention to the section headers would've made that much of a difference in my reading of it...

2. Which characters made the strongest impression on you? Did the existence of any characters seem superfluous, or were they all essential to the story? In particular, what did you think of Jeevan, who in many ways exists in a vacuum separate from the rest of the characters?

For me, it was Miranda who made the strongest impression. I could read a whole book just about Miranda. Her backstory was so interesting, I'd love to hear what she did in the gaps between the times that we saw her. In my opinion, she had more impact on the characters and story than anyone else. She and Arthur weren't married for that long but it consistently seemed like he was striving to reach how he felt with her in the early days; the scene between her and Jeevan when he takes her photo is fascinating and in my opinion sets him up for a change in career because years later he still feels guilty about taking that photo of her; Kirsten seems to be constantly striving to find more Station Eleven books and the fact that she leaves one book with Clark at the end is her putting down roots somewhere for the first time since the collapse; Tyler is also immensely affected by Station Eleven - he names his dog Luli, the page from the comic is his bible, etc. Every character trait can be traced back to being affected by Miranda/Miranda's writing so for that reason she is the most important character to me.

When it comes to Jeevan, I don't think he is superfluous at all. It took me a while to think of what it means that he never interacts with any of the other characters after the collapse but in the end you're left with the sense that there's a fairly good chance that they'll cross paths at some point. If civilization is going to be rebuilt, the people are going to have to come together so that's what Jeevan signifies to me and for that reason he is anything but superfluous.

3. What role did Shakespeare play in this story? Why was it important that the traveling symphony performed Shakespeare, rather than another playwright’s works?

Shakespeare is timeless. There's a reason why his works still resonate with the world almost 500 years later and people will still be reading them 500 years from now. Also, everyone connects to something different in Shakespeare's work.

I pulled a quote that I think says this. This is Kirsten talking about writing her own play: "She wanted to write something modern, something that addressed this age in which they'd somehow landed. Survival might be insufficient, but on the other hand, so was Shakespeare. [Dieter had] trotted out his usual arguments, about how Shakespeare had lived in a plague-ridden society with no electricity and so did the Traveling Symphony. But look, she'd told him, the difference was that they'd seen electricity, they'd seen everything, they'd watched a civilization collapse, and Shakespeare hadn't. In Shakespeare's time the wonders of technology were still ahead, not behind them, and far less had been lost."

Kirsten and Dieter are both talking about the same work but they get very different things from it and that's based on age and experience. The same goes for me reading a Shakespeare play versus any of you. We're going to get different things from it based on who we are.

There is also specific significance to the fact that the symphony is performing A Midsummer Night's Dream - it's about escaping from reality, that there might be magic lurking somewhere just out of sight so it taps into whatever remaining hope the survivors have. This is set against the collapse happening opposite King Lear, which is all about hopelessness, tragedy and the fall from greatness.

4. Discuss the parallels of Miranda's Station Eleven comics to the plot. Did you like this element of the story, or did it feel too on the nose?

While the comics did feel a bit on the nose, I liked what they signified for Kirsten and Tyler. I've kind of already detailed that above so I won't repeat myself here. One thing I didn't say above was that I think it is significant that Tyler's view of his place after the collapse is so affected by Station Eleven because it was the last present that his dad gave him before his death and the fall happened right after his dad's death so it had to have gained even more significance because of that. His mind had to be affected by these tragic things happening at such a young age and Station Eleven was the only thing he had to cling onto until he found the bible, which warped his perspective immensely.

5. What did you think of the reveal that Tyler was the prophet? Did you see it coming?

I'm trying to remember when I figured out that Tyler was the prophet the first time reading it. I think it was fairly early on, especially with the clue that he called his dog Luli, but I didn't mind that I saw it coming.

6. Arthur's death had nothing to do with the emergence of the flu, but it did set a lot of wheels into motion for our characters. How might the trajectory of the novel have been different if Arthur hadn’t died on stage that night? What was the narrative significance of his death?

So many things would've been different if Arthur hadn't died. Tyler and Elizabeth would've stayed in Jerusalem so there's a chance Tyler wouldn't have grown up to be the prophet, Clark would've stayed in London so there would've been no museum and therefore probably the airport would've have turned in such a sanctuary, Jeevan would've gone home with his girlfriend that night and probably wouldn't have gone to his brother's so probably would've died in the city.

Open-ended/personal/vague speculation questions:

7. What do you think happened in the year that Kirsten can’t remember?

I imagine that it would be something like The Walking Dead - everyone fighting over resources, etc. I don't have any more concrete opinions than that though. I will say that I love that there is this missing year because a big part of the book is remembering the past and how experiences and memories shape who you are. Those who don't have memories of the time before the collapse have very different opinions about the world than those who remember a lot about the world before the collapse.

8. How long do you think it would take to rebuild a civilization after this kind of collapse? Do you think 20 years is a realistic timeline? What do you think about the role the museum played (was it critical in helping to reshape society or was it more sentimental)?

I've been thinking a lot about this. I know that we're seeing a very small snapshot of the world after a natural disaster and if she had widened the scope we might have seen other people trying to rebuild sooner than 20 years. However, I do think 20 years is sufficient time to mourn what you've lost and move on. The museum is significant because museums are about acknowledging, remembering and learning from the past while at the same time putting it behind you.

On another level, 20 years is sufficient time because it means that the children who grew up after the collapse (including Kirsten, who was alive but doesn't remember much) are reaching adulthood and as the book says it's much easier to get over something that you don't remember that well.

9. If ‘survival is insufficient,’ what is it that makes life worth living?/10. Would you travel with the symphony or stay at the airport?

I'm going to answer 9 & 10 together because they go hand in hand for me. For me, it wouldn't be worth just sustaining myself day to day. I think I would stay at the airport for a while - probably even a couple of years for the comfort and safety but I can't imagine spending the rest of my life there. Life isn't worth living if you're not doing anything with it. So yes, I probably would travel with the symphony but also look forward to returning the airport for stretches.

11. What do you think was the significance of the number 11? Aside from the obvious mention in the title, it appeared throughout the book: 11 years since Miranda and Arthur last spoke; 11 years since the dinner party, etc...

I posed this question and I don't really have an answer. The number eleven does pop up a lot though so I'd love if somebody had some idea of why!

12. While post-apocalyptic novels are a dime a dozen, why do you think Station Eleven has been so successful?

I think Station Eleven is so successful because it's not about decline it's about how you get to the point of rebuilding. Most post-apocalyptic novels/tv shows/movies happen as the world is falling but I haven't seen many that tackle the issue of getting to a point emotionally and physically where the characters can think about rebuilding.

I also think another part of that is that most post-apocalyptic novels tend to be because of zombies or war or something else but there's something so terrifying and relatable about a disease wiping out civilization because it's not something you can't prepare for. It's natural and believable and you have no idea if you're going to be one of the random few to survive. There wasn't any fighting it, whereas you could fight zombies or you could be lucky not to be touched by war, but the flu touched everyone in this case and that's more gut-wrenching than any zombie apocalypse.

Oh man that's annoying! Here's the link in full: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/3W9TX6M

Hi all! Dawn has chosen the books for our next poll.

- The Sassafras Crossing by Lindrith Davies
- Mama Day by Gloria Naylor
- The Diviners by Libba Bray
- Station Eleven by Emily St. John Mandel
- To the Lighthouse by Virginia Woolf

Vote HERE by mon, november 14!

Hi all!! Discussion day is tomorrow, November 6 but here are the discussion questions in the meantime.

Feel free to add anything :)

1. What did you think of the way the book was structured, jumping between different perspectives and periods of time? Was it easy to follow? Would you have told this story the same way?
2. What did you think about how she underplayed the big moments (Cal's death, Leo's death, etc.)? None of the action happened in the present, it was only remembered by the characters years in the future. Does that say more about the family dynamics than anything else?
3. What did you think about how Cal’s death played out? We got bits of information over the course of the book then the full picture only came from a vision Teresa had while meditating so it’s probably not even how it truly played out. Are we meant to take Teresa's vision literally? Why do you think we only saw this scene firsthand from a character who wasn't present? What effect does that have?
4. Do you think anyone was to blame for the events that played out (the divorce of two families and then the death of Cal)? Or was it all inevitable?
5. Why did you think there was a long digression about Fix's partner Lomer in the second chapter? What did that add to the story, if anything?
6. Did you think it was intentional that there was more of a focus on Franny and Albie than the other siblings? Why do you think that was?
7. What did you think about the final scene, the fact that Bert's house was Franny's true home and then that final memory Franny had of her and Albie in the snow? Why was it significant that Franny never told Leo about that memory?
8. As one of the only central characters who was not a Keating or a Cousins, what did you think of Leo Posen and the role he played?
9. What did you think the 'point' of this book was? Does literature (adult lit in particular) always need to have a point? As a reader, what factors do you think make a book worth reading, and did Commonwealth meet them?

God this book made me so emotional. Truly one of the best books I've ever read. These questions are also SO HARD RACHEL!!! I have so many emotions and I'm not sure if I made any sense with my answers but hopefully they're not horrible.

1. What did you think of Celeste Ng's use of the third person omniscient POV? Was it done effectively?

I struggled with this at the beginning but as I got used to it I realized how effective it was in illuminating the collective trauma this family has been through. This is a family that is mourning as individuals but that is broken as a whole so having a narrator that understands all of their emotions at the same time is the best way to show that grief.

2. How was the issue of race relations in 1970s America handled?

I, as a white woman, can't know what it means to be affected like this family was by racism. The only thing I can say is that this book did an amazing job of explaining how James is the person he is because of the racism he faced and in turn how Marilyn was by the sexism she faced and by her choice to marry James and how their kids were affected by their parents' history. The way Ng seamlessly wove the past with the present make everything that happened to them present to show just how much it shaped the people they are at the time of Lydia's death.

3. What did you think of James and Marilyn and the dichotomy of standing out/fitting in that characterized their relationship?

The characterization of James and Marilyn (asgdkjhasdg so good) speaks so powerfully to the way two very different people from very different backgrounds were affected by the same time period. The same story couldn't have been told if it had been set today or - even more significantly - if James was white or Marilyn and James were the same race. The characteristics of Marilyn and James were so simple - she wanted to stand out and he wanted to fit in - but those characteristics have such deep roots in their individual experiences of how society failed them and have such immense, reaching consequences as they age and raise a family.

4. Do you think James would have cheated on Marilyn if it weren't for Lydia's death? Was Lydia really the only thread that was holding their marriage and their family together?

I think it was inevitable. It's the most significant manifestation of his desire to feel normal - just like Marilyn's leaving was for her wanting to stand out - so the affair can't be read as a result of Lydia's death. The timing would suggest that but it's way more about the fact that little things inside of him were breaking steadily over time and after the monumental break that was Lydia's death he finally needed to find comfort in the comfort that Louisa offered.

The specific moment when I came to this realization was when Lydia was in the car with James and Louisa.

5. Do you think the "I" in the title refers to a single character, multiple characters, every character...?

Man, Rachel, hitting it hard on these questions!!

I think it refers to every character. The characters are each pretending to be something they're not and it's almost on an individual basis - Lydia is pretending to be someone different with her mother, with her father, with Jack etc. And the same goes for all of them so the "I" can be read as each character saying that to each person individually or collectively. The "you" can also be read, however, as the Narrator talking to us, the audience. The story begins but telling us a very simple statement - Lydia is dead. The narrator also tells us all of the important plot points before she tells us the circumstances around them - "That was the last time Marilyn would see her mother", etc. As the omniscient, third person narrator tells the story, she is telling us "Everything" she didn't tell us from the beginning and the characters didn't tell the people in their lives.

6. What were the different ways in which Nath, Hannah, and Lydia all shaped the story?

Man, this is a workout...

I don't really have anything specific to say about the characters individually but I will say that all three are direct result of the way their parents treated them. Lydia was the one got the brunt of her parents' insecurities, hopes and dreams so it's inevitable that she is going to pay the price for it.

7. What did you think of Jack's character and the role he played?

I LOVED the realization that Jack is gay. I didn't see it coming but it wasn't played for novelty, it was handled truthfully and poignantly. He was the only main character who wasn't a member of the Lee family but his place in the story is just as significant as any of the others. He seemed like he would be a caricature at the beginning - the hulky, brooking, dangerous boyfriend who probably did it - so for him to turn out to be Lydia's only friend who was also in love with her brother is so amazing.

8. [SPOILER & suicide tw] Discuss the moment Lydia steps off the boat into the water. Do you think there was a part of her that expected or wanted to drown? Were you satisfied with the explanation of Lydia's death, or did you want/expect something different from the reveal?

This moment broke me. It was at the same time so soul crushing and hopeful. The first thing I'll say is that I am so happy that it wasn't a murder. But then for it also to not be a straight suicide makes her death even more effective. I could not have hoped more from the reveal. I expected a mystery out of the book but what we got is so much more, even from the moment of death.

It's hard to say if she expected or wanted to drown specifically but what she did want was a release - of emotions, of responsibility. She wanted some result to all of her hard work. I think she thought that she would make it to the other side but there's also another side to her that wanted an ending. It's also very much in line with her character, that she tried so hard and put herself out there, trying to live up to expectations but in the end she was only human.

Wow, I need to go take a nap.

Hello Sharon and Anna!! So glad to have you both on board! Hope you have fun here :)

Also, if you haven't already, I would seriously recommend reading Everything I Never Told You. I'm almost positive it's my favorite book we've read so far in for the book club. I just finished it and I'm a bit of a wreck!

I knew this book was going to be a good discussion book! This is all so interesting. Thanks for choosing it, Chelsea, and thanks for providing the questions, Samar.

I, unfortunately, engaged with the book less than everyone who has commented above so I'm not going to give my opinion on too many of these questions. I love reading the insight you guys have though because I think it makes me connect to it more.

I don't read fantasy. Like Rachel, Harry Potter is the really the only exception to that so this really wasn't my genre. That being said, I found the book satisfying in the end and I'm interested to see where the rest of the series goes.

2. Did you find the prologue useful or overly expository? Was it odd to read something that seemed to be directly addressing you, the reader, in such a familiar way? Did you find it distracting or did it help pull you in?

I found it distracting. I'm someone who needs to connect to the characters before I can get in the story so having to wade through the exposition at the beginning made it more difficult for me to get hooked.

3. Did you find the second person chapters distracting or did they help anchor your to Essun?

I really disliked the second person chapters. Instead of making me relate to Essun more, I think it distanced me because I was so distracted by the second person. I understand what she was trying to do with it, but it didn't work for me.

4. Were you surprised by the reveal that all three narrators were the same woman at different points in her life?

I was! I didn't see that coming. Damaya and Syenite being the same person was extremely satisfying and understandable. Essun being the same woman, however, felt out of left field. I'm sure her transition into Essun will be explained more in further books but it just didn't connect for me.

6. Was the world building overwhelming? Did you find Appendix I and II helpful? What do you still find confusing in terms of world building?

I really struggled with the world building. I started reading the book on the subway when I was really busy at work so I think that hindered my ability to connect with it. I eventually had to keep the appendix open on my phone (as I read on my iPad) so that I could refer to all of the term definitions. It was only at that point that I started to connect with the story and understand it.

The main issue I had with it is that every sentence had multiple new terms. As I've said, I need to relate to characters and situations before I can be sucked in by story but the fact that I kept having to check definitions meant that I was constantly being taken out of the story.

9. Are you going to read the second book in this series?

All of my above critique is really harsh. I did find the book satisfying at the end and I'm definitely still thinking about it. She is an extremely skilled writer and she created a wholly unique world. I can't say I've ever read anything like this book.

I think I will read the second book. I'm very curious to see where she goes next. I'm also sure the next one will be easier to read now that I already know the world.

Yes, hello Dawn!! So glad to have you on board!!

And now I'll answer questions because it's fresh in my mind....

1. This book was not what I expected. I was expecting a story about a strong woman fighting against the odds but I wasn't expecting it to be structured in an episodic fashion. The one thing I would've changed about it is for it to have been longer. I felt like the second I started to engage with stories, the chapter was over and I was left ever so slightly disappointed. And that kind of answers question 6.

2. Although I thought that all of the stories were too short, I did like that it was a bunch of short stories instead of one. None of them were too predictable. When it was revealed that the doctors were twins, I actually said "WHAT?!?!" out loud. I also really loved the story about Patel daughter and her boyfriend. I felt like more could've done with the overarching mystery of the missing boy. BUt more on that later.

3. I think that Mma Ramotswe had continuously rejected Mr JLB Maketoni because she was punishing herself for making the wrong choice to marry Note earlier and she for losing her child. However, when she was able to safely return a child that was thought to be lost to his family, she was finally able to forgive herself and to accept JLB Maketoni's love.

4. As a general rule, I hate when men write from a female perspective and I hate even more when white men write from the perspective of a person (and particularly a woman) of color. I will say that as I was reading it, I didn't know that it was written by a white middle-aged British and I was surprised to find out that fact because I think he did do a good job of maintaining the POV. Looking back at it now, I think the fact that it was written by a white man explains why - although comments were made about a woman can't be a detective - Mma Romatswe didn't face many obstacles because of her gender.

5. I'm not planning on reading any more books in this series. I didn't connect with it enough to want to read on. I did like the character though. I would also be interested to watch the TV series. Mainly because I'm curious to see how the fill a 30 min episode when the stories in the book are so short. I might engage with that more.

7. I guess my main criticism is that there didn't really feel like anything was at stake. The first thing that Mma Ramotswe tried every time ended up because the answer. Even the big mystery was wrapped up too nicely. The witch doctor was built up to be a boogeyman of sorts but it was so easy for her to go there, get the boy and get out of there without trouble. It was even too easy for her to find the witch doctor, when the guy that she got the information from was also supposed to be a really horrible man. I don't know... I just think the entire thing was missing any drama. The stories were teed up to be dramatic and then fell flat.

With permission from Rachel, I'm going to add a couple more discussion questions.

6. This kind of goes along with the second question posed above. Were you able to engage with the book when all of the stories were so short?

7. Also to go along with that idea - Did you feel like there was anything at stake? Would you agree with the statement that everything was everything was too easy?

I agree 100%, Chelsea. Everyone should see the movie!!

I agree 100%, Chelsea. Everyone should see the movie!!

All of your comments are making me so happy! In Cold Blood is one of my favorite books of all time. I read it in high school and I think more than almost anything else I read at that time (except maybe Shakespeare) this book changed the way I read and what I wanted to read so the fact that you guys seemed to like it is really exciting for me.

I'm going to be totally honest and say that I haven't had the chance to finish reading the book a second time yet (I just moved and am swamped at work) but I wanted to comment on a few things.

3. There are rumors that Capote and Perry were lovers. Does that surprise you, given the way Perry was presented in the book? He's arguably depicted in a more sympathetic light than dick. What do you think the reasons were for the two murders to be depicted so differently? // 5. What did you think of Capote's use of direct quotes? Can it still be called nonfiction?

These two questions go hand in hand for me. Knowing that Capote has a personal affection - whether it was romantic or not - for Perry immediately makes me question his motives.

I studied documentaries a lot at university and a lot of what we focused on is the spectrum of truth and what can you call a documentary. For example, Errol Morris is a documentarian whose primary rhetorical device is reenactments; can you still call his films documentaries if he is explicitly dramatizing "real" events? I ultimately concluded that his films are less biased than the documentaries that claim to just be turning on the camera and showing absolute truth because Morris never claims to be portraying absolute truth. His reenactments draw attention to the fact that there are multiple versions of every story so looking at them from every possible angle is the only way to get at the truth. That's more truthful than the documentaries that try to hide the fact that every choice they're making - where to point the camera, what to edit out - inserting the filmmaker's personal bias, therefore affecting the truth.

I bring this up because I believe that Capote falls into the latter of these two styles. A personal bias like the one he has for Perry inevitably skews the truth of the story. I agree with what Rachel says about direct quotes and that they make me trust him less because direct quotes suggest unimpeachable fact, which obviously his quotes are not. I also agree with Ashley with the fact that it should be called "inspired by true events".

I don't know if this makes any sense... I hope the point comes across even if it's not particularly well written.

6. Do you think stories like these (true crime stories) have a responsibility to do a service to the victims and the families of the victims? Is it a valid criticism to say that the murderers were depicted in too sympathetic a light?

The reason I wanted to bring up this question is because the US has such a preoccupation with murder. Big murder trials are entertainment in this country and it's always rubbed me the wrong way. The fact that you come out of this book feeling pity for a mass murderer is slightly unsettling...

8. How did this book compare to your reading of The Devil in the White City? Which did you like more? Do you want to read more nonfiction?

I love nonfiction. It definitely depends on the story but I generally am nervous about starting a nonfiction book and then I always end up loving it at the end. I loved both of the books. Rachel and I have been talking about taking a break from nonfiction for a little while since we've now read two almost in a row but obviously keep recommending the books if you're interested in reading more!

I was really excited to read this book because I have seen the movie and I thought the movie was lovely. I'm saying this first (i.e. answering question 7 first) because I think the movie did a better job on every level and I think all of my answers will be in comparison to the movie. So with that being said, I thought the movie was much better than the book. I wonder how I would've felt doing it the other way around but reading it after the movie I just felt disappointed with everything, particularly the development of all of the characters, except for Jim.

1. What did you think of the fact that the book always seemed to cut away from the action right before anything happened?

This really frustrated me because the movie didn't do this. It didn't duck away from the action and I really missed those moments in the novel. I'm not going to give specifics because I don't want to ruin the movie for you guys who haven't seen it.

2. What did you think of Tony?

The Tony in the book is possessive and yet dismissive at the same time. As both of you have said, it feels like Eilis goes along with everything because he's the first boy who pays attention to her and the same goes for Tony- you don't get a sense of why he is actually in love with her, just that he's in love with her from the first moment.

The movie plays this so much better, but that might mostly have to do with the amazing chemistry the two leads have. Saoirse Ronan plays the relationship and Eilis's hesitation as just her shyness and modesty but their chemistry is undeniable. Emory Cohen is so charming and warm that it makes it clear that his energy, enthusiasm and charm is what brings her out of her shell and allows her to grow.

I wanted Eilis to go back to Tony in the movie, I didn't in the book.

3. What did you think of the fact that he introduced a love triangle 3/4 of the way through?

I agree 100% with Chelsea that the book is very front heavy. That is the best way to describe it. Her entire return to Ireland felt very rushed so it seemed to not have much weight.

4. Who did you want Eilis to choose?

If she had to choose between the two of them, I wanted her to choose Jim in the book but I kind of just want her to escape them both and go off and figure out who she is before settling down.

5. Do you think the heart of Eilis's decision at the end was Tony vs Jim or Brooklyn vs Ireland? What do you think drove her decision to go back?

The thing that shocked me about the book is how he made it seem like she really didn't like Brooklyn all that much. She seemed to get anxiety when she thought about it when she was back in Ireland. I definitely think that Jim symbolized Ireland - he was homey and soft and kind - and Tony symbolized Brooklyn - brash and exciting and different. I just don't feel like the author did a good enough job making either side very appealing.

I feel like Ireland is the more appealing choice for her. She expresses more excitement about her one kiss with Jim than any of her kisses with Tony, she has a better job in Ireland, she thinks negatively about Brooklyn when she's home and she has the benefit of pleasing her mother. The whole book ends up being contradictory and ultimately unsatisfying.

6. Do you think the book was feminist or did it blame Eilis for her hasty decision to marry Tony?

I think I phrased this question poorly. I guess my original intent for this question was that I didn't feel like, for a female coming of age story, that the author had any understanding or concern about giving Eilis any agency as a young woman. But that makes sense considering that a middle-aged man wrote it. I would love to see this story re-written by a woman because looking back on it it really feels like everything just happens to Eilis. Brooklyn is kind of decided for her by her sister, Tony chooses her, Tony basically forces her to marry him, there's almost rapey sex scene, Jim is chosen for her by her friends and then the one point that could be called a choice that she makes is her return to Brooklyn but it doesn't feel like a choice because she's legally bound to Tony so that was already decided for her too.

7. Have you seen the movie? What did you think/which did you like more?

As I've already said, yes, I've seen the movie and I would encourage all of you to see it and report back your thoughts.

By the strength of the performances alone, the film greatly improves on its source material. I also think it does a better job of explaining Eilis's choices. It feels really relatable and satisfying.

Though I will say, the triangle is even less satisfying because I think Jim is in a grand total of about ten minutes so it's definitely always going to be Tony.

It's also just a GORGEOUS film. You could screenshot just about any frame of that film and frame it.

I haven't proofread this. Please forgive the unintelligible rambling.

Aaand here are the In Cold Blood discussion questions. I'm really curious to hear your thoughts :)

1. What do you think of Capote structuring the book so it goes back and forth between the Clutters and Dick/Perry and then the police and Dick/Perry?
2. What effect did it have on story that Capote lets you get to know Dick and Perry before you find out that they are the murderers?
3. There are rumors that Capote and Perry were lovers. Does that surprise you, given the way Perry was presented in the book? He's arguably depicted in a more sympathetic light than dick. What do you think the reasons were for the two murders to be depicted so differently?
4. What did you think of the Clutters, Mr. Clutter in particular?
5. What did you think of Capote's use of direct quotes? Can it still be called nonfiction?
6. Do you think stories like these (true crime stories) have a responsibility to do a service to the victims and the families of the victims? Is it a valid criticism to say that the murderers were depicted in too sympathetic a light?
7. Why do you think Perry changed his statement to say that he killed them all?
8. How did this book compare to your reading of The Devil in the White City? Which did you like more? Do you want to read more nonfiction?

Hello!! Here are the discussion questions for Brooklyn. As always, feel free to answer some or all and add any other questions you'd like to discuss!

1. What did you think of the fact that the book always seemed to cut away from the action right before anything happened?
2. What did you think of Tony?
3. What did you think of the fact that he introduced a love triangle 3/4 of the way through?
4. Who did you want Eilis to choose?
5. Do you think the heart of Eilis's decision at the end was Tony vs Jim or Brooklyn vs Ireland? What do you think drove her decision to go back?
6. Do you think the book was feminist or did it blame Eilis for her hasty decision to marry Tony?
7. Have you seen the movie? What did you think/which did you like more?

Here are the questions for The Night Circus. Feel free to add any more that you would like to discuss!

1. What did you think of the characters? Were they fully fleshed out or did you feel like they were undeveloped?
2. Were you satisfied with the conclusion of the competition?
3. What did you think of the fact that the circus was left to Bailey? Did you fee like it was appropriate for it to go to him or was there someone more deserving of it?
4. What are your thoughts about the love story?
5. How did you feel when the specifics of the "game" were revealed?
6. What did you think of the second person, "you're walking through the circus" chapters?
7. Were you aware that it was written for NaNoWriMo? Does that make you want to try NaNo also?

Hello!!

We're posting these questions early because we came up with a lot of them and we wanted to give everyone time to think about them. Don't feel the need to respond to all of them.

Looking at everyone's ratings, it looks like we all have very different opinions so that's going to make for a good discussion. YAY!!

1. What do you think is the significance of the title?
2. What are your thoughts about the treatment of women? Clara, Nuria, Penelope and Bea in particular, but also just the umbrella treatment of women.
3. What are your thoughts about the Barceló family - Clara and her father? Do you think their inclusion in the story was significant or did they end up feeling like filler?
4. What did you think about the "magical" elements of the book (like the curse on the house and Jacinta's angel)? Did you feel like there were meant to be accepted as fact or metaphorically?
5. Julián and Daniel's stories paralleled so neatly to each other. What are your thoughts about their parallels and can we add that element to the "magical" column?
6. What are your thoughts about the incest and the fact that Julián never learned the truth?
7. What was the significance of the Victor Hugo pen?
8. What did you think about Daniel not remembering his mother's face until the very end? Did you respond positively or negatively to it?
9. What are your thoughts about the ending? Did you feel like it was a fitting ending or that it was too melodramatic? I would also be curious to hear your thoughts about the fact that he set up the fact that Daniel was going to die but then he didn't.
10. The Angel's Game is a prequel to this book. Do you have any interest in reading it?