|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: July Book Group - Restoration by Rose Tremain
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
It only seems like five minutes ago that I was postting about 'Bonnet Rippers'. This month's book Restoration by Rose Tremain is rather different, though I guess you could claim there is a bit of 'bodice ripping' in it. It's a historical novel set in the time of Charles II about the fortunes of Robert Merivel, a doctor. It's sequel Merivel was published last year, so feel free to talk about that as well if you've read it.
I'll post some questions on the 20th.
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I finished the book yesterday, I rather liked this one. Looking forward to the questions.
quote:
Gussie: I guess you could claim there is a bit of 'bodice ripping' in it.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I read this book last year, and found it surprisingly moving and memorable. Being a prudish churchy spinster I didn't approve of Merivel's personal morality, but I felt compassion for him, and sad that his various ventures and new beginnings often didn't work out.
I'm glad Merivel had his Quaker friend to offer him some good advice and a good example. A character like that was necessary, because apart from the Quaker almost every major character in the novel is seriously messed up!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that was rather the point of the novel ... Tremain wants us to see both Merivel and the society he inhabits as seriously messed up. It was all meant to be a parallel of Thatcherism and the acquisitiveness of the '80s. It's interesting to read what she has to say about her best known creation.
It all continues in Merivel: A Man of His Time, where we find that poor old Merivel isn't really any older and wiser. I won't spoil it but it's set in the 1680s, towards the end of Charles II's reign.
Personally, I feel that some of the rumpy-pumpy scenes are somewhat gratuitous and they feel, to me, as though some editor has said, 'C'mon Rose, let's have a few more sex scenes to liven things up a bit ...'
That said, I think Rose Tremain has pulled off a semi-miraculous feat by getting inside the head of Merivel and allowing us, the reader, into secrets that he is apparently unaware of himself. He does become more self-aware as the narrative in each novel unfolds, but it still doesn't stop his lapses and oversights.
That's part of his charm and part of Tremain's tremendous skill as a novelist.
Naming Merivel's trusty servant Will Gates is a stroke of pure genius in itself ... quite apart from the other marvels that are apparent in her writing.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
My local library is not being very co-operative - the book has apparently been "in transit", from a town less than 20 miles away, for over a week.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It was all meant to be a parallel of Thatcherism and the acquisitiveness of the '80s.
Really? I'm glad I wasn't aware of that before I read the book. It would probably have put me off!
I might put the sequel on my very long list, but the Restoration isn't really my favourite era. Does Merivel still hang around with aristocrats in the second book, or does he spend more time with ordinary folk? Any more Quakers? There's a limit to how much time I want to spend with aristocrats in my historical novels.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Wait, have we started discussing the novel already? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I'd like to say something about Svitlana and Gamaliel's comments, but I'm not sure if I should wait until the 20th?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
I think if we can hang on till the 20th before we start detailed discussion that would be great, so other people who haven't read the book yet get time to catch up. General comments to whet people's appitites are welcome though.
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Ok, I hope that Svitlana and Gamaliel will want to join us then too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I have just borrowed it from the library. I want a book about the 17th century to be about the 17th century not the 1980s, so I'll see whether I like it enough to finish it before joining in.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
Don't worry Moonlit Door, I didn't 'get' the idea that it was about the 1980s on a first reading (which was when it was first published). It will be interesting to see if I can see the parallels reading it twenty five years later.
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Seconded. I didn't see the parallels with the eighties when I read it (in fact, that is one of the questions I'm going to ask Gamaliel on the 20th )
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I'm glad this is a library book and not something I've paid for. I am not liking it at all and am obviously missing what Svitlana and Gamaliel saw in it. It is reminding me of Tristram Shandy, in having comic caricatures as characters but with humour that is no longer funny to the modern ear.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Got my copy from the library today, but it will be a few days yet before I can start.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I'm glad this is a library book and not something I've paid for. I am not liking it at all and am obviously missing what Svitlana and Gamaliel saw in it. It is reminding me of Tristram Shandy, in having comic caricatures as characters but with humour that is no longer funny to the modern ear.
I wasn't going to say it, but now you've said it, that was pretty much my reaction when I borrowed the book from the library a couple of months ago. Maybe I was doing it an injustice, but I couldn't get into it, and returned it to the library mostly unread.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Finished Part One and enjoying it enormously.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
I'm still re-reading Restoration to remind myself about the details, having read it twice in fairly quick succession when it was first published, and having read the sequel Merivel very recently.
Therefore these questions are fairly general - feel free to add your own.
1. There seems to be a split between those of us who enjoyed this book and those that really didn't. What are you reasons for the enjoyment or the dislike?
2. In the introduction to my Kindle cooy Rose Tremain makes it explicit that she saw the book as a commnetary on the excesses of the 1980s. This is something I didn't pick up on on a first reading, and I'm not sure that I see now. Can you see parrallels?
3. Merivel - love or loathe?
4. Historical accuracy - is it important to you in a historical novel?
Anything else you'd like to add?
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I couldn't see any connexion between the book and the 1980s. I wouldn't even like to guess what it was about that time that she particularly didn't like or what point she was trying to make about it. I am glad I couldn't as politics generally spoils fiction for me.
This book didn't need any spoiling though as I really struggled to finish it.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don' think I'd have picked up the '80s parallels either unless Rose Tremaine had indicated that they were there. I don't think it either added or detracted from my enjoyment.
For the record, I believe that both novels - Restoration and its sequel - are flawed, but equally I think the characterisation of Merivel is a masterly piece of creative writing.
Yes, the characters are largely grotesques and caricatures but that didn't particularly spoil it for me - although I think some episodes were over-done.
As for the historical accuracy, well I'm no expert on the period but I could spot some inconsistencies and inaccuracies - but again, they didn't put me off unduly.
As for whether a book 'about' the 17th century, the 13th century or the 19th century can ever really be 'about' those periods ... I would suggest that they can't - at least not in their entirety. All historical novels are essentially about the present.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
And sorry to disappoint you, moonlitdoor, all novels are essentially about politics too ...
I don't mean party-political politics necessarily but the 'politics' of human relationships. What are Jane Austen's novels about if they aren't about sexual politics?
What are Trollope's Barchester Chronicles about if not ecclesiastical politics ... or power relationships in general?
All of life is political to some degree. Therefore fiction is the same.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
The reason I don't like caricatures as characters has to do with the suspension of disbelief. Of course I know that a person in a novel doesn't really exist but it can seem like they do while reading it, and if so, I can care about what happens to them. In the previous book I read, the glasspainter's daughter, which I really liked, I hoped that things worked out well for the central character, as I found her very engaging.
It seems to me that this only happens if the author writes as though the people in the book really exist. In Restoration it did not seem as though Rose Tremain believed Merivel existed, so neither did I, and therefore I was indifferent to whether he lived or died.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Thank you for your questions Gussie.
1. There seems to be a split between those of us who enjoyed this book and those that really didn't. What are you reasons for the enjoyment or the dislike?
Hehe, I think we can already establish a rule here: LeRoc likes a book of the Book Group ⇒ a lot of other people dislike it and vice versa
First, I have to admit that I don't know very much about the Restoration of the Monarchy. I guess this is because I'm neither from Britain nor from one of its former colonies ![[Smile]](smile.gif) In fact the little things I do know about this period is more because of the effects it had in Latin America (for example, Jamaica became British territory at the instigation of Cromwell).
I get the idea that in this novel Merivel is also 'restored' in some way, but what I like about it: his restoration is kind of imperfect. You read so many stories about people who are very bad in the beginning, then they have a redeeming experience, and afterwards they are just perfect... That's boring. And I don't think that it works like this in real life.
So yes, Merivel and a lot of the other characters are caricatures. But they are complex caricatures. Sometimes Merivel is a complete egoistic prick, but sometimes there are glimpses where he cares: about painting, about trying to heal Katherine, even about the women he sleeps with... His way of caring is imperfect too, but that's what makes him interesting.
In fact, I found Pearce the least interesting character in the book. He was just too perfect, almost saintly. I guess he was put there only to contrast with the less perfect characters.
2. In the introduction to my Kindle cooy Rose Tremain makes it explicit that she saw the book as a commnetary on the excesses of the 1980s. This is something I didn't pick up on on a first reading, and I'm not sure that I see now. Can you see parrallels?
To be honest, I didn't see it either. The only parallel I saw was that the book presents the Restoration as a chaotic period, where egoism abounded. Maybe that's where the parallel lies?
3. Merivel - love or loathe?
Let's say like and loathe at the same time. His failures and the way that he cares sometimes, even imperfectly, make him likeable. But I'm also not sure if I like him enough to read the sequel
4. Historical accuracy - is it important to you in a historical novel?
I agree with Gamaliel that historical novels are about the present (as are Science Fiction novels). I didn't see any gross inaccuracies, but like I said I'm not very familiar with this time period. I guess the characterization of Charles II wasn't exactly true to life I would be interested to know which inconsistencies Gamaliel has spotted.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
As I said before, I particularly liked the depiction of the Quaker community. It's unusual in a modern novel for a Protestant religious community to be presented in a mostly positive, generous way. The Quakers are one of the few religious groups that modern people still admire, and their depiction here faithfully matches readers' expectations. Whether the reign of Charles II truly represented their most humanitarian period is another issue, but no matter.
If the novel is to be read as a commentary on the 80s, which group or institution of the era is represented by these 17th c. Quaker caregivers, I wonder?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
I'm not really convinced that there's much of a parallel between Restoration England and 1980s Britain. For a start, you can hardly compare Callaghan's government with Cromwell. And I'm inclined to think Charles II was a much nicer person than Thatcher - though he is a bit of an enigma, and I'm not convinced Tremain has him quite right.
I still enjoyed the book, and thought Merivel made a strong narrator. His character changes quite radically in response to circumstances, but I found that all quite convincing. I too am curious about the Quakers, because I always thought the interest in mental health came slightly later, in the eighteenth century.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think it's the moral ambivalence thing that Tremain pulls off quite well. I might be wrong, but I suspect some readers might have preferred heroes who were rather more 'on the level' than Merivel.
As for the depiction of the Quakers, apart from Pearce, they really aren't depicted as being whiter-than-white either. There's some moral ambiguity there too.
As for the historical inaccuracies ... there were a few I picked up but they weren't substantial and certainly didn't spoil my enjoyment of the novel/s ... 'inaccurate' was probably the wrong word. I found most of the period detail convincing but there some minor discrepencies.
I liked the way Tremain characterised the King. She is very good at using dialogue to outline character and some of the exchanges between Merivel and the King were handled very well indeed, I thought. This continues into the second novel.
I think there's moral ambiguity in the portrayal of the King too. There's an interesting scene in the second novel when the King visits Merivel in Norfolk and is recognised on a shopping trip (of all things) ... and he has to deal with a crowd beseeching him to right wrongs and to intervene in various issues ...
That rings true to me. There was moral ambiguity with Charles II in lots of ways ... not just the mistresses and so on. Yet when the chips were down and London was on fire he was out directing operations and even rode out alone to head-off a crowd of refugees fleeing into the countryside to assure them that he would do everything in his power to assist them and reconstruct their homes.
So, whilst the two novels are certainly caricatures I do think they capture something of the essence of the period - particularly the moral ambiguity.
As for the parallels with the '80s. From what Tremain has written she felt that the idealisation of money and self-expression in the '80s was a parallel with Merivel's obsession with the King. Even though the King repeatedly lets him down he keeps coming back for more ...
I'd suggest that on a very deep level both Merivel novels are about belief, trust and how we can convince ourselves of things ... and how this is an essential part of human nature that can yield both good and bad results.
Take Merivel's care and concern for the bear in the second novel, for instance. It's well meaning, but again almost obsessive and arguably ultimately leads to the animal's death ... although it had been due to be put down in the first place so at least he gave it a stay of execution.
The two novels are full of the anomalies that so often arise between good intentions and their execution. Merivel struggles with his libido, for instance, but it always gets the better of him. There are lots of parallels.
I wouldn't say that the characters are completely artificial and unbelievable. Tremain herself has confessed to a great fondness for Merivel - despite his faults. I think she cares about people and this comes over in her novels.
The reason things don't always go to plan, it seems from the novels, is that essentially we are all stuffed and compromised - even the Quakers are to some extent. It is an imperfect world, people are imperfect and even when a 'restoration' takes place all good things are doomed to come to an end. What matters is what happens along the way. What matters is the journey.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@SvitlanaV2 and Qlib, when Tremain stated that she wanted to draw parallels with the 1980s I don't take that to mean that all institutions, incidents and themes in the novels HAVE to have a 1980s parallel or equivalent.
It's more a question of zeitgeist.
Tremain sees the greed and false-hopes of the Thatcher period as parallels of the ambitions and false-hopes of the Restoration period ie. that the restoration of the Monarchy would solve all the nation's problems, that the King could cure illnesses purely by touch, that by fawning and hob-nobbing with the court one could guarantee oneself advancement and wealth ...
It'd be an overly literal approach to say, 'Ah, Callaghan = Cromwell, Thatcher = Charles II, The Quakers = The Greenham Common Woman ... or whatever else.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@SvitlanaV2 and Qlib, when Tremain stated that she wanted to draw parallels with the 1980s I don't take that to mean that all institutions, incidents and themes in the novels HAVE to have a 1980s parallel or equivalent.
It's more a question of zeitgeist.
Tremain sees the greed and false-hopes of the Thatcher period as parallels of the ambitions and false-hopes of the Restoration period
Yes, I get that, but I don't think the zeitgeist was the same. I don't see the Restoration as a time of false hope, or at least not more than any new regime might bring false hope for its greatest enthusiasts. The drama of the Restoration period speaks of genuine exuberance - as well as, admttedly, a lot of silliness and extravagance - which arose out of a very real and much more significant change than that which occurred in Britain in the 80s. So although it's interesting to know what Tremain thought, it doesn't chme with me, yet the book still works, which is a sign of its quality IMHO.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, fair enough, I'll buy that QLib. As has been said, none of us would have picked up on any intended parallels between the 1660s and the 1980s unless Rose Tremain had mentioned it a good 20 years after she wrote the novel.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: Yes, I think it's the moral ambivalence thing that Tremain pulls off quite well. I might be wrong, but I suspect some readers might have preferred heroes who were rather more 'on the level' than Merivel.
I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I discovered that I seem to have a thing for characters (and people?) who have many flaws but at least they care. In the last couple of months we've been reading books in which the main character (Grace in Time's Echo, Lilly in Plain Perfect) didn't seem as flawed, but throughout the books they only cared about themselves.
Merivel has many faults, but at least he cares, even in an imperfect way. In my eyes, that's what redeems ('restores') him in a certain way, at least partially. And depending on how you read the Gospels, that can be a very Christian message.
I've also been thinking a bit more about the link with the eighties. Is it possible that during Tatcherism, some of her reporters said things like "Now we're going to restore Britain from the greedy hands of the Unions, just like it needed to be restored in the 17th Century" or things like that?
If this were true, then maybe this was Tremain's way of showing that Restoration isn't exactly a field of roses. Just a thought...
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
It wasn't about him being on the level, a sympathetic character or otherwise for me. I just found it impossible to conceive of him as a real person at all.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As for the depiction of the Quakers, apart from Pearce, they really aren't depicted as being whiter-than-white either. There's some moral ambiguity there too.
I don't think Tremain entirely approves of the way that her Quaker characters reject the pleasures of the flesh, but since they don't don't go on a moralising crusade about it they don't come in for too much censure. Tremain is kind to all her characters, which I liked.
Okay, so the 1980s are represented in Merivel's longing to ingratiate himself with the dissolute, high society set. But for me, representations of the 80s don't get very far if they don't include riots, racism, some radical politics, industrial unrest, etc. The other end of the social spectrum, I suppose! For all its charms 'Restoration' doesn't scrape the surface of any of that.
[ 25. July 2013, 18:35: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarasa
Shipmate
# 12271
|
Posted
In the introduction to Restoration Tremain says that the book was her 'fictional response to the climate of selfishmess and material greed that began to prevail in our society during the Thatcher years' for which we are now 'beginning to pay a terrifying price'. I think I agree with her about the Thatcher era encouraging selfishness, though I don't think that was Thatcher's intention. I don't think it was Charles II intention either.
I think (knowing a bit of Quaker history) that the portrayal of the Quakers is pretty acurate, though maybe a little anachronistic, as I think Quakers of this early period might not be as settled in their ways as they appear in this book. I'm also not sure that they would have been allowed to study at Cambridge, but perhaps at this period you didn't have to swear alligence to the Church of England to go.
I really like the character of Merivel, identifying with his trying to do the best, but getting tripped up by his faults all the time - this coems out even more in Merivel.
--------------------
'I guess things didn't go so well tonight, but I'm trying. Lord, I'm trying.' Charlie (Harvey Keitel) in Mean Streets.
Posts: 2035 | From: London | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gussie:
I think (knowing a bit of Quaker history) that the portrayal of the Quakers is pretty acurate, though maybe a little anachronistic, as I think Quakers of this early period might not be as settled in their ways as they appear in this book. I'm also not sure that they would have been allowed to study at Cambridge, but perhaps at this period you didn't have to swear alligence to the Church of England to go.
Yes, I suspect you're right on both counts there and i doubt they'd have had the money to set up either, because, of course, the great age of Quaker philanthropy comes after they all went into business because they couldn't get into university. As you say, this is so early on, that this pre-dates the oath-taking issue. And it's also a bit unlikely that Pearce would have been born a Quaker, but I don't think there's any mention of his conversion (had to take the book back to the library, so can't check).
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
SvitlanaV2, again, please forgive me but I think you're being overly literal in the parallelism here. I could draw a parallel between, say, Hitler and Franco without their having to be direct equivalents in the style of moustache or Franco having to have an Eva Braun equivalent or an Alpine retreat like Hitler's ...
As has been said, Tremaine saw the book as drawing parallels between the greed and self-centredness that emerged, as she saw it, from the Thatcher era. That doesn't mean that there has to be a 1660s equivalent of the Miner's Strike in there somewhere, or the Brixton riots ...
It's the broad principles that she's drawing comparisons with, not the historical detail.
In terms of whether Merivel is a 'believable' character - well, I found him so - particularly in his capacity for self-delusion. The readers realise that the King has pulled a blinder on him before he realises that himself ... That is well done.
Merivel is 'all too human' and I recognise similar tendencies in myself - although I've certainly not indulged in the excesses that he does ... thank goodness ...
As for the Quakers - yes, I wasn't so convinced by the way Tremain depicts them. I may be wrong, but is there some suggestion that Pearce adopted Quakerism after his Cambridge days? Because, of course, he wouldn't have been able to study there at all had he been anything other than Anglican.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
I'm simply saying that for me the book needed to reflect the struggles of ordinary folk to be a meaningful engagement with the 80s in general. But if the author was mainly interested in drawing parallels with the greed of high society people then fair enough; she has no obligation to write about anything in particular.
I don't think we'll quite agree on this, but no matter!
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's because in this particular instance, you are taking a 'maximalist' approach, SvitlanaV2 whereas on other issues, particularly ecclesiology and theology, you tend towards a more 'minimalist' approach ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think the author might also claim that the greed and so on at a ''high society' level tends to percolate downwards and lead to similar levels of greed and aspiration ... with the difference being 'in kind' more than in anything else ...
But I might be wrong.
Whatever the case, I don't think Rose Tremain was setting out to write a novel that reflected all aspects and sectors of society - although there are servants and farmers and labourers and so on at various stages in both novels. In the second one they actually 'take over' Merivel's mansion during a long absence ... with anarchic results ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
moonlitdoor: It wasn't about him being on the level, a sympathetic character or otherwise for me. I just found it impossible to conceive of him as a real person at all.
I agree with you, up to a point. Merivel is a bit over the top, and sometimes I thought of him more like a comic book character than as a real person.
Like I said before on this thread, what I like about the book is how Merivel is 'restored' in an imperfect way. The fact that he is a bit unrealistic as a person didn't take that away for me. But I wonder of the book could have 'worked' with a more realistic Merivel?
quote:
SvitlanaV2: I'm simply saying that for me the book needed to reflect the struggles of ordinary folk to be a meaningful engagement with the 80s in general.
I agree here. It seems that if Tremain wanted to show us something about the eighties, then it's that the rulers were egoistic and that the times where chaotic.
Just a thought, maybe the scene about the fire in London shows us something about the struggles of ordinary folk and the indifference of their rulers? I'll have to read that scene again.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There is more about ordinary people's struggles in the second novel than the first. But again, beware of taking the analogies and parallels too far.
On the character of Merivel - yes, he is over the top and yes he is a caricature - but I would posit that he is one of the key characters in fiction from the last 2 decades.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel: On the character of Merivel - yes, he is over the top and yes he is a caricature - but I would posit that he is one of the key characters in fiction from the last 2 decades.
Really? I didn't know that these books were this influential.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
For me, the 80s were more about poorer people struggling than about posher people being greedy. The latter was something I came across in Sunday supplements or TV comedy shows, whereas the former was occurring in the historical areas close to the city, a bus ride or two from where I live. So the idea that this reality should be ignored in a book that supposedly recalls or reworks the 80s seems strange to me.
In literature as in theology, though, we all respond out of our own experiences and way of understanding the world. In novels we respond to some characters rather than others because they say something about ourselves. This could be why I didn't get much out of Charles II, and I don't have much to about him. I don't normally read novels where almost everything seems to revolve around a king or queen. Merivel's obsession with the king and the king's circle displeased me, although I recognised myself in certain other aspects of Merivel's behaviour.
[ 26. July 2013, 16:07: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Perhaps I over-egged the pudding a little ... but I think if you were to do a straw-poll among the literati and the better-read parts of the chattering classes and asked them to name characters from recent fiction who stood out in some way, then Merivel would probably emerge.
Mind you, I'm more 'up' on contemporary poetry than fiction, so I wouldn't know where to begin with a list of, say, 'Top 10 characters from novels published over the last two or three decades'.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
'Kinnell, SvitlanaV2, talk about missing the point ...
Merivel's obsession with the King is meant to be an example of how all of us can obsess or become fixated with glittery things that will ultimately let us down ... be it money, celebrity, fame or whatever else ...
Rose Tremain didn't set out to write a novel about 17th century lead-miners on the North Yorkshire moors or 17th century peddlars in rural Nottinghamshire ...
She chose to write about Merivel and his obsessions and to use him as a cipher or vehicle as it were, to comment on aspects of the times in which the novel is set as well as aspects of human nature in general.
If you want to read a sociology text-book or social history of the times then there are plenty available in the library.
It's a NOVEL for goodness sake.
A work of fiction.
Nobody gives a flying fart about your particular take on the '80s. Rose Tremain isn't writing about YOU or YOUR family or YOUR take on the 19-bastard-80s, she's writing her OWN.
Sorry, this is getting very unheavenly ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sorry, SvitlanaV2, I was out of order back then ...
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I still think, though, that you are being far too literal with the 1980s comparison. Rose Tremain says that part of her intention in writing the novel was to draw parallels - but I don't think anyone is claiming that this is the EXCLUSIVE intention nor that if we didn't pick up on any parallels or even don't agree that there are parallels there in the first place, it somehow means that we are missing the point of the novel.
Whether a novel is set in the 1660s, 1980s, 1790s or even on a fictitious planet that doesn't even exist, it has to say something 'universal' or readily applicable about the human condition. Otherwise none of us would be able to relate to it or engage with it at all.
What is Ken Kesey's 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' about? Is it just about some blokes in an American mental hospital? Or is it about wider issues in society? About control and repression, about relationships and fellow-feeling etc etc?
It's about all those things, of course.
On one level, I would suggest that 'Restoration' isn't about either the 1660s or the 1980s - it's deeper and wider than that. It's about our capacity for self-deception, our struggles with how we would like things to be and how they don't work out like that in practice.
It's more basic in that sense. It's about human nature and how it works. The setting is simply there on one level to provide a framework to show how these things work out - and how we can't control our circumstances and how often our best efforts can go askew.
That's what it's about.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
In an earlier post I said this:
quote:
But if the author was mainly interested in drawing parallels with the greed of high society people then fair enough; she has no obligation to write about anything in particular.
To be clear: Rose Tremain can write what she likes. And I can enjoy her novel on a level that suits me best, which isn't on a 1980s level. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you. Maybe if I re-read the novel (which I'm unlikely to do) I'd see it as you do, but that's as much as I can say.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sorry, SvitlanaV2, I was out of order back then ...
Agreed. It's a novel. There is no One Right Way to read it. Unless it's by Jane Austen, of course.
Firenze
Heaven Host
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not saying that you have to see the novel the same way as I do, SvitlanaV2. Far from it. I wish I hadn't raised the 1980s connection because it seems like a red-herring and - please forgive me - you seem to have latched on unduly to that particular aspect to the exclusion of anything else that could be said about it.
I would submit though, and this isn't a value judgement on either of our readings, that you as a sociologist and me as an English graduate are going to come with different perspectives to a certain extent. I'm sure on some aspects of the novel that we haven't discussed in as much detail, we'd both be on the same page ... if you excuse the pun ...
Peace.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Gamaliel
You raised the 80s and I discussed the idea because it was something to discuss. I found it quite interesting. If I'd thought that discussing it made me look obsessed I wouldn't have taken that first step....!
Secondly, I'm not a sociologist. My first degree was in modern languages, and I recently completed a doctorate in Francophone literature. But sociological insights apply to both churches and to literature - and Tremain would probably agree, considering that she wanted her novel to say something relevant about contemporary society.
Best wishes.
[ 26. July 2013, 23:13: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok - fair enough and I happily stand corrected.
I'd assumed you were a sociologist as you often bring a sociological approach to bear on the various threads ... and I often find your application of those insights impressive and thought-provoking.
Not always mind ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
