GF Book Club - Book 2

[RedinSweden]

Sorry, i've been woefully absent from the forums since archery came into my life in all it's pointy splendour! As such, i haven't even managed to start this book, but will do so tomorrow as i've nearly finished another book i'm reading for another book club. I'll offer my opinions over the weekend, for what they're worth!

 

However, in the meantime, the forumite responsible for the next book will be RedinSweden. I also suggest that we read 1 book per month so people don't have to scour the threads to find out when we're starting and finishing books, i.e. thread title - 'GF Book Club - Book 3 (November 2010)'. Just a thought.

 

Good idea. I will have a ponder and certain chocolate products may find their way to Guido Towers, but ask Paulie, I am notoriously unreliable.

[Guido]

You better. I promise to prioritise this book club over the other book club from now on too. Some boring fuckers over there!

[Juniper]

I'm about 50 pages from the end. So I'll have my review soon (hopefully finish it tomorrow night).

[Guido]

Read the first 80 pages last night and it bears no resemblance to my perceptions of it. Perhaps the descent in madness will change my mind. At the moment it's like a cross between The Catcher In The Rye, Alan Bennett and Bridget Jones' Diary. Haven't read any other comments yet though so i'll reserve judgement a while. Surprised so far at the lack of dark-and-meaningfulness though!

[Guido]

Just finished this fucker and have to say i am a bit disappointed, but less so than after 80 pages. NOTHING like what i was expecting, although I felt the story did become more engaging once the dullness of the tangential New York meanderings passed. I did feel a connection with Esther's character growing rapidly by the middle of the book but this waned as i felt Plath's own self-pity infiltrate the plot (what there was of one) and the narrative in general.

 

Difficult to say what i feel regarding the descriptions of mental health as I work for a mental health charity and have had my own VERY similar experiences and have met so many people with very similar stories too. Would have seemed much more insightful and original at first publishing, but there is such a shallow exploration of the themes the author seems to want to provoke discussion about for it to remain relevant nearly 50 years on. Additionally, i find it hard to read the novel with an ackowledgement of the different political and cultural context of the time it was written as there is so little creation of atmosphere or a sense of time and place, i.e. a descriptive account of Esther's world in the 50s/60s. I realise this kind of detail is often sidelined in Bildungsroman for a focus on the 'world within', but even a little goes a long way to maintaining a connection with the reader. This reinforced thoughts about the author's self-indulgence, which tempered my enjoyment of the rest of the novel. By the end I didn't really care about any abuses Esther had suffered through the actions of the novel's misogynists and social parasites, and was more interested in rushing through the book to find out about more baser aspects like what was going down in the nut house.

 

All in all it kept me interested til the end, but not for the reasons i thought it would, and certainly not because of the quality of the prose (surprisingly simplistic considering Plath's output as a poet).

 

Great to read the comments on here, which almost unanimously mirrored my own opinions. Perhaps that in itself is the greatest indicator of how one-dimensional the novel was! Hope we stick with this book club as I thought the discussion here was more insightful and expansive than with Book 1, though this admittedly had greater scope thematically. Once again, sorry for not contributing earlier this month (and that this contribution is itself a bit short - i'm very very tired right now!).

 

Actually, can't see a Book 3 (November) thread yet. RiS! I'll start one up then PM the bugger to get him to pick a book.

[Guido]

Some descriptions in the book were flimsy to say the least and left you unsure whether you’d understood the plot properly. Losing her virginity to Irwin was a good example. What made her bleed so profusely? Had he hurt her on purpose? Is that why she rang him to demand he paid the hospital bill? I just didn’t get it.

 

I quite enjoyed it, as a light read. Certainly not an American classic though, not in a million years.

 

Agree completely with the 'not a classic' remark - having just read a Cormac McCarthy masterpiece this really is quite unremarkable in comparison. Agree with the plot confusion too. Seems like Plath just threw in a bit of man-hating to bolster her feminist stance, but the poor fucker had done nothing wrong (other than not considering her sexual needs of course)! Surely she should have billed the doctor who messed up her 'fitting', which seemed to be the problem and would have still had an impact re: her asserting herself on the world that had wronged her (but not that much really, which was the main problem). Perhaps proof-reading wasn't her strong point.

[BatChainPuller]

Finally finished it today after getting distracted halfway through. Going to put down my thoughts on it first without having read the other posts so my responses aren't coloured by them.

 

I thought it was exquisitely written. Her use of language and ability to describe and capture an idea or a feeling in a few words was exceptional and what marks out a great writer from the very good.

 

The narrative went from an amusing and witty account of her time in New York and switched fairly suddenly into a horrifying account of clinical depression and asylum 'treatment'. The accounts of ECT are harrowing and show it for the medieval torture it is (was). Throughout it was highly readable and beautifully crafted. The flashbacks and way plot lines touched on earlier were explained was seamless and natural. She had a real lightness of touch and economy that I really appreciated - in a short phrase she had the ability to suggest a whole range of ideas.

 

She showed a spirit and rebelliousness throughout that I found endearing. There was some good sexual politics but never laboured or polemic - she wittily highlighted the hypocrisy and double standards of the time. It was a real indictment of psychiatry of that era - clearly what she wanted was someone non-judgemental to talk to and listen - what she got was incarceration and electric shocks. Dr Nolan is a positive contrast to this and clearly part of her recovery - someone who would be using a CBT-type approach nowadays I imagine.

 

Having never really experienced much more than very brief periods of reactive depression the book gave me an insight into clinical depression. The bell jar metaphor was very powerful - the way it suddenly descended after the disappointment of not being accepted onto a writing course. Lots of little clues and pointers in the early 'light' part of the story that suggest her predisposition to depression.

 

Not sure I would describe it as enjoyable, but a very rewarding book in lots of ways. She clearly was a great writer - I've never read her poetry but the use of language throughout the novel is poetic and vivid.

 

Couldn't have been more of a contrast with Iain Banks!

[BatChainPuller]

Well having read through the other posts its amazing how diametrically opposed peoples views of the book are. Obviously the ideas, preconceptions, and experiences you bring to the book colur how you view it.

 

Paul has obviously put himself out on a limb with his 'turgid shite' summation - something of a response I suspect to the tepid reception his choice received.

 

There is something cold and dispassionate about Plath's descriptions that obviously annoyed people - I took it as a kind of detachment that was part of her 'condition'.

 

Guido and SKI used phrases like 'flimsy' or 'shallow exploration' but for me that was part of the attraction - she just touched on some ideas without having to spell them out - what I referred to as 'economy'. I don't think some sort of gynaecological explanation of why she bled so much would have added anything -'one in a million' was how the doctor referred to it.

 

I didn't really get Guido's man-hating bit - she was obviously bitter but understandably so given some of the tossers she had to contend with. It was a novel relating one persons experience, feelings, and thoughts - I don't see how that can be viewed as self-indulgent. I don't think Plath wanted to portray herself as nice or sympathetic - just what she really thought and felt. There were some quite nasty comments and digs throughout - the sort of things we all think but rarely say for fear of being judged ourselves.

[Guido]

Good stuff Batman. The 'man-hating' comment was meant solely as a response to that very specific scenario of Esther billing the bloke she slept with for her medical expenses. The fuck did he do wrong?! It was the 'economy' you mentioned that led somewhat to the confusion as to what point she was making here, as it seemed an almost spiteful act without reason. Neither Plath nor Esther came across as man-haters to me though.

 

Looking back there is something endearing about the shallow exploration of themes. I think perhaps it took me by surprise how i swept through the book so quickly and with such ease. Think i was hoping to be challenged more, rather than just wallowing in the easy progress of the narrative. I usually only realise these types of nuances a few days/weeks after finishing the book when it's had time to settle. That said, i haven't thought much about the novel since putting it down, so not sure it would've had that much of an impact even if i had been more appreciative of the pacing and language from the start.

 

Also, I read some of her poems years back (mostly from 'Ariel') and remember being pretty impressed so reckon i'll have another skim through in the coming weeks. Would recommend you have a shufty too seeing as you connected so well with the novel.

[BatChainPuller]

Good stuff Batman. The 'man-hating' comment was meant solely as a response to that very specific scenario of Esther billing the bloke she slept with for her medical expenses. The fuck did he do wrong?! It was the 'economy' you mentioned that led somewhat to the confusion as to what point she was making here, as it seemed an almost spiteful act without reason. Neither Plath nor Esther came across as man-haters to me though.

 

Looking back there is something endearing about the shallow exploration of themes. I think perhaps it took me by surprise how i swept through the book so quickly and with such ease. Think i was hoping to be challenged more, rather than just wallowing in the easy progress of the narrative. I usually only realise these types of nuances a few days/weeks after finishing the book when it's had time to settle. That said, i haven't thought much about the novel since putting it down, so not sure it would've had that much of an impact even if i had been more appreciative of the pacing and language from the start.

 

Also, I read some of her poems years back (mostly from 'Ariel') and remember being pretty impressed so reckon i'll have another skim through in the coming weeks. Would recommend you have a shufty too seeing as you connected so well with the novel.

 

For me 'the easy progress of the narrative' was based on how well-written and crafted it was. It was seamless and didn't use the sort of clunking devices and big neon signs that Iain Banks needed in Transition. It also didn't need clever vocabulary to provide a challenge - the challenge for me was in the gaps or undeveloped themes and plot lines.

 

Like you I was surprised by how 'light' the first part set in New York was - I was expecting a hardcore descent into personal hell based on comments made by friends. How quickly Esther came off the rails (and how quickly she was incarcerated) came as a surprise. I've read and heard about how depression can be triggered by seemingly minor events in peoples lives and Plath's account had an authenticity about it.

 

I'd definitely like to have a look at her poetry, but must try and focus on Book 3 first.

[piscinin]

My question would be: why would you expect Esther to act in a "reasonable" way after her attempted rite of passage from adolescence into womanhood results in her almost hemorrhaging to death?

 

I'd expect a mentally unstable person with a victim complex to react in an over-emotional fashion and blame someone else.

 

This is the girl whose failed attempt at the rite of passage into big city life resulted in her hurling all her clothes off the top her hotel. Hardly a measured response. So no wonder after having a run-in with "turkey neck and turkey gizzards" she's a bit off-center.

[Paul]

Paul has obviously put himself out on a limb with his 'turgid shite' summation - something of a response I suspect to the tepid reception his choice received.

Eh? Couldn't be further from the truth. I made no connection whatsoever between the two books and would never be so petty. Thought you'd "know" me better than that, mate.

 

In what way is it putting myself out on a limb, anyway? I just had a very strong negative reaction to it. I will admit to a small prejudice against literary fiction in that I don't place literary talent on a higher plane than the ability to engage my imagination. The two are not incompatible (I love James Ellroy, for example), but I rarely find stuff that is lauded for it's prose to be entertaining. To be honest, when it comes to appreciating writing for it's own sake, I find poetry to be a much more effective medium.

 

I also think there's a lot of snobbery concerning what has artistic merit within the book world that has clear parallels with snobbery about music. In my view, if you like it, that's all that matters. I'm not saying that beautiful prose on its own can't be appreciated or have worth, but in my view that's not enough.

 

I really dislike this book but I have absolutely no problem with the fact that you enjoyed it (and I won't question your motives for doing so, either...).

[BatChainPuller]

Eh? Couldn't be further from the truth. I made no connection whatsoever between the two books and would never be so petty. Thought you'd "know" me better than that, mate.

 

In what way is it putting myself out on a limb, anyway? I just had a very strong negative reaction to it. I will admit to a small prejudice against literary fiction in that I don't place literary talent on a higher plane than the ability to engage my imagination. The two are not incompatible (I love James Ellroy, for example), but I rarely find stuff that is lauded for it's prose to be entertaining. To be honest, when it comes to appreciating writing for it's own sake, I find poetry to be a much more effective medium.

 

I also think there's a lot of snobbery concerning what has artistic merit within the book world that has clear parallels with snobbery about music. In my view, if you like it, that's all that matters. I'm not saying that beautiful prose on its own can't be appreciated or have worth, but in my view that's not enough.

 

I really dislike this book but I have absolutely no problem with the fact that you enjoyed it (and I won't question your motives for doing so, either...).

 

Sorry if I misjudged your motives but I was shocked by the vehemence of your response to the book and the terms you expressed it in. Reminiscent of what has become the norm on the *F ! Surprising that something that you found boring could evoke such vitriol - seemed to have hit a nerve.

 

You put yourself out on a limb because you completely dismissed it as 'utter shit' when it's clearly not. You may not have liked it but that isn't enough to justify your complete dismissal of an extremely well-written book.

 

It fits every prejudice I have about classic literary fiction - overrated, turgid shite. You can find better plotting in a copy of 2000AD, better characterisation on Coronation Street and better prose in the novels of Stephen King

 

By implication you're accusing people who like the book of snobbery and/or mindless conformity with received opinion. I think your response has more than a hint of inverted snobbery ;-) You're also plain wrong - you won't find better prose in the novels of Stephen King (haven't read them all admittedly). The book wasn't particularly concerned with plot, it was a subtle and intelligent description of mental illness and responses to it. I found the characterisation to be highly effective - in a few brush strokes she evoked a very powerful description of Buddy Willard for example.

 

You draw a parallel with music - I generally don't like hip hop but wouldn't dream of calling it 'utter shite' or assume that people like it because they want to be down wit da yoof.

[Paul]

Sorry if I misjudged your motives but I was shocked by the vehemence of your response to the book and the terms you expressed it in. Reminiscent of what has become the norm on the *F ! Surprising that something that you found boring could evoke such vitriol - seemed to have hit a nerve.

 

You put yourself out on a limb because you completely dismissed it as 'utter shit' when it's clearly not. You may not have liked it but that isn't enough to justify your complete dismissal of an extremely well-written book.

 

 

 

By implication you're accusing people who like the book of snobbery and/or mindless conformity with received opinion. I think your response has more than a hint of inverted snobbery ;-) You're also plain wrong - you won't find better prose in the novels of Stephen King (haven't read them all admittedly). The book wasn't particularly concerned with plot, it was a subtle and intelligent description of mental illness and responses to it. I found the characterisation to be highly effective - in a few brush strokes she evoked a very powerful description of Buddy Willard for example.

 

You draw a parallel with music - I generally don't like hip hop but wouldn't dream of calling it 'utter shite' or assume that people like it because they want to be down wit da yoof.

 

Mate, you are aware that I described my own view as prejudiced, aren't you?

[BatChainPuller]

Mate, you are aware that I described my own view as prejudiced, aren't you?

 

Yes.

[razor]

Right, apologies, Paul. I know I am the last one to finish, and I have avoided this thread until I had read The Bell Jar, so I am going to write my thoughts, then read everyone else's.

 

I enjoyed it. To put it into context, I suppose it is more interesting because of the era of writing and the sense of feminism that runs through it (yet a feminism that is so often contradicted in as much as yes, women have agency (Joan's suicide), but yet women are still directed in what they can do / achieve).

 

I did see it as similar to Catcher in the Rye, but I didn't enjoy it as much as that book.

 

I didn't like the endless, ineffective similes. But I loved the subtlety with which she changed pace around c12/13 that made you look back and think "Hold on, wasn't this young woman on the brink of achieving anything. What happened there?"

 

I only knew of Plath in relation to her suicide and marriage to Ted Hughes - I saw a play about it once. I probably wouldn't seek out much more of her writing though.

 

I really liked Esther. I thought she was an interesting yet endearingly naive character, and her situation is just baffling, but all very real. I have seen mental health issues at first hand and the descent into depression can be a matter of months from nowhere.

 

Anyway, I'll now read the first post in the book 3 thread. And will probably finish it when you're all half way through book 5.

[razor]

Just read everybody's posts. Pleased that I identified that Catcher in the Rye parallel, but in essence, I add nothing to the discussion.

 

I read my own, and I suppose the comment about the suicide being "positive" is a bit controversial. I don't think suicide is positive, of course, but just the fact that a woman does it in the context of the societal expectations of young, bright women is something of a statement.

 

Anyway, if we were in a pub discussing the book as above, I'd follow the discussion, recognise that I had nothing to add, then deliberately fall off my stool in an attempt to gain acceptance into a group of superior intellect.

[RedinSweden]

Right, apologies, Paul. I know I am the last one to finish, and I have avoided this thread until I had read The Bell Jar, so I am going to write my thoughts, then read everyone else's.

 

I enjoyed it. To put it into context, I suppose it is more interesting because of the era of writing and the sense of feminism that runs through it (yet a feminism that is so often contradicted in as much as yes, women have agency (Joan's suicide), but yet women are still directed in what they can do / achieve).

 

I did see it as similar to Catcher in the Rye, but I didn't enjoy it as much as that book.

 

I didn't like the endless, ineffective similes. But I loved the subtlety with which she changed pace around c12/13 that made you look back and think "Hold on, wasn't this young woman on the brink of achieving anything. What happened there?"

 

I only knew of Plath in relation to her suicide and marriage to Ted Hughes - I saw a play about it once. I probably wouldn't seek out much more of her writing though.

 

I really liked Esther. I thought she was an interesting yet endearingly naive character, and her situation is just baffling, but all very real. I have seen mental health issues at first hand and the descent into depression can be a matter of months from nowhere.

 

Anyway, I'll now read the first post in the book 3 thread. And will probably finish it when you're all half way through book 5.

 

Book 3 is a nice shortish one.

[BatChainPuller]

Right, apologies, Paul. I know I am the last one to finish, and I have avoided this thread until I had read The Bell Jar, so I am going to write my thoughts, then read everyone else's.

 

I enjoyed it. To put it into context, I suppose it is more interesting because of the era of writing and the sense of feminism that runs through it (yet a feminism that is so often contradicted in as much as yes, women have agency (Joan's suicide), but yet women are still directed in what they can do / achieve).

 

I did see it as similar to Catcher in the Rye, but I didn't enjoy it as much as that book.

 

I didn't like the endless, ineffective similes. But I loved the subtlety with which she changed pace around c12/13 that made you look back and think "Hold on, wasn't this young woman on the brink of achieving anything. What happened there?"

 

I only knew of Plath in relation to her suicide and marriage to Ted Hughes - I saw a play about it once. I probably wouldn't seek out much more of her writing though.

 

I really liked Esther. I thought she was an interesting yet endearingly naive character, and her situation is just baffling, but all very real. I have seen mental health issues at first hand and the descent into depression can be a matter of months from nowhere.

 

Anyway, I'll now read the first post in the book 3 thread. And will probably finish it when you're all half way through book 5.

 

Yes I thought that change of pace and tone was very effective too - gave me a better appreciation of how someone's mental health can deteriorate triggered by what might seem to someone else a fairly minor knockback. A lot of people who have had experience of depression seem to find the book very authentic.

 

Definitely a book from another era and perhaps shows that society has progressed in lots of ways.

[Juniper]

I'm going to have to hold my hands up and admit I haven't gotten past the half way mark on The Bell Jar.

 

Got to the suicide attempts and just didn't want to read any further. It's a subject I find quite difficult reading about and just can't summon up the want to pick it up again. It's a shame as I enjoyed it up to that part.

 

Still way behind on reading book three too. But that's unrelated, working a lot of hours at the moment so haven't had much free time at home to read and my weekends are mostly taken up until January.