ashley’s Comments (group member since Sep 11, 2015)

ashley’s comments from the Operation Book Club group.

I didn't get much from this story either. In Cold Blood was so chilling and well told, but Breakfast at Tiffany's was so predictable and its characters so enigmatic and flat that I couldn't bring myself to connect with it or them at all. I love Capote's writing, but the story was airy and sluggish and seemed to lack the conviction and purpose that made ICB such a profound read.

Interesting that you felt that the narration seemed male-gazey. I felt the same way for a while but then the narrator kept saying things that made me wonder if he might in fact be gay.

Not that his being gay would necessarily preclude the whole male gaze thing, but i think it would add a bit more depth to the story while diminishing the "yikes." factor.

Were it the case, I see his infatuation with Holly leaning more to the side of admiration and innocent longing for the unabashed life she leads, and less to the manic pixie side of things. Like, he seems to realize that she's a pretty big mess of a person. Could Holly just be living the sort of life he wishes for himself, surrounded by admirers and the glamor (however feigned and gilded they may be)?

Alright, here we go. Better late than never, I guess. :)
This book was fantastic and I love that everyone loved it too. I'm sure I'll be rereading it at some point.

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

I have never been a fan of third person omniscient; I like getting to know a story through a protagonist’s eyes, with all the bias and misinformation that it entails. Knowing what everyone is thinking always feels like cheating; the characters only know so much about what is going on, so why should we know everything? That said, Ng handled the format fantastically. It took a while to get used to, but I can’t imagine the story having been told as effectively using any other point of view. The only way for us to know the truth of each character’s actions and intentions was for Ng to tell us what they were all thinking and feeling and withholding from others. I was impressed.

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

I can’t speculate on race relations in the 1970s beyond what I’ve read in history texts, but as far as I can tell, Ng seems to have depicted them realistically? Discriminated against and objectified, denied advancement in their fields, used as a prop for whites to feel exotic and unique; I can’t imagine how rough that would have been.

3. What did you think of James and Marilyn and the dichotomy of standing out/fitting in that characterized their relationship?
I felt like it was probably inevitable that they would have been attracted to each other. James was male, but sought to fit in at all costs due to society’s negative perception of his race, and Marilyn was white and talented, but limited by her gender, so she sought to stand out. Each of them expected the other to accent the parts of them that they were most sensitive about. It’s no wonder that, when they failed to sufficiently cure each other of their perceived inadequacies, the pressure fell to their children, specifically Lydia. They expected their kids to be walking contradictions and manifestations of their failed hopes for themselves, simultaneously normal and utterly exceptional. Poor kids.


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 do think he would have cheated eventually regardless of Lydia’s death.
Lydia’s death definitely seemed escalate the affair by driving him to Louisa for comfort and consolation, but Lydia picked up on her father’s attraction to Louisa long before dying, so I doubt that she was what drove him to cheat. No, I think James’ affair was inevitable in the same way that it was inevitable that Marilyn would leave to pursue school again. Once he and Marilyn began to realize that they had been using each other as band aids to further their own dreams for themselves, their relationship faltered under the weight of its inherent flaw. These characters were so well written, good god.

5. Do you think the "I" in the title refers to a single character, multiple characters, every character...?
All and several and each, with the unseen narrator included. Third person omniscient is funny and frustrating like that. It really was well done.

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

Jack was great. He acted as a red herring for the narrator, the police, and us, a scapegoat for Nath and his frustrations, a friend and outlet for Lydia, an experiment in observation for Hannah, and an individual belonging to yet another suppressed minority in a story that already dealt so well with race and gender relations. I hope he found happiness.

7. [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?

As we began to see the stress Lydia was under and how poorly she was dealing with it, I was fully expecting her death to be a suicide. But as to whether or not she expected to die or not when she stepped off the boat, I don’t know. The lack of insight into her final thoughts was definitely in line with the story’s title and theme.  I guess I figured that her decision to jump in may have just been an attempt at release; a way for her to tempt fate and free herself of agency and responsibility for a while. I mean, years earlier she had been completely out of control under the water when Nath had pushed her in, and everything had turned out fine. It had even pushed a reset button of sorts in their relationship and started everything on a better path. Perhaps she was hoping for the same thing to happen again? Tragic.

1. Would you have liked for the science fiction elements of this story to be explored in further detail, or did you prefer the focus on the historical fiction aspect of the story?

You know? I’m torn on this. On the one hand, I wanted to know how everything works. Is there a way for Dana to stop herself from travelling? How does the whole element of compressed time work? Is there a limit to what she can and can’t bring with her? What forged this connection? Etc. But on the other hand, I love historical fiction, and if poorly explained time travel was the only means to facilitate a realistic up-close-and-personal exploration of a different time and place, then so be it.
I was actually surprised at how easy the time travel was to accept as a reader. Perhaps the way Butler glazed over the mechanical details of it all made it easier for us to suspend our disbelief and just get on with the story?

2. Did you think Rufus was a sympathetic character at all? Was he supposed to be?

I think we were meant to be conflicted about this from time to time, especially while he was young. Rufus was a sympathetic character in the sense that he was someone who clearly fell victim to his time, place, and position in life, but it stops there. We saw glimmers of decency and love and compassion in him, but as he grew, he became a stereotypical product of his environment. He’s a cautionary tale of privilege in a way. I feel toward him the way I would any bully; sorry that the events of his life had brought him to such a place of unhappiness, but not sympathetic at all to any of his frequent manipulative, hateful, and abusive actions or episodes toward others.

3. Seeing as Tom is initially presented as such a villain, did you find it realistic the way his character seemed to gain depth over time? Do you think it was possible that he mellowed in old age and/or was affected by Dana’s relationship with Rufus? Ultimately: why did he send the letter to Kevin?

So many characters in this book were presented as “types” initially before being fleshed out, that I think it’s only natural for us to have received more insight into Tom’s character, beyond “cruel slave owner” as time wore on. I honestly don’t think he mellowed much with age, so I’d be apt to say that Dana’s relationship with Rufus was probably what influenced him to send the letter, but in what capacity I’m not sure.
Personally, I doubt he’d have sent the letter out of a feeling of indebtedness to Dana for repeatedly saving his son’s life, but the possibility exists. Maybe he saw Rufus treating Dana like his personal property, despite her belonging to another? Would that be enough to strike a chord of injustice in a slaveholder? Or it could have been just like he said it was, ensuring that Rufus stayed true to the word he had given. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

4. Do you think it was realistic that Dana had so much free reign on the plantation and often got off easy as far as punishments go? Do you think Butler intentionally shied away from exposing the reader first-hand to too much violence, or do you think it was realistic that Alice et al were punished much more severely than Dana?
It did seem that Butler shied away from punishing Dana too severely, and I didn’t think the level of freedom she was given was realistic at all, but then again, we don’t have much data on freedom levels of free, black, female, time-traveling, heir-saving plantation newcomers in the 1800s, soooo…I’ll give it a pass. It seemed that Dana’s freedom was what allowed her to be effective as a narrator; I mean, I don’t think the story would have had the same kick if she had been stuck peeling potatoes the whole time tbh.

5. What did you think of Kevin and his role in the story?

I felt that kevin was ultimately a two-dimensional plot device meant to facilitate Dana’s freedom to roam, and a bit of a #notALLwhitemen to boot.

6. Did you think the characters accepted the time travel too easily, or do you think it was realistic given the period that this is set in?

I’d imagine it wouldn’t have been too hard for Dana and Kevin to accept the time travel, because it had actually happened to them, and the reality of their existence in the 1800s could not be disputed. For the other characters in the 1800s, I’d imagine it’d have been harder to accept upon meeting Dana, given that they would have had a concept of neither the time nor place Dana and Kevin claim to come from. That said, the reality of a plantation slave being here one day, gone the next, seems like it would be a familiar one to those in the 1800s. If they hadn’t been told it was time travel or witnessed Dana disappearing before their eyes, I doubt most would have viewed her disappearances as being anything out o the ordinary.

7. Why do you think Dana lost her arm at the end?
I was thrown off at first by how nonchalantly this was dealt with, and how little her splinching was explained. But then I figured, seeing as Rufus had been killed and this had likely been Dana’s last trip to the past, her losing her arm was probably a symbolic way to show that she had been forever changed by her experience and was therefore unable to completely return to the present.

Okay. As Rachel can attest, these answers took me far too long to write, so I'm not proof reading them. :) I also made an effort to not read any responses before completing my own, so I hope mine aren't too redundant. That said, I really liked this book, more so now that I've actually sat down to think about it. There's no way I'd peg it for a first novel.

1. What did you think of the way the book was formatted, switching between past and present tense and first and third person?

My first attempt to say that I loved the way the narration shifted back and forth, was to say that i don't usually like it, but that in this case it was well-executed. (sorry!!!) :P Nah, usually I find switching tenses and narrative styles to be distracting and hard to read, but somehow Hannah Kent managed to keep up the book’s momentum. The shifts to first person narration were a great way to show Agnes as being removed from everyone else, but they occurred seldom enough that we were kept guessing for a while as to her thoughts, emotions, and character.

3. Did you find this book difficult to read at times? Do you think the graphic and often gory descriptions added to or detracted from the book as a whole?

From a gore standpoint, I really didn’t find the book too hard to read until the retelling of the murder itself which definitely got me. The rest of the graphic scenes in the book didn’t bother me too much, though that may have had to do partly with Rachel warning me about them. Overall though, they fit the setting and narrative so well that I’m inclined to say that they added to the story; constant reminders of life and mortality and Agnes’ coming fate and all that.
Having read so many graphic scenes though, it seemed strange that the description of the actual executions was so tacit and sterile. Any thoughts as to why that was?

4. What did you think of Agnes’s relationship with the Jonsdottir women? Why do you think Margret warmed to Agnes, and why do you think Steina took to her so quickly, while Lauga was more reluctant?

I think Margret warmed to Agnes because over time she realized that they both had an indefinite death sentence of sorts. I would imagine it’d be a comfort to be able to talk about it with someone who actually understands. I think Margret is probably similar to Steina in the sense that she prefers to judge people based on their actions and character, rather than rumor and hearsay. Steina is trusting of Agnes, based on her memory of Agnes’ generosity and kindness. Margret doesn’t have that memory, but once Agnes demonstrates her work ethic and humanity, there is no real reason for Mararet to continue to be wary of her. I don’t know why Lauga is so reluctant to warm up to Agnes, but it’s never easy to publicly oppose popular rumors, so I’d imagine she was more concerned with herself and upholding her reputation than with treating Agnes fairly. Fear also just brings out the worst in people.
On a side note, the name Steina obviously means stone, and my brain has been spinning for ages trying to tie her name with the meaning of the stone that Agnes’ mother gave her. Any thoughts?
4. What did you think of Natan and Agnes’ relationship? Did you think it was unrealistic or humanizing that Agnes could love a man who was so terrible to her? What did you think about the reveal that Natan’s death ended up being a mercy killing?
I thought their relationship was entirely realistic and entirely fucked up. He was a man with means and money and social standing and she was a woman with none, so it’s not hard to see the lopsided power dynamic that existed between them or to imagine her being pulled into an abusive relationship with him. Honestly the emotional abuse in this novel was probably harder to read than the graphic scenes for me. You could see it coming a long way off, but still had hope that maybe she could still be happy for a bit before things went south, ooooohkay, maybe very much not.
I was surprised and not that Natan’s death was a mercy killing. I had been expecting Agnes to have been framed for murder or something, since murder did not seem to be in line with the character we were coming to know, but this actually makes a lot more sense. She didn’t put up a fight because she HAD killed Natan, but didn’t seem to show remorse for the killing, because she hadn’t done it out of spite but compassion.

5. [tw for rape for this question, just as it relates to Sigga’s narrative. Obviously feel free to forgo this part of the discussion, but as Sigga’s thoughts and motivations are never fully explored, we thought we’d give people the chance to talk about her, if you so desire.] What do you think Sigga’s intentions were? Was she as unintelligent and naive as everyone thought she was or should she be held accountable for her part in the murder and her relationship with Natan?
Sigga’s character kind of reminds me of Lydia from Pride and Prejudice; confident and feisty and not quite as innocent or ignorant as she seems, but still slightly delusional and naïve enough to quickly get in waaaaay over her head regarding things of which she has only a basic understanding. I think she was probably living in a fantasy and got in too deep with an abusive man. Should she be held accountable for her actions? I dunno. It really does depend on what she knew and what her motivations were, and we don’t know either. However, I would have at least liked for Sigga to disclose how the murder actually went down, especially after her sentence was eased. I can’t imagine Agnes’ guilty verdict would have been quite as definite or swift had it been known that her only action was to ease a suffering and prettymuchalreadydead man’s pain. Maybe it could have happened if this story had been fictional. Alas.

6. In the course of their discussions, rather than Toti successfully preparing Agnes for death, Agnes changes Toti’s life. It was the opposite of the desired outcome, but was the arrangement still worth it?
I think the arrangement was definitely worth it. It allowed Toti to come out from his father’s shadow and to find his footing in his profession. He went from being almost clinical in his approach to preparing Agnes for death, to becoming a lot more humane in his approach, willing to hear Agnes out and see her as a person rather than just another soul to save. It also provided a means for Agnes to tell her story and to finally form a meaningful bond with someone who didn’t have ulterior motives and could accept her as being enough (as she thought she was getting with Natan), and who had no intention of leaving her (as had pretty much everyone in her life up to that point).
7. Both Agnes and Natan have a spirituality that is connected to superstition and to the land. The stone seems to be a manifestation of that. What significance does it hold?
Luck is what her mother said, yeah? I dunno. Everyone describes Agnes as being conniving or wanting to rise above her station. Perhaps the promise of good luck is what brought that spirit about?
I mean, if you’re superstitious and of an impressionable age, and someone you trust tells you that things will work out well for you if you would just keep this magic stone, don’t be lonely when I abandon you, you can talk to the birds if you use this magic stone, just keep going, and keep this magic stone, why wouldn’t you be convinced that things will eventually work out well for you?
I think with the stone, Agnes was clinging on to hope, and her mother, and the possibility of finding love and belonging, and the stone represented that for her. She unknowingly spits out the stone on her way to being executed, which I suppose you can view in a few different ways.
On the one hand, if the stone is supposed to bring good luck, it can be interpreted that she’s giving up on that; there is no use continuing to hope that things will work out in light of what is about to happen. OR, you can look at the other things the stone may have represented for her and take a more positive outlook and not be super depressed when the book ends; the stone was in her mouth and it brought her to Kornsa and the family there. She kept the stone and found love and acceptance and people willing to hear her story and root for her. Having found those things, her spitting out the stone and uttering her last words to Margret, “The stone was in my mouth,” could be taken as more of a thank you.
8. This book is based on a true story - Agnes Magnusdottir was the last person to be sentenced to death in Iceland. How much of this story do you think is real and how much do you think is invented? Did you do any research on Agnes after reading this?
After reading, but before knowing this was going to be a question, I read a q&a with Hannah Kent, so I feel kind of spoiled for this answer. She mentioned that she thought of the story as a speculative biography–not a definitive history by any means, but a suggestion of a life as it may have been lived.” That said, I’d imagine a lot of the book was fabricated, as Agnes seems to be about as enigmatic as historical figures can be while still being known.
However, I will comment on the fact that while I was reading, the book felt much more like historical fiction than it did speculative non-fiction. Much more so than In Cold Blood had. It didn’t feel clunky or exposition-heavy or rehearsed at all and I had literally no clue that the story was based on real people and events and just filled in from there. I chalk that up to Hannah Kent’s skill as an author and her dedication to intensive research.

1. Was this book what you expected? Is there anything you would have changed about it?

The book wasn’t what I expected at all. I think I also expected the detective agency to be made up of a group of women, rather than just one, and I was thrown off by structure of the book, what with all the separate cases and all.

2. Did you like the fact that the book was comprised of several mysteries rather than a single one? What genre would you place this book in?
I liked it and I didn’t. While the short mysteries definitely made the book a fast read, and easy to read just a bit at a time, I found myself wishing there was a bigger overarching plot line and more characters to get to know, because I found it hard to build momentum when reading.

3. What do you think made Mma Ramotswe change her mind and agree to marry JLB Maketoni?
I think you guys have been spot on in answering this.

4. Did you ever feel that the author ‘broke character’ or was the narration consistent and believable from the point of view of an African woman? How do you feel in general about authors writing from the POV of a character belonging to a race/culture/etc. drastically different from their own?

Ugh. Okay, here’s the thing. The narration was consistent and I never felt like the author ever broke character, but I also don’t think that his characterization was particularly believable in the first place. Mma Ramotswe is her own person and is very clever and has her own strong personality and I liked her, but her characterization never seemed to fully depict the reality of womanhood in Africa. True, I was a white woman in Africa, which lends itself to a whole set of other issues and privileges, and no, I have never been to Botswana (maybe things are way different there than in Rwanda) but just go with me on this.
Everything just seemed too easy for Mma Ramotswe. She quickly and easily earns a positive reputation in her field and does not face any significant ridicule or opposition from community members or leaders or local law enforcement. She needs a well paying client and she gets one. Despite her young age and her size, her only marriage proposal happens to come from a good, honest man who respects her, and, while abused in the past, she has escaped from it completely. Never once do we see her judged for being alone in a bar, discounted and treated as a child for being unmarried, or forced to cease and desist (and have the credit for her success claimed) by some man who doesn’t approve. Even the levels of privacy and self agency she is afforded are unbelievable. I know I’m nitpicking, but these sorts of things were what pulled me from the story.
After all that, it may be odd to hear that I’m not usually bothered by authors writing from the perspective of someone from a different culture than their own. I just want it to be accurate. :)

5. Are you planning on reading any more books in this series?
No, probably not. It was entertaining enough, but for how short it was, it was hard to motivate myself to get through it.

1. What did you think about the fact that Fleurette never learned of her mother’s identity? A()))))))))))))xsdc21df <— my cat added that bit and i love him so i’m keeping it

I was surprised that she didn’t find out the truth! Before I knew there were more books planned, I expected Fleurette to probably find out and do something reckless in the chaos of the book’s climax. But then the action rose and fell, and then I learned that there would be a second book, and I was glad the secret was kept intact, even if it means that it will probably blow up all the more later on.

2. Do you think Constance made the right choice to let her mother raise Fleurette? How did that impact her own relationship with Fleurette during the events of the story?
I honestly don’t know what the right choice would be in a situation like the one Constance found herself in. Their decision definitely spared them judgment and grief at the time, but with how emotional and over the top Fleurette is naturally, I can’t help but wonder how poorly she’ll react when she finds out.

3. What did you think of their reluctance to seek outside help or tell their family members about the harassment?
As someone who constantly tries to avoid burdening the people I love, and even people I don’t, I understand their reluctance completely. It may not ever be the smartest or healthiest of options, and could have gotten them hurt, but their decision was likely equal parts stubborn and well-intentioned, and I totally get it.

4. How did gender role expectations influence certain characters’ actions?
I helped write this question and yet my answer made no sense. I’ll come back to this later if I think of something worth saying.

5. Lucy’s story was happening outside the main action. What do you think the ‘point’ of her story and character was, narratively speaking?
I definitely agree that Lucy, who gave up her child, was meant to be juxtaposed with Constance, who kept hers. I thought it was interesting too that Lucy gets her child back after a time apart, along with the chance to mother him for the rest of his life, while Constance, who kept Fleurette and has never been apart from her, will never be a mother to her. Narratively speaking, I thought Lucy’s mystery raised the stakes of the story. Constance saw herself in Lucy, and seeing Lucy safely reunited with her son is what kept Constance “sniffing around” in Henry Kaufman’s business, which, in turn, drove Kaufman and his associates to violence and drove the plot.

6. The author is writing a sequel about the Kopp sisters. What would you like to see in a continuation of this story? Do you plan on reading it?
I do plan on reading it. I liked this book and its characters a lot. I’m glad it doesn’t come out for a few months though.

Here they are! Feel free to add more if you have any in mind.

1. What is the effect of the book being told from Jack's perspective? Do you think it would have been too disturbing if it was from Ma's perspective?

2. What effect does the story being told in present tense have? Did you like it or not?

3. Throughout the book, Ma and Old Nick's real names were never revealed, and the location of the story was kept ambiguous. Why do you think things like this were done? What effect did they have?

4. Were you surprised that they were rescued so early in the book? Do you like that there was such a heavy focus on Jack's integration into the outside world?

5. When they were rescued, Jack was thrown into a world that was completely new and alien to him, and Ma returned to a world which she thought would be familiar, only to find that it had changed. Which circumstance do you think would be more difficult?

6. Which parts of the book did you find the most distressing? Were you surprised by this?

7. Have you seen the film? What are your thoughts by way of comparison? Was one version more effective than the other?

1. What did you think of the fact that the book always seemed to cut away from the action right before anything happened?
I honestly didn’t notice this much; maybe I’ve just become accustomed to it from all the limited-budget British shows we watch? I dunno. I DO wish though that he could have cut away from the action on the boat. I did not, thank you, particularly enjoy the seasickness play-by-play.

2. What did you think of Tony?
I felt Tony was…nice, but Eilis could do better if she had just waited. I agree with many of you that I never felt that Eilis was even all that much into him, they didn’t have much in common and she just seemed to go out with him because she didn’t have an overwhelming reason for why she shouldn’t. he was adamant, and she didn’t want to hurt his feelings by saying no. I didn’t ever register much attraction on her part toward him…just fondness. At some points she seemed just as into some of his brothers, tbh.
Sure he’s earnest and kind, I’ll give him that, but his willingness to completely ignore her in favor of baseball was a bit off-putting, and his vision for the future doesn’t leave much room for input from Eilis herself. Also, when he was pressuring her to get married prior to leaving for Ireland, more than a few red flags went up. Was it meant to be romantic? It came across as desperate emotional extortion and I didn’t like it.


3. What did you think of the fact that he introduced a love triangle 3/4 of the way through?
It was about here that I started to get really annoyed with the book’s pacing.

4. Who did you want Eilis to choose?
At first I honestly didn’t care, as long as she actually chose something instead of just defaulting to the convenient option as she did with most decisions throughout the book. Upon further thought and reading, I think that Jim was a better match, but if it required her to stay in Ireland, then I’m glad she left. I wanted her to choose Brooklyn, because she seemed to have become happy there and it provided her with more opportunities away from the shadow of Rose’s memory and the expectations carried for her by her mother and village.


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?

I think it was a combination of the two. In both places Eilis is faced with love and duty. She loves Jim, but Ireland offers her limited opportunities and she is bound in her commitment to take care of her mother. She loves Brooklyn and the freedom and opportunity it provides, but is bound to her commitment to tony and the life he has planned for the two of them. I think in the end, the decision was Brooklyn vs. Ireland. Brooklyn is the name of the book, after all.
Were it solely about a love triangle, I am fairly convinced that Eilis would have chosen to be with jim. I found myself hoping that she chose to return to Brooklyn because she loved it there, but I agree with Chelsea in that Eilis is by nature very careful to avoid stepping on anyone’s toes or to cause anyone pain. I am fairly convinced that if Eilis hadn’t married Tony or been confronted by her former boss about her marriage to him, that she would have chosen Jim and found a way to be happy staying in Ireland. I think she chose to go back to avoid scandal, and to hurt as few people as possible.

6. Do you think the book was feminist or did it blame Eilis for her hasty decision to marry Tony?
Maybe it’s just me, but I have a hard time considering most stories with a which-man-will-she-chose love triangle to be feminist. I also don’t know how to answer this.

7. Have you seen the movie? What did you think/which did you like more?
I haven’t seen the movie, but I expect I’ll enjoy it, especially if they’ve managed to improve the pacing.

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?

I think I liked it. It could get clunky at times, and sometimes it took a minute to adjust to where the story had jumped to, but switching the focus of each section kept the book from veering too much into a single person’s account of events and made it seem more like the events of the story were happening in real time, rather than in the past. Switching points of view let us get to know each of the characters fairly well, but it broke up the story’s momentum a LOT. It made for a dense read, but worked well in building necessary tension and suspense, especially prior to the murders and the arrests.

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?
I feel like it would have tinged our perception of them if we had known outright that they had killed the Clutters. Making us wait for the reveal allowed us to get to know them a bit before dropping that truth bomb. Aside from that, I dunno.

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?
I can’t say it would surprise me if it were true. Frankly, I don’t care. Of the two murderers, Perry did definitely get the sympathetic edit though. he’s often only shown to do bad things out of necessity and because he grew up in such a loveless and abusive environment. He is given plenty of space to explain to the reader how badly he has had it in life. He’s tiny and hurting and ever the victim regardless of his actions; things are done TO him. Dick on the other hand, not so much. Perhaps it’s because Capote loved Perry? Perhaps because their adventures were being recounted for Capote from Perry’s biased perspective? Who knows.

4. What did you think of the Clutters, Mr. Clutter in particular?
I felt like they embodied the blandness of Brooklyn. Inoffensive. They seemed to be good, hardworking, honest people with no enemies, which added weight to their having been killed so horrifically, but beyond that, I didn’t have much of an opinion about them.

5. What did you think of Capote's use of direct quotes? Can it still be called nonfiction?
Maybe it’s the historian in me, but you can’t pass off fabricated and secondary quotes as primary ones and still expect to be taken seriously in your field. So no, I don’t particularly consider it to be nonfiction; yes, it’s a true story, but it has been embellished enough for the sake of narrative that I see it in the same category as movies “inspired by” true events.

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?
While I think it’s possible to find ways for stories like this one to do a service to those affected by tragedies, I don’t think they have any inherent responsibility to do so. I think it is valid criticism to say that the murderers were shown in too sympathetic a light, but I don’t think I would agree (though Capote definitely toes the line). I think we were meant to sympathize with the men regarding the situations and factors which had led them to be as they were, and to see them as human, nothing more. But I never felt the book shied away from the fact that they had horrifically murdered four people. Even if they were shown to be likeable or kind in one segment of their narrative, the cops in the next section would remind us of what they’d done. Showing the men in a sympathetic light only rounded out their characters for the reader, just never to the point where the men could be at all separated from the fact that they were murderers.

7. Why do you think Perry changed his statement to say that he killed them all?
I don’t know. Maybe it was as he said and he didn’t want to tarnish Dick’s image in the eyes of his mother. Maybe he actually DID do it, and is finally willing to own up to his bad actions instead of insisting as always that he was a victim too. Meh.

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’m a horrible book club member and still haven’t gotten around to reading The Devil in the White City. I’ll get back to you.

Alright! Better late than never! :)

I went back and forth between thinking the book was good and being unable to motivate myself to pick it up. I liked the prose, but it was so leafy and detailed that it really slowed down the plot. And as others have said, the treatment of the female characters really detracted from the story's enjoyment. As for the main characters, Daniel was boring and wishy-washy and Fermin needs to go play in traffic. Miquel and daniel’s father are too good for this story, aside from a problematic lapse or two, and I feel like I need to take the novel’s women out for coffee so I can finally learn something substantial about any of them. Wait. Do they even LIKE coffee???? WE DON’T KNOW.

1. What do you think is the significance of the title?

I never really thought about it. I suppose I thought it was just Zafon telling a story about a book and that happened to be its title. But I guess, you could think of shadow as a mood, and the wind being something that makes things happen but isn’t seen or tangible (fate, a curse, passion, an exiled author, etc.). It’s a stretch, but I’d buy it.

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.

This part of the book angers me. Essentially the women in this book have names and boobs and vaginas but no personality and no agency. They’re capable of loving a man, or not, and they are also capable of blushing. Though, we DO also get occasional fun facts about them such as “is blind!” or “drinks heavily!” or “is engaged and also a student!” so, that’s...fun. Ugh, it’s just that all of them exist and act only in relation to the men who have chosen to pursue them, and if a male character isn’t interacting with them, they’re not even in the story. The most agency given to any of them in the novel is the ability to decide whether or not to have sex with a man, whether or not to run away with a man, or whether or not to write a letter to a man. Nah, It’s alright though, because they are all so irresistibly beautiful that they have no need for interests or ambitions or personalities; the men of the story will still lust after them passionately all the same.

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?

Huh. I mean, when I was reading, I was mostly annoyed that they featured so heavily in the first half of the book. But, in hindsight I guess they were essentially what started Daniel on his mission to discover the truth about Carax, Clara in her enthusiasm for Carax’s work, and her father by making the book seem rarer and more desirable than it probably was. Aside from that though, the whole point of Clara seemed to be to facilitate Daniel’s sexual awakening while still showing him to be a *gentleman* so that his character parallels with Julian could be made later, and her father only remained relevant so he could smooth things over at the “uh oh, we need money for this” part of the story. Convenient.
I was also bothered by the “…and in the end Clara got what she had coming to her and will probably die alone and ugly.” part of the afterward. I mean, what the hell is the difference between Clara having sex with her music teacher and Bea having sex with Daniel while still engaged to another man? Why is one punished and one rewarded by narrative?

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?

I definitely thought they were metaphor, but I agree with Hana in that they were good for setting the novel with a mood of uncertainty. It’s odd though. I thought that by bringing in magical elements, it actually shed more light on how human this story is. Characters often used these elements to explain themselves and their lives (It’s certainly a lot easier to say “yep, it’s because we’re cursed,” than to explain the chain of shitty things you’ve done to deserve your current misfortune), but with each of their accounts it becomes clearer that the story (and the respective fates of its characters) was driven less by the supernatural, and more by the natural consequences of emotionally-driven human action. Or maybe they WERE cursed. :P

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?

I don’t think their parallels are magical at all. Coincidence maybe, but then Carax says “There are no coincidences Daniel, we are puppets of our subconscious desires.”
I think they’re similar in character at most.
Daniel falls in love with Carax’s book and then wants to become a writer. His ENTIRE adolescence is then colored by Julian and his mysteries. He idolizes the Julian and his books and he lets them shape his life and actions; even facing danger several times to protect them both. He then spends years meddling in Julian’s business and interviewing people that Julian knew personally, all the while becoming more and more personally invested in his story and its outcome. Frankly he spends more time re-living Carax’s story than paralleling it with his own. But yeah, not magical.

6. What are your thoughts about the incest and the fact that Julián never learned the truth?

The incest was a minor surprise, but it’s such a common trope that we probably should have seen it coming. I really don’t see what the point of it was though, just to add to the scandal of it all? I dunno. Him not finding out the truth was probably for the best though, tbh.

7. What was the significance of the Victor Hugo pen?

It was Daniel caring enough about Julian and his work for him to give him his voice back because yay someone was listening after all. Why do you guys think Daniel could never write anything with the pen though?

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?

I rolled my eyes. He hadn’t mentioned her for like 400 pages, to be honest, I’d forgotten about her.

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.

The ending was interesting. I mean, you could see that final showdown coming from a mile off. I guess I was just expecting drama, rather than the melodrama it delivered. However, after his “you believed in me and I wanted you to find the happiness I couldn’t” speech to Daniel, I fully expected Julian to die. And possibly Bea for the Penelope parallel. Actually when it comes down to it, I wouldn’t have been upset if Daniel had died (and stayed dead) either, though I’m glad that he didn’t for his father’s sake. And I actually wished aloud that Fermin would bite it as well. I’m coming to realize just how ready I was for the book to end.

10. The Angel's Game is a prequel to this book. Do you have any interest in reading it?

About three chapters into this book I entertained the idea of reading it afterward, but nope, I think I’ve had enough for now. :)

I’m curious though. What were your thoughts on Nuria Monfort’s letter for Daniel? I was confused by it. I mean, sometimes it read like a personal letter, but then the narrative would shift and she’d be telling things that she couldn’t have been privy to, like what Julian was thinking or how many steps Miquel took to the door or something, to the point where it read like a separate third person novel. Also when the hell did she have time to write all of it?! Any thoughts?

Clay Jannon is a super geeky and super smart gamer dude (but he's really nice and likeable if you'd just give him a chance). He has been a moderately successful computery person in the recent past, but he's really modest about it, don't worry. Now his talents are being underused at a mysterious bookshop and he's met three new people in the past month(!)

1. A walking manic pixie dream girl trope named Kat. She's smokin' hot and wildly ambitious and practically a genius (even though she's a girl!). She's used to make Clay seem like an attractive protagonist and for her totally happenstantial dream job at Google, but pay no attention to that. Also she has boobs. Yay.

2. A two-dimensional new roommate named Ashley; who just so happens to be a perfect romantic match for Clay's uber-talented prop-maker other-roommate Matt. Matt himself is used for his art skills and only really mentioned like twelve times.

3. Clay's boss, the international manic pixie man of mystery himself: Mr. Ajax Penumbra. Penumbra is the coolest antiquarian bookseller in town (he even embraces NEW TECHNOLOGY and owns a kindle) but, just like his bookshop, he has COUNTLESS SECRETS. Mysterious.

Join Clay and his ramshackle team of hot nerds and rich genius best friends as they embark on a risk-free adventure to crack the uncrackable code of an ancient literary cult, for no real reason whatsoever.

Will unlimited funds, brains, and technology be enough to allow these bored young adults to overcome the disapproving glances of Mr. Penumbra's current cult leader/former best friend? Will Mr. Penumbra's mystery book of no significance be burned? Will Clay and Kat hook up????

Read if you dare.

Better late than never. :) Hi everyone, I'm Ashley (flightofthedumbledore). I've always been fond of historical fiction and the occasional classic or dystopian novel, but this past year I read George RR Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series and it has knocked me into a massive reading slump. It's my hope that our book club can get me back into the swing of things. :) I'm excited to meet and discuss with you all! :)