Fates and Furies discussion

I absolutely loved this book. I find the idea that the book is a reflection on marriage interesting. For me, I don't see the connection of this story and marriage in general. Am I missing something? To me it was more an examination of character and motivations. If I were to describe this book to someone I wouldn't ever describe it as a book regarding marriage.

Thank you for expressing it that way. I feel the same as you.

That is a good question. There was so many things unknown about one of the characters that it really makes me wonder, did they really have a good marriage? It's obvious that they needed each other, but does that make it a healthy marriage?

It also made me think of another famous married couple, Sid and Charity from Crossing To Safety, how they were so perfect for each other and then terrible for each other.

I think it is speaking to how complicated and "secret" most marriages are. Are you married? Does it seem true to you?

I read the book cold, just on recommendation. I didn't know about the buzz. It didn't strike me as a book about marriage so much as a book about what people want from each other and what they get. Or maybe a book about the nature of the self. Who is Mathilde really? Can a person really enact a radically different persona for decades? The Furies section chilled me. I'd rather liked Mathilde, her practicality and enjoyment of Lotto. But I quickly found her conniving and vindictive. I'm not without sympathy, but sympathy doesn't extend to countenancing someone's mistreatment of others. I warmed to her toward the end, though, when Groff lets her have some feelings besides anger, anger and anger. I didn't exactly like the book so much as find it enlightening. I knew someone who tried a trick like Mathilde's and I never understood why. Now I have more insight into that way of being.

I'm married, and I think this book has some elements of truth about what goes on behind the scenes of some marriages, especially with creative people. Both people seemed damaged to me, and the character of Mathhilde was underdeveloped, which was disappointing.

I think to some extent we do keep secrets in marriage but those secrets are the same ones we hide from ourselves. I thought the characters were a little over the top but overall the story was good. I also agree that Mathhilde was underdeveloped. (spoiler). I disliked Mathhilde but then I thought perhaps her own view of herself was inaccurate. Maybe she didn't do all the horrible things she believed she had done.

I'm not clear how Mathilde is underdeveloped when half the book is about her. It's been a while now since I read the book, but I came away with maybe too intense a view into her psyche. Considering the section from Lotto's perspective portraying the character she created for him, I feel the book is more about her than him. Certainly from a few months' distance Mathilde is much clearer in my mind than her husband.

It goes much deeper in Lotto's childhood. It was more like the last third of the book was about Mathilde, and it seemed to me that the writer was rushing to finish. That part was not as well-written as the earlier chapters.

Hmm. I'm sure you're right about ratios. After six months, most of what remains for me is the memory of Mathilde being complex and interesting. Not that Lotto isn't interesting, he's just superficial. I've seen many criticisms about the quality of Groff's writing. Didn't strike me that way, but I have to admit I really liked the book. The wildly unexpected perspective on the relationship that you get with the Furies section really opens things up and turns you back on the first section, where you see everything through this new lens. Her writing does tend toward the Writer's Workshop style, which can get old, but she tells a good story and vividly.

I might be totally off on this but this was my impression. I think the author wanted me to dislike Mathilde, to think she was this horrible person who pushed her baby brother down the stairs and then in the section of Furies, she attempted to show how initial perceptions and even the narrators idea of herself are not reliable and that she was not has horrible as the initial impression. Both Fates and Furies showed how the characters brought their image of themselves and what they wanted in a marriage and partner to the relationship.

I totally agree. Her actions seem inexplicable and reprehensible in the Fates section. When explained in the Furies section, and when we get down and dirty on other people, she gains some redemption. But I think, overall, she's not much of a human being. Now that I think about it, she's truly a Fury, a non-human, insatiable vehicle of vengeance, like the semi-divine avengers in the Oresteia. Thinking about that I see now that Lotto's effortless life and sudden death exemplify the workings of the Fates. Recognizing this casts the book in richer light for me. Gives me more respect for Groff. It's a book worth talking about. I'm glad we're having this conversation. Thank you. James

This is my face to face club book selection for July. I am also happy we are having this conversation as it will help with my contribution to my F2F meeting..
I think maybe, the part that is being referred to as underdeveloped and rushed is the author's attempt to reframe Mathilde did quite carry off. She was still a "non human" as you mention or maybe that is what the author wanted to leave with us? I like your framing as Fury.

That's a good reading. What seems like a flaw is actually the effect of a character being manipulated for a larger purpose. Keep in mind that authorial intent is a swamp. That said, it appears to me that Groff manipulated her characters to some extent to serve her larger goal of echoing Classical literature. I think Mathilde should be viewed as a narrow character lacking some human attributes, like compassion and mercy. Famous characters like this are Iago, in Othello, and Lady Macbeth. They're singleminded. People like that exist, but they're rare. So yes, Mathilde's not quite human. Neither is Lotto. Now Groff might say that, no, they are real people and this shows how myths reflect aspects of real life. That's where authorial intent gets weird. What did Groff really mean to do? What did she do that she didn't mean to do? What's she hiding? All we have is what's on the page. Outside information points us toward possible ways to read a book, but the book is the book. We do our best, try not to hurt each other, and have as much fun as we can.