Dept. of Speculation - Whole Book Discussion (July 2017)

[Marc]

Since this is a rather slim book and a relatively quick read, we'll keep to one thread for the overall discussion (spoilers allowed). If there are specific topics participants would like a separate thread for, speak up and don't be shy.

A few questions to get us started (feel free to add your own as you comment, choose one, ignore them all, or share your own comments/reactions):
- What are the various ways "speculation" plays out in this novel?
- How would you characterize the writing style in this novel? Was it one that worked for you (pulled you into the novel, added to the momentum, etc.) or not (made things more confusing, left you feeling unconnected, etc.)?
- Is ambition ("art monsterhood") always at odds with marriage and/or motherhood?
- Offill references a great many other writers, books, facts, quotes, etc. How did this intertexuality impact the story for you (made it deeper, felt pretentious, reminded you of just how smart you are, etc.)?

[Richie]

There is some utterly beautiful writing on this work, light and fast and poetic. I just couldn't shake off the feeling that the author desperately wanted Zooey Deschanel to play the lead role in a film of it. The title, the secondary characters, the scenes all just a little too kooky. And the switch of perspective at the moment of disaster and then again to a third at the denouement. I get it, I think, but artistically that didn't work for me. Have the confidence to see the voice through to the end, I say

[Marc]

What impact did the switch in perspective have for you, R.S.W.? And why do you think Offill made that choice? If I'm reading you correctly, it sounds like you're viewing it as a lack of confidence in her vision--is that a fair assessment?

[LindaJ^]

I liked this book right off the bat - it was funny and had me chuckling to myself. But I didn't like it so much when the perspective changed and the narrator changed from telling the story about herself to telling the story of "the wife." The wife was not likeable. The wife was whiney.

Now as to some of your specific questions --

Is ambition ("art monsterhood") always at odds with marriage and/or motherhood?

No. It isn't for fatherhood and it shouldn't be for motherhood. The narrator in this book seemed to think it was.

Offill references a great many other writers, books, facts, quotes, etc. How did this intertexuality impact the story for you (made it deeper, felt pretentious, reminded you of just how smart you are, etc.)?

I liked the intertexuality. Seemed realistic to me. Situations remind me of things I've read, quotes I remember, facts, etc, and I've been known to comment on them.

[Casceil]

I finished the book last night. I liked it, though I liked the beginning more than the end. I could really relate to parts of it, like the discussion of other moms at the preschool. I was never quite sure what the narrator meant by "art monsterhood." Was it ambition to be successful as a writer?

[Marc]

I think "art monsterhood" was used as a way to sum up that kind of total, all-consuming dedication to art and making it as an artist. So, while I would agree with LindaJ that making it as a writer might not be at odds with being married or being a parent, I do think the wife's initial, perhaps romanticized, notion of "art monsterhood" might well have been at odds with domestic life. (I was just watching The Defiant Ones documentary series, which is largely about Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre--they're portrayed as "geniuses" in the music industry, but you get brief snippets of the exceptions and burdens their respective spouses handle to make this possible. In, what seemed like a relatively equitable marriage in terms of sharing chores/parenting/etc. in this book, no one character could have simply followed their muse/artistic vision. Some might simply call this "growing up" or being an adult, but we frequently accept a certain level of irresponsibility in our artists or geniuses in their pursuit of a vision.)

[Marc]

I'm glad you also touched on perspective, LindaJ. It seems like a narrative choice that's been dividing quite a few readers thus far. In addition to making the wife more annoying, did you find it changed the pace or momentum of the story?

[Hugh]

Just finished reading the book. Some very interesting thoughts already but I would like to let it percolate a little before saying any more...

[LindaJ^]

Marc wrote: "did you find it changed the pace or momentum of the story"

For me it did. Up until then, I was briskly moving through the book, enjoying the humor. Then my pace changed as suddenly the narrator stepped back and began telling us what "the wife" was thinking and doing. That was sort of a jolt. The book was no longer as enjoyable. It soon became annoying.

[Casceil]

I did not find the shift annoying, but I did feel less involved in the character's life once she became "the wife." The character expressed so much less joy, she seemed to be trying to distance herself from her own life.

[Mike]

I'd describe this book as a "sketch novel" - descriptive with essential features of a novel, but without all the usual details. I found the style inventive and refreshing; different from anything I've ever read, but I also wonder if I may have grown tired of the format if the book had been much longer in length.

I found the shift from first person to third person narrative midway through the novel highly effective. There was a fundamental shift in her perspective and perception of the husband and their relationship after the infidelity; switching to third person allowed the wife to see and express the problems of their relationship as less unique, personalized and special; provided the literary distance necessary for her to tell this painful portion of the story; and perhaps made their relationship and its problems more commonplace and relatable.

Does the narrative return to first person in the last chapter and does that imply anything?

My most memorable line from book:
"Taller? Thinner? Quieter?
Easier, he says."

[Hugh]

For me the whole thing worked very well - I really enjoyed the style and the humour, and felt that the core narrative seemed much less hackneyed as a result. I do agree with those who preferred the first half, but there were a lot of ideas in the second half that would not have worked as well from the first person perspective. I liked the way that some of the earlier tangential material gained greater significance later. If I had more time I would re-read it - I think a second read would pick up more of the connections and allusions.

[Casceil]

I agree, Hugh. I also feel like I would get much more out of the book on a reread. You mentioned that some of the earlier tangential material gained greater significance later. I thought that was very well done, and I wondered if there were other connections I missed. I read the book in small chunks over several days, because that was what I had time for. Reading it in a more concentrated block of time would most likely have been better.

[Dan]

Casceli wrote: I agree, Hugh. I also feel like I would get much more out of the book on a reread.

I first read Dept. of Speculation in 2014, and then reread it just recently. I agree with Hugh and Casceli: I definitely appreciated it more on rereading. But—and this may speak more to my memory than to Offill’s novel—it completely slipped my mind between first and second readings. Even now, having reread it only recently, my memory of Dept. of Speculation is more a feeling of what it evoked in me than a memory of any specifics. And yes, Offilll’s style in Dept. of Speculation did remind me of Satin Island, although I found Satin Island more memorable and affecting.

[Kathleen]

Interesting comments! Unlike some of you, I actually thought the second half deepened the novel, and liked the story more as it went on.

I think Dan's comment about not remembering the story is really interesting. For me, that is what lowered my rating a little. It was enjoyable, but not one that stays with you. I wonder how much of that is due to the style?

I did enjoy the read very much. I liked the Art Monsterhood idea, and think it does have to do with a romanticized idea of art, in the same way that you can have a romanticized idea of domesticity and motherhood.

[Marc]

Very much appreciate all the thoughtful comments on this thread! I, too, had that feeling of remembering this more for its feel than for the details. This was my second reading and I worried I might like it less, but I ended up appreciating it more.

With respect to the change in perspective, I went back to see when and how this took place. In chapter 21, the main character is researching about "the cosmic love story"--the romanticized version of Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan only to find out some key details are missing as revealed in how the sound recording for space was put together:

The kiss was the trickiest sound to capture, the engineers said. Some of the ones they tried were too loud, others too quiet. In the end, the kiss that landed on the record was one that Timothy Farriss planted on his fiancée Ann Druyan’s cheek. The intern takes his yellow marker and highlights this for me. The blip in that cosmic love story then. Ann Druyan was engaged to marry Timothy Farriss while they were working on the Voyager project with Carl Sagan and his wife, Linda. Then Carl and Ann decided to get married. The news took a while to reach Linda and Timothy. Or so my intern says. But when Ann Druyan tells the story, that part is missing, like a record that skips...
So there it is, the famous cosmic love story. But like most love stories there turns out to be more to it. This timeline doesn’t make sense, the intern writes in the margin. Isn’t Sagan already married?

It's another example of how Offill uses ancillary/historical material to either comment on or set up what's to come. And then Chapter 22 is where the shift in perspective actually occurs. It begins with the question "How are you?" and the repeated run-on answer "soscaredsoscaredsoscared". Third person is used from there to the penultimate chapter. I saw this as having two major purposes: 1) It's like a traumatic split--she's acknowledged the infidelity and the break in the relationship and become distant from herself (the way the brain protects individuals from trauma by blocking memories or creating split personalities only not quite so severe here); and, 2) She no longer knows herself, as well; it's like watching another person.

As Mike pointed out above, the return to first person is not until the last chapter, at which point the emphasis is on the collective pronoun "we" and not just "I". (Offill strongly juxtaposes this against the "us" that frequently upsets the wife when the husband is talking about his lover.)

The details in this book and the way in which they were interwoven conveyed such a real sense of character and emotion to me. From humorous points like the wife texting a complaint about the husband accidentally to him to her reading about "the wayward fog" (theory that affairs lead the cheater to see old life/wife as irritating and new life as dreamy) and answering "Weather" when the husband asks her what she's reading. And there are the points where details connect across greater sections of the book (e.g., chapter 32's "Wait does she have bangs?" referencing chapter 19's revelation that the husband never liked the wife's bangs and she never liked his glasses; or, in the final chapter, the husband tucking a leaf into her pocket somewhat reminiscent of their early romantic years when he explored the pockets of her new jacket).

Some criticisms I read:
- The daughter almost disappears entirely from the second half of the book despite her being one of the most interesting characters and her relationship with the mom being rather well told--did this bother any of you?
- The husband's perspective isn't given much time/weight--was his character too flat? He's just continually described as good and kind and then cheats on her.

[Clarke]

Marc wrote: "Very much appreciate all the thoughtful comments on this thread! I, too, had that feeling of remembering this more for its feel than for the details. This was my second reading and I worried I migh..."
I wouldn't say the husband is "flat" in the sense intended by E.M. Forster -- just not greatly developed. But then I only read the book once, and perhaps am not the best judge.

[Kathleen]

I think the husband's character was too flat for a "normal" story, but it worked for this one--to focus only on the wife. Still, since finishing this I find myself thinking about him, how unbelievably perfect he was portrayed. Well, except for that one big flaw ...!

[Peter]

Mike wrote: "I'd describe this book as a "sketch novel" - descriptive with essential features of a novel, but without all the usual details. I found the style inventive and refreshing; different from anything I..."

I think the effect is a little bit like the author had written a more conventional novel, then deleted all the sentences that didn't seem interesting. Mind you, as pointed out in the no-spoilers topic, it has been done before (which is, of course, no reason not to to do it again).

[Marc]

I agree, Kathleen, that although the husband's character is not too fleshed out, it does work well for this story.

Another thing that struck me was when the wife attributes the husband's goodness to not being touched by tragedy, as she and her sister were at a younger age. Is it fair to cast those as not touched by trauma as somehow innocent or pure? It seems like a kind of distinction that only those who've felt that level of loss or pain make. Not just in this book, but in others, and in real life (just last night, my wife was watching a special commemorating the 20th anniversary of Princess Diana's death and her eldest son described it as becoming part of "the saddest club in the world").