do you also find that...

[Lotifi]

It's been a while since I read this book but I remember I loved it partly because I felt like most things were conveyed through silence than words. I regret that I can't give any examples of this but this novel marked my memory as 'the book of the unsaid'. Did you also feel that way or am I just imagining things?

[LindaJ^]

I read it awhile ago, but thought it was shallow. I think I was looking for more about the painter and his work, so my disappointment was likely self-imposed by expecting something else.

[Lotifi]

Though I like the book, I agree as to its not giving much information about the artist. I think it must be because the book's purpose was telling the love story, or whatever you call it. The focus was on the girl rather than on him... (if I remember correctly of course... ;))

[C.P.]

I loved this book—and the painting that gave it life. I agree that the silences say more than the words, and that half the charm of the book comes from that.

[Hayley]

I thought it was a great book. It's not a work of non-fiction. Chevalier, I don't believe, made any claim that she was writing anything resembling a Rembrandt biography. It was just a cool story, and I think it would have been a lovely story had she made up the artist's character out of her head and it had nothing to do with Rembrandt.

As for the telling more in the silences, I agree with you. I think the whole setting of artist studio and description of colours really sets itself up to be told that way - in what's not spoken. A great writing talent.

[Angela]

Hayley wrote: "I thought it was a great book. It's not a work of non-fiction. Chevalier, I don't believe, made any claim that she was writing anything resembling a Rembrandt biography. It was just a cool story..."

I think you mean Vermeer, and not Rembrandt.

[Hayley]

Angela wrote: "Hayley wrote: "I thought it was a great book. It's not a work of non-fiction. Chevalier, I don't believe, made any claim that she was writing anything resembling a Rembrandt biography. It was ju..."

Oh right! ha ha. :)

[Quiltyknitwit]

Yes, sometimes the most subtle novels stay with us the longest. There is a power in making us (the readers) infer and fill in the lines. Also, in modern times we're used to people talking all the time and constantly spelling things out. I suspect in previous times people were more circumspect.

[Nikki]

I loved this book, and agree that there was much left unsaid, which is its charm. I sometimes think that authors try too hard and lose something in the process. This book doesn't challenge your language skills or ability to concentrate - but it does challenge or rather prompt the imagination. That's one of the things I love most about well written books.

[venlandiahymni]

This must be one of my favourite books ever, and that's quite a lot coming from me, since I'm very critical with books.
The story was so simple, and I felt like I was Griet. I could find myself sitting in a rollercoaster, wondering what would happen next. So fascinating and captivating.

[Jane1812]

I love this book as well. The beauty is what is left unsaid. I felt it was a powerful romance between Griet and Vermeer. It did not need explicit scenes of lovemaking.

[Geoffrey]

Quiltyknitwit

People are still as circumspect as ever. I suspect that as you change to a more verbal circle of friends they´re less circumspect.

[Geoffrey]

Nor did the explicit scenes of lovemaking exist. I believe that is the power of the novel in that it describes feelings that weren´t ever consumated by lovemaking but the two had extremely strong feelings for each other. For many people such a situation is impossible to imagine, but they exist a lot more than one would think, especially when the dictates of social propriety are firmly in place.

[Barbara]

I really loved this book, which was one of the best audiobooks I ever listened to. The narrator, whose name I cannot remember, did a superb job of conveying Griet's emotions. That may be why I don't remember it being such a "quiet" book.

[Bluebell]

Yes definitely I agree - I also think the atmosphere the author creates contributes to that feeling of quietness.

[Anne]

I quite enjoyed the book, despite there not being much going on. The film was beautifully shot, but slow moving. I was left feeling 'is that it?'

[Bluebell]

I agree Anne, the book is definitely much better than the film!

[JennyClay]

I just love that book. It`s one of my favorite. I remember that I found an article about this book at australian writings and I really liked the feedback about it. That`s why I decided to read it.

[Roberta]

I too enjoyed the book, particularly the imaginative creation of the girl from the painting. I did not expect to learn much about Vermeer, not much is in fact known. He is known through his paintings and I think she choose well to give life to the painting rather than making up the character of the artist.

[Robert]

Lotifi wrote: "Though I like the book, I agree as to its not giving much information about the artist. I think it must be because the book's purpose was telling the love story, or whatever you call it. The focus ..."

This book had very little to do with the artist, that it is fiction should have been a dead giveaway. I too thought much was said through things not said. This book is outside my normal reading but really enjoyed.

[[deleted user]]

The film didn't do the novel justice. I liked the idea of giving life to a character through the painting - this gave it a surrealist feel and we experienced Vermeer through this. Well written too.

[Shiva]

It was emazing

[Amy]

I, too, loved the subtleties of the book and the things left unsaid. The emotions were much greater than they would have been otherwise.

[Hyunju]

This was the first book I ever read in English and I love it! Agree totally that the movie did not do the book justice - mainly because so much was internalised by Grief, rather than spoken.