Go Fug Yourself Book Club discussion

Welcome all to the October book discussion for Life After Life. I am starting it a day early because I have a little too much on my plate tomorrow. I hope no one minds.

If you have not finished the book, and want to read it, please know that this will be a free-flowing discussion and so will be packed with spoilers. Enter at your own risk.

Woohoo!

Okay, now I will comment as Bonnie rather than Moderator Bonnie!

I read this book at this time last year, and it was one of my top 5 for 2013. This story is so complicated, but not over-complicated. The alternate stories seemed to be a writer's dream. I think all of us who write take our characters down different paths to see where they end up. Atkinson allows us to amble down those paths with her and to imagine how different each of us would be if our life were to be changed by an inch or a minute at just the right time. That she explores this through Ursula's life (or lives) at one of the most complex and precarious moments in British history (maybe in world history) makes this book all the more breathtaking.

I recall looking at reviews after I read this, and many of the complaints I saw were that good science fiction needs to have continuity and a basis in ...well science. That amazed me because there was never a moment when I was reading this that I considered it to be sci-fi. Many of Atkinson's other books are classified as mysteries, and I never thought of them that way, so maybe she is genre-defying. For me this was a coming-of-age story (and not just for Ursula), a family drama, and a really wonderful piece of WWII historical fiction.

I am looking forward to reading other people's impressions!

I think my absolute favorite thing was when Ursula was married to that horribly abusive man and was so miserable and I had the "a-ha" moment that the best possible outcome would be if he killed her.

One thing I was wondering about, how did people feel about the portrayal of Eva Braun? I found Atkinson's sympathy for Eva a little uncomfortable.

It was a very interesting way to write a story, that's for sure. However, I'm still not certain I liked it all that much.

What struck me most, however, was Ursula's final story and how it couldn't and didn't undo several past events, but still managed to give her back her brother.

I'm allowing this to marinate a bit more before I comment further because I do have many thoughts that I'd like to get in some sort of order. And I'm really interested in hearing what others think.

I will add this one question: since some readers took issue with the "coincidences" in CNV, will they also have an issue with the "coincidences" in LAL?

annabel wrote: "I think my absolute favorite thing was when Ursula was married to that horribly abusive man and was so miserable and I had the "a-ha" moment that the best possible outcome would be if he killed her."

That was a bit of a shock for me too - realising that I had stopped wanting her to get out and just wanted her to die so it could *really* be over.

Bonnie wrote: "One thing I was wondering about, how did people feel about the portrayal of Eva Braun? I found Atkinson's sympathy for Eva a little uncomfortable."

It is interesting - I didn't necessarily think of it as Atkinson's sympathy for Braun but rather Ursula's - that the circumstances of that particular life also altered her POV about everything.

I really enjoyed the book. I think my one quibble is that I wish that her ultimate "life purpose" had been something... smaller. I think I would have appreciated her growth and her decisions more had her purpose been more central to her and her family, rather than WORLD LEADER AND NAZI EXTRAORDINAIRE ADOLPH HITLER. It seemed a bridge too far. And that being said, Ursula's experiences in the bombings and with the neighborhood team were amazingly well written and I felt like I was there with her... and I don't think she should have excluded ANY of that, but I think if her purpose had been more inherent to how the war affected her or her family or her future... that would have been more to my liking.

There were some truly funny parts of the book that I loved. The doll on the ledge. The bunnies. Pushing the servant girl down the stairs to avoid the Flu.

The whole rape/abortion/abusive marriage storyline was horrific. I was so glad when that was over, and her decisions after that were very interesting, as well.

Here's one HUGE question I have. Did her mother have the same "power"?? Because one of the last times she was born, way late in the book, the mother grabs scissors out of the drawer beside the bed and the text says, "Practice makes perfect." So, did her mother know what was really happening?

Loved the psychiatrist. Loved her father. HATED her oldest brother, and when he killed the fox and the mother said, "One day I'll disinherit him," she wasn't kidding!!!

This book definitely made you reflect on the seemingly small decisions that you make in life, and how they may affect or have affected where you are now and where you will be down the road. Such an interesting concept.

Kris wrote: "Here's one HUGE question I have. Did her mother have the same "power"?? Because one of the last times she was born, way late in the book, the mother grabs scissors out of the drawer beside the bed and the text says, "Practice makes perfect." So, did her mother know what was really happening?..."

Interesting observation! I'd like to think that her mother would have been less of a bitch if she did have the same power - she was so horrible to everyone except Teddie. And such a snob!

She really was a bitch, wasn't she?

I also loved the Aunt, and her books, and her very "flapper" way of living. I wondered if we were ever going to meet her child as an adult. The whole version of the story where he dies after Ursula's family raises him was terrible. I loved that she took care of Ursula after the botched abortion, etc. Ursula's mother hated her SO SO MUCH.

Kris wrote: "She really was a bitch, wasn't she?

I also loved the Aunt, and her books, and her very "flapper" way of living. I wondered if we were ever going to meet her child as an adult. The whole version ..."

Yes, I was really surprised that we didn't meet that child as an adult - he seemed so much a part of the larger tapestry of the novel.

It took me a little while to get into (it got put down and forgotten slightly around the time she was about 6) but I really enjoyed it once I picked it up again. I particularly loved how a sort of shorthand developed to refer to earlier events in each life, I felt like another member of the family almost. I think Kate Atkinson has a really lovely way of writing - I've only read LAL and Started Early, Took My Dog but I'm now planning to read her others as well.

I agree with the comments above about not considering it to be science fiction - it felt like a fantastic way to explore the intricacies of Ursula's life. But then I never consider things like that whilst I'm reading - as long as I am enjoying a book I am willing to suspend my disbelief for whatever plot point regardless of genre, logic etc.

I also really loved how the characters of the core family members remained the same as each life unfolded and the way other lives had changed slightly (like the psychiatrist not having a son) in ways that had nothing to do with Ursula, that each time she was reborn it was a slightly different world altogether and that is how Teddy survives in the end (disclaimer: I adored Teddy and so was very happy). Actually I loved the entire family except for the awful Maurice! I also had a secret wish that Ursula would end up with Fred Smith the former butcher's boy. But I am an incorrigible and unrealistic romantic.

All in all, suffice to say I enjoyed it immensely.

Anne wrote: "Kris wrote: "She really was a bitch, wasn't she?

I also loved the Aunt, and her books, and her very "flapper" way of living. I wondered if we were ever going to meet her child as an adult. The w..."

There is a sequel on the way, perhaps we will find out what happened later.

Kris wrote: "I really enjoyed the book. I think my one quibble is that I wish that her ultimate "life purpose" had been something... smaller. I think I would have appreciated her growth and her decisions more..."

I was having a hard time putting my finger on what I disliked about the revisionist history, but this sums it up well. Striving to kill Hitler is kind of a big deal, yet it was a relatively minor story line. For me, it made that piece of the story feel impersonal compared to her own life, and almost tacked on. [Although, disclaimer: I read this a few months ago and my own revisionist history of reading it may be sneaking in.]

How did others feel about the inclusion of that plot line?

I agree - I felt like it was an almost superfluous life and I cared about it the least but maybe it demonstrated her growing determination to manipulate her lives?

As in, "how can I prevent all this destruction and death? Oh, I see, kill the root cause."

Yeah, I can see that.

"Striving to kill Hitler is kind of a big deal, yet it was a relatively minor story line. For me, it made that piece of the story feel impersonal compared to her own life, and almost tacked on." My reaction was sort of similar to this. I felt that, because the "killing Hitler" storyline came first, it was almost disingenuous, like it was just being used to grab you and make you read on to find out how she got there. You only find out later that was one storyline of many, and for me at least, not even the most powerful one.

This makes it sound like I didn't enjoy this book, but I did. I found it very gripping and I read the first 350 pages in two days! Like others have said, the consistency of characters and details between lives were very intricately constructed, and I was amazed by that. I'm sure that was to help the reader make connections between them and keep those lives straight. I also agree with Kris about the abusive marriage storyline; "horrific" is exactly the right word to use. It literally almost turned my stomach.

I don't think I would consider this book science fiction; the historical setting in a world the reader already knows makes it tough for me to apply that characterization, but that could just be my bias. However, the idea of "life after life" made me think of the many worlds theory in quantum mechanics. I learned about it in my college physics class, and I remember leaving the lecture with my mind BLOWN at the thought that every possible outcome of every possible choice could exist, each in their own separate alternate universe! I think this book illustrates that idea beautifully.

I love the theory that Sylvie has the same power/ability/understanding as Ursula. I never considered that, but it certainly paints Sylvie in a whole new way.

One question I never quite answered, so maybe someone else can chime in; Ursula was clearly AWARE of her power, but could she control it? Did she choose to return for "life after life" or did it just happen to her?

One question I never quite answered, so maybe someone else can chime in; Ursula was clearly AWARE of her power, but could she control it? Did she choose to return for "life after life" or did it just happen to her?

Interesting, in my reading of this I assumed everyone is reborn the same way. The reason Ursula is unique -- or her power -- is her ability to remember her past lives.

I completely missed Sylvie having the same one, but I like that theory too. Kinda makes me want to reread and look for clues!

I'm a huge fan of Atkinson's and was eager to get to her latest. I found this a very intriguing book: how the shifts in character and timing would alter events. It felt like one gigantic puzzle and the author was moving the pieces around for her and our amusement. I thought it was remarkable in that regard; Atkinson's ability to weave all those details.

My problem with the book is that her craft kept me emotionally uninvolved with everything. Getting swept away in a character's journey is one of my favorite things and it just didn't happen here. Even the most harrowing parts about Ursula's abusive relationship and her abortion felt remote. I didn't have any investment in those timelines, or any others, because I knew that something would soon occur to change reality. Did any of you feel this too?

I think Ursula had some awareness of what was happening, and it was up to her in each round how much conscious control she exerted over it. As a young child, she could more easily believe in these instincts and vague memories, so she had more consistent manipulative ability (the push to get everyone through influenza, for instance). And as we saw in the "Let's Kill Hitler" life, she could push through and make a specific set of changes to reach a chosen destiny, even if it all came to nothing.

I liked that storyline because it showed one extreme of her ability/situation, and her limits. Ursula learned that she wasn't going through this for some grand, world-changing purpose. From her earlier, long and play-it-safe life, she learned that life with no risks also wasn't the point. Rather, it seemed like she was tasked with finding some local maximum; some tragedies, but ultimately happiness for those closest to her.

Or maybe not. I was a little frustrated that the loop never escaped in the end. If she didn't remember each round, then it wouldn't matter, but it seems like Ursula is in for an eternity of disappointment. As much of a high note as the last chapter was, the whole idea is really kind of bleak.

I would classify this as speculative fiction, for sure. It actually reminded me a lot of Edge of Tomorrow, the Tom Cruise/Emily Blunt movie from this summer (good movie, check it out). Also, the idea of fixed events that one person cannot change, despite their efforts, is pretty familiar from the genre. This is a time travel book, just with a more subtle mechanism. I don't think that Sylvie had memories of the loop, but she and others experienced some feedback effects of Ursula's journeys back to the start. I also don't see it as a "many coexisting worlds" story, since she kept returning to the same point and beginning from birth, and there was a clear sequence to it.

I enjoyed the writing a lot, and the historical setting was very well realized. I'd love to read more from the author.

I read this book last fall, so it's not as fresh in my mind as it is for those of you who just read it, but I really really really liked it. The premise was an intriguing one, though I agree with people who said it occasionally made the book drag. More importantly, though, I just thought Ursula was such a great character -- I loved seeing how the different choices she made in her lives both changed AND didn't change her personality. And I really loved her family -- I thought they were so well fleshed-out. This discussion group is making me want to go back and re-read it!

Anne wrote: "Bonnie wrote: "One thing I was wondering about, how did people feel about the portrayal of Eva Braun? I found Atkinson's sympathy for Eva a little uncomfortable."

It is interesting - I didn't nece..."

I think if the writing wasn't so strong Ursula having a Zelig moment with Hitler and Eva Braun could have come off as trite. It wasn't my favorite part of the book but I didn't find the characterization particularly sympathetic. By all historic accounts Eva was beautiful, outgoing and a lot of fun. I could understand why she appealed to Ursula as a girlfriend. But she was also incredibly desperate to be loved and loved by a monster. Flawed for sure.

I read this in January and was desperate for discussion. My memory of the many intricate details of the story is fuzzier now, but here were my comments/questions at the time:

"Since it started on Hitler I thought it was all leading up to that--that this is what she was working toward ultimately. But I thought for sure she died after shooting Hitler since so many guns were pointed at her. So the next life, she saves Nancy and presumably Teddy. Did she do the Hitler thing then? Did she do it better so she survived? Skipped it and only focused on those two? Confused! Loved it though."

Agree, this is making me want to re-read it!

Sadly, I can't imagine any life where she *did* manage to kill Hitler. I mean that really would get into science fiction!

I had the same questions as Emily and Alicia. If Ursula ever did succeed in killing Hitler, we get no evidence of that--but then, we wouldn't, since it would clearly be a suicide mission even if it were successful, and our knowledge of each life ends when it ends. But maybe she didn't succeed at all, since in the last life/ending we get, when Teddy survives and returns, Hitler must have lived, since Teddy was shot down during the "real" WWII we know from our own history. And the reunion is clearly a joyous moment--that life is a good life, despite Hitler.

Other questions about the endings: When Teddy might be calling "Thank you" to Ursula across the pub, what would he be thanking her for? This is one of the lives where she saved Nancy to grow up and love Teddy, but he doesn't know that, does he? And then after that, why do you think KA ends the whole thing with Mrs. Haddock stuck in the pub? Is that to suggest that the cycles will repeat forever?

I found an interview about the sequel Bonnie mentioned above, and it seems the book will focus on Teddy after the war. So maybe some of our questions will be answered in it.

More generally, I'm really glad that this discussion finally pushed me to read the book, which had been sitting on my shelf for almost a year as I made brief runs at it that never got past the first few pages. Once I got going I devoured it--KA's writing is wonderful and I loved the way the multiple lives allowed her to gradually build up layers of detail about the characters. And the Blitz chapters are astonishing.

One more thing: I noticed that the Edith Cavell statue in London makes an appearance when Teddy and Ursula are visiting the Cenotaph (page 445). Julie brings up the same statue and Cavell's last words in "Code Name Verity." I happened past the memorial when I was in London this summer and thought of you all. I suppose Cavell is an important reference for any writer about women's roles in wartime.

ElizabethT

I have been crazy busy for the last week so I have not had a chance to comment much, but I am fascinated by the discussion.

I am very intrigued by the suggestion that Sylvie might have had the same "powers" as Ursula. I always felt Ursula had some knowledge of her travels, but possibly more in the sense of strong deja vu rather than clear memory. That Sylvie had the same gift, and that she had any awareness of that gift had never occurred to me. I read the book a year ago and I think a reread is in order with that in mind.

I liked the killing Hitler storyline. It is such a stock question; "If you cold go back and kill Hitler ...." I can see where KA thought it was almost required that she go there with this. Perhaps she just read 11/22/63 and thought "I'll see your saving of Camelot and raise you one dead Nazi!" Whatever the impetus, I thought it worked, and not least of all because Ursula seemingly failed in the quest. Or maybe she did not fail and all of these lives are being lived simultaneously, in some Hitler survives in others he is killed. It has been a long time since I dipped into Borges, but certainly that premise has worked before in literature, and I think it possible its at work here. Ursula is saved from the limitations forced on all of us by choices which propel us in one direction and leave other options behind. Ursula never really has to make choices because she can live all the options (good and bad.) Does this make any sense at all? I lack the intellectual grit and writing skill to clearly say what I am trying to say, but hopefully this isn't totally nuts.

Elizabeth, that is so interesting about Edith Cavell showing up in both books. I confess I knew nothing about her and did not notice the reference, but your comment made me want to look into Ms. Cavell and she is fascinating and so brave! Thank you.

Bonnie wrote: "One thing I was wondering about, how did people feel about the portrayal of Eva Braun? I found Atkinson's sympathy for Eva a little uncomfortable."

Atkinson's seeming sympathy for Braun didn't bother me, if I'm honest. My bigger problem with the first time Braun showed up in the narrative was how we were placed there with little preamble, and the path to this life was told primarily in flashback, if I'm remembering correctly.

Bonnie wrote: I liked the killing Hitler storyline. It is such a stock question; "If you cold go back and kill Hitler ...." I can see where KA thought it was almost required that she go there with this."

I think that's exactly the reason I *didn't* like the killing Hitler storyline. Its too stock. I mentioned in my review of the book that if Doctor Who has dealt with the question, it might be time to back away. If Life After Life had been exactly the same book, except without the first and last Hitler chapters, I might have given it a 5 star instead of 4 star rating. I was much more interested in the different paths Ursula's life took, from Blitz London to Berlin and everything in between, but I didn't need Hitler to give this book meaning, and feel that it cheapened it somehow.

Katie wrote: "My bigger problem with the first time Braun showed up in the narrative was how we were placed there with little preamble, and the path to this life was told primarily in flashback, if I'm remembering correctly. ..."

I know exactly what you mean. I think we meet Braun *before* we see Ursula saying "Right, I know what I have to do", so after the fact you can see she has engineered the relationship, but there wasn't a lot of detail in that incarnation.

Katie wrote: "Bonnie wrote: I liked the killing Hitler storyline. It is such a stock question; "If you cold go back and kill Hitler ...." I can see where KA thought it was almost required that she go there with ..."

Katie and Bonnie, your thoughts help me understand my issues with the Hitler plot(s). Very calculated on both Ursula's and KA's parts. I can't find the spot right now, so maybe I'm misremembering, but doesn't Ursula use her knowledge about Eva from other lives to stalk her in the killing-Hitler life?

I do like the scene(s) when the Nazi girl scouts wait for the Hitler motorcade and the whole idea of the Not-So-Grand Tour as conceived by the Todd parents. (Sidebar: any Betsy-Tacy fans here? I am reminded of Betsy's "Great World" experiences in Munich and Paris and London as WWI breaks out.)

But in retrospect that storyline is soured for me by the hyper-dramatic mother-daughter murder-suicide ending in the last days of the war in Berlin. I don't mind bleak, but it seemed a little over-the-top. And again there seems to be calculation by KA without payoff: "She had never chosen death over life before and as she was leaving she knew something had cracked and broken and the order of things had changed" (379). But does the order of things change? I don't think so, but maybe I missed some payoff later?

Elizabeth wrote: Katie and Bonnie, your thoughts help me understand my issues with the Hitler plot(s). Very calculated on both Ursula's and KA's parts. I can't find the spot right now, so maybe I'm misremembering, but doesn't Ursula use her knowledge about Eva from other lives to stalk her in the killing-Hitler life?

She does. The first time we meet Eva Ursula is up at Berghof and they have a perfunctory friendship based on Ursula's husnad's position getting them the invitation so their daughter could recuperate. Later, after Ursula chooses her suicide with her daughter in siege Berlin, the next Hitler based life is Ursula making choices which lead her back to meeting Eva without being married to that husband.

Of those two chapters I appreciated the first, but the second felt like a bridge too far.

I think the payoff that KA is hinting to with that quote from page 379 is that now Ursula is equipped with clear memories which help her make the choices in her life as opposed to the feelings of dread or deja vu which littered her earlier lives such as the many chapters we spend with Ursula trying to survive the flu.

I also loved the idea of the Not-So-Grand Tour, it made me smile and think fondly of my own parents wishes for my travel at a similar age. :)

I loved the book. I enjoyed how well fleshed out her family members were although I would have liked to know more about Sylvie and why she became so bitter as time went on and her affair. Hopefully that will come in the sequel!

My mum has just finished it too - her comment was

As a novel I found it went on a bit and the iteration of some of the options a bit head spinning. Not to mention depressing if you think there are so many potentially fatal thresholds in a life. No wonder Ursula was a confused child. And she didn’t pursue the consequences of Teddy reappearing after VE Day – when we know his mother had topped herself…

I can't remember if I've mentioned that my favourite missed opportunity was Ursula throwing away the card of the man who saw her doing crosswords. Knowing that that was one mechanism for recruiting women to work at Bletchley Park, that seemed like a tantalising missed opportunity. I was wondering if there were any other moments like that, roads not taken, that I missed in the book?

I really loved this book. I think it might actually be my favorite of the year (so far). One of the things I admire most about it is how open ended so much of it is while still being a satisfying narrative and exploration of character. As a frequent consumer of media, I totally expected the first kill Hitler chapter to be a flash forward scene that the narrative would work its way towards so I was surprised and pleased when I read the second kill Hitler chapter and discovered that they were not the same lifetimes. So was that chapter a flash forward or have all these lifetimes happened before? Maybe she just has infinite lifetimes to explore every possible scenario and this book is just a tiny snapshot of her lifespan. Maybe everyone else also has infinite lifetimes, but just doesn't remember them like Ursula does. Maybe Ursula doesn't even exist in some of these lifetimes. Who knows, but I really enjoyed how the framing of the novel played with expectations.

Even though the killing Hitler storyline is a bit tired at this point, I thought Kate Atkinson twisted the premise just enough to make it fresh. Ursula's motivation is extremely personal in that she's trying to save people she knows and loves from the war. I'm not convinced she would go to such great lengths to kill Hitler if she didn't have such a personal stake in the matter.

I'm interested know what other people thought of Ursula as a character. I had a hard time getting a good read on her at first because each life would change her slightly, but by the end I thought she was more concrete and interesting. As a big fan of books about romantical problems in war times, it was refreshing to read something centered on the bonds between siblings. I wish we had more time with Roland even though it makes sense that in a book about multiple lives we'd be left wishing for more of certain plotlines.

Yesknopemaybe wrote: "I really loved this book. I think it might actually be my favorite of the year (so far). One of the things I admire most about it is how open ended so much of it is while still being a satisfying n..."

What great questions! It is so common for these sorts of discussions to start with people discussing how much they did or did not like a character so it is amazing no one has asked what people think of Ursula. Because Ursula was so different from narrative to narrative I am not sure I know what I thought. Certain things remain constant, her pragmatism and her feelings about her family members spring to mind. In most ways she changes from chapter to chapter. In some chapters she is brave and effective, in some weak, in some engaged, in some removed, in some hopeful, and in others hopeless. It is funny that my feelings about the other characters are so well formed, and my feelings about Ursula so murky. It is like she was a prism refracting light in different ways, and all you notice are the things she shines the light upon at any given time.

As for the other question, my theory is that all the narratives happen sort of simultaneously on different planes, and that time is non-linear. I have no clue if that is right, it just makes it easier for me to read if I see it that way.

Bonnie wrote: "As for the other question, my theory is that all the narratives happen sort of simultaneously on different planes, and that time is non-linear. I have no clue if that is right, it just makes it easier for me to read if I see it that way. ..."

I just sort of thought of it as Groundhog Day, with no further explanation!

Alicia wrote: "Bonnie wrote: "As for the other question, my theory is that all the narratives happen sort of simultaneously on different planes, and that time is non-linear. I have no clue if that is right, it ju..."

That is a great comparison. Also I love that movie. It is on regular rotation in our house with Princess Bride, Easy A, Big Lebowski, Raising Arizona, My Cousin Vinnie, Clueless, and Pitch Perfect.

Bonnie wrote: "It is funny that my feelings about the other characters are so well formed, and my feelings about Ursula so murky. It is like she was a prism refracting light in different ways, and all you notice are the things she shines the light upon at any given time."

Bonnie, this was beautifully stated. I think Ursula evolved, but the facets of her personality that we saw (to continue your prism metaphor) depended upon the other variables and personalities in each storyline.

Bonnie wrote: " It is like she was a prism refracting light in different ways, and all you notice are the things she shines the light upon at any given time."

I really like the way you put that. She IS like a prism, always changing but always essentially the same. It definitely makes me wonder what little twists and left turns in my life have shaped my own character without me even knowing it.

After she manipulated the Spanish flu deaths so that nobody had to be hurt and nobody got sick, I wondered if we'd get to see a lifetime where she didn't have to die to get rid of Hitler and then got to lead a very different life without the influence of WW2. I can understand why the author might not have wanted to go there, but it's fun to imagine.

I just finished Life After Life, I loved it, I found it really sad though- like in order for her to save everyone else she has to give up a bit of her happiness in a way. Like her little romance with Ben couldn't happen because she had to save Nancy. I also really like the last birth scene where Sylvie produces the scissors and saves Ursula herself, like it almost implies Sylvie may be going through her lives over and over too?

Lori - I thought the same thing - that the implication was that Sylvie was aware, at least a little bit, that this had happened before.

Alicia wrote: "My mum has just finished it too - her comment was As a novel I found it went on a bit and the iteration of some of the options a bit head spinning. Not to mention depressing if you think there are ..."

YES. I wanted her to work on the Enigma machine during one of her lives so much.

Kris wrote: "Lori - I thought the same thing - that the implication was that Sylvie was aware, at least a little bit, that this had happened before."

I agree that the implication is that Ursula's mom is aware of the multiple time lines and it bothered me for a while. If Sylvie was completely aware, why would she interfere with Ursula's attempts to improve their lives -- for example, why would she take the sign off the door warning away the maid with the flu? I finally decided that maybe Sylvie didn't have the power herself and only gradually realized what was happening after many of Ursula's lives.

Margaret wrote: I agree that the implication is that Ursula's ..."

I agree with that, when I read it I thought that maybe Sylvie was having a very strong sense of deja vu, rather than having the same "powers" as Ursula.

I also really wanted her to end up at Bletchley Park!

Made it just under the wire here! I just finished the book last night. Oh my God, I loved it. I cried at the end when Teddy was alive. Buckets.

I'd love to read more about how Atkinson put this together, honestly, from a writerly perspective, because it's such a complicated book, really, technically. Surely she had Post-Its everywhere (or, like Rowling, a very complicated notebook).

Jessica wrote: "Made it just under the wire here! I just finished the book last night. Oh my God, I loved it. I cried at the end when Teddy was alive. Buckets.

I'd love to read more about how Atkinson put this to..."

It is beautifully complex! I loved the story but was truly dazzled by the writing. This is s good GR author discussion with Atkinson https://www.goodreads.com/interviews/...

Jessica wrote: "Surely she had Post-Its everywhere (or, like Rowling, a very complicated notebook). "

I picture one of those walls you see on tv where the person is figuring out a mystery, with pictures and thumb tacks and string connecting things all over the place!!

Kris wrote: "Jessica wrote: "Surely she had Post-Its everywhere (or, like Rowling, a very complicated notebook). "

I picture one of those walls you see on tv where the person is figuring out a mystery, with pi..."

Like Carrie Mathison, but less crazy?

Random thoughts in no particular order! I enjoyed reading this book, although I found myself curiously unmoved by things towards the end of the book. I particularly liked the idea that there was no one inevitable fate in store for Ursula - except perhaps for being somewhat thwarted in love? - regardless of what actions she took. I didn't mind the Hitler storylines, I actually think it would have been slightly weird to avoid it, as it's such an obvious thing for time travellers (or reincarnated people?!) to attempt. I remember reading Jessica Mitford's autobiography and she talks about how she might have used her sister Unity to get close to Hitler and kill him. Not that she was a time traveller....

Sylvie was interesting! I'm glad to hear there's a sequel as there's much more I'd like to know about her. I actually quite liked her in the beginning, although she is a snob, but she grew less sympathetic as it went on, and then I flat out hated her when she reacted to Ursula's abortion the way she did. I originally felt like that moment with the scissors just showed a nuance of deja vu or inexplicable foresight, much like people often describe experiencing. I didn't imagine that Sylvie had the same talents(?) as Ursula, but as I now know there's a sequel it does make that seem more of a possibility.

As a final random note, someone wondered about 'other roads not taken' and I started thinking that while there are probably some intentional ones, like the business card, there are ones that we might decide are crossroads for ourselves. My grandmother was in the Women's League of Health and Beauty, so when Ursula mentioned it I found myself hoping she would join!