April '12 / Orange Prize Winners Reading: Bel Canto

[Scheherazade]

In April we will be reading Bel Canto by Ann Patchett.

Please post your thoughts and questions in this thread.

[OrphanPip]

I just checked and my library has it, so I'll try to pick it up and hopefully it will make decent weekend reading.

[Dark Muse]

One of the things I enjoy about this book is the very subtle touches of the strange which the author creates. It takes the mundane and transports it into a very surreal situation, as I am sure to those who suddenly found themselves taken hostage when they were simply attending a birthday party must have felt it to be a rather surreal event.

I also think that the reactions of the various different individuals, and the glimpses we are given of their thoughts in this moment feel very human. And I enjoy the way in which the choices and actions of this group of strangers, have this sort of interconnection with each other to have brought this event about. In a way it makes me think of the butterfly affect. If one person had made a different choice than everything could have happened in a drastically different way. But all their lives and fate are interwoven together in unpredictable ways.

[Scheherazade]

I think the whole story is rather absurd and, probably because of it, very endearing.

Having finished reading, I don't want to ruin it for those who are still reading so I will wait a little longer before delving into further debate.

I was very intrigued by the title. It is defined as:

Bel canto singing means singing beautifully, flexibly and smoothly, delivering high and low notes in a similar style so that all the notes of a singer's range sound even from top to bottom.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_canto

Any thoughts on this?

[Dark Muse]

Bel canto singing means singing beautifully, flexibly and smoothly, delivering high and low notes in a similar style so that all the notes of a singer's range sound even from top to bottom.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_canto

Any thoughts on this?

Though I haven't finished the book yet, I think that defintion does make for a very fitting and apt discription of the book itself.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't know if I'll have time to get to Bel Canto this month with the school reading I have to do, but I'll try.

[Charles Darnay]

One of the things I enjoy about this book is the very subtle touches of the strange which the author creates. It takes the mundane and transports it into a very surreal situation, as I am sure to those who suddenly found themselves taken hostage when they were simply attending a birthday party must have felt it to be a rather surreal event.

I also think that the reactions of the various different individuals, and the glimpses we are given of their thoughts in this moment feel very human. And I enjoy the way in which the choices and actions of this group of strangers, have this sort of interconnection with each other to have brought this event about. In a way it makes me think of the butterfly affect. If one person had made a different choice than everything could have happened in a drastically different way. But all their lives and fate are interwoven together in unpredictable ways.

I completely agree with this.

Also, I have a much greater appreciation for the narrative style than when I read it back in 200(whatever it was). The narrator can be almost flippant at times and adds a very subtle element of humour - more than that inspired by incompetent terrorists.

I go back and forth on the issue of p.o.v in this book. At first I was a bit put off by the random transition of perspectives, but the more I read the more I came around to the style and appreciated how seamless it was.

one piece of criticism I can give to this book (without spoiling anything) is that I find Roxane's character to be inconsistent. Overall, character development is not this book's strong point, but Roxane in particular bothers me. I think I want to like her a lot, and the inconsistencies prevent this from happening.

I think another shift for me from my first reading to this one is that I didn't have the passion for opera that I did now. While you do not have to be an opera aficionado by any means to enjoy the book, I think it helps to put you in the frame of mind of some of the characters, particularly Hosokawa.

[Dark Muse]

one piece of criticism I can give to this book (without spoiling anything) is that I find Roxane's character to be inconsistent. Overall, character development is not this book's strong point, but Roxane in particular bothers me. I think I want to like her a lot, and the inconsistencies prevent this from happening.

I think another shift for me from my first reading to this one is that I didn't have the passion for opera that I did now. While you do not have to be an opera aficionado by any means to enjoy the book, I think it helps to put you in the frame of mind of some of the characters, particularly Hosokawa.

At this point in the book I do not know if I can say I have truly noticed Roxanne to be inconsistent, but I can understand the struggle with her character as I do have similar feelings about her. While I do not dislike her, at the same time I cannot altogether make up mind as to what I think of her. While like you there is a part of me that wanted to, or thought I would like her a great deal I find my feelings for her up to this point to be a bit more neutral. Thus far I have to say that Gen is shaping up to be one of my favorite characters.

I have only had the opportunity to attend the opera once, but I did rather enjoy the experience, but I do have a passion for art, particularly traditional/classical painting so I can understand how characters such as Hosokawa might feel about Roxanne and her signing.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, since it looks like discussion is already beginning, maybe I'll try and squeeze it in.

[Sancho]

It was a quick read for me, MM. I started reading it one night a week or so ago, and the next thing I knew, the sun was coming up and I was finished.

[Sancho]

I kept thinking during the first couple of chapters, Man, I wish Messner would put on some sunscreen, or find a hat, or something.

[Scheherazade]

Though I haven't finished the book yet, I think that defintion does make for a very fitting and apt discription of the book itself.Because of the variety of characters?

Re. Roxanne... I also have mixed feelings towards her; however, she is one of the characters who has developed most in the book, I believe. Owing to her fame, talent and goodlooks, she had an easy life but I think she has managed to deal with it all very well and become a mature person (owing to her affair as well, maybe).

Any thoughts on Messner?

[Dark Muse]

Because of the variety of characters?

I was thinking more of the way in which through this event each of the characters seem to express high and low moments. Though they are in a very precarious situation of which will no doubt affect the rest of their lives, at the same time there are moments of goodness which are born out of this moment, and connections made between people which might never have been made. As well the characters seem to reevaluate themselves and their own priorities in sometimes positive ways.

I am curious, what do you think the significance is of the fact that the "host country" as it is referred remains unnamed, while is it made a point of specifying the countries where various guests have come from, all we know about the country in which the event is taking place is that it is an insignificant country, presumably in Central or South America.

[Sancho]

I am curious, what do you think the significance is of the fact that the "host country" as it is referred remains unnamed, while is it made a point of specifying the countries where various guests have come from, all we know about the country in which the event is taking place is that it is an insignificant country, presumably in Central or South America.

I think the author simply didn’t want the novel muddled with actual events. The setup is loosely based on the Japanese Embassy Hostage Crisis in Lima in 1997. The Marxist terrorist group Tupac Amaru held a number of high-level officials hostage in the Japanese Embassy for 4 months. The crisis was resolved by then Peruvian President Fujimori (a Peruvian of Japanese ancestry), and I don’t want to say what happened in Peru because it’s real similar to what happens in the novel. Recall in the book how the terrorists were suspicious that Mr. Hosokawa was the president. I’m not sure if Pres. Fujimori watched Latino Soap Operas, though.

A few years back, I read a relatively favorable article about Fujimori in Smithsonian Magazine. He was (and is still) popular with the people of the small villages in Peru. They had a nickname for him: El Chinito (Little Chinaman). I suppose if you’re scratching out a living in the high Andes, the finer distinctions between Japanese ancestry and Chinese ancestry don’t matter much. He’s in jail now.

[Scheherazade]

I was thinking more of the way in which through this event each of the characters seem to express high and low moments. Though they are in a very precarious situation of which will no doubt affect the rest of their lives, at the same time there are moments of goodness which are born out of this moment, and connections made between people which might never have been made. As well the characters seem to reevaluate themselves and their own priorities in sometimes positive ways. I hear what you are saying and, to a certain degree, I agree with your take on it. However, I also think that we are offered this character rich group that manage to gel together very quickly to survive in an astonishingly harmonious way very quickly.

At the outset they seem like a very unlikely group... Who would have thought that the Vice President would turn into Martha Stewart? Chess, music, sports, cookery, all areas covered.


I am curious, what do you think the significance is of the fact that the "host country" as it is referred remains unnamed, I think Sancho makes a good point; the story told in the book has nothing to do with the politics so probably the author did not want it to get mixed up. Another possibility is that this is just another small, insignificant, under-developed country, which is likely to be forgotten (and neglected) by the rest of the world unless there is some kind of drama going on (how ironic that they themselves thrive on drama too). Hence, "host country" can be read "any small country" as well, maybe.

[Dark Muse]

I think the author simply didn’t want the novel muddled with actual events. The setup is loosely based on the Japanese Embassy Hostage Crisis in Lima in 1997. The Marxist terrorist group Tupac Amaru held a number of high-level officials hostage in the Japanese Embassy for 4 months. The crisis was resolved by then Peruvian President Fujimori (a Peruvian of Japanese ancestry), and I don’t want to say what happened in Peru because it’s real similar to what happens in the novel. Recall in the book how the terrorists were suspicious that Mr. Hosokawa was the president. I’m not sure if Pres. Fujimori watched Latino Soap Operas, though.

A few years back, I read a relatively favorable article about Fujimori in Smithsonian Magazine. He was (and is still) popular with the people of the small villages in Peru. They had a nickname for him: El Chinito (Little Chinaman). I suppose if you’re scratching out a living in the high Andes, the finer distinctions between Japanese ancestry and Chinese ancestry don’t matter much. He’s in jail now.

That is interesting!

[Dark Muse]

I hear what you are saying and, to a certain degree, I agree with your take on it. However, I also think that we are offered this character rich group that manage to gel together very quickly to survive in an astonishingly harmonious way very quickly.

At the outset they seem like a very unlikely group... Who would have thought that the Vice President would turn into Martha Stewart? Chess, music, sports, cookery, all areas covered.

I like the way in which there are not really bad guys and good guys. At least that is the way I feel about it. But rather it seems as if the author treats both sides, hostages and terrorists without any biased or judgement. She simply portrays the human experience of the event, and shows both points of view.

One of the things which struck me was when Hosokawa decided to try and learn the names of the fellow guests. Though I am sure that is common in the professional world having these sort of formal birthday parties where everyone is there for their own motives and interests, but it also struck me as an almost surreal moment, to think that he does not even now these people who are here to celebrate his birthday.

[Charles Darnay]

The point about historical context is really interesting: I had no idea. It does make sense not to be bogged down with reality if you are going to smear a President and show sympathy to a nation's terrorist group. Real names would have drawn all the wrong attention to the book.

[Scheherazade]

But rather it seems as if the author treats both sides, hostages and terrorists without any biased or judgement. She simply portrays the human experience of the event, and shows both points of view. Yes, the author does treat everyone equally; she is very eager to make us see them as individuals rather than generic titles such as translator, rich man, politician, singer, terrorists. She works very hard at this for 300 pages, feeding us their individual stories bit by bit.

It is all very ironic that all this comes to nothing as in less than two pages, she brings it back to earth by reminding us who is who: terrorists are terrorists, regardless of their stories and talents, who needs to be got rid of.


Since no one seemed to offer any opinions on Messner, I will go ahead and share my own very far-fetched ideas :D

Messner = Messenger?

He is the messenger, the only connection with the outside world... To the powers that hold the key to everything. We never see them but we are assured and persuaded that they are there. And the hostages within the house do not dispute their existence either. He comes from a neutral country; not supposed to take sides but he is under the orders of the powers outsides. He keeps saying that whatever the terrorists and hostages demand will be ignored by the outside and they will do whatever they want to do; it is only a matter of time. And at the end, he is the one who delivers the warning just before the calamity occurs. They are all treated the same, regardless of their goods or bads.

So, what I am wondering is whether Bel Canto is a sketch of human condition in this world? Three generals (prophets of major religions?) come to the scene with the promise of fairness and freedom but they are also trapped here and can only communicate with the powers-that-be through a messenger. They bring along their hand-picked followers with them... And they are all talented and special in their own ways.

As I said this is a half-baked idea, with so many holes in them but I just wanted to share them with you guys.

[Dark Muse]

Messner = Messenger?

He is the messenger, the only connection with the outside world... To the powers that hold the key to everything. We never see them but we are assured and persuaded that they are there. And the hostages within the house do not dispute their existence either. He comes from a neutral country; not supposed to take sides but he is under the orders of the powers outsides. He keeps saying that whatever the terrorists and hostages demand will be ignored by the outside and they will do whatever they want to do; it is only a matter of time. And at the end, he is the one who delivers the warning just before the calamity occurs. They are all treated the same, regardless of their goods or bads.

So, what I am wondering is whether Bel Canto is a sketch of human condition in this world? Three generals (prophets of major religions?) come to the scene with the promise of fairness and freedom but they are also trapped here and can only communicate with the powers-that-be through a messenger. They bring along their hand-picked followers with them... And they are all talented and special in their own ways.

As I said this is a half-baked idea, with so many holes in them but I just wanted to share them with you guys.

I think it is an interesting idea. I had not considered it before but now on reflection, there is perhaps something rather symbolic and metaphorical in the fact that Messner does happen to come from a country which is known for its neutrality.

When I finish the book I will try to come and addresses the ideas more thoroughly .

[Charles Darnay]

Messner = Messenger?


He is that: I think there must be some intention in stressing him as a Swiss and as a neutral and reluctant party.



So, what I am wondering is whether Bel Canto is a sketch of human condition in this world? Three generals (prophets of major religions?) come to the scene with the promise of fairness and freedom but they are also trapped here and can only communicate with the powers-that-be through a messenger. They bring along their hand-picked followers with them... And they are all talented and special in their own ways.

As I said this is a half-baked idea, with so many holes in them but I just wanted to share them with you guys.

I don't really get the religious prophets idea. It is more a clash of political ideals in my view. The general represent Marxism - or communism, while the absent President represents a failed democracy. As the book progresses, we tend to sympathize more with the communist "paradise(?)" that the hostages are living in. There is that scene where Father Arguedas is on the phone with the musician and ends up defending the terrorists when they are falsely portrayed by the media - this is where you start to see the world flipped upside down.

Now, I'm not suggesting the book is promoting communism or has some Red Agenda - but we do begin to see a Utopian society forming....for a little while.

[Sancho]

I’d like to run with Scher’s idea for a moment, and it reminds that good literature involves the reader; it excites ideas in us.

If Messner is a messenger and the generals are prophets, then what is Gen? I suppose he could be a sort of primordial Genesis figure. He’s someone who transcends the dogma of the generals or gov’t officials outside. He can move easily between a Rabi, a Priest, an Imam, or a Yogi. And he’s the only one with a pre-Tower-of-Babel ability to communicate.

I like the detail in the book where Gen commits translator heresy by translating the general’s demands as, “They want…” instead of literally as, “We want...”

[Scheherazade]

He is that: I think there must be some intention in stressing him as a Swiss and as a neutral and reluctant party.And he is not even on duty... It was supposed to be his holiday.



Now, I'm not suggesting the book is promoting communism or has some Red Agenda - but we do begin to see a Utopian society forming....for a little while.How I see is that... When left on our own, we are likely to find out a way to work together - making use of whatever limited resources we are given under less-than-ideal circumstances. However, power-that-be still do not let us alone and interfere with the order we have created.


I like the detail in the book where Gen commits translator heresy by translating the general’s demands as, “They want…” instead of literally as, “We want...”I noticed that too. He is very particular not to get involved personally. It is also significant that he is the one who teaches how to read and write.

I really wish I knew more about Christian literature to delve more into this as the more I think about it, the more I feel persuaded that there is some kind of allegory hidden in there.

[Sancho]

I noticed that too. He is very particular not to get involved personally. It is also significant that he is the one who teaches how to read and write.

Good point. It also comes to mind that if Gen is only one who can speak to everyone in their own language, but then the lingua franca of the book is the music.


I really wish I knew more about Christian literature to delve more into this as the more I think about it, the more I feel persuaded that there is some kind of allegory hidden in there.

I was thinking more along the lines of the stories in the Hebrew Bible, which, unless I’m mistaken, are shared by all of the Abrahamic religions.

[OrphanPip]

I still have 2 more chapters to finish, but in general I think the main theme of the book is something like Forster's Howards End: "only connect." Except, instead of the vague humanistic mysticism of Forster, Pratchett is using art as a metaphor of lingua franca (to borrow from Sheh's post) that connects people.

There is obvious significance to the constant attention placed on translation, the common language of music, the subjectivity of perception (often Pratchett gives us juxtaposed impressions by different characters towards the same events), and the role of the garua as obstruction.

I don't have a fully articulated thesis, but I feel that the point is rather simple, that people can connect if they just try, that the barriers of class, gender, education, politics and language that keep us apart are not really so solid and insurmountable as they seem. However, I feel the ending might problematize this interpretation.

I'd add other observations building on what has been said. Gen is not the only teacher in the text. Roxanne teaches Hosaka how to play the piano. Thibault teaches Ishmael how to cut the eggplant. General Benjamin offers to teach Gen how to improve at chess. And the characters are constantly learning about each other, which mirrors the reader's experience of the text, and seems to suggest something significant about the role of sharing information.

Edit: In terms of my enjoyment of the book, I think it's a fun read that is perhaps a bit sentimental in points, but I'm not sure that sentimentalism is taken entirely seriously by Pratchett either.

[Charles Darnay]

I agree that the book can be sentimental at times, but I don't think this is a bad thing necessarily, particularly in relation to the end.

[Scheherazade]

It is more a clash of political ideals in my view. The general represent Marxism - or communism, while the absent President represents a failed democracy. How do you explain that Marxism is dependent upon the Democracy? Ie, outside world?



I'd add other observations building on what has been said. Gen is not the only teacher in the text. No, Gen is not the only teacher but he is the only one who teaches how to communicate (languages, reading and writing).

Edit: In terms of my enjoyment of the book, I think it's a fun read that is perhaps a bit sentimental in points, but I'm not sure that sentimentalism is taken entirely seriously by Pratchett either.I think the whole story is absurd and the author means it that way too.

Re. music. It does play a very important role in the story. It is treated with such seriousness, almost philosophically. Under normal circumstances, I am not sure people who are kept hostages would not forget all their worries as soon as an aria is sung. However, it is true that it is one thing that connects them all openly and deeply, regardless of their backgrounds and identities.

Re. ending. It comes too suddenly just as the characters build a haven for themselves and wish that they should be left alone and make plans for the future.

I don't want to ruin it for those who are still reading but who gets out is very important, I believe.

[OrphanPip]

No, Gen is not the only teacher but he is the only one who teaches how to communicate (languages, reading and writing).I think the whole story is absurd and the author means it that way too.


I wonder if the text doesn't put pressure on the idea that language is the primary means of communication. Often characters communicate emotions and even ideas through their bodies. Are chess, cooking, and music not means of communication in some way?

I'd agree that Gen is the most important body of communication in the text, and he's the first one to appear, the other examples (apart from body language) appear later as people settle in to the situation. This itself might be significant if we think about the way the novel models a breakdown of barriers gradually, the more they learn to communicate and understand each other, the more options for communication appear.

[Dark Muse]

In a way in which the terrorists themselves have become trapped. They have found themselves in a situation in which there really is no way out for them. They did not anticipate finding themselves with a room full of hostages, and now there is really no way out for them, they are just as much stuck there as the hostages are.

It is interesting how in the same way in which we see the hostages become more and more comfortable with their situation, going from having to be forced to lay down on the floor and progressing to making demands of the terrorists, with Roxanne Cross giving them ultimatums in order to get her music, the readers themselves start to identify more and more with them.

When General Alfredo is struggling with the fact that because the terrorists have become too accommodating it has disrupted the terrorist-hostage hierarchy and he feels as if that proper authority is not being obeyed and respected, I almost feel sympathetic with his situation. Yeah he is the bad guy and what he is doing is wrong, but he himself did not anticipate or want to end up in this predicament and now things are degrading into chaos with hostages taking advantage of the terrorists attempting to be reasonable and accommodating to them.

Perhaps in the way, as the hostages themselves steadily beginning to loose their own fear, and forget the danger of the situation they are in and grow steadily more comfortable, the reader is also being lulled into a false since of security.

[Charles Darnay]

I wonder if the text doesn't put pressure on the idea that language is the primary means of communication. Often characters communicate emotions and even ideas through their bodies. Are chess, cooking, and music not means of communication in some way?


We see the relationship of Mr. Hosokawa and Roxane form outside of Gen's knowledge, sans language, but through music mostly.

But the need to communicate is still essential and there are only a few characters who can break through the barrier.

[Sancho]

For me what made this a great book instead of just a good book was the scene where Fyodorov professes his love for Roxane. Up until then, I was reading along and thinking, ah yes, a book about Stockholm Syndrome, and then, yes, yes, this is how people would act if thrown together by circumstance. But when I read this chapter, I woke up and started paying attention.

It seems to me the Fyodorov scene covers much of what we’ve been chatting about on this thread concerning the human condition: art, language, politics, ideology, world-view, love, and hate. But more than that, I thought it brought the reader into the story – made the reader part of the story.

Initially Gen is a little put out at being torn away from Carmen so that he can translate for Fyodorov. Then, perhaps because he has just come from Carmen and sees Roxane and Mr. Hosokawa together, it begins to dawn on him that there is something more than friendship between the two of them. As Fyodorov enters to face Roxane he is so nervous that he looks sick to her. She thinks he looks like Christopf right before he died – and not all that long after Christopf had professed his love for Roxane. Then Fyodorov decides his planned speech is inadequate and he must start from the beginning, so he tells a beautiful little story from his childhood about an Art Book, his Grandmother, the war, and growing up in Petrograd/Leningrad/St. Petersburg under Communism. Then he says he loves her.

And so Fyodorov sits back relieved to have said his peace, and presumably satisfied with his performance. Roxane and Gen sit there a moment, stunned. And that is where, I think, the reader enters the novel. I did anyway. Patchett had drawn me into the novel before I knew what was going on. You see, I’m cringing in my seat, waiting for the awkward rejection by Roxane. I know it will happen, it has to – she’s a snob and he’s a boor, right? Well, Roxane buys a little time by making an empathetic observation about Fyodorov’s story and then as she starts to comment on his declaration of love, he cuts her off and tells her it his gift to her and he requires nothing in return:


…But it is never about who has given what. That is not the way to think of gifts. This is not business we are conducting. Would I be pleased if you were to say you loved me as well? That what you wanted was to come to Russia and live with the Secretary of Commerce, attend state dinners, drink your coffee in my bed? A beautiful thought, surely, but my wife would not be pleased. When you think of love you think as an American. You must think like a Russian. It is a more expansive view.

And I had to admit he was right. I was thinking like an American. And I had to admit that I should reconsider some of my cultural assumptions and prejudices.

[Dark Muse]

Because I am reading a lot of Greek literature right now I cannot help but to see this book almost in terms of a Greek tragedy as many of the characters seem to represent different figures of Greek mythology, though it is not a perfect comparison just something that has popped into my head.

At first I thought of Roxanne as being as one of the muses because of her music, and the fact that her music is a uniting force between everyone else and works to inspire the others and it had served to make several of the people in the room wish they themselves could produce music so they could act the role of her accompanists. But in a way I also see her as being like a Siren, for it was the temptation of her signing which had ultimately led them all into danger.

Messner is like Hermes, the messenger god who has the power to travel between the two different worlds. The world outside and the world inside.

The three Generals I see kind of like the three fates, for they do have the power of life and death over those inside, and can determine what becomes of them. In addition their actions might also influence and determine how those outside react and what becomes of them all.

The Vice President I see as sort of Dionysus since he is the host of the party.

Gen is the one that remains the odd man out as I have been able to quite decide where he might fit in.

[Charles Darnay]

Because I am reading a lot of Greek literature right now I cannot help but to see this book almost in terms of a Greek tragedy as many of the characters seem to represent different figures of Greek mythology, though it is not a perfect comparison just something that has popped into my head.

At first I thought of Roxanne as being as one of the muses because of her music, and the fact that her music is a uniting force between everyone else and works to inspire the others and it had served to make several of the people in the room wish they themselves could produce music so they could act the role of her accompanists. But in a way I also see her as being like a Siren, for it was the temptation of her signing which had ultimately led them all into danger.

Messner is like Hermes, the messenger god who has the power to travel between the two different worlds. The world outside and the world inside.

The three Generals I see kind of like the three fates, for they do have the power of life and death over those inside, and can determine what becomes of them. In addition their actions might also influence and determine how those outside react and what becomes of them all.

The Vice President I see as sort of Dionysus since he is the host of the party.

Gen is the one that remains the odd man out as I have been able to quite decide where he might fit in.

Interesting. I would not associate the Vice President with Dionysus - but I see where you got that from. The Vice President would be more like Hestia - goddess of the hearth.

Gen is a difficult one to place. For someone I think Prometheus: as Prometheus brings fire to the people, so Gen brings language. Gen is not punished for this though. Or maybe he is Proteus - taking on many forms depending who he is with.

When you first brought up the comparison between the novel and Greek tragedy, I thought you meant in terms of structure. The book conforms to the structure of Greek tragedy in the Aristotelian sense: there is a unity of place, time and action that Aristotle describes in his Poetics. But of course you find these same unities in many operas (outside of grand operas) and to say that this novel follows the structure of an opera is a more logical claim.

[Dark Muse]

Interesting. I would not associate the Vice President with Dionysus - but I see where you got that from. The Vice President would be more like Hestia - goddess of the hearth.

I had thought about the possibility of Hera for the Vice President, but in part I was also thinking of the way in which all the hostages like the VP. There is an endearing trait to his personality and in the way in which he continues on with his host duties, makes him have a certain up beat quality.

But of course none of it fits in perfectly and I do not necessarily think the author was really intended to make a sort of modern reimagining of Greek Mythology, it is just where my mind is because of some of my other reading right now I could not help making these compressions with the characters.

[Dark Muse]

I find it ironic the way in which while Gen serves as the voice for everyone else, he cannot find his own voice and cannot speak for himself. He could not at first bring himself to approach Carmen because he could not think of the words to speak to her, when he had to speak for himself, and though he was the translator, in a way he needed Messner as a means for him to be able to speak to her.


The other thing I have noticed is the way in which it does not seem as if people truly sees Gen as a human being, but rather they see him as a tool, they see him for what he can do for them. It never seems to occur to anyone to speak to Gen for his own sake, or that he might actually like to have a conversation on his own accord. As when he has his first encounter with Fyodorov. Gen had been denied the opportunity to speak Fyodorov about the topics of which he was interested in speaking to him about because as soon as Foydorov secured Gen's services for his own intentions, he did not give Gen a second thought and rejoined his group of Russians.

And while this novel does not focus upon the politics, there is still a certain political side to it, as we know the terrorists belong to some liberation group which seems to have a socialist agenda, and in considering that I cannot help but notice the way in which there does seem to be an attitude among the hostages that those who have some skill or ability it is treated as if it does belong to the community as a whole. It does not really seem to occur to anyone to actually ask Gen if he wants to translate for them, but it is taken for granted that he will do it because he has something which will be useful for them so it is seen as a given that he will help them.

As well Roxanne Cross is valued for her signing and her music, for that which she can offer to the group. They view her signing as something which belongs to them all.

[Sancho]

I thought one of the points of the book was that human nature trumps politics, which may sound ludicrous, being that humans are a political animal, but I suppose I'm saying human nature trumps political ideology. When people of vastly different political or religious beliefs, cultures, and backgrounds are thrown together by circumstance they will tend to connect on a more basic level rather than hold to their dogma. This point has been made by any number of stories where the characters are together by accident - lifeboats, POW camps, plane crashes in the jungle, etc.

This book seemed to go further and say that in such a situation, people would tend towards their own nature. That is to say, the vice president became a gardener, Carmen became a student, Ishmael became an artist of sorts, Roxane remained true to herself but let her guard down (hair went gray, makeup gone), and Mr Hosokawa, the stoic Japanese businessman, became a lover.

[Dark Muse]

I am curious about the theme of love which seems to be developing as important within the book. Is it just part of capturing the human experience and the need/importance of forming human connections?

Thibault rediscovers his love for his wife
Of course just about every man in the room seems to be in love with Roxane Cross, while she herself seems to have fallen in love with Mr. Hosokawa, and Fyodorov officially declares his love to Roxane.
Than there is Gen and Carmen

[Charles Darnay]

It seems like a necessary plot device. You can't have people in close quarters and not explore the theme of love. Then again, most of the relationships are either sexual lust or idealization, only Simon is really in love.

[Sancho]

I am curious about the theme of love which seems to be developing as important within the book. Is it just part of capturing the human experience and the need/importance of forming human connections?

Thibault rediscovers his love for his wife
Of course just about every man in the room seems to be in love with Roxane Cross, while she herself seems to have fallen in love with Mr. Hosokawa, and Fyodorov officially declares his love to Roxane.
Than there is Gen and Carmen

"Tattooed knuckles gonna spell his fate, one said Love and the other Hate."

Sorry, I've been over on the Earworm thread, and that one's stuck in my head.

I was thinking a similar thought, and also that the book seems to get at both extremes of the human experience: Love and Hate, and in one climactic scene those two extremes at the same time. I'm thinking of Mr. Hosokawa and Carmen during the 'rescue'.

[Dark Muse]

It seems like a necessary plot device. You can't have people in close quarters and not explore the theme of love. Then again, most of the relationships are either sexual lust or idealization, only Simon is really in love.

That in itself is rather interesting in a way isn't? Considering the fact that it seems so many of the other characters have dissatisfactory marriages. Considering the positions of these individuals in society, you get the sense that many them perhaps had married for reasons other than purely being in love. They wanted a certain life, or to create a certain image for themselves, but it seems there is something lacking in many of their marriages. But Thiabult is able to rediscover in his wife and marriage that which he had never been able to realize or see before, while others instead are projecting their fantasies upon Roxane Cross to try and obtain that which they are missing in their lives.

[Sancho]

Well, I'll ask the 100 dollar question then: was the marriage at the end of the book out of love, and if so - love for whom?

[Dark Muse]

Well, I'll ask the 100 dollar question then: was the marriage at the end of the book out of love, and if so - love for whom?

It seems a bit hard to envision that Gen and Roxane suddenly discovered that they were in love with each other, though who knows what could have happened during the time after they were "rescued."

But it seems more likely to me that they are brought together in the shared grief of what they could not have, or who they could not have.

In a way I do think they had married for love, though I am not sure if it was necessarily out of love for each other, at least I do not think they truly had a passionate, romantic love for each other, but through being with each other they could be close to those they could no longer be with.

Perhaps in being together they can give each other hope, they were I think bonded together by what happened, and in each other they can keep those memories, and hold that moment.

In a way I think it is kind of symbolic that she would be with Gen, as considering that just about every other man in the room had been in love with her, and he was the voice of them all, and yet he had trouble finding his own voice. Perhaps Gen's marriage to Roaxne is the love that they all had for her, and the way in which she bonded them together. Maybe Gen is the proxy for this sort of universal love.

[Charles Darnay]

My biggest qualm with the ending is it cuts Carmen out of it completely. The focus shifts the to importance of Mr. Hosokawa (as seen in the final marriage) but Carmen barely gets a thought.

[Dark Muse]

My biggest qualm with the ending is it cuts Carmen out of it completely. The focus shifts the to importance of Mr. Hosokawa (as seen in the final marriage) but Carmen barely gets a thought.

I did not quite get that impression. Gen questions Simon as to wheather or not anything was said of Carmen in the new papers of France, and Simon's own last thoughts at the end of the book are of Carmen.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I enjoyed it for the most part, though I thought it got quite slow at parts and when the romance kicked up a notch I lost a lot of interest--love stories aren't really my thing. That being said, I was quite sad as the terrorists were gunned down, especially Hosokawa, Carmen (of course), but also Ishmael.

My favorite aspect of the novel was how much music, and the power of music to impact people's lives, played a role in the narrative. I often found myself YouTubing the varies arias and pieces mentioned and listening to them as I read. It made of an interesting and unique reading experience. I also liked how the love story really reflected how a lot of opera tragedies go--I can practically see the two lovers, Roxane and Gen, powerfully singing to the heavens as the weep of the corpses of their lovers. In an interview at the end of the edition I read, Pratchett said the melodrama sprinkled throughout the novel was intentional because she wanted that sort of opera feel for the novel.

As for Messner, I think he represented futility. In the grand scheme of things, he accomplished nothing. He completely failed, actually, and he rarely indicated that he really cared. To me he represented the apathy and futility of humanity.

One thing I didn't get: throughout the novel it's being discussed how the police force is digging underneath with the intent to attack from out of the ground; Messner even confirms this as he feels the vibrations under his feet. And then the soldier just burst in through the windows? Or did I miss something? I was drowsy when reading the end.

I'd give it a 7/10. She is obviously an excellent writer when it comes to style. I wanted to give it a 3 because everyone giving it a 4 on here rankled me, but I don't round down.

[Dark Muse]

One thing I didn't get: throughout the novel it's being discussed how the police force is digging underneath with the intent to attack from out of the ground; Messner even confirms this as he feels the vibrations under his feet. And then the soldier just burst in through the windows? Or did I miss something? I was drowsy when reading the end.

I forgot about the police allegedly digging under the ground, yes it seems as if that did not really go anywhere or develop in the end. Maybe after everyone started letting their guard down they did not feel that such was necessary, or I wonder if perhaps Messner had just concocted the story as a way to try and get the terrorists to see the urgent need to surrender.

[Charles Darnay]

or I wonder if perhaps Messner had just concocted the story as a way to try and get the terrorists to see the urgent need to surrender.

I'd go with this option. It is odd that this point wasn't brought up again when they started to go outside, but they would have noticed some digging happening while running laps around the house.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I forgot about the police allegedly digging under the ground, yes it seems as if that did not really go anywhere or develop in the end. Maybe after everyone started letting their guard down they did not feel that such was necessary, or I wonder if perhaps Messner had just concocted the story as a way to try and get the terrorists to see the urgent need to surrender.
If he did concoct the story, him actually feeling the vibrations from the work underground would seem an indication of some sort of mental illness on his part, which isn't really out of the question. I wish I could remember where that passage is, but I really don't feel like hunting for it.

[Dark Muse]

If he did concoct the story, him actually feeling the vibrations from the work underground would seem an indication of some sort of mental illness on his part, which isn't really out of the question. I wish I could remember where that passage is, but I really don't feel like hunting for it.

I could not recall if he had only thought that to himself, or made that statement out loud.

If it was an internal thought, well considering the circumstances, and heat exhaustion, fatigue, stress, it is possible that he had begun to believe in his own story and his mind tricked him into thinking he could feel the vibrations, and maybe it was his own way of just wanting all of this to be over and done with.

Or maybe the police had really began to attempt to do such a thing, but than gave up on the effort at some point.