Girl With A Pearl Earing

In the class-conscious, plague-stricken world of 17th century Delft, a young girl named Griet goes to work as a maid in Vermeer’s household. Soon she is entangled in the subtle, cutthroat rivalries in the charged atmosphere of the painter’s household when she becomes his assistant. Under his tutelage, she awakens to the rich and diverse possibilities of visual perception... Dive through the historical lens of Griet’s world to learn gorgeous lessons on the art of seeing. Chevalier deftly finds beauty in the squalor, tragedy, and romance of ordinary life.

I have always been fascinated by the evolution of books to film. Two completely different art mediums (which people always seem to forget and expect a popular book to be literally translated onto the screen) I thought it might be interesting to do a comparison between a film and a book and after hearing an interview with Chevalier on NPR a few months ago about this book, her inspiration for it, and the transition it made into becoming a film, thought this would be perfect.

I've always wanted to read this book after seeing the film years ago (I was so inspired by the film, the lighting, the methodical pace, the way it portrayed the bleakness of life and how one can rise above it by only changing your perception)

I'm sure many of you have seen the film, but if you haven't (or need a refresher, or just want to see it again), I hope it's not too much to ask that you watch it and read the book before our book club reading. I know you'll love it.

The Marriage Bureau

I agree with Mer on the comparison to Jane Austen: by far a stretch. It also took me awhile to get into the book, so I was surprised at how I kept picking it up to read it, and getting through it so fast. I think it was simply that I was fascinated by the cultural peek into Indian life.

Here in Portland we have a large community of Indian people. (Dot not feather, as my husband would say. He thinks he's allowed to say stuff like that since he's a "minority") This week my kids have been taking swimming lessons and not kidding, we are the only white people attending. Everyone is either Asian or Indian. Half of the women are in saris, and the others usually have pants on with an Indian inspired shirt. I entered into a conversation the other day with two Indian woman (beautiful I might add!), and we started talking about the "7 similar faces of the world" (my husband fits in this category with his asian/poly mix. He is often mistaken for Korean, Philippino, or Arabic, rather than his chinese/tahitian blood) and also talked about how the Indian woman don't like to be dark skinned, but are trying to be more fair. I thought about the book and how one of the requirements at the Marriage Bureau was skin type, and how that seemed to matter when choosing a bride. It seems no matter what culture we are in, we want most what we don't have.

I thought it was funny how Mr. Ali emerged into the Yoda/Mr. Miagi/Dumbledore/Gandolf/wisened know-all figure of the story (maybe not such fine company as that, but you know what I mean). It kind of crept into the story at the end, almost as if Zama didn't realize it when he started writing.

Anyone have issues with Aruna falling in love so fast? I mean, it's not like people can fall in love in a few days. Who does that? Heh.

I also felt like Aruna's sister was going to be the future match for Mr. Ali's son. But the story never seemed to find a happy ending for him, at least not in the book. It felt like he was pushing for that match though with the sister's politics and bringing Aruna to the demonstration. Plot hole not filled in.

I liked the book pick Ivy, and was glad to get into the Indian culture a little more and learn a few things I didn't know. Also, how bad do you want a mangaloostrum?

Thoughts on Cannery Row

Cannery Row, like every place else is not superstitious, but will not walk under a ladder or open an umbrella in the house. (pg. 143)

The first thing I thought of when I read that was Michael Scott when he said, "I'm not superstitious, but I'm a little stitious."  :)
...

I really enjoyed this book. I loved the structure, how it alternated between broad descriptions of Monterey to detailed vignettes of its inhabitants.  Not to mention that just the idea of a beer milkshake, just the idea of giving someone 25 cats for a birthday gift, just the idea of pin cushion art (entitled Pre-Cambrian Memory) among other things (phrases like "spurious landman's toilet") all made me laugh. While part of me thought it was too short, the other part of me realized that to write something so concise and so sensitive and so full of memorable characters and so well-crafted surely is the mark of someone who won the Nobel Prize for literature.  Speaking of which, on the Nobel Foundation website, it says that he was awarded the prize "for his realistic and imaginative writings, combining as they do sympathetic humour and keen social perception."  In his acceptance speech, Steinbeck said something I think worth sharing:

Literature is as old as speech. It grew out of human need for it, and it has not changed except to become more needed.

The skalds, the bards, the writers are not separate and exclusive. From the beginning, their functions, their duties, their responsibilities have been decreed by our species.

Humanity has been passing through a gray and desolate time of confusion. My great predecessor, William Faulkner, speaking here, referred to it as a tragedy of universal fear so long sustained that there were no longer problems of the spirit, so that only the human heart in conflict with itself seemed worth writing about.

Faulkner, more than most men, was aware of human strength as well as of human weakness. He knew that the understanding and the resolution of fear are a large part of the writer's reason for being.

This is not new. The ancient commission of the writer has not changed. He is charged with exposing our many grievous faults and failures, with dredging up to the light our dark and dangerous dreams for the purpose of improvement.

Furthermore, the writer is delegated to declare and to celebrate man's proven capacity for greatness of heart and spirit - for gallantry in defeat - for courage, compassion and love. In the endless war against weakness and despair, these are the bright rally-flags of hope and of emulation.

I hold that a writer who does not passionately believe in the perfectibility of man, has no dedication nor any membership in literature.

(You can read the whole speech here.)

This is what I love about John Steinbeck--how he balances harsh reality with redeeming humanity in his writing. He contrasts weakness with strength, fear with resolution, and despair with hope.  No matter how dire the oppressive circumstances or how grim the prospects, he is generally hopeful. Maybe this is something we can discuss?

I also might be kind of biased as to liking this book as well.  Every time he mentioned Salinas and Point Lobos I got all nostalgic for places of my childhood! (Hil, you go to the CA coast more than the rest of us...please visit Point Lobos someday.  It is SO beautiful!)

Is everyone still up for this Tuesday?? Hope so!  If not, let me know.  I'd love to know what you all thought of the book (even if you didn't like it), so please post!