Jumping in
I know I'm jumping the gun a bit, but it's that or do my laundry. Ho ho.
I really enjoyed this book. I liked the way in which it didn't always provide a clear, person-to-person lineage--in several places the thread was lost a bit, or simply not stated. And some of the passages in this book had me nearly in tears:
"You think I don't already ask myself...what I did or didn't do that made
her this way? What I failed to say to her at one unknown, privately crucial day?
Tell me...how haven't I loved enough?"
"It wasn't hope that lay between that man and God. Nor was it thankfulness.
Or appreciation for a bird or a leaf. Or a kiss. Fear lived in that space... But
that wasn't the God she cared to know."
And the last line in the novel...damn.
Because of course I projected myself onto the characters, just as everyone projected themselves onto the girl in the painting. It made me think of the time I spent as a child, making up stories about the people in my grandmother's paintings...for the longest time I thought they must all be people we knew. And I've known that feeling, of standing in front of a true masterpiece (in museums only, sadly) and being absolutely destroyed by it.
I did think the author's female voices were stronger and more real than her male voices, but that isn't surprising or unusual. And perhaps my impression is again a result of feeling naturally more connected to the women.
Did anybody else read in the acknowledgements that some of these chapters were originally published separately in various publications?
Nothing to do with the book itself, per se, but the copy I got from the library was a small hardback, and it fit in my hand perfectly. That somehow made reading it all the more satisfying. Also, someone else who had read it had underlined lightly in pencil, one word in the entire book..."encumbered".
posted by Psycho Kitty @ 5:28 PM
20 Comments:
Sugestivo essa bola de borracha !!
Jack the Rubber
http://courodejacare.zip.net
Wow. PK, I had nearly the opposite reaction to this book: I didn't like it at all!
I felt really manipulated throughout the book, especially during the Holocaust section and the killing of the pigeons. I didn't connect to any of the characters, either; I thought they were flat and one-dimensional. I'm curious to hear what other folks think--maybe this is a love it/hate it kind of book. It was a good choice for eliciting strong opinions!
I loved it, too. The only vignette I didn't like was the Countess-type, Claudine. The one who wanted to have a pearl necklace painted into the picture (who does that?)
I like the way the reader was transported back in time, each vignette clearly further in the past, but no actual dates (except historical/musical/art/literary references given as clues, and the one in Adriaan's diary).
I read Girl With A Pearl Earring (also saw the movie - preferred the book), and took art history in university. I liked the idea of a lost work of Vermeer as the focus, because he is such a brilliant painter in his technique and use of light, yet he was so poor, and had all these children.
I found the section about Aletta and Adriaan and the twins particularly heartrending. (okay, maybe having twins put me very in touch with it all). It made me think of the Salem Witch trials, and all other historical accounts of women (mostly) being murdered as witches, just for being different, and having different beliefs. It's sad that the world has not changed as much as we'd like to think. People aren't burned at the stake for being witches any more, but there is still persecution of those who are "different" by people who are scared of those differences (be it race, religion, sexual orientation, etc).
The section about Saskia and Stijn made me wonder about something (and I keep meaning to check it out date-wise, but haven't had a chance). I wondered if by selling the painting, and buying the 5 tulip bulbs, they may have ended up far richer than they ever dreamed of. I just wasn't sure if these events were to have happened before or after the great tulip market boom, and if they would have been able to capitalize on it. Anyone else know?
I would have preferred more detail about each of the characters, but when I thought about it, I realized that the painting was the main character, and the others were there simply to convey the painting's journey through time. If there was too much detail about the others, the reader might become too interested in the rest of the characters' lives, and less concerned with the painting's passing from owner to owner.
A--heh. And what do we think "Jack" thought? Ai carumba.
Oh, and Canada--yeah, I found myself wishing I knew more about what happened to everyone, but I realized that was supposed to reflect the whole point--we never truly know anyone.
You know who paints over masterpieces? The Catholic church did a whole bunch with grape leaves over unmentionables. It was a common practice to modify paintings to one's liking a few centuries ago.
I too found the book to be not a favorite. I thought it was a bit gratuitous how the painting was impacted by various horrors of human behavior. I felt it was a bit contrived. I thought the author was using these horrors to get the readers involved and moved by the book rather than writing in a compelling manner. I found the chapter about the flood was the most compelling because I did not feel like she was trying too hard, instead I felt like she was telling a story.
I too saw that various sections had already been published as short stories.
I liked the idea of the painting as a character but really felt the book did not live up to the potential of such a unusual way to structure a novel.
If you like unusual ways to bring characters through the passage of time, Piers Anthony has a series starting with the book "the Isle of Woman" that uses time interestingly. Two characters are followed through their lives. But each chapter moves them forward from one point in time to the next. They start with like cro-magnum man and go into the near future. Again, it was a novel idea but the characters suffered, in my mind.
You know what this book did, though? It made me want to check out some Vermeers in person. As much as I disliked the book itself, it got me thinking about art history again.
Kind of on a related note, it is amazing how seeing a work in person can change its effect on you. I never liked Van Gogh, at all--in fact, I strongly DISliked his work--until I saw one of his paintings up close in a museum in DC. And then suddenly I fell in love with him. Why? Because of the texture--the actual brushstrokes and the layering of the paint. It made all the difference in the world. It's sort of odd how the smallest things can suddenly change our entire opinion and feelings--toward a painting, or a person, or an ideal.
Me too, but about Beethoven. I had heard countless recordings of his music and was luke warm to him. Then I heard one of his symphonies in person and about fell over. It was so amazing and beautiful. If at all possible, the arts are best experienced in person.
Absolutely! My favourite Monet painting isn't any one of the Waterlilies, or the gardens at Giverny, but this tiny painting of the London Bridge in fog. It's at the National Gallery here in Ottawa, and I'm telling you, time passes rather quickly while I'm mesmerized by it - the depth, the light, etc. I've spent 30 - 45 minutes just gazing at it. I think this others are beautiful as well, and would love to see them in person.
I hear that. Hashbrown and I saw an exhibit at the Higgins Armory in January, and I'm still thinking about those paintings. They looked hideous on the website, but in real life they were nuanced and thoughtful.
True.
I hope no one was offended by how A and I did not like the book. When we first saw peoples comments of loving it, we were sure there would be a lively discussion. I cannot speak for A but you can tell me that I am full of @#$% and that I wouldn't know a good book if it bit me on the &*%. Besides, what do I know about books about art and history? Until this book club, aside from a very few books I heard about on NPR (LOVE IT), I only read things with aliens, space ships, vampires, and clones.
Why on earth would anyone be offended? I didn't like the last book, and I don't think anyone was offended. That's the whole point of a bookclub - to have discussions and be introduced to new books that you might not choose yourself. You like some, and hate some, but it broadens your horizons for sure!
oh and robots.
Just checking.
You know, I'm loving this book club thing. It's been good to branch out a little, and even better to have this forum with all of you.
Right back atcha, AJWP!!
Oh, yeah you guys, how boring would it be if we all thought exactly the same thing about every book? In fact, before you even wrote that, Hash, I was thinking how much fun it would be if we could all sit around having the coffee and getting worked up.
Plus, dude, you know I can totally take you. Bwahaha.
Okay, PK, I thought you and I were on the same wavelength. But coffee? No margaritas? I'm v. disappointed! ;)
I don't think so, PK. You wanna take this outside? You wanna peice of me? YOu wanna Peice of ME? YOU Wanna Piece of MEAT?
And yes, Canada, sometimes a good cup of Starbucks coffee brewed by the most beautiful barista in town is just what is needed.
Oh Canada, you know, I'm eclectic that way. Which legal drug am I going to propose today? Nobody knows! I like to keep it fresh, as it were.
And Hash--next fall. It is on. It is ON, ba-by!
Post a Comment
<< Home