Forgotten Classics and Other Lesser Known Books (or No One Has Read this but Me!) discussion

This is our thread for discussing The Shooting Party, our April selection. I’m on the road this week with my daughter and her friends, but will plan to post background information on both the novel and its author later this week. I apologize for letting April sneak up on me and not planning ahead well.

If anyone has begun reading, please kick of our discuss with your initial thoughts and impressions at any time!

carissa wrote: "A copy is in-transit to me, so won't begin reading until next week."

Okay. That’s excellent. My relationship with time is clearly challenged recently, so you’re doing me a huge favor, or at least that’s my story. :)

I will be reading this but my copy is on reserve at library - I seem to be 2nd in the queue. I was sure that I had reserved it ages ago, but apparently not. Silly me.

Cordelia wrote: "I will be reading this but my copy is on reserve at library - I seem to be 2nd in the queue. I was sure that I had reserved it ages ago, but apparently not. Silly me."

Let us know the name of the person who is first in the queue and we can test the power of voodoo.

Otherwise, fingers crossed for a swift return.

My copy is only 195 pages; however, I read 3-4 pages to get a sense of her style and her writing is quite dense —in a good way, but it doesn’t lend itself to skimming or fast reading. It’s lovely, actually.

I'm on page 54 and recommend that any reader starting this book start it when he/she has the time to read at least 20 pages in the initial sitting. I read 8 pages last week and when I returned to it, I had to turn back to the beginning and do a fairly meaty scan because of the quantity of characters.

The best way to describe the setting is lots and lots of characters at an English manor house on october 31 give or take, 1913. Maybe 20+ or so. I decided early on not to sweat who was married to whom, father or mother of whom, etc. because to stop reading and whiteboard it would make the reading experience drag. But be forewarned if you're a reading perfectionist, you'll spend some time list-making.

I loved this 2008 column by Jonathan Yardley on Shooting Party. I don't believe there are any spoilers, since the quote he identifies that indicates somebody (or his duck) will die comes quite early. Plus, you know by the setting and timing that there's a tragedy in the offing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

Its initial 2 paragraphs are:

In the two decades between 1912 and 1933, six Englishwomen were born who went on to become exceptionally gifted and accomplished writers of sophisticated, surpassingly civilized novels. Many of their books have been published in this country, but only Penelope Fitzgerald, Anita Brookner and Penelope Lively are reasonably well known here, and the others -- Elizabeth Taylor, Elizabeth Jane Howard and Isabel Colegate -- never found more than modest American readerships.

The loss is ours, for their novels -- short stories, too -- are distinguished in virtually every regard. Though their styles and subjects vary widely, they have in common keen intelligence and wit, a deep interest in domestic life and matters of social class, an agreeably old-fashioned commitment to the art of storytelling and a preference for the miniature over the grandiose. Though women's lives, opportunities, difficulties and rights are important to all of them, none is reflexively ideological or feminist. They speak their minds, but they decline in all instances to hector the reader, which cannot be said for the most famous British woman writer of their generation, Doris Lessing, who is of course (the world being such as it is), the one to whom a Nobel Prize in Literature was awarded.

Of the 7 authors mentioned above, I've read only Lessing (not a fan) and Fitzgerald, and had never heard of Elizabeth Taylor before Hugh nominated a book of hers either here or in another group. The challenge to experience all of them is on. I am delighted to be reading Colegate's most important novel with this group.

For Downton fans, I thought this was an interest article from The Guardian, circa 2013, too. It's written after Mathew dies but between seasons 4 and 5, so bear that in mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/boo...

This was the primary content I found intriguing:

When The Shooting Party was published in 1980, the popular representation of the aristocracy was as a bunch of bungling toffs: weak chins and weak morals abounded, while servitude was either mocked or ignored. Colegate, however, chose to dispense with these tropes and present everyone as humans instead of saints or villains. The book, written at the height of Thatcherism, is a precursor to Fellowes's forelock-tugging that shows both poor and rich characters in a sympathetic light.

So not to overwhelm you with posts, one of my initial reactions was, what made Colgate write a story set in 2013 in the last days of the British aristocracy and country life, with all of its servants, to be published in 1980? Or to say it better, understanding that Shooting Party is Colgate's 9th novel, what made her publisher believe in this book and that there was a market for it in 1980?

Fortunately, the Guardian relieved me of my lack of memory. In 1979, the Shah fell. Thatcher's regime exacerbated class warfare. There's a lot more here in terms of British literary giants and the intersection of culture and the works being published at or around the same time as The Shooting Party.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/200...

One quote: To many novelists, Britain seemed undeniably in decay, ageing and falling apart.

Last one for now, Wiki offers a character list!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sho...

carissa wrote: "haHA Carol...I began and felt the Downton vibe, for sure.
I have jotted down the wiki character list with actors (being a more visual person) slotted in. I have today off, so will dedicate all my r..."

Yay! I couldn't see James Mason as Sir Randolph, but -- if I could get past that one character -- your approach would work for me, too, lol. It sure beats spending time flipping back to earlier pages to determine who is married to whom but considering dallying with which other character.

I look forward to seeing your comments.

So. What do you think of Cornelius Cardew?

I am a tad puzzled that Colgate wrote him to be an over-the-top buffoon, when every other character she created is complex and has depth. Was it necessary to give voice to socialists and animal rights activists to fully tell the story of pre-war politics in England? Was he intended as comic relief?

I am on page 149 and the tension of worrying about Osbert, Ellen AND the duck is intense.

I finished and am looking forward to being able to discuss spoilers freely. I was surprised, and it didn't end as I'd anticipated either. Lots of great topics for commentary.

carissa wrote: "Carol wrote: "So. What do you think of Cornelius Cardew? "

Horrid trope. As a nearly lifelong vegetarian, it was disappointing.

So far, it's feels so darn fluffy. Well-written fluff, but meh. I ..."

no! no! Defend yourself from shiny objects for 24 more hours, lol. I'm headed there, too. Just to drop off, I say. Ha!

carissa wrote: "Carol wrote: "So. What do you think of Cornelius Cardew? "

Horrid trope. As a nearly lifelong vegetarian, it was disappointing.

So far, it's feels so darn fluffy. Well-written fluff, but meh. I ..."

When Lionel and Olivia have a revealing conversation - around 145, I think - I felt a shift to everything being important. Every footfall. Every breeze. You know that when the ducks are shot at the end of the day, something bad will occur, so the tension builds inexorably toward that moment.

Sandy (Cdn) wrote: "carissa wrote: "So far, it's feels so darn fluffy. Well-written fluff, but meh. I am not engaged with any of the characters."

Hi folks. Sorry to be so late chiming in. I did try to read this but I..."

Sure thing. I took Yardley's recommendation to heart in that it's not about suspense as much as a pre-Great War view of a society on the edge of change. Other than Cardew, who irritated the heck out of me, Colgate's style of implying rather than beating me over the head with her points, appealed. Sometimes a book just hits at the right time. This one makes up for Mothering Sunday which I largely found to be pointless and repetitive, and all my friends thought it was deep and meaningful, lol.

My copy has just turned up at the library. Shall start reading this weekend.

Cordelia wrote: "My copy has just turned up at the library. Shall start reading this weekend."

That’s excellent, Cordelia. We’ll hold off on spoilers until you’re ready to discuss.

Thanks girls

SPOILER ALERT

Before I forget them, here are a couple of questions I've had:

1. Dan was the stop. There had been only one stop, and his dad had designated Dan as the stop. But according to Dan (page 171), Tom Harker said "one wasn't enough". Tom observed that the competition between Hartlip and Stephens had escalated to a point where their judgment and, hence, the safety of the village men supporting the hunt might be at risk. Tom volunteers to be a second stop in order to protect/reduce the risk to Dan Glass. Tom is at peace that he's lived a full life and if it's his time, it is his time. All would agree it's not Dan's time. He is special. A keeper's kid who could go far, even if his dad doesn't want him to leave the village. (his dad concludes that "God had spoken" by substituting Tom for Dan, on page 189. Echoes of Abraham and Isaac in Genesis, and God providing a lamb in substitute for Isaac.....) Agree? Disagree?

2. I expected Colgate to end the novel before the war starts. But she doesn't. She wants the reader to know how it played out for everyone. Aline. Olivia. Louis. Cicely. Osbert. As a result, while my curiosity is fully satisfied, the ending loses a certain amount of momentum and energy. Would it have been a stronger novel if she had ended it ten pages earlier? Or does the ending she wrote take the story up a level and make it clear that her point is about a generation and not a single village or landowner?

carissa wrote: "Carol wrote: "SPOILER ALERT"

Well Carol, these are both instances where I felt the author was lazy and predictable.

As for your question about Tom..I don't know if he feels that his life is well..."
Well, alrighty then, lol!

I have finished. Gave it 3 stars for the lovely writing. But found that it dragged a bit in places and I kept wanting to hurry up and finish it.

I quite liked the wrap-up. It satisfies my sense of closure to know what happens to everyone.

Cornelius, I felt did not really fit in the story. He didn't really have a role in the plot. But I think that maybe he is being used to point out the general movement towards socialism at that time. Reminds me of the quote by George Orwell in "The Road to wigan Pier":

"One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandel-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, 'nature cure' quack, pacifist and feminist in England".

Favourite characters: Osbert and his duck.

Cordelia wrote: "I have finished. Gave it 3 stars for the lovely writing. But found that it dragged a bit in places and I kept wanting to hurry up and finish it.

I quite liked the wrap-up. It satisfies my sense of..."

Totally loved Osbert and his duck, the female maid who assisted him, and I was also a fan of Olivia.

It's odd about Cornelius. I agree that she used him for that purpose, but he was such an odd, pointless character and the book would have been improved without him. I am reading a mystery written/published in 1946 that takes place in Devonshire. A London jerk is trying to buy up all the country property, saying that the market for animals and agriculture, generally, is going to drop through the floor in the next year or so, so the farmers should take his offer and sell out now. The local pub owner agrees that the market will drop, but counters that all land sales will be liited/prohibited by the communists/socialists in the next 24 months. This perhaps was a common theme for a couple of decades in England? I wonder when or if they stopped contemplating the ruin the communists and socialists would bring.