The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

Publication Date: February 23, 2017


US Edition
Publication Date: January 3, 2017

Keen to see the reaction to this on here. I didn't like it all and was staggered when I saw it longlisted. I hope you can all persuade me that I missed something.

I just finished this and haven't even rated it yet. It would be a 3.5 for me and I'm undecided on whether to round that number up or down. (I thinking if I simply jot down some quick thoughts that might sway me.)

I had relatively low expectations for this one and was surprised when I found it to be much better than I had anticipated. The story of the poor, alienated, lonely teenager certainly didn't feel very 'new'. A familiar narrative voice. However, I thought the writing was very good and that the author did an excellent job at creating a sense of place (that may be the novel's greatest strength.) The book does meander a bit through time and not always with a transitional ease. There are two stories that don't seem to completely connect, unless you contemplate the title. This is not the history of wolves of the four-legged variety (there is only a stuffed one), but of the two-legged variety (and, no, not werewolves.) That may be a bit cliched (like the woods and what is lurking there) or a very obvious and oversimplified analysis on my part in an attempt to impart some meaning to the novel. There are definitely depictions of 'human packs' and the alpha male - maybe even that struggle to go from subordinate or prey to predator. Oh, I'm really writing off the cuff at the moment with broad, simple thoughts. I might have something more substantial and meaningful to say as I read others' comments and the novel settles in with me more. Anyway, in the end I found it an enjoyable read, I wasn't bored, and for me that was just fine despite the fact that I think there were other novels more deserving of being longlisted.

For those who have read the book, this interview gives some useful insight into the writing

http://www.powells.com/post/interview...

If I had picked this book up from say a book chains (WH Smith,Waterstones) recommended book of the month I would have found it an enjoyable holiday read. As a long listed book in an award designed to recognise the best non-translated books published in the U.K. I find it's inclusion slightly baffling.

I feel this book then gets to the heart of the debate about the choice of long list this year and the preference for "safe choices" (already prize winning or widely reviewed authors and novels) over lesser known or unexpected works.

The problem with the latter approach is that the Booker jury is a small group of individuals each with their own biases and quirks and any selection of lesser known works is always likely to be a little quirky and patchy.

I just finished this one, and I thought the writing itself was spectacular. The author is tremendous at using the "telling detail" effectively and efficiently to help the reader really see, hear, and feel what is going on.

Unfortunately, I don't think the plot holds up well by comparison. Two divergent storylines - with the theme of one informing the results of the other - just doesn't completely work. And I think the end is going to mystify lots of readers (not 100% sure I'm interpreting it as it was meant to be interpreted). The author is relying on the reader to do a lot of inferring - - which I like, but I also want enough clues to make sure I'm inferring correctly.

Anita, I believe it's an established convention of this forum that the individual book discussion threads are not spoiler free.

So I would be very interested to hear more of your thoughts on the ending, as currently this book just didn't quite work for me.

Gumble's Yard wrote: "Anita, I believe it's an established convention of this forum that the individual book discussion threads are not spoiler free.

So I would be very interested to hear more of your thoughts on the ..."

Oh . . .I am brand new, so glad you are letting me know. It's getting late here, but promise to stop by with my specific thoughts on the ending tomorrow.

Gumble's Yard wrote: "Anita, I believe it's an established convention of this forum that the individual book discussion threads are not spoiler free.

So I would be very interested to hear more of your thoughts on the ..."

I would have to agree with you that the plot didn't quite hang together in this book. My feeling is that the ending should have felt a lot more explosive and earth shattering (as opposed to puzzling) than it does. My interpretation of the ending is basically that Linda feels a tremendous kinship with Mr. Grierson. Lily, knowing his pedophiliac tendencies, essentially exploits him to get away from her small town life, her alcoholic father, and to avoid marrying the boy who has impregnated her. Linda sees herself as Grierson in the dynamic that exists between her and Patra. She states: "What's the difference between what you think and what you end up doing?" Grierson wanted to have sexual encounters with Lily (what he thought), but did not do so (what he ended up doing). He ends up feeling tremendously guilty regardless. Linda thought Paul was ill (what she thought), but she did nothing (what she did), and she also feels tremendous guilt.

So, if you agree with that premise, after Paul dies, but more importantly after Patra impunes Linda in the parking lot by basically blaming Paul's death on Linda, I believe Linda is incredibly angry. This anger is transferred to Lily. Linda says of Lily, "Now, one way or another, she would see this was not playing, what she'd said, that you couldn't just do whatever you wanted to someone and get away with it." I think Lily then becomes the object of Linda's fantasy of revenge.

Up until this point, I think it kinda works, but then the author introduces the idea of the fake letter from Grierson, and that's where it falls apart for me. I am unclear on how this letter actually will achieve Linda's objectives. But Linda's fantasy of taking Lily out on the canoe, removing her defenses (the paddle) and kissing her . . .I feel that's all because she relates so strongly to Mr. Grierson and how he was treated. It's basically a revenge fantasy where she ultimately does the act that Lily accused Grierson of committing. But then, in the very final paragraph, the final part of the fantasy - - Linda becomes Lily, and I think that on some level, Linda realizes that at least someone wanted Lily. No one wanted Linda . . .ever . . .ultimately the whole novel is really about Linda's loneliness and her vulnerability as a result.

Unfortunately, the reader is left to puzzle out a LOT on their own. I used X-Ray on my Kindle to re-read nearly every part about Lily and every part about Mr. Grierson, to see if my thoughts about the ending were actually plausible and consistent with the narrative. Still not sure my interpretation is the one intended.

I am also still confused about why exactly Linda brings the boots to Lily's house . . .to me, there seems to be sexual undertones throughout the novel between Linda and Lily, Linda and Patra, and who exactly is this Ann that she lives with? But, it's never quite explicit enough for me to grasp. Is she also somewhat infatuated with Lily, and how does that play into her deep empathy with Mr. Grierson?

Bottom line, I would give this book 5 stars for the use of language, but the plot is just not made explicit enough for my taste . . .as a reader, I actually like doing some work to figure things out, but this book required too much without the satisfaction of really knowing whether or not my interpretation of the events was correct. I'd love to hear what others thought!

Thanks for that, Anita. FYI, you don't even need to use spoiler tags here. In fact, we prefer people do not use them because some people are reading on their phones and the spoiler tags don't work well that way (or some reason, if I've got that wrong).

Could you point me to which chapter "Patra impunes Linda in the parking lot by basically blaming Paul's death on Linda". I have been trying to make sense of the two story lines and your explanation is, I think, excellent, and I would like to re-read that section.

I think I enjoyed this more than others so far. It's not going to be my favourite, but I wouldn't be disappointed to see it on the shortlist.

Anita I agree completely with your interpretation, it was how I saw the book as well.

Ang, the scene you want is towards the end of chapter 18, parts says "How could he get better with you thinking like that ... How could he? I've thought about this. I've gone over it and over it. Leo told me, control your thoughts, but it was your mind ..... Your mind. that was too small. To see beyond itself ... Yours. You saw him as sick".

In the light of Paul's death which flies in the faith of Leo's Christian Science faith (see the Mary Baker Eddy quote in the epigraph), Linda assumes that Patra has seen through Leo and is blaming him for letting her deceive herself. Instead the opposite occurs, she keeps Leo's worldview and draws the conclusion, that Linda's lack of faith caused Paul's death. As Anita surmises this causes Linda to feel strong rejection, she first exercises revenge by refusing to support Patra on the stand and then moves on to trasnsfer her revenge Lily.

Anita Ann is simply Linda's roommate when she lives in Minnesota years later, first discussed in Chapter 8 but only named later. In chapter 8 we are told they simply met through an advert Linda placed in Starbucks for a roommate.

As for the boots, Linda herself says that's eh meant them as "some kind of token of secret understanding or agreement". We read elsewhere that she had always felt vaguely protective of Lily (as one of the other outcasts in the class) but also vaguely resentful of the way she is loved. When Lily is shunned by everyone after the Grierson incident, Linda sees her chance to be her ally, but it quickly becomes clear that Lily does not need an ally and is completely in control of her destiny, she does not reply to Linda's handwritten note in class and Linda is shocked when she realises as you say how Lily has managed to manipulate the situation to her own ends. Again I think it's all about Linda's desperate need to belong.

Gumble's Yard wrote: ".Ann is simply Linda's roommate when she lives in Minnesota years later, first discussed in Chapter 8 but only named later. In chapter 8 we are told they simply met through an advert Linda placed in Starbucks for a roommate. ."

Ahhh! Thank you so much for pointing that out - - I obviously missed (or forgot) that detail entirely.

Gumble's Yard wrote: "As for the boots, Linda herself says that's eh meant them as "some kind of token of secret understanding or agreement". We read elsewhere that she had always felt vaguely protective of Lily (as one..."

Thank you very much; this explanation makes complete sense to me. Especially where you say "it's all about Linda's desperate need to belong". The more we analyze this story, the darker and sadder it becomes.

Ang wrote: "Thanks for that, Anita. FYI, you don't even need to use spoiler tags here. In fact, we prefer people do not use them because some people are reading on their phones and the spoiler tags don't work ..."

Thanks, Ang. It just seemed like such a huge spoiler to post . . .I think on the phone, it basically removes the spoiler altogether and there's no way to see it . . .so a person would have to come here to read it. So, do you think I should remove the tags . . .I just would hate to ruin the book for someone.

I think Gumble's Yard pointed you to the right place in the book where Patra rejects Linda in the parking lot. That scene was one of the highlights for me in terms of depth of emotion, so definitely a good one to revisit. I felt it was completely crushing for Linda. And a little unexpected for the reader to say the least.

Like you, I enjoyed reading the book and wouldn't mind seeing it on the shortlist at all. But I think it is too flawed to win . . .so far, I've only read four of the books on the longlist and am in the midst of the oh so long 4 3 2 1. That's going to take me a while. I found this one to be very engaging despite the flaws.

Lol, I see, Ang, that you are one of the administrators. I will remove the spoiler tag. Sorry - - I'm just so nervous about that for some reason, but I know different groups have different rules.

No worries. I don't use goodreads very much outside of this group, but I understand that it's generally considered bad form to write spoilers without tags. Here, we want to maximise discussion. I suppose that means that I do not read threads where I haven't yet read the book, so not a true moderator. Hopefully, between us, we cover all threads.

The conversation between Patra and Linda in the parking lot is indeed pivotal, now that I revisit it. The book is told in such a "matter of fact" way that it's important to think beyond it the page, which is a compliment to her writing.

Linda seems emotionless most of the time, but that is a coping mechanism and possibly a natural reaction to living with parents who are still trying to live like a commune by themselves. Her lack of emotion makes her revenge plans more chilling. I found it all quite realistic.

Ang to follow up on that, another crucial chapter is Chapter 12. This chapter opens up the second half of the book "Health" which is much more retrospective in nature with the adult Linda analysing what happened. In this chapter you see the difficulties of her father and mother in relating to her.

Even at age 6 her father struggles to respond to her need for close contact "he shifted, as if trying to avoid out from under me. He was tired I know that now. He was tired in a way that made him seem absent, slow, hauling up some vicious thought he couldn't quite identify without putting everything else in gold for the moment". Later "he was kind to objects. With people he was a little afraid."

Her mother calls her " the CEO", cannot "bear to have me around when she washed clothes or cooked dinner. She said I was too slow, too judgmental". She is frustrated that Linda does not seem to be thriving in the freedom she has, from what she sees as the corrupring and christening influence of private school and television in her own childhood. She is also racked by guilt that the commune experiment has affected Linda and "wanted very badly for me to cavort and [play] pretend [games] to prove I was unharmed, happy".

This early isolation drives her desperate need to belong later on.

I really didn't get on with this one:

History of Wolves tries so hard to be a work of literary genius - I mean, it really, really tries. We have non-linear timelines blending more than one story; we have ambiguous words and gestures; we have teen angst blended with mature reflection; there's prolepsis aplenty. And there are woods and dogs. And dogs and woods. And a stuffed wolf.

For the first wee while, it is actually pretty readable. Madeline (Linda) is a rather awkward student at a Minnesota high school, taking some delight in irritating her fellow students and teachers. She appears to have a love-hate relationship with Lily, whose family seem to live in even greater poverty and weirdness than Linda's own family, and her delight when Lily's clandestine relationship with Mr Grierson, one of the teachers, is exposed. Meanwhile, Linda pre-occupies herself with worming her way into the lives of Patra and Paul, her four year old son, when they come to live in the house across the lake. The story mentions a trial to come, and it is all jolly intriguing.

But by half way, when a dramatic incident throws things into turmoil, the book unravels. The present day story, which is substantially less interesting and had previously just been an occasional reference in the background, starts to become more prominent. The references back and forth are choppy, and once we know about the dramatic turning point, the story is more or less done. Sure, there are still occasional details to emerge, but mostly these have already been inferred by the reader. Instead, there's lots of dull Duluth and some impenetrable back and forth trying to bring the two story lines together. By the end, there is much confusion, a sense that there are big symbols if only the reader had the patience to work them out, and an eager eye on the number of pages to go until the end.

If I am looking for the positives, I would say it conveys a good sense of Minnesota and, after Fargo, it is probably the second greatest artistic work I have encountered that has been set in Minnesota.

There is one story of real wolves. I wish I had read this one on the Kindle so i could find it. It has to do with the wolves killing dogs (maybe?) and then being killed because of it, and Linda sided with the wolves.

Chapter 12 when she is asking my her boyfriend to test her on her knowledge of wolves.

Ang wrote: "There is one story of real wolves. I wish I had read this one on the Kindle so i could find it. It has to do with the wolves killing dogs (maybe?) and then being killed because of it, and Linda sid..."

Linda is conversing with her mechanic boyfriend and telling him all she knows about wolves. The anecdote you are referring to is one of the tales she relates:

"And they came at night and got someone's Lab. Just chomp. Then the next night it was a couple of huskies who never even made a sound. The final blow was someone's pretty coonhound . . .

The boyfriend says, "Who saved the rest of the dogs?"

Linda replies: "No!! Who saved the wolves? They were all shot."

Chapter 12 . . .

MisterHobgoblin wrote: "I really didn't get on with this one:

History of Wolves tries so hard to be a work of literary genius - I mean, it really, really tries. We have non-linear timelines blending more than one story; ..."

I liked this a lot more than you did, but I do agree with your observation about the present day story. It almost seemed unnecessary and pointless . . .other than revealing her lack of relationship with her mother. I think that could have been highlighted in some other way.

Gumble's Yard wrote: "Ang to follow up on that, another crucial chapter is Chapter 12. This chapter opens up the second half of the book "Health" which is much more retrospective in nature with the adult Linda analysing..."

So, did anyone else pick up on the fact that Linda's mother most likely was not actually her birth mother? Which to some degree might explain why their relationship was not great . . .I did think that one of the aspects of the book that was merely alluded to, but not adequately elaborated upon was the early years at the commune. The author really made the reader work to understand what might have happened there . . .and why it was important.

Ang wrote: "No worries. I don't use goodreads very much outside of this group, but I understand that it's generally considered bad form to write spoilers without tags. Here, we want to maximise discussion. I s..."

Lol, I run a group on here (we migrated from another book-related site, Shelfari, which was purchased by Amazon and shut down), and if I posted a spoiler like that over there, I don't think I would get away with it! However, our group is very different and not as much in depth discussions on a given book.

Anita. I had not considered Linda's true mother. What clues lead you to that?

Gumble's Yard wrote: "Anita. I had not considered Linda's true mother. What clues lead you to that?"

There were two parts that lead me to believe it, a small part at the end of chapter 16 and a larger, more relevant part toward the end of Chapter 19.

In Chapter 19, the paragraph in question begins as "The thing is I have no memory at all of my mother before the commune broke up . . . I admit I wanted to bring her into focus, see her rocking a little baby I could imagine was me. But my mom never said much about my baby self. She didn't have any pictures of course . . ."

It then goes on to describe how the commune would select names for the children who was born. The names were voted on. Madeline's mother indicated that the name Madeline was from Linda's dad. She, herself, did not suggest a name. Linda ponders this:

"I thought about those baby days . . .until it dawned on me at some point that maybe my mother wouldn't say, not because she'd wanted something else, but because she'd suggested nothing at all. And then I began to wonder, who besides my dad had wanted Madeline? Who else had voted for that? I'm not saying I ever consciously wished there'd been someone else. And I'm not saying this thinking happened all at once, because it didn't . . .I can't attach it to anything that happened, to a year in school or a particular thing my mother did or didn't do, but once the thought was there it didn't go away.


My interpretation of all this is that Linda's mother was another member of the commune. The lack of memory of her mother in the commune, the fact she didn't help name Madeline (despite needing more than one vote to confer a name - - perhaps suggesting another woman voted for it), and the whole concept of "cooking a new pot of rice from scratch" which is mentioned more than once in regard to Linda's upbringing.

Later in the chapter, Linda asks her mother if she did okay in the trial. The mother says "I'm not the judge of this one." And Linda thinks to herself:

"You only say that because I'm not your kid."

Thanks Anita. And she then closes with "its hard to know now how much of what I did and wanted in those years came from some version of that thought", implying the belief that her Mum was not her birth Mum was crucial in her need to belong and the mistakes this drove her to make.

My take would be slightly different - in the face of her mother's lack of engagement and almost hostility she chose to imagine her birth mother was someone else"

I think your interpretation could easily be the correct one; seems purposefully ambiguous. In chapter 16, the mother is elaborating on the end of the commune and says something to the effect that they didn't know what to do about the children. For some reason that did make me think that perhaps the children were not necessarily born if the existing couples. Definitely may be overinterpreting that section though. But as you point out, the more important conclusion is that Linda believes it is possible.

I think Linda simply doesn't know, and prefers for it to be ambiguous, but as you say all the signs are there for her to believe it.

My verdict: good but not great. Here's my review.

For starters, I did not dislike this book. I liked the writing style, I thought the characters were well developed. Even the plot is pretty good: A woman recounts an episode that happened during her teenage years, which changed her outlook on life and is trying to atone for, even though there were other factors in this event.

History of Wolves also tackles religion and ethics, and when the two blur. I also thought this was done well.

My problem with the book is that it felt soulless. I didn't care for the characters and at no point was I gripped by the story. I appreciated it but I continued because I like to read Booker longlisted books in a more thorough way. In a way there are elements of Ottessa Moshfegh's Eileen, elements of Emma Cline's The Girls and dollops of Lorrie Moore's A Gate Under the Stairs but I felt that History of Wolves lacks the spark which made the above books so compulsively readable. For The Booker, this one did feel a bit ordinary.

My computer died this morning, so until I return to the US in 3 weeks I'm stuck pecking out sentences on my Kindle Fire. But here goes.

I agree with others that this is well written on a paragraph level, and I enjoyed the distinctive, somewhat off kilter perceptions of our young narrator. From the Acknowledgements we learn that she has spent years working on this book, sharing it with a wide number of readers.

It simply isn't Booker longlist material. My biggest complaint is that the author drops too many hints and clues, and never satisfactorily addresses them. There is nothing inherently wrong with a novel lea ing loose ends, but in this book they didn't feel intentionally ambiguous. I felt the author was trying to make a specific point, and I simply couldn't figure out what it was. The ending is certainly an example, as was the narrator's relationship with Paul. Was he ill the entire time she knew him? When odd statements from Paul are quoted, are the reader and narrator to see this as a 4 year old with an unusual father, and thus to be ignored, or symptoms of an ill child?

Lascosas wrote: "My computer died this morning, so until I return to the US in 3 weeks I'm stuck pecking out sentences on my Kindle Fire. But here goes.

I agree with others that this is well written on a paragraph..."

I agree with you when you say "I felt the author was trying to make a specific point, and I simply couldn't figure out what it was."

With a lot of effort and re-reading, I came up with a plausible explanation for myself, but honestly, it is too much work for the reader . . .and I honestly think I'm the perfect target for this work because I love dark books, and I like books that require some work on the part of the reader. Nonetheless, I feel your criticism is on the money.

In so far as Paul, my perspective was that he definitely was ill the entire time. The author drops hints all along, but it's hard to pick up on because they are subtle. But at some point, well before the book comes out and states he is ill, I knew that he was.

Linda does drop some hints in the way Paul behaves throughout the book and even she notes it and finds it strange.

I agree, he was ill the whole time. Emphatic "He's fine" at seemingly inappropriate times.

Much excellent discussion in this folder, which I’ll try not to repeat. Overall, I found History of Wolves engaging, affecting, and interesting. I agree with Anita that Two divergent storylines - with the theme of one informing the results of the other - just doesn't completely work. And I think the end is going to mystify lots of readers. Linda’s isolation and her feeling adrift were portrayed well: adrift from her teachers, adrift from her putative parents, adrift from her classmates, and adrift from the other adult constants in her life. I appreciated that Fridlund avoided cloying descriptions of Linda’s poverty, and Fridlund’s understatement here made her portrayal of Linda’s poverty all the more effective. The sense of place was terrific. Linda’s engagement with the Gardners worked well, but the Grierson/Lily theme and Linda as an adult seemed like left-over jigsaw puzzle pieces. I’ll look forward to reading future novels by Fridlund. But given the other titles on this year’s longlist and given the excellent titles that were omitted from the longlist, I agree with Lascosas that It simply isn't Booker longlist material.

I'm at the part where they got back from Duluth and Linda and Patra are napping on the sofa. I'm getting the feel that the misguided dogmas - especially the religious ones - that the parents in this story suffer from, and that are hurting Linda and Paul, are the main theme - but I'm not getting the Lily/Grierson link ( now i read the article linked earlier in this thread - i get the authors idea that there can be several not-connected plotlines in our lives that influence each other's impact on us, but that could have been worked into the novel in a more coherent way perhaps?)

Louise - I was about to point you at our discussion above, but looks like you read it already.

In some ways I liked the way that things like the links were not made so explicit and that the reader needs to work a little to understand them (plus maybe discuss with some other readers). I still don't think this book should have been longlisted but at least points like this give it some interest/depth.

Gumble's Yard wrote: "Louise - I was about to point you at our discussion above, but looks like you read it already.

In some ways I liked the way that things like the links were not made so explicit and that the reade..."

Me too! I actually really liked the book (and in part because of the work and the suspense inherent in that effort). But I don't think it is longlist worthy because it feels unpolished in regard to the plot. But her writing itself (on a sentence by sentence basis) - - I thought it was incredible . . .I will absolutely read another book from this author.

The discussion here has been greatly stimulating, and the insight provided in the Anita/ Gumbles Yard interaction is excellent and helpful. It's all the more surprising, then, that History of Wolves languishes at the bottom of the Mookse rankings?
Despite the advocacy put forward in the Anita/GY debate I don't buy it at all.
In my opinion the book structure is convoluted and the messages muddled and (not deliberately) vague.

I don't think it deserves to make the Minnesota writers guild best of 2017, let alone a Booker longlist.

I read and re read the powellsblog.org review hyperlinked by GY on this thread.
I thought it important to hear from the author what she thought the books meaning(s) might be.
The interview explains a lot. While a couple of the points elaborated on by Anita/GY are confirmed, for the most part Fridland seems to be hoping the interviewer will throw out some insight that she can align with. The interview is as muddled as the book itself.

My review:
I struggled through History of Wolves and didn't enjoy the experience.
The meshing together of two separate stories ("babysitter" and teacher/ pupil dynamic Lily Holburn) seemed to me to be horribly contrived. The reader it seems is responsible for identifying some plausible connections in the themes thrown in by Emily Fridlund.
Itemising some of the themes makes the book sound more intriguing than it was. It's an Ok start to introduce potentially interesting subject matter, but surely it then has to be explored in a meaningful way (at least to achieve the accolade of a Booker Prize longlisting).
History of Wolves has hippie fanaticism; Christian Science; remote cottages; awkward teenagers, paedophilia and family dysfunction.

Linda is the central character, the constant who appears in the two stories. She is child minder, she is confused teenager.
As for deeper meanings let the reader decide. Fridland herself, in her January 2017 interview with Powellblog.com, says:
I think one of the difficulties of the book is the way that I put these two different plot lines together, with Mr. Grierson and Lily, and then the Gardner family. It was one of the things I wanted to think about as a writer, the way that two things that happen to us at the same time- two separate parts of our lives- can influence each other, even if they're not causally related, even if the characters from one plot line don't jump over into the other.
What a cop out.
Better to write two separate books?
But then the marketability of a book concentrating on paedophilia and child pornography is not going to be an obvious best seller is it?
Anakana Schofield wrote a brave book Martin John on similarly difficult subject matter, so it can be done.

The consensus here is such that unless this book makes the shortlist I probably won't read it, but I may change my mind when the paperback is available...

Jonathan wrote: "The discussion here has been greatly stimulating, and the insight provided in the Anita/ Gumbles Yard interaction is excellent and helpful. It's all the more surprising, then, that History of Wolve..."

I am not sure I would use the word "advocacy" at least for my part of the debate with Anita.

I have said all along that there is no way this book should have been longlisted for the Booker - but that "I could have enjoyed it as a book group choice, and there a number of plot ambiguities and character subtleties which are interesting to discuss with other readers"

And I think the debate with Anita illustrates that.

So playing Devil's advocate instead - I don't think you are fair with all your comments on the interview

I do agree on the "sycophancy" you use as a description of it elsewhere, although that's not unique - the Booker reading interviews for example most years are nothing but questions which effectively translate as "can you explain why your novel is quite so brilliant" (and I have asked some myself if I am being honest)

However I think the idea of mixing up two different story lines and seeing how what affects a character in one part of their life spills over into the other is a valid one. There is even a third aspect - as I think Anita has bought out, most of Madeline's behaviour in both storylines is largely driven by her upbringing and her dysfunctional relationship with (the person who may or may not be) her mother.

You could equally criticise Ali Smith for writing what is in effect 1 novel about Pauline Boty and another about Brexit ........... although reading your review of that I guess you did to be fair!!

But anyway I don't think this should have been any where near the longlist for the Booker - but it would have been perfect for a Book club.

Gumble

Maybe its a strength of the book that you can spin the story meaning any way you wish. Fridlund throws out multiple 'clues' throughout the book but the ultimate conclusions to both stories don't connect.

Anita's focus on the mother/daughter relationship and its significant may well be accurate and key.

By the same token maybe the relationship between Linda and Patra is the key relationship? Its interesting that you refer to Madeline (the correct birth name), rather than Linda. The significance of name change has barely been noted. Madeline's school name Linda could be construed as more dismissive, more anonymous than "commie" or "freak" , her other nicknames.
So, how significant is it when Linda/Madeleine says to Patra "is Patra your real name? I felt like accusing her of something".(81) Do they share false name duplicity? They both suffer from being in thrall to dubious beliefs of others (hippie communality and Christian science respectively). They have the same boyish physiques. Linda/Madeleine envisages her sexual fantasy with Mr. Grierson based around what she saw when she spied on Patra and Leo.
A number of potentially interesting strands, but all jumbled up and thrown together randomly

Very interesting Jonathan and when I was typing my comment and writing my review i actually hesitated over which make to use as I agree there is a whole other angle about name choice.

Yes it's a bit of a Northport of themes but that makes for great Book Group debates, just not ones we should be having on a Booker site.

Gumble's Yard wrote: "Yes it's a bit of a Northport of themes but that makes for great Book Group debates, just not ones we should be having on a Booker site. ."

Northport? Hotpotch?

Does feel that this simply doesn't belong and one of two (4321 obviously the other) that I have no plans to read.

Oooh, this conversation is so interesting. I want to chime in more than I have time to do now, but I will say thank you to Jonathan for your kind words about our discussion to date. I am not sure I've ever had this interesting a conversation on Goodreads -- perhaps a tribute to this group!

I will point out that I think the concept of plot is really one of the least important criteria for Man Booker, so I think History of Wolves is being a bit underestimated. I haven't read all the other books (sadly I'm a slow reader), but just looking at prior winners that I have read . . .The Narrow Road to the Deep North. LOVED this book . . .I really did, but the plot . . .um, the ending was really not great. I still gave it five stars though because the use of imagery and graphic description was head and shoulders above most. The White Tiger - - another book I think was excellent, but also fairly weak plotting, but character development was superlative. I could go on and on - - Life of Pi, deeply original yes, good plotting, questionable. The God of Small Things - - prose to seduce even the most recalcitrant reader, plot is just okay.

My overly belabored point here is that I think the fact that this book didn't do a great job of tying up the story lines is not what will stop it from winning the Man Booker. The prose is really, really good as is the character development of the protagonist. I honestly think that the subject matter will knock it out of contention perhaps because it is "small picture" as opposed to the topical, social issues that other books address and also because, as Jonathan points out, it piles on a bit with addressing so many tough personal subjects at once. It is over the top in that regard.

I agree this book would be an outstanding book club read, and the fact that people's opinions of it are so divergent is only to the benefit for a book club. But I disagree it isn't worthy of the longlist. The prose stood out to me immediately as being somewhere in the rarefied air of a Donna Tartt.

I've just finished the book. I think Fridlund does the description and thoughts of Madeline/Linda well - and I like the writing. I was caught up in the reading experience - which places this book higher on my list than Railroad and Exit West. It's going 7th though, as I agree it isn't short list material.

It's a point for contemplation that Grierson gets 7 years for possession of pictures and confessing to impure thoughts (but not hurting Lily), and the Gardners get off for basically murdering their son - (does religious exemption like that really exist? if so that's scary!).
Fridlund doesn't touch on this in the interview - (although at least twice in the book she writes, "it's not what you think but what you do that matters") - but that was one of the things in the book that had quite an impact on me (and could have been interesting to elaborate further): What does a society accept/condone - when it comes to the way parents/teachers/caretakers treat children? What on the other hand, is termed neglect, abuse or a punishable offence?