What I Loved by Siri Hustvedt

[Kris]

This thread is for a group discussion of What I Loved by Siri Hustvedt, scheduled to begin January 5, 2015. We'll post a schedule shortly.

[Deea]

Great!

[Carol]

I'm not sure how the group discussions work but I just finished (and loved) this novel about a month ago.

[Fiona]

Oh, this is interesting. I've meant to find some of her work ever since I read Auster's New York Trilogy a few years ago. I wonder if I can find a copy in time for Monday... I might be a bit late starting, but definitely count me in.

[Bookwyrm]

She's similar to Auster?

[Deea]

She is his wife. I really enjoyed some of Auster's books and this is my first book by her. I hope you (Fiona and Dewi) will be able to join as well.

[Fiona]

I got hold of a copy, so I'm definitely in! How does this work, then - Kris, did you say there'd be some sort of schedule?

[Dhiyanah]

I've got a copy of this and will be joining in the group read! Wondering about the schedule too, will there be one?

[Kris]

There are three sections in the book -- would it work for you if we read and discussed Part One January 5-11, Part Two January 12-18, and Part Three January 19-25?

[Dhiyanah]

So that's one section per week - sounds good, count me in!

[Deea]

It works for me.

[Fiona]

Sounds good to me! I'm looking forward to sitting down with it this evening.

[Angie]

I started the book last night, and I must say I'm really bad at this section/week thing, but I'll give it a go. I tend to be a gulper, not a sipper, so I finish books off quickly and then accidentally spatter spoilers about.

I'll just say that the first thing I like about this book is that it's an affectionate story telling. The biography of a good friend of the narrator. The language is warm and the story inviting because of that.

[Carol]

I read this novel in November and I absolutely loved it. At that time, I posted a review on Goodreads. I'm not certain how this works but I would love to participate in this discussion.

[Claudia]

This is one of the best books of the last quarter-century, IMO.

[Dhiyanah]

Just passed the 15% mark and starting to get into the flow. Violet seems to make the other characters more interesting, not sure if this is her role for the rest of the novel or part of this section's gradual build-up. Getting used to Hustvedt's writing -- at times it feels like she's just listing out what's happening or what has happened, then she presents beautiful extracts and insights from her characters and these are the bits I'm starting to love.

[Connie]

I just read 50 pages, and am enjoying Hustvedt's sensual writing. Although the narrator Leo is losing his sight in the present, his flashback observations are visually vivid as one would expect from an art historian.

[Angie]

Isn't it amazing that describing art in a novel works? Her descriptions of paintings are amazing, and the art is more beautiful in my mind than it can possibly be in an actual painting.

In some sense, this is as surprising as those reality TV shows on cooking. Singing, dancing, fashion design -- the audience can participate in the experience and form an opinion independent of the judges. But cooking? Why does that work? But it does, somehow.

And so does the painting in this novel. Adding visual aids would diminish the experience. The language is rich and descriptive enough.

[Connie]

Angie wrote: "Isn't it amazing that describing art in a novel works? Her descriptions of paintings are amazing, and the art is more beautiful in my mind than it can possibly be in an actual painting.

In some s..."

Our senses and imaginations are wonderful! Your mention of cooking shows is a good example since we can almost taste and smell the food, although we are only seeing it and hearing descriptions of the food on TV.

[Connie]

Carol wrote: "I read this novel in November and I absolutely loved it. At that time, I posted a review on Goodreads. I'm not certain how this works but I would love to participate in this discussion."

Carol, your 5 star rating was part of what prompted me to read this book. I'm looking forward to reading your thoughts on the book.

[Carol]

Connie wrote: "Carol wrote: "I read this novel in November and I absolutely loved it. At that time, I posted a review on Goodreads. I'm not certain how this works but I would love to participate in this discuss..."

Thank you, Connie. I wasn't sure if I could chime in since I'm not currently reading this novel. It was one of my very favorites from 2014! I'm enjoying these comments. My love for this novel grew as the story developed. I tended to breeze through the initial discussions of large art installations.

[Dhiyanah]

Just started the second section, getting invested in the characters now that I've a better sense of the story's shape. I adore the descriptions of art, and Leo's observations of his artist friend are some of my favourite insights from him. I feel like the writing shines brightest when Hustvedt's communicating visuals through words. She doesn't just describe the art, she builds it in words then explores it -- these works that we never get to see end up having so much presence, they feel like landmarks in the first section of the novel. (I love what Angie wrote in her comment above: "Her descriptions of paintings are amazing, and the art is more beautiful in my mind than it can possibly be in an actual painting.")

The beginning of the second section seems different. There was a lot of shifting (of characters, especially) before and now there's a little bit more stillness, where other kinds of movements may or may not take place. I'm getting used to Leo's voice.

[Deea]

Hello,

I finished the book last night and I was really impressed with it. I don't wanna write anything about it yet as I don't want to give spoilers by mistake. How does this group read work? Will we have discussions about the book when we are done reading?

[Carol]

Deea wrote: "Hello,

I finished the book last night and I was really impressed with it. I don't wanna write anything about it yet as I don't want to give spoilers by mistake. How does this group read work? Will..."

I also hope for some discussion once readers have finished. I read it last month and I'm looking forward to that discussion.

[Connie]

I'm almost halfway through the book. I would find it difficult to discuss the relationships without dropping some spoilers at this point.

I was wondering what kind of an art background the author had. The descriptions of the Hysteria installation, and the Hansel and Gretel exhibit were superb.

[Connie]

I read an interview with the author on powells.com where she said she likes to draw, writes essays on visual art, and writes articles for art magazines. Several of her books have been about the art world including The Summer Without Men, What I Loved, and The Blazing World."

Hustvedt said, "I love making up visual works of art in language....These are works that I would like to make if I were a visual artist. Often, they grow in my mind as visual images, and then I describe what I see. They're really mental images. I suppose many artists begin their own work that way. They see something. Unless it's really representational and they're trying to do a portrait, for example, and represent a real person, they must be working from mental images. Rather than creating works of art themselves, I describe them in the text.

http://www.powells.com/blog/interview...

[Carol]

Connie wrote: "I read an interview with the author on powells.com where she said she likes to draw, writes essays on visual art, and writes articles for art magazines. Several of her books have been about the ar..."

Interesting article, Connie. Have you finished What I Loved? I'm looking forward to your review.

[Connie]

Carol, I finished the book last night. Except for the part in Book 3 in the Midwest which seemed a little over the top, I loved the book.

[Deea]

Hello,

I think the review from New York Times for this book highlights some points I would have liked to insist on if I could have ordered the ideas in my mind and and could have reviewed this book after I read it. I enjoyed it. Maybe you will too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/boo...

[Carol]

Deea wrote: "Hello,

I think the review from New York Times for this book highlights some points I would have liked to insist on if I could have ordered the ideas in my mind and and could have reviewed this boo..."

Deea - Thank you for sharing this excellent nytimes review of one of my favorite novels for 2014. I did review this book but mine pales in comparison.

[Deea]

Carol wrote: "Deea wrote: "Hello,

I think the review from New York Times for this book highlights some points I would have liked to insist on if I could have ordered the ideas in my mind and and could have revi..."

Welcome Carol! I'm glad you enjoyed it as well. I really liked Siri Hustvedt's idea for the painting called Self-Portrait. For me, the idea that the viewer can discover himself in a painting he looks at seems brilliant. She suggests that not only the painter can contribute to a painting, but also the admirer (which is actually true: it's our perspective that matters, the way we see things, rather than how they really are). What did you think about this?

[Carol]

Deea wrote: "Carol wrote: "Deea wrote: "Hello,

I think the review from New York Times for this book highlights some points I would have liked to insist on if I could have ordered the ideas in my mind and and
c..."

I loved this book and Hustvedt's description for the painting entitled "Self-Portrait." Still, I never made any connection with voyeurism as was denoted in the review by nytimes.

[Deea]

Carol wrote: "Deea wrote: "Carol wrote: "Deea wrote: "Hello,

I think the review from New York Times for this book highlights some points I would have liked to insist on if I could have ordered the ideas in my m..."

I've never made any connection with voyeurism either...I didn't entirely agree with the article, but all in all, it reviewed Hustvedt's work nicely.

[Angie]

I think we're past looking out for spoilers now? In any case, I want to ask for insight on part 3 of the book. I loved parts one and two -- the characters and the art.
But part 3 just struck me as crazy and out of left field. We have this rising violent artist who, it is implied, was obsessed with Bill and ruining him before he met Mark. He leads Leo on a wild goose chase across the country. Both he and Mark lie, cheat, and steal, and are amazingly good at faking empathy and concern. They're sociopaths, no doubt about it.

What does this have to do with Bill and Violet, who are the stars of the story of parts 1 and 2? Is this supposed to be a real-life installation of Bill's art and Violet's research? Histeria to eating disorders to this nuttiness? They research it and turn it into art, but they can't face it down in real life? That seems insufficient as an explanation -- this is true sickness. Why is it here? Just looking for others' insights. I feel like I missed the point of part 3.

[Connie]

Part 3 seems more like a real-life installation of Teddy Giles' art with the violent sociopaths, not Bill's art. There is continuity with the second section as Mark became involved with Teddy's crowd. Mark was a charmer with a dark side who constantly lied. Part 2 seemed to ask the questions, "What is art?" and "Is Teddy Giles' installation about violence really art, or the work of a sociopath laughing all the way to the bank?" One of the characters said that it was art if the observer thought it was art.

I also thought that the scenes in the Midwest were a bit over the top.

[Connie]

The author seemed to tie the parts of the book together well with repetitive themes or observations. Here are a few I noticed:

Leo arranges the meaningful objects in his drawer in various ways throughout the book, almost like arranging a series of collages.

Dave, the lonely man with the cat, was drawn by Matt (108), and discussed by Bill (140). Leo felt like the lonely man at the end of the book (366).

Food and eating are mentioned throughout the book. The paintings of Violet in Part 1 show her thin and heavy. Violet loves to eat with gusto (81). Violet writes a book on eating disorders. The Hansel and Gretel installation is about food, eating and being eaten (81). Violet cooks for Leo and Erica when they are grieving (139). Mark and the box of missing donuts (160). Leo cooks for the grieving Violet, and even hand feeds her when she can't eat (271).

[Deea]

I think that without the third part, the book's name couldn't have been "What I Loved". Leo loved his wife Erica, his son Matt, Bill and Violet, Mark. The third part shows the evolution of love for each character separatedly. I agree the third part was a bit far-fetched, but isn't life itself far-fetched sometimes?

I'd like to point out that I liked how the author tackled the idea that Bill wanted lots of kids. Although Violet wasn't able to give him children, his wish was granted in a way: having Mark as a kid was like having lots of children, each of his personalities accounting for one. Wasn't this one of Hustvedt's way of saying "Be careful what you wish for?".

Also, I'd like to ask, has any of you had the feeling after Matt's death that Mark might have had something to do with it?

[Angie]

Connie-- thanks for pointing out some of the themes continued in part 3 -- I absolutely agree that those themes continued. What gave me the creeps was the implication that Teddy wasn't just a sociopath laughing on his way to the bank -- somehow he had a particular obsession with Bill and ruining, perhaps even killing him through Mark. The destruction of Bill's painting after Bill died -- I wasn't sure what to make of that.

Deea-- really interesting question about Matt's death. It did strike me as odd that as Bill and Erica went over and over the details of Matt's death, there was no mention of Mark at all. Mark took no part in the grieving even though he must have been there. It felt like there was a piece of that story deliberately left out. But Leo never went back and questioned that it was an accident, even though, by the end, I could have believed anything of Mark.

[Connie]

Angie, I thought Teddy destroyed the painting that depicted Mark to show Mark that he could destroy him in real life. Mark was a witness to a murder committed by Teddy. Teddy was letting Mark know that he would be the subject of real violence if he did not fully cooperate with Teddy. Teddy may have been testing Mark by making him dress up in women's clothes, making sexual advances, and seeing if Mark would go with him (rather than Leo) in the Midwest.

[Deea]

Hello! I have finally managed to write a review, so I will share it with you: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Has anyone else managed to write a review? I would like to read it if so.

[Kallie]

Lots of interesting, provocative comments here. Sorry I missed the discussion. I just read the book. Straight after reading 'The Blazing World' I got 'The Blindfold' and then 'What I Loved.' So I read those novels straight through and a weird thing happened: I could remember 'The Blazing World' quite clearly, but not "What I Loved' and had to come to Goodreads to remind myself of the story! I don't much like that happening to my memory, because this is certainly a wonderful book. Hustvedt is phenomenal.

[Kat]

It's always interesting to me to see what books I remember and which I forget. Certainly discussing books with others tends to help me remember them! Right now I'm remembering both THE BLAZING WORLD and WHAT I LOVED relatively well. Not necessarily well enough to discuss them, though!

[Kallie]

Kat wrote: "It's always interesting to me to see what books I remember and which I forget. Certainly discussing books with others tends to help me remember them! Right now I'm remembering both THE BLAZING WORL..."

I'm hanging on to both because I like to re-read some writers and she will be one of them I'm sure.