21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
All the Light We Cannot See
2014 Book Discussions
>
All the Light We Cannot See - Whole Book Discussion [Spoilers] (November 2014)
message 51:
by
LindaJ^
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Nov 06, 2014 01:21PM
As I continue to contemplate what it was that made this book less than a 5 star read for me, I think, in addition to what I've previously mentioned, a part of it is the young age of Werner and Marie Laure and I'm not sure why. I am not typically bothered by adult literature that employs adolescents as main characters, such as in The Book Thief, but it did not work well for me in All the Light. Did anyone else have a similar reaction?
reply
|
flag
Linda wrote: "As I continue to contemplate what it was that made this book less than a 5 star read for me, I think, in addition to what I've previously mentioned, a part of it is the young age of Werner and Mari..."Didn't even consider it, one way or another, Linda.
Now that you raise the question, I just got sucked in by the magic of Marie Laure's miniature city created by her father that somehow managed to help keep her alive and yet also placed her in great danger as she survived the war that adults waged all around her -- protected by, abandoned by, endangerment to the people who cared about her -- and endangerment to her. Werner carried the brunt of adult decisions and the curse of his genius to participate in the war that threatened to destroy the very hope of a civilization that could/would make moral use of the technology he could so facilely manipulate. I hadn't thought about it, but somehow all this youth represented life beyond the molestation of the present -- youth that ranged from innocent, almost helpless bystander to subscribed unintended participant.
What does the story say and what are our stories about what happened to Marie Laure's father and to the fated diamond? I'll have to re-read before I am even certain what Doerr has written.
A character I found troublesome was the perfumer Claude Levitte. I'm not certain I follow his participation. (Pages 400-01, 410, 434-35.) Is he conscientious, an informer, or a dupe? Why does he try to have Marie go to shelter? Is it despite or because?
I took Levitte to be a local sleaze-ball, turning in his neighbors for what ever infractions,made up or otherwise, for his own selfish gains. He is the one who turned in Marie's father for measuring and skulking around the neighborhood. He was in cahoots with Von Rumpel (at the very end) and the only reason he tells Marie she has to go to a shelter, I feel, is to get her out of the house so Von Rumpel can search for the diamond.What happened to the diamond? Werner definitely didn't have it because he died. Did he release it to the ocean? When he stepped on the land mine did it somehow fall out of the house?
Sandra wrote: "What happened to the diamond? Werner definitely didn't have it because he died. Did he release it to the ocean? When he stepped on the land mine did it somehow fall out of the house? ..."Do we ever definitely know? I got the strong sense it ended up in the ocean where Marie went behind the iron gate, but I'll need to reread to be certain of what Doerr tells the reader.
Do you think Levitte knows about the diamond, or only that Von Rumpel is authoritative? I got a sense Von Rumpel was also bribing Claude with money.
Let's see -- exactly WHAT was the curse on the Sea of Flame?
"The keeper of the stone would live forever, but so long as he kept it, misfortunes would fall on all those he loved one after another in unending rain."
Doerr, Anthony (2014-05-06). All the Light We Cannot See: A Novel (p. 429). Scribner. Kindle Edition.
Do we to not believe the the curse, if we assume Marie had the stone? Or is it "true" because her father disappears? But then what about Etienne?
Lily wrote: "Sandra wrote: "What happened to the diamond? Werner definitely didn't have it because he died. Did he release it to the ocean? When he stepped on the land mine did it somehow fall out of the house?..."As to the diamond? Well, if you believe the curse, he could not have had the house when he died. But, putting the curse to one side, what are the options?
To get the house, Werner either took it while they were still in the pool or he went back to get it after he left Marie. After all, she gave him the key to the pool when they parted - did she mean for him to hide in the pool or did she want him to go make sure the house, with its stone, had gone to the ocean? After all, she made a big deal about that but doesn't seem to have told Werner why or anything about the "stone."
So when did he figure out how to open the house? He was playing with it - taking it apart - just before he died. And he remembers Jutta's attempt to make and sail a boat and hopes they tried again after it sank. Perhaps he goes back to the pool, because he knows how much Marie wanted the house to go to the ocean, to see if it had and finds the house stuck. Perhaps he wonders why and on inspection, discovers that the house opens and contains a jewel. Perhaps he knew what the Colonel was looking for, even though he did not indicate that when he and Marie were talking about why the Colonel was in the house. Perhaps he is one of the rare ones who can resist the jewel because he knows how badly Marie, who he fell in love with and who gave him the chance to redeem himself, wanted it in the ocean so he tosses the stone into the ocean and takes the house with him.
Or, perhaps after after his his memory of Jutta's boat and his hope that they tried again, he tries to do what Marie wanted -- to throw the house into the ocean -- and that is where he is headed when he steps on the German land mine and is blown to smitherns.
But, if the house survived, with the key that only he could have put in it, it must have been in his duffel that he could not have had with him when he was blown up. So Werner must have taken the stone out earlier. But what did he do with it? throw it into the ocean in the pool? put it in his pocket and it was blown to who knows where when he was blown up?
Since the author left it for us to decide, I say he tossed it into the ocean, either in the pool or before he was captured. Because, as Sandra notes, he wouldn't have died if he had it in his possession.
Of course, we don't know that it was Werner who put the key in the house. Perhaps Jutta did after Max figured out how to open the house - perhaps Jutta kept the diamond. Or perhaps Volkheimer did the switch. I guess both are possibilites, but I'm not picking them.
I saw Werner as sort of caught on a continuum between Frederick on the one hand, and Volkheimer, who never gets a first name, and so we are left with a surname that literally means "home of the people" or "housing the nation." And he is large enough to encompass many people. Volkheimer is the literal Everyman of Germany.So, I think trying to determine whether Volkheimer was "evil" of not misses the point. He was exactly as evil as the German people as a whole, whom he represent -- called "Hitler's Willing Executioners" in a famous book or a decade or so ago. At least evil enough to have no significant qualms about carrying out other people's evil plans.
As a "regular soldier," Werner Pfennig gets very few chances to be "hero" or "villain" the way his teachers or Von Rumpel do. His choices are go with the flow or stand his ground. Frederick stood his ground and was destroyed for it. Volkheimer was, essentially, a stand in for everyone who didn't stand their ground. He went along with the job without really stopping to think about whether he was being evil or not.
In terms of the non-chronological storytelling, I did not think it added much, and possibly took something away. Through all the tense events leading up to 1944, we knew that the characters survived at least that long, and where they ended up. But that was a minor point. The chronological issue that really bugged me was that von Rumpel literally spent four whole days searching Ettienne's house for the diamond with no food.
Also, a very small point, but if anyone else read "The Orphan Master's Son" last month -- did you also wince when the radio operators sat down together at the end and shared an old, untested, can of peaches together?
Hi Matthew, Please by all means post further comments on The Orphan Master's Son; we encourage the discussions to remain 'alive' after the month ends. But, please do that on the thread itself -- this is already a big discussion and it would be great to keep it focused on the book at hand.
The meaning of Volkheimer's name is very interesting. Your reasoning regarding its choice on the author's part seems very plausible.
Linda, your main theory to me sounds both the most plausible and also the most satisfying in a story sense. I find it hard to reason Jutta or Volkheimer playing more of a part than we are shown in this, whereas Werner 'fits' very well.
Terry -- I probably was not clear enough. In All The Light We Cannot See, when Werner saves Marie-Laure from Von Rumpel, the two "celebrate" by sitting down together and shared an old, unmarked can of peaches. It was delicious.This scene made me cringe, not because of anything internal to All The Light We Cannot See, but because I had just read The Orphan Master's Son, where "peaches" had a very different connotation.
D'oh. Apologies, Matthew. For some reason, 'peaches' did not connotate as a connection between the two points you were making, and I then misread your second post as a random point on TOMS, which would have them been in the wrong thread. Carry on.
I loved the line, “To shut your eyes is to guess nothing of blindness.” What did you learn or realize about blindness through Marie-Laure’s perspective?
Matthew wrote: "Also, a very small point, but if anyone else read "The Orphan Master's Son" last month -- did you also wince when the radio operators sat down together at the end and shared an old, untested, can o..."Ah yes, the can of peaches and what made it even more chilling was that it was the last food Werner was able to keep down!
Matthew wrote: "I saw Werner as sort of caught on a continuum between Frederick on the one hand, and Volkheimer, who never gets a first name, and so we are left with a surname that literally means "home of the peo..."I do think Volkheimer represented the German people and I think his association/friendship with Werner started to get him thinking about some of the unnecessary training, such as making the boys throw water on a prisoner and leave that prisoner in the yard even when dead. But Volkheimer was a trained soldier and he did what soldiers are trained to do -- kill the "enemy" and take care of your fellow soldiers. He was not a guard at a concentration camp who and he did not find killing enjoyable. As I mentioned above, Volkheimer sounds a lot like a number of the Marines in the stories in Redeployment - how they were trained and what they did in the field of battle.
Terry wrote: "I loved the line, “To shut your eyes is to guess nothing of blindness.” What did you learn or realize about blindness through Marie-Laure’s perspective?"
What stood out for me was how Marie Laurie was able to train herself to use her other senses - smell, hearing, touch -- to make up for the loss of her sight. She was able to overcome her fear and, with her father's support, become as capable as anyone around her, and, in many instances, more capable.
Linda wrote: "What stood out for me was how Marie Laurie was able to train herself to use her other senses - smell, hearing, touch -- to make up for the loss of her sight. ..."This resonated with me, too, Linda. I did 'know' this about blindness, but it was helpful to see it fleshed out through Marie Laure's character.
The story also made me able to empathize with the sense of disorientation / panic that can follow from a change of environment or surroundings.
Somehow, Marie's blindness came to represent the blindness almost necessary to walk through a war so vast as the one that raged around her. In situations like this, sight does not necessarily protect, even though most of us would prefer to walk with sight if we should ever need make a similar journey.How different or like do you think this story is to European versus American readers? I haven't checked Doerr's background and what his life experiences probably brought to the story.
Personal website perspective: http://www.anthonydoerr.com/biography/
Terry wrote: "Some questions to kick you off, but of course feel free to ask your own or to discuss anything about the book:...3. Whose story did you enjoy the most? Was there any character you wanted more insight into?..."
Probably each character in this book plays on my thoughts more and more as I continue to live with it. But here, let me mention Jutta.
What strikes me is the difficulty of the sibling love we see demonstrated. One senses her pride for her brother, even as she is concerned about the path his genius has taken him. She becomes a symbol, a metaphor for all the wives, daughters, sisters who must have had similar angst as they watched their men disappear into the Nazi machine. Yet, she also remains humanely individual. One catches glimpses in the heavily censored letters, which were part of the way it simply was.
Can history be swayed from repeating itself? Or shall we keep sending our men (and women) to war? Which feels as if it is one of the questions Doerr is placing, without being either upfront or deceitful in doing so.
Would someone write to us of the appropriateness/significance of the Jules Verne allusions, books and their fit with the story? I may kind of sense it, but haven't tried to put it into words.
Lily wrote: "Would someone write to us of the appropriateness/significance of the Jules Verne allusions, books and their fit with the story? I may kind of sense it, but haven't tried to put it into words."Just a brief thought on the Jules Verne allusions - they created a nice fantasy contrast to the harsh realities of war. Although Marie Laure was blind, she could journey anywhere through her reading, a nice commentary about why we all love to read. But that is just a side-thought - a more credible purpose for the allusions is the juxtaposition of fantasy with the harsh reality.
I realized today that Doerr's other books include
Shell Collector
(2002) as well as
About Grace
(2004) and
Memory Wall
(2010). I wonder how those fit into and overlap with AtLWCS.
Jen wrote: "Terry wrote: "Whose story did you enjoy the most? .."Overall, I took the most from Werner's story. This is probably due to it being one of, if not the most developed.
When I think back now the ..."
Sandra,
Have you read the Book Thief? It also tells the story from the point of view of families raising their children during WWII. It was the first book I had read from that perspective. I found it excellent.
I am still trying to figure out why Doerr chose Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea as the primary book that Marie was reading in braille through much of the book. I haven't read TTLUtS, although I may have seen a movie version many long years ago, and generally know the subject matter. But what is the symbolism or metaphor Doerr is creating/using here? Saint-Malo sits on the sea, Marie goes down to the sea, the museum in Paris has vast collections of shells, Doerr has published a book of stories called The Shell Collector: Stories, ....In his acknowledgements, Doerr writes: "especially to my mother, Marilyn Doerr, who was my Dr. Geffard, my Jules Verne." p. 531
Can someone suggest the linkages I am missing? They may be obvious, but at least not to me! lol.
(Are other reading selections, such as Dumas, significant at more than one level -- i.e., more than just that this is a blind girl who reads, probably because she lives and is nurtured in a family ambiance that values learning and knowledge?)
I suspect the ending was a large part in the selection of 20,000 Leagues. I suspect there is also something to the exploratory nature of it. Marie was able to explore the world around her with the help of her Father and his models, her Uncle and his shells. Under the sea, it is dark and unknown... until somebody comes along with light.
Jen wrote: "When I think back now the most significant thing I took from this book was the perspective it gave me of the war from a German youth point of view. I have read a lot from the point if view of the allies. But to try to start to understand how ordinary people in Germany perceived and in some cases, participated in atrocious acts, was truly illuminating. The scenes of Werner's training / schooling were utterly terrifying to read. But they helped me to see a different perspective...."Looking back over our month's discussion this morning.
Jen -- I am pondering a bit your comments about gaining a perspective on WWII from that of the German youth pulled into it. I guess I got involved enough in the story from the perspectives of Marie, her father, Etienne, and even Jutta as they tried to continue living amidst the horror that surrounded them and invaded their daily lives. (A complete change in venue: I think sometimes of Southern plantations and Southern women as Sherman's army marched across Georgia.)
I must admit, I don't recall off-hand too many stories/books that I have read that have dealt with the training of Hitler's armies, although the photos that have shown the rigid marching parades, the crowds shouting "Heil, Hitler!," the descriptions of leaders like Goebbels, the tales of guards at concentration camps, the stories re "Kristall Nacht," have all contributed to a sense of numbing inhumanity.
Troublesome historic photos: http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/laugh...
But among what really struck me about ATLWCS was the risks and care Marie's father took -- from planting the highly valued stone with his daughter, even though he himself did not know which were paste, which was real, to pain-stakingly building model cities (both Paris and Saint-Malo).
"He says he will never leave her, not in a million years." p. 31.
But, he does. No searching conclusively finds him. Great-uncle Etienne, scarred by WWI, nonetheless steps forward to shelter and protect her, even while taking on dangerous transmissions of war-related information for the Resistance.
The more I consider and listen to each of you, the more I realize Doerr has encapsulated numerous stories and plot lines within his wandering tale. Linda reminds us to look at the story of Volkheimer. How is he like or different from the men and women recruited daily world-wide to "protect," whether as military or in other positions that may require force for carrying out their responsibilities. Doerr includes reference to stories that are still playing out of hidden and stolen material objects of worth that in some senses are outliving the human lives, yet even the human survivals he takes to the next generations. He hints at the sordid (Von Rumpel's wife - p466) and compassionate (Frederick's mother) lives that go on under the angst of front-line violence.
Since this story touches France as much as Germany, I am reminded of Sarah's Key and Suite Francaise. A bit of wondering about different aspects of WWII took me this morning to the following site:
http://www.novilibrary.org/Adults/Adu...
The list is far from "complete."
Was just looking at some discussions on other Goodreads forums of this book. I found Abby, at the location below, makes several interesting comments, including about another book (Four Seasons in Rome: On Twins, Insomnia, and the Biggest Funeral in the History of the World) Doerr apparently wrote while he was working on AtLWCS.https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Another new article related to AtLWCS:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/27/boo...
"In a year jammed with juicy novels from literary heavyweights like David Mitchell and Marilynne Robinson, Mr. Doerr’s book has emerged as the unexpected breakout fiction best seller of 2014. The story, about a blind French girl who joins the resistance to the German occupation and a sharp young German soldier with a savant-like talent for tracking radio signals, has struck a chord with readers, catching everyone in the book industry, including Mr. Doerr and his publisher, by surprise. Scribner, which printed 60,000 copies when the book was published in May, has reprinted it 25 times and now has 920,000 copies in print."
I was just wondering if anyone had further thoughts on what happened to Marie-Laure's father? For some reason I keep wondering if he could have been the man that is doused with water in the chapter called Prisoner on page 227.
Brittany wrote: "...thoughts on what happened to Marie-Laure's father? For some reason I keep wondering if he could have been the man that is doused with water in the chapter called Prisoner on page 227...."Interesting thought. Is there anything specific in the text that reinforces that possibility for you, Brittany?
Brittany wrote: "I was just wondering if anyone had further thoughts on what happened to Marie-Laure's father? For some reason I keep wondering if he could have been the man that is doused with water in the chapter..."The same thought crossed my mind, Brittany. I don't really know why, except possibly that up to this point, Marie-Laure's father was, I believe, the only prisoner that we personally knew about. I think one of the young boys thought the prisoner was Polish but of course he could have been wrong and the prisoner could have been French. I just deleted the book from my e-reader so can't go back to check that scene. How interesting, though, if it was her father and to have Werner be one of the boys who threw a bucket of water, never finding out the connection with Marie-Laure. Possibly I'm just reading more into this than there is. But Doerr did indicate that there were many hidden, unknown stories from that time period that will never come to light so possibly he meant this to be one of them.
I was left hanging, though, with the fact that nothing happened to Frederick for refusing to throw the water. Did anyone else find that very odd? By letting that act of rebellion go, wouldn't that have encouraged other boys not to do something if they felt it was wrong?
Marjorie wrote: "I was left hanging, though, with the fact that nothing happened to Frederick for refusing to throw the water. Did anyone else find that very odd? By letting that act of rebellion go, wouldn't that have encouraged other boys not to do something if they felt it was wrong? ..."I don't think I understand your comment, Marjorie.
Frederick was discharged, a broken person. I don't remember the exact sequence of what happened, but certainly no other "warrior/soldier" wanted a similar fate.
Yes, the instructors continued to pick Frederick as the weakest and the bullying by the other boys continued but that actually started before his act of rebellion with the water bucket. I just find it hard to believe that after Frederick refused to throw the bucket of water on the prisoner as he had been ordered to do that they all just walked away, with nothing happening to Frederick, nothing even being said by the instructors. Three times he was given a bucket and three times he threw the water on the ground. The scene just ended with Frederick throwing the bucket down and saying "I will not". Of course, he was the last one to throw the water so no one else could follow his lead at that point and say "I won't either". It just seemed to me that there would have been a more immediate repercussion by the commandant for Frederick's blatant defiance. I was so frightened for him at that point but nothing happened. Yes, eventually it did, some time later, but nothing in that particular scene. I think that was about the one unbelievable thing that happened in this near-perfect book (at least it was near-perfect to me - loved every word of it!)
Marjorie wrote: "...I was so frightened for him at that point but nothing happened. Yes, eventually it did, some time later, but nothing in that particular scene. ..."Your point is very well taken. It has been awhile since I read the novel, so it would take me work to go back and look at text. What I am reminded of, however, is of Pavlov-like experiments where unpredictable punishment can generate more fear than predictable. At the Jewish Museum in NYC, there is a room of TV screens where you see unpredictable malignant treatment slowly escalated in communities over time. (At least when we visited it about 2002.) That may be part of what Doerr is representing here?
Marjorie wrote: "Brittany wrote: "I was just wondering if anyone had further thoughts on what happened to Marie-Laure's father? For some reason I keep wondering if he could have been the man that is doused with wat..."Brittany wrote: "I was just wondering if anyone had further thoughts on what happened to Marie-Laure's father? For some reason I keep wondering if he could have been the man that is doused with water in the chapter..."
Frederick refusing to douse the prisoner with water was not left unpunished. He was repeatedly chosen as the weakest in field exercises, and ultimately beat almost to death, left permanently mentally disabled.
Brittany wrote: "I was just wondering if anyone had further thoughts on what happened to Marie-Laure's father? For some reason I keep wondering if he could have been the man that is doused with water in the chapter..."I hadn't thought about that, but it's possible. I flipped back through the book, and I think the last correspondence Marie-Laure receives from her father is during the same time period that the prisoner was killed - January 1941 (at the end of the chapter "Pneumonia.")
http://www.vaildaily.com/entertainmen...Another review.
"Marie-Laure and her father flee to St. Malo, on the untamed northern coast of France. The city is isolated on a wild spit of land that juts into the sea, and stone ramparts circle the narrow streets. There, Marie-Laure and her father hide with an uncle, hoping to elude the eyes of the greedy Germans."
If you want to feel like enjoying this book makes you no better than a Holocaust denier, here's the misguided review of the year for you.http://www.newrepublic.com/article/12...
(Was Werner an albino? Was the violence sexualized? It's like the reviewer was reading a completely different book than I was.)
Matthew wrote: "If you want to feel like enjoying this book makes you no better than a Holocaust denier, here's the misguided review of the year for you.http://www.newrepublic.com/article/12...-..."
Fascinating to consider what the eyes of the men in the picture accompanying this review "see."
Thanks for posting, Matthew. Reminds me that we always face the danger of getting what we want out of what we choose to see.
Another review:http://www.popmatters.com/review/1897...
I disagree with Barsanti here that the sea of flames plot is unnecessary to the novel -- it was the mystery that I, and many other readers with whom I have discussed the novel, kept pondering long after we closed the covers -- even took us back to searching the textual clues.
But more troubling to me in the weeks away from the book, which as many of you know, I really "liked", are hints that Saint Malo may have been unnecessarily bombed so aggressively. What I have seen suggests that intelligence reports had reported that far more Germans were stationed there than actually turned out to be true. If that is accurate, and since Doerr has written that part of writing of Saint Malo was that no extensive account had existed in English, why do those considerations seem so scant in the novel? I'm not a historian buff enough to have explored deeply.
"...not just another war story, it's really the story of these two young people and how they exist in a world gone mad. The chapters alternate between the two and the reader becomes their friend, their advocate...."Don't know if I agree with the reviewer that the reader becomes the advocate of the protagonists, but another view to consider. From a review I first saw today:
http://www.reviewonline.com/page/cont...
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/201...(Definitely has statements about key items of plot suspense, so if you care about "spoilers," you probably want to wait to listen.)
Thank you to whomever linked us to this NPR Review! I just listened now. Felt very worthwhile.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Linked from above, which has a bit about the participants.
PS -- It was Kirsten who brought this to our attention. Thanks!
http://www.courant.com/opinion/op-ed/...A book group comments on the title.
I would say, whether the WWII and its stories or the BP oil spill, virtually every story we encounter contains more light -- and darkness -- than we can possibly "see', regardless of how we enhance or take as metaphor "seeing". (Think of all the interpretations given Biblical parables every Sunday across the world.) But, as Barbara Brown Taylor writes, attentiveness can be reverence.
(I have been seeing more of the dark side of the BP spill than the up sides Thorson relates. I rather wonder why he used AtLWCS to lead into this part of his article. Maybe to get some readers he might not otherwise? Am I cynical this morning?)
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015...Another Guardian Review (Justin Cartwright) -- apparently in response to Pulitzer announcement. Reads as if the author had been following the discussion here. Page also had links to several other articles, at least tonight.
"Of course as you read the dual story, you wonder how soon it is before Marie-Laure and Werner are going to meet. And it is a weakness of this book that it has many aspects of genre fiction, despite the huge amount of research that has gone into it. There is a worrying even-handedness in Doerr’s treatment of the Germans and the French. There are also some strange mistakes: for instance, Niels Bohr was not a German. However, the story itself is gripping and it is easy to understand why Doerr’s book is regarded by many as an epic and a masterpiece."
Other links:http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015...
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015...
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014...
(Some of these may duplicate links elsewhere in these threads. I'm not checking.)
http://radio.wpsu.org/post/bookmark-a...Google News yields another review. Full of spoilers.
"But what is all that 'Light We Cannot See'? Is it Marie Laurie’s love of the ocean that she cannot see? Is it Werner’s sister Jutta’s intuition the Nazis are not all they seem? Or is it the sparkle and mystery of the 'Sea of Flames' diamond? There are many possibilities in Mr. Doerr’s book."
"And it is a weakness of this book that it has many aspects of genre fiction, despite the huge amount of research that has gone into it."This is literary snobbishness in its most transparent, bald-faced form. It doesn't matter how good it is, the very fact that elements of the story remind some people of genre fiction is an inherent weakness in the story, and it is lessened by its association.
21st Century Literature
Books mentioned in this topic
A Moveable Feast (other topics)In Patagonia (other topics)
Be True to Your School: A Diary of 1964 (other topics)
Four Seasons in Rome: On Twins, Insomnia, and the Biggest Funeral in the History of the World (other topics)
Suite Francaise (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Chris Ware (other topics)Garielle Lutz (other topics)
J.M. Coetzee (other topics)
Cormac McCarthy (other topics)
Andrea Barrett (other topics)
More...
