And pictures, too

February report

Well, the most persistent of us met at Molly's and Perla's house, where we enjoyed the interior, awesome food, and conversation, while our children enjoyed each other. Who was there? Rachel, Kelly, Molly and myself, i.e. Ila, Genevieve, Perla, and Joseph. Joe was the only male around (if you are not counting David and James who were playing chess outside), and loved it: he kissed Perla and Ila, and Genevieve gave him a nice long hug. OK, OK, you are saying, but what about the book? Was the book discussed?

Yes, to an extent. Turns out only half of us finished the whole thing. Nevertheless, we discussed magical realism, the language of the book, the meaning of certain episodes. We all agreed that the book was over the top and hard to believe at times, even if it is supposed to be fantastical (the best example is the heroine's escape from an evil Duke via a model train located in a Faberge egg!). 

A thought about that: in my mind, tall tales are usually the product of men's imaginations. This may be the first example I've encountered, where a female author, and female protagonists (Fevvers and Lizzie, the latter being maybe my favorite character in the book), spin the craziest tales. 

We thought the male protagonist was weak. So much so that he let educated monkeys strip him of all his clothes, put a dunce hat on his head, and then examine his anatomy (Note: the monkeys may be, in my opinion, the most likable characters in the book). Was this deliberate? We don't know. If it is true that Fevvers is supposed to represent the "new woman," who bravely steps into the 20th century, then maybe Walser is supposed to be the new man, the one who will consent to being the consort. I don't know.

Along those lines, the big question was: is this a feminist novel or not? Some authors call it postfeminist (the term which I strongly dislike -- I have a postcard that says "I will be a postfeminist in postpatriarchy"), and criticize Angela Carter for crude language, I guess, though we couldn't figure out what the problem with  that was. 

However, I may have come up with one possible reason feminists criticize her: she glorifies prostitutes and prostitution in the first part, and it is the official feminist position, I believe, that prostitution is a violation of women's rights, and that no women willingly becomes a prostitute, nor enjoys it.

Anyway, to make a long story short, this is a wild ride of a book. The rest of the group liked the first part of the book (London) best, but I personally liked the second part (St. Petersburg). A lot of stories are ended violently, or are left unfinished, which Molly objected to. In any case, it's a good read. I am quite glad I got to read it. It's unlike anything I have read in a long time. The funniest thing is, I wasn't really aware this was a postmodernist novel until I was done.

So we meet again on APRIL 5. Kelly volunteered Bridget's house. We agreed that around 3 o'clock works best, because all the naps are done, and we end early enough for everyone to get to bed on time. We are reading EAT, PRAY, LOVE. Something a little more mainstream. I already got it from the library, so I can't wait to start. I hope to see you in larger numbers next time!