Traveller’s Comments (group member since Jan 14, 2015)

Traveller’s comments from the On Paths Unknown group.

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "I'm sure there's something important about Julian saying she's dead."

She could be "dead inside"? Or, her conscience could be dead?

It could also be that she is now dead to him because he knows, and he was only being sarcastic when regaling things to Mrs Wright?

...or, the girl that he once knew is now "dead"?

Or, it could simply be a reference to the fact that she is always hiding in the shadows because she is afraid of people?

Or, Ockham's razor says he was simply mixing things up like when he thinks Charles is his own father or the other brother.

I apologize for the error in the news letter that I have just sent out ; I had mixed up my links to the Banned Books and the 1001 Books; due to time pressure I didn't check my links before posting. I do apologize! Unfortunately GR only allows me to broadcast one message a day, so I cannot send another message to correct my error.

Also, for some reason, Goodreads does not allow one to preview group messages the way you can do with PM's and reviews. Oh boy.

THREAD FOR DISCUSSION OF PART 1 : IT WAS A PLEASURE TO BURN.

Hello everybody!

We thought the well-known novel by Ray Bradbury might be a good way to celebrate our "banned books and freedom of thought and speech" project, so do come and pop in even if you've already read the book.

Looking forward to your participation.

Since we're already a bit behind on our schedule with some of our other books, I'm not sure I wouldn't want to postpone this one a bit, but I know Amy needs to finish it by December 31 for her Sugar-pop challenge.

As for me, I am happy to postpone discussion until such time that people have time for it, especially since I really want to do the Bradbury which is coming up next week.

@ Linda re your spoiler: Yes, but then they would still be alive at the start of the story at least.
(view spoiler)[You're right, they could be ghosts at the end, but re the library books, remember, the reason for her not taking the library books back, was because Charles arrived and then Charles insisted on going in to town instead of Merrikat.

Then the fire and subsequent mobbing happened while Charles was still there. Obviously the 2 girls didn't feel they could go into town again after the mobbing.

Maybe the townsfolk believed they were ghosts because they didn't respond, and that is why they started leaving gifts. But Helen Clarke knew they were alive because she saw their food cooking on the stove. Also, I'm not quite sure ghosts would bother with cooking and eating, and finding clothes to wear? (hide spoiler)]

Oops, there might be a small spoiler in there for this stage of the book, sorry.
(view spoiler)[ I think she only takes (and later breaks) the watch later? (hide spoiler)]

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "I have to say I wondered about Julian's comment too, but I can't really think of a way the story works if Merricat is actually dead. But I don't think Charles ever does talk to her. he talks to Con..."

I think he does directly talk to her at the start, and then gives up and starts talking to Jonas, typical manipulator that he is.
...but if Merrikat was not there, how would he know she doesn't like him, and why does he get angry at things she does and says it has to stop and she has to be punished? Hmmm, unless Merrikat is a ghost, of course. I suppose the whole story -could- work if Merrikat were a ghost, but how do you explain that she fetches supplies in the village and carries things like books, and she took the gold watch and breaks glasses and mirrors etc. and buries things in the garden still, and builds a barrier against the people from the village, etc

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Just google it. :) "

Very funny :) (I did, but I didn't get any good results). It looks like it was banned by individual libraries rather than a government ban from those links; ..."

Did you read the articles though? A prominent Bishop (bishop of Wakefield) had it burned, in fact. I think he did a public burning of it.

" In 1893, not 15 miles from Bradford, the Bishop of Wakefield not only publicly burnt Thomas Hardy's Jude the Obscure but made sure that the Yorkshire Post knew the time and place, and then managed to get the novel banned from all circulating libraries in his diocese" https://books.google.com/books?id=4hb...

Hmm, that might not be in the entire Britain, but at the very least, the book was challenged and banned in some areas. Why this one bothers me so much is that Hardy was so upset that he never wrote a novel again - and his novels are all basically written with social activism in mind.

Yolande wrote: "Also the fact that all the Village people can see and pester Merricat. ....."

Yes, of course, there's that as well, plus the fact that Constance stays at home, so how would she know where Merrikat goes and what she does when she goes out? Plus it would be rather wierd for her to narrate as if she is seeing the world through Merrikat's eyes.

..but the fact that Ruth had that thought is, I suspect, typical of the doubt that the narration sows in one's mind, because you instinctively feel that something's off...

PS, this makes me think about stories (there are several) where the twist at the end is that the narrator realizes that he/she is dead, and has been all along ...

About Jude: http://melissadunn2005.tripod.com/id5...

http://pinkmonkey.com/booknotes/barro...

http://www.baumanrarebooks.com/rare-b...

http://blogs.swinburne.edu.au/library...

http://linguaglossa.blogspot.com/2009...

..and many more. Just google it. :)

Ruth wrote: "Doesn't Uncle Julian say something to Charles when he's in a more lucid state (chap 7, I think) about Mary having died in the orphanage. Maybe she is dead, she exists only because Constance 'sees' ..."

Ha! Though he might have been in a less lucid state, because Merrikat giggles at the idea that Uncles Julian thinks she is dead. (Or complains about it? ) Plus Charles also talks to Merrikat, (in fact, does constant battle with her) so hmm, I do suspect that's Uncle Julian being mixed up as usual...

Yeah, speaking of India, I see they're very busy bees when it comes to banning books. :(

Ruth wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Jonathan Livingston Seagull was banned? :O On what grounds?"

If I remember correctly, it was for showing reincarnation."

Sigh. Sometimes I think the Dark Ages never passed.

Matt wrote: "Here's a another scary and long list. These are the authors whose books were banned by the Nazis. So I guess we could add all the books by these authors that were published (or not published as it ..."

Wow, just wow. Ditto as for the previous comment. :(

Matt wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Oh do join our challenge"

Okay :)"

Nice! You already had a shelf to add there. I found it interesting, btw, how many of these "banned" books are also on the 1001 list.

Matt wrote: "Here's the place I usually consult when looking for banned books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

I've made me an extra shelf for those:
https://www.goodreads.com..."

Oh do join our challenge, since you have so many on your shelf already, Matt! https://www.goodreads.com/challenges/...

Yolande wrote: "Eh? Banned for containing a loveless marriage? That's a strang reason. Did they want to pretend such marriages do not exist and that everything is moonshine and roses? So silly."

In Queen Victoria's world, certainly, yes. I think Hardy was subtly campaigning against the fact that people were not allowed to divorce.

Speaking of silliness, a lot of the reasons for banning appear pretty silly.
@ Derek: did they remember to ban Aesop's Fables?

Jonathan Livingston Seagull was banned? :O On what grounds?

Let's post comments on Amy's list here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I have in the meantime created a challenge in this regard here : https://www.goodreads.com/challenges/...

Ruth wrote: "These chapters gave me an earworm (going on 4 hours now, grrrr ), and I have decided to share it with you all. I prefer The Women Folk's version but the recording on YouTube (like my vinyl) is scra..."

That's absolutely delightfully macabre, Ruth! Yuck! Hahaha, it had me chuckling in glee like an old witch, and I really cawed at the ending! I'll avoiding mentioning a spoiler for the song's ending, but how very very fitting for We Have Always Lived In The Castle! XD

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "Traveller wrote: "and Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy for heaven knows why.... "

The reasons were Obscure?"

Heheh, indeed! Jude the Obscure for reasons Obscure. :D Some kind of indecency, ah, according to the internetz, " It was banned for mentions of suicide, issues of loveless marriage, religion, sexuality, and illegitimate children. " Sigh.