21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
The Gustav Sonata
2017 Book Discussions
>
The Gustav Sonata - Part Two 1937-1942, Some Spoilers Allowed (May 2017)
date
newest »
newest »
Hugh wrote: "This topic covers the second section of the book, on Emilie and Erich's marriage. Once again, I will post a few starter questions...How do you feel about this section being set before Part One?/i>
Great question. When I started Part Two, I was a bit put off by it coming second and not first. But I soon changed my mind. I would have truly disliked Emilie if I had read this section first, which I think would have been unfair for reasons I will leave unsaid until I comment on the book as a whole.
How much did you know about Switzerland's relationship with Nazi Germany and how it affected the Jews? I knew a little - enough not to be surprised and to have no problem believing what happened in the book.
Did you sympathize with Erich, Emilie, both or neither? Again, I will leave my answer to this question to when we discuss the whole book, other than to say that neither was faultless.
How do you feel about this section being set before Part One?The structure of the book was my favourite thing about it. I think it worked well to set the scene and then go back to see how things had got to that point.
How much did you know about Switzerland's relationship with Nazi Germany and how it affected the Jews?
I had enough understanding of WWII to appreciate what was going on although I hadn't heard of the person who inspired the character of Gustav's father.
Did you sympathise with Erich, Emilie, both or neither?
I did sympathise with Erich. As was said somewhere in the book, we never know what choices we will make until we are forced to make them. Or something like that - I can't remember the exact quote. But Erich was, I think, the only person I felt anything positive towards. I was hoping that Parts 2 & 3 might help me grow to understand some of the other characters, but Part 2 just made me more cross with most of them!
I too thought the structure worked really well. Part one set up my curiosity about what led to Erich's death, and why Emilie acted like she did. Then Part two shed light on that. I had only general knowledge of Switzerland's relationship with Nazi Germany, and found that part so interesting. Especially after reading The Remains of the Day earlier this year. (I'm ready for more fictional accounts of this period from different perspectives, in case anyone has suggestions.)
Kathleen wrote: "I had only general knowledge of Switzerland's relationship with Nazi Germany, and found that part so interesting. Especially after reading The Remains of the Day earlier this year. (I'm ready for more fictional accounts of this period from different perspectives, in case anyone has suggestions.) "I can recommend a couple of fictional books that address the post-WWII world and relate back to the pre-war and war years. Some cover a broader period.
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.,
The Crooked Maid by Dan Vyleta,
Those Who Save Us by Jenna Blum,
The Dark Room by Rachel Seiffert,
The Collini Case by Ferdinand von Schirach,
The Illusion of Separateness by Simon Van Booy,
Lucky Us by Amy Bloom
LindaJ^ wrote: "Kathleen wrote: "I had only general knowledge of Switzerland's relationship with Nazi Germany, and found that part so interesting. Especially after reading The Remains of the Day earlier this year...."Oh, what fun. Thank you so much, Linda! These all sound intriguing, and have the added bonus that, with the exception of the Vonnegut, I haven't heard of any of them! I'm thinking of starting with The Dark Room, but will hope to get to all of them eventually. How nice of you to share this. :-)
Great list...I've now added The Dark Room as well. I also liked the structure of the novel, and I do feel it really worked in favor of the story. Though I still enjoyed this part of the novel, I did not find it as elegant as the first section. I found it a bit more jarring, and I'm not speaking of events in the novel, but just the language and the writing. I'm not sure "jarring" is the right word, but it felt more forward and direct in a way that the first section did not. Perhaps that was intentional...the entire perspective and feeling changed in this section, which is understandable. It was indeed frustrating at parts, in regards to the characters, but they felt real. Even though this took a step into the past to fill in the blanks, so to speak, it moved the story forward.
Ernie wrote: "I did not find it as elegant as the first section. ..."Ernie - do you think it has anything to do with the switch to present tense?
Q. How do you feel about this section being set before Part One? A. I was fine with it
Q. How much did you know about Switzerland's relationship with Nazi Germany and how it affected the Jews?
I have read a great deal about it and am familiar with this part of history
Q. Did you sympathise with Erich, Emilie, both or neither?
A. I sympathized with Emilie in that she had been an unwanted child of a cold mother, and I am sure this unfortunate situation impacted her relationships. Also, in that time period, being the child of an unwed mother would have carried significant stigma. Regarding Erich, I sympathized with his decision to help the Jews, even knowing that his actions would eventually have a negative impact on his life.
Regarding Neil's question above, regarding present tense, I am not normally aware of the tense, but in the case I was very aware of it. Since this section pre-dates the first, I would have liked it more if it were in the past tense.
Another question for the group:
Did you find Erich's behavior erratic or consistent?
I found his fit of temper with Emilie (when she lost the child) to come "out of the blue" and was not prepared for it.
Another observation - it appeared to me Emilie was suffering from post-partem depression, but back then I doubt it would have been diagnosed.
Neil wrote: "Ernie - do you think it has anything to do with the switch to present tense?"Yes, I do feel that had a big part to do with it, and it really worked for me. I think the choice to do that keeps the reader engaged and more in the element. I don't know how it would have changed or been different if it had been written in the past tense...if at all. I saw the switch to present tense mentioned in one of the reviews, but nothing was really said about it except that it happened. I wonder if she had an intention here.
Neil wrote: "Ernie wrote: "I did not find it as elegant as the first section. ..."Ernie - do you think it has anything to do with the switch to present tense?"
I didn't even notice the switch. I suppose that was because I was so engrossed in the story.
That's really interesting.I remember starting that section and thinking "Interesting...she's gone back in time and forward in tense".
I guess it might be because I WASN'T so absorbed in the story - I know I am in a minority here (of one, I think) but I really didn't like the book, so I think I was a bit more detached from it as I read it.
I will admit that this was my least favorite section.My mind wandered in spots and I found myself sighing in parts.
How did you feel about this section being set before Part One?
The format of the book was fine. I thought that Part One did a good job of intriguing me in wanting to learn what actually happened to each of the characters prior to the events in Part One.
I think part of me not being so engaged in this part is probably related to "reading fatigue" of WWII stories.
How much do you know about Switzerland's relationship with Nazi Germany and how it affected the Jews?
I believe I have a good understanding of the relationship between Switzerland and Nazi Germany. And a good knowledge on how this affected the Jews.
I think the author was realistic in how the characters were portrayed and their understanding what was happening outside their immediate world. Most people do not know how they will actually react in a situation until it confronts them and in those times, the news often received was filtered by what the governments shared to others and what other covert reports revealed and a lot of times this did not filter down to the average person.
Did you sympathize with Erich, Emilie, both or neither?
What a trouble marriage they had. At their initial meeting we see an aggressive and spunky Emilie, where marriage just undid her and what she thought her life would be with Erich. And there was just not any options for women. Neither of them, really knew each other as their relationship resolved around sex. Losing a child is very difficult and is often causes breaks in a marriage to crack open.
So after reading this section I had a better understanding of the characters and their situation.
Mod
I loved the structure of this book, reminding me of Tessa Hadley's The Past (a favorite). Tremain whets our appetite in the first part for finding out what happened to Gustav's father. It explains that and other things about why Emelie is so filled with hatred of Jews and undone by her change in circumstances. It's as if she married her husband's title and when he lost his job, she also lost her identity. I did not notice the change in tense of this section. What drew me in here is Erich's sympathy for the Jewish refugees and the dilemma that put him in. He followed his conscience which put him in great jeopardy, but I think he believed that he would not be caught. It made this sad situation sadder when he was exposed. I'm glad he found some comfort with his former boss's wife, even if temporary.
I mentioned this in the previous comment thread, but this book felt very real to me. People were living in the shadow of war, whether before or after WWII and it played havoc with people's lives. Switzerland's neutrality added another layer to this, as its citizens perhaps felt superior to other countries who entered into the fray, but their neutrality made them complicit in the plight of the Jews.
I liked that we got some explanation for Emilie's behavior but I am getting closer to Neil's position on this book (shocker). The change in writing was jarring for me, and I think the writing style as a whole changed, not just the tense, in this part, which is just not working for me. I was much more invested in the characters in the first part and now I am just bored by them. I think the story in this part moved too quickly, and I had no time to sympathize with Erich. He went from an admirable human to terrible husband in no time. I really enjoyed the first part of this book but the second is just not working for me - maybe the end will tie everything together well?
Kay wrote: "I liked that we got some explanation for Emilie's behavior but I am getting closer to Neil's position on this book (shocker). The change in writing was jarring for me, and I think the writing style..."When commenting that I was sympathetic to Erich for taking a stance on allowing Jews into the country, I had forgotten how terrible he was to his wife! His striking her and causing her miscarriage was just the first of a cascade of events that led to their downward spiral. I did not notice the change in writing style in this section, but perhaps it matched the frenetic pace of the build-up to war and the fraught nature of their relationship? I still feel overall that the book feels "real", not painting black and white portraits of the characters or situations.
Mod
So much of this story seems to depend on perspective, as well as what each character knows or doesn't know about the other. It wasn't right for Emilie to blame Jews for Erich's death, though from her view, she doesn't really understand what else might have gone wrong because she doesn't know about his relationship with Lottie. I didn't find it much easier to empathize with Emilie in this section but I found her distance from Gustav more understandable. She lost her first Gustav, which seemed to throw her entire marriage off course, she lost her husband, and suffered from postpartum depression from the child she'd been hoping for for such a long time. Her mother, Irma, also acts similarly to how Emilie acts towards Gustav when Emilie comes back from the hospital in Part One. Irma demands Emilie take care of her and does not really care that she is the parent, which feels similar to Emilie accepting the food and care Gustav presents her and ignoring the fact that her 10 year old son was left on his own for a while.
21st Century Literature
Books mentioned in this topic
The Dark Room (other topics)Mother Night (other topics)
The Crooked Maid (other topics)
Those Who Save Us (other topics)
The Dark Room (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Kurt Vonnegut Jr. (other topics)Dan Vyleta (other topics)
Jenna Blum (other topics)
Rachel Seiffert (other topics)
Ferdinand von Schirach (other topics)
More...
Once again, I will post a few starter questions, but feel free to add more or comment on anything else in this section.
How do you feel about this section being set before Part One? How much did you know about Switzerland's relationship with Nazi Germany and how it affected the Jews? Did you sympathise with Erich, Emilie, both or neither?