The WTF? Book Club discussion

Released back in 1984, it is a book which has seemingly lost none of it's power to shock and disgust, while somehow enticing the reader to continue reading further, making it only less surprisingly that the book was named one of the top 100 books of the 20th Century in a 1997 poll.

As a character Frank should be completely unappealing especially when he murders three of his family members before he is 10, yet feels nothing of remorse for any of these murders, much like his frequent bouts of animal abuse / slaughter. Considering the environment he has grown up in, should we consider Frank to be a product of his environment or in the case of Frank is it just that he was born with these desires pre-insalled?

Equally in question is Franks Shaman-like belief system, whose desire for ritual and symbolism which form his belief structure with the titular wasp factory at the centre. What could this be seen as saying about Banks own skeptical attitude towards organised religion?

The floor is now yours to discuss

I am drawn to Frank's character like a morbid magnet in a way that makes me even question myself. The power of the book I feel is not paralleled by many other works of fiction.

I'm not sure how to account for his actions or behaviour. I'd be interested to hear what other people think in terms of a nature/nurture debate. I find it hard to think 'given his upbringing..' type of argument as plenty of people experience isolation, hard-ship, have their childhood beliefs largely unchecked. But at the same time I also think had circumstances been different that quite possibly Frank would have been - well not normal, but definitely less weird.

The religious connotations are really quite staggering. I feel it highlights Banks' disdain in that if individuals, communities, societies rationalize events as signifiers, and rituals as meaningful that religious belief aids people to justify the most abhorrent of events.

I don't know if anyone else felt as intrigued as I did about the feelings towards women. I know that it plays a big part in the climax, but as a woman it did feel odd throughout trying to understand if that came from the character or if Banks' was trying to say something bigger that I was missing.

I do love this book. It is probably one of my all-time favourites. And in a weird way I think that has a large part to do with how uncomfortable a read it is.

On the whole I thought the book was well written but a couple of bits didn't quite work for me. Firstly I couldn't fully buy into the friendship with Jamie and the scene about half way through the book where they're out together and get drunk just didn't quite hit the mark.
Could I recommend this book? Only in a very qualified way which probably defeats the purpose.
In reference to Steph's comment on attitudes towards women I don't feel you missed anything in particular but I will revisit that and dwell on it further as it is an interesting question. The Wasp Factory

The first words of The Wasp Factory transported me back to the island in Lord of the Flies. That feeling, of human beings left to their own devices in an isolated environment, continued for me throughout the book; but it could be said that if Lord of the Flies is about “normal,” albeit less-than-admirable, human characteristics allowed to run their course in a limited social environment, The Wasp Factory is more about some of our more common aberrations; misogyny, sociopathy, narcissism, paranoia, etc.; running amok in relative isolation. As Frank’s father realized early on, the island is a perfect laboratory because there’s no one around to challenge the various experiments with an emphatic “WTF?!?!”

As Richard points out, we ought to despise the little shit, but in addition to being a “morbid magnet” as Steph notes, he is also so genial, self-aware and logical that we agree to follow him about and observe his atrocities for almost 200 pages. For a psychopathic murderer, he’s a pretty good tour guide. Plus there are a couple glimpses of hope: his odd relationship with Jamie cited by Jonathan and his directive to his brother to stop killing dogs. Were these indications of a not-quite-dead capacity for human empathy or merely logical allowances made within a still-wretched world-view? Is Frank’s statement that the burning dog’s “wail” was “the noise you hope no living thing ever has to make” just him temporarily talking in his “normal” voice for our benefit or something more?

It's funny that you should highlight the isolated environment Robert, as looking at Frank's various activities / murders they all take place on the island, while on his occasional jaunts to the mainland he maintains a front of normality, leaving his darker side to only show when he is at home. It is also at this location that he feels at his most untouchable perhaps as a result of his shamanistic belief system while the sacrifice poles he has setup around the island and continuous patrols to protect the island only seem to only further this idea.

The idea of the isolation allowing its inhabitants to do as they please is certainly it would seem now on reflection a key one, especially when you also look at Eric's mother who returns to the island so that she can give birth in the lotus position, an idea which would have been dismissed as well as downright refused anywhere else. As for Eric it would seem that Frank scolding Eric's dog torturing / eating antics are only an attempt to maintain this isolation and that he views such things as a threat to himself especially when it is likely to bring attention on the island from the mainland residents.

At the same time I have to question the mentality of Frank, who despite being 16 still engages in childlike interests such as playing war and building dams. Is this poor characterization on Banks part or has Franks home schooling and lack of interaction with the majority of the outside world meant that he has developed a Peter Pan style attitude in refusing to act his age or is this all justification for his love of explosives?

The curious juxtaposition between Frank’s shamanistic beliefs on the island and the organized religion in town referenced in your first comment seems to reinforce the importance of isolation in shaping Frank’s world view and behavior, although it may also speak to our peculiar susceptibility to superstition. The apocryphal “God-shaped vacuum” certainly resonates with much of humanity but not always in identical ways. Even when we’re skeptical of traditional religion, we often still hesitate to “jinx ourselves” or “tempt Fate” with our statements and actions; and when push comes to shove, a little insurance in the form of a sacrifice or two, certainly can’t hurt. And yes, I think you’re spot on with the Peter Pan complex. Being “off the grid” like Frank is allows him to forego Society’s maturation schedule although he’s careful to toe the line when in town as you suggested.

Iain Banks is a very talented writer, no doubt about it.
However I just wanted to shoot Frank between the eyes, on behalf of the animals.

Cid wrote: "Iain Banks is a very talented writer, no doubt about it.
However I just wanted to shoot Frank between the eyes, on behalf of the animals."

Harsh but fair!

Frank's obsession with animal slaughter (is there really any other way to describe it?) does make it a hard sell when recommending it, especially to animal lovers. Still I'm not sure how these moments of animal cruelty fit into Frank's world. Is this another effect of the islands isolation giving him free reign, or should we see them as part of his evolution as a killer

Pure Genius. This book has now become one of my favourite books of all time. Time to read more of his work and I've got plenty to keep me going.

Loved this book because it made me hate a fictional character, Frank. I found Frank such a disturbing read, so young and allowed the isolated freedom to develop into a killer - perfect fiction!

Whilst I am deeply saddened by his death, it is great that so many literary figures have come out to praise him so highly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/...

Wow, just read this book and it really resonates with me. Parents own mental frailty and selfishness leads to total destruction for multiple families and children.

Everyone is praising the book, I guess I had better try to pick it up again and finish, but I had got to about page 20 and given up.

The beginning sounds so much like one of my students trying to write a short story for the first time. While there is a clearly defined main character, there are these mysteries which pile ontop of each other one after the other, until I felt overwhelmed as a reader. The factory and the dead animals and what's wrong with him, and lots of other stuff are all just dumped on the reader in the first page. Am I wrong? Is this not an odd strategy?

I think mostly of Tristam Shandy, where narrator delays and digresses to avoid telling us how he's a bastard for as long as possible, but he feeds the mystery to the reader bit by bit, slowly. In the Wasp Factory, by contrast, I feel like Banks has just backed up a dumptruck and unloaded it on us.

This reminds me too much of my freshmen trying to write short stories, under the misimpression that the mystery will keep the story moving forward and motivate the readers.

Anyway, I'm getting back into it again, now that I've read all the positive reviews, and I'm so shocked to learn that he just died. Wow.

I've recently lost my copy....anyone wanna send me one? Ha!