21st Century Literature discussion

This thread is for discussing the last section of the book and the novel in its entirety.

Some questions we might discuss:
- What does this novel say about love and marriage?
- How did the author balance the serious and the absurd (or comical) in this novel?
- Why do you think the images were used and what impact did they have?
- What symbolism or purpose did you see in the squirrel?
- What did you make of the book's title?

As always, feel free to pose your own questions or lead off with whatever contributions you'd like to add.

You mean the squirrel is not an element of stark realism set to contrast with Veblen's whimsy? ;)

Or maybe it's Veblen's animus? (After all, her best friend being a Jungian analyst has to count as some sort of clue, right?)

Sorry, I just finished the book and it's hard to find anything very serious in it at the moment -- but in a good way! Yes, there is enough of the grimness of the real life in it to ground it some, but the overall tone is somehow whimsical. It is a book capable of being serious but not of being solemn.

Google Translate of last Appendix:

(view spoiler)[
Dear Mom And Linus , Everything is going well . Thanks for all the letters and packages with warm clothing. You know exactly what I needed Mom . I should also tell you that there are many , many squirrels here in Norway , above all, from tree to tree , beautiful red Norwegian squirrel ! This is just a short note to say hello and that I miss you . I'm very busy and I 'll write more soon!
(hide spoiler)]

Peter wrote: "Google Translate of last Appendix:
Thank you for this, Peter!

I would have bet my left pinky that the translation would have revealed the return of the Nutkinistas... Guess it's a good thing I'm not a betting man. (Has anyone read The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin? It's not one I've read and might help with a full Jungian analysis--surely one of our members has the qualifications to put this together, yes?)

Incredibly well put about the book's capability for being serious without being solemn. It feels like there's a lot of research and serious issues acting as support structures for this novel.

Marc wrote: "Has anyone read The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin? It's not one I've read and might help with a full Jungian analysis--surely one of our members has the qualifications to put this together, yes?

I just read it (it being free for Kindle, and on Project Gutenberg here), and it seems to me to be a straightforward cautionary tale about being silly when you need to be serious. I believe Veblen interprets the story rather differently than its author does (there's a hint of that on page 31, and an outright statement of that on page 261). I think she rather admires Nutkin's non-conformity and his lack of respect for authority figures.

As for Jungian analysis -- I read The Essential Jung: Selected Writings Introduced by Anthony Storr cover-to-cover on an overnight plane ride from London to Los Angles sometime in the 1980's, and that's about it. So I'm not at all an expert.

I just finished this and was really pleasantly surprised by it. When it first came out it didn't really appeal too much to me and then it was on the Bailey list and I still didn't read it so I'm glad I got the nudge needed from this group.

When I finished the first half I really did not like Paul and did not see much hope for his redemption but he really grew as a character and became much more sympathetic. I think the family dynamics when you have a child like Justin combined with a personality like Paul would be extremely difficult at best.

For the first part I thought it offered a pretty bleak picture of love, marriage and family but by then end I was ready for a group hug. Both families had some serious issues but in the end their love did prevail.

I loved the end. I think it was perfect that they ended up getting away from their families and forging their own path.

The pictures were odd. I'm not really sure what they added other than a bit of quirkiness. I would be interested in asking the author why she used the particular ones that she did and if she had a bunch of alternative choices.

One of my favorite scenes was when Veblen was in the motel with the squirrel and answered the phone by mistake and Paul heard her conversation. The first thing I thought of was man I hope no one ever catches me talking to my dogs when I think I'm all alone :). I think at least part of the squirrel's purpose was to give us insight into Veblen's head in an unconventional way.

Still pondering the title and it's meaning.

I'm still pondering what the author intended us to think about the squirrels. Near the end, we get a section from the squirrel's point of view. Are the intelligent squirrels who seem to follow the characters intended as a fantasy element, or is that all just in Veblen's imagination?

I enjoyed the second half of the book more than the first, though still didn't love it. Mckenzie is definitely a talented storyteller and I liked the scenes of Paul's past - especially the snail project and drinking laced cider with Millie.

I liked some of the pictures but found the inclusion of some bizarre. The picture of the chicken coop shed made sense - I was having a hard time imagining it. However, the picture of the extra chicken burrito Linus brings to her at the hospital was really weird.

It sounds like she starts speaking to squirrels when she's stressed. Her mom mentions a few times that this isn't the first time Veblen's spoken with squirrels and I got the impression this is something that comes and gos. At one point when Paul and Veblen are arguing, he says something to her along the lines of her not being able to live a normal life and needing to be weird. I wondered whether her communications with the squirrel were here attempt to cling on to that "weird" life while her actual life seems to be moving in a more "normal" direction (towards marriage). I'm not sure whether the squirrels are meant to be fantasy or imagined, though whatever the case, the fact that Paul is able to communicate with them in the end seems to show that Veblen and Paul are finally in sync with one another.

A lot of the comical aspects of the book fell flat to me or made me cringe. The "butt-conversation" she has with Paul and the squirrel was a trope I've seen in numerous sitcoms and movies. The ending with the car accident and Cloris getting attacked with Paul's device were strange. I really didn't like how the accident seemed to solve all of their relationship problems. Yes, they would probably feel closer to one another and realize how much they need the other person in their life, but all those unanswered questions are still there. The book raises interesting questions about marriage, love, and relationships, but never fully addresses them. Paul did start to change before the accident but never really had a chance to figure things out before getting struck by Cloris' car.

Similarly to Caroline, I enjoyed the second half of the book more than the first half. Paul and Veblen became more authentic to me as their families were depicted and their upbringing explored. I think the author was trying to make Paul the anti-economist Veblen, with Paul's conspicuous consumption desires for a boat, new house, and going to work for perhaps the ultimate consumption employer, the military. I'm still trying to figure out the squirrel's place in the book but I viewed the squirrel as kind of a "voice of reason" that Veblen was openly bouncing ideas off and talking things through. I thought that Veblen really needed to get a cat or dog - who doesn't talk to their pets? Towards the end, I had doubts as to whether McKenzie could tie everything together - I know an accident doesn't solve foundational relationship issues, but the ending of the book just really worked for me.

One criticism/critique I have is with the book's title. Or I just don't understand or missed the explanation. Does the word "portable" even appear in the text of the book other than the title? Towards the end of the book where Veblen went down to the beach and she was contemplating about how the economist Veblen's remains were part of the beach sand, I thought, aha! the book's title explained, she's going to pick up some sand with economist Veblen's remains and take it with her - her portable Veblen. Alas I was wrong. Maybe McKenzie means that Veblen is adaptable? Easily packaged? I just don't know.

Caroline mentioned the scenes from Paul's past - especially the snail project and drinking laced cider with Millie. I found myself wondering if the reason Paul was so sure he had heard snails scream might be that he had previously consumed laced food or drink without knowing it. When he does his science project, he fakes the results, but he is still sure that he did hear snails scream once in the past.

I wondered if the portable in the title had something to do with the portable typewriter she carried around as a child and carried off as an adult? Or, an obsolete synonym of portable is bearable or endurable. Maybe you can think of the main character as the tolerable Veblen? ;)

Also, there is an actual book titled The Portable Veblen, and it one of the books on Veblen's shelf on page 267 when Paul is obsessively searching her house trying to find evidence of another lover.

Peter wrote: "I wondered if the portable in the title had something to do with the portable typewriter she carried around as a child and carried off as an adult? Or, an obsolete synonym of portable is bearable o..."

I also wondered if it had anything to do with the typewriter. Referencing the actual book makes sense though. In lieu of carrying the book around, Veblen is able to call upon information about her namesake at any given moment. Her investment of time and effort learning his history suggests her identity, in part, is owed to his memory until she realizes her mother's true reasons for picking the name "Veblen."

Casceil, that's an interesting thought about the snails screaming - it sounds fairly likely considering what sorts of things his parents and their friends might have left lying around!

I wasn't thrilled with this book. Did think the second half was better than the first. I am not an animal person, so I think that probably threw me off.

I do get tired of dysfunctional families, but thought the author did these familes very well. Her character development was excellent--even the squirrel's!

Very often I love a book until the ending, but this time it was just the opposite. The book was so-so to me, but I thought the ending was excellent.

Great comments all around!

The random photos seemed awkwardly handled, especially in terms of page layout--they just seemed shoved in there and were more a distraction to me, personally. One or two did make me smirk.

Still ruminating on the "Portable... " part of the title... my thinking is mostly along the lines of Caroline's about the way Veblen herself kind of carries the lineage, the economic theory, and a certain sense of pride with her (it's like she gets recharged just by seeing the portrait hanging in her home). I think it's intended to carry multiple meanings, most of which have already been mentioned above (the reference to the actual book, the typewriter, what we carry with us in terms of family history and "baggage", etc.).

I found the story quite entertaining and enjoyable. I do wonder about how rounded the characters are (a question raised in another thread, I do believe). Kind of a fine line Mckenzie straddles between being silly/entertaining and being serious-without-being-solemn.

You have the couple's story "resolved", the evil corporate lady gets hole-punched in the skull by her child and turns "good", and then there's all those military families just left by the wayside perhaps waiting for some other commercial-medical enterprise to promise them a different false-hope. I'm kinda split on how I feel about this--in a sense, it mirrors the very real way individuals or couples can easily recede from larger issues/problems that don't immediately impact them on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, it makes serious issues (commercialization of medicine and war, untreated mental illness, the divorce rate among squirrels) feel like mere plot devices. There's nothing "wrong" using topics/devices in the service of entertainment/comedy, but it felt like the novel was perhaps trying to say more... Anybody else feel similar (or disagree entirely)? Just kind of pondering this as I type.

I think the UK edition must be different as there were only a few pictures, and not one of the chicken burritos, referenced by Caroline. I guess from the omission that they weren't considered essential to the book?

I enjoyed the second half more than the first. I didn't like Paul at first but warmed to him a bit with the knowledge of his childhood. He certainly seemed to try and do the right thing a bit more once he had been triggered by the fear of being seen a cheat.

The scene where Cloris is punch-holed was very bizarre but curiously satisfying, in a poetic justice kind of way. Although Marc, did she really turn "good"? The interview in the appendix has her as a UN Ambassador but she seems more interested in the nice hotels than in actually doing any good, and she just comes across as a bit bonkers. I did like the appendix with its "where are they now" style snippets. I am glad Veblen got to Norway.

I am a bit torn on this book. I did enjoy the writing style and the slightly surreal nature of it. But I don't know about the whole pharmaceutical/military ethics line - it felt like that needed treating more seriously, which wasn't possible in this book. I'm finding it hard to put my finger on it, but something didn't quite sit right for me. I might have to think about it some more and see what I can articulate!!

Interesting that the pictures were different in the UK one. The extra burrito was the most odd and random seeming one.

I would really love to talk to the author about the pictures. I wonder if she had total control over that. I'm thinking maybe she didn't since they were different. I know authors have very little control over the cover in most instances. I wonder if this was the same sort of thing.

I'll concede "good" might be a stretch--how 'bout Cloris becomes less harmful or has a more beneficial job (in theory)? The hole punch was a bit like the bad guy in a movie getting undone by his own plans/minions.

Perhaps that's it--for all the serious and incredibly well-researched issues providing a sort of framework for the story, as well as a writing style I found stylistically/rhythmically impressive, it ultimately goes for the feel-good outcome at almost every such possible fork in the narrative path (the happy ending, the redeemed/reformed fiancé, main character finding a backbone/voice for herself, the individual semi-triumphing over those in power, etc.).

Marc and Viv - So far you are expressing my reservations very well - and the hole-punch incident was the last chapter I have read (and as soon as the thing was in the kid's hand it was obvious where that was going - Chekhov's gun?), but I'm still hoping that the last few pages will redeem it from a possible two-star review...

Thanks for the translation Peter - not bad for Google translate. Sadly not enough to sway my opinion though...

Re the pictures and the differences between the UK and US versions, that might account for the 18 page difference in the page count (my UK edition doesn't seem to exist here - it is a premium paperback equivalent of the 4th Estate hardback). There are some pictures in the UK edition, but I think fewer than 10 in total. The first one I remember was the one of the civil war hospital patients.

In some ways the reading experience it reminded me most of was The Unlikely Pilgrimage of Harold Fry, another book that many people liked much more than I did - in both cases I felt that the plot strayed too far from plausibility for the sake of humour, without sufficient rewards. Maybe I'm just regressing into being a grumpy old man, but I do read as many female writers as male ones these days and I don't normally feel this way.

There are about 15 photos in the U.S. version.

I just posted a bunch of interview links in the general (no spoiler) thread. They seem to add more to my understanding/appreciation of the book than any of the actual reviews did.

The most interesting one is a radio interview with KCRW (they do a show called Bookworm that is wonderful). Definitely worth checking out.

Some take-aways from the KCRW interview:
- The main characters attempting to manufacture happiness (Paul & Veblen having an inability to fell it, yet they experience an obligation to do so--one that seems very much a reflection of today's American society... You're not happy? What's wrong with you?!!)

- Squirrels as a kind of modern connection to the "lost natural world" (they live among us in cities, suburbs, etc.; humorously, a squirrel leads the way in Fitzgerald's story "A Diamond as Big as the Ritz"--something McKenzie discovered after she wrote this book)

- Veblen is reading Marriage: Dead or Alive, a very real book about how you have to face your inner demons before getting married--that there is no way to escape them once you are married; kind of stark, unromantic take on marriage; the "happy ending" sort of subverts what you would expect from all the negative things Paul and Veblen learn about one another--McKenzie did not start out with the intention of a happy ending

- The characters' attempt to keep a kind of magical realism alive despite reality's attempt to strip it away (a sort of "Will to Believe")

- Paul's device relieves pressure thereby preventing potential death or coma; kind of a metaphor for coping--seeking that instantaneous pressure-relief when in "battle"; procedure of relieving pressure by drilling holes in the skull has been used as far back as the neanderthals

- The book attempts to recall the values of the '60s, to almost re-install them (a good marriage, a decent home, etc.)

- Thorstein Veblen as a kind of prophet whose advice could have helped us avoid our current loss of community and the striving to all become the "1%"

- McKenzie borrowing a kind of '20s/'30s screwball comedy film aesthetic and wedding it with philosophy

Just finished this book and quite enjoyed it. As usual, the discussion has already covered a lot of the things I was thinking, and provided some insight into others. I’ll try to restrict myself to just a couple “me toos”.

The “butt dialing” / overheard squirrel conversation scene was hands-down my least favorite part of the book. Like Caroline, it reminded me of endless sitcoms relying on ridiculously set-up “misunderstood conversations” for their plots.

Like Viv, I also don’t think that Cloris actually turned nice. She was obviously brain damaged and unable to follow a simple conversation. I interpret it as her family getting her a sinecure position where she can’t do much harm, and which is also intended to help with their damaged reputation.

I think the title refers to the character of Veblen as well as the philosophy of the original Veblen. The “portable” may refer to people’s ability to adapt to different situations, as well as being able to maintain their ideals while still adjusting to and accepting differences in other people.

Marc’s quote from the interview with McKenzie about the couple’s attempt to keep magical realism alive makes me think that the question of whether or not the squirrels’ behavior was fantasy or reality are beside the point. Veblen and Paul have chosen a world where squirrels talk and plan and join rebellions named after Potter characters; just as the screaming snails were real to Paul, even if they weren’t a verifiable truth.