book trail: my cousin rachel
i have to admit the truth. i spend most of my time laying on the couch eating chocolate chips. not even reading books and eating chocolate chips. just staring into space and eating chocolate chips. but, for those of you whose life is not as exhausting as mine, here is our book trail discussion for this month from our delightful hostess, rebecca.
Filed under book trail, fiction | Comment (1)My Cousin Rachel by Daphne du Maurier: A story set in England about a man (Ambrose Ashley), his younger cousin (Philip Ashley) whom the man raised, and the woman (Rachel) the man marries.
Some of the characters and story lines I thought were interesting:
Ambrose - what a cool cousin! He took Philip in when Philip’s parents died and treated him as if he were his own son. He taught him everything he knew and even did away with Philip’s nanny because he thought she was too harsh with Philip. Downsides to Ambrose are that he didn’t know much about the outside world. He lived in his home with only male servants and only Philip. Maybe if he had known more of the ways of women, he wouldn’t have fallen into the ‘trap’ set by Rachel. I wonder why Ambrose didn’t mail out the letters himself to Philip warning him of what he thought Rachel was trying to do to him. I know he was sick, but if he was that worried, surely he could have found some way to get the mail to his cousin.
Philip - In the beginning of the story, he seems very naive to the things of the world. While he had spent time at college, he still didn’t seem to understand the workings of human nature. He just couldn’t see that Louise liked him or that his godfather was pushing a relationship with Louise upon him. It took Rachel pointing these things out to him for him to realize what would have been plain and clear to most other men. When Philip first learns of Ambrose’s death, he wants to destroy Rachel. How quickly - I think it took a night? - his perspective changes when he finally meets Rachel. Throughout the book, I find myself thinking right along with Philip, though. At times I hated her, at times I loved her. Like most men, he didn’t really know how to convey his feelings to Rachel and took answers she gave him as more than they were. Could you tell from their conversation the night of his birthday that he was proposing? How would you like a proposal like that?:
“I told you once,” I said, “that I had all the warmth and the comfort that I needed within four walls. Have you forgotten?
“No,” she said, “I have not forgotten.”
“I spoke in error,” I said. “I know now what I lack.”
She touched my head, and the tip of my ear, and the end of my chin.
“Do you?” she said. “Are you so very sure?”
“More sure,” I answered, “than of anything on the earth.”
I don’t know about you, but I didn’t see a proposal there. I saw hintings, but you really can’t and shouldn’t hint at a proposal.Rachel - Along with Philip, at first I hate Rachel and can’t believe someone would try to poison the person they are married to. However, when she comes to stay at the house, along with Philip, I am intrigued by her. I am in awe with how easily she seems to fit in somewhere she has never been. She is able to charm anyone who is unsuspecting. It’s interesting that she was never able to charm Louise though. Louise always just puts up with Rachel being there as it seems to make Philip happy. She has a way about her. Nowadays, Rachel would be called a very good flirt!
Louise - She was born in such a different era than we live in nowadays. She should have just told Philip from the beginning that she liked him. She is a great friend, though, and doesn’t desert Philip even though Philip doesn’t treat her very well. Louise is smart, probably too smart. It seems she knew all along that Rachel only liked Philip for his money. But is she correct? What of Rinaldi’s last letter to Philip where he tells her that if she can’t let go of Philip when she returns to Italy to just bring him with her. Does Rachel hold true feelings for Philip?
Nick Kendall - Another of those trying to look out for Philip. He also should’ve been looking out for Ambrose, but I guess being a country away made that impossible.
Rinaldi - I could just see the long, thin fingers. I’m not sure if it said it or not, but to me he even had a long, pointy nose. I see him as an evil man, dressed in black, playing the part of marionette master. Maybe it was Rachel who played him though. That to me is the magic of du Maurier’s work…I never know who is really in control or in charge of a situation.
I thought this book was very well written. It was definitely a page turner. Did Rachel try to poison Ambrose, or did he really just die from a brain tumor? Did she really try to poison Philip, or did he just have meningitis and she tried to nurse them both back to health? The ending is so ambiguous, at least to me, and I find myself thinking of it long after I finish the book trying to figure out what Rachel’s true motives were.
Did you enjoy the story? What more do you have to say about our characters…there is so much more than what I said.
at last
at last. the bubble that’s been hovering around me like a second skin the past few months keeping me from penetrating life: my life, an imaginary life — finally burst. i picked up alice sebold’s the lovely bones, a book i’ve been avoiding. i don’t do hype. i don’t do murder. but i read that first chapter and i felt absolutely smacked. hurled across the room and smacked. i hunkered down and read that entire book in a day and a half. if a book that tackles something so grotesque and repulsive can be beautiful, it is. sebold is poetry itself. somehow getting inside those characters helped me open something inside myself. i looked up from the last page and saw my husband and my son and i thought, this is good. what i have, here, right now, is good. at last.
atonement
i rarely seem to jump on book-bandwagons these days. maybe it’s the same reason i don’t watch the news or don’t seem to care whether obama or hillary wins the democratic nomination. but for some inexplicable reason (i liked the cover…?), i read atonement by ian mcewan. i’m going to agree with all those people that make the new york times bestseller list: this is a well-written book that will drive you into the ground. i haven’t read a novel this graphic in a long time. (if you stick to those russians you hear a heck of a lot more about the endless steppe than you do about sex.) and, i’m proud (?) to tell you all that this is supposed to be a book full of “twists” and i knew (not even guessed, but knew) every single twist from about page 100. i think it’s because i’m such an astute reader. (and not because i could never guess who done it in an agatha christie.)
the enchanted april
i hope the enchanted april enchanted your own april. here’s our guest host sarajane’s take on the book.
Filed under book trail, classic, fiction | Comments (4)I was totally enchanted by Enchanted April. I found myself completely taken in by the delicious descriptions on every page of this delightful novel. It was almost magic how quickly I felt totally transplanted into this warm, fragrant world of San Salvatore. It was not hard to picture myself among the ladies as they discovered the beauty of the Castle and themselves. Von Arnim’s writing is witty and charming both in her characters and descriptions. I am amazed that she wrote the book in a little over five months. I feel like each of the four main characters where given adequate attention and development as they bloom into lovely women.
The wall flower Mrs. Wilkins blossoms into Lotty who is full of life, love and friendship. Mrs. Arbuthnot the reserved, ashamed, and repressed charity worker blooms into Rose the passionate bosom filled lover. Then there is Lady Caroline the pent up girl who can’t catch her breath discovers that she has all along been Srcap “a spoilt, a sour, a suspicious and selfish spinster.” Hiding underneath the name of Droitwiche and underneath the beautiful skin and voice she is after all just a lonely girl who is afraid that someone will discover that she too is vulnerable. We can’t forget Mrs. Fisher who begins to burgeon and feels that at any moment she “might crop out all green,” and actually make new friends. Each one of these charters speaks to me in their old and new states.
Lotty, after living with Mr. Wilkins for so many years actually began to feel that she was of no value. After realizing that other people placed value in his wife Mr. Wilkins began also to treat her with affection. “The more he treated her as though she were really very nice, the more Lotty expanded and became really very nice, and the more he affected in his turn, became really very nice himself.” This principle seems to really exist in relationships. People act the way they are treated. Do we not become the kind of people that others think us to be? It is a circle that continues for good or bad. As we see with Rose, the more Mr. Briggs thought Rose charming the more charming she became.
The book illustrates that the true test in a relationship is to be able to throw justice out the window as Lotty realizes when she says,“At home I wouldn’t love Mellersh unless he loved me back, exactly as much, absolute fairness. And as he didn’t, neither did I…” This book speaks out about relationships and having trust in others. Can there be love without trust? How did these women bloom into such loving people? Was it the influence of the atmosphere at the castle or was it the influence they had on one another? What are your thoughts? Feelings? Insights? Likes and dislikes about the novel?
This novel is rich with beautiful setting and blooming characters. I enjoyed being transported, after all “everybody needs a holiday.”
fieldwork
i picked fieldwork by mischa berlinski on the recommendation of my local independent bookseller. (since that’s how i found the history of love, it didn’t even occur to me that i wouldn’t utterly fall for this book too.)
it’s an interesting premise: mischa berlinski (and we could spend the rest of the afternoon discussing the implications of a novelist naming his fictional protagonist after himself), while in thailand with his girlfriend, stumbles on this improbable murder story. an anthropologist shoots a Christian missionary.
at first i was riveted. the descriptive and accurate look into the lives of these missionaries had me dog-earing pages and desperately scrambling for pens to jot down my half-baked thoughts. somehow this berlinski guy had found a way to describe missionary life that was so bang on.
since i’m currently trying to rewrite my own missionary experience, i was frustrated and inspired by the way berlinski was able to capture the missionary mindset: the missionaries remained people–he gave a picture of their life that didn’t turn them into psychotic proselytizing machines.
and then. there are these random random tangents. mischa’s girlfriend (the fictional mischa, not the author) is nothing more than a prop. she is the typical stock female character and only exists to give mischa an excuse to be in thailand.
the way berlinski approached the book is utterly beyond me. it’s divided into sections: telling the story from every possible perspective. if you ask me, it would have been much more readable if he had simply told the story without involving his fictional self or his fictional girlfriend.
i’m not sure how to sum this experience up. obviously, the prose is brilliant, the research is impeccable. the story is complicated and interesting. should the few annoyances skew my overall perception? probably not. but they are.
you read it. tell me what you think.
Filed under fiction | Comment (0)