Mary Ellen's comments (member since Sep 05, 2007)

Mary Ellen's comments from the Constant Reader group.

Another mystery fan here. To the lists above, I'd add Martha Grimes (the earlier the book, the better, IMO), PD James and Tony Hillerman, whose detectives are members of the Navajo Tribal Police.

Whaitaker, I began a re-read over the Thanksgiving holiday and, as usual, am mid-book as the CR discussion begins. I first read it not long after it came out here in the US, and found it a bit tedious (all that Latin!) and more work than I was up for.

This time through, my mind no more interested in metaphysical debate than it was 20-something years ago, I am reading it for the humor. Like Libyrinths, I find it a lot of fun.

That said, I'm eager to read discussions from those willing to think harder and deeper than I!

Yulia, thanks for giving me a mid-afternoon chuckle!

I enjoy Munro, but I've discovered that I enjoy her more in smaller doses. I once borrowed a huge collection of her stories from the library, and got stuck mid-way.

I echo Sarah's sentiments, that this thread is a hoot!

Newengland, if you & I were locked in a library, apparently the only books we'd compete to get our hands on would be Tolstoy's! (Can't speak to Brett Easton Ellis or Foer; I have not yet been tempted to read them!)

Regarding the different receptions for Madoff & VM: timing is everything! You note the contrast between those who lost some of their fortune, vs. the many who suffered far more grievous losses during the war. Whereas Madoff's victims' losses were similar to those many people were (and are) feeling: loss of savings, devaluation of property, etc. And Madoff became a symbol of the "them" who caused the economic collapse.

Pretty funny! And tastes are so different! The 19th century is probably my favorite. But not everyone in the 19th century. I could do without Henry James. And, though I feel bad about admitting it, Dostoevsky, too.

Moving on to our own time, I read one of Cormac McCarthy's books and have never looked back. Franzen (sp?) also. Early exposure to "The Bear" engendered a Faulknerphobia still not overcome.

Jonathan, thanks for that information on the "gaps" in Vermeer's work-history. Unbelievable that the "gap" was invented to accommodate VM's fakes! And by the way, reading to the end was no struggle; I really enjoyed myself.

Several posts note that VM, like all con artists, exploited his victims' desires and blind spots. Many cons play upon the desire to get something for nothing, or close to nothing, and create in the victim the sense that he is getting one over on the con artist. And this makes the victim feel a bit complicit in being conned, I would guess. In VM's case, the "victims" had to suppress the suspicion that they were buying paintings from people who were themselves victims of the Nazis, right? When the fraud was revealed, would this make the victims feel less vengeful (after all, they'd been willing to take advantage of people, just as VM had been) or more vengeful (since VM had revealed unsavory aspects of the victim's own character)?

I recently met a late-50-something man from Holland, a professor, who recognized VM's story immediately(and gave me a lesson in pronunciation, which still eludes me). As soon as he said VM's name, he laughed.

This is why the question, "Is X literary?" is problematic: we each start from our own perspective on what "literary" is. One must define the term, even if for that discussion alone.

So I will just say that I think Russo is a good writer and that his writing aims at being more than just a pass-the-time beach read.

Al, I'd forgotten that part of the story: a terrible thing for a boy to see. It would reinforce his own sense of powerlessness and make him more likely to resort to subterfuge...

I finished the book last night, and enjoyed it to the end!

Like many who have commented here, I'm amazed that these pictures -- so unlike the graceful real Vermeers -- were accepted by anyone as the real thing. Did people see them as a different style adopted by Vermeer for a particular period in his career (during which no real Vermeers are extant), or did they think these "Vermeers" looked like real Vermeers?

And I'm curious: how long a gap is there in Vermeer's known career? And are there any theories as to what he was doing in that time?

Ruth & Beej: The suspicion that all was not as our young friend presented it tugged at me, too. After all, the central plot-mover here was the kid's deceit: faked being sick to stay home, then faked fainting to get mom's sympathy (and drive a wedge between mom & stepdad).

Barbara,
I agree that, although I initially was turned off by the 2nd person narrative, by the end, it worked.

The ending itself...I'm not too sure about it. A little too ambiguous to give me any satisfaction.

Beej: this was a tough issue for me but you all helped me sort out my feelings. And as a result I have come to the conclusion that my reaction was normal.

Beej, I am so glad! For this alone, the thread would have been "worth it." (I add that the discussion was very rich and benefitted me also.)

Gabrielle, this is obviously such a wrenching issue for you, yet you responded throughout with grace and restraint. Please don't stop participating in CR! I certainly am enriched by your posts.

Wow, sounds like a powerful book. I think I want to put a bit more space between myself and All Men Die Alone before I am "haunted" again by such a book, but I will keep The Appointment in mind.

Jonathan: It's quite difficult to calibrate the tone of the prose when dealing with someone like Van Meegeren.

I would imagine so! Particularly since his positive qualities -- humor, intelligence, etc. -- were all put to the servivce of his devious, sometimes reprehensible, ends. And I'd imagine, when writing about such a consummate con artist, one wants to avoid being conned and thereby putting him in too positive a light (which would help him "con" your readers, too!).

I'm a bit over half-way, really enjoying the book, and I have a feeling the "best" is yet to come, from the comments here on the arrest & investigation.

One thing about the writing itself that struck me from the beginning. I haven't read as many biographies lately as I did in my long-lost youth, but I recall a frequent characteristic of those that I read was a certain level of respect or admiration that the biographer showed for the subject. (This can become quite a failing when it becomes fawning!) I don't remember ever reading a book where the author has such disdain for the subjectas this one. Granted, VM doesn't deserve more. But I sometimes feel bad for the author, (Jonathan!) having had to spend so much time in this creep's "company." And, while I enjoy reading the well-deserved jabs at VM, sometimes I feel that his case is clearly one of res ipsa loquitor ("the thing speaks for itself") and more objective writing would have let me feel I was making the judgments myself.

This is a minor quibble in what is a truly engaging read!

Though not 100% comfortable decreeing someone a "literary writer," since there's room for reasonable minds to disagree, I have a couple of suggestions:
1) Richard Ford: I loved Independence Day, and have sampled the 2 others of that "trilogy," and they look very good too: The Sportswriter andThe Lay of the Land;

2)Kazuo Ishiguro. We recently read and discussed Artist of the Floating World here in CR. A wonderful, layered book (and great discussion!) But my personal favorite Ishiguro is The Remains of the Day.

3) Browse through past CR discussions or lists of nominated books (we recently nominated new reads in the Reading List category -- a terrific list) to find others, with synopses, that might strike your fancy.

Mary Ellen

This is an emotional topic even for many of us who have had no personal connection to a capital crime. I agree that everyone has been respectful, and send out particular thanks to those who do have such a connection, beginning, of course, with Beej. Thank you all for your honesty as well as your kindness, patience, respect.

Thanks! I hope I'm able to read a few books in time for the discussion, something I've been haveing a hard time doing for the last year or so...

Barb, thanks for pointing out that, indeed, innocent people are convicted & given capital sentences. And, in fact, innocent people have been executed. (See Helen Prejean's books.)

Russ, this is what some of us mean by "society" acting: When someone in a prison injects the poison, or flips the switch to electrocute, or drops the trap for a hanging, it is not a personal action on his or her part. It is "society" acting.

Additionally, every society has a certain economic system, class structure, etc. To the extent that the structures, which inevitably benefit some more than others, facilitate or lead to crimes, society bears some responsibility. That said, it is an individual who commits the crime, and the individual bears responsibility.

Very complex issues. My mother is a federal judge, and so has had much experience reading the pre-sentencing reports on convicted persons. (Note: these have not included murderers, since murder is generally, though not always, prosecuted in the state system.) Based on what she sees, it seems that a disproportionate number were subjected to abuse as children, had dysfunctional families, insufficient education. Are they responsible for their choices? Of course. Are we entitled to "lock them up" to prevent them from committing crimes, at least for a time? Sure, though work toward rehabilitation during incarceration would also be an intelligent response. But are we (not the victims as individuals, but we as a society), to a degree, reaping what we have sown, or have allowed to be sown?