after silence bones of the moon black cocktail a child across the sky outside the dog museum the panic hand kissing the beehive the land of laughs from the teeth of angels sleeping in flame voice of our shadow

Virtual Reading Group (April 2001) -- "The Wooden Sea" Pat D - 03:24am Apr 1, 2001 EST Part magic realism, part mystery, part fantasy, part sci-fi and part philosophy, Jonathan Carroll's tryout for the Imagination Triathalon at the Wonder Olympics (AKA "The Wooden Sea"), will keep you guessing even after the last page is read. So, if you've returned from the rabbit hole called Crane's View (or even if you think you've returned), join in and help us figure out this lovely, entertaining puzzle of a book. Pat D - 03:25am Apr 1, 2001 EST (#1 of 100) Let the Games Begin... Yeah, there's time travel, a reappearing dead dog, a magical feather, an alien Apostel, and a crazy, murderous Dutchman, but what ties all these together for the small town police chief, Frannie McCabe? What's his role amid all this chaos? Can different selves dwell within and without us? Can an author portray selfless love successfully in a post postmodern world? What conventions does Carroll break and reanastomose? What the hell was this excellent fun all about? You tell me. Prentice Hall - 01:13pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#2 of 100) <sound of wind gust> Whew. Was only halfway through this baby but picked it up at 5 A.M. (no, make that 6 A.M., by Congressional mandate) and read through the finish line -- and I do mean through the finish line, as I felt as if I'd missed the finish line or something, so kept running in search of a line in the street or judges with stopwatches or cheering crowds, even, but no cigar. This book scores a 10 on the "Huh?" scale, but every dark mine has its nuggets of gold, I guess, so it'll be fun to pick at all month (and what better day to start than April Fools?). I'm not convinced Johathan Carroll himself has all the answers. It's as if he took a 5,000-piece jigsaw puzzle and dropped it out the window. Sure you can go outside and pick it all up with the idea of reassembling it, but some piece always slips into the fifth dimension (or what have you) and you don't realize it until that one Matisse-like hole stares darkly from the crimped cardboard of the reconstructed puzzle. That's where we'll be at, probably, on April 30. All kinds of great ideas, theories, and eureka moments, but still, the taunt of one missing piece that even Franny (or Gee-Gee) can't yet figure (can an author and his character share predicaments?). Still, I like the theme about aging and changing as a person and especially compassion. The book must resonate differently for a middle-aged reader compared to a young one. The bittersweet element, I mean. Or the poignant one, if you're in the mood for thesauruses (thesauri?). Pat D - 02:40pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#3 of 100) I'd like to try something different in this month's VRG. I'd like us to discuss this book in stages, rather than hopping around from this part to that and back again. I think it'll help us figure some of it out better (working together), and I don't want to dissuade those who've poked their heads in, gotten interested enough in the book to go out and pick it up, but don't come back for fear of having the story spoiled before they finish it. It's a fast-reader, and anyone could pick it up the third week of this month and still have time for plenty of input, so let's start at the beginning (how clever) and hover there for a bit, ok? We can discuss the plot's opening developments, early metaphor and symbolism, and character introductions (and some of those cool suggestions Debra listed). I'd like to begin with and stick around the following chapters: OLD VIRTUE - Where we first meet Frannie McCabe (Crane's View Chief of Police, Magda (Frannie's second wife), Pauline (Frannie's step-daughter), Johnny Pentangles (described as "the town idiot"), some info about Frannie's departed Dad, Donald and Geraldine Schiavo (the domestic dispute duo), the discovery of the feather in the empty Schiavo house, Susan Ginnety (a former high school love and now Mayor of Crane's View), Gloria (Frannie's first wife), some of Frannie's Vietnam recollections, and of course, the appearance and REappearance of Old Vertue. APE OF MY HEART - Where we meet George Dalemwood ("the strangest person I know and one of my best friends"), Chuck (George's dachschund), George's memorable suggestion ("There are two ways of approaching this--as mischief or metaphysics."), a book with a 1750 portrait painting of Old Vertue, Pauline's tattoo, and GeeGee. CAT FOLDING - GeeGee explains ("I'm here because you need me. You need my help."), the nocturnal doings of the otherwordly crew at the Schiavo house, Antonya (the high school drug overdose who came back to tell Frannie "Tell my mother I didn't do this. Tell her they did it to me."), reappearance of the feather, and Antonya's mysterious notebook sketchings. THE HANGMAN'S SHOVE - George and Frannie try to figure out Antonya's notebook, the Schiavo house burns down, Astopel appears ("Haven't you seen enough wonders recently to convince you life has changed?"), Astopel's notification that Frannie has one week to figure things out, that he's going to soon find himself walking about on the last day of his life, and then old-age Frannie and Susan in Vienna, space-age phones, and faceless, helmetted pedestrians, and Frannie's death. Carroll doesn't waste any time getting the snowball rolling, does he? What about his characterizations? What about Frannie's voice? And what about that DOG? Debra Lievens - 02:52pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#4 of 100) similar impressions PH -- I have similar impressions on the book as a whole. Not up to my usual 'glib' standards (or down to them?) at present however. So just a few thoughts -- Didn't bother me that this is a pretty 'uncategorizable' read. As Pat said, you almost need to let go of everything and just enjoy the ride. But while the ride was fun, and it certainly picked up speed and sucked me in, it was a bit like SO MANY THREADS of spaghetti tangled that I wanted a few more with discernible starts and finishes. OK - maybe just discernible finishes. Don't mind ambiguity at the end of a novel, but not the unfinished symphony. That aside, the characters were interesting - though as a woman - I have to ask the 'male' readership - do men really think thoughts about the women they love like Frannie thought of Magda? Another thought or two I'll toss to bounce on the floor of the wooden sea -- I thought the contrast of fiery youth (Gee Gee) against late-forties Frannie was wonderfully done. The explosiveness and fearlessness of the 17 year old, against thirty years later - wiser, softer, broader perspective, but still admiring the quick rage and flammability of the kid. Equally well done, I thought - the transport into an aging body. In my own odd little way I've lived that one (through illness; recovered now, thank you). I thought the depiction was astonishgly good of the shock of finding oneself in a body that is not recognizable, that does not heed your command, that brings no pleasure but only the most foreign and depressing pangs of sluggishness and pain. You are who you are, who you were, who you become, and yet you are not because your body is not. As you said, PH - special recognition in this for the middle-aged (ugh - am I really there already?) reader. Some questions - for pondering - Astopel - didn't really get him - good guy? bad guy? both? The alarm business - interesting. The Beatles business, funny and poignant. A lotta good stuff, some a little too tangled, wondering what, if any, mysteries lurk behind the first read - all the things I didn't get. And I won't look at feathers the same way again. . . Debra Lievens - 02:53pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#5 of 100) sorry Pat -- We must've been typing simultaneously. . . hope I didn't spoil the fun. . . Pat D - 03:02pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#6 of 100) No, not at all. Anything goes, Debra, I was just trying to "stimulate." ;) I thought the contrast of fiery youth (Gee Gee) against late-forties Frannie was wonderfully done. The explosiveness and fearlessness of the 17 year old, against thirty years later - wiser, softer, broader perspective, but still admiring the quick rage and flammability of the kid. Equally well done, I thought - the transport into an aging body. In my own odd little way I've lived that one (through illness; recovered now, thank you). I thought the depiction was astonishgly good of the shock of finding oneself in a body that is not recognizable, that does not heed your command, that brings no pleasure but only the most foreign and depressing pangs of sluggishness and pain. You are who you are, who you were, who you become, and yet you are not because your body is not. I agree with your commentary here. I thought these two treatments were very well done. I'd never considered the wonderful hypothetical situation of actually being able to meet up with and converse with my 17 year old self. Lemme tell ya'... that notion alone took me for quite a ride. Pat D - 03:43pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#7 of 100) Duality ~ from p57 ~ "Remember, Junior, I got the advantage here cause I know both you and me. You only know you--not what you'll be like in thirty years." He flicked the cigarette away. It bounced far out in the street, throwing up a burst of gold and red sparks. When he spoke his tone had lost the anger abd was only unhappiness. "How could you end up like this? I was sitting in that house thinking, 'This is it? This is how it'll be for me? Yellow chairs with flowers on them and last week's Time magazine? Bill Gates. Who the fuck is Bill Gates? What happened to you? What happened to me?" How would you explain such things to your returned teenaged self??? For George it's simple: "How old are you, Frannie?" "Forty-seven." "Have you noticed how the meanings of words change the older we get? When I was young I used to think old meant fifty. Now I'm almost fifty and old is eighty. When I was twenty, I thought the word love meant a sexy woman and a good marriage. Now the only love I feel is for my work, Chuck, and this tree. Yet that's sufficient." Different selves in the same lifetime... vastly different. No wonder there's so much duality and ambiguity within us. Prentice Hall - 06:01pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#8 of 100) Pat -- Your plan to tackle the early chapters first sounds great, given the nature of the beast (as in Old Vertue -- sounds like "Virtue"). Debra -- Please be more specific re: the Franny-Magda relationship question. I didn't even notice anything unseemly or out of sorts about their relationship (but then, manunkinds are famous for not noticing things, or so the wimmins are always telling us). I liked the bit about secret words between them (e.g. "I like you") because goddamn if that ain't true. But I think you had something else in mind, no...? Debra Lievens - 07:11pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#9 of 100) Pat and PH -- First, Pat -- gotta tell you I had actually made a mental note - 'p 42!' in my mind - exactly the passage you cited above - George's remark about the meaning of words changing as we get older. I thought that was a wonderful nugget of truth dug out of some recognition of Carroll's. The other section you cited is also so well done. It is an odd thought - to face oneself in the flesh in a different time period. Eerie and delicious. And the proliferation that continues as the story progresses takes nothing away from this more fundamental confrontation and enjoyment of selves - the Gee-Gee - Frannie relationship. There is another passage I meant to mark (but I don't put marks in books --) and my mental-meter was too tired. . . it has to do with the relationship between Frannie and Magda (I'm getting to a clarification, PH), an earlier reference by Frannie that he doesn't really know fear. And then the much, much later realization, as he knows ultimately Magda's future, and realizes the depth of his love for her, he understands, indeed, what fear is about. I wish I could find those damn passages! This hit home for me, in a very essential way. Another one of those 'truths' that pop up out of nowhere in this novel. Indeed - the young are reckless and fearless for so many reasons, not least of all the fact that they are all strength, energy, vitality, health - they cannot imagine anything else. But also, until visceral bonds are formed with others - a partner, children - fear isn't a potent force in life. Only when one acknowledges the depth of connection to other human beings can fear become that powerful - fear of loss. (NOTE: We will hopefully get to the Gee-Gee Frannie's Dad relationship. That one is pretty touching, and interesting, and bittersweet. For later, perhaps?) Maybe one of you can locate the passages. Carroll put the words into Frannie's mouth so much better. But it is a truth, again, that some of us don't discover until we are older, have loved ones, children. And, have known loss. Interesting, too, now that I think of it, that he throws in the character who 'helps others deal with loss' - a character who has himself known suffering (Bill Pegg was it?), and thus, understands the 'unbearable' first minutes of the language of grief - something like that. I thought it was incredibly well said. And he referred to the weightlessness of grief, the way gravity is defied in those early stages. Hmmm. . . rather like a feather in that. And in its own way, this story deals a lot with grief of many types, doesn't it. . . loss of many types - death - as well as loss of youth, ideals, identity, the illusion of 'power' (Frannie seems so small when he asks, quietly - 'are you God?' of the paramedic in the ambulance - we all grow smaller as we put ourselves in the larger context.) More bits and pieces of themes in this book than you can toss a fistful of feathers at! On to Magda, PH -- yes, I also liked the bit about secret words, and found that quite real - little touchpoints that spark to a shared past, bring a memory and a smile, or have meaning only between two people. But it is more than that. I believe it was inner dialog, but the way Frannie described just liking to wake up next to her, the scent of her, and not a particularly beautiful woman. And we see the 'normal' disagreements between them, and yet there seemed to be this depth of both passion and true connection. In some respects, I didn't see it all 'built gradually' as the novel progressed, but in other respects I saw enough to 'accept it, as part of the story. I guess what I am asking is if manunkinds as you call them actually think and feel those things about women (sorry - wimmins). It has been my experience that it is the rare man who expresses anything of the sort, verbally; the occasional poet (and I'm serious about that) who does - in writing if not in speaking, but I truly wonder if that is a 'real' depiction of what a man's feelings could be for a woman. That is what I am asking. I know some of the tender scenes (with the paramedics and holding Magda's hand and so on) are later in the novel - so I won't really mention them yet. But I am asking if the core relationship - that love between them - from a man's point of view, felt real, solidly built - men think those things, feel those things. Pat D - 07:23pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#10 of 100) Wonderful Insights and Hi-Lights Keep 'em coming, Debra. You're an awesome addition to this discussion--just what I'd hoped for. It'd be easy to blow this off as light fluff (and I agree it is an imperfect book), but its subtleties are fluent and sneak up on you. Carroll's writing reminded me, constantly, of that old addage about those who feel the need to wear their wisdom or intellect on their sleeve. This is excellent storytelling and doesn't pretend to be anything more... but excellent storytelling is always inherently more, no? I'll look for your citations, but here's a gentle suggestion for the next read: Post-Its ;) Debra Lievens - 08:20pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#11 of 100) Ha! 3-M loves you! Thanks Pat -- I will dig out some post-its! I'm actually supposed to hand the book off to Robin (was thinking later this week) - but not until I find myself some little yellow stickies and glean all the places I especially loved (I'll be doing it at 4 a.m. like some odd nocturnal creature on pure caffeine before I start my 'other' life that is far less fun than this!). I'm also reluctant to hand off the book just yet because I am sure there are some things I just missed, as I got swept up in the pace, curiouser and curiouser. And speaking of which - down the rabbit hole indeed! (Are you old enough to remember a tv show from the 60s called Time Tunnel, I think? James Darren -- remember those circles within circles? -- Lewis Carroll. . . Jonathan Carroll. . . hmmm. . . this is getting scary now.) I am anxiously awaiting PH's impressions -- I remain unabashedly aware that men and women see EVERYTHING differently, and so will be most curious to see his read of the male-female relationships. A couple other things (please don't let me forget - I'm forever interrupted by 2 kids, a dog, and that annoyance known as 'a job' - the spouse if far more respectful of my literary/poetic time) -- should I put post-its on my forehead or the monitor? :-) Antonya - I know we'll get to her - obviously some things we're supposed to see between Antonya and Pauline. (we'll come back? virtual post-it?) Pauline - I thought that depiction (of the teen-age girl - nerdy, but trying to become other 'selves' herself, even in a single point in time) was very well done (another virtual post-it?). The device of 'Vietnam' experience as the means (at least in part) to bridge 'wild young Gee-Gee' Frannie to older-wiser-still tough Frannie (thought that was a smart device, writing wise - another post-it please). And last (for tonight) - many examples of Carroll showing different ages / personalities dealing with extreme crisis - Frannie's reactions usually (IMO) really 'nailed' - how methodical and nearly detached we become in the middle of a REAL crisis - in order to walk ourselves through, survive it. The emotion(s) - for afterwards. See why I' don't want to hand off the book yet? Lots of good stuff, tucked in corners. Makes me want to go back and take a little more time. Savor. Asta manana. Pat D - 08:50pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#12 of 100) That's why the gods made copy machines ;) Good pick-up on the Pauline/Antonya line. I'm not sure if it was anything more than the socks and her youth that really affected Frannie about Antonya... I think the paranormal circumstances of her death took those concerns to another level. But he does don a fatherly self when trying to bridge the tattoo crisis, and I think he even surprises himself. This book is so about identity. Prentice Hall - 09:17pm Apr 1, 2001 EST (#13 of 100) Yes, there's a grudging "Alan Alda" thing at work with the older Frannie, isn't there. Maturity, we'll call it (to be diplomatic and kind). No doubt, Debra, about the sexual dichotomy. The Magda-Frannie relationship seemed realistic to me, anyway (leastways, nothing rung false). I just think, as a rule, that wimmins are too verbal (as in, need to hear dumb things like "I love you" all the time, as if that proves anything). Manunkinds know that actions speak louder than words, and that talk is cheap. For me the greatest scene was when Frannie dissed the "I love you" junk and came up with the poignant alternative ("I like you") bit to replace it. Solid, that. Even more solid that Magda not only accepted it but embraced it... Tomorrow (and daze thereafter) I will get back to the early chapters and all the happy hunting that can be found there. Meantime, forgive me Father for I have sinned, talking about the book as a hole (shovels and lizards), I mean... jrovira - 08:39am Apr 2, 2001 EST (#14 of 100) What a tangled web he wove First off, just thought I'd introduce myself before I posted anything. I'm Jim Rovira, doing grad work in English at Drew University in NJ, and I've read probably all but two of Jonathan Carroll's books (and a few of his short stories). It's a bit hard to say quite which one is his weirdest but yes, _The Wooden Sea_ is certainly among the weirdest. _Child Across the Sky_ is pretty bizzare too, in a slightly different way. I read WS almost immediately after it came out, so it's been over a month now, but I remember that when I came to the end I realized the book needed to be read a bit differently than the way I read most others. I think the confusion, misdirection, multiple threads, etc. are all not only intentional but part of what's being communicated by the book. I think Frannie (and some spirituality beyond him) is really the strongest focal point for the book: his development, and what his development means personally and to humanity. I know I'm rushing to the end here, but I suspect the fact that all Frannie's past selves had to work together to solve that last problem is pretty significant here. More than that, it's the whole point. To meet the demands before him, he had to be completely integrated, everything he ever was all at once (perhaps it would be better to say that everything he ever was had to remain available to him at all times), rather than killing off parts of himself when he thinks he no longer needs them. The confusion, the hints dropped but never understood, the multiplicity of details, the events that you know are interrelated but you never quite know why...that's real life. For that matter, the feeling that you're being manipulated by something you don't know or understand (and that lies about itself when it presents itself to you) isn't necessarily all that uncommon either, along with the sense that we're contributing to a larger purpose we don't necessarily understand. I think JC is trying to teach us something about these phenomena and how to understand and approach them. Some people on the JC listserve complained about the book's confusing qualities as well -- the whole thing about a "covenant with the reader" (e.g., if there's a gun on a table in the first chapter it better be fired before the end of the book) -- but I think some works encourage us to read differently, to be different readers, especially in order to communicate different ideas. Wouldn't be a bad idea to take those books as they come rather than to demand they be something else... Jim Debra Lievens - 10:14am Apr 2, 2001 EST (#15 of 100) Hello Jim - Nice to meet you. Haven't read any of Carroll's works before, and as one who has dabbled in fiction writing, and studied some of its 'theoretical craft', I understand your reference to the 'covenant' between author and reader. I also think you have captured beautifully a lot of what Carroll is trying to convey. I do find your reference to him as JC interesting. . . There is a big picture (if hazy at times and clear at others) and a lot of progressively narrowing 'little' pictures and succinct moments of both human recognition and intelligence throughout this book. Indeed, as Pat already said - about identity (and a lot more)- and as you say - the 'availability' of all your 'selves' to rely upon as needed. Personally, I much prefer that angle and subtlety to saying 'integration' of selves. Call it a personal annoyance -- I find that - psychologically and simply 'pragmatically' -- a simplistic view of the reality of many people (if not all? if they thought about it?). I also think the message that with the same elements (marbles was it? jumping ahead - sorry), many 'paths' and journeys are possible -- is a wonderfully refreshing one. It neither 'denies' the premise of destiny for those who believe, nor reduces 'choice' to a little box of 16 crayolas for us to color within the lines. That said - my desire for a second, more careful 'read' is because I have a feeling there are more things hidden in here with very specific intent. I just haven't 'gotten it' yet. I also think there are things that are superfluous, or could've been done better, as in most (even excellent and enjoyable) works of fiction. But back to the 'covenant' - I recently looked up that word (for a poem) in the dictionary, and was pleased at the multiplicity of its meanings - all of which gave it a kind of force. It is a partnership, an agreement, and a bond. And while 'not having everything make sense' is, indeed, part of life -- I will agree that the covenant between reader and author - if not to neatly tie up EVERY detail (old school, if effective, nonetheless, in satisfying the reader) -- still ought to tie up enough for the reader to walk away satisfied. That is what I am not yet convinced of. But having read, been intrigued, and enjoyed the 'sucking into' Frannie's weird world of this story, I am willing (enthusiastically) to go back and search for a few more threads that bring that satisfaction. SO, covenant-wise -- I'm not looking for perfect clarity. I am looking for ambiguity where it feels acceptable to me (purely subjective), and enough mysteries cleared up to walk away with an 'ah, yes' on my lips. Prentice Hall - 04:28pm Apr 2, 2001 EST (#16 of 100) Welcome to the Briney, Jim. Good to have you here. Like Debra, I prefer to remain a jury that's still out (if not hung). Many loose pieces may become attached before the month's out, so I'm not ready to say, "Just look at this fine mess" yet. Jim wrote: The confusion, the hints dropped but never understood, the multiplicity of details, the events that you know are interrelated but you never quite know why...that's real life. For that matter, the feeling that you're being manipulated by something you don't know or understand (and that lies about itself when it presents itself to you) isn't necessarily all that uncommon either, along with the sense that we're contributing to a larger purpose we don't necessarily understand. I think JC is trying to teach us something about these phenomena and how to understand and approach them. This is an age-old argument, isn't it? Some say art should be life, some say art should be more perfect than life. And for every nod of agreement you get to chaos, red herrings, and unread herrings in a book reflecting life, you'll have head shakers who insist they more likely reflect sloppiness on the part of the author. Catch is, readers can be sloppy, too, which is why I agree with Debra's idea about "taking a second, third, etc., look" at certain events in this novel. One real plus for me was the olfactory bit. "Cherished smells," as Carroll calls them, mean as much to me as they do to McCabe. Cut grass, wood smoke, hot asphalt, sweat on a woman you are making love with, Creed's "Orange Spice" cologne, fresh-ground coffee (p. 32). Not a bad list, but God Nose not every smell can be readily identified: The nose can be like a blind mole brought up into the sunlight. Below ground -- in your unconscious -- it knows exactly what it's doing and will guide you: That stinks -- stay away. That's good -- have a taste. But bring it above ground, demand to know What's that smell?, and it moves its blind head around and around in confused circles and loses all sense of direction. (p. 31) B-14 and Bingo, that. Debra Lievens - 07:22pm Apr 2, 2001 EST (#17 of 100) the nose knows Slight thread digression. PH - I think you cite some great aromatic passages. Smell is one of the most potent of our senses for resurrecting memory and emotion, yet perhaps the most difficult to write about - in English, any way. We seem to lack for explicit adjectives that truly describe scents, and absorb into the skin - we must resign ourselves with appropriate smell descriptions that are recalled through the use of explicit and particular nouns. (For that matter, we haven't a richesse of taste adjectives either IMO, but certainly better than smell.) That said -- Carroll does a good job with the ol-factories. Now if only I got the Schavio-factories -- all that construction that appeared, and disappeared. Dagmar Lipovics - 11:55pm Apr 2, 2001 EST (#18 of 100) Hello Hello. My name is Dagmar Lipovics and I'm a psychiatrist specializing in work with the terminally ill. Before I add my two cents to the discussion, I'd like to urge you all to have a look at the wonderful website dedicated to the work of Jonathan Carroll. It really is the best writer's website I've ever seen. www.jonathancarroll.com As to the Schiavo house, I always assumed it was a metaphor for McCabe himself. Look at the chronology-- right after he discovers Old Vertue, there is a "disturbance" at the Schiavo house. But when he arrives no one's there but the feather.The house is in order, as if waiting for a party to begin, but the old tenants have disappeared. Things in his life get curioser. As soon as he meets Gee-Gee, the two of them go straight to the house but it's now "under construction." But normal people like Johnny Petangles can't see it-- only Frannie, Gee-Gee and of course Astopel. Fast forward-- the last time F. sees the house is while it burns down. And that's the old McCabe-- reduced to ashes, having to find a way to make himself into a phoenix. A small and probably obscure sidenote-- In Italian, the word for a slap in the face is "schiaffo." I laughed out loud when I read that in the book because the Schia(ff)vo house turns out to be a slap in Frannie's face in more than one way. Having read all of Carroll's books, I know he loves wordplay in more than one language. I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't him again rubbing his hands together and playing sly. Debra Lievens - 06:25am Apr 3, 2001 EST (#19 of 100) hello Dagmar -- Nice! That feels like a good metaphor now. . . (may check out the website later if I can). As for multi-lingual word play -- I'll be looking for that now, too. Pat D - 06:55am Apr 3, 2001 EST (#20 of 100) The Road There Welcome Jim (I enjoyed your posts in the egroups archives re: TWS, very much... very happy to see you here), and Dagmar. Sorry, but RL demands will keep my participation spotty, in this discussion, until the end of the work-week. But there's something I want to mention very quickly... to those in the midst of their first read of this book, but mostly to those doing a re-read. Three themes stood out in front of other minor ones, for me--one was identity and another was "the journey" (too early to talk about the third). The entire time I was reading this book, I kept trying to put the pieces to gether, kept approaching it as a means to an end. But then, at some point, it occurred to me that the trip... the story-experience, itself... was the real wonder of this book. At one point, it really stopped mattering to me whether I "figured it out" or not. I mean, I'm just as interested as y'all in pursuing all angles, but I'm thinking that the book's maze is just another metaphor for the way Frannie learns how to appreciate his life. He gets these glimpses backwards, and it's more than reminiscent sentimentality... these events (watching the backyard morph through the ages, seeing his Dad come out of the house across the street, the meeting with his father, etc.), are almost like first-time experiences... like he's seeing things about those events he didn't see before... because of his older, more mature and mortal mind's eye. The things he failed to appreciate the first time around. It's the journey not the destination is a trite notion, but Carroll brings it home in unique fashion to me in this book. jrovira - 10:18am Apr 3, 2001 EST (#21 of 100) eh, I don't know... I think the standpoint from which to critique a book isn't "What the book should be or do," but, "What is the book trying to do and how successfully does it do it." The problems we have with Carroll's Wooden Sea (which is probably more this way than any of his other novels. If you like Frannie, I suggest you read _Outside the Dog Museum_. I definitely suggest _From the Teeth of Angels_ for the pure poetry of the prose) we also have with Faulkner's work, Pynchon's work, Joyce's work, etc. Not easy to understand. One project many authors engage in (esp. since the High Modernists of the teens to 30s) is forcing language into new forms in order to allow it to "mean" again, to let us see the world differently, to see it anew. I think Carroll is forcing narrative into new forms, and his misdirection is part of the effect he's trying to create. We're not supposed to "get it," sometimes not at all, so to the extent that we don't Carroll has been successful. What we're supposed to get we get by looking other places. I think that until we understand the mechanics of his misdirection we can't really gauge how well Carroll achieved his effect. I'm just somewhat looking in the right direction, I think, but I haven't quite figured it out yet. That being said, every Carroll fan I know said it was his weirdest book yet and most had a bit of difficulty with it, though most of them loved it at the same time :) The book isn't above criticism. I think it just needs the right criticism. Jim Debra Lievens - 02:49pm Apr 3, 2001 EST (#22 of 100) Antonya and Pauline Yes, I'm back on that one. It's been dancing around in the back of my mind between sections of a brutally conceptual technical document I'm working on (no - not a contradiction, that - conceptual and technical). I haven't the book in front of me - did get post-its, btw, Pat - but haven't had a moment to go back through at 4 a.m. (technical document calling. . .) -- But I cannot help thinking that these two are paired for a purpose - more than just the very poignant thoughts of socks that made Antonya so real to Frannie. More than for the supernatural clues in her notebooks, and even for the very interesting (and in my own universe, 'believeable') way she wasn't quite gone even after she had died. (Thought he did that well - reminded me a bit of the movie 'ghost' - the essence of spirit still in the body as it lays warm after death, just before it zips away.) Antonya and Pauline are about the same age, right? They are both nerdy, right? They are both somewhat awkward and again - in the circles and games of identities building and creating and re-creating themselves - isn't Antonya what Pauline could've become without Frannie in her life as a steadying and loving force, along with Magda? 'Tell my mother THEY did this to me' Antonya says, as her spirit escapes. I thought not only of the 'astopel' they, but of the teen-age world of peer-pressure and parent-pressure and just the 'world' they -- the millennial version of what made Gee-Gee such a pain-in-the-ass rebellious kid (if with a golden heart that few knew about) in his own time. Somehow the product of a combination of his essential 'self' + 'they' -- society, in close circles, ever-widening circles. And there I go again thinking about those damn marbles (later) tossed into the air and arranging and re-arranging themselves. How easily Gee-Gee could've NOT become the more compassionate and still strong (imperfect) Frannie, had the marbles fallen a little differently. How easily Pauline could've become Antonya, or Antonya could've become someone a little kinder to herself, less susceptible to any 'they' -- had just one element of 'something' we cannot fathom been different. How many possible lives for all of us? Oh Pat - more than fine storytelling - thought provoking. And what better than that? (Deleted item originally posted by Debra Lievens on 02:57pm Apr 3, 2001 EST) Prentice Hall - 06:59pm Apr 3, 2001 EST (#24 of 100) Wonder Boys Welcome Dagmar, and thanks for the Italian lesson. Schiavo I did not know. Is "Magda" a close call with the Latin Magna, then, or am I playing a bit fast and loose with the Dead Language here? Nice connections re: the journey and identity (Pat), Pauline and Antonya (Debra), and Carroll's new narrative forms [as with the earlier Carroll, Lewis] (Jim). Strangely, Carroll provides a "meaning" at the end of this book on a silver shovel, only I'm gun-shy about talking about it so early in the month. But you know what I'm thinking -- the scene where meaning "hits" Frannie like a featherweight roundhouse... the grave scene ("Alas, poor Yorick!"), the "Stages of Man" Scene ("all the World's a Holes-in-the-Rain Stage," and so forth...). Speaking of metaphors, George Dale&wood ties in nicely with the whole question of answers. On page 41 he is quoting Melville, specifically Bartleby's famous, "I would prefer not to." ... George had been rereading Bartleby over and over for the last two months and said he would continue until he understood it. Sound like a few posters we know reading a certain book we know? Then, on p. 41, George lectures Frannie with this: You want clear answers where there are none. What you have to do is create a real question and put it honestly in your heart. Then go looking for a clear answer. I'm not involved in this, but I'm very happy you came today. It's the only time I have ever seen wonder firsthand. And I believe that's what this is. Silly me thought this was foreshadowing a key role for George later in the novel (said silliness was reinforced when George had his Dog Day Afternoon in the hotel room), but, in the end, George becomes another question in lieu of an answer. Wonder takes reader to the mat yet again... Pat D - 09:20pm Apr 3, 2001 EST (#25 of 100) From the Science Fiction Book Review by Nalo Hopkinson: Frannie McCabe is a touching, flea-bitten, ornery soul of a man who loves hard, but tells himself that he doesn�t need to. And when he begins to lose the things he loves, the novel pulls all its crazy threads together and knots them with insane logic into a satisfying ending that manages to seem both unpredictable and inevitable. The plot device on which the novel�s solution turns is one element that feels a tad bit sketchy in conception, bound as it is to a default Christianity. Hmmm... Dagmar Lipovics - 12:47am Apr 4, 2001 EST (#26 of 100) Poor George Speaking of George Dalemwood, one thing I noticed was Frannie was eager to tell Gee-Gee what his future would be. But when he had the chance to tell warn George about HIS canine future, he didn't? Why? John Thompson - 04:40am Apr 5, 2001 EST (#27 of 100) Carroll' Style "The Wooden Sea" stood out for me because of Carroll's deceptively simple style. As a writer, I'm sometimes overly aware of the tricks of the trade. This kind of stylistic transparency got past my defenses and made me feel as if I was truly living the tale as I read it. There are some writers whose attempts at style seem overly belabored. Thank God Carroll is not one of them. Debra Lievens - 06:43am Apr 5, 2001 EST (#28 of 100) same impression John As an 'amateur' writer - I had the same impression, with very few exceptions. That was pleasing, as a reader. Once you know some of the tricks, it saps the enjoyment. But this was all enjoyment, and went down smoothly, even if the 'world' and its usual physics were twisted a bit in the digestion process. As a writer, John - how did you feel about the inclusion of the 'bits of background' info on the first wife. It felt like a bit too much contrivance to provide some transition or 'reason' for how and why Frannie might have seen the world a bit, following Vietnam. It felt both unsmooth to me, and extraneous. I thought if that was Carrolls purpose, he could've accomplished some of that differently. Or else I haven't gotten the 'meaning' he hid in those bits about wife 1. On the other hand, as I said in an earlier post, I found the usage of Vietnam as one of the key things that assisted the development of Gee-Gee into Frannie in earlier years as very believable. Being of the era, I have, indeed, known men who were on the Gee-Gee side of things, headed down the wrong path. And following Vietnam, if they came back in one piece (physically), they were irrevocably changed in every other way. I saw friends turn their lives entirely around; that experience re-orienting everything for them. Dagmar Lipovics - 11:46am Apr 5, 2001 EST (#29 of 100) Frannie Overboard To me, the first wife was very much the kind of woman Gee-Gee would like to have married-- flashy,Hollywood, dangerously sexy, neurotic but beautiful. Remember Gee-Gee says his dream apartment would be one with white leather furniture and shag rugs? Well that's what "the inglorious Gloria" was and that's why the marriage bombed. Because Frannie was already moving away from that. Magda, in contrast, is just the opposite in all the best ways. There's not a white shag rug in her soul.And remember, they had a failed affair before they settled down together. Almost as if Frannie wasn't ready yet for the real thing. Another thought-- McCabe made his money by giving Gloria the idea for the tv show "Man Overboard." If ever there was a man overboard in his own life, it was McCabe. Prentice Hall - 06:32pm Apr 5, 2001 EST (#30 of 100) Not John, Paul, or Ringo, but GEORGE Early on, George steals the show as "Yoda of the Woody." His words of wisdom (so much the Confucius in the first scene in which we meet him) on p. 42 mirror the theme quite nicely: "Have you ever noticed how the meanings of words change the older we get? When I was young I used to think old meant fifty. Now I'm almost fifty and old is eighty. When I was twenty, I thought the word love meant a sexy woman and a good marriage. Now the only love I feel if for my work, Chuck [a hot dog], and this tree." Roman a clef in a way, as it rings of the Voice of God (OK, the author). Also, so much like the Gee-Gee mentioned above (who went for L.A., wild sex, and shag rugs -- and ain't life grand). Geo continues: "Over our lifetime our definitions of things change radically, but because it's so gradual we're blind to them. As the years pass, our names for things no longer fit but we still keep using them." The time travel plot device in this novel eliminates that "gradual" blinder, enabling (forcing?) the reader to face up to these truths which Dale and Wood holds to be self-evident. Why did George fade at the end, then? Finding a good reason for this is my quest this month (yeah, everyone needs a quest these days...). Debra Lievens - 10:25am Apr 6, 2001 EST (#31 of 100) Dagmar -- I'll buy your explanation re first wife, shag rugs and all. Still think it could've been done a little better though, just IMO. But your explanation makes sense. PH -- as for all your George issues, lots of food for thought there. Gonna need to think through some of that. Hmm. . . fading in the end. . . Prentice Hall - 08:37pm Apr 6, 2001 EST (#32 of 100) Fading? Well, maybe that's too strong (or slightly wrong). Maybe it's more a case of role reversal by the end. Frannie winds up dispensing words of wisdom and George winds up frightened. Frannie becomes the thinker pouring knowledge and George the receptacle. Frannie wants to say, "I love you" to his friend, but instead kisses him on the cheek and says, "Tancretic spredge." It's a far cry from the Wiseman on the Roof scene I mentioned a few posts north. Hello John Thompson (not of Georgetown fame, I'm almost sure). I agree about Carroll's writing style. It's almost like listening to Frannie regale you with some you're-not-going-to-believe-this story at the bar. Everyman strikes again. Well, given the fractured Frannies, Everymen might be more appropriate... Dagmar Lipovics - 11:21pm Apr 6, 2001 EST (#33 of 100) Touche Touche, Prentice. I never thought about that role reversal and you're absolutely right about Frannie pulling ahead at the end. Debra Lievens - 07:29pm Apr 7, 2001 EST (#34 of 100) Floon And who would like to explain Floon to me? Are we far enough along to get into the quirky-deadly Dutchman? Dagmar? PH? Anyone else? By the way, I know enough Dutch to know that you pronounce the above like 'flown' -- more word play? Rather amusing, since he seems to have flown from time to time with the greatest of ease of all these intriguing characters, 'holes in the rain' and all. . . To the best of my knowledge (living with a fluent speaker of the lingo) - the name itself has no particular meaning. Prentice Hall - 09:21pm Apr 7, 2001 EST (#35 of 100) All I can say about Floon is (given the give-and-flow of Time keeps-on-slippin', slippin', slippin', into the future) he's probably reading this on that monitor in the library EVEN AS WE TYPE with 3 little kids (one a Frannie fragment... anyone for Modern Math?) at his side. Tancretic spredge, my ass. Floon is monitoring this discussion in some time warp or other because one of us holds the key to his future (which can only be revealed by some post or mis-post between now and April 30th). Uh. Where were we? Ah, yes. Thanks for the inside scoop on "Dutch" or "Flemish" or whatever the language be, Debra... Debra Lievens - 09:56pm Apr 7, 2001 EST (#36 of 100) translation? Now if only Dagmar or some other polyglot could give us a translation of 'trancretic spredge'. The 'my ass' part was clear enough. . . reminded me of sludge, middle age 'spread' (don't say 'my ass' again!), and pancreatic. Anyone for code deciphering? Oops, I forgot - this is supposed to be like life. We aren't supposed to 'get it' all. (By the way, Dutch and Flemish are separate languages, but it is still pronounced 'flown', in both, as in 'the coop'.) And by the way - how come you don't 'cross over' into Arts & Culture, or have I missed your posts over there, PH? Only cross over to one cuckoo's nest? Looks to me like A & C could use a few literary types to spice up the joint. . . Pat D - 12:21pm Apr 8, 2001 EST (#37 of 100) Carroll-Speak That's my take on the "tancretic spredge" term (although I did see a mention of spredge as a type of aquatic bacterium somewhere, but never mind that)... sorta' like the (now-dated) whispered scoop "plastics." What about these characterizations? I'm very much with Prentice re: the Everymen (boy) appeal of Frannie/Gee-Gee/boy-at-the-end. The voices and responses of the different aged Frannies were like perfect pitch. It's clear (to me) McCabe represents the journey to identity and the roles all his "selves" and the other characters play in that journey. But what did George, Magda, Pauline, Floon, Johnny, etc. (John, George, Paul, hey all we need is a Ringo... ) represent to you as reader? What's their connecting piece in the puzzle? Let's start with George. He's Frannie's best friend as the story opens, but he wasn't always (another graduation of selves... ). He's the person Frannie first turns to when things start getting really bizarre. Why didn't he confide in Magda first? What's that tell us about their relationship? George = Trust? Frannie's self doesn't fuss much over loss... until he loses and regains Magda. It's not lost on the reader that McCabe only begins to recognize that there's a price to be paid for all that comfy love and stability (vulnerability and a new-found sense of impermanence) when he's given foresight of a time without Magda. Magda teaches Frannie real love. And what about Pauline? What's her role? Doesn't her tattoo crisis (there's that feather again) move along Frannie's journey to the Self-Pole? And isn't it interesting how 2 generationally divided teens (Pauline and Gee-Gee) still pull together like magnets? Pauline's Frannie's lesson on responsibility. Gee-Gee? He's all the mistakes Frannie ever made rolled into one character, the self he's been dismissive and even a bit ashamed of. But when he's forced to interact with Gee-Gee, to see him as something other than just the "bad-Frannie," he accepts Gee-Gee as an integral part of his evolution. Gee-Gee = forgiveness. Johnny Pentagles is conscience and compassion. I'm still working on Apostopel and Floon and Antonya. Maybe if we examine this all bit-by-bit... Debra Lievens - 01:17pm Apr 8, 2001 EST (#38 of 100) Gee (gee), Pat -- I just gotta say, that was all really good. . . astopel I don't know (though its a legal term, also - though not sure if its spelled the same way), and I still think Antonya is what Pauline might've become . . . Pat D - 01:32pm Apr 8, 2001 EST (#39 of 100) Curious... Can anyone name all the 7 (?) vi(e)rtues? Prentice Hall - 02:50pm Apr 8, 2001 EST (#40 of 100) Prudence, Fortitude, Temperance, Justice, Faith, Charity, and Hope (Springs Pandora...). Pauline's falling in lust with Gee-Gee was, to me, a simple case of the rather standard (and ironic) payback paid every father who in his youth was a womanizer. You know, have a daughter, then walk a mile in those old flames' pumps when all the wolves come knocking at My Little Girl's virgin door... John Thompson - 09:39pm Apr 8, 2001 EST (#41 of 100) Frannie's First Wife Debra,actually the bit about the first wife didn't bother me. This piece of background information felt natural, as if Carroll was discovering more about his characters at the same time we were. When I sit down to write, I'm surprised how pieces of a character's past seem to accrue out of nowhere. I've read a few interviews with Carroll and he basically doesn't take any notes or outline. This may explain why some in the group feels the tale becomes disjointed at times. When you have a dozen balls in the air, you're not going to catch all of them, but Carroll captures enough to make me glad I spent time with his novel. Ethan - 01:07am Apr 9, 2001 EST (#42 of 100) Gahan Wilson review Hi. I'm Ethan and I'd like to add something to this mix. Part of a review of THE WOODEN SEA by the cartoonist Gahan Wilson I read over the weekend: "The thing that really sets this book apart from all the others I've read by Carroll is that- somber as it sometimes is and bleak as many of the things mediated upon it occasionally are-- the essential, underlying feel throughout the book is basically jaunty. Loved ones may die or skirt too near death's edge; brave, good plans may fail miserably and villainy appear to triumph but our hero keeps on truckin'; and at the final curtain even total tragedy can be whirled on and faced down proudly. There is a way to victory. We and ourselves can find each other, join and win." Pat D - 06:30am Apr 9, 2001 EST (#43 of 100) I agree, John. The first wife background seemed more than incidental or contrived, to me. It showed an evolution in Frannie's wants and desires and a maturity. That's a good point, Ethan. Even when it seems most bleak (or most confusing), there's something uplifting about this book... a learned harmony. I'm going to have to go back and do some re-reading on the Astopel, Floon, and Antonya characters. I'm sure you've got something there, Debra, but I can't shake a feeling she's a piece in the puzzel, too. I keep hearing Prentice's early post reverberating (ya' know, the one about us reaching April 30th as confounded as when we started this), but I'm enjoying the posed possibilities, just the same. jrovira - 02:35pm Apr 9, 2001 EST (#44 of 100) what's up with that? I didn't quite get what the reviewer meant by Carroll "reverting to a default Christianity" -- and I'd read the complete review when it first came out. What the hell is a "default Christianity?" Jim Prentice Hall - 03:09pm Apr 9, 2001 EST (#45 of 100) Reverting to a default Christianity? As in, like a deus ex machina at the end? Or as in the "Resurrection" bit (pick a Frannie any Frannie and apply it literally or metaphorically... it still works). I don't get it (but I haven't read the review in its entirety so the remark is out of context here). Not surprised that Carroll doesn't take notes, plan, outline, etc. While I don't doubt his pride in the craft of writing, I also don't doubt his insistence on having fun. Probably wasn't your outlining kind of guy back in school (Missouri?), either... Ethan - 04:13pm Apr 9, 2001 EST (#46 of 100) working without a net or an outline Anyone who can write a paragraph like the one that opens this book doesn't NEED to underline, as far as I'm concerned. And the amazing thing is he keeps up that pace and wit throughout the whole damned story. Ethan - 04:14pm Apr 9, 2001 EST (#47 of 100) oops check that-- OUTLINE, not underline. Pat D - 06:09pm Apr 9, 2001 EST (#48 of 100) What the hell is a "default Christianity?" I assumed it was in reference to the "God" thing, in some way--specifically, it had me stumped, too, though. Debra Lievens - 07:38pm Apr 9, 2001 EST (#49 of 100) ok - not to ruin it or anything. . . but. . . speaking of the 'default' thing, and the 'God' thing, what about this 'God sleeping' thing? Bugged me. Yet with a certain logic. Other impressions? Prentice Hall - 08:15pm Apr 9, 2001 EST (#50 of 100) You mean the conversation with My Favorite Martian in the parking lot outside of Beatles R Us? P.S. to Ethan. If you mess up on your post, simply click the "EDIT" button, then scroll down your screen, correct it in the box, and click "Post My Message." You can fine tune your comments for 30 minutes. After that you can only delete or, as you did above, re-post. Pat D - 06:11am Apr 10, 2001 EST (#51 of 100) You mean the conversation with My Favorite Martian in the parking lot outside of Beatles R Us? Okay. Now that you mention it... As much as I enjoyed TWS, this was the one part that didn't work for me. But I think because this book is so devoid of any literary pretenses... that it's so plainly meant as reader enjoyment... I easily forgave the flaws. Anyone else coming up with character assessments for Astopel, Floon, and Antonya? Debra Lievens - 10:58am Apr 10, 2001 EST (#52 of 100) changing the subject, sorta. . . Yes - if anyone can have more on the snooze button for the Big Guy and the World Machine to pull it all off (seemed so contrived, but I too, enjoyed the book otherwise so much I dismissed it like a fly buzzing about) -- it would be helpful. Not on Astopel or Floon or Antonya, but. . . Even Frannie (as I recall) may have initially called our favorite martian Apostle, didn't he? Don't know much about apostles, not being Christian - default or otherwise. Perhaps others have thoughts on that? Certainly wasn't described as looking like Ray Walston, either. . . Want to note something about the scene where Frannie (at 47) sits down at the diner with his Dad. Comes to realize many things about him, as an adult, and finds a new appreciation for his life. Although had he found out these details as a child, that would've been a devastating thing, Frannie, very much the mature man, simply sees it as a whole other facet of his father's life, makes him less one-dimensional, more imperfect, and in some ways, more heroic. I thought that was wonderfully depicted. The images of our parents and their 'humanness' and imperfections change so much as we become their age, come to understand the complexities and gray areas that life is really about; not the Gee-Gee view or the Antonya view or the Pauline view. And Frannie's gift in return -- some small piece of knowledge for his father that the 'ape of his heart' did, indeed, perform acts of kindness and decency of his own. He gave the father-in-his-time some 'hope' for the son he loved so much, but couldn't seem to reach, or understand. Imagine how powerful - being able to sit with someone now gone, loved, respected, as an 'adult' - and converse with them from that perspective - see them in greater dimension, know more of their life, their thoughts - contemporaray to contemporary - to be able to give some gift of knowledge or reassurance that the future would turn out all right -- wonderful stuff. Dagmar Lipovics - 01:26pm Apr 10, 2001 EST (#53 of 100) Wake up call I really liked the bit about waking up God in the book because I saw it in dirct parallel to waking Frannie up to the different matters of importance in his life. For McCabe to reach some kind of transcendent understanding all of his disparate selves had to work together, like the creatures assembling that cockamamie God machine, whether they liked it or not. All those separate cultures working in harmony towards "waking up" the big mover. Isn't that what happens to McCabe in this book? Prentice Hall - 03:08pm Apr 10, 2001 EST (#54 of 100) Part and parcel of that scene is the trans-atlantic tumor flight from Magda to Frannie. I guess it was meant to stress the character change (waking up, as you all say) in McCabe -- that he'd lay down his life for another without even a second thought. But I suspect he would've done that at age 17, too (or at least had it in him to). Didn't Gee-Gee (like Frannie's dad) show an unexpected side that Frannie never anticipated at one point? Maybe latent versions of Frannies (like the mature one who reached default epiphany, whatever the hell that means) existed all along in the earlier incarnations. jrovira - 03:22pm Apr 10, 2001 EST (#55 of 100) yeah... I really liked the "waking God up" part too, but this is a pretty bizarre Christianity we're talking about if that's what the reviewer was referring to. You see references to God "sleeping" or otherwise "not paying attention" in a lot of Jewish literature -- esp. the Psalms (which tend to say, "Come on, God, get off your Butt" in quite a few places, and I won't even talk about the book of Job) -- but this theme isn't nearly as important in Christian literature, esp. the New Testament, which tends to emphasize God's activity. The closest thing I can see to "God sleeping" in Christian literature is references to "the dark night of the soul" in the writings of Christian mystics, St. John of the Cross being the major reference here. All that being said, I think it's a pretty cool description of the human condition and an intriguing premise for the book. Carroll did rework similar Biblical themes in _Outside the Dog Museum_ (my favorite, but it was my first, so... :) ), which is a reinterpretation of the Babel story not too far off the lines of the God thread in _Wooden Sea_. The God thing is much more central than peripheral to me in _Wooden Sea_, and I think it's important to realize we're not supposed to completely fall for the "aliens" thing -- they have way too much power and are probably better understood as some kind of supernatural beings. "Astopel" seems close enough to "apostle" to be a meaningful congnate, but I don't think he's necessarily to be understood as an apostle with any specific application of that word beyond a being with some spiritual power or authority...probably something like the Apostle in the movie "Dogma" (ha!). Biblically, the 12 Apostles were important in that they were eyewitnesses of the events of Christ's life, specifically the death and resurrection (they saw him dead and they saw him alive afterwards). This formal definition doesn't seem to work in the novel, so I prefer a more open ended one. Jim jrovira - 03:28pm Apr 10, 2001 EST (#56 of 100) and another thing... I totally like the idea that Carroll was having fun in this book thus not everything is to be taken seriously :) When Frannie walked into the department store and saw the Beatles rehearsing, I thought, "What a wonderful crock of ..." If you're going to invent a world in which anything can happen, may as well run with it :) Jim Dagmar Lipovics - 04:18pm Apr 10, 2001 EST (#57 of 100) She Loves Who? To add to Jim's last, I also thought it was wonderfully funny and human that given the chance to see anyone or anything in the history of the world, dear Frannie asks to see... a Beatles revival. Not Christ, not Moses, the Fab Four. Prentice Hall - 06:12pm Apr 10, 2001 EST (#58 of 100) With no disrespect to Moses (or Charlon Heston) and Christ (just renewed acquaintances again over in the Master and Margarita thread), the Fab Four would probably be more entertaining. Well, Everymen McCabe doesn't actually take the long and winding parking lot to talk to J,P,G,&R, he just kind of soaks in their music... (Karl "K-Marx" had it wrong -- music, not religion, is the opiate of the masses...). There were other, even-more modern cameos. Frannie claims to be Bill Clinton (to comic effect), and takes a shot at Kenneth Starr (no relative to Ringo, even though everything's relative to Ringo). Regarding God. If I were Him, I'd sleep through it, too (I mean, yeesh... it hasn't been pretty). jrovira - 10:57am Apr 11, 2001 EST (#59 of 100) well, yeah... It's not so much that God and Christ aren't interesting, but how the heck are you going to represent them in fiction? I don't think I need to go into detail about the problems Milton had in Paradise Lost. We don't properly hate Satan until at least book six, and it's only because of what he does to Adam and Eve. The God chapter is about as boring as...well...hell. A human Christ has some potential for literary representation, as does a human Moses (you at least have Moses getting pissed off with God and Israel alternately), but depicting a perfection beyond human experience...a bit difficult. Loved that Bulgakov book, by the way. More to the subject, Carroll tends to allow the supernatural in some form to permeate his works. We live in an open ended universe, and anything can come in. _Child Across the Sky_ includes chapters written by a dead character post-mortem, in which the dead guy is deliberately trying to deceive the reader. Try dealing with that :) Jim Endymion9 - 06:33pm Apr 11, 2001 EST (#60 of 100) Another confusing Carroll book Just finished this one. I give it *** out of 5 stars for the same reason I gave The Marriage of Sticks that rating. I liked the characters and many elements in both books but at the end there was too much unexplained/confusing bits left unexplained. S P O I L E R S P A C E For example. 1. The feather. Where did it come from? What was its significance? 2. Why did George disappear for 30 years and then become a dog? Just because he was working with Floon in a secret lab? Why did he require dissapearing for so long? Did Floon hold him prisoner? 3. I found it very odd that the aliens were trying to manipulate The World Machine and God's awakening. Why weren't they just observing waiting for it to happen. Seems like all they could do is mess things up more the more they interferred. Prentice Hall - 06:55pm Apr 11, 2001 EST (#61 of 100) Existential Without the Angst Welcome, Endymion Number 9 Number 9 Number 9 Number 9 (in keeping with our Beatles' theme...). The "open-ended" universe where Chaos looms large reminds me of those cool Existentialistas de Francais, Sartre and Ca-mooooo. Of course that flies in the face of Christianity, so default in my argument is evident. Still... Debra, mention of the helmet reminds me of my one laugh-out-loud moment while reading this book -- when Frannie's head almost got microwaved in the mall. The dialogue delivered here, COD. And anyone with a teenaged daughter can savor the concept of a "Mad Max" type mall scenario, where security guards are legged and dangerous. If only we could play the "safety card," next time a certain someone chirped, "Let'$$$$ go to mall." (Aieeeeee... anything but that!) I always jot down pages of interest and one that caught my eye was 82, where Frannie pronounces (in his best John Wayne voice): "You create your fear. It's not out there like an infectious disease. Mostly it comes from love. When you love something so much you can't bear to lose it, then fear's always nearby. I've never loved anything enough to worry about losing it. That's my fuckup. Magda says it's the most pathetic thing about me. She's probably right." Fourshadowing score and seven years ago (or ahead), Frannie will realize that Magda's pathos was wasted. Why? Because he loves her, and he knows that can't be bad (yeah, yeah, yeah...). Play this post backwards at 33 rpm and you get: "I... bury... Paul" (no... Old Vertue... no, Young Frannie-stein, Jr.,... no, George, or perhaps my own self-doubt, if you give me enough time.........) Debra Lievens - 07:31pm Apr 11, 2001 EST (#62 of 100) page 82 - PH I'm so glad you cited that -- that paragraph was a Meg Ryan 'YES YES YES' moment for me. (maybe O! should be in this thread. . .) O! Seriously: When you love something so much you can't bear to lose it, then fear's always nearby. This is such a truth. There were many moments of 'truth' in this book, and thus, why I 'forgave' the oh-so-many things left. . . u n e x p l a i n e d Debra Lievens - 07:33pm Apr 11, 2001 EST (#63 of 100) By the way, PH -- (we can tell your rpms are ready for a Vay-K. . . no offense. . . she loves gee-gee yeah, yeah, yeah. . . played backwards, says head-fried-in-helmet. . . get thee to a lounge chair and a marguerita!) Ethan - 11:43pm Apr 11, 2001 EST (#64 of 100) the feather and the lathe The feather is a kind of talisman throughout the story to get Frannie going. I get the feeling it was placed there to stimulate him to think and move laterally. It's put there to tell him everything but like some kind of Buddha-lotus, he's got to decipher the meaning himself although it's there right in front of his nose. The aliens (although I agree with Jim and never once thought they were aliens)are not trying to manipulate the World machine-- they're just trying to keep things moving on schedule in the assembly process. Recalibrating the lathe, if you want to look at it that way. I assumed part of their role in the scheme was to ride herd on all the workers. I don't think they're messing with the machine-just making sure everyone gets their job done properly and on time and if that means telling them to take a little more off here or add more there then so be it. That's what a shop foreman is for. John Thompson - 02:49am Apr 12, 2001 EST