Chicks On Lit discussion

Setting up this thread for Irene, for our September read and discussion of The Enchanted by Rene Denfeld. Irene will be posting a reading and discussion schedule for us.

Who will be joining us on this one?

Ladies, This book is only 230 pages. So, I am suggesting a 2 week schedule. If this does not look good, let me know.

Sept. 1-7 read through page 130
Sept 7 begin discussion of first half of book.
Sept 7-14 read from page 130 to end
Sept. 14 open discussion to entire book.

Works for me.

Okee dokee

Did anyone begin this one? It is engaging. I don't want to spoil anything so I am not giving out any details. The story is really interesting. I'm on chapter 2.

I'm going to start it tonight.

I am afraid to start too early because I think I will have trouble stopping and holding off for the next reading period. When I read ahead, I forget what details or plot points belong to what sections and risk spoilers.

I like the writer's style. The story line is at a good pace. The events that occur keeps me interested in the plotline and wondering how's it what is going to happen next.

I read this in two sittings and gave it five stars.

Barbara wrote: "I read this in two sittings and gave it five stars."

LOL

It is a very "enchanting" book. I love the author's use of words and the story building and weaving. Curious as to where this will go.

Just started this one. For some reason I thought the narrator was a woman at first. So far I'm liking the writing.

OK, Tomorrow our discussion of the first half of the book begins. But, my life is getting a bit CRAZY!!!! I do not know when I will get on here tomorrow, or even if I will get on here at all. So, I am going to post some questions now.

Did you have any expectations going into this book? Are they being met so far?

What are your impressions of the book?

The narrator begins by stating that it is an enchanting place. Do you find this book enchanting? Why or why not? Were you surprised to have a death row cell block described as enchanting?

What are your impressions of the characters? Can you relate to any?

Even when the narrator is not present, events are described in his voice. Does this work for you?

Jennifer mentioned in a post above that she thought the narrator was female. Is our author able to create a credible male voice?

I read that the narator has a job similar to that of "the Lady". Does this book feel as if it has an agenda regarding the morality of death row inmates? Does her experience give authenticity to the story?

I'm up to chapter 3. I think "the lady" adds realness to the story for me. I don't think the narrator is a reliable reporter.

Not reliable about his own experiences or not reliable about what is happening outside of his view such as when the Lady visits York's family? Do you think we are suppose to question his reporting or are you just having a difficult time believing him?

I think he's unreliable about his own experience and what he's seeing and experiencing in jail.

Though as I read about the Lady visiting York's aunt, I started to questioning her reliability, too.

They both have pasts that they're not proud of, but it has made them who they are. But do I trust either of them in the reporting of it? Not really. That's not a bad thing, it just means I'm skeptically reading their stories and trying to read behind the lines.

This narrator sure has an interesting voice. He doesn't speak in real life, apparently, but he is telling us this story. He hears little people in the walls. He thinks the prison is enchanted. Is he crazy?

Like Jennifer, I think there is something hidden, something "behind the lines" in both the stories of our narrator and of the lady.

I love how this book is written though. Easily readable and engrossing!

Yes, I think he has a psychiatric diagnosis. He was in an adolescent psych hospital for most of his teen years. He apparently leaves with no support services and immediately commits a violent crime to get him readmitted to an institution, this time a prison. I was VERY surprised to have the sections about the Lady's visits to investigate York's past and her interactions with the priest narrated in the same simplistic voice of the primary narrator. How could he know what she is doing outside of his view? Why use that voice to tell the entire story?

He's definitely been diagnosed and medicated with Thorazine and Haldol which are pretty intense drugs, especially for a young guy. They both are used to treat psychosis, delusions and hallucinations. The Lady has some mental health issues, too.

Maybe she's not real, but in his head? Or maybe he's not real and in hers?

Why is she so determined to save York?

It seems like she feels sorry for York, because he had a bad childhood, and apparently she had a bad childhood as well?

Sheila wrote: "It seems like she feels sorry for York, because he had a bad childhood, and apparently she had a bad childhood as well?"
I think she feels like she is wasting her time. I think she has a deep anger inside because the choices he has made. Whereas, she has been in the same situation yet she made different choices.
She is taking her time getting the information she needs for court. In her thoughts she says she is doing this because he wants to die. Her tone is agitated. I think she rather help someone who has been wrongly accused.

I had no idea what the book was about. I assumed it was about magic and witches. I like that genre. As I started reading it, I realize that I was wrong, but it is very interesting and I love the way the author keeps me questioning and interested.

I don't find any part of it enchanting. Maybe because I am on the outside of that wall. Maybe that is where they have to be in their minds to survive.
The character that has hallucinations thinks it's enchanted.

What do you think of death row?

I'm starting thsi book today so I'm a bit behind :)

I did not pick up on the Lady's anger toward York. It felt more like frustration and maybe some powerlessness. I felt some internal conflict. She is hired to assist in the defense of criminals preparing to be exicuted. This is her job. And, at the same time, I think shee perceives a humanity in each of these men. She recognizes something more than a violent criminal; she recognizes the violated and brutalized child deep inside, the frightened spirit and longing heart cowering behind the walls of defensiveness built as self protection. At the same time, I think she does not see the alternative as much of an improvement. A life in a maximum security prison with all of its brutality is no better.

We are getting a bit of the background on The Lady raised by a cognatively impaired mother who does not have the skills to properly raise and protect her child. We are getting background on York who has been physically and sexually abused by both mother and the string of men who come in and out of the mother's life. We know just the basics of the narrator, hospitalized bfor years for psychiatric illness. I wonder what the story is of the "fallen priest".

I agree Irene about her feelings of frustration and helplessness. But then why does she do it? She doesn't demonstrate a moral objection to the death penalty. I think that is the biggest question in this book for me is why she does it?

I thought I remember reading that she (for lack of a better phrase) fell into the position. With no real education or job prospects, coming out of the foster care system after having been removed from her mother, she needed something. And, she discovered she could connect with these men in a way that made them feel safe. She could build those castles for them where they could spill their secrets. She could read situations and people with amazing accuracy which allowed the relatives she interviewed to feel safe and to open up. I think she found a bit of her own background in these extended families with their poverty, abuse, their existance on the margins of society. For most of the prisoners, they wanted her help; they did not want to die. So, she felt as if she was doing some small bit of good for these men. And, maybe, she is working att her own healing on an unconscious level. Only York does not want to die and so her feelings are a bit more ambiguous in this specific situation.

To your question about expectations, I really knew nothing about this book. I happened to be able to get a quick e-copy from the library, and since it's short, I thought I'd join in. I didn't even know it was about death row and prison.

I haven't read past the half-way point, but I'm really liking this book as it is very different from the other books I've been reading lately.

I read a bunch more last night, and nearly finished, but couldn't stay awake. The back story of the fallen priest is revealed.

I'm not too sure what to make of the golden horses. They would appear to be a delusion, but they also supposedly influence other people.

I finished yesterday and am not sure what to make of several elements. At first, I thought that maybe the clanking of old heating or water pipes became galloping and snorting golden horses in the hallucinations of the narrator. But... I also don't know what to make of our narrator's omnipotence. Since the voice never changes, it appears that the same person is narrating the entire book, even the thoughts and feelings, the actions and interactions of the Lady, the Fallen Priest, the Wardon, the White Haired Boy, etc things that the narrator would have no realistic access to. I like the lyrical style, but I can't resolve this ambiguous choice of voice.

I finished this afternoon. I'm not too sure either what I think of this book. I can't wait until others finish it so we can discuss.

Just two more days and the entire book is open for discussion. I am eager to hear the thoughts of others.

Jennifer W wrote: "I'm not too sure what to make of the golden horses. They would appear to be a delusion, but they also supposedly influence other people. "

I assumed (and maybe incorrectly) that the golden horses were just earthquakes. I figured that the prison was located somewhere that there were earthquakes (California maybe), as everyone felt the vibrations, they shook things in the cells, made dust fall, and the guards always yelled at people to get down, and the one guy considered getting under his desk. I just assumed our crazy story teller was calling them magical golden horses. ???

I finished this one last night also. :-)

Sheila wrote: "Jennifer W wrote: "I'm not too sure what to make of the golden horses. They would appear to be a delusion, but they also supposedly influence other people. "

I assumed (and maybe incorrectly) that..."

I considered that possibility, but then why do they only show up when someone dies? I think I concluded that they were Justice. Justice can be beautiful and horrible. It's not always Right or Fair, but everyone gets Justice in some form in the end.

But then (as I said in my review), I can't decide if the whole thing is a giant metaphor, or if it all really happens.

I thought earthquake in that final running of the horses. I did not realize that they only ran at an execution. If that is the case, then that is more odd. Since this is not electric chair, but medical drip, we can't explain it by some drain on the electrical grid. And, it was clear in that final piece that the running horses threw others to the ground. I had thought that maybe our narrator was projecting onto the others, assuming others felt what he perceived.

Page 142 of my e-book: "The day after Striker's execution, the light above me flickers to tell me the news- the golden horses are going to run. They always seem to run around the time of an execution." Several pages later: "I do not know when they will come back. They have cleaved back down to the underworld where red rivers burn and cliffs ignite. I do not know the name of the place they come from. It could be hell or heaven or the gate to either." So I guess there's enough uncertainty as to when they run that it could be earthquakes.

Well, the entire book is now open for discussion.

What did you think? I have seen many people here on Good Reads name this as one of their favorite books of all times, giving it an unconditional 5 stars. Do you agree? Why or why not?

This book is filled with "enchanted" elements. As a reader, we are left with ambiguity regarding the exact nature of these elements: hallucinations, natural events given a delusional explanation by the narrator, evidence that reality is permiated with the supernatural? How did these enchanted function for you in the novel? Did it enhance or confuse the story?

The voice of the novel is ambiguous. It belongs to a single inmate who is uneducated and psychotic, yet is also omnipotent. Did the combination of the personal and the omnipotent add or subtract from the telling of the story?

The novel is set on death row. The inmates are clearly guilty of awful crimes. Yet, we are offered insights to the brutality they experienced in childhood which may have contributed to their violence. Did this book shift your thinking of the death penalty in any way?

The impending exicutions of these violent men is set along side the impending death of others by natural causes. What, if anything, did these parallels say to you? Did death ever become large enough to be considered a character in its own right or was it always a consequence?

I found the novel as a whole enchanting. I can understand why people would love it unconditionally. It is definitely thought-provoking and a book that I think will stick with me.

I don't think this book changed my opinion of criminals in general or death row in particular. Working in mental health, most of the clients I work with had trauma equal to that which the characters of this book experienced. Most of my clients have not resorted to a life of crime. I have a great deal of empathy for the trauma people have experienced, but I don't think it excuses choices made later in life.

I don't think death became a character for me, unless it was supposed to be those golden horses...

At one point, I had a thought that the narrator was the white haired boy and York, which would help explain how he knew so much. I ended up dismissing that thought, but it kind of made sense that his story was each of those stories.

I would guess his omnipotence comes from the fact that he likes stories. He is a reader. Stuck in solitary confinement, he has nothing else to do but tell himself stories, so he makes up the white haired boy's story, York's story, the Lady's story to keep himself entertained. Had any of you ever heard of his favorite book, The White Dawn: An Eskimo Saga? I hadn't.

I finished the book

No Jennifer, I have never heard of that book before.

I liked the book, but for me it wasn't a five star, just because I don't think I "got" what the author was trying to make me get. I read the book more literally, and my mind was finding reasons for everything happening, and not allowing them to be "enchanted" or "magical". The horses were just earthquakes, our narrator was just an insane murderer, and since he was telling the story, everything else was warped by his insanity. For me this was an insane mans perception of life on death row.

The story really did not change my feelings about death row either. As Jennifer said, many people have bad things happen to them, have bad childhoods, but that doesn't make people become murders. So I don't find the back stories of these people as excuses for what they did, or the criminals they became. Though personally, I am not a big proponent of the death penalty, because there is a chance innocent people could be found guilty. But that is another issue.

I don't think death ever became a character in this book. I think death was just something that happened. Something that is always happening all over the world, not just in prison and on death row. The warden's wife dies also, and she was not a criminal. In this story it almost seems that death didn't discriminate.

I am curious though about The White Dawn story. Why did the author pick this book? What is the significance? There are not a lot of reviews for it here on Goodreads, so it doesn't appear it was a popular book. Is there something about this book that applies to this story?

I did not think too much about the "White Dawn" book. I just figured that the author needed some title for the narrator to obsess about, and this was it. I assume that it is written for a younger reader since the author is not educated. And, it is far away which is where the narrator wants to be.
I found the use of the same simplistic voice for the first person narrated parts and the third person narrated events to be off-putting. It felt as if the author was too lazy or unskilled to create two distinct styles. Since the parts about the Lady and Fallen Priest and others have no fantastic elements, they do not seem to be told by the same person as those narrated in the first person.

I thought that the author was trying to tell us something about the ambivluence of death. It is only when it is near that those on death row get the attention designed to commute their sentence. Should York be allowed to die or should we try to acknowledge mitigating circumstances? Would it be more cruel to confine a person to a slow death in the horrors of the maximum security wing or the quick death of exicution? Is the hope of a glimpse of sky or the momentary scent of rain sufficient beauty to make life worth living? And, what about the death by cancer verses the death by poisoning drugs? On some level, aren't we all under a death sentence, just some of us living out our wait in less dehumanizing circumstances? I think that by giving us the back story of the Lady, the author did show that deprivation and abuse in childhood does not lead to criminal activity. The narrator had a serious psychiatric diagnosis on top of the abuse. York probably had brain damage from syphalus contracted in-uttero.

There really is a lot of death in this story. The executions, of course, but the victims of these criminals, the warden's wife, the guard with the hit put on her, the corrupt guy on the take, the prisoner that the narrator kills which gets him put on death row, probably still a few more that I'm forgetting.

I found it very interesting that York and the narrator realized that they were both too dangerous to be allowed to be in society, even if that society is the general population of a prison.

Were you surprised that we never learned the gory details of what landed the narrator in prison in the first place?

In regards to the enchanted elements, I tried to understand who were the little men in the wall. I think the horses were earthquakes. These elements made the novel interesting.

"The novel is set on death row. The inmates are clearly guilty of awful crimes. Yet, we are offered insights to the brutality they experienced in childhood which may have contributed to their violence. Did this book shift your thinking of the death penalty in any way?"

I struggled with the death penalty throughout the novel. It's a topic that has pros and cons.

The White Dawn is about three men who are lost and taken in by Eskimos. Somehow Arden can relate to the novel. It probably comforts him.

When the last took blood, I thought it was to find out if she was related to her.