Constant Reader discussion
Reading List
>
Life after Life by Kate Atkinson - The Discussion
DonnaR wrote: "Loved the article - thanks!"I'm not quite done listening, so I'll join in the discussion probably tomorrow, but I will say, more than halfway through, I'm blown away. Even more so because I'm not a fan of the first Brodie book at all--thought the opening was exquisite, the rest of it a total disappointment. I may have to revisit!
My thoughts: I very much enjoyed this novel which has principally been praised for its unusual plot device—one that I see as a hook or what Hitchcock might have called a mulligan, on which to hang what is a rather conventional, albeit well-written British family saga. Atkinson has an exceptional talent, both for lively composition and intricate puzzles. I appreciate both, but probably more the former than the latter.
This is the first book I have read by Kate Atkinson, and I enjoyed it very much. Although the plot is unusual and somewhat confusing, especially the jumping backward and forward in time, I found it highly imaginative, carefully constructed, and beautifully written. Inspired by mythical ideas of eternal return and reincarnation, Atkinson allows her central character, Ursula Todd, to die many times, only to return and follow a new thread or a different possibility until she perhaps “gets it right.” There is a thematic similarity to the movie "Groundhog Day," to which it has been compared, but I found Atkinson’s treatment more subtle and thoughtful. The many allusions to poets and poetry were a delight.I loved her close-knit family and Fox Corner, her family home, so warm and safe, especially when contrasted with the horrors of the blitz in London. Ursula’s sojourn in Germany was interesting and, given the times, seemed credible. Her short visits with her psychiatrist when she was a young girl were very funny examples of non-communication, yet still served as a suggestion of the novel’s overriding theme of time and eternal return. Dr. Keller’s observations also gently introduced deeper philosophical questions. Did Ursula finally get it right? Certainly Atkinson did.
I loved this book. It's been quite a while since I've plowed through something at this rate. I was glued. I didn’t find the story/stories at all hard to follow. At first I thought the dying/starting over theme was just a gimmick. Couldn’t help but be reminded of Edward Gorey’s The Gashlycrumb Tinies in which quite a few children are killed of in an interesting variety of ways. Which way is she going to use next?
I soon forgot all that stuff though. Atkinson managed to transcend the gimmick with her fine writing and plotting. I abandoned thoughts of Gorey and began to think of Robert Frost’s The Road Not Taken. http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/... Often interpreted as an admonition to take the road less traveled by, it can also be interpreted as meaning it doesn’t make much difference which road you take, life happens as it happens.
The Prologue was a stroke of genius. It planted an idea in my beady little brain that hung there throughout the entire novel. I so wanted it to be true.
Yes, Ruth, absolutely. Thinking of how that would have changed history...
I also loved this book. While the early thought may be Groundhog Day, comparison to some of the time travel literature may be more appropriate. About a year ago, I read Stephen King's 11/22/63, and while completely different, there are also parallels to Life After Life.I got this book from the library, but had a lot going on, so had to return it after getting about a third of the way through. I put my reserve request in, and a month later, got the book again, but I had mistakenly reserved the CD version. I tried to guess what disc to start on, but found that too difficult, so started listening from the beginning. So I had even more of the back and forth than the average reader. But as Katy points out, it is beautifully written, and I never regretted the extra reading.
Atkinson seems to enjoy playing with the characters. "What if she does this?" Or the next time "what if she does that instead?" It becomes a different story, or at minimum, an interesting change. Kind of like a literary kaleidescope.
My first Atkinson also. She is certainly a competent writer. I was initially interested in the rebirth aspects--I often describe myself as a sucker for time-travel--then got bored with it for a bit, thinking, her writing is too good to need a gimmick like this that doesn't seem to be going anywhere. However, as Ursula grows up, I grew interested again in the variations. There's something very attractive in the idea of being able to undo a rape. All in all, it was an entertaining and engrossing novel. However, I found myself wishing it had been a little more meaty. Though the characters came to life, there wasn't much in the way of complexity. (I guess she saved all that for the plot!) This novel reminded me very much of The Time Traveler's Wife, which was likewise very engrossing with hints of cosmic themes, yet in the end didn't seem to have great depth. Maybe I'm missing something, and others can tell me what.
That lack of depth is what kept me from giving it 5 stars.
I loved this book. And I found great complexity in the layers of Ursula's lives--how different they each were based on a change in one moment and how each of her actions to stave off death (or to embrace it) had repercussions that rippled through everyone else's lives. Atkinson calls the plot slightly fractal. It seems we could also describe it as palimpsestic (forgive me if I'm repeating something already mentioned in the thread--I read through everyone's wonderful comments pretty quickly in my zeal to join the discussion).
I just finished reading the book a half an hour ago, so my thoughts haven't quite crystallized. I'm looking forward to more discussion and to hearing what more people have to say. And to thinking more about it.
Ursula became determined to change the past as a result of her multiple lives. Were there other changes in her character that people noticed?
Ursula seemed to grow stronger and more self-possessed from life to life--she seemed meeker in her earliest incarnations, especially in the particularly dreadful one involving the rape and marriage to Derek. She grew more creative about avoiding death in each life, too. I'm thinking about the influenza episodes where she eventually lied to Bridget about Clarence (rather than pushing her down the stairs) and the sand castles to distract Pamela from the waves that killed her the first time around.
I think Izzie changed some, too. She was one of the characters who I didn't like at first, but she did support Ursula (some of the time). She was always someone she could go to when she needed help.
I haven't finished the book so I won't do it, but what happens if you take it apart and arrange the segments in strict chronological order? What I'm thinking is that why Atkinson put them in the order she did isn't fully explained by the fractal or many-worlds conceit which, when you grasp it early on, helps to pull you forward through what otherwise might seem to be just a pile. And yet, mid-book, they are a pile. The bits don't lock in. I have no sense that down at the micro-structural level two neighboring bits should be ordered a-b rather than b-a. Atkinson is too clever a writer for that to be true. Either I am a poor reader or she is working a loose structure like the skin on a basset hound. Interesting.
Sherry wrote: "I think Izzie changed some, too. She was one of the characters who I didn't like at first, but she did support Ursula (some of the time). She was always someone she could go to when she needed help."Izzie's character brings to mind two women of her time, one real and one imagined. The Bolter: Edwardian Heartbreak and High Society Scandal in Kenya, is the biography of Idina Sackville. The cover blurb reads, "The 1920s and 1930s were an age of bolters -- women who broke the rules and fled their marriages -- and Idina Sackville was the most celebrated of them all. Her relentless affairs, wild sex parties, and brazen flouting of convention shocked high society and inspired countless writers and artists, from Nancy Mitford to Greta Garbo. But Idina's compelling charm masked the pain of betrayal and heartbreak." Auntie Mame: An Irreverent Escapade tells the story of an American woman of the same ilk. As we all know, Rosalind Russell immortalized the character in the movie, and Angela Lansbury made her famous in the Broadway musical, "Mame." I liked Izzie from the start. She is the worldly-wise one who knows what to do to rescue and care for Ursula when her traditionally-minded mother turns her out.
Izzie was a favorite of mine, too. I recently ran across a mini-review of a nf book called The Love-charm of Bombs: Restless Lives in the Second World War which is about Graham Greene, Elizabeth Bowen, and other literary types sleeping around during the Blitz, which sounds pretty interesting!The descriptions of the Blitz were superb, I thought. Reading this book made me think of the Connie Willis time travel novels about the Blitz, which I enjoyed a year or so ago. But those novels didn't convey such a strong sense of being there as Atkinson does.
Charles wrote: "I haven't finished the book so I won't do it, but what happens if you take it apart and arrange the segments in strict chronological order? What I'm thinking is that why Atkinson put them in the or..."I hadn't thought about trying to arrange the segments in chronological order and like you I'm not sure that it's possible. But I never felt lost among the lives. I suppose I just assumed that wherever we were after a death was the next life at the moment when she had something tricky to work through--like not dying of influenza or surviving the Blitz.
Kat, I agree wholeheartedly that the Blitz descriptions were superb. I didn't make the connection to the Connie Willis novels (since it's been a while since I read anything by her) but I can see what you mean.
Did anyone else get the sense that Sylvie was at least marginally aware of the many lives repeating? I feel as though that possibility is suggested in the final scene of Ursula's birth when Sylvie pulls out the surgical scissors and tells Bridget, "One must be prepared...There's no time to waste." And of course, Practice makes perfect.
Charles wrote: "or she is working a loose structure like the skin on a basset hound" Great metaphor. I'm guessing that she is in fact working with a loose structure. Beth, I think that's an interesting question you ask about Sylvie. Certainly the "practice makes perfect" phrase is frequent, and I wondered about that final line as well. But it doesn't seem to fit--I mean there doesn't seem to be a satisfying reason Sylvie would have that awareness.
One of my favorite characters was Teddy. Well, not so much him, but the way other people loved him. So many of the lives that Ursula lived had to do with preventing Teddy from dying of the flu. Speaking of the flu--I've never heard of a flu that killed quite so fast, although I know many many people died in that epidemic.The blitz descriptions were amazing. I felt like I was there from the comfort of my reading chair. Atkinson has an extraordinary ability to enliven a scene, not just with visuals, but with all the senses. She uses her research to very good advantage.
A bit of a voice of dissent here I'm afraid. I love Kate Atkinson. I can think of no other contemporary English author who writes so elegantly and with such gentle humour. Her understated erudtion and her story-telling abilities combine to make her something truly outstanding. I've loved all her books and await her newest publications with eager anticipation. This, however, I have found to be the least appealing of her offerings to date. It's not that I dislike it, I simply haven't found it a compelling read in the way that I have with all her other books. I'm not finding any of the characters very endearing, though, against the odds they do develop as the book progresses, but I can't quite rid myself of the feeling that I'm reading a lot of different drafts. Never mind - I've read a lot worse - I just don't think this is Kate at her best.BTW, thank you for the Random House link, Sherry. It was interesting to get a handle on her motivation for the book - though ultimately it didn't colour my opinion.
This was a very satisfying read for me. Once I got used to the rewinds, I found it very inventive, rather than any sort of gimmick (which translates as "tricky" to me, and not complementary). The comparison to Groundhog Day doesn't resonate for me at all, as that is a comedy about a smug, self-absorbed man who needs to learn how to care about other people. As Sherry said upthread, I got very involved with pretty much each iteration (some of them didn't work as well for me, like the stay in Germany, her daughter and the little-too-much-research-showing stuff about Eva Braun!) of Ursula's life. The rape/abortion/abusive husband section was very difficult, but I loved the "solution" when she just kicked the rapist pre-rape.All of which is to say that I found this to be a very complex, involving way of telling a story about (that dreaded word!) a family between the wars and during WWII. My one major regret is that Atkinson didn't follow the thread offered by the guy who saw Ursula solving the crossword and handed her a business card--because I've read a lot in this period, I know that was how people (particularly young women) were recruited into Bletchley Park, the decoding arm of Britain's intelligence service during the war.
As mentioned already, the depiction of the Blitz reminded me of Connie Willis's two books Blackout and All Clear, which I loved, and made me think a lot (as did Atkinson) about what is worth saving in the context of war, and how one faces the inevitable hopelessness. Being a sucker, I did love that Ursula eventually found a way to save Lucky, the dog. :-)
As mentioned, I wonder, too, if other characters had some insight into Ursula, and I'm okay with it being murky. Certainly the therapist did, and possibly Izzie, and yes, the scissors made me think Sylvie possibly as well. But the ultimate ending, with Teddy seeming to say, "Thank you" to Ursula, made me think that he possibly knew, too. It would sort of make sense that as Ursula gained knowledge, so did others, but I don't have a lot invested in that. It's fine with me, either way.
As I said earlier, I have not particularly enjoyed Atkinson before, but it has never been about the quality of her writing, which I find to be extraordinary. The complexity of the structure of this book, along with the consistency of the writing, just blew me away.
Thanks for getting it on the list, Sherry--I probably wouldn't have read it otherwise!
This book, as has been noted, was lighter on the plot. But as a character study, there's something about the technique of showing each character in a myriad of circumstances that really makes me feel like I know these people. Hugh, Sophie, Morris, Pamela, Izzie, Teddy - maybe not Jimmy so much, and of course, Ursula. I think I would know them if met them. The same is true for some of the non-family characters. I can't remember when I felt that way about a novel's characters.
Kat wrote: "Charles wrote: "or she is working a loose structure like the skin on a basset hound" Great metaphor. I'm guessing that she is in fact working with a loose structure. Beth, I think that's an inter..."
For me it opened up the possibility that Ursula was not alone on her journey through life after life. I have to wonder why she is the only one with any agency in these lives--hers are the only actions that change outcomes. At least that is the perspective the reader is given. Of course, the complicated time-line would implode or explode or collapse if every other character's life was woven in and we were to try to follow their journeys, too.
I found it satisfying simply because it was raised as a possibility--a little wink to the reader, maybe. Something to chew on later...
And on second thought--of course the other characters' lives are woven in--what I meant was that we don't see their interior lives, their decisions, their grappling with existence as we do Ursula's.
I forgot to say that the one turn that felt really heavy-handed to me was Izzie's son Roland winding up in the family. Just didn't work for me--although I was really worried that Ursula was going to meet up with him in Germany, which would have been worse!
Sara, I agree with you about Roland. In fact, by this time in the book I felt there was something rushed in it, as though she were trying to get a lot of things in quickly before the end.
Beth, wouldn't you agree that the American who raped her and got her pregnant changed Ursula's life? I actually think the other characters have a lot of influence on Ursula, especially in how she must conduct her life as a result of their decisions and actions.
Sara wrote: "This was a very satisfying read for me. Once I got used to the rewinds, I found it very inventive, rather than any sort of gimmick "I'm having the opposite reaction. Once I found out how it worked I'm having a hard time pushing forward. The book itself doesn't push forward. It oscillates. The people in it are interesting but develop so slowly, because of the structure of the book, that they seem like stick figures. The whole thing reminds me of the Buddhist Great Wheel, which is so agonizing you want to be enlightened in order to get off it. This is really harsh criticism for me, and I am usually tolerant of slow-moving books, but this one is beginning to seem like a lightweight To the Lighthouse. Or to be really snarky, Prufrock's "In the room the women come and go, talking of Michelangelo." Help! What am I missing?
Perhaps this is just not a book to be read on a Kindle, which is looking through a straw anyway. One needs a more capacious view to break down the feeling that it's just one thing after another.
Like most people here, I really quite liked Life After Life. And I've enjoyed reading this discussion as well. But I wonder if Kat and Ruth are onto something, when they say that the novel "lacks depth," as our conversation does seem somewhat limited to a subjective evaluations of the characters and the plot. (I found the same thing to be true during my two-person "book club" discussion of the novel this summer--as much as my fellow reader and I enjoyed Life After Life, our discussion of it remained rather surface-level.) What does this criticism of the novel really even mean? What is "depth"? What does it say about us as readers that we require it, and how, very generally, could Life After Life have been written to satisfy our demand for it?
Regarding the ending chapters, with Ursula killing Hitler in one, followed by her meeting Teddy after the war in the other, what (if anything) are we supposed to make of the inconsistency between these final lives? (I say "inconsistency," because if Ursula killed Hitler, there presumably never would have been a war from which Teddy's life might have been saved.) Emily Bazelon, in the Slate podcast on the novel, speculates that Ursula's cosmic reward for eliminating Hitler may have been her beloved brother's life. And although that idea is intriguing and inventive, it seems like quite a stretch to me (and, in any event, does not resolve the apparent inconsistency between the two lives).
Two additional, less significant detail-oriented things that I haven't been able to resolve:
(1) What was up with Ursula's seeing Sylvie in London, in the company of a strange man, during the day that she was driving around town with Izzie? Atkinson never followed up on that, did she? Was there an obvious implication that I'm missing? Are we to presume that one or more of the children is not (biologically) Hugh's? Is Sylvie's own (apparent?) infidelity intended to help explain why she (Sylvie) is so incredibly judgmental of Ursula following her abortion?
(2) Why did Atkinson choose to end the novel with the seemingly inconsequential Mrs. Haddock? (The Author's Note posted by Sherry seems to provide an answer of sorts, but until reading it, that remained Atkinson's most inexplicable authorial choice to me.)
Chad wrote: "I say "inconsistency," because if Ursula killed Hitler, there presumably never would have been a war from which Teddy's life might have been saved."Myself I wouldn't call this an inconsistency. Every time the story starts over the consequences of previous lives are erased. So first she killed Hitler and then she didn't and Teddy was saved anyway. Presumably it could go on like this forever, after all the other characters are dead for real.
Dead for real may be meaningless. When the story starts up again everybody is resurrected. I might say that Ursula dies to save them (save their sins) except that's just clever and not justified by the book.
The way I am reading the book, when I say "saved anyway" points up how actions lack consequences.
If the book really lacked "depth" (I don't agree with that, anyway), would we have the questions we do? Isn't the point of a novel worthy of further questions and thought, by definition, more than surface?
Sara, I think that is just the problem when we say a story lacks depth. We mean, I think, that something is missing, like leaving the salt out of the stew, but what counts as depth is uncertain. People ordinarily mean the characters, probably, but it could well be something else. As you say, we read as much to connect with ideas as with people. So, if I may, I'll agree with you but still complain the book lacks salt, by which I mean actions which move forward and have irretrievable consequences.This criticism may not have much to do with liking the characters, which many seem to, so it is to that extent a personal preference easy to disagree with.
I'm on a low salt diet, by the way.
Chad, I think both of your points are excellent. I was disappointed that Sylvie's appearance with another man was never followed up. And I reread the final Haddock section multiple times, trying to decide why it ended there. The former is I think just a flaw--a loose end that was missed. But the latter might be worth mulling.I also wondered if there was some point to all the animals: many dogs, foxes, "little bear."
Charles wrote: "Sara, I think that is just the problem when we say a story lacks depth. We mean, I think, that something is missing, like leaving the salt out of the stew, but what counts as depth is uncertain. Pe..."Well, yes, definitely subjective, and can be run around the same track over and over, I guess. :-)
Even the killing of Hitler was apparently done over and over. I don't remember which is which, but the prologue differs ever so slightly than the later killing of Hitler. In one, Ursula says "it's raining" and in the other, she says "it's snowing".
Portia wrote: "Beth, wouldn't you agree that the American who raped her and got her pregnant changed Ursula's life? I actually think the other characters have a lot of influence on Ursula, especially in how she ..."Absolutely! But I also think it is her reactions to the actions of other characters that determine how her life evolves. It's a balance between seeing her as an active agent in her life and a victim of what happens to her. I think that because we see things from Ursula's perspective, we're invited to see her different reactions to Howie from life to life as a working out of how to avoid that victimhood.
I love that the book ended with the seemingly inconsequential Mrs. Haddock, although I can't articulate why just yet. I found it very satisfying.
Beth wrote: "Portia wrote: "Beth, wouldn't you agree that the American who raped her and got her pregnant changed Ursula's life? I actually think the other characters have a lot of influence on Ursula, especia..."Beth, I'm inclined to agree with you, though Howie the rapist seemed a more aggressive character than the Howie she brushed off. Maybe that's the juxtaposition of his character beside firstly Ursula's passivity and then her assertiveness though?
Susan wrote: "Beth wrote: "Portia wrote: "Beth, wouldn't you agree that the American who raped her and got her pregnant changed Ursula's life? I actually think the other characters have a lot of influence on Ur..."I think you're right about the juxtaposition. I think that she shuts him down so completely that he doesn't even consider raping her. She's not a clearly easy target.
I finished the book this evening and just read through all the comments. I very definitely liked this book and the way Atkinson constructed it worked very well for me. The Ursula who continued to return to her life, sometimes at its start, and then at later points, was an evolving person, At first she developed as a child would...she found crude ways to prevent her loved ones from dying, tripping people on the stairs, etc. Then as she matured, she seemed to simply know when it was time to mark out a new path and it would soon begin.Instead of being a victim, she moved to being a woman who made decisions for herself and others. In the end, we don't really know who Ursula will be as we have returned to that snowy night again.
In some ways this reminds me of Case Histories, not for its plot, but for the intricacy of the story, the way Atkinson is able to keep the balls in the air, the story making sense and conveying a compelling sense of the time.
Sue wrote: "I finished the book this evening and just read through all the comments. I very definitely liked this book and the way Atkinson constructed it worked very well for me. The Ursula who continued to r..."A very cogent review which effectively addresses the issues raised in this discussion. The connection to Case Histories is apt and instructive. Thank you.
Charles wrote: "Sue wrote: "I finished the book this evening and just read through all the comments. I very definitely liked this book and the way Atkinson constructed it worked very well for me. The Ursula who co..."I concur. The deft weaving of the interrealted stories reminded me a lot of Case Histories.
And what skill it took to weave those stories. I'd hate to have to make a diagram of how they work together.
Ruth wrote: "And what skill it took to weave those stories. I'd hate to have to make a diagram of how they work together."Exactly. Which is why I didn't feel any of it was less than very carefully thought out.
It amazes me that Atkinson is able to work with material like this, so intricate, and create living, breathing humans (excuse the hyperbole) that we can care about. All those men and women working in the streets during the Blitz---I did feel sad when learning their fates.
Sue wrote: "It amazes me that Atkinson is able to work with material like this, so intricate, and create living, breathing humans (excuse the hyperbole) that we can care about. All those men and women working ..."Yes! the lovely man who called all the injured women "Susie". And so many others.
And the horrible image of the mounds. I've never encountered that image before when reading anything about the Blitz.
I just finished this book this afternoon and have enjoyed reading all the comments here. I have read almost all of Atkinson's novels and am a true fan. I have found each book almost impossible to put down.This book made me think again and again how much the future can hinge on an avoidable act. At the same time, I think Atkinson's experimentation with the form of the story (repeated lives), fascinating as it is in its own way, is something of a detriment to the story as a whole. I'm such an old fashioned novel reader that I kept asking myself, what really happened - which, of course, begs the questions, since all the possibilities had their own reality.
Like Chad, I found the last story about Teddy (much as I loved him) was dissonant with the chapter before in which Hitler was murdered. Was Hitler replaced by another leader, or is indeed this reality just as feasible as all the other possibilities?
What do you think? Would the novel have been stronger, if the last chapter had been a variation of the first - Hitler's assassination?
I think that the Teddy chapter and the repeated birth chapter show that Atkinson did not want a final resolution - only endless variations. If that was indeed Ursula's fate, she has my profound sympathy.
In spite of the format, this novel does have some deep emotional impact - particularly the sections involving her rape and the brutal marriage, as well as Ursala's deep love of her little German daughter in war devastated Berlin.
Kate Atkinson is indeed a wonderful writer.
Ann wrote: "I just finished this book this afternoon and have enjoyed reading all the comments here. I have read almost all of Atkinson's novels and am a true fan. I have found each book almost impossible to ..."So wonderfully put, Ann! You raise a great question, too. Because the endless variations didn't bother me at all, I don't know that I think it would be a stronger book for having the ending echo the beginning. It would probably be satisfying for having a sort of symmetry. I am satisfied with the idea that there is no real ending (although I can see how that would be exhausting for poor Ursula).
To me the ending suggests that the story never ends, just keeps repeating in different variations. I can't speak for Atkinson in terms of her intent, but it seems a marvelous example of how stories work. They are always in process. I remember explaining this to my freshman at UC Davis back in my graduate school and lecturer days when I taught them about the conventions of writing about literature. We always speak of things in the present. "Hamlet laments his inability to act." "Blanche relies upon the kindness of strangers." My students always wanted to write about these things in the past tense as if they had only happened once and were done. This characteristic of fiction is highlighted by the never-ending-ness of Ursula's story.
And I agree with you: Kate Atkinson is a wonderful writer.
Constant Reader
Books mentioned in this topic
Life After Life (other topics)Dear Brutus (other topics)
Blackout (other topics)
All Clear (other topics)
The Love-charm of Bombs: Restless Lives in the Second World War (other topics)
More...
Here is an article I found very helpful after I had finished the book. In it you get to see a little bit behind the scenes of Atkinson’s mind at work.
http://www.randomhousesites.co.uk/TWP...