We can discuss Russo's 2009 novel That Old Cape Magic here.

Here's the description of the book from Goodreads:

Thirty years ago, on their Cape Cod honeymoon, Jack and Joy Griffin made a plan for their future that has largely been fulfilled. He left Los Angeles behind for the sort of New England college his parents had aspired to, and now the two of them are back on the Cape—where he’d also spent his childhood vacations—to celebrate the marriage of their daughter Laura’s best friend. Sure, Jack’s been driving around with his father’s ashes in the trunk, though his mother’s very much alive and often on his cell phone. Laura’s boyfriend seems promising, but be careful what you pray for, especially if it happens to come true. A year later, at her wedding, Jack has another urn in the car, and both he and Joy have brought new dates. Full of every family feeling imaginable, wonderfully comic and profoundly involving, That Old Cape Magic is surprising, uplifting and unlike anything this Pulitzer Prize winner has ever written.

I guess we'll find out in reading it if "unlike anything he's ever written" is true praise or a bad-handed compliment. . . .

" A year later, at her wedding, Jack has another urn in the car, and both he and Joy have brought new dates. Full of every family feeling imaginable, wonderfully comic and profoundly involving, That Old Cape Magic is surprising, uplifting ..."

Hmmm, uplifting.... just what I was thinking reading that plot summary!

It's actually not at all a dark book, quite the opposite. If anything, it insists on being humorous at all times, which wasn't at all what I'd expected. It's very readable, but I feel like this is more of a beach read, for those who go to the beach, that is.

Hmm, I didn't mean that to sound as dismissive as it did. I'm obviously the one with the issues. I resent serious books for depressing me or dragging on, thrillers for making me anxious, and books with humor for making me smile. If I were a book, I wouldn't want to be read by me in this mood.

Aren't all Russo's "beach reads" of a sort? I put him in the same Dewey Decimal as Tom Perrotta, another "fun" writer with some ability.

Yulia wrote: "It's actually not at all a dark book, quite the opposite. If anything, it insists on being humorous at all times, which wasn't at all what I'd expected..."

I just couldn't resist poking a little fun at the blurbology, Yulia. How a death and a broken marriage become funny and uplifting I can only learn from reading the book, which I am probably not going to do. To tell you the truth, modern fiction stops for me at Updike; I read occasional current things, but have grown so tired of the trivial, the juvenile, and the narcissistic that I decided that, net-net, I couldn't afford to invest much time into such unyielding soil. There are so many great books of the past that I still need to read.

Newengland wrote: "Aren't all Russo's "beach reads" of a sort? I put him in the same Dewey Decimal as Tom Perrotta, another "fun" writer with some ability."

Since "beach reads" can be considered something of a derogatory term, I would say no. I think his books are a little more literary than that.

Newengland wrote: "Aren't all Russo's "beach reads" of a sort? I put him in the same Dewey Decimal as Tom Perrotta, another "fun" writer with some ability."

Oh no. I may live at the beach, but I don't do beach reads. And I love Russo.

Michael, nothing after Updike?! But, but . . too many thoughts fighting through my flu-ey mind, too many modern classics shuddering.

Russo is better than a beach read: it was simply one character's perspective that was grating at me and reminded me too much of the awful book Death of a Writer. Death of a Writer A Novel Don't worry, I'm paying for my frustration with this now becomiong a sick-bed read.

Michael wrote: "I just couldn't resist poking a little fun at the blurbology, Yulia. How a death and a broken marriage become funny and uplifting I can only learn from reading the book, which I am probably not going to do. To tell you the truth, modern fiction stops for me at Updike; I read occasional current things, but have grown so tired of the trivial, the juvenile, and the narcissistic that I decided that, net-net, I couldn't afford to invest much time into such unyielding soil. There are so many great books of the past that I still need to read. "

Michael! You should be ashamed. I understand that there are a great number of classics to read - it would take one several years to read all of Chekov alone - but you are truly depriving yourself by refusing to read modern literature. Granted, there is a lot of stuff on the shelves today that I don't recommend that you waste your time with, but people are still writing good books. And I think the selections that are read here on Constant reader are proof of that.

OK. But one of my favorite "beach reads" ever was Stendhal's The Charterhouse of Parma. We all have different grit in our pages.

Anyway, I'm assuming the Russo fans believe his books will outlive him and perhaps even be taught in some schools (that is, that they might try to worm their way into someone's canon).

High praise, indeed!

Newengland wrote: "Anyway, I'm assuming the Russo fans believe his books will outlive him and perhaps even be taught in some schools (that is, that they might try to worm their way into someone's canon)."

I think his work is already part of the canon - my graduate program included Empire Falls in its Conference on Craft (which counts as a full graduate course).

Yulia and Erin, I am deeply ashamed. It has been six months since my last post-Updike title, and my sins include.... Naw, wait a sec! I do read some contemporary stuff -- Infinite Jest is sitting under the bed gathering dustbunnies, doesn't that count for something? Or is that one already in Classic status? My problem is, most current fiction reads like dreck to me. I know there is good stuff out there, but the time investment to find it among the dreck got too costly to me, given my limited reading time. Many, many disappointments made the risk/reward ratio insufficiently rewarding. I like some McEwan, for example, though I secretly suspect time will prove him second-rate. (Look at his occasional journalism compared to Updike's, for ex; no comparison.) Maybe this is in part an argument against the current age, which I do think runs to the trivial; or maybe just a comment on a publishing glut. In any event, it's too hard to weed out the losers when I could be reading classics I never got to, or others I need to reread 25 years after my first reading. Russo could be a genius, but that plot summary just doesn't sound comic or uplifting no matter how I slice it, philistine that I am. I will peek in again here later on to get a better sense, but fow now let me slide as quietly as possible out of this thread, and get back to, yanno, Milton....

I read THE OLD CAPE MAGIC when it first came out. I think that it is my third Russo, and it is my least favorite of the three. I absolutely loved EMPIRE FALLS and THE BRIDGE OF SIGHS. I fell in love with the characters in those books. I guess I didn't like CAPE as much because I didn't much like the main character. Even though it was just a few weeks ago that I read the book, I don't remember the details. I do remember that he had rotten parents.

Michael,
You are missing a lot of good reading by discounting recent fiction.

Jane

Michael wrote: "Yulia and Erin, I am deeply ashamed. It has been six months since my last post-Updike title, and my sins include.... Naw, wait a sec! I do read some contemporary stuff -- Infinite Jest is sitti..."

Michael, you have received a pass from me ... the way you said it, I was under the impression that it had been YEARS since you read something modern, but your second post sounds like you're just in a classics kick at the moment, and that I can totally respect. Just promise me that you won't rule out every modern writer, 'kay? ;)

I applaud Michael's resolve not to read anything after Updike (although since Updike's last novel came out in 2008 that leaves him a lot of room). With 23 novels and 24 short story collections, Updike could keep anyone busy for some time just by himself.

My theory of why they "don't write 'em like that anymore" is that there is that there is already enough supply to meet demand. If you need 19th century novels, I can direct you to nearly 60 novels by Trollope, 100 by Balzac, and the mere 16 that Dickens produced.

We live in a world of unparalleled richness. Much as I like Empire Falls, there is no need to ever leave Brewer, Pennsylvania, as Rabbit Angstrom would be happy to tell you.

Jim wrote: "I applaud Michael's resolve not to read anything after Updike (although since Updike's last novel came out in 2008 that leaves him a lot of room). With 23 novels and 24 short story collections, Updike could keep anyone busy for some time just by himself..."

Yeah, yeah, LOL.... now you've messed up my answer to Jane -- which is that what she says applies to ANY area within literature.

Anyway, I was thinking about the very point you make re Updike after posting here yesterday, because his lengthy career stretches the chronology mightily. In my mind, Updike's "real" career -- or its sweet spot -- falls between the beginnings in the 1950s until about 1990, when the last Rabbit title came out. Still a heckuva long time, eh? Much of what I have read of the later stuff seems more like glosses on his main career, to me. I couldn't finish Seek My Face, it just didn't hold me; Villages was good enough, but seemed like a rewrite; and I have yet to get to Terrorist.

That still leaves the matter of choice, your other point, Jim: Yes, there is so amazingly much of it. Thus my risk/reward decision. Because my reading experience is that much fiction since 1990, just to stick to that date, is not about very much, at its core. I've had a few too many of those reading experiences that reviewers here seem to summarize as "meh" (whatever that actually means!). Literary fashions don't always last -- well, they never last long, do they? -- and the recent trends of those fashions just seem unsatisfying, to me. They have somehow picked up elements of the triviality and the celebrity-worship of the broader American culture. If I read Russo, but not Turgenev, will that be a net gain or a net loss? I'm not picking on Russo (in fact he might be a poor example for my argument), that's just the topic that I've blundered into. But, with only so much time available, I have had to place my bet on the latter of those two propositions. (When I hear enough buzz, over a long enough period, on something current that it sets even my skeptical antennae vibrating, then I do try to investigate it further.)

This is way more than anyone needed to know about my reading processes, but I'm leaving it in here because I wonder if some readers might not be spending too MUCH of their reading time on books that seem vivid at the moment, but are likely to prove merely ephemera. I suppose if you read 100 books a year, you get to do both. Or maybe you have to reach a certain age for this to be a concern.

Yulia wrote: "We can discuss Russo's 2009 novel That Old Cape Magic here.

Here's the description of the book from Goodreads:

Thirty years ago, on their Cape Cod honeymoon, Jack and Joy Gri..."

I bet it's a good book. I love the title.

Michael,

Why take our interest in Russo's work, especially when we hadn't badgered you into feeling you ought to read it, as an opportunity to judge us for not apportioning our reading time appropriately? I was simply setting up a thread to discuss Russo's book and to invite others to join the conversation, should they be interested in the publisher's description of the work, and you saw it as an invitation to question whether we were being short-sighted in reading contemporary fiction that had yet and may never make it into the literary canon.

The fact is (though feel free to say you know otherwise), none of us knows how long we have to live and all of us in our lifetimes will have to make our own choices (and will hopefully not have to have these choices made for us) about what we will focus on--in our careers, our social time, our source of entertainment and enlightenment. But it seems unwarranted to diminish others because they choose to do something you don't. Sure, I may end up not caring for this particular novel, but it'll be my experience and I won't regret having gotten round to reading something by Russo or taking up Erin's and Sarah's offer to read a book with them, even if we won't have bragging rights in the future for saying, "Yup, I've read that."

I don't need to be reminded to read the classics, which I read of my own accord and draw my own opinions about, nor do I need to feel bad for not devoting all my time to books others deem more worthy of reading. I was raised to come to my own conclusions and not let others make decisions for me, even if that led to mistakes and regret. This is a book group, not a book requirement. Isn't what matters not what we read but what we get out of our reading? This may be enlightenment, pleasure, personal insight, or cultural knowledge, but I wouldn't put any of those goals over the other in all cases.

I just don't see how this thread has become an opportunity to pass judgment on what we're not doing with our lives instead. Even if I had only a year left to read, I would still bristle at others' telling me what I ought to choose. The same can be said for what food to eat, what art to appreciate, what neighborhoods to wander in, what people to spend time with, what lapses to make up for.

And don't tell me I'll know better when I'm older because age has nothing to do with how well or wisely one knows how to live (she naively said).

Pardon my rant, but this has been getting to me.

Michael, I think that Yulia makes a good point here. Since you say you're not interested in reading Russo, rather than derail the thread further from discussing his new book, why not start up a new thread where you and others can discuss the relative merits of current fiction?

Michael said:

How a death and a broken marriage become funny and uplifting I can only learn from reading the book, which I am probably not going to do. To tell you the truth, modern fiction stops for me at Updike; I read occasional current things, but have grown so tired of the trivial, the juvenile, and the narcissistic

Hey, Yulia. I am an innocent bystander -- sort of :)

I have read several of Russo's books. You can even find a positive review of Bridge of Sighs on my bookshelf. I think Russo's great, and I can't imagine anyone who likes Updike not being attracted to Russo.

While Michael is really missing out, my thought was just that limiting yourself to one era isn't necessarily a bad thing. You could probably bury yourself in books written in 2005 (172,000 according to the Wikipedia) and spend the rest of your life profitably. Not limiting yourself is ok, too. I'm easy.

As for getting smarter with age, I am afraid that hasn't worked out too well so far. Maybe next year.

So tell us more about Cape Magic.

Sorry for my manifesto. I should restrict those to ink-soaked napkins in restaurants. Or maybe Frank and I should stop doing that as well :) (Though we did save a fabulous Korean-fusion restaurant by telling them their leaving the shades down made it look as if they'd been closed for health violations.)

As for Cape Magic, I was actually satisfied in the end, despite my initial wariness. No food poisoning whatsoever. But my impressions won't cohere till the morning. I just kept wondering, had the protagonist Jack Griffin never considered therapy? Not as a panacea of course, but as a catalyst. I knew something had to be off in the marriage as soon as he noted that he and Joy didn't argue often.

Is it so warped, as Jared told Jack, to claim all families are messed up or is it just a grounding and useful reminder to be more forgiving of our own family's and other's idiosyncrasies?

I suppose I am partially to blame for the little dust-up because I brought up the off-topic question (though interesting parlor game) of "what contemporary writers will be read 50 or 100 years from now." I'm sure there's a thread for that (or once was) somewhere else on CR.

That said, you'll be happy to hear that this discussion has increased my interest in tackling a Russo. Actually, I could swear I read one long ago -- only I forget the title. One that was made into a movie? Could it be a Paul Newman (in his drawn-out twilight) movie, too? Ach. Unlike Roger Federer, memory does not serve.

So maybe if I had to pick a Russo to read, Empire Falls would be the one. I'm closer to the Cape than the Empire, but Empire might be closer to the magnum than the opus.

Philip wrote: "Michael, I think that Yulia makes a good point here. Since you say you're not interested in reading Russo, rather than derail the thread further from discussing his new book, why not start up a ne..."

Mea culpa. Had there been an ongoing discussion of the book, I would not have intruded. The thread seemed in its preliminary stages and I indulged my thoughts too much. People responded in ways that seemed interesting, to me, and I couldn't resist answering. Yulia, if you had comments to make on the book, could you not have done so? Or anyone else? I am the guilty transgressor, but I do think the answer to those questions is yes.

Newengland wrote: "That said, you'll be happy to hear that this discussion has increased my interest in tackling a Russo. Actually, I could swear I read one long ago -- only I forget the title. One that was made into a movie? Could it be a Paul Newman (in his drawn-out twilight) movie, too? Ach. Unlike Roger Federer, memory does not serve."

You're thinking of Nobody's Fool. Was made into a movie with Paul Newman in 1994.

Michael wrote: "Mea culpa. Had there been an ongoing discussion of the book, I would not have intruded. The thread seemed in its preliminary stages and I indulged my thoughts too much. People responded in ways that seemed interesting, to me, and I couldn't resist answering. Yulia, if you had comments to make on the book, could you not have done so? Or anyone else? I am the guilty transgressor, but I do think the answer to those questions is yes."

Michael, we started this threat to discuss Cape Magic, which we are reading now. We only decided to read it a few days ago, and Yulia - who appears to have already finished it - is most likely waiting for Sarah and I to finish before we start conversing. We didn't really expect anyone else to comment on this thread unless that had actually read the book or were planning on reading it.

I was only lurking here, but I had found the discussion interesting. Since I'm not reading this particular book at this time due to an overwhelming TBR shelf, I'll leave this thread.

I just wanted to engcourage Michael not to censor himself too heavily in other threads. In many cases it's perfectly alright to digress or let thought take what direction it will.

I'm perfectly fine with leaving this thread for book-specific discussion, but please don't feel like you have to limit yourself other places.

Michael, it wasn't the tangent which disconcerted me (I'm just as guilty of indulging in tangents), but the disparaging tone your posts developed in this thread. That was what makes me uneasy. But I don't have the energy or inclination to further articulate this distinction.

Newengland, your point about which contemporary books will be read in 100 years makes me think of the NYRB series which highlight works that deserve serious reconsideration but hadn't attracted much attention when they were originally released (or soon faded from critical memory). I'm not implying that Russo or this novel is among the cluster of discovered-in-the-dustbin surprises, as he's been well-regarded for as long as my own memory serves me, but it makes me wonder which books today may surprise critics in afterthought. (Pardon the tangent. I'm merely thinking aloud, as it were.)

You mean, there isn't a thread in CR with this parlor game? It might make interesting discussion both for fans of classical and fans of contemporary books.

Newengland wrote: "You mean, there isn't a thread in CR with this parlor game? It might make interesting discussion both for fans of classical and fans of contemporary books."

I'm not sure, actually. Maybe one of the moderators or another CR would know.

"If you build it, they will come. If it's already built, it's in Fodor's."

Newengland wrote: "You mean, there isn't a thread in CR with this parlor game? It might make interesting discussion both for fans of classical and fans of contemporary books."

This Mod doesn't remember such a thread. It would take a search to find it. So if you want to start one, NE, go right ahead. Could be interesting.

Thanks for the kind words, Denise, which it would be rude of me not to acknowledge.

Denise wrote: "I was only lurking here, but I had found the discussion interesting. Since I'm not reading this particular book at this time due to an overwhelming TBR shelf, I'll leave this thread.

I just wanted to engcourage Michael not to censor himself too heavily in other threads. In many cases it's perfectly alright to digress or let thought take what direction it will.

I'm perfectly fine with leaving this thread for book-specific discussion, but please don't feel like you have to limit yourself other places..."

Newengland,

Paul Newman was also in Empire Falls. He played the free-loading father of the main character.

Back to that Old Cape Magic!

Jane, since you've finished the book, though you can't recall it well (which I can't blame you for), did you have the sense it was lazily written for large stretches (it seemed like something he had to rush out on deadline or couldn't bother to be original with)? The flat portrayals of so many characters (the hard-working Korean Sunny, the combative Marine, the doting one-dimensional fiance Andy, the bratty child, the bitter second wife Dot) also got to me, but then I tried to convince myself that was intentionally done because they were how the protagonist himself or his mother saw people, not how they actually were, the point being he was too self-involved to see people for who they were. Or that people have more secrets and layers of character that they would at first suggest. But even this message seemed rather flimsy on second thought. What made me cringe most was when he said how proud he was of his daughter Laura's waiting for Mr. Right instead of Mr. Right Now: that was a line right out of chick lit.

Yulia,
I agree with you about the flat characters in the novel, but I can't think of much else to say about them. I do remember hoping that Laura would get together with Sunny who seemed much more interesting than Andy. Wasn't there a part about they way the narrator remembers his childhood as opposed to the way his mother described it? I liked that very much because it resonated with me. When my brother and I talk about certain events in our childhood, it seems like we are talking about two entirely different things. Memory does play tricks on us.

Yes, I, too, hoped she got together with Sunny. I kept on waiting for it to be revealed Laura was actually going to marry Sunny, that something happened in the intervening year to make her question her connection with Andy. The relationship between her and Andy was so lifeless. We didn't know anything at all about him (besides his being perfect), about his connection with Laura, or how they'd known so quickly they were meant to be together. He was frustratingly enigmatic, especially compared to how much time was spent exploring Sunny's background and character. But even with Sunny, whom I liked very much, the narrator saw him too much as representative of the immigrant experience in America, which was rather aggravating. But was I *meant* to be aggravated by this? I kept on wondering.

As for the different memories of his childhood, I liked that element, too (especially about the Browning summer). What surprises me from my own experience is how similar my view of my childhood was to my three brothers, though they never spoke to me and, even in some cases, didn't know where I was in the household while they were growing up (it was a very small home, the first apartment, so there's no accounting for this and I wasn't hiding in any attic, either).

My favorite scene with his mother was when she was in the hospital, struggling to explain her view of his daughter Laura, first saying she so . . . kind, as if she'd never met anyone like that, then how it made her feel . . . ashamed, as if she'd never felt that way before, but finally how Laura must not be very smart. That pronouncement was no struggle to express, as it was her usual view of people. That was hilarious.

Yulia,
You are helping me to remember the book. I have been getting the mother confused with the mother in SOUTH OF BROAD by Pat Conroy which I recently finished. In both books, the mothers are impossible to please.

I also remember that Russo slams Indiana on the third page of the book since the parents teach at what they consider a second rate university in Indiana. Since I received much of my education in Indiana, I wondered about that. I didn't take offense though. People do like to pick on Indiana, but we can take it (right, Barb?).

Today's Boston Globe Sunday Magazine published a short interview with Russo about That Old Cape Magic (and other stuff). I never knew he lived in Maine (my neighbor -- summers, anyway)!

The link for Russophiles:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazi...

Thanks so much, NE! I liked the last line of the interview about the humor in his otherwise darkly-themed work: "I was going to have to let loose my profound conviction that the world is a very, very entertaining place when it’s not breaking our hearts."

Re: Indiana, Jane, I spent so much time slamming it when I lived there that I forgive others. It took a lot of growing up for me to appreciate its positives. But, there are, at least, two excellent universities in Indiana so I'm surprised that he chose that angle.

I can't think of any author whose every book is a success. Updike was great with his short stories, his early novels, the "Rabbit" books are masterpieces, but his later novels - "neh".
Russo - yes to Empire Falls, Bridge of Sighs. Maybe I'll finish Straight Man. The Cape book sounds interesting, I'll see what the reaction here is.
There are so many good authors, so many books, so little time...
To our reader of "only classics" there are modern classics, too. Have you tried any Pulitzer's lately, or British & Canadian winners? How about Margaret Atwood? Isabel Allende, Good Heavens, there is so much great reading out there. (Good Indiana writers, too to the poster above , Dan Wakefield, Hayden Kimmel, "The Hoosier Schoolmaster"...

I think one shortchanges oneself if one reads only classics. Sure, they're going to be good. The reason they've survived is because they're good. Time has done the selecting for us. The junk has not survived.

If we read the new stuff we have to do our own selecting. Some of them will be awful, some okay, others wonderful. Some may not have the guts to last the years, but they may speak brilliantly to our exact place and time.

Not reading the new stuff is kind of like ordering the prime rib and potatoes every time. It will be good of course, but why not take a chance on the rare salmon with walnut sauce? It might blow your mind.

Yulia wrote: "Thanks so much, NE! I liked the last line of the interview about the humor in his otherwise darkly-themed work: "I was going to have to let loose my profound conviction that the world is a very, v..."
Yulia,
I really like that quote also. Russo views Obama like I do. People are chipping away at him, but that is a subject for another thread.

Jane

Marian, Straight Man is my favorite Russo novel.

Yulia, I appreciate the points you are making about Cape Magic. They remind me of my own reactions when I first read this book. OCM would be very low on my list of favorite Russo books

I will say, though, that I had fun reading TOCM, a response which can't be underestimated, and saw my own foibles and struggles in what Griffin or other characters were struggling with. In no particular order:

(1) I had to laugh in seeing my own mother's barbed views in the prejudices of Griffin's mother. And admittedly, I've thought some of those things myself, if less caustically (though I may very well come off as rude since I speak so bluntly), so it was comical to hear how nastily those views sounded when expressed by someone else. For better or worse, I have no personal experience of exile in the mid-f***ing west (which cracked me up each time, I have to admit, as if it were Siberia). Yes, I actually liked the critical mother, made so vivid and wretchedly annoying yet endearing by Russo.

(2) I appreciated Griffin's dread of becoming like his parents and his wife's chiding him, "Now whom have I heard that from?" or something to the effect when Griffin does express something akin to his mom's judgmental snobbery.

(3) It amused me when someone noted kids always think their parents stayed together for their sake, until they find out it had nothing to do with them. And here I thought I was the reason my parents have stayed together . . . :)

(4) Though not a novel subject in any way, I appreciated Russo's depiction of the struggle it is for adults to cope with their in-laws during get-togethers they can no longer make excuses to get out of without alienating themselves and making enemies of their family-in-law. It takes ages to accept one's own family and know how to deal with them: why must it be pushed on us to deal with the families of our loved ones on top of that? This was certainly a challenge I confronted myself.

(5) I liked how it was made explicit that Griffin won arguments not because he was in the right but because he possessed superior rhetorical skills to gain the advantage. Disputes are often more nuanced than overwhelming personalities would have you stop to consider, but then it takes exceptional skill to rattle off these nuances to explain why a face-to-face discussion may not always be the fairest way to settle a disagreement (hence the beauty of emails).

(6) Russo captured the awkwardness of competing in the same field as one's partner as well as the lurking sense that staying together and fulfilling one's emotional needs may not be the best way to fulfill one's career goals (but was that glittering future all one imagined it could be?).

(7) Finally, despite my frustration with his waiting for a moment of grace to save him from his aggravating stubbornness, I did root for Griffin to get back together with Joy both because she made him a better person and because he made her more honest with herself.

Nor could it be that bad if it's gotten me to now read Bridge of Sighs. :)

Yulia wrote: "I will say, though, that I had fun reading TOCM, a response which can't be underestimated, and saw my own foibles and struggles in what Griffin or other characters were struggling with. In no part..."

Yulia, sorry, but I got may class schedule mixed up, so I'm reading Elizabeth Bowen for class this week and I have next week off. So I will read as quickly as I can Thursday and Friday so I can discuss on Saturday. Sorry - I feel like a slacker :(

No worries at all. I apologize for starting the discussion without you and Sarah having finished it already.

I love those observations, Yulia, thank you.

Bridge of Sighs is the only Russo I've read, and I liked it a lot, without exactly loving it. Empire Falls is the one I want to read (I think it was on the CR Reading List before I found the group).

I intend to read Cape Magic. Just not right now. Too many other books on the plate.

I'm sorry, I'm definitely behind and lagging. My mom was in town and supposed to leave on Sunday, but we discovered U2 was in town last night and seeing them live was #1 on her to-do-before-I-die list. She changed her flight and we were out til 1AM. It was a great show. I'll stop by the bookstore today.