Suspenseful Clues and Thrilling Reviews discussion
This topic is about
Fake Like Me
2019 Monthly Reading
>
June Reading: Post-Discussion
date
newest »
newest »
Benjamin wrote: "Thanks!"Sure thing!
Chelsea wrote: "Hello friends, and welcome back to our monthly reading/discussion! This thread is for discussions after you have finished the book. Please note that spoilers are allowed in this thread, so please d..."I'm about 75% of the way through it and cannot wait to get home tonight and finish it! The inside look into the art world is such a leap outside of my reality, but I'm really enjoying it and have several theories regarding what happened to Carey Logan - we'll see if any of them are correct!
For those interested, I'm including a conversation with the author via the publisher:A Conversation with Barbara Bourland
1. While both of your novels share your incisive wit and flair for vivid detail,
Fake Like Me is a very different book from your debut, I’ll Eat When I’m Dead. What brought you to this particular story? Are there ways in which you see this as a continued exploration of a certain theme in your work, or are you just following your creative instincts wherever they take you?
The tones are of course quite different, as each book matches [its] tone to the subject material. Personally, I see more similarities than differences: Both books are about women’s work; women’s bodies; women’s selves as self. My work focuses on women as we stand, not in terms of our relationships to others (mother, wife, daughter, etc.). Both novels focus extensively on the costs of our lives. In terms of IEWID, I don’t want to know what makes a beautiful woman “feel beautiful”; I want to know how much it costs her. It’s the same with Fake Like Me: I don’t want to hear some lyrical romantic fairy tale about women’s artwork. I want to know how hard it was. How much does making a painting as big as Joan Mitchell’s or Helen Frankenthaler’s cost a person, exactly? What does it cost to be ourselves?
2. One of the most unforgettably immersive parts of this book is the way the
narrator abandons herself to the creative process; the descriptions of oil painting are so real as to put the reader inside the work herself. Do you have a background as a painter? If not, how did you make this part of the artistic process come so alive?
Well, I love painting. I absolutely love painting, though I’m personally not very good at it. I minored in studio art in college and have an ongoing studio practice
(drawing and ceramics) that is personally satisfying, although definitively noncommercial. Beyond my own base knowledge, much of the research for this book was conducted by going into artists’ studios, often tagging along with my husband, Ian Bourland, for his magazine writing (he teaches art history at Georgetown, and writes extensive history and criticism, though mostly about photography, not painting). I thanked the artists whose techniques and material habits I stole from most egregiously in the acknowledgments. As for how I made it come alive—I think the key is materiality. I tried to avoid compositional description because I don’t find it to be imaginatively connective; it’s boring and almost surgical to say, “It was a painting of a horse.” That’s all fine and good for catalogs and wall text, but for a novel I think it’s far more evocative to focus on materials. I.e., instead of, “It was a painting of a horse,” you write, “It was a painting, two inches thick, made from beeswax and pine sap.” With the latter, I think your imagination can really go somewhere.
3. Your characters operate on a plane beyond simple “likability,” where the idea of their needing our approval, as readers, feels beyond the point. Yet these are also very real people who crave acceptance, love, and acclaim. Can you talk a little bit about what your process is for writing such deep humanity into such complex people?
I love this question because it’s a compliment, and I really wish I had a better answer for you! To be honest, it’s neither choice nor process. All I do, as a writer, is sit down and throw out line and see what comes back. If I catch something real enough, I keep it.
4. This is a literary novel about the New York art scene that reads like a
thriller. Did you start out intending to write one kind of book, or the other? How did the novel come together?
From the beginning, I hoped to follow the creation of a body of work alongside the narrative pursuit of an actual human body, without being too clumsy in one way or the other. The edit process was fairly long, but I think it was for the best—we shaved each chapter down, bit by bit.
5. Has there ever been a Carey Logan–like figure in your own life?
Nearly. The circumstances surrounding the death of Emma Bee Bernstein, a photographer who committed suicide inside the Peggy Guggenheim museum in Venice, [have] haunted me since it took place in 2008. Emma was barely an acquaintance—we met only twice, and she was several years younger than I— but the death itself was shocking. I have wondered since it happened if any action so tragic can ever be interpreted or validated as anything other than suicide. In greater contemporary art history, I’ve always been fascinated by the atmosphere surrounding Francesca Woodman and Ana Mendieta, both of
whose postmortem hyperglorification struck me as both hopelessly romantic and wildly unfair. Woodman and Mendieta had, like every other female artist, to die in order to be taken seriously. Lee Lozano, too, who made a commitment to leave the art world and die in an unmarked grave (which she did), is hugely fascinating to me, and I genuinely think her Wave paintings are a window to the divine. They’re shockingly, absolutely arrestingly, good. Yet she got pushed out—or pushed herself out—somehow.
Hi friends! I just finished the book. My full thoughts can be found HERE. Feel free to share your Goodreads reviews in this thread as well so that we can come like them! I think the idea of a nameless narrator worked really well for me; it was unique and kept me wondering if we'd find out by the end. I was surprised by some of the twists but not all. Overall an enjoyable read! Definitely more literary fiction than thriller IMO though.
Thank you, Margitte! I really enjoyed this one.
Good review, right on point!
I don't know if I even want to review this book, since there are few issues which can be approached from a different angle and will render different perceptions of the book. Perhaps it was meant to be :-)I did not like the protagonist. We don't have to always like or sympathize/empathize with our protagonists, right? She was killing the hen who laid the golden eggs for her. Instead of being grateful, and learn from it, she was whining, played the victim. However, I did understand her feeling of loneliness and strong conviction to succeed. She was a real trooper.
She was willing to lie and commit fraud to safe herself, but was upset about others doing the same.
From Chelsea's list:
Question 1. Bourland never names the narrator of Fake Like Me. Why do you think she made
that choice? How would the book have been different if she had?
My impression was that this novel was built around an issue, and the characters were just the pawns to get a message across.
You represent women. You shouldn’t route the trafficking of our identity politics through some gaudy money dump that only exists as decoration for the world’s richest people,” I insisted. ...Word dumping filled a few pages, perhaps too many, and was contrived. Therefore, the anonymous protagonist did not need a name. If she has been named, the story would have a warmer soul, and the reader could relate or bond better with her. The overall ambiance of the book was slightly sterile, even when love did find a way into it. LOVE ( or was it lust with an agenda?) became a means to an end in this case.
...For the first time in my life, I had buckets of money, and I put every cent into Rich Ugly Old Maids, the show that I was making for Milot. I spent the next two years on seven paintings: Humility, Obedience, Chastity, Modesty, Temperance, Purity, and Prudence. ...
... They were an exorcism of the words that named them, from the guilt that had dogged me through years of wondering how I was supposed to be a person who pursued only her own interests, who was never aligned, who was never part of a family, who did not wake up every day ashamed of herself for being childless and alone. I was not pure of heart, chaste of body, obedient to authority, humble before others, prudent in my actions, temperate in my behavior, or modest in my appearance—and I no longer felt bad about it. I was free from the burden of being only a girl. I had become an old maid, a woman of my own, a master of my medium. They were my crowning glory. And all seven of them were in my loft on the day it burned to the ground.
In other words, the book was not about the characters, it was about the issues.
I enjoyed the book for its easy flow and wordsmithery. For readers who won't be placing it within a wider social or historical context, it will be an enjoyable read.
Question 2. The prologue mentions “dramatic rumors of an as-yet-unseen final work” by Carey Logan, the artistic prodigy who committed suicide. In those early chapters, did you have a guess as to what that posthumous piece might be? Were you right?
I had no idea. It was a good angle. But think about it. Van Gogh the painter, and people such as Elvis and Michael Jackson, were brands. Many people made money out of those brands. All three died either by suicide or 'overdosing'. Carey Logan was a brand, managed by people who worked hard and all made money from it, using the actress as 'the face'. How many actresses and models have been used as 'the face' of a product? Hundreds, perhaps millions. A music band is also a brand.
Another angle: if it wasn't for Max de Lacy promoting the protagonist's work, she would not have made it as big as she did in the end. She made loads of money, yet resented Max for helping her. Instead she was angry with the group, including Max, who were born in a privileged class and could become successful as a result. She felt used. She wasn't. If they have used her, she would not have made so much money and become independent. Instead, her stupidity caused her paintings to burn down. Again, she blamed someone else (the artist on the lower floor). If she stored her paintings as was requested by the gallery, she wouldn't have such big problems. (and we wouldn't have had a good story too) :-))
Question 4. ...Discuss what this means in the context of the book’s larger questions around authenticity and commodification.
It was the right thing to do. She showed determination, commitment, responsibility. I still cannot decide if it was fraud. She replicated the paintings exactly. It's still her work. She delivered them as was advertised. She came through as a champion, in my opinion.
Question 5. In chapter two, the narrator observes that “art has a way of putting everyone at their most transactional. I’m invisible until someone calculates my value.” What do you think she means by this? Do you agree? Do you think this applies only to the art world, or do you see parallels in other parts of life?
It happens everywhere. Men are the most transactional when it comes to marriages. Everyone has some sort of value. Another example: when someone change course, or change their lives, or whatever, or even their political viewpoint(stop what they were doing), the person lose a lot of 'friends'.
Question 6. Discuss the following description of painting: “One of my professors once told me that she started all of her paintings with a photocopied picture of her parents and the words FUCK YOU scrawled across their faces...All artists are of course doing that same thing: We are burying our past selves within the work, pieces of which rise to the surface without our permission like bodies in a flood.”
Of course we do bring our past with us. Baggage, nice or nasty. But I disagree with the "Fuck You" message. For me this 'message' belong in a realm where everything that formed our world must be destroyed. It differs, for instance, from all religious teachings in which young people are constantly reminded to honor and love thy parents. As we know, religion is frowned upon nowadays, since it does not fit into a revolutionary narrative.
Question 7: What do you think of our narrator’s friendship with Max de Lacy? Is it an “authentic” friendship? Why or why not? Do you have any friends like Max in your own life? Have you ever been someone’s Max?
Constantly. On a daily basis. But unlike our dear protagonist who feel so sorry for herself, I play those kind of 'friends' at their own game. We both know it's not a real friendship, more a friendship around business. And we all benefit. My real friends are those who dreamed and battled with me in school and university. We move mountains for each other without expecting anything in return.
Question 8. Jes seems set up to be the villain in the book, the possessive girlfriend who knows more of Tyler’s secrets than anyone. How does your feeling about Jes change over the course of the book? Is our narrator’s wariness of her well founded?
Jes was a plant. A decoy. I felt it from the beginning. Too obvious.
Question 9. Why do you think our narrator identifies so fully with Carey Logan? Is she right to have done so?
I won't say it was right. It was more natural. Coming from the same social strata, being pulled into a business deal they did not understand that well (due to inexperience) and not being successful on her own terms. The benefits were lucrative enough for both of them to not break away, yet they felt used. If they thought it through they could have had a different outcome.
Question 10. How did the twist—the multiple twists—in the book shape your feelings about the characters? Did you find yourself having to recalibrate your impressions of any of them?
Not really. It was a slow evolution from one dimensional to multi-dimensional as the characters were developed and the plot proceeded.
Question 11. Do you feel the narrator made the right choice in the end? Why or why not? Would you have made a different decision?
With her baggage and approach to life, her decision was expected. She stayed in character. The ending confirmed to me that the novel was not about the characters, but about the underlying message(intent) of the book. It was blunt - sterile, without heart. As it was suppose to be.
She did grow in the end. Despite everything that happened, she was able to stand on her own feet, without those friends. And she realized that they were human, just like her. Most importantly, she did not have to be like them, to succeed.
I loved the author's way with words. This paragraph made me wiggle with joy : It was almost a shrieking—I heard it all so quickly. Wind battered the trees; birds screamed at each other. Cicadas rattled their exoskeletal cages like a jailed Christmas choir, and somewhere behind me, the vast, empty lake beat against its rocky shore. The outside world shrank and fell off the edges, like a twig going over a waterfall, and I had the sudden sensation of total solitude. These were the deafening sounds of human absence.
Overall, I enjoyed the book. It will be a four star rating.
Margitte wrote: "I don't know if I even want to review this book, since there are few issues which can be approached from a different angle and will render different perceptions of the book. Perhaps it was meant to..."I loved your dissection of this novel, Margitte! <3
Thanks, Chelsey :-). I really appreciate the author's character analysis. So well done it was. So much can be explored, but I would rather like to read more opinions than my own.
Just finished it. I’m finding it difficult to review this one. I liked it and then I didn’t. It was thrilling and then it was not. Overall I’d give it a 3.5/5. I liked that the narrator chose her own path moving forward and didn’t fall back into a relationship with Tyler. Also glad she planned to cut ties with Max. She was a snob and most definitely not an authentic friend. She was a fraud of a person. She was incapable of real relationships,
The end was good but I kept thinking there was some sort of sinister twist around the corner and set myself up for disappointment.
Angelo wrote: "Just finished it. I’m finding it difficult to review this one. I liked it and then I didn’t. It was thrilling and then it was not. Overall I’d give it a 3.5/5. I liked that the narrator chose her..."
I agree with a good bit of what you said, Angelo!
Thanks Chelsey! Looking forward to discussing July’s book. :)
Feel free to add your original thoughts here, but I also wanted to include a discussion guide via the publisher for prompts as well:
Reading Group Guide
1. Bourland never names the narrator of Fake Like Me. Why do you think she made
that choice? How would the book have been different if she had?
2. The prologue mentions “dramatic rumors of an as-yet-unseen final work” by
Carey Logan, the artistic prodigy who committed suicide. In those early chapters, did you have a guess as to what that posthumous piece might be? Were you right?
3. When the narrator meets Carey in the first chapter, Carey warns her, “These
people will make not only your work, but you yourself into a commodity. They’ll buy you and sell you. Let them. But make sure you always do it on your own terms.” What did Carey mean by this? Would you say that the narrator took her advice, or not? In your own professional or personal life, did you ever get any advice that shifted your trajectory, or that you carried with you for years afterward? Did your understanding of that advice change over time?
4. When the narrator’s loft catches on fire and her massive paintings burn just
months before they are set to be exhibited in Paris, she loses two years’ worth of work. Rather than admit that she has nothing for the gallery, she resolves to re- create the paintings in secret in the time she has left, terrified of being revealed as a fraud. Yet she is still the creator of the work. Is it possible to falsify your own creations? Discuss what this means in the context of the book’s larger questions around authenticity and commodification.
5. In chapter two, the narrator observes that “art has a way of putting everyone at
their most transactional. I’m invisible until someone calculates my value.” What do you think she means by this? Do you agree? Do you think this applies only to the art world, or do you see parallels in other parts of life?
6. Discuss the following description of painting: “One of my professors once told
me that she started all of her paintings with a photocopied picture of her parents and the words FUCK YOU scrawled across their faces...All artists are of course doing that same thing: We are burying our past selves within the work, pieces of which rise to the surface without our permission like bodies in a flood.”
7. What do you think of our narrator’s friendship with Max de Lacy? Is it an
“authentic” friendship? Why or why not? Do you have any friends like Max in your own life? Have you ever been someone’s Max?
8. Jes seems set up to be the villain in the book, the possessive girlfriend who
knows more of Tyler’s secrets than anyone. How does your feeling about Jes change over the course of the book? Is our narrator’s wariness of her well founded?
9. Why do you think our narrator identifies so fully with Carey Logan? Is she right
to have done so?
10. How did the twist—the multiple twists—in the book shape your feelings about the characters? Did you find yourself having to recalibrate your impressions of any of them?
11. Do you feel the narrator made the right choice in the end? Why or why not?
Would you have made a different decision?