21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
The Dig
2017 Book Discussions
>
The Dig - Whole book (Spoilers allowed) (July 2017)
date
newest »
newest »
Beautifully written and atmospheric novel, with the added benefit of providing me with ideas for how to deal with gopher burrows in our yard. The Dig continues to engage me after I finished it, particularly because the wonderful ambiguity of the ending. I would be interested to learn what others here think happened at the end of the novel.
Ambiguous is a good description of the book's ending. While I know this is the thread for spoilers, it is only the first day of the month, so I'm putting my response to Dan's inquiry in a spoiler. (view spoiler)
Mod
LindaJ^, Hugh, Thanks to you both. That was my thought as well. And that explains the (view spoiler)?
This was definitely a very graphic book - I am not one to shy away from violence - hello, real life - but there was one specific occasion where I had to take a break from this tiny book.I thought Jones's writing style was beautiful and simple and presented the violence and suffering in the novel very matter-of-factly, which both made for an emotional connection to the story and did not feel exploitative.
For the ending: (view spoiler)
On a separate note, is "boar" used as a synonym (slang?) for "badger" in Wales or was that just a way to hide that it is a badger?
Mod
Hugh wrote: "Kay, On your specific question, I believe male badgers are called boars too - I didn't question that but the Wikipedia article on the badger confirms it"Thanks, Hugh.
Hiya folks! Longtime lurker, almost first-time poster. Really looking forward to hearing more in-depth takes on the conclusion of this thing. I didn't spend enough time with this one, instead going through it at a sprint. While I am normally a fan of the spare writing style, I found this little book so pared down that I came away with very little to hang on to. I think this is both cause and effect of my rushing through. Didn't feel much connection to the characters and certainly didn't have much of an emotional response, occasional disgust aside. A couple scenes of extraordinary cruelty were about all that stood out.
I can't seem to read anyone's comments about the end, which struck me not so much ambiguous but unfinished, but if it went the way it seems, I'd judge that a disappointment as well. On the other hand, I did find the last bit of the epilogue to be clever if not entirely satisfying.
I just finished the novel so some thoughts will be messy. What struck me other than the scenes of cruelty is the significance of the black lamb. In the book Daniel keeps the half dead lamb, hoping it will be alive because a black lamb has to be offered to the devil.Just as Daniel is ready to investigate the noise, the black lamb dies - Does it mean that evil has arrived? I think Daniel dies in the end and is meeting his wife and in the epilogue justice has happened.
I'm also sure that the stillborn lambs represent something as well - Daniel's current life?
Is Daniel like the badgers in the book? or is it the big man, if I interpreted the epilogue correctly.
I liked a lot of things about the book - the writing, the way Jones makes the big man hate-able from the beginning .
There is much going on here. About the epilogue, I interpreted the way you did, Robert, that the big man became the badger in the end. The dogs sniff him out. "He has nowhere to go" ... "tries to use the thick blanket like a hide."I also assumed Daniel was killed, but I don't quite understand how exactly. I should go back and re-read that scene.
I agree: the big man undoubtedly takes the role of the badger in the end. Robert, nice catch with the black lamb. I missed the significance of that entirely. In light of that, the last chapter seems much clearer.I'm curious about the style and tone. Has anyone read another novel from this author? Are his works typically bleak and spare? Did you guys find the language and detail presented here evocative in the way people think of works from Hemingway, McCarthy, etc.?
More after thoughts:Daniel means: God is my judge and the big man is a slang for God.
So maybe Daniel is the sacrificial lamb after all.
The badger is an animal that digs - digging means seeing beneath the surface, hence something we are instructed to do as it's the title of the book??
on another note - style-wise this novel reminded me more of Magnus Mills' The Restraint of Beasts.
Mod
One of the reasons I wanted to discuss this book was that although it is memorable and easy to admire the subject matter makes it a difficult book to love. For me the violence and brutality was necessary and a more explicit ending might have tipped that balance the wrong way.
I have not yet read anything else by Jones but I would like to - I am also hoping to find time to re-read at least some of this one while the discussion is active...
Robert wrote: "Daniel means: God is my judge and the big man is a slang for God."
Robert, that is interesting! God as the big man - that takes things even deeper than I thought originally.
I was also going to ask if anyone has read Jones before - I would definitely look into his other books.
Not sure I agree with the Hemingway comparison. Yes, Hemingway also does this type of direct, simple prose, but this book felt more evocative.
I'm so glad you chose this book, Hugh, because without your recommendation I never would have read it.I agree with you, Kay, that this was more evocative than Hemingway. I kept thinking of the quote that Hemingway wanted to write one true sentence and Jones did just that I thought. Several of the descriptions left me thinking, "Yes, I've never heard that described quite so accurately before, but yes, that is it exactly."
Mod
Having seen the earlier comments about the big man's fate paralleling that of the hunted badgers, there are plenty of lines in the epilogue that suggest that Jones intended this, for example "Lights blind his eyes, a dog barks inches from his face. There is nowhere to go. He has nowhere to go."
As for Daniel, I think the key line is the last line in the penultimate chapter before the italics: "The spade coming was like the wing of a bird.". I find it hard to interpret this any other way than Daniel being hit by the spade, though whether by accident or intention is unclear. Heaven is one possible interpretation of the italicised section that follows, but it could also more prosaically be the kind of hallucination commonly reported by those who survive near-death experiences.
I thought that the last italics part was Daniel remembering his wife while he was dying but I guess it could be heaven too.
I'm still thinking about this too! So the spade could have been thrown just to get rid of it? (Not unlike the way Daniel threw the ... um ... lamb's head into the woods--to avoid the paperwork and let nature take its course?)
If I remember correctly, it was night and stormy/foggy, so it is possible that Daniel got in the way of the spade when they were digging or maybe they thought he was a badger? I didn't think that Daniel's motivation in throwing the lamb into the woods was to avoid paperwork. He didn't particularly like the paperwork, something his wife had always done, but his motivation, I think, was something different.Equating the big man with God? Have to ponder that for awhile.
I have been away so just getting to write my comments.I am so glad this book won as I had not heard of this author/book before it being nominated here.
I so "loved" this book and can say I am a big fan of the spare novels/novella that are well-written as The Dig is.
I loved the spare poetic language and I thought that paragraph format gave this novella a narrative poetry feel.
The wonderfulness of finding a new author to follow!
I will be reading more by this author.
One of my favorite lines in the book is:"Sometimes you to choose between a quick misery or a slow misery."
While Daniel recalls this advice from his father when he has to make a decision regarding a difficult "lambing", but the advice recalled how the badgers were "violently" made helpless to allow/prolong their death so the dogs could more effectively attack the badgers and that provide the thrills for spectators.
For me this was another example of the contrast between good (Daniel) v evil (the Old Man) despite both living in the same hard scrabble environment.
Kay wrote: "This was definitely a very graphic book - I am not one to shy away from violence - hello, real life - but there was one specific occasion where I had to take a break from this tiny book.I thought ..."
I agree with your ending regarding Daniel and the Old Man!!
Oh i just remembered lamb is a sacrificial animal in both Judaism and Christianity. To keep his sheep farm Daniel goes through sacrifices as well
Mod
Mod
Felt to me like Daniel and the Big Man were kind of two sides of a coin--the former being about fostering life while dealing with death (his wife's) and the latter doling out death while having very little life (or human connection). But what really marveled me besides the absolute beauty of the prose was the way Jones constantly connected and perhaps fuzzied things. Sometimes he'd juxtapose scenes like the tragic death and removal of the stillborn lamb followed by the brutal death of the badger fighting the dogs, and sometimes he'd sort of weave in and out of scenes (the head of the lamb harking to his wife's injured skull and then back to the lamb; the final dig for another badger going on with Daniel thinking of the sounds as the digging of his wife's grave; the final capture of the Big Man paralleling the badger fight/being trapped). I thought this technique kind of amplified everything, like a mirroring effect further tying the two men together.
How did you read "the shard" in terms of what it meant to the story and/or to the characters?
Marc wrote: "Very much enjoying all the comments and insights posted above.Felt to me like Daniel and the Big Man were kind of two sides of a coin--the former being about fostering life while dealing with dea..."
Marc, I don't know about "the shard," but your comments are very helpful to me in better understanding why I was so captivated by The Dig.
Mod
Mod
Marc wrote: "Very much enjoying all the comments and insights posted above.Felt to me like Daniel and the Big Man were kind of two sides of a coin--the former being about fostering life while dealing with dea..."
I love your thoughts on the prose and how the author so effectively contrasted nature and the characters connection to the land. The author had sure every word counted and provided a full reading experience in less than 200 pages.
Another aspect of this book that I thought was wonderfully done - is the depiction of Daniel's grief - it was so poignant and gut-wrenching. My heart ached for Daniel.It was impossible that she was dead because his feelings for her had not diminished at all. It is the ability of a person to bring a reaction in us that gives us a relationship with them, and for the time they do that they have a livingness to them.
I keep thinking about "the shard." I like carrisa's thoughts but I'm thinking it might have even more meaning. Wasn't it being removed as part of converting more land to pasture? I keep thinking it has some connection to how Daniel wished that farming had not become so controlled by rules, like keeping track of every thing on paper (or I suppose in a computer file!). He wanted farming to be like it used to be. It seems his wife did the recordkeeping and now she was gone. Was the removal of the shard just more of his world falling apart? Not doing a very good job explaining but that the ripping out of the shard was so devastating to Daniel that it most have torn at something really personal.
Mod
I thought so too, Beverly. I could feel Daniel's love for and grief over his wife. Just beautiful.
Mod
He was feeling a disappointment and betrayal that the shard had to come out of the ground. He had mythologized it as a child, a piece of lightning solidified there, a great sword, had over the years battled to move it himself. He thought it the gut of some truck or implement long abandoned and it was a mark for him. Like the mole she was self-conscious of above her hip. It felt wrong to remove it. It was right in the line of the ditch and it had to come out but he was disagreeing emotionally with what they were doing...
He was unsettled at the shard coming out of the ground, as if it would bring a wrongness.
...
He could not disassociate the [Big] man coming from the moving of the shard. As if it had conjured him.
He thought of the shard, lying there, a snapped bone. Something stricken. He wondered briefly again what it was. It worried him that there was no imagination in him. There was just a hollow, dead unknowing. Somewhere within him, the anger about the man coming onto his land.
...
He had a sudden fear for her, a belief someone had touched her or was going to touch her and harm her again. It was inexplicable.
This is the first time Daniel and the Big Man meet. Any loss to Daniel seems like a reliving of the loss of his wife. It's like the topography of the land is tied to the topography of her body...
Rereading this--it did make me wonder where his wife was buried--does anyone recall? Would there be any reason for him to think any digging on his land would upset her grave or is this merely Daniel sort of internalizing the land as an extension of his wife?
Mod
I can't remember if this was a moderator pick or the winner of the poll. But, I am glad to have read it so thanks to whoever was responsible! I doubt I'd ever have stumbled across it on my own.
Mod
I was originally planning to post a few introductory questions here, but the early responses are interesting enough already. Feel free to say what you think, and suggest any questions that might be interesting.