Izzeldin Abuelaish's I shall not hate

Written by Sylvia ...

'I shall not hate' takes the reader on a journey through the life of Dr Izzeldin Abuelaish. He is a Palestinian fertility specialist who has always believed that Palestinians and Israelis have many similarities and they have to live peacefully together. For instance he says that they are both forthright and emotional people who love talking.

This book talks about the author's childhood in a Palestinian refugee camp and his experiences studying and working in foreign countries.  The central core is the description of the tragic deaths of his wife from cancer and his three elder daughters from an Israeli bomb, all of which happened in 2008 and 2009.  Dr Abuelaish relates the death details right in the beginning of the book so the reader is aware of the situation in which he is writing and feeling. We did not find that this diminished our interest in completing the book however as we all felt that it was compelling reading. The repetition could be explained through Dr Abuelaish's training as a scientist or he may have felt it was necessary from a cultural perspective.  

The section in the book describing his hardships of working to support his family and study very hard was really powerfully written and without indulging in sentimentality. The oppression of the Palestinians by the Israeli state is very hard for Australians to fathom. Many of us felt that we did not know enough about the various wars between the countries and their reasons for such hatred to understand the complexity of life which Dr Abuelaish was describing.

Another area we felt handicapped through lack of knowledge was in the ways that Arab states have helped or hindered the Palestinians in their quest for a state. When Dr Abuelaish was writing this book the various areas of Palestine (Gaza and the West Bank) had barriers between them in their negotiations. It is good that in 2012 they are now talking.

The details of his wife's final hours and Dr Abuelaish's physical and emotional trials in order to see her was excruciating reading  -- these passages will stay in our memories for a long time.    

There are no words for the sadness of the bombing of innocent children. Was Dr Abuelaish's house targetted ? It is impossible to say but he does seem to think so. Even so he will not seek revenge and plunge into hatred. What a wonderful person!! 

There was a feeling that education was a possible although long term solution. There needs to be huge shifts in attitudes on both sides of the fence. It seems too that ordinary people are much more willing to understand and respect each other than are their politicians.

I think we all believe that Dr Abuelaish is a saint-like person on the level with Nelson Mandela and Dr Martin Luther King.  This is a book which should be recommended reading for anyone interested in the Middle East and in fact in world politics.    

Gillian Mears' Foal's bread

Courtesy Allen & Unwin

Foal's bread is the second novel by Gillian Mears that we've read in our group. The first was her first novel, The mint lawn, which those of us around back then remember enjoying (though we don't remember the details). We were not sorry we decided to read this, her third novel and first after 16 years, because we had a humdinger of a discussion! Such a humdinger, in fact, that I barely know where to start.

Let's start with the plot. The novel tells the story of the extended Nancarrow family from around 1926 to the early 21st century, though most of it takes place in the 1940s-1940s, tough years. It's set in the area Mears knows best, the dairy country of northeast New South Wales, around Grafton. The main characters are Noey, and the man Roley whom she marries. As well as being dairying people, they are horse people, high-jumpers in fact, and they have a dream - to establish their own high-jumping team to take around the show circuit. The story chronicles what happens to this dream as life's vicissitudes - some natural, some human, in origin - confront them. Some of the vicissitudes faced in this book include incest, lightning strikes, bearing a disabled child, and war.

So, what made it a great discussion? Particularly since most people liked it, and some loved it? Well, despite the general approval, there were queries and concerns. And there were those who didn't like it - was it "those" or just one? But she or they wasn't/weren't totally negative. In other words, this is a great book for readers to get their discussion teeth into!

First the positives. We liked the characterisation. We thought she controlled the story well ensuring that the drama didn't amok into overblown emotions. We liked her careful plotting, and the way she set up situations through parallels - two incest stories, two spaying stories, for example. We appreciated the way she conveyed complicated emotions, such as those of Noey for her incestuous Uncle Nip. We liked her evocation of the place and period, and the way she so viscerally conveyed the show jumping scene and the passions it engendered in those who took part. Overall, we felt she was a convincing, immersing writer.

What, then, about the negatives? Well, as you'd expect there was less consensus here. Some found the language/style problematic in places, pointing to long sentences which piled image upon image without giving the reader a chance to breathe. Others didn't notice such sentences! Some found the dialogue challenging and wondered whether it was true to the people of the period. Others felt it was authentic or, at least, evocative enough to feel authentic. Some felt she overused foreshadowing, foreboding. Others felt that she controlled this well, sometimes implying events that didn't eventuate such as an extramarital affair. Some felt the ending - particularly the "add-on" coda - was a little disappointing, while others thought it was very effective. And so the discussion raged (politely of course!) ...

However, rather than go on to detail all the specific things we picked up, I'll end on the discussion the novel sparked at the end of the night. It was about shame. Where does shame come from? What creates it? One member suggested that shame continues to be a strong emotion in rural communities. There are many feelings of shame in this book, but I'll just give a few examples. Roley feels shame about his illness. It prevents his going to war (compounding his shame), affects the achievement of their dream, hurts their marriage. Noey carries shame about her illegitimately born baby from a pre-marriage incestuous relationship. Shame, we discussed, is closely related to failure and guilt but is often not "rational". It is often related to not doing or being able to do the things society expects, the things that make for social cohesion. Things like marry and have children (which Roley's sisters don't do), go to war with your mates, and so on. If we all renege on these expectations, society could fall apart. But why is that when, through no fault of one's own a person can't meet society's expectations, they feel such shame? Shame and guilt ... nature or nurture?

Well, I think that's enough, so I'll close on one parting question. Gothic or elegiac? How would you describe this novel?

Jane Austen's Pride and prejudice

Selection of members' editions including iPad and Kindle 

In 1905 William James Dawson wrote, in a book titled Makers of English fiction, that Jane Austen was born into a "world of unredeemed dulness. Everything around her was prim and trim and proper", and

Yet it was from this material that Jane Austen has contrived to extract stories which have survived for a century and seem likely to endure quite unprophesied generations. (Ch. IV, Jane Austen, and the Novel of Social Comedy)

How right he was ... because here we were in January 2012 discussing, yes, Jane Austen's Pride and prejudice.

Eleven members turned up for our first meeting of the year, and the discussion got off to such a fast and furious start that we had to draw ourselves to order so all could hear what each other had to say:

• "I read the book and watched the DVD four times but I'm not sure I have anything new to say."
• "I only read it in deference to you but I loved it. I loved the language, vocabulary, turns of phrase, the eloquence."
• "I listened to the audio book and I was bereft when it ended."
• "This was the first time I read it and I really liked it".

... and on went the opening exclamations.

There's something about Pride and prejudice that gets us in every time. I wish I could write a thorough analysis of the group's discussion but so much was covered there's no way I could do it justice. So, what did we talk about? Well, we discussed, in no particular order:

• the quality of Mr and Mrs Bennet's parenting. There were some differences of opinion - in degree rather than absolutely - regarding Mr Bennet's failure to take bringing up his children seriously, his treatment of his wife, and Mrs Bennet's silly behaviour. We all agreed though that Mrs Bennet correctly recognised the financial imperative and social importance of getting her daughters married. It was briefly discussed that there aren't many great parents in Austen's books.
• how one family can produce such a wide variety of children in terms of their sense. One reason, suggested in the book, is that by the third child the parents had lost interest in/had less time for attending to the education of the children which could explain the increased silliness of the younger girls.
• the degree to which Mr Wickham worked as a believable character as well as being an important plot device. Why, for example, did he take up with Lydia? Some argued that he saw it as a fling and that he did not seriously intend to marry her. They found this consistent with his character while others felt he is the flaw in the novel.
• that Mr Collins is more one-dimensional than other characters. Some of us still found him believable, for all his over-the-top sycophancy.
• that Charlotte Lucas made a rational decision for her situation and seemed to manage to make it work for her.
• that Jane Austen transitions between the societal emphasis of the 18th century and the more individual romanticism of the 19th century.
• that a major issue/theme explored in the novel is that of appearance, as reflected in the way Elizabeth jumps to conclusions about Darcy and Wickham based on pretty superficial observations regarding their appearance and manner. A member reminded us that the novel's original title was First impressions, which rather suggests the significance of this theme.
• that beneath the wit and humour, the comedy, are philosophical discussions about life and how to live it, about "virtue" even.
• how carefully plotted the novel is; how, knowing the story, it is possible to see this careful plotting and enjoy the language. 
• the value of reading Jane Austen for social history of the period as well as for the more universal truths/values she conveys about human behaviour. We discussed the role of dance in courtship of the period and how Austen describes it; the importance of trimming bonnets and how Austen uses it to pass comment on the characters (such as Lydia's rather careless purchase of an ugly bonnet)
• the importance of the art of conversation in Austen's era and how modern technology means that we don't practice it anywhere near as well today!
• the comparative indolence of the well-to-do, and the amount of walking done by the middle classes (at least)
• whether any of us could remember how we felt, what we expected, on our first reading. Most of us couldn't, really, though a couple remembered not enjoying it, finding it boring.
• Fanny Burney's role as a precursor to and perhaps influence on Jane Austen. Should we read a Fanny Burney?
• how tight and sparkly Austen's language is compared to that of another 19th century favourite, Thomas Hardy.
• whether Pride and prejudice might have inspired Louisa May Alcott's Little women. We agreed that the latter lacks the wit and irony of Austen but does contain a lively, independent-minded heroine (the second of four sisters)

We covered a wide range of subjects ... but there's a lot, as you can see, that we didn't cover too. It's likely also that I haven't remembered all that we discussed. Please, Minervans, add your comments!

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??