Andrew O'Hagan's The life and opinions of Maf the dog and of his friend Marilyn Monroe

It was a dark and stormy night ... no, really, it was ... but nonetheless around 8 Minervans forded the hail, lightning and thunder to go to Kate's to discuss our November book, The life and opinions of Maf the dog and of his friend Marilyn Monroe, by Scottish writer, Andrew O'Hagan.

Why, asked a member to start proceedings, was it told by a dog? Couldn't it have been just as easily written as a third person story? Perhaps, others of us said, but the dog adds another perspective. And, in fact, O'Hagan suggests in the book that the animal world has it more together than the human of the species. At one point Maf talks of spouses, and how some can be competitive, can even want to destroy what they love. He suggests

Poor married people: perhaps they could learn something from dogs about how to settle the business of oneself before setting up shop with another.

There's a sense in fact that dogs are more moral, more sensible, that they can see the moral problems while humans get themselves tied up over such issues fame and celebrity. In a footnote, of which there are many ("a dog is bound to like footnotes. We spend our lives down here"), Maf tells us that dogs speaking of humans has a long tradition, starting in prose with Cervantes.

But, before I continue, a quick rundown of what is a pretty slim plot. Maf (short for Mafia Honey) is a Maltese Terrier who was given (in reality as well as in fiction) to Marilyn Monroe by Frank Sinatra. In the first few chapters Maf moves from Scotland, where he is born, to the home of Vanessa Bell and Duncan Grant (of the Bloomsbury set), to the Los Angeles home of Natalie Woods’ parents, to Frank Sinatra to Marilyn. In the rest of the book we follow Maf as he lives with Marilyn Monroe, in New York and Los Angeles, in the last couple of years of her life.

Maf meets LOTS of people, moving as he does in the rarefied air of Hollywood and New York - and this brought out another criticism/comment. Some members felt the book was a little too clever or smart-alecky. There IS a good degree of name-dropping and if you don't know all the references (as I admit I didn't) then you're sure to miss something. Is this a flaw? Some felt it was, but we all agrees that O'Hagan's years of research resulted in the era being well described. And this was part of the theme or topic we thought, that is a description of the 1960s. The hope, in particular, with the election of John F Kennedy and the country being on the verge of the Civil Rights Movement. They were exciting times. At one point Marilyn and Maf take a tour to Ellis Island, the historical arrival point for many immigrants to America, and where the universal cry was "Let me start again".

Trotsky appears regularly in the novel, as he's Maf's hero. Maf seems to see him as an ideal man - a potential world leader, an interior decorator, and a literary critic. Towards the end is this:

In the society of the future, Trotsky wrote, all art would dissolve into life. That is how the world would know good philosophy had triumphed. No needs for dancers and painters and writers and actors. Everyone would become part of a great living mural of talent and harmony.

Oh yes!

We also talked a little about the humour, such as the various party scenes where Marilyn talks with the likes of Carson McCullers or the Trillings, or where Maf nips a literary critic he doesn't like. It's a pretty funny book and contains (of course it does) a discussion of tragedy versus comedy.

One of our members had done some research on O'Hagan and reported that when he was a teenager he saw Marilyn Monroe as representing what human beings can do with their lives. She became an exemplary life that spurred him on. Some, though, wondered whether he had idealised her. The book's ending, given that it's about the last couple of years of her life, was not the expected one - and a couple of members felt it was a somewhat schmaltzy movie-style ending.

By the end of the discussion, some of those who had not finished it and had been unsure whether they wanted to, felt that it might be worth keeping on going! What better assessment could there be of a good discussion ...

Howard Jacobson's The Finkler question

Written by Sylvia ...

Howard Jacobson's The Finkler question,
Courtesy: Bloomsbury.

A very pleasant evening at Helen's was had discussing a book which intrigued and challenged many of us not 'in the club'.  The level of ignorance about all things Jewish ranged from complete ignorance to full knowledge. Thank goodness for our wonderful members who have a more cosmopolitan background!

The Finkler question, by English writer Howard Jacobson, is the story of an Englishman, Julian Treslove (Fr. 'very love' ?) who lives in London.  He wants to be Jewish and find true love and the girl of his dreams. He is utterly obsessed by his two Jewish friends, Sam Finkler  and Libor Sevcik (a Czech Jew) and their whole way of looking at the world and their culture. Later in the book he falls in love with Hephzibah, Libor's neice, but although she is perfect he wants more -- too much more even for her. He wants to 'consume' her and in fact ends up making her completely miserable. He is a pathetic character (to some of us ) in that his endeavours to join in the life of his friends always ends in disaster and makes him more miserable and egocentric. He is a terrible father with little or no interest in his sons and even less empathy. He is a terrible de facto husband to the mothers of his sons for the same reasons.  

There is a lot of philosophy and polemic in this novel. However, the tone is lifted by the clever and repetitive repartee from the main antagonists. According to our 'knowledgeable one' the book is true to Jewish dialogue, and thought patterns and humour. And it contains masses of humour if you read it carefully. Jacobson knows what he is describing and knows the long and winding conversations which can be very funny and very typical. The use of Yiddish is good because there are some Yiddish words which are not translatable into English, and they add to the sense of craziness or hilarity at times (eg Nebissh.)

The talk also ranged over some of the topics discussed by the main characters -- sex (a constant thread), the Palestinian state and the ASHamed Jews' viewpoint.

It was not decided what the main point of the book is -- is it just a chance to laugh with and at Jews or is it a spoof of their interminable conversations. Or is it something else entirely? It is ironic and it is a fabulous comedy for those who understand it. Did it deserve to win the Man Booker -- we didn't decide ?

... and then Sylvia throws down the gauntlet: "Maybe others can add to this, contest or whatever!", she says. So, go for it Minervans.

Hazel Rowley's Franklin and Eleanor: An extraordinary marriage

It was pretty much a full house when Minervans met this week to discuss Australian biographer Hazel Rowley's last book, Franklin and Eleanor: An extraordinary marriage. Ten members turned up - with the only absentee being the person who first suggested it. We're not complaining though, because everyone, it appears, enjoyed the book. One, in fact, admitted secretly to preferring biography to fiction; some were surprised by how much they enjoyed it. The overall comment was that it was readable, engaging.

We started our discussion with our absent member's comment on our Facebook event page. She wrote that:

It is a beautiful piece of writing which shows just what an extraordinary period of change that first half of the 20th century proved. However, I did miss some of that Janet Malcolm style of careful consideration of where the biographer fits in with the story...

None of us had read Janet Malcolm (though we checked her on Wikipedia) and so were not quite sure exactly what Helen meant. Helen, if you read this post, please tell us in a comment!

Eleanor Roosevelt's White House Portrait
(Public Domain,  courtesy US Government via Wikipedia)

Being women, we probably focused more of our discussion on Eleanor. Reasons we liked the book included the description of the rich (not as in "wealthy" though they were that too) lives they led, and the fact the Eleanor was a multi-dimensional, sophisticated person who could interact with many peoples on many levels. We discussed how driven she was by her mission - which mostly related to social justice issues such as equality and respect for black Americans.

We of course commiserated with Eleanor over Franklin's betrayal of her with Lucy Mercer in 1918 and discussed why they stayed together. Rowley gives pragmatic reasons - his mother threatened disinheritance, his political advisers said it would be the end of his political aspirations - but also suggests that there was love and affection between them, and that Franklin "still loved Eleanor; he knew how much he needed her". In the preface Rowley describes their marriage as "a joint endeavour, a partnership". It certainly seems it must have been that, as they stayed together for 40 years, until Franklin's death in 1945. However, we also wondered whether Eleanor's insistence on retaining Mrs Nesbitt as the White House housekeeper - the White House during their unusually long occupation was renowned for its indifferent cuisine - was a passive-aggressive act on her part, though others suggested it was simply that Eleanor didn't care much about food.

One member admitted that Eleanor had the life she would like to lead. Others weren't quite so sure.

We liked the description quoted near the end of Eleanor's blend of "naiveté and cunning".

We touched on some issues relating to the writing of biography, such as the challenge Rowley had in teasing out fact from mythmaking, particularly given some of the primary sources were written with a view to future public use. We felt Rowley was not judgemental but maintained an even-handed tone throughout, despite appearing to be more interested in Eleanor. Perhaps this focus is due to the fact that there are more primary records for Eleanor's part of the marriage. She, for example, kept a diary and wrote her "My Day" column for the newspaper, while Franklin kept no journal. I felt that while it was well-researched, and well-written, there was something missing, something Rowley probably didn't (couldn't) know regarding just what was the "glue" that kept them together. How much was real affection and how much pragmatism? That's something we'll never really know though the evidence Rowley presents tends to suggest mostly the former despite the myriad other romantic friendships and relationships each had. It really was an extraordinary marriage.

Being Australians, many felt they did not fully comprehend the history of the period. We recognised though that Rowley's book was not intended to be a history but an analysis of the marriage. Having lived in the USA, I said that there is still evidence today of Franklin's New Deal, and particularly the work of the CCC and WPA programs in and around the National Parks and some of the major scenic roads. Susan said she had visited Hyde Park, the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. She said it was beautiful and fascinating, though also carefully curated (if you know what she means!).

A couple of us commented on the lovely accolades given on FDR's death. We particularly liked this one:

'His face was the very image of happiness,' Albert Camus wrote in the French Resistance newspaper, Combat. 'History's powerful men are not generally men of such good humour ... There is not a single free human being who does not regret his loss and who would not have wished his destiny to have continued a little longer. World peace, that boundless good, ought to be planned by men with happy faces rather than by sad-eyed politicians.'

And that seems as good a place as any to end this report. Comments anyone?

Caleb's Crossing or Bethia's Borders?

Our lively discussion about Geraldine Brooks' latest novel was sparked by Sue quoting a controversial review by Jocelyn McLurg in USA Today, whose irreverent review claimed 'it reads like a puritanical mash-up of Avatar meets Dances With Wolves'.

The story is based loosely on the story of Caleb Cheeshahteaumauk, who in 1665 became the first Native American Harvard graduate, and is set in what is now called Martha's vineyard, (Wampanoag: Noepe) an island off the coast of Massachusetts, USA where Geraldine Brooks lives. The Minerva group found the book to be very readable and the story engaging.

We talked about her use of the female protagonist Bethia, and whether she spoke with a 21st century voice, or indeed Geraldine's voice. Other members argued that there was evidence of outspoken women at the time, and her feminist attitude while unusual was not unbelievable. She was the most fleshed out character, although her fate took a number of twists and turns, sometimes it seemed only to serve Brooks' narrative needs - eg in being indentured to the school, and then falling for Samuel.

We talked about the romance in the book, and whether Bethia and Caleb had a romantic attraction. Most agreed that the romance was a let down, and we didn't feel a strong emotional engagement with the characters. Caleb especially was seen as a shadowy character, particularly as the book progressed, so that we don't really get to know him.

We agreed that her capturing the sense of place was very successful, that she knew that environment well, and had as usual researched her background and characters well. Her understanding of the Indian dwelling Bethia went to and 'sank into the furs' was very believable, and we found out based on Geraldine's own experience. She certainly is inspired by places she lives to delve into the background to find the stories.

We talked of her use of language in using words from Wiltshire dialect, like 'shakedown' ... Sue commented that she was not entirely consistent, and thought her use of the term 'going forward' had a modern jargon association.

We touched on religion and it's constraints and the references to Satan and evil in relation to the pawaw's activities and seeming command of the forces of nature. However Bethia's father had his own reputation for magic healing when it seemed he could save the Indian sonquen Nahnoso from illness, a reputation shortlived when the sonquen succumbed to smallpox.

We explored the use of the title Caleb's Crossing...what was being crossed and what the significance was. Some thought Geraldine had a more straightforward motivation in simply telling a story that intrigued her. Others felt that she was examining the notion of crossing cultures, and the cost and difficulty of such a crossing, both by Caleb..who paid for it in his death, and by Bethia and her family who had a tough life in coming to a new country. Geraldine's own experience in having adopted a son from Ethiopia had also sensitized her to the needs to adapt and learn language and ways of a new culture. She refers to the importance of retaining the association with her son's original culture. In Caleb's case he really had to choose to abandon much of his Wampanoag life in order to be accepted in white society.

A stimulating discussion. A number of the group had heard Brooks interviewed and admired and enjoyed her tales about how she finds and researches the stories she writes...almost more engaging than her actual novel??

Kim Scott's That deadman dance

Written by Sylvia: 

On July 26 Minerva met to discuss That deadman dance by the Indigenous writer Kim Scott. All present had read most if not all of the book and although there were a couple of people who thought it was a little long and needed a good edit we all gained an insight into life of a Noongar  man in the first few decades of white settlement in SW Western Australia.  It is the same old story of exploitation of the sea and the land by white Europeans but it has many twists and turns which made it most agreeable and enjoyable to many of us. It is also more poignant because you get to feel the loss of status and hope experienced by many of the Noongar people during this time.

A surprisingly good feature is that it is not sequential in the life story of Bobby Wabalanginy (how do you pronounce that?). It covers the years from 1826 to 1844. We hear about when Bobby was very young and experiencing the sea and the whaling industry which arrived and left all in the space of a few years, the settlement, the exploration, the agriculture and the town growing up and his elderly life when he is telling tourists some of the stories told to him by his surrogate dad Menak as well as his own stories and songs. The Prologue is fascinating as it links Bobby not only to whales but also to European education -- learning to write English as well as work out his connection and love of whales and their presence in the sea.     

The whaling scenes were considered by some to be distressing and too long but others thought they were good in that you really felt that the story had not been told so graphically before. And Scott captures the feeling of strangeness that his ancestors must have felt when going on board a big ship and experiencing the sea in a very different way from the way. 

Another very good feature of this novel is that Scott makes a European reader a little bit more aware of the subtleties of Indigenous life -- for instance the lack of amity between tribes.  Another example is that the Europeans thought they were trading for good 'things' from the local people but sometimes the Indigenous people gave them 'shonky axes, or 'a spear that wouldn't fly' (page 73).          

There are many great characters in this book as well as Bobby. Menak is a powerful force in the novel -- 'a wise man' who suspects all Europeans. Dr Cross is one of the few good settlers who takes great interest in the local people and of course he is not popular with the others. Some of the others try but as time passes the opportunities for friendship disappear and so does the goodwill between the nationalities. James and Jeffrey are two Indigenous men who are killed by Chaine who is one of the most greedy of the settlers, but James and Jeffrey are not without their faults too.

The language is excellent -- some Indigenous words -- not always explained and lots of different words used to explain Indigenous culture. It does not have the cliche words such as 'dreamtime' but Scott talks about men from the horizon (for the white settlers).

Scott is a very clever writer as he is telling history as well as writing many memorable passages which add to his novel giving it resonance for all readers  -- a very good example is the passage about reading:

 you can dive deep into a book and not know just how deep until you return gasping to the surface...  (page 86)  

The whaling imagery is quite wonderful and very evocative. Another very good passage is Scot's raw view of the bush as seen by the explorers -

Leaves were like needles, or small saws. Candlestick-shaped flowers blossomed or were dry and wooden... (page 46)

- which is so much more graphic than using the modern botanical names. 

I think many of us think this book could easily take a second reading as there is much to interest and understand.

Thanks, Sylvia ... and next time we'll do it together so it can be posted under your account.

M.J. Hyland, This is How

Book cover courtesy
Text Publishing

*SPOILER ALERT*

We were envious of our absent travelling members as about seven of us gathered on a wintry evening to discuss this thought provoking novel. One of our travellers had emailed her response to the book - that lives can change catastrophically in a moment, as happened to the doomed, naive young Oxtoby, unloved by his family as being too "different".

We remarked on the very spare style of writing, with short, simple sentences using few adjectives so that it was difficult to tell exactly when it was set (maybe the sixties?). Some of us really liked the writing, and even though some normally prefer more lushly detailed prose with a rich sense of time and place (OK, me!), in this case we agreed that the lack of descriptive language and other digressions, along with the almost constant use of the present tense, helped the reader to be "in the head" of a character who would otherwise have been very difficult to understand. We remarked on the way the author created a sense of impending doom, building up tension with very few words, but odd, so you think there's something going on.

It was remarked that Oxtoby was a naive and dissociated person, lacking social skills and like an observer in his own life, almost mildly autistic. His parents, especially his father didn't understand him, saying that he "lacked the knack for happiness". He presumptuously assumed that his new landlady might be interested in him on first acquaintance. We noted the telling contradictions and repressed feelings around his response to the break-up with his girlfriend:

"She said she was breaking up with me because I didn't know how to express my emotions. The thing is, I didn't have that many. As far as I was concerned it was pretty simple. I was in love with her and I liked our life and we laughed a lot and it felt good to be in bed with her and have her touching me"...

"I wanted to push her down the stairs, make the kind of impression I didn't know how to make with words. But I didn't, and when she'd closed the front door I said 'OK then', and 'Goodbye, then.' Afterwards I played the scene over and over, imagined how I planted my hands in the middle of her back and pushed hard enough to send her flying.

And I got this sentence in my head, over and over, 'You broke my heart and now I've broken your spine'"...

We discussed the actual murder of his sleeping housemate, wondering to what extent the death was intentional.

"I take the adjustable wrench and go to his room... I step forward, lift the wrench in my right hand and bring it down. Only once, a good, certain blow to his temple, not heavy, and the wrench bounces..."

Yet in his own mind later it seemed to be a mere accident ("I only hit him once"). When asked in court, his acquaintances agreed with him that "he is not a murderer". As the author no doubt intended, this prompted us to wonder what a murderer was supposed to be like. We noticed that while Oxtoby seems to feel shame and embarrassment, he feels no actual guilt over the death. The guard remarked that everybody in the prison is innocent.

Oxtoby's response to the harsh, degrading reality of prison life was discussed. He had loved his Grandmother who had been able to get him to articulate what he most wanted to do with his life and was able to validate that for him. In prison he talks to a psychologist who is also able to connect with him. He is able to hug her, and use some of that good feeling to help his unappealing cellmate. It was remarked that the book's last scene also touched on the theme of male sexuality including homosexuality which recurs through the book. We didn't agree about the extent to which he had grown and changed through the experience of prison, or whether it was only that, once he was used to it, he was more comfortable in the controlled world of prison than he had been in the overstimulating outside world.

Apparently the author interviewed a few murderers before writing "This is How". It made a big impression on us and we agreed that it was a chillingly convincing window into the mind of a murderer, maybe especially chilling as the reader is able to understand and even like him, and almost come to share his view that it was merely a forgivable mistake.

Eva Hornung, Dogboy (or, is it Dog boy)

Image courtesy Text Publishing

Six Minervans met on the last night in May to discuss Eva Hornung's intriguing and sometimes confronting novel, Dogboy. We were a small group with some of our number gallivanting OS taking advantage of the northern summer.

Anyhow, back to Dogboy. In April we discussed Alan Gould's The lakewoman. It was shortlisted for last year's Prime Minister's Literary Awards - and we were impressed with it. Dogboy is the book that won. We all thought it was a pretty close call (not having discussed the other contenders). Some thought Hornung's book had the edge in tightness and originality, but we generally agreed that either would have been a worthy recipient. This is, in fact, the group's second Hornung novel. We read, a few years ago, her City of sealions which was published under her married name, Eva Sallis.

The discussion started with a brief report from one of our travelling members who said she'd enjoyed it, though she didn't expect to at the start. Another member was also not expecting to like it as she "hates dogs", but she too was impressed with the writing and originality of the story. 

The plot is pretty straightforward. It tells the story of Romochka who, at the beginning of the novel, is 4 years old and alone in an apartment in Moscow. He hasn’t seen his mother for a week or more and suddenly his uncle does not return. After a couple of days alone and sensing that the apartment building is being abandoned, he heads out and manages to get himself adopted by a dog, Mamochka, who lives with her four young puppies and two older offspring. The novel tells the story of his life with the dogs and of what happens when he, four years later, comes to the attention of humans, specifically two scientists/doctors working in a children’s rehabilitation centre.

The descriptions of life in the lair are pretty visceral: 

This [a rat] was, he decided, his favourite food. He chewed through the slippery ribcage to its soft centre, keeping its head in his fist to make sure Black Sister didn't crunch through it and eat his treasure.

If you don't like dogs (and even if you do), these and similar descriptions can be particularly confronting - but, the characters are so strongly drawn and the story so compelling that we all, regardless of our attitude to dogs, found we wanted to keep reading.

Our main questions, in the end, focused on the scientists - their characterisation, their role in the novel. Some felt they were more successfully realised and integrated into the novel than others. But, they do of course raise the central question: 

Would Romochka have been "better off living with dogs than with humans”?

The novel, then, teases out what it means to be human and, overall, humans (humanity) do not come out of it well, though of course there are humans who show love and care. Without Mamochka, however,  Romochka is unlikely to have survived and this is a sobering thing for us to consider.

It was an interesting discussion but that's about all I'll report. It's a month since we met and I can't put my hands on my notes. I'm sure I've misrepresented some of the tenor of the discussion and would love to be corrected by those who remember more or something different. Go on, you can do it!