Sophie & the Sibyl - Part One (some spoilers allowed) (Sep 2017)

[Hugh]

This topic is for discussion of Part One (Chapters 1 to 12). Spoilers to events in this section are fine but please do not discuss events in Part Two.

[Nutmegger]

The narrator role here is interesting. I wonder what will be exposed about the author.
It looks like I may have to read up on Lucian and his writings.

[Casceil]

The discussion of The French Lieutenant's Woman was interesting--how it viewed Victorian sexual mores through the eyes of someone from the 1960's. I read that book forty years ago, but don't remember much about it. It seemed a very random thing to throw in here, though.

[Hugh]

According to the Guardian review Lucius/Lucian is fictional.

[Lily]

At somewhere between 80-100pp tonight -- the book is across the room and it is too late to go fetch it. Has been a fun read -- neo-Victorian -- so far. I was frustrated with some of the early sentences, fragments, and metaphors, but immediately enjoyed the wry humor. Has been interesting to consider so far against all the hullabaloo about "fake news" -- to think about where "truth" ends and "non-truth" begins. (I happen to be one who uses words to say that fiction often contains truth, even if its plot/story factually never happened.)

It caught my ear/eye that the publisher/bookseller's name is the same as our author. (That is explained in background notes at the end, which I did peruse, also probably in one of the reviews which I haven't read yet.)

It appears that all the epigrams are from Eliot's novels/writings. My current playing with sharpening my reading techniques suggests paying attention to them, although I can't say that I have been super-successful so far.

I want to know what happened in Chapter 17 of Adam Bede without going and doing the research, although I have a guess. (I believe I buried my copy in storing some books this past week and won't be able to readily retrieve it. Someone helped me with the boxing and we didn't create master lists. :-()

[Hugh]

Thanks Lily - I do have a copy of Adam Bede somewhere but I'm not sure where to look for it - it is probably more than 20 years since I read it! Might have a look tonight if I remember.

[Hugh]

... or you can Google it: "in which the story pauses a little" and George Eliot sets out her commitment to realism... sounds like a chapter that deserves a reread.

[Lily]

D--I just lost a post again!

Anyway, this is one of those times when Cliff Notes can be helpful: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literatur...

The Wiki entry for Adam Bede is a little wider ranging on later criticism of how G.E. treated "realism" in the tale -- especially relative to the existing social expectations for stories.

[Nutmegger]

Hugh wrote: "According to the Guardian review Lucius/Lucian is fictional."

Hum, then who wrote Timon?

[Hugh]

I am not an expert!!

To quote the relevant passage in the review:

"Readers tackling this novel may find themselves wildly Googling as they make their way through its hall of mirrors. For example, emphasis is placed on the figure of the classical poet and philosopher Lucian, enthusiastically discussed by both Eliot and Max. Yet he seems to be fictional – “the Latin Lucian, not the Greek one” – though by page 222 he is Greek after all. A classicist ascribes De Natura deorum to him, though that appears to be by Cicero in our world. Whether this is a slip or not, who knows? It all adds to the postmodern fun – or as Duncker maintains: “Truth and imagination are not at odds with each another.”"

[Kathleen]

I'm not sure how to put into words what's giving me a little difficulty with this, but I'm going to try!

In the dialog parts with the Sibyl and Lewes, lots of ideas and references are brought up. This is interesting and makes sense and I can follow even though I obviously don't understand all of the subjects or references. It's intriguing and fun to listen!

But I feel like she is doing this in the narration too, and it isn't working as well for me. For example, just when I start to think, "Okay, this description of the building boom in post-war Berlin could be interesting," she drops that and goes onto some other obscurish thing.

Maybe this is postmodernism? Or maybe she is imitating the idea-laden conversations in her narrative? I don't know, but I'm trying to just go with it ...

[Peter]

I find that when I read this book, I'm enjoying it, but oddly, I don't feel particularly compelled to continue reading. It's possibly something about all the talking heads, it's possibly something about the narration, and it is highly probably something about all of the characters' enormous self-absorption.

I find it an interesting book, but I'm not sure it is a successful novel. But I will continue reading for now.