Book Club: The Time Traveler's Wife

[dinahsmum]

The paper making was really interesting - fascinating even. And the wings! Weren't you sceptics touched by the wings?

Did you notice strange similarities between our two books? Female artist as main character, studio behind the house (well Rachael had an outside studio at one place), bipolar character who you never know (Rachael and Clare's mother) - can you find others?

I loved that bat-squeak phrase too Angie, but meep's drop of blood in a bowl of milk made me shudder.

The feet give us all the creeps. Is that just as it seems on the surface, or is there a deep psychological message? I can't think of any.

I hope there's still plenty to talk about. DMs points about anomolies and holes in the story might be a path worth pursuing.

[meep]

Eileen, it's really refreshing to hear a different take and point of view! So don't apologise It's actually really interesting, as I did love the book so much I found it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't (apart from my OH who isn't "into" romantic books or films...) Overall I just found the whole premise wonderfully constructed and presented, I agree that I didn't even doubt it for a minute, I just accepted Henry's ability to time-travel and all that goes with it (not being able to take things with him, not being able to control it, it being genetic).

I just finished the section last night about Henry's feet and Claire making him some wings. I was confused by this, as whilst it is a very touching thing for Claire to do, just before she gives them to him she paints them red and black and in her thoughts describes them as "for the awful angel" or something. Either way a negative description. Obviously Henry losing his feet affects her, but in a bad way? Is she slightly scared of him, or unsure how to act toward him?

Angie, you said you were bracing yourself for some tragedy. On my first reading, I thought the death was the tragedy, and really wasn't expecting the foot thing at all. As I said before, I felt it was taking it too far and had a huge element of the grotesque in it; for me, it tainted my perception of their relationship. Maybe I enjoyed the book and the description of their relationship throughout out of self-indulgence and escapism as it is so 'wonderful' in parts.

Although, I agree, the sexual scenes are slightly creepy at times. When I first read it, I was struck at how open the author was in describing the sex and sexual tension between them. It is made explicitly clear that Henry needs to have a lot of physical exericise, ie. running and sex, to remain rooted; and at one point Claire complains that they are having too much and it is hurting her to sit down! This made me laugh, but also again feel slightly akward toward their relationship. It seems part of their relationship was largely based on lust, and as Henry isn't a stable thing in Claire's life, could you cynically say a lot of it was based on lust?

Also, thinking back, I definately enjoyed the first half of the book more. The part that went over Claire's childhood and growing up and gave teasing glimpses into their future together. The section about Claire being beaten by a jock from her school, and Henry taping him to a tree and then threatening to beat him, was also quite strange. From Gomez's warnings, Henry's prior relationship with Ingrid, and Claire's notion that Henry has the capability to be very violent, you get an idea that Henry does have an 'alter ego' of sorts and he obviously needs to be able to fend for himself when time-travelling. But I felt this got left behind in the second half of the book. And in the incident where the jock is taped to the tree, there was a sure alliance between Henry and Claire and whilst this solidified their bond to the reader, it also made them seem slightly unreachable, and gave them a 'Bonnie and Clyde'-esque image in my mind.

Henry meeting Henry never really bothered me, I'm not sure why. It just seemed to strengthen the author's "reality" of time-travel. Although the brief chapter where a teenage Henry 'experiments' with himself again seems inappropriate; not that I was offended by it, but it just seemed a bit... off and not needed.

The whole story is such a tragedy, and the only real shining light in it is Alba; yet she never gets her own sections as Henry and Claire do. There isn't really one relationship in the book that 'works':

- Henry's parents are madly in love, yet his mother dies in a tragic and horrific way, leaving Henry's dad a broken man who eventually drinks himself into a rut, and ruins his ability to play cello (or was it violin?)
- Claire's parents don't seem to share any real 'love', and Claire's mother is mentally ill, putting strain on the whole family.
- Claire's brother and his fiancee are marrying out of necesity as she's pregnant.
- Gomez and Charise, Charisse knows that Gomez is in love with Claire and shows her desperation to Henry when she asks whether they stay together if anything happens to Henry.
- Henry's Doctor and his wife have a child with Down's Syndrome. Although we don't know much about their relationship, this is again another tragedy of sorts to befall the family.
- Henry and Claire have a 'destined to be together' love, yet Henry dies in a tragic way, similar to his mother.

Whilst this is a very realistic take on relationships (that a 'perfect, fairytale' marriage doesn't really exist) it does seem that each relationship not only just isn't perfect, but does suffer some deep underlying tragedy or negativity.

I still feel so much for Claire, when she's left alone after Henry's death. The fact that we don't get much of a glimpse of this part of her life (obviously the author couldn't continue for chapters and chapters of Claire's life alone and depressed) shows what an empty void this part of her life must have been; without Henry, she doesn't really have a 'story'.

One thing I wonder is, Henry was pulled to Claire when she was a small girl after he'd married her, so at a subconcious level he'd already known Claire and maybe this is why he continued to visit her throughout her childhood. But the only reason he does marry Claire is because she was visited by him as a child so when she meets him in 'real time' in the library she knows him, invites him out, tells him all this, and tells him that they will get married, so it's almost a done-deal. I have been in a similar discussion about time travel in relation to the movie "Donnie Darko" and someone explained to me that this sort of time-loop is acceptable as it's one complete loop, but that does seem to be some sort of strage hole. Henry visits Claire as a child because he loves her, but it can't be just because of that, as for Claire Henry visited her before the real Henry had met her. So if it wasn't just Henry's subconcious that was drawing him to her, could you say it was 'fate'?

[meep]

Oh and one other quick thing, sorry for the really long post above!

I just finished the chapter last night where Henry is showing Claire how to cook, and she manages a meal and Alba says "It's really good mummy!" Henry agrees "This is great Claire" and then Claire thinks "Don't leave me Henry" That really touched me, and made me well up. Such a normal, everyday, household action such as cooking a meal; for a moment they are a normal family enjoying a homemade meal together, and at the end you realise it's all being taken away from them, and mainly from Claire.

Claire's entire life revolves around Henry. She meets him when she's a wee girl. But Henry has a full 20 years before he meets Claire. So for Claire, Henry is almost more of a 'rock' for him than Claire is an anchor for Henry. Although Henry didn't choose it this way, I did almost feel that Henry was being selfish in this way. Although I know he isn't, for a moment after this section I realised just how much Claire has relied on Henry her whole life, how much she needs him for a simple task like chopping onions and peppers, and how he is taken from her. The emptyness of Claire's life afterwards is one of the most affecting things for me. What does she have to live for if her whole life, from early childhood, has revolved around Henry?

[dinahsmum]

What a pity CM and DM didn't like it
Don't you feel disappointed when you've loved something (not necessarily a book) and recommend it to someone else and they say .... nope, didn't do it for me?

[dandysmom]

I know what you mean, have had this happen, but we are all coming to the book from different places, and our viewpoints can't help but be influenced by our whole life experiences. As Angie said, it's good that people have diferent opinions.

That said, did anyone think it was a bit odd that Clare was so, well, obsessed may be too strong a word, driven to have a child, after all those horrendous miscarriages? And knowing that her body was rejecting the embryos for probably good reasons didn't deter her at all? Plus the risk that the child might be afflicted with the same genetic makeup as Henry. The idea of a baby teleporting (time-porting?) is too awful to contemplate .....

I just could not get into her mindset about that ....

[calismum]

Originally Posted by meep

thinking back, I definately enjoyed the first half of the book more. The part that went over Claire's childhood and growing up and gave teasing glimpses into their future together.

I think this was one of the reasons that the book didn't do it for me. I did like the first half, raced thru' it and was wondering how things will go, what will happen etc.

However, once the 'stage was set' I just felt it lost a bit in the impetus and became quite repetative.

Dinahsmum about the wings, yes I was touched by the description and the way it was depicted was both a wonderful yet strange part of the book. Thought perhaps they were painted the red and black to signify blood and death/loss. Also to enable Claire to throw herself into something that let her get out all her anger, grief and fear at the loss of part of Henry. This, I think was the point in the relationship where she realised that Henry was not invincible and she probably was going to lose him. I think it was here that she finally accepted she would 'lose' him in the near future.

Dandysmom, I too wondered about the obsession with having a child. Was perhaps this because Claire wanted a bit of Henry - no matter what. Or was it some attempt to prove that she could have a normal life in amongst the madness of Henry, something for her when he was away. Early in the book Henry tells Claire he knows he is alive aged (I think it was 36?) so was she somehow driven to have a child before Henry reached 37?

I think there were a number of loose ends or threads started but left dangling that could well have been deliberate in order to carry some of the characters forward.

[meep]

Originally Posted by calismum

I wonder if the Author had lived would there have been sequels to this book which may have explained or widened some of the issues we have raised?

To the best of my knowledge, and after a few searches on the internet, the author - Audrey Niffenegger - is still alive. Sorry CM, I'm just a little confused by what you mean!

Also, I don't like the idea of a sequel - for me this book worked as a whole; the whole of Claire's life is covered apart from the part of her life after Henry dies, and as I said in a previous post, I think without Henry Claire doesn't have a story.

[angieh]

Yes, I've just Googled and as far as I can ascertain, Audrey is still with us. Also, she is American not French.

[calismum]

OMG - I am totally off my head

Had been reading a bit more about 'suite francaise' couple of weeks ago and have somehow mixed the two up - put it down to age/senility/stressed out/brain drain or just plain stupidity - sorry to have caused the confusion - certainly puts that theory out the window tho'!!

Still think there could be sequel though, using Claire/Henry/Alba - just a thought.

Have removed it from post - feel really silly now

[dinahsmum]

We spent some of last night watching the Disney xmas film from last year (I think) - Enchanted. A cartoon princess finds herself in 3-dimensional New York, present day. The cartoon princess elements (someday my prince will come, living happily ever after etc) are side by side with the cynical and the current and broken families and ruthlessness. (and Timothy Spall was his usual excellent self as the evil stepmother's henchman)

Anyway, what all this long preamble is leading to is that, not only is TTW a love story, we have failed to grasp (or mention) that it is, of course, a fairy story.Clare is the beautiful princess, Henry the handsome prince and the spell is his time-travel. Clare fell in love with a fairy story prince when she was a little girl of 6 (as she would) and stayed in the fairy story. She is a princess, she has a big house, a beautiful rather distant mother, no financial worries, doesn't cook or do practical stuff, has faithful staff in the house who raise her - not a care in the world.

Being a fairy story, those of us who accepted it haven't noticed elements the naysayers have, particularly the Lolita element, which had escaped me completely. I am now slightly bothered by that, but feel it wil be erased in time and my previous unconditional love for the book will return. I think the phrase is 'Casting daylight on magic' - CM and DM have looked at the thing with logic - the rest just accepted the crazy premise without a murmer.

The fairy story fades in the second half of the book, when cold reality and nasty stuff returns - lost babies, lost feet, ageing, death, reality.