Tournament of Books discussion

Fates and Furies, by Lauren Groff


About the Book (from the book's description on GR)

Every story has two sides. Every relationship has two perspectives. And sometimes, it turns out, the key to a great marriage is not its truths but its secrets. At the core of this rich, expansive, layered novel, Lauren Groff presents the story of one such marriage over the course of twenty-four years.

At age twenty-two, Lotto and Mathilde are tall, glamorous, madly in love, and destined for greatness. A decade later, their marriage is still the envy of their friends, but with an electric thrill we understand that things are even more complicated and remarkable than they have seemed.


About the Author (from Wikipedia)

Lauren Groff (born July 23, 1978) is an American novelist and short story writer. Groff was born and raised in Cooperstown, New York. She graduated from Amherst College and from the University of Wisconsin–Madison with an MFA in fiction

Groff is the author of three novels and a short story collection. Her first novel, The Monsters of Templeton was published by Hyperion on February 5, 2008 and debuted on the New York Times Bestseller list. It was well received by Stephen King, who read it before publication and wrote an early review in Entertainment Weekly. It was shortlisted for the Orange Prize for New Writers in 2008, and was named one of the Best Books of 2008 by Amazon.com and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Groff has had short stories published in the New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly, Five Points, and Ploughshares, and the anthologies Best New American Voices 2008, Pushcart Prize XXXII: Best of the Small Presses, and Best American Short Stories 2007, 2010 and 2014 editions. Many of these stories appear in her collection of short stories Delicate Edible Birds and Other Stories, which was released on January 27, 2009.

Her second novel, Arcadia, was released in March 2012. Arcadia tells the story of the first child born in a fictional 1960s commune in upstate New York. A New York Times and Booksense Bestseller, it received favorable reviews from the New York Times Sunday Book Review, The Washington Post, and The Miami Herald. Arcadia was also recognized as one of the Best Books of 2012 by The New York Times, The Washington Post, NPR, Vogue, The Globe and Mail, Christian Science Monitor, and Kirkus Reviews.

Her third novel, Fates and Furies, was released in September 2015. It was nominated for the 2015 National Book Award for Fiction and was featured in numerous "Best of 2015" fiction lists, including the selection by Amazon.com as the Best Book of 2015.

Groff is married with two children and currently lives in Gainesville, Florida. Groff's sister is the Olympic Triathlete Sarah True.



Other Links

• Author's website: http://laurengroff.com

• Review -- The New Yorker: "Scenes from a Marriage": http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/201...

• Review -- The Guardian: "[A] marriage seen from two sides- Like Gone Girl, this tightly controlled portrait of a cruel and impossible relationship pivots on a shift in perspective": http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015...

• Review -- AV Club: "Fates And Furies explores marriage with a satisfying, unsettling story": http://www.avclub.com/review/fates-an...

• Interview -- NPR: "Lauren Groff Used 'Fates And Furies' To Bring 'Feminine Rage' Into Light": http://www.npr.org/2015/10/27/4519282...

This seems to be a book that is really dividing readers! Have you read it already? Do you plan to read it? Please share your thoughts and feelings about the novel here.

Kind of hated this book. While I admire Groffs mastery of Shakespeare and classical literature, I feel like she was just showing off here. You have to relate somehow to characters--see something of yourself in them, even if it's not pleasant. I couldn't muster any sympathy, empathy, envy, or anger at these characters. Only apathy. And that made this a very arduous book to read, especially with all the linguistic pyrotechnics .

Sarah, me too. The second half of this book just fell apart for me.

The writing screams literary fiction, the plot screams Days of Our Lives. The juxtaposition did not work for me.

this was an irredeemable 1-star read for me, and pushed exactly all the buttons to make me bored and cranky, so much so I created a special bookshelf I labled "flat-tires" for it, but otoh the prose was so strange that I kept reading to the end with a kind of horrified delight

poingu wrote: "this was an irredeemable 1-star read for me, and pushed exactly all the buttons to make me bored and cranky, so much so I created a special bookshelf I labled "flat-tires" for it, but otoh the pros..."

Love your take on this, Poingu.

I wasn't a fan of this book either, and I was really shocked by the amount of good reviews this book got. I thought she was being tongue in cheek in her writing, but it never stopped taking itself too seriously. I couldn't understand what she wanted to say about marriage really, that they are like Greek dramas? It was like a homework assignment or something she was forced to write.

Sarah wrote: "Kind of hated this book. While I admire Groffs mastery of Shakespeare and classical literature, I feel like she was just showing off here. You have to relate somehow to characters--see something of..."

Sarah, you've summed up some my thoughts in reading this one too.

I didn't dislike it as much as others here (though I found the first half painful to get through) - after the 'switch' got more interesting, and while these particular characters left me stone cold, it did give me lots to think about as far as how we live in private worlds to some extent, even context of our closest relationships. Not a favourite of mine in 2015.

Holly wrote: "The writing screams literary fiction, the plot screams Days of Our Lives. The juxtaposition did not work for me."

Ha! This is great.

I didn't enjoy the book until the second half. I wasn't as taken with it as everyone else seemed to be but it looks like I wasn't alone with all the comment here. I can see the talent but you have to deliver more than just pretty words.

I just loved this book. I thought the writing was so good and the story was full of moments that connected for me. Did the people who didn't like it also not like Arcadia? I'm curious about that because I didn't like it nearly as much as I liked this one.

Emma wrote: "I just loved this book. I thought the writing was so good and the story was full of moments that connected for me. Did the people who didn't like it also not like Arcadia? I'm curious about that be..."

I loved Fates and Furies, but I agree I liked Arcadia a little bit more. Both were 5-star reads for me.

I loved Arcadia, up until they all became adults. I think Groff has a thing about tall remote blondes, as the love interest in Arcadia becomes sort of dangerous, similar to Matilde.

I absolutely loved this book and found Mathilde to be one of the most fascinating characters I've ever come across. I liked the first half well enough, but I found the second half riveting.

I really liked it...I get the criticisms and can see what the people who didn't like it are reacting negatively to, but I don't know...it just worked for me. Reading it kind of felt like the experience of a memorable dream to me, like I knew that what was happening was not reality, but I was completely absorbed and engrossed in this "sideways reality" nonetheless. I don't think I'm doing a very good job of articulating this, so let's just leave it as I liked it a lot.

I listened to those podcasts as well! I think they called them fairy tales. I don't know if approaching those stories from that perspective would have helped. But what might have helped was not reading these 2 books back to back. It kind of sent me off into a rage against writers whose characters are over the top successful and who live in paradisiacal settings.

Sarah wrote: "I listened to those podcasts as well! I think they called them fairy tales. I don't know if approaching those stories from that perspective would have helped. But what might have helped was not rea..."

I'm not quite sure I would put Jude in a paradisiacal setting.

I did read both but I only fell into the fairy tale trance for A Little Life? Fates and Furies didn't grab me the same but it wasn't the believability... it was my lack of interest in the characters (mostly the guy - which is why I liked the second section better). And yes, I know good books still have unlikable characters - but the plot wasn't enough to hold it together... what was left was the writing, which was really good.

I didn't mean that Jude's life was paradise. I meant that he lived in these 2 magnificent houses, of which no detail was spared. Although maybe that's the point, that no matter how luxurious the setting, Jude couldn't be happy because of what had happened to him. Still, in both novels, I got the sense that the authors were creating fantasy settings based on their own ideas of how the most successful, most wealthy people live--a kind of lifestyle porn that totally turned me off.

Sarah wrote: "I didn't mean that Jude's life was paradise. I meant that he lived in these 2 magnificent houses, of which no detail was spared. Although maybe that's the point, that no matter how luxurious the se..."

Yes! Felt the same way about The Secret History, not to get too far into that one.

Sarah wrote: "I didn't mean that Jude's life was paradise. I meant that he lived in these 2 magnificent houses, of which no detail was spared. Although maybe that's the point, that no matter how luxurious the se..."

Lifestyle porn... I like that... the saying, not the style. I definitely got that feeling from Fates... but both do scream "perfect job" and amazing city apartment and awesome friends. But again, this didn't cross my mind during A Little Life... the fairy tale took over and shrowded my eyes from the neatness to everything.

Dianah wrote: "I absolutely loved this book and found Mathilde to be one of the most fascinating characters I've ever come across. I liked the first half well enough, but I found the second half riveting."

Me, too, Dianah. Mathilde is one for the ages.

I loved Fates and Furies. I read it shortly after A Little Life too, and was struck by many similarities in the story, but completely different treatments of relationships and abuse.

I remember wondering if you could almost determine a person's personality type by whether they preferred Fates and Furies or A Little Life. I've learned over the past few years that books that tear me apart emotionally almost make me mad, and I resent them. A Little Life, An Untamed State, and The Fault in Our Stars are all evidence of that for me. I'm working so hard to keep it together that I can't appreciate the story. I need a little emotional distance from the characters to really fall in love with a book. Does anyone else understand this?

Sherri wrote: "I loved Fates and Furies. I read it shortly after A Little Life too, and was struck by many similarities in the story, but completely different treatments of relationships and abuse.

I remember w..."

I understand this, Sherri, and I too struggle with books that feel designed to push me too far emotionally (specifically due to violence against the characters). I've not figured out yet where that line is for me, but for example I don't read memoirs about people who suffered horrible abuse for this reason. Fates and furies didn't fit in this category for me, but ALL did to an extent and wrecked me emotionally to read which left me feeling at bit angry / resentful at first and I found it difficult to evaluate how I felt about the book.

I loved this book, especially the second half. i just wish i was more informed on my greek mythology because i think i would have loved it even more if i had been.

I listened to this one on audiobook, which I think is a decent format for this one. I originally rated it as 4 stars, but have downgraded it to 3 stars as it isn't as memorable and impactful as other 4 stars.

I almost wish Lotto was the only story line. Everything about him worked for me, the way he was so insecure and yet demanded the world rotate around him, the way he freaked out over one bad review and yet was totally oblivious to his impact on his wife and mother. I can totally imagine a person like that.

Mathilde was just too half-assed "Gone Girl" for me and Sam was equally bad. I can't believe people would plot such long term revenge plans and still be utterly boring themselves.

I see why this book was so popular, filling the Gone Girl hole, but as it doesn't have the initial shock of Gone Girl, it sort of falls flat.

Finished this last Thursday with mixed feelings. The first half of the book had me completely underwhelmed. Even with some gorgeous writing it threatened to be as big a disappointment as The Interestings and as unnecessary as The Middlesteins. It wasn't that it wasn't good, it was just too pat, too been there done that. Then the half way point happened and we dipped into Gone Girl territory. It actually picked up for me at that point despite my having hated Gone Girl. Mathilde suddenly seemed worth reading about while Lotto had always been straight out of central casting. If anything I was disappointed that she didn't go full out Greek tragedy on Chollie's ass and end the book dripping with gore, but it rescued a major disappointment for me and galloped home with some panache.

I am conflicted by how much I enjoyed hating this book.

Much like Gone Girl or People in the Trees, abrasion seems to have become a means to its own end. How does one judge a work when its purpose is to aggravate?

Daniel wrote: "Finished this last Thursday with mixed feelings. The first half of the book had me completely underwhelmed. Even with some gorgeous writing it threatened to be as big a disappointment as [book:The ..."

Question: Both The Interestings and The Middlesteins are sitting on my TBR. I loved F&F, even the first half, though I admit I also perked up in the second half. In your opinion, does my love of F&F make me more or less likely to enjoy the first two?

Mainon wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Finished this last Thursday with mixed feelings. The first half of the book had me completely underwhelmed. Even with some gorgeous writing it threatened to be as big a disappointmen..."

I will say that I was saddened to read that there was someone who hated both The Interestings and The Middlesteins, as both of those were strong 5-star reads for me. I also liked Fates and Furies a lot, not quite a 5-star but I gave it 4-stars. So I would say you should still read both.

Heather wrote: "Mainon wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Finished this last Thursday with mixed feelings. The first half of the book had me completely underwhelmed. Even with some gorgeous writing it threatened to be as big ..."

Thanks, Heather! I always appreciate good TBR input. ^_^

I didn't hate The Interestings, I just felt that it wasn't terribly interesting. The Middlesteins, though, was tripe.

Just finished it. This book had been on my list ever since it was published, both because of the reviews and because Lauren Groff interests me strangely -- I have read all her books but never like them as much as I think I would, given the descriptions and the reviews of them. I think part of it is that I don't like her writing very much, although I can't exactly pinpoint why...

But anyway, I was disappointed. I expected that if any book could, this was likely to supplant A Little Life for me, and it so didn't. It seemed like a pale reflections of A Little Life, frankly, a cold, stiff quotation, although it couldn't be, of course. And all the inconsistencies of A Little Life that I could elide right over because its emotional weight far outstripped them for me (I know YMMV), leapt up off the page at me. Also -- I despised Lotto. Despised. Him. He was the most enormous caricature of the "Great Man" who's enabled to be so by the Wife, without the wry subversiveness that books like, say, Meg Wolitzer's The Wife, season in to make it possible to see another angle. Of course, I wasn't expecting the second half -- but it didn't make it any more palatable. It showed a ruined life. Mathilde's was a ruined life. Ugh.

P.S. I totally agree with Daniel about The Interestings. Didn't hate it, but didn't understand the glowing reviews. Also, it was creepy, because it was absolutely my era and exactly the kind of people I grew up with. And these people were not. interesting. Didn't read The Middlesteins -- because it looked like tripe. :-))

Ellen wrote: "Just finished it. This book had been on my list ever since it was published, both because of the reviews and because Lauren Groff interests me strangely -- I have read all her books but never like ..."

I've had the same experience with Groff's previous books as Ellen. I liked F&F better. I may just give up on her as I did with Meg Wolitzer. I think I have a generational issue with them.

Hmmm. Looks like we're roughly the same generation, Drew, and, like I said, The Interestings creeped me out a bit because it was so distinctly about my exact generation and demographic (kids who were 16-ish in 1976), so I'd presumed she was around my age as well. Lauren Groff is clearly about 20 years younger.

Heh. Just looked up Meg Wolitzer. She's about 9 months older than I am.

Ellen wrote: "...I despised Lotto. Despised. Him. He was the most enormous caricature of the "Great Man" who's enabled to be so by the Wife, ..."
I have barely made a dent in F&F's but am already with you on Lotto: all the quotes I grab on him infuriate me!

...he knew her to be the purest person he'd ever met, he, who had been primed for purity.

ew.

Daniel wrote: "The Middlesteins, though, was tripe."

What?!?! I loved The Middlesteins. :-) Maybe it was a different reading experience for anyone who's been fat. Or female.

Amy wrote: "Ellen wrote: "...I despised Lotto. Despised. Him. He was the most enormous caricature of the "Great Man" who's enabled to be so by the Wife, ..."
I have barely made a dent in F&F's but am already w..."

Amy, you have only just scratched the surface of his ickiness.

What?!?! I loved The Middlesteins. :-) Maybe it was a different reading experience for anyone who's been fat. Or female."

Guilty on the first count, but the jury was deadlocked on the second.

I am almost finished with this book and feel as irritated as most of the commentators above. However, that made me think - what is the purpose of writing a particular story? Is it supposed to always be likable? Or is it supposed to provoke thought?
I am put off by these characters but I can absolutely believe they exist somewhere. I keep thinking about them and their relationship, and I think for that alone the book has done a good job - it has engaged me and made me think about relationships, about how partners treat each other, who they become in a relationship, etc. If we think of writing as an art form, provoking a reaction is what great art does. And I think that book is definitely provoking reactions, judging from the spirited discussion happening here.

oh dear. I'm going to end up completely reversing my position now that I finished. I read the first half (and many dozens of pages into the second half) deeply influenced by all the comparisons out there to Gone Girl and other white, privileged, happy-not-happy marriage tales. I wish I hadn't heard any of it (then again, I might not have made it past the first half if that were so!). Furies took off for me. It wasn't necessarily a pleasant read, but the deep waters than run under Mathilde gripped me - and while I didn't necessarily like her, I connected with many, many things about her. Through her eyes, I even forgave Lotto quite a bit which is exactly the opposite of what I expected from her side of the story.

Amy wrote: "oh dear. I'm going to end up completely reversing my position now that I finished. I read the first half (and many dozens of pages into the second half) deeply influenced by all the comparisons out..."

This was my feeling as well. I was expecting in the second half of the book to learn that Mathlilde had hated Lotto the whole time (as I did), but had some ulterior motive (money) for staying with him, but I was pleasantly surprised by the emotional complexity of her section. And while I didn't exactly empathize with Mathilde, she felt far more real to me than Lotto.

I feel conflicted with this one. As I read the opening comments of this thread I thought, "Yes! This book is overrated," but then I read positive comments, and thought "Yes, the author does a good job at revealing the roles, assumptions, and desires of a marriage." Is it possible to be rooting both for and against it?

Tiffany: yes. lol.

I loved that during the second half of this book (which I rated highly but kind of hated), while reading with some kind of fascinated dread, I realized that Mathilde, so damaged, so awful, really loved her husband so very much, and that made her character and their story much more interesting. Easy to make her hate him, but her love for him gave this book a wonderful weird depth for me.