Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Dec 20, 2009 9:15:55 GMT -5
Chapters 1 - 3: Start discussion on January 9. Chapters 4 - 6: Start discussion on January 16. Chapters 7 - 10: Start discussion on January 23.
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jan 9, 2010 9:22:07 GMT -5
Anyone else reading the book? In any case, I'll start the discussion.
I've never read a book like "Bel Canto" before, and I think that what Ann Patchett did is nothing short of brilliant. When you think about it, the plot is that of a thriller. Usually, such a book would focus on all the action, and use the characters' emotions to add a bit of depth to the story. In this case, it's the other way around. The characters' emotions are what moves the story forward, and all of the action becomes a secondary plot line. Also, in a thriller, terrorists are usually very bad people while the hostages are depicted as heroes. But in this case, Patchett blurs the lines between terrorists and hostages by letting us know their inner thoughts and making them human. We soon realize that some of the terrorists actually are better people than some of the hostages, and it becomes difficult to root for one group or the other - at this point, we sort of wish both groups could miraculously come out of this situation unscathed.
I can't wait to read more!
|
|
|
Post by Hanna on Jan 9, 2010 11:11:11 GMT -5
I'm reading it too, and like Isa, I think it's brilliant. The pages just seem to fly away, and I have to confess that I've read more than the first three chapters. I just couldn't stop myself. I like how she present little snippets about the different characters and how she humanizes (to a certain degree) the terrorists, as if suggesting that these are not bad people, they are just desperate for change. I think this works well with the setting in South America as well, where the call for social change seldom has to do with religious conviction, but more with desperation for improved life condition for certain groups. I've also spent some time pondering which country they are actually in, even though Pratchett probably did a wise thing not identifying it. But with a Quechua minority (or majority) and a coast line I'm thinking it must be Peru or Ecuador. I know this doesn't affect the story, it's just me as a Latin America lover who is curious I'm really excited to see how the story will turn out.
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jan 9, 2010 17:11:51 GMT -5
I was also trying to identify the host country and I was thinking Colombia because of the reference to drug problems, but it could very well be a mix of different countries as well...
|
|
|
Post by Hanna on Jan 9, 2010 18:08:03 GMT -5
When I read Mengele Zoo by Gert Nygårdshaug. he wrote in the introduction that he hadn't identified his Lat. Am. country because he didn't want to offend anyone, plus what happens in his book could happen in several of them. I was thinking maybe Patchett was doing the same, that in several of the Lat. Am. countries one could find native groups fighting for power and change in various degrees of desperation, and this being the fact, there really was no need to pick one specific country. But that's just my thought
|
|
|
Post by Dominique on Jan 9, 2010 23:44:07 GMT -5
I'm really looking forward to reading this and have reserved a copy from my region's library network. But even though no one else has it out on loan it still hasn't arrived at my local library. It shouldn't be too much longer and I will catch up and join in when I get my hands on it.
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jan 10, 2010 8:43:49 GMT -5
Great Dom!
Hanna - I agree with you completely, I'm pretty sure these are the reasons why she didn't identify one particular country.
|
|
|
Post by Hanna on Jan 11, 2010 17:37:16 GMT -5
Here's somthing else that I thought about - what do you think about the president? Since he all of a sudden changed his mind and didn't go to the party at all. Do you think he had a warning or something? I get the impression that he is not very sympathic.
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jan 13, 2010 17:30:38 GMT -5
Hey Hanna! Sorry it took me so long to reply, I didn't have time to log in before now. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think the president got any kind of warning - I just think he's another one of those sleazy politicians. I don't think there's any excuse for staying at home to watch a soap opera instead of going to a state dinner when you're the head of a country, especially when he could have just taped the show. Although the reader knows that Mr. Hosokawa never had any intentions of building a factory in the country, the president didn't know that so he missed out on what could have been a very important dinner for the future of his citizens. Of course, I may be also biased because of what the vice president thinks of his boss, he doesn't make him sound too competent... and he certainly doesn't show up to save the day!
What did you think when the acompanist died? I was surprised, but for some reason I can't say I felt very sad, maybe because we didn't know him well enough? Perhaps if we'd known what was going through his mind and how much he loved Roxanne it would have been different, but in the book we only get Roxanne's version of the story so it all seemed rather foolish of him to die for a woman who clearly didn't love him. I guess Ann Patchett does a pretty good job of manipulating our thoughts and feelings through her characters!
|
|
|
Post by Hanna on Jan 14, 2010 4:37:53 GMT -5
I agree with you, Isa, on both the President and the accompanist. I think the reason I wasn't sad was maybe because Roxane wasn't too sad about it, either, that her reaction determined mine in a way. So yes, I guess Patchett manipulate us pretty well. I didn't really like Roxane in the first chapters though, I thought she seemed kind of like she thought she was superior to the rest of them or something, so why I let her feelings for the accompanist color mine, I do not know.
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jan 14, 2010 6:51:31 GMT -5
I didn't really like Roxane either, but maybe since we're allowed to know what she thinks, she comes across as being honest somehow, do you know what I mean? She does think she's better than others, but at least she's not pretending anything to the contrary.
Another thing I thought was interesting was how much this stressful situation seems to heighten everyone's sentimental/sexual feelings. You'd think they'd worry about getting killed, think about the people they might never see again and things they'll never get to do, but instead the French ambassador thinks about how his wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, the vice president falls for his children's nanny, and pretty much all the men are in love with Roxane... I thought it was interesting because in other books, given the same situation, we're used to seeing the characters react in a different way. In "Bel Canto", their reaction seems much more real, more human.
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on Jan 14, 2010 14:57:55 GMT -5
Before I even read anyone else's post, I want to write about what I felt for the first section.
The very beginning of the book, when Patchett is describing Mr. Hosokawa's growing love of opera is amazing. The writing was beautiful. I don't know why, but it made me feel what I felt reading My Melancholy Whores, sort of lyrical almost.
However, the rest of this section has not interested me that much. I think that there is too much going on, especially with Patchett describing so many of the characters' life-stories so randomly. If it had been split up into chapters, written from the different perspectives, I think I would enjoy it more. And just the writing of what was going on bored me. I couldn't get into it. Possibly because nothing was happening--the hostages were just hostages and nothing very exciting was happening.
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on Jan 14, 2010 16:51:25 GMT -5
Anyone else reading the book? In any case, I'll start the discussion. I've never read a book like "Bel Canto" before, and I think that what Ann Patchett did is nothing short of brilliant. When you think about it, the plot is that of a thriller. Usually, such a book would focus on all the action, and use the characters' emotions to add a bit of depth to the story. In this case, it's the other way around. The characters' emotions are what moves the story forward, and all of the action becomes a secondary plot line. Also, in a thriller, terrorists are usually very bad people while the hostages are depicted as heroes. But in this case, Patchett blurs the lines between terrorists and hostages by letting us know their inner thoughts and making them human. We soon realize that some of the terrorists actually are better people than some of the hostages, and it becomes difficult to root for one group or the other - at this point, we sort of wish both groups could miraculously come out of this situation unscathed. I can't wait to read more! I think what you've just described sound wonderful. But I don't feel the same way about it. I think I was expecting there to be the action that is missing, and am bored with the emotional side to it. I can't exactly figure out why I don't really like it. Maybe it's just that I'm not used to it. That's the reason I don't really like Virginia Woolf.
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on Jan 14, 2010 17:09:34 GMT -5
Hanna-I sort of get the feeling that he did have a warning. Knowing that many of the guards are actually teenagers, it seems like one might have let slip to someone that something was going on. Especially since the vice president started wondering why it had been planned for his hous and not the presidential residence. However, I have to sort of agree with Isa, too. The president does seem sort of like a sleazy politician. And a bad one at that--who takes time like that for soap operas?!
I was not very surprised to find the accompanist died, nor when he turned out to be diabetic. I had assumed he had some sort of illness like this and needed medication.
I didn't mind Roxane at all in the section. I think that she is just very honest, and that's probably a good thing as a hostage.
What do you think about the fact that Mr. Hosokawa attended his party when he had no intention of building anything in the country? Was it selfish of him to do that, just so he could see Roxane?
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jan 14, 2010 18:14:10 GMT -5
Yes, it was selfish, and he's the first one to admit it. However, can you really blame him? It's not as though he promised them anything - yes, by actually going, he lets them think that he's interested in doing business with them, but that's how it works with business and politics: you take your chances, you win some, you lose some. It says in the book that he's feeling guilty and I actually feel like he's taking a bigger part of the blame than he should.
|
|