Book Club

You know who Dick van Dyke is, right? He’s one of Hollywood’s most loved actors, starring in such films as Mary Poppins and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. He was also the star of the TV shows The Dick van Dyke Show and Diagnosis: Murder for a number of years. I didn’t grow up watching him much, but my husband did, and I was introduced to his work as an adult. Since then, I’ve become a big fan.

When I found the audiobook Keep Moving on my Overdrive app, written and read by Dick van Dyke himself, I knew that was one I wanted to read (listen to) for Book Club. Luckily, Lori happily agreed, so here we are.

We weren’t able to find questions about the book (it’s fairly new – less than a year old, I think), so we’ve decided to just write a few words about our thoughts on it.

Keep Moving is a memoir of van Dyke’s life, but it’s also more than that. Besides the anecdotes and stories from his lie in Hollywood, the author reminds us of the importance in moving every single day. As he approaches his 90th birthday, I think he’s a pretty good source on what might help us to live longer, and he says that moving – exercising – especially something you love doing – is a vital part of that. That’s where the title of the book comes in. Keep Moving. Sing and dance and walk and run every day. If you don’t like any of those things, find something you do like to do, and move every day. This is good for your body and your spirit.

Besides having lived a long and full life himself, Dick van Dyke has one other piece of personal history that gives him credibility to the “Keep Moving movement.” When he was a young man (mid-30s) and acting in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, he had an accident on set. He visited the doctor, where he was told that he had severe arthritis and would be basically lame within the decade. He rejected this notion. Not all of it, obviously – arthritis isn’t something you just decide that you no longer have. But the part about being unable to walk within just a few years… he rejected that. He continued to sing, dance, run, jump… move. And by fighting his arthritis, he has been able to live a full and happy life, continuing to do all the things he loves. What an inspiration!

I have really enjoyed listening to Dick van Dyke read his own book. It’s one that Will and I have been listening to together in the evenings while he works and I knit. It’s a fun book, and hearing his voice has made me want to find some old Diagnosis: Murder episodes to watch 🙂

Make sure to head over to Lori’s blog and find out what she thought about this book.

Next month, we’re reading An Invisible Thread by Laura Schroff. It’s “the true story of an 11-year-old panhandler, a busy sales executive, and an unlikely meeting with destiny.” The based-on-a-true story genre is my favorite kind of movie (not documentaries, but films with actors telling a true story), so I’m looking forward to this book. We haven’t been able to find questions on that one, either, so the post will be much like this one was.

Blessings,

Lori suggested 2 books she’d recently read for this month’s book club, and of her two options, I chose Austenland by Shannon Hale. This was a book I’d heard a little about, but never picked up. When I discovered the Overdrive app for my phone and iPad (a digital library that partners with real libraries to offer digital content – ebooks and audiobooks – to patrons), and learned that my home library was one of the partners, and that Austenland was available as an audiobook, it was a no brainer for me. I could listen to the book while I knitted and not have to choose between the two pastimes. Score!

Summary:

Jane is a young New York woman who can never seem to find the right man—perhaps because of her secret obsession with Mr. Darcy, as played by Colin Firth in the BBC adaptation of Pride and Predjudice.

When a wealthy relative bequeaths her a trip to an English resort catering to Austen-obsessed women, however, Jane’s fantasies of meeting the perfect Regency era gentleman suddenly become more real than she ever could have imagined.

Is this total immersion in a fake Austenland enough to make Jane kick the Austen obsession for good, or could all her dreams actually culminate in a Mr. Darcy of her own? (From the publisher.)

For my post, I’ve taken a few questions from LitLovers, but Lori says that they seem to be the same questions that were found in the back of her copy of the book. Since I had an audiobook, I didn’t have that feature.

Austenland, besides chronicling Jane’s stay at Pembrook Park, lists all thirteen “boyfriends” she’s had in her lifetime. How well does the reader get to know Jane’s past? How much has she changed from her first relationship at age twelve to the one that is now just beginning?

Hearing about some of those past relationships were my favorite parts of the book. It was really interesting to hear about her Jane’s past and discover how they helped to shape her current self. And of course she changed – who wouldn’t over the course of 20 years? It would be silly if she hadn’t.

Jane observes of the BBC’s Pride and Prejudice: “Stripped of Austen’s funny, insightful, biting narrator, the movie became a pure romance.” What would Austenland be like without Jane’s own funny, insightful, biting narration?

Because I’m not a huge Austen fan (out of ignorance, not necessarily dislike), I don’t think I could have handled this novel without Jane’s personality. I’m afraid I would have found it dull and awful if she’d been a true, non-rule-breaking participant in Pembrook Park, aka Austenland.

Jane’s great-aunt Carolyn set the whole Pembrook Park adventure into motion. What do you think Carolyn’s intentions were in sending Jane to this Austenland? Do you think Jane fulfilled those expectations?

Carolyn left Jane the trip to Pembrook Park in her will only after a visit with Jane six months earlier showed her to be a fan of Jane Austen – particularly the Colin Firth version of Pride and Prejudice. They had a bit of a heart to heart talk wherein Aunt Carolyn learned that Jane was more in love with Mr. Darcy than she was interested in finding someone real. Knowing that, I think she sent Jane to Pembrook Park with the hope that she’d find herself. It was an effort to allow her to explore this interest of hers while combining it with the reality of the now. If I’m right about Carolyn’s expectations, I think Jane passed them with flying colors.

Jane walks away from Nobley and Martin at the airport with the parting words, “Tell Mrs. Wattlesbrook I said tallyho” (186). Why does Jane enjoy her last line so much? What does she mean by “tallyho”?

Mrs. Wattlesbrook is quite prim and proper. She takes her theme park (for lack of a better term) to huge extremes, and not just the time period. She herself has taken on the role of a nobleperson of the era. Tally-ho is the kind of phrase that’s used by commoners – lower class people. During Jane’s stay at Pembrook Park, she proved herself to be just that time and time again. I think this line is just her way of taking one last jab at Mrs. Wattlesbrook.

What might Jane Austen think of Austenland, if she were alive today? Could she have possibly anticipated how influential her novels would become, even for twenty-first-century audiences? Could she ever have imagined a fan like Jane Hayes?

If Jane Austen was anything like most current authors, I think she’d be flattered by novels like Austenland. Because “fan fiction” is quite a large genre of its own nowadays, this is just a new take on it. As for whether she could have anticipated her novels’ influence… maybe. But it was probably more of a hope than an anticipation. Would she have imagined a fan like Jane Hayes? Again, maybe… but hoping more than expecting or imagining. (As a former fiction writer, take my word for this – it’s what we all hope for.)

I have a few book ideas in mind for next month’s book club. I’ll either update this post or make a new one (or both) once Lori picks from my list. But before you go, make sure to hit up Lori’s blog and see what she thought of Austenland.

Blessings,

Lori recommended this book, and it’s been a really fun read. I need to borrow it from the library again to read aloud to my boys (not that I don’t have enough of those!).

Three children, Hannah, Zachary, and Sarah Emily, find themselves on a small, lonely island for the summer while their mother writes a book. The family borrows a house from Mother’s aunt, Mehitabel. Aunt Mehitabel has left a skeleton key and confusing note for the children, and they spend the summer trying to make sense of it all. In their quest, they find themselves face to face with a three-headed dragon who teaches them all about the myths of dragons, as well as some history surrounding the creatures.

Lori suggested these questions from Sweet on Books.

How would you describe the siblings’ relationship?

They seem to get along okay – about as well as normal siblings, I’d say. They’re at a tricky stage, though, with Hannah (the oldest) being at a point where she’s starting to outgrow her siblings. Zachary and Sarah Emily seem to be really close, though.

Which sibling do you relate to the most and why?

I think I relate to Hannah the most because I don’t think I’m much fun (lol). I’m definitely the kind of person who wants the kids to do kid things and to be left on my own to do grown up things. Obviously I fight this in order to spend time with my children (whom I adore, and I don’t mean to suggest that it’s a chore to spend time with them – it’s not).

Do you think that inequalities for girls still exist today?

I think things are different for boys and girls. But different is not the same as unequal. Instead of working hard to be “equal” (which by definition means “the same as”) boys/men, girls and women should embrace who we are and appreciate our gender roles.

Do you believe in dragons? Would you like to meet one?

I believe dragons used to exist, but I don’t think they still do. I think they’re really just a variety of dinosaur, and from what I’ve read in the Bible, it seems to support this view. I don’t think they were ever “wise” or able to talk or anything, though. Would I like to meet one? Probably not. I’m not one for creepy things 😉

What would you do if you were stranded on an island? Name three things you don’t think you could live without.

I would be just fine relaxing in a cozy chair and knitting somewhere. The rest of my family would be all about the walking around and exploring. Three things that would be difficult to live without: my phone (some sort of communication with the outside world would be nice); yarn and knitting needles (can’t cozy up and knit without those!); and a pan to cook some good food in.

~*~*~

We haven’t decided yet on a book for next month; I’ll do a short follow up post once that decision’s been made.

Don’t forget to check out Lori’s thoughts on The Dragon of Lonely Island here.

Blessings,

 

When Will and I were in the grocery store a few weeks ago, a book in the checkout line caught my eye. There was an elephant on the cover (my absolute favorite animal!) and a tagline that said, “Magic so wondrous,  you have to believe it to see it.” I picked it up to read the summary, and Will asked me if I wanted to buy it. Normally I say no in situations like this, but I wanted to read this book, so this time I said yes. I didn’t realize at the time that it was a children’s novel, but I’m glad I read the book anyway. It was a whimsical tale about a boy and his grandfather and the magical circus that binds them together, even through the ultimate separation.

A few weeks later, Lori and I were emailing back and forth to try to figure out what books to do for book club this summer, and I requested something “light and easy” because of all the stress of our moving and living situation. She suggested two (one of which was the Women of WWII that we did last month), and one is one that her daughters read (which will be up next month). I suggested Circus Mirandus – the book with the elephant and great tagline.

As always with book club posts, Spoiler Alert.

Aunt Gertrudis says bad sense runs in the family. Do you believe bad sense is inherited or learned? Why?

I think “bad sense” is learned. While it might seem that it’s inherited based on the people in our lives that seem to exhibit it on occasion (or regularly…), you can just as often find people from a “bad situation” who have overcome that to become smart and successful. If bad sense was genetic, you wouldn’t see that often, if ever.

Grandpa Ephraim wrote to a lightbender. Is it possible to bend light and if so, how?

Simply speaking, anyone who wears correctional lenses (glasses) bends light every day. The glasses refract the light to help them see better.

You can also bend light with a prism. Or a hose. Both of those allow us to see the bent light in the form of a rainbow.

But someone just bending light on their own, with no tools, I’m not so sure.

Interesting thought occurred to me as I typed about rainbows just a moment ago, though… The rainbow is God’s promise to never destroy the world by water again. The lightbender in the story is Micah’s savior (of sorts). I’m not suggesting that the lightbender is God or anything, but the fact that this is the way in which his powers manifest make it an interesting comparison.

The Lightbender uses a parrot to send messages. What other bird is known for carrying messages and how are they trained?

It seems as though using birds to send messages is a very popular thing for fantasy stories to do. They use owls in Harry Potter. I’m not sure what birds are used for messaging in real life – carrier pigeons, maybe? Being unsure as to whether this is even the right answer, I don’t know how they’re trained.

Circus Mirandus is in La Paz, Bolivia. Find it on a map. How far is it from your city or state?

I know that La Paz, Bolivia is in South America, so I didn’t have to look too hard to find it on the map. I did not, however, know the distance from my hometown – it’s roughly 5400 miles.

Porter can open a door from one part of the world to another. If you had such a door name the one place you would like to use the door to visit and why.

Paris, France. There are a lot of places I’ve wanted to visit (London, Australia, Peru), but Paris is the one that I want to see the most.

Ephraim writes letters to his father during the war. Each letter has Ephraim doing something worse than the letter before, such as cutting school, then robbing a train. Why do you think Ephraim is writing these types of letters? What is his purpose?

I think that young Ephraim thinks that if he’s bad enough, his father will have to come home from the war, and seeing his father again is the one thing in the world he wants more than anything. So it’s worth it to him to behave badly if it means he’ll get to see his dad again – having his father around to punish him for behaving badly is better than not having him around at all.

Jenny pulls Micah into the crafts closet when she thinks he is about to cry. What does this tell you about Jenny and her character?

It shows that she’s both acutely aware of people’s feelings (to have recognized that he was about to cry) and she has a lot of empathy – she wanted to protect him from potential ridicule from other classmates.

~*~*~

There are dozens more questions on this book from the website we’ve used for these questions, but I’m already getting pretty longwinded here, so I’m going to wrap it up. Before I go, just a couple of final thoughts on this book. I really enjoyed reading it, despite the fact that it was a children’s book. Just because a book is written with kids in mind doesn’t mean that it’s not appropriate or enjoyable for adults, and Circus Mirandus proved that to me. As soon as we get moved into our own house again, and unpack the boxes and find this book, my older kids (at least Munchkin – the reader) is going to read it. I look forward to hearing his thoughts on it. This one is definitely something to pick up! But before you do, head over to Lori’s blog and read her thoughts on this book.

Next month, we’ll be reading The Dragon of Lonely Island.

Blessings,

 

 

Lori suggested this book after I requested something “light and easy” following my delayed completion of Filling Station last month. This was a great choice! It was simple, but still interesting and inspiring. 

The book is split into parts, each of which focuses on one country involved in the war. Each part talks of a few women from that country who made huge impacts for their country, usually as part of the resistance movement. Some of the women I’d heard of, but most I hadn’t. I think that’s what makes the book even more inspiring – it’s largely filled with untold stories.

Here are a few of my favorites.

Sophie Scholl – She is one of the few I’d heard of before, and her story is especially tragic. As a writer, editor, and distributor of The White Rose pamphlets in Germany, she was eventually arrested. Within just a few hours of her arrest, she’d already been tried, found guilty, and executed.

Josephine Baker – An African American who emigrated to France, Josephine was a performer. She used her position as a celebrity to garner information from the enemy and turn it over to her allied superiors. 

Magda Trocme – She was the wife of a pastor who taught that it was important to help those in need, even if it meant legal trouble for you. She took this very seriously and ended up bringing over 5,000 refugees (3,500 Jews) to safety with the help of others in her village. Despite her husband’s arrest, she continued the work in his absence. They both survived the war.

Irene Gut – She was a 17-year-old Polish nurse who was forced to work not only in the hospital but also as a waitress in the military dining hall. She used this position to learn the plans for the Jews and to save them, even using the home of her employer (a German officer) in her quest.

This is a very small sampling of the stories in this book, and all of them are definitely worth reading.

In addition to the stories of the women, each part opens with a brief history of the war in the country being highlighted. Even though the book is an easy one to read (it’s technically a children’s book), it was both informative and enjoyable. Please make sure to read Lori’s post for her thoughts on the book.

Next month, we’ll be reading Circus Mirandus by Cassie Beasley. This book caught my eye in the grocery store checkout line a while back, so I bought it. I’ve already read it, so my post will definitely be on time next month 😉

Blessings,

I cannot believe how long it took me to finish this book! Sheesh. Please believe me when I say it’s not because I didn’t like the book; it was pretty good. I just have a hard time making time for recreational reading these days.

Lori posted about it way back at the beginning of the month; I hope you’ll take a moment to read her thoughts.

Questions are from LitLovers. Spoiler alert is in effect.

A lot of Southern identity is wrapped up in one’s family history. “Now, just who are your people?” is an oft-quoted phrase around the region. Sookie’s biggest crisis comes when she realizes that her “people” aren’t actually who she thought they were. How does Sookie’s discovery of her true family affect her identity?

I think Sookie took the information of her own adoption to a crazy place. It’s one thing to be stunned and to then try to find out more about your “true” heritage, but the way she abandoned her adopted mother for a time and kept going on and on about how she “wasn’t a real Simmons” was over the top. It affected her too deeply, in my opinion. It completely changed her outlook on life and yes, her identity, in ways it shouldn’t have.

Though Sookie tells us that Lenore’s nickname, “Winged Victory,” came from the way she entered a room—as if she were the statuesque piece on the hood of a car rushing in—how might “Winged Victory” reflect Lenore’s personality in other ways? How might the image of a winged woman tie Lenore in with the ladies of the WASPs?

I can definitely understand the nickname Winged Victory for Lenore. She was a very bold person, just the type that would be all about winning things (Victory). Her boldness could also be like that of a bird of prey – and she did seem to prey on the people around her to a certain extent. The image of a winged woman relating to the WASP women is obvious – they flew airplanes, and a “winged woman” would be one who can fly.

Sookie’s best friend, Marvaleen, is constantly trying different suggestions from her life coach, Edna Yorba Zorbra. From journaling to yoga to the Goddess Within group, which meets in a yurt, Marvaleen tries every method possible to get over her divorce. How does Sookie’s approach to dealing with her problems differ from Marvaleen’s?

Marvaleen is all about trying gimmicky things to deal with her issues. Sookie is very pragmatic – she sees a therapist (albeit in secret, kind of). I think that shows that Sookie is more willing to face her problems head on than Marvaleen. While Marvaleen is busy doing yoga or going to fruity self-help groups, Sookie is getting professional help and actually talking over her problems with someone who can actually guide her in helping herself.

In The All-Girl Filling Station’s Last Reunion, we learn about a mostly unknown part of American history—the WASPs of World War II. These women went for thirty-five years without recognition because their records of service were sealed and classified. Were you surprised to learn about this?

The idea that the records were sealed is unfortunate, but for some reason didn’t surprise me. I’d never heard about the troupe, but it was a really neat aspect of the novel. What I did find surprising about the whole thing was the man at the end of the book who was running a WWII airplane museum, and when Sookie told him about the WASPs, he wasn’t the least bit interested – in fact, he seemed rather snooty about it when Sookie and her daughter suggested he include WASP history in his presentation. That didn’t feel real to me.

So there you go… I really did enjoy this book, and if you’re a fan of the film Fried Green Tomatoes, I recommend reading this book – it’s by the same author.

Blessings,

Just a quick update on this month’s book club… I’m still reading the book (I haven’t had much time to read since we moved; our family dynamic is a bit wonky from what we’re used to, and things are still meshing into the “new normal”), so I don’t have a full book club report today. But Lori has already finished the book, so she’ll have a post up sometime very soon. I do plan to keep reading the book; I am enjoying it, I just haven’t had time to finish it. When I do, I’ll do a post with my answers to these questions from LitLovers.

Blessings,

I mentioned last month that this month’s Book Club would be on The Whistler by John Grisham, and that Mr. Grisham is my favorite author. This is definitely still the case after reading his newest novel; I think it’s even better than some of other recent works!

Synopsis:

A high-stakes thrill ride through the darkest corners of the Sunshine State.
 
We expect our judges to be honest and wise. Their integrity is the bedrock of the entire judicial system. We trust them to ensure fair trials, to protect the rights of all litigants, to punish those who do wrong, and to oversee the flow of justice.

But what happens when a judge bends the law or takes a bribe?

Lacy Stoltz is an investigator for the Florida Board on Judicial Conduct. It is her job to respond to complaints dealing with judicial misconduct. After nine years with the Board, she knows that most problems are caused by incompetence, not corruption.

But a corruption case eventually crosses her desk. A previously disbarred lawyer is back in business, and he claims to know of a Florida judge who has stolen more money than all other crooked judges combined.

And not just crooked judges in Florida. All judges, from all states, and throughout United States history. And now he wants to put a stop to it.

His only client is a person who knows the truth and wants to blow the whistle and collect millions under Florida law. When the case is assigned to Lacy, she immediately suspects that this one could be dangerous.

Dangerous is one thing. Deadly is something else. (From the publisher.)

It took me a long time – in terms of days, not pages – to get going in this book (I even ran out of time on my library loan and had to return it, place a fresh hold, and check it out again several days later), but once I did, it was nonstop reading for me. There was one event a little less than halfway through that was enough to propel me through and make me want to just keep reading. I haven’t had that experience in a long time, so it was a welcome one with this book.

Discussion questions for this post are from Lit Lovers. Spoiler alert is in effect.

1. Talk about Lacy Stoltz. Grisham has been accused of ignoring strong females for his lead characters. Does Stoltz satisfy that lack? What do you think of her?

I’m unfamiliar with the accusation of Grisham not using strong female characters, but I suppose it makes sense; one of his other recent novels (Gray Mountain, published in October 2014) had a female lead. Perhaps if he was already “under fire” at that point, that might be the reason he chose a woman main character for that book.

Back to the question at hand, though. Lacy was okay. I neither loved her nor hated her; I was just ambivalent toward her. She wasn’t anything special. I think she reacted in reasonable ways based on the things that were happening to her and the people around her. I’m not sure that makes her “strong,” but it makes her a decent character.

2. Do you find anything enviable about Lacy’s life in the following passage? If so what? If you’re a woman, do you ever envision a life like Stoltz’s?

The truth was that, at the age of 36, Lacy was content to live alone, to sleep in the center of the bed, to clean up only after herself, to make and spend her own money, to come and go as she pleased, to pursue her career without worrying about his, to plan her evenings with input from no one else, to cook or not to cook, and to have sole possession of the remote control.

Generally speaking, I did not envy Lacy’s life in the least. She works too many hours for me, and it despite the relationship she has with her boss, colleagues, and colleagues’ families, it seems like it would be a lonely existence.

However… taking a look at the passage, I could see how it might be nice not to have other people to clean up after. That’s not enough to make me “want to be” her, though.

3. Had you figured out the whistle blower’s motive before the reveal?

No, but I didn’t really try to. That’s not my style of book reading. I tend to allow the author to take me on the ride they want rather than “spoiling” it, even just for myself. So I was perfectly fine to not try to guess who The Whistler was or why he/she was doing the whistleblowing.

4. How does Grisham ratchet up the suspense in The Whistler? What about that mysterious late night meeting near the Tappacola reservation? Realistically, why would Lacy and Hugo have gone?

The scene mentioned in this question is undoubtedly the point that made me want to keep turning pages. What happened “that night” when Lacy and Hugo went to the reservation was the moment I needed to keep reading. (I would have finished the book regardless, but this moment was the one that really was the turning point for me as a reader.) It was definitely the most suspenseful moment in the book (although there was another one involving the “whistler” and one of the antagonist’s hit men near the end was pretty good too). As for why Lacy and Hugo would go there that night, I think they honestly thought the man who called them would be a credible source in their investigation. I don’t think they suspected for even one second that it would be anything other than a reasonable “meeting of the minds” so to speak. Looking at it subjectively, after having finished the book now, I can see that it was probably a bad idea, though. I mean, who asks for a meeting at midnight? In an unfriendly “neighborhood”? No one. So Lacy and Hugo, being the intelligent people they were, should have known better. That said, without this meeting, and the unfortunate fallout that happened from it, the case never would have been solved. So despite the tragedy that occurred as a result of this meeting was absolutely essential to the story.

5. Read other Grisham novels? If so, how does this one compare?

I’ve read (almost) all of Grisham’s novels! (I think the only one I skipped was The Pelican Brief. That, and the smaller, non-law-related ones and the children’s novels.) I think this one is reminiscent of the Grisham I came to know and love many years ago. A lot of his current novels have been “preachy” or just generally not as good as his novels from the 90s. This one was absolutely fantastic. Definitely my favorite one in a long time.

~*~*~

Lori let me know just yesterday that she was unable to get this book from her library in time to read it (the hold list was too long), so unfortunately, she won’t be answering questions on it this month. I hope you’ll head over to her blog and read about some of the things she and her daughters have been doing lately anyway 🙂

We’re still deciding which book to read for next month’s installment of the Book Club, so I’ll make a new post when I know for sure.

Blessings,

For Book Club this month, Lori and I decided to do “Freestyle.” This means that we’ve read different books; I chose The Girl on the Train by Paula Hawkins. This was one that Lori didn’t want to read, so I decided to do it on my own.

Questions come from LitLovers. Spoiler alert is in affect.

1. We all do it—actively watch life around us. In this way, with her own voyeuristic curiosity, Rachel Watson is not so unusual. What do you think accounts for this nosy, all-too-human impulse? Is it more extreme in Rachel than in the average person? What is so different about her?

I think a lot of us, even though we might be happy with our own lives, like to imagine what it would be like to lead a different one sometimes. It is definitely more extreme in Rachel than in the average person, though – others might imagine things, but she actually acts on them. As far as what’s different about her, I think it’s something as simple as her alcoholism taking its toll. She might not be this “crazy” if she wasn’t a drunk.

2. How would you have reacted if you’d seen what Rachel did from her train window—a pile of clothes—just before the rumored disappearance of Megan Hipwell? What might you or she have done differently?

I’m not sure I would’ve thought much about a pile of clothes on the ground. While it could be sinister, it isn’t automatically so. Therefore, I don’t think I would have done anything.

3. A crucial question in The Girl on the Train is how much Rachel Watson can trust her own memory. How reliable are her observations? Yet since the relationship between truth and memory is often a slippery one, how objective or “true” can a memory, by definition, really be? Can memory lie? If so, what factors might influence it?

It turns out that a lot of her memories aren’t so “false” after all. It seemed to me that her bigger problem was the inability to remember anything at all, not the fact that her memories were incorrect, especially near the end of the book.

I think memories can lie, yes. A lot of the things we “remember” from our own childhoods are actually the memories of our parents, and though they often mean well, parents will often smudge the truth to make themselves out in the best light. Therefore, our memories are lies woven by others in some instances.

4. One of Rachel’s deepest disappointments, it turns out, is that she can’t have children. Her ex-husband Tom’s second wife Anna is the mother to a young child, Evie. How does Rachel’s inability to conceive precipitate her breakdown? How does the topic of motherhood drive the plot of the story?

Rachel’s inability to have children is the entire reason for her breakdown. In a book full of lies, that much is made very clear. If she’d been able to have a child, I don’t think she would have lost her mind, become an alcoholic, and potentially been left by Tom (although, based on how he turned out, that last bit is up for debate). Outside of that one example, I’m not sure the “topic of motherhood” is necessarily a driving point in the story.

5. Other characters in the novel make different assumptions about Rachel Watson depending on how or even where they see her. To a certain extent, she understands this and often tries to manipulate their assumptions—by appearing to be a commuter, for instance, going to work every day. Is she successful? To what degree did you make assumptions about Rachel early on based on the facts and appearances you were presented? How did those change over time and why? How did your assumptions about her affect your reading of the central mystery in the book? Did your assumptions about her change over its course? What other characters did you make assumptions about? How did your assumptions affect your interpretation of the plot? Having now finished The Girl on the Train, what surprised you the most?

In a very basic sense, Rachel is successful in manipulating people’s assumptions about her. At least at the beginning. Her roommate, Cathy, has no idea that Rachel had lost her job a long time before the novel begins, for example. Her riding the train and pretending to be a commuter was a successful ruse. As far as the rest of the questions, I’m not really a good person to answer those; I don’t make assumptions about characters. I tend to read a book with nothing in mind, and I let the author take me on the journey they wish to tell.

~*~*~

Lori read what looks like a really interesting book: Giants: The Dwarfs of Auschwitz. I hope you’ll read her post to learn more about it.

This month, Lori and I are back to reading the same book. We’ll be working through The Whistler by John Grisham. He’s my very favorite author, so I’m excited about this one.

Blessings,

 

 

 

Regrettably, I didn’t read this book. I gave it a try, but I just couldn’t get into it; it wasn’t my style at all. I encourage you to head over to Lori’s blog and read her thoughts, though.

For the March edition, we will be doing “freestyle,” meaning that Lori and I won’t be reading the same book. I’m going to be reading The Girl on the Train by Paula Hawkins, which Lori decided was too intense for her. I’m not sure what she’ll be reading. In April, we’ll be posting about John Grisham’s new book, The Whistler.

Happy Weekend!

Blessings,