21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
The Gustav Sonata
2017 Book Discussions
>
The Gustav Sonata - Part Three 1992-2000 and Whole Book, Spoilers Allowed (May 2017)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
The original version of this post contained spoiler tags because I didn't want it to dominate the early stages of the discussion, but I have decided to remove them.
Tremain explains that the story originated in a short story (called The Game of Cards, written in 2007) which just contained some of the events of Part Three. For her, the form of a story is normally clear very early and this is the only time she has done this. This was because she felt she had wasted much of the potential of its Swiss setting. She then felt that it would be impossible to keep the events of World War Two out of the story. The resolution was her agent's suggestion that Anton should be Jewish, and to some extent the rest followed. Erich's story is based on real events - the story of Paul Grueninger, a real police chief in St Gallen.
A couple of quotes from the last two paragraphs of the afterword:
"The historical sweep of The Gustav Sonata is wide, going from 1937 on into the 1990s but it's a short book. It's short because the form I chose for it (perhaps owing something to its origins as a short story?) is elliptical and restrained, asking the reader to work a little to fill in gaps in time and to patiently endure mysteries and uncertainties, while they persist".
"I told my editor, Penny Hoare, that the novel would be constructed 'like a Swiss watch' with simple facework concealing complex workings beneath, and this is what I tried to perfect, as I went along. I know that some readers will enjoy discovering precisely how these cogs turn and interact, just as some others will derive satisfaction by understanding how the novel follows the three-part musical form of the sonata: exposition, development and recapitulation. But for others, none of this will be important. Writers can never prescribe how readers should read. All that matters is that the book has life - even if that life began as something differently named and innocently small"
Hugh wrote: "In this section the action moves foward to Erich and Anton's middle age. Did this section engage your attention more or less than the previous ones? "How did you feel about the overall structure of the book? The structure of the book worked for me.
How did you feel about the ending, and were you surprised by it? The ending was surprisingly happy compared to the rest of the book and not how I expected it to end. I was glad for that because Gustav deserved to know he was loved by someone he loved.
Did you recognize that the novel itself is in sonata form? No. It was not until I read some of the reviews you posted in the General theme that I learned how the novel was in sonata form, which was after I'd read it.
How well did Tremain handle the musical elements? I don't know. I thought it worked well but I know little about music.
Did it leave you wanting to read more of her work? Yes. This was the first book by Tremain I have read and I enjoyed it.
You asked in connection with Parts One and Two whether we sympathized with the characters. I wanted to wait to comment on that here because, other than for Gustav, my sympathy ebbed and flowed for most of the characters. These characters were flawed like most of us are. At times we act heroically, while at other times we do things that are distasteful. Emilie, Erich, Lottie, and Anton were like that.
Mod
Hugh, I thought your questions were good starters for thinking about the whole book. I was glad you provided the summary from the author about its structure of the book and the process of writing it. I always like hearing what the author intended and liked that Tremain appreciated that readers wouldn't necessarily connect with that.
Did this section engage your attention more or less than the previous ones?Sadly, neither. But that's because I wasn't engaged by any part of the story. I think it must be just me, but I found the writing style very cold and detached. Add to that that I didn't like the people in the story and you get something that's hard to get involved with.
How did you feel about the overall structure of the book. How did you feel about the ending, and were you surprised by it?
The overall structure is, for me, the only thing the book has going for it. I liked the approach of setting the scene and then going back to explain it and then leaping forward.
Did you recognise that the novel itself is in sonata form?
Yes. I knew about "sonata form" (it was good to see it confirmed in your quotes, Hugh). As I say, I think they way the story was put together was, for me, the one and only good thing about it!
How well did Tremain handle the musical elements?
I think she did manage to write well about music. I liked the quote "Music is so important in a human life. It finds a space inside us that nothing else touches." which I think shows someone who knows something about music.
Did it leave you wanting to read more of her work?
Sadly, no
Hugh wrote: "Tremain wrote an afterword in the UK paperback edition. I will summarise what it said, but I will use spoiler tags here because you may want to post your own thoughts before reading it.Tremain ex..."
Hugh, I’m confused, not just in general but specifically about this thread. Can I respond in open court, as it were, to what you quoted in your hidden spoiler?
Mod
Hugh wrote: "Dan, yes. I just didn't want it to influence the discussion too much too early."Thanks, Hugh, for your quick reply and helpful clarification.
Rose Tremain manages a neat trick in creating Gustav, Anton, and their families as a microcosm of World War II era Switzerland, its moral conflicts and compromises, and its class and cultural divides. Second Two, focusing on Gustav’s father, his affair, and his betrayal, was the strongest and most compelling for me. Section Three, focusing on Gustav and Anton as middle-aged men, seemed useful for further developing the characters of Gustav and Anton, but not for further developing the key moral issues. While Gustav Sonata throughout was compelling, I was left disappointed when it ended: I felt as if all of the plot threads were too neatly gathered up and tied off, leaving nothing to my imagination.After finishing the Sonata, I listened to a Guardian Books podcast in which Tremain was interviewed by Claire Armitstead. In the podcast, Tremain makes the same point as she does in her afterword that Hugh quoted, pointing out that she wanted to construct the Sonata “like a Swiss watch, which is to say quite simple and beautiful on the outside but with a lot of very complex workings going on on the inside” (17:35). In the podcast, Tremain also speaks of how frustrated she was by reading an unnamed novel by William Trevor, because its ending doesn’t resolve the relationship apparently at the center of Trevor’s novel. Interesting to me, because the exact aspects of The Gustav Sonata that disappointed me were those aspects that Tremain wanted to achieve. I often prefer novels and short stories that end with unresolved plots to those in which every single relationship and every single plot thread are carefully resolved. So Tremain succeeded in what she apparently wanted to accomplish in Gustav Sonata, and what she wanted to accomplish just wasn’t fully to my taste.
Mod
Spoilers ok, right?One of the things that ruined this book for me was Emilie's decision to share the money found in her mother's house with Gustav. That seemed so completely out of character that I just didn't believe it. Unfortunately, the rest of the book hangs on the fact of Gustav receiving a cash injection to do all he does and allow the story to complete. Maybe it is just my reading of it, but it would seem more in character for Emilie to say that she should inherit her mother's money, that she finally had a chance to be happy for a while and that she would let Gustav inherit anything that was left when she died.
What do others think? Am I mis-reading Emilie?
Dan wrote: "Rose Tremain manages a neat trick in creating Gustav, Anton, and their families as a microcosm of World War II era Switzerland, its moral conflicts and compromises, and its class and cultural divid..."Dan, I agree. For me, Tremain worked too hard to tie up loose ends and it ended up feeling contrived. Like you, I often enjoy books that leave some things incomplete, so maybe it's just our personal taste as I know others who are annoyed if plot lines are left unresolved. I like it when I can put a book down and think "I wonder what happened to...?".
Mod
Maybe this was a problem created by changing the short story into the novel - Tremain does say that in the original story Emilie was a sympathetic character. I didn't feel that everything Emilie did was selfish - I think Tremain does quite a good job of showing how the traumatic events shaped her character, and maybe this is one of those points she left to the reader's imagination.
There were other things in the final part that seemed a bit strange, particularly the trip to Paris, and I was expecting the story to return to Davos at some stage...
Neil wrote: "Spoilers ok, right?One of the things that ruined this book for me was Emilie's decision to share the money found in her mother's house with Gustav. That seemed so completely out of character that..."
It did not seem out of character to me. Emilie was a bitter woman but, in her own sad way, she loved Gustav. She did not want to be her mother, which is why she returned to Erich. In some respects she reminds me of my mother.
I thought this section was beautiful, but I agree that it was more story development and did not encompass the same complexity as the first two sections. Though I still loved the novel, I agree that it was so nicely tied in a bow. It was surprising to me. I didn't think that's where it would go and how it would end. I don't mind when stories complete, but this was wasn't just completed, it was a bit over the top, in a way, I almost found myself saying "really?" at the end. Little too clean. Still an incredible story for me though. She's a great storyteller, and I'm hoping that the 3 other books I added to my reading list by her are great stories as well. I think she did leave a lot of the complexity there for the reader.
That's what I was left thinking about and grappling with - the moral issues and complexities. (Maybe that is because Gustav's story ended so cleanly, that the afterthought process was all related to parts one and two.) ..."'like a Swiss watch' with simple facework concealing complex workings beneath"... I enjoy when a writer doesn't try to cover too much ground in one story. This really worked for me here.
Hugh wrote: "There were other things in the final part that seemed a bit strange, particularly the trip to Paris"I agree with Hugh on this. I found the trip to Paris a bit strange, but the takeaway I had from the interlude was the reference to Thomas Mann.
"Mann had understood perfectly that a secret passion, unfulfilled, must lead inevitably to physical collapse and so, in time, to death. Gustav only had to wonder where and when that death was lying in wait for him." (page 212)
I think this is why perhaps the ending was surprising to me. This put a gloom over the rest of the novel, so as I was reading and saw the final parts of the story come together, it was unexpected. She flipped the story. The direction totally shifted, and until the last phrase, I kept expecting something else. I liked that aspect overall, but still think the ending was too clean.
I agree that the end was too clean. What made it work for me though, was the prior gloom, as Ernie says. There was so much gloom throughout this book, that I welcomed the resolution at the end.About Emilie's decision to share the money--I assumed she knew by then that Gustav would give her anything she wanted with it, (which he did, if I remember right). With his devotion to her, there was no need for her to wait. And I got the feeling that she didn't have the energy or motivation to figure out how to be happy for herself. She really wanted to be taken care of, and giving the money to him accomplished this.
Mod
Kathleen - that's a good point about the money - thanks.
Did anyone else notice that most of the scenes in this book were set in fall or winter? The only scene I can think of that was hot weather was when Emelie met Erich at the Schlingfest (is that the word?). :) Also, I wonder if Tremain wrote this with the current refugee crisis in Europe in mind?
I have more thoughts to add, but will come back later.
Dan wrote: "Rose Tremain manages a neat trick in creating Gustav, Anton, and their families as a microcosm of World War II era Switzerland, its moral conflicts and compromises, and its class and cultural divid..."Could you post a link to the Guardian podcast, Dan?
Suzy, I believe that this is the correct podcast: https://www.theguardian.com/books/aud.... If not, please let me know and I'll continue to search.
Ugh - this book did not work for me in the end. I loved the first part and was really invested but the middle ruined it a bit and the final part was way too neatly resolved. I really like the aspect that it was written as a sonata - had no idea that was so until I saw your comments here.
My biggest problem with the book was that everything was over-explained - Emilie is a terrible mother because her own mother was terrible, yet she shares the money with Gustav, so she is not too terrible after all. Gustav becomes best friends with his father's mistress and they go on an adventure to Paris (that trip made no sense to me), and he learns everything about his father Emilie didn't tell him. It was just too much. I loved the first part and how Tremain tells us so much about the characters with so few words. And then it was ruined with all these explanations. This is absolutely a personal taste, and I completely understand readers who want closure (considering you rarely get them in real life), but it wasn't for me. The first part was the only saving grace for me.
Kay, I agree except I didn't like the first part either! I liked the structure where it goes back and the. Forward in time. I didn't like much else about it!
Neil wrote: "Kay, I agree except I didn't like the first part either! I liked the structure where it goes back and the. Forward in time. I didn't like much else about it!"I am actually surprised at how close our opinions are this time - we have never agreed on books before :)
:-)The best thing about the book: it brought us together!
Goodreads says we are 72% similar.
Mod
I am pleased that this book is generating a lively debate and plenty of different opinions - as my first moderator pick the worst thing would have been nobody reading the book!
Hugh wrote: "Neil wrote: "Goodreads says we are 72% similar." That sounds lower than I would have expected. Just checked and my scores are 74% with Kay and 81% with you!I am pleased that this book is generati..."
That is why I am very happy about joining this group - even when we don't agree on a book - there is always a nice discussion about it. And Neil and I are getting closer :) 72% sounds so high!
Also, Hugh, great job on moderating. I really like the questions you posted at the beginning of the threads.
It's only comparing the books we have in common. We have 83 books in common but 650+ not in common!But, yes, that's what I like. I don't expect to like/dislike all the same books as everyone but I like a good discussion!
Neil wrote: "Spoilers ok, right?One of the things that ruined this book for me was Emilie's decision to share the money found in her mother's house with Gustav. That seemed so completely out of character that..."
While this book was not my cup of tea, I think one of the things that the author did well with the characters is show that as humans we are not all good or all bad and at times why we act a particular way in a given situation may not be what we as a reader would not anticipate.
So Emilie (and others) were not black and white in their actions but varying shades of gray.
I am enjoying reading all of the comments as when I started reading this book and saw it seemed to be so positively reviewed by so many, I was curious as to why I did not feel the same way.While I understand what others appreciated in this novel, overall it was an ok read for me.
I liked:
- the first part and how the suspense of what happened in the past and what would happen in the future intrigued me to keep turning the pages
- how the three parts of the storyline was like the three parts of a sonata and there was a musical aspect to the storyline
- that the storyline took place in Switzerland and conveyed though the closeness of the warring parts of WWII that Switzerland was "isolated" because of the way news was provided in those days.
- Gustav was my favorite character, it seemed he made lemonade from the lemons that life gave him
What I did not like:
- too often the transition of scenes within the section seemed not to be too smooth
- I often felt I was being manipulated to feel a certain way by what the author revealed about the characters. I wasn't quite sure if this is who they really were but what the author wanted me to believe
- the ending just seemed a little too tidy for me
This was my first book by Rose Tremain. While I am not against trying another book by her, but it is not on my immediate tbr list.
So overall this book proved one again to me - "Every book is not for everyone but every book is for someone."
I love hearing why people don't like a book I did, and like one I didn't. In this case, it was easy for me to be blinded by the things I liked and miss the flaws. What you said, Beverly, about feeling manipulated to feel a certain way about the characters is really interesting--I can totally see that, though for some reason it didn't bother me here.What made the way-too-tidy ending work for me, was the long-suffering of Gustav. Kay makes a great point about the weird trip with his father's mistress, and learning everything about his father from her. I'm probably just being a sap, but after not knowing for so long, after a lifetime of one-sided love, after years of waiting for Anton, this settling of things in his middle age seemed okay to me.
Like you, Kathleen, I am not constitutionally opposed to (relatively) happy endings. There was at least no Deus ex Machina. (At least, I didn't think so).Having had my own awakening from delusions of fame, I very much understand and appreciate Anton's epiphany. He didn't suddenly come to appreciate Gustav but had to pass through hell to find what is truly valuable in life. While the book is about Gustav, that makes Anton the protagonist in the classical sense.
I was perfectly okay with a decent-hearted Gustav finally having requited some of the love he's shown through his life.
Sometimes things do work out. It'd be nice if they always did, but every now and then is acceptable to me.
Kathleen wrote: "I love hearing why people don't like a book I did, and like one I didn't. In this case, it was easy for me to be blinded by the things I liked and miss the flaws. What you said, Beverly, about feel..."One of the things I like about book discussions is to learn and understand how others feel about what they are reading.
Gustav was definitely my favorite character and I so wanted him to find the happiness he wanted and he did, and I was so happy for him.
And my heart did ache for Anton as tried to feel to find comfort within himself.
I also know how I feel about a particular book is based on the timing of reading it and the books that I have immediately read before it.
I think the author wrote the book she wanted to write.
It was a solid read and a book I probably would not have picked up unless for this group.
Mod
Did this section engage your attention more or less than the previous ones? How did you feel about the overall structure of the book. How did you feel about the ending, and were you surprised by it? Did you recognise that the novel itself is in sonata form? How well did Tremain handle the musical elements? Did it leave you wanting to read more of her work?