Books on the Nightstand discussion

Are you reading Fates & Furies? Let's talk about it. Reposting my thoughts, at the almost finished point, from another thread:

I'm an hour and a half from the end and I just don't know what to make of it all. It's intense, gorgeously written, but many of the plot points seem really too unbelievable. It's reminding me a bit of A Little Life - they both have a sort of fairy tale quality, an over the top-ness, characters who are fully fleshed out, but, yet, at a distance because of the extraordinary circumstances of their lives. Both books also share rare glimpses into the world of Manhattan privilege, particularly with regard to the arts: visual arts and theater, mainly. Moreover, both books have characters who meet in college, their earlier lives slowly revealed, and who remain together for decades.

I think I enjoyed (if that's the word) the first half more, though the second half is full of surprises. It's a hell of a book, that's for sure! My first Lauren Groff. She's got some serious writing chops.

1. I thought this was far better than Arcadia, in my experience as a reader.
2. I was completely shocked by the second half and couldn't put it down. I think it is a slightly elevated but still true-at-heart example of how the only person who knows what happens in a marriage is each person individually.
3. So far this is a very strong contender for the National Book Award!

I just finished. Very good book, and beyond that I'm not sure what I think. Towards the end I was getting a bit confused with some of the connections and the history, but I think I pulled it all together! Maybe I was reading too fast. I don't necessarily think it's award-worthy but I agree that Lauren Groff is a great writer. I will read Arcadia soon.

I've read two of her short stories and really liked them. Don't know if I could make it through a book

Sue, I agree about the fairy tale quality of the first half. Lotto's mother dressing up as a mermaid, and given the physical contrast with her husband's looks, that's almost a Beauty and the Beast story. There are more literary allusions in this book than you can shake a stick at -- Gawain & Lancelot, Lotto's constant quoting of Shakespeare & Dante, the title of the book alluding to mythological figures, Antigone as the subject of the project with the young composer. Groff is obviously incredibly well-read, intelligent and talented. I'm still about halfway done (having peeked a wee bit into the second half) and getting back into it tonight.

I read a review (http://www.npr.org/2015/09/22/4424850...) that suggested the book was primarily plot driven and "architectural"; she didn't find the main characters compelling. I feel like Groff is an ambitious writer who writes a type of book that I want to see written . . . does that make sense? I don't want to see a world where everything is just easily digested and forgettable. I can't say that I adore or completely identify with either Lotto or Mathilde -- there is definitely a fairy tale/mythological scope to their life arcs that is not very relatable -- but I do think this type of work deserves praise.

Laura wrote: "I read a review (http://www.npr.org/2015/09/22/4424850...) that suggested the book was primarily plot driven and "architectur..."

Yes, I am getting toward the end and I want to see this type of book written too. I'm finding it different, original, interesting, and readable. I found the beginning of the Furies section a jolt and I really liked that feeling. It is "aesthetic"; it woke me up. (as opposed to anaesthetic).

I'm not having the same experience as Corrigan. I definitely remember the characters' names and they definitely have "life" in my mind.

Totally agree, Laura. You check out the LitUp podcast featuring Lauren. It's a really fun interview:

http://thelitupshow.com/tag/lauren-gr...

Laura wrote: "I read a review (http://www.npr.org/2015/09/22/4424850...) that suggested the book was primarily plot driven and "architectur..."

I feel similarly about Donna Tartt's writing. I love her breadth of knowledge, her word aritistry, and the dreamlike quality of her plots. Another writer whose artistry I really admire, though her work is more black comedy than straight literary fiction, is A.M. Holmes.

Michele wrote: "Laura wrote: "I read a review (http://www.npr.org/2015/09/22/4424850...) that suggested the book was primarily plot driven an..."

Hi, Chris, glad you jumped in. Love how you describe your experience of reading the book (squid ink). I feel the same way -- it would be fun to see one of Lotto's plays or the opera. So sad about the young composer's death.
How do you all feel about Mathilde -- is she evil (or something more nuanced than that black & white designation)? Did she mean to cause permanent harm to her baby brother, or she simply feel the very common resentment of older sibling for younger and didn't fully comprehend what would happen? You definitely end up feeling that Lotto is the better person (in their marriage), except that he believes his wife could only be either an angel (pure, saintlike) or the opposite (whore). This from a man who slept with how many people??? Really, dude?

I'm not finished yet, but I'm really wondering whether she pushed Lotto down the stairs. All she said was that he fell. If it is revealed later in the book..I'll get to it soon.

I'm pretty sure she's evil. She's done a lot of things without conscience so far and with no remorse.

Laura wrote: "You definitely end up feeling that Lotto is the better person (in their marriage), except that he believes his wife could only be either an angel (pure, saintlike) or the opposite (whore). This from a man who slept with how many people??? Really, dude?"

He also seems to view everyone in his life as there for his benefit. And just assumes that is how it should be. I liked her more, even if she was not necessarily a good person.

[Editing to warn of spoilers, for those who haven't read the whole book yet]






Lotto gets to live a protected life, in a way, despite being sent off to school. He doesn't have to deal with being a teen parent, because his mother "deals" with the situation. He doesn't have to really deal with the economic repercussions of not being able to make a living as an actor because Sallie sends money and Mathilde works and worries. And even with the playwriting, gets the benefit of Mathilde's writing, editing, behind-the-scenes machinations. Not that she didn't get anything out of their life, of course. He was her home and she did love him.

I finally got the audiobook off a long-awaited hold, and maybe I'm an idiot or something but I so far am Not.Impressed. I feel like the writing is very beautiful and flowery, but so far the content is just....meh and the storyline has a very rushed quality to it. I'm on CD 4 of 9, so past the part where he's started to write plays, and right when he falls, but I need to rewind that part because I was getting close to work and I think I missed part of that description.

I was really looking forward to reading this because you all seemed to love it, please tell me it does get better and is worth persevering. :(

Laura wrote: "[Editing to warn of spoilers, for those who haven't read the whole book yet]

That part is really irritating me! I get that the stereotype for actors and authors is largely narcissistic, but up to this point I've felt bad for Mathilde. Cautiously, because her past is so unknown that she could end up being an awful person (no one is THAT perfect) but ugh. He's not really all that likeable yet.






Lotto gets to live a protected life, in a way, despite being sent off to school. He doesn't have to deal with bein..."

I just finished it. One mystery: who pushed Lotto down the plane's steps?

Yes!! Did she push Lotto?? That line really bothered me.

I really thought it was just a random passenger. Do you all really think it was intentional?

Eric wrote: "I just finished it. One mystery: who pushed Lotto down the plane's steps?"

Well, the line was kind of stuck in there like a throwaway line but it glared at me since she had pushed her brother down the stairs. Quite a coincidence.

I thought it was just a passenger on the plane. Did everybody like this book? I believe I'm in the minority here but I really disliked this book allot! I thought the writing style was a distraction and it took my attention away from the story.

Karen wrote: "I thought it was just a passenger on the plane. Did everybody like this book? I believe I'm in the minority here but I really disliked this book allot! I thought the writing style was a distraction..."

Karen - I agree with you. I felt the writing was very disjointed. I just couldn't connect with any of the characters. The second half kept me going. Honestly disappointed.

Gina wrote: "I finally got the audiobook off a long-awaited hold, and maybe I'm an idiot or something but I so far am Not.Impressed. I feel like the writing is very beautiful and flowery, but so far the content..."

I would encourage you to stick with it as the payoff comes when Mathilde expands upon Lotto's narrative.

It started out slow for me, but I became more interested when Lotto became a playwright. Then during Mathilde's half I was fairly gripped.

I'd give it 3 1/2 stars.

BTW, I don't think Mathilde pushed her brother down the stairs. I think she blames herself for it, just as her family did. I'd describe her not as evil but as flinty.

Honestly, I expected to find out that it was Brigitte that pushed Lotto. I thought Groff was setting up some sort of fatal attraction thing with her, but I guess I was wrong.

Deb wrote: "Karen wrote: "I thought it was just a passenger on the plane. Did everybody like this book? I believe I'm in the minority here but I really disliked this book allot! I thought the writing style was..."

I agree completely with Karen and Deb. I was so excited to read this book and was disappointed. I haven't read any of her other novels.

I liked the book quit a bit, and thought that it was an architectural achievement. I did find the tonal shift between Lotto and Mathilde's perspectives a bit unsettling. Lotto's family seemed like characters from a Wes Anderson film (the gentle, hirsute giant who makes a fortune bottling municipal water and his bride, the former aquatic mermaid) whereas Mathilde's family seemed like they emerged from a Grimm's fairy tale. I could have excised the artist's colony and the suicide of the young composer because I didn't think that those scenes serviced the novel. But, Groff demonstrates, with beautiful prose, how even those in a long and successful marriage don't necessarily "know" the person to whom they are wed.

Stephanie wrote: "I liked the book quit a bit, and thought that it was an architectural achievement. I did find the tonal shift between Lotto and Mathilde's perspectives a bit unsettling. Lotto's family seemed like ..."

Great observations. I think we needed the interlude of the young composer, though, so that we could see Lotto tempted toward marital infidelity with the young man.

Stephanie wrote: "I would encourage you to stick with it as the payoff comes when Mathilde expands upon Lotto's narrative. "

Oh, I am! I've only completely abandoned one book so far (Elizabeth Gilbert's Big Magic). I was just hoping it would get better. I'll keep plugging away. It may be that the narrator's voice is overly dramatic too, which is making the flowery writing even more...affectatious, for lack of a clearer term.

Karen wrote: "I thought it was just a passenger on the plane. Did everybody like this book? I believe I'm in the minority here but I really disliked this book allot! I thought the writing style was a distraction..."

That's EXACTLY how I am feeling right now! I'll keep going but I've said this more than once up to now. I'm at the artist's colony part now so hopefully Lotto's part ends soon. I'm interested to read Mathilde's to see if, as others have said, it gets better. You didn't think so?

I can understand why some readers could come down on the opposite side of the fence from those of us who say we like or enjoy or appreciate it. Sometimes the timing is off. You just read something wonderful and the next thing suffers the rebound effect. Perhaps it may have to do with what you want to experience when you read fiction. Do you want a coherent narrative, do you want beautiful language, do you want literary allusions, do you want surprises, do you care whether or not you like the characters? The answers will vary for all of us. One of my favorite books last year was the beautiful A Vital Constellation of Phenomena; the subject matter was absolutely brutal, but the writing and the characters were just amazing. I'm not sure F&F quite matches up, but I'm a fan of what I'd call ambitious fiction . . .

Characters are a huge part of novels for me, but you're right..those are good questions to ask yourself if you're struggling to get into a book. I'll reserve further judgment because all of your comments about the second part of the book have intrigued me. Right now I am not a big fan of Lotto, because I can't stand his sense of entitlement (understandable given his privileged upbringing but infuriating), although I've suspected Mathilde was a little too perfect. I'm interested to see how her section plays out.

Deb wrote: "Karen wrote: "I thought it was just a passenger on the plane. Did everybody like this book? I believe I'm in the minority here but I really disliked this book allot! I thought the writing style was..."
I really wanted to like this book, I would pick it up and get very involved in the story line, but then the fragmented writing style would be my main focus and became a real distraction. But I have to agree with most that the second part was better.

Sorry gang. Finished it last night and still hated it. Need a good brain scrubbing now. :(

I didn't care much for Fates and Furies either, so the folks in that boat you are not alone. I like unlikable characters for the most part but Groff just made Lotto and Mathilde actually genuinely unlikable. There wasn't that fun part of "love to hate" or seeing any redeeming qualities in them.

I tell you what though... I would LOVE to read a novel all about Mathilde's childhood.

I just finished this book yesterday - it was my selection for one of the Postal Book Clubs I'm in. I loved it - I wanted to re-read it. Not because I loved the world Groff created or the characters that much - but more because I was fascinated with how she constructed the book. I thought it took a lot of craft. I loved her writing style, but I understand others' points about it being a bit disjointed - it did take me a while to get used to it. But I thought that the book just kept twisting and turning my expectations and understandings of what had happened upside down - kind of like the spiral shell that Lotto dug in the sand in his section. During Mathilde's section it just kept spiraling back. It was interesting to me that Ali Smith tried to do something similar in How to be Both, but I found that less successful - maybe because she wasn't reframing the same stories? I am really glad I read F&F but kind of bummed I picked it for a postal book club - I feel like it's so meaty that it would have made for a great in-person discussion.

Stephanie wrote: "I liked the book quit a bit, and thought that it was an architectural achievement. " I love this phrase - "an architectural achievement" - I definitely agree!

Chris wrote: "I hope you don't mind me jumping in on this discussion, but I just finished this book and I've been dying to have someone to talk with about it.
Personally, I loved the book. Not right away though..." You know, one thing I never really thought about until just now - if Mathilde really did have such a hand in Lotto's plays and therefore in their success, I wonder if part of her angst at him being off at the artists' grotto without her was because she wasn't there to polish his work and help make it great? I wonder if his opera would have turned out well or if it would have been a disappointment because she wasn't there to silently shepherd it?

Katherine wrote: "...I wonder if part of her angst at him being off at the artists' grotto without her was because she wasn't there to polish his work and help make it great? I wonder if his opera would have turned out well or if it would have been a disappointment because she wasn't there to silently shepherd it?" That's a great point -- if I'm remembering correctly Lotto only seemed to have a vague idea how much of a hand in his work Mathilde provided. I don't think Lotto and Leo would've had the same type of collaborative relationship if Mathilde had been present; the young composer was so reticent and shy she'd have eaten him for lunch. It seemed that it didn't succeed because despite their mutual admiration, the composer's music didn't mesh with Lotto's vision in his head. Their engagement had an undercurrent of sexual attraction and M.'s presence would most certainly have quashed that as well.

Laura wrote: "Katherine wrote: "...I wonder if part of her angst at him being off at the artists' grotto without her was because she wasn't there to polish his work and help make it great? I wonder if his opera ..." I got the impression that Lotto was completely blind to her hand in his work - that's why his comment at the San Francisco panel was so obtuse and why she got upset and left. I think he just thought he was this golden boy and didn't even realize - at least consciously - that she was helping him at all. And agreed - if Mathilde had been present, there would have been no collaboration between Lotto and Leo at all.

Chiming in rather late to the party on this one, but so glad Laura pointed me in this direction. The first half was interesting, but not enough to keep me interested. I got to Mathilde's section and was immersed. I loved how her sections filled in all the gaps from Lotto's sections perfectly rounding out the story. This strategy was pure brilliance in my opinion, and perfectly executed.

I don't think Mathilde is evil, I think all the characters are broken and real. They are all struggling with inner turmoil. I really wanted to know what else she had on Chollie. I guess I'm glad that she didn't use it, but who doesn't love a good revenge plot??

I wasn't completely sold on this book either. I had to work to get through "Fates", but I thought that "Furies" read much more quickly for me.

My big issues with the first half was I found it kind of flowery and pretentious. It wasn't until I was in the middle of the second half that I realized that "Fates" was written that way because that's the kind of person Lotto was. It made me appreciate the first half more, but not necessarily like it.

I kind of loved what Mathilde did to Chollie. At first I felt bad for him, but as the story continued that faded.