Book Club: Notes on an Exhibition

[meep]

Are we already to begin discussing our first book?

I think we originally said Friday 14th to begin discussing it and have just realised it is past that already, time has flown by this month! Sorry for not picking up on that sooner.

I'm not sure how people would like to progress with this. At Uni, in English Lit. tutorials, we'd move from issue to issue and theme to theme. I suggest we all list the 'issues' we particularly would like to discuss then we could discuss them one at a time to save confussion and make sure everything is covered. Does that seem too methodical? I'm sure the conversation will flow naturally and we'll work out on our method in discussing it!

---------------------------------------------------

My overall feeling toward the book was one of frustration and boredom. I hate to be negative in the first book we discuss, and don't want to affect other people's opinion too much; but there were several reasons it was an unsatisfying read.

The book was written from several different characters point of view, and was a story of the characters. It relied very heavily on the characters in the novel to give it substance, feeling and plot. But for me, the characters were all one-dimensional, not developed fully, stereotypes of themselves, and I didn't connect, sympathise or empathise with any of them. Or 'miss' any of them after I'd finished reading; a sign that I've enjoyed a book when I've finished is I miss one or two of the characters. For a novel and plot focussing almost solely on the characters and their interactions (in this instance, a family and their relations), it feel very flat at the first hurdle.

Developing from this, the characterisation of women really irritated me. I don't want to seem defensive of women and therefore appear an outright feminist in defending any characterisation of women, but for it seemed to me, there was no one woman in the book who was sane, nice, attractive, sympathetic etc. Each woman was a stereotype of her personality and not very appealing:

1. Rachel. A manic-depressive, sexually deviant, artist. She was the biggest stereotype in the book. I felt we never saw more than this portrayal of her. There were one or two scenes with her children as young kids where we may have begun to see a maternal feeling, but it was lacking. She was portrayed as 100% one way, one-dimensional. No maternal feeling (apart for Petroc perhaps), uncontrollable moodswings, tortured artist, tortures her family. The lack of maternal feeling particularly stood out for me. She seemed an 'unwoman'. And this was only who she was. We never saw another side to her.

2. Morwenna. A younger version of her mother. See above. Again, a stereotype of herself. Sexually questionable behaviour, abondons her family (who are full of men apart from her crazy mother). Has a lesbian relationship but acts as a stereotypical 'man' would by leaving her with no answer, just disappearing. Also mentally unstable, attempts suicide. A stereotypical 'mad woman' heralding back to Victorian values: any woman that showed pleasure during sex was considered insane, such as the mad wife in the attic in Jane Eyre

3. The black female artist (I forget her name and don't have the book with me, apologies!) She's unattratively portrayed through (Lord! again I forget his name, the gay son)'s eyes, she steals his lover, whenever we hear her talking again through the gay son's ears she is rude, ill-spoken, a monster almost. A lustful woman only out for herself.

4. The woman who seduces Garfield. She explicitly tells him what she wants, no-strings sex. My feelings about her are mixed. She's not unattractive per se but again has only one dimension to her and appeared to be a straw dog, there to serve one purpose.

5. Garfield's wife. She's prim, proper, and embarasses Garfield by announcing their attempts to have a baby at Friend's meeting. When she does get pregnant, perhaps the only sane mother in the book, she disappears from the narration and doesn't reappear.

6. Dame xyz (I forget her name again) is another crazy female artist, unappealing to the young girl Morwenna. She seems barren, childless. Interestingly, her art is of the female genitals and sex. Morewenna admires her sculptures without realising what they are. I haven't given enough thought to this, but I'm sure there could be interesting discussion around it.

7. Rachel's sister. A pretty 'doll', never stands up for herself, marries a 'safe' man. She seems the stereotype of a perfect 1950s woman. good to look at and not much else there!

The men have much more attention given to their characters, and whilst they're still flat are slightly more intriguing.

The only time I felt compelled to keep reading and felt interested in a character was Morwenna as a young girl. She seemed to have real feelings, musings, thoughts, emotions. Mature for her age. Loving. The Morwenna we see as an adult is, as I said above, a bland stereotype.

----------------------------------------------------

I hope that wasn't too long! I dont mean to dominate the conversation before it's begun! I just felt so strongly about this book whilst reading it. I was bored by it, the plot was flimsy, the characters were stale and one-dimensional. I didn't feel any sense of homecoming or satisfaction, or even a clever frustration at a twist or open ending when I finsihed it; just a 'meh' feeling. There have been books I've read that I didn't enjoy (for many reasons) but still appreciated the quality of writing or craft involved, but I'm afraid I didn't even feel that for this book.

Anyway, I'll stop now and see what everyone else thinks If anyone feels otherwise, do say!

ETA: Rachel's sister to the list above. Forgot to include her!

[angieh]

That was brave of you meep, to start us off. Not having had the benefit of having done an Eng Lit degree, although I did do it for A level, I am afraid that my initial crit is not nearly as encompassing. I took it from a different perspective too.

I was disappointed generally with the book and thought it finished very abruptly.

Generally, I liked the "arty" bits - the descriptions of Rachel's paintings and especially near the beginning the description of hanging the exhibition in the small gallery. Having hung 2 of my own (student) exhibitions and helping out hanging one for a professional artist friend, the feelings and anxieties were, I felt, spot on. Uncomfortably so, when describing the people who may attend the private view. I felt Gale's descriptions here were perceptive.

I didn't really feel any affection for any of the characters, except perhaps for Petroc (is that a Cornish name?) I really liked the episode in the story of his birthday on the beach and him struggling home with the stones.

I have problems with the part of the story that involved Dame Barbara Hepworth. I always feel uncomfortable when fictional characters come up against real life ones - although this is of course a commonly used ruse (?) in fiction. I remember feeling the same in The French Lieutenant's Woman when the main female character became a model of Rossetti's. I have actually visited Hepworth's studio at St Ives though and the bit where Rachel and Jack went back to the studio was quite vivid for me.

The issue of bi-polar disorder is not one that I know enough about to comment on, although I do have a friend with a daughter who is bi-polar and the symptoms she exhibits from time to time seem much more extreme than Rachel's - but that could be a deficit on the part of Gale's description that didn't nail it well enough.

I liked the part about the Quakers - that did IMO produce a counter-balance of serenity and calm to the rest of the story. Holding someone's image in light in your mind sounds like a lovely type of blessing.

I found from a story-thread view, there were also things that were not explained sufficiently to my liking - may just be me being dense. For example, I gathered that Rachel had disowned Morwenna for her part in Petroc's death but there was something about a parting on a station that was glossed over and never really came out. Don't like those sort of loose ends.

Didn't much care for Garfield (kept seeing a large ginger cat in my mind's eye!); Hedley was OK. Most of the subsidiary figures were very roughly sketched and nothing seemed to have the perception of the early chapters for me.

[meep]

Angie, those are all really good points. I had forgotten briefly about Petroc's stone collecting passage, and thought it very lovely and touching. It actually seems to be the pivitol moment in the book, as the final paintings Rachel is painting in her final, manic moments before her death is of these 6 stones. Also, am I reading into it too much to say Petroc = Roc = Rock. And Petroc was the rock that held the family together, but once he died it fell apart? After he died Morwenna left, and Rachel could no longer paint in the way she used to.

If that is feasible, it's an interesting device to use, but again I felt it didn't work as I felt no connection to Petroc and he wasn't built up enough for me to feel his absence was important.

The description of Quaker life was interesting, I agree Angie. And I never thought about how it was a balance to Rache's turbulant life, although it is so obviously portrayed in her husband's quiet demeanour. Although, again, he for me was one of the most frustrating characters as his calm submisiveness meant I almost didn't realise he was there or forgot about him. He was almost invisible. But this could have been intentional on Gale's part.

Angie, it's interesting that the sections on art, and hanging the art, were so evocative for you. Maybe this is one of the major strengths of the novel but sadly I can't relate to it. Maybe Gale could have made these sections more vivid for the unexperienced reader?

What did everyone think of the sequence the events are unravelled? It jumps about through time. Good or bad?

[dinahsmum]

Oh I'm so glad it isn't just me!
Thank you both for those very well thought out and expressed viewpoints.

Overall, I was very very disappointed by this book. The picture (no pun intended) painted in the thumbnail we read when we made our choice (and I will own up to being one of the three who voted for it) made it seem quite mystical and full of intertwined family-type memories. Instead I thought it was like the short stories they used to print in magazines like Womens Own thirty years ago.

I did like the device of starting chapters with the description card from the exhibition and, although it irked me at first, I grew to like the way the family were introduced to the book, one by one, and some very late. Were you, like me, impatient to meet the elusive Morwhenna? (but disappointed when you found her?)

I like the way meep has started her review by discussing the female characters. I agree wholeheartedly with her disappointment with Ruth. This was indeed 'a character' and a very shallow one. A bipolar character, so that's alright - explains everything and excuses everything. And if Ruth is a shadowy non-character, then the other females are even less.

I won't say all I feel now but I'll end on a positive. I enjoyed some of the language, none of which I can remember now, and especially enjoyed the six stones and the way they featured - in a sad way they had more about them than Hedley and Garfield. I also enjoyed the exposure to Quakerism - the book would have been less without that.

So, ladies, I guess we won't be following this up with Mr Gale's Cat Sanctuary? Just reading the thumbnail of it, I see we have a similar formula, with obligatory lesbian couple etc etc. Oh dear - cynical aren't I? Maybe future books should be ones that at least one of us can recommend from experience. Hooray for The Time Traveller's Wife!

Edit: posted at the same time as your second post meep

[meep]

Oh and speaking of 'unfinished' story lines. The only interesting part of Rachel's madness was her seeing things that weren't there. One was the baby, and the other was an old woman in the corner of the studio. I understand that the baby she saw was the baby they took out of her in the asylum, but where did the old lady come from?

Also, one quite poetic thing was that the book begins and ends with Rachel not taking her pills in the same manner. She sticks them to the side of her palm and hides them. This is how she 'gets free', from the asylum and also from the stupour that's come over her artistic creativty, and I guess also eventually free from life.

[meep]

DM, I echo that! The Time Traveller's Wife is a whole different kettle of fish!

I too was impatient to meet Morwenna, found her the only interesting character when we met her as a child, then found her to be wholly predictable when she appeared as an adult.

[meep]

Originally Posted by dinahsmum

Overall, I was very very disappointed by this book. The picture (no pun intended) painted in the thumbnail we read when we made our choice (and I will own up to being one of the three who voted for it) made it seem quite mystical and full of intertwined family-type memories. Instead I thought it was like the short stories they used to print in magazines like Womens Own thirty years ago.

I feel entirely the same way. When I read the back of the book it actually seemed to suggest an entirely different story. That Rachel had a secret that would be unearthed in her paintings. But it's not the family that discover the secret, but us. The only secret that is discovered is her true past, through her sister, and the fact she was in an asylum. But this was by no means shocking and even expected. There was no twist. The back of the book set high expectations and they fell flat.

[angieh]

Ah - the baby! Now I thought that there really wasn't a baby that was aborted in the asylum, but the baby was Rachel's twin that was strangled at birth with her umbilical - that her mother had accused her of when she was a young child. Now wouldn't that haunt anyone? [Reminded me of Kate Atkinson's Behind the Scenes at the Museum]

On a broader issue - does anyone find the tone of recent novels to be very similar? Can't really explain this more fully at the moment.

[meep]

Oh Angie, I totally forgot about that! (the twin that is). Yes, that would make more sense. But I was quite confused by the 'abortion' incident. And also, did it imply that she was actually gang raped by those boys, and her sister only saw it as something different? Or that she allowed it, and then it turned into gang rape?

That is how unforgettable parts of the book were. But yes, the strangling of the twin makes sense! Oh, and that's another woman who is horrble and unlikeable; her own mother.

And Angie, yes, I agree many modern novels have the same tone, which I would be so harsh to say as they all have no tone whatsoever. Lacking in personality. No wit, no sarcasm, no 'enlightened narrator'; it just seems to be a story loosely strung together. In more classical literature, the idea of the narrator and tone of narration often played a major role in the book. From the first-person narrative of the Victorian novels ("Reader! I married him.") to the subtly shifting narration from one person's viewpoint to another in Virginia Woolf (she has a wonderful style of narration, particularly in Mrs. Dalloway), to the omniscient narrator who is is league with the reader and almost controls the characters fates (Faber in the Crimson Petal and the White). Sadly, I feel Gale was lacking in any tone whatsoever, and that's a major reason I was so disinterested in the novel. Good point!

[dinahsmum]

Oh Angie, I totally forgot about that! (the twin that is). Yes, that would make more sense. But I was quite confused by the 'abortion' incident. And also, did it imply that she was actually gang raped by those boys, and her sister only saw it as something different? Or that she allowed it, and then it turned into gang rape?


Oh dear, I'd forgotten that too. Doesn't that say something about the book - remembered the stones, which seemed to be important as I was reading but forgetting the dead twin? And again, I don't know if she was raped or a willing participant or whether she was preganant as a result.

The general - mm, grumble, must get back to the book - over the last couple of weeks made me fear this was going to be the result. I'm not sure if books are getting 'samey' or not. I guess most of the Great Themes have been used time and time again, but that doesn't stop someone reworking in a great style. I read the Rebus book on hols and thoroughly enjoyed that, but of course it was a crime thriller; also a book called The Last Chronicle (I think) which was a sort of da Vinci Code-alike. It was 'alright', but not great literature. btw meep, your man Faber's latest book is on the same theme - Jesus was around but was only a 'good man', nothing divine about him. I can't remember the title - it might be The Fire Gospel