The Catholic Book Club discussion

9) Use this thread to drop random notes on your thoughts as you are reading, or that don't fit elsewhere.

John's wife's name is E.M. Do we know what these initials stand for?

Kerstin wrote: "John's wife's name is E.M. Do we know what these initials stand for?"

Edith Mary?

Hello, now i am in the page 26 i have passed the initial introduction, i have some problems because i am reading the book in the original language (i usually read in spanish) but the story is really good. The introduction maes that yiou want to continue reading, and my friend Alfonseca telling me something of the first chapter and i want to follow reading.

I find it odd to use only initials instead of a name. We also don't really know the protagonist's name, do we? People call him John, but isn't "Hill" a name he assumed so the villain wouldn't find him? Is he supposed to be based on an actual person? (Tolkien?)

I think that John Hill is the character's true name in the book, not an assumed name.

Yes, he is based on Tolkien, who was also named John, although in real life he didn't go by John but Ronald.

I don't know why the author used initials for Edith but not for the children, whose names are the real Tolkien children's names.

When the character said his name was Hill, I was reminded of Frodo, who adopted the name Underhill when he wanted to conceal his name.

In the chapters about the First World War, Hill is not mentioned as the name of the character.

It is obvious that John Hill is based on Tolkien, the coincidences are too many: lieutenant at the front, the lice (which Tolkien mentioned in his letters), his trench-fever, the initials of his wife...

On the other hand, there are enough discrepancies so that we can say that the character is not Tolkien, although it is based on Tolkien: according to the Wikipedia, Tolkien came down with trench fever on October 27, 1916. In the book this happens on August 16 (more than two months too early).

Manuel wrote: "When the character said his name was Hill, I was reminded of Frodo, who adopted the name Underhill when he wanted to conceal his name.

In the chapters about the First World War, Hill is not mentio..."

I have the impression that the authour purposes a game and we must follow it. In the novel "Looking for the King" appeared the authentic english. But T.M. Doran created a carácter inspired in Tolkien, but it is not Tolkien. We look more things, even reference to the detection novels. The main carácter of the sequel "Lucifer Ego" calls Frodo.

Mariangel wrote: "I think that John Hill is the character's true name in the book, not an assumed name."

In the Heidelberg chapter it is mentioned that "John Hill" is an alter ego that John has assumed for his search for information about the book.

I find the lack of surnames for most characters (with the obvious exception of Alembert and the other (at this point presumed) bad actors) to be disconcerting. In writing this I realized for the first time the difference between those characters who are threatening and those who are not. I will have to give some thought to this.

Now i am in the chapter third which reminds me when Bilbo Baggins found the ring, and when gollum tried to kill him.

Fonch wrote: "Now i am in the chapter third which reminds me when Bilbo Baggins found the ring, and when gollum tried to kill him."

I missed those connections, though I have to say, being somewhat slow I didn't pick up the relationship to LOTR until John was reading portions of the story to his friends in the tavern, at which point the tumblers fell into place.

John wrote: "Mariangel wrote: "I think that John Hill is the character's true name in the book, not an assumed name."

In the Heidelberg chapter it is mentioned that "John Hill" is an alter ego that John has as..."

Ah, Heidelberg is the next chapter for me.

Mariangel wrote: "Ah, Heidelberg is the next chapter for me."

Hey, you are too fast for me! I'm just about to start the second part, and you're way out in the third!

I feel at a distinct disadvantage. I haven't read Lord of the Rings... We have a copy, one of my sons read it, and I think my turn is coming up sooner than later ;)

After having read 20% of the novel, I would say that the main character is not Tolkien; he is Tolkien, as he would have been, had he found and translated the book, rather than authoring it.

In other words, it is an "alternative biography," in the same sense as we speak of "alternative history."

Manuel wrote: "After having read 20% of the novel, I would say that the main character is not Tolkien; he is Tolkien, as he would have been, had he found and translated the book, rather than authoring it.

In ot..."

I agree about is an alternate history.

John wrote: "I find the lack of surnames for most characters (with the obvious exception of Alembert and the other (at this point presumed) bad actors) to be disconcerting..."

I think the reason is that the characters based on true persons, such as Jack (C.S.Lewis), Owen (Barfield), Hugo (Dyson) and Charles (Williams) are called only by their Christian names so as not to make their identities too obvious. Evil characters, on the other hand, are invented, and therefore can be named fully.

Manuel wrote: "John wrote: "I find the lack of surnames for most characters (with the obvious exception of Alembert and the other (at this point presumed) bad actors) to be disconcerting..."

I think the reason i..."

I cheer up that the Inklings appeared in this novel. I have asked to T.M. Doran if Hill is Tolkien, or not.

Dorothy (Sayers) is mentioned too by Owen, describing a murder plot she's hatching for a novel.

From the author: There were intentional points of separation between the characters in "Toward the Gleam" and their historical "counterparts" so that 1) This story could be wrapped around these characters, 2) The characters could do and say things their historical "counterparts" didn't, though things they might have said or done if the story was history, and 3) to dramatize things that were happening in the world and dominant ideas in those times

I'm adding here this comment in Jill's name:

The Abbot thinks John Hill seems familiar. Why?
I'm not sure I agree with the Abbot that "willful wickedness" is rare.
Interesting observation that people in "the trenches" become more "froglike," less reflective.
Stupid for anyone, let alone someone so recently ill, to hike alone.
throwing sugar cubes??
Why doesn't the peddler track him and the manuscript down?
The conversation with Hermann seems unnecessarily/dangerously "political".
I'm no good at solving mysteries! But is it true that mystery-writers have a harder time if there's no objective good and evil?
Was it a Bible Agnes found that changed her?
Why didn't Hill keep his translation separate from the manuscript?
I found Greta chilling and her towel fetish odd.

Agnes and Gregory find refuge in a monastery near a town called Olorin -Gandalf's name before he came to Middle Earth from the West.

Mariangel wrote: "Agnes and Gregory find refuge in a monastery near a town called Olorin -Gandalf's name before he came to Middle Earth from the West."

Good point Mariangel.

In reply to Jill:
-Throwing sugar cubes is a real anecdote from the time Tolkien and Edith were dating.
-Greta's towels made me think immediately of Lady Macbeth. I am not done with the book and I have no idea if she appears again, but if I were John this would have set me on my guard.

I read the Stockholm chapter just last night, and I am still puzzling over those towels.
Maybe the next chapter gives us a clue: when Alambert suddenly appears in John's office he reveals that he is into spiders now. I am wondering if Greta is a human spider, luring her mate into her net only to kill him after consummation. Her incessant cleaning of her hands may mimick a spider's habitual movements of keeping forearms and fangs clean by rubbing particles off. Leaving for the train station, John saves his own life yet again.

Manuel wrote: "After having read 20% of the novel, I would say that the main character is not Tolkien; he is Tolkien, as he would have been, had he found and translated the book, rather than authoring it.

In ot..."

Of course. It is an "alternative history" imagining LOTR not as fiction created by Tolkien, but as factual history written about the remnants of Atlantean civilization. I am almost finished. It keeps getting better and better.

In the Scotland chapter there was a detail that stuck with me. Gosdier Jones wears denim trousers. Was denim fabric typically worn in England/Scotland in the 1930s? The big Jeans wave didn't come until the 1960s. So I looked it up. Denim was first produced in Nimes, France. It does have a predecessor, the Indian Dungaree, a cotton twill warp thread (in weaving parlance) and usually dyed with blue indigo. The fabric was worn by working class people in France, but also northern Italy already in the 17th century. Levi Strauss in the US was a development of the late 19th century.
Unfortunately I couldn't find an answer in my quick search, but it may tell us that Jones was originally from France or perhaps had spend some time there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denim

Kerstin wrote: "I read the Stockholm chapter just last night, and I am still puzzling over those towels.
Maybe the next chapter gives us a clue: when Alambert suddenly appears in John's office he reveals that he ..."

I was thinking it was a comment on epicureanism - the "pleasures" sought leave one feeling unsatisfied and soiled. The towels seemed to me emblematic of the never diminishing demand for new pleasure, yet unsatisfied. She constantly wipes her hands, but never feels clean.

John wrote: "I was thinking it was a comment on epicureanism - the "pleasures" sought leave one feeling unsatisfied and soiled. The towels seemed to me emblematic of the never diminishing demand for new pleasure, yet unsatisfied. She constantly wipes her hands, but never feels clean."

Now that's much closer to the text than what my tangent came up with :) I like it!

-I like both Kerstin's and John's interpretations, they fit well with the book.
-Like Jill, I wonder why John didn't keep the translation separate.
-I have a couple more thoughts but they are spoilers and I think you are not there yet.

I finished the book and I do like it. I will definitely read the sequel, but not quite yet. It was a bit too intense in some places.

One thing I was glad of in the latter part of the book is that John's and E.M.'s relationship improved. In the early chapters E.M.'s antagonism was too predominant. I coudn't detect a genuine bond until the later chapters.