Seven Types of Ambiguity - Part Two

[Sarah]

We now have our second Part to discuss. I think this will be an entertaining week because we have the perspective of... The Husband. Let the fun begin.

[Sarah]

I have to say that the husband, Joe, nauseated me quite a bit. I found it interesting though that it was his interpersonal relations that bothered me but his work related ones did not. Did anyone notice how many times they actually said his name? Joe Joe Joe Joe... I wish I had a Kindle so I could easily count them.

So the first sentence that caught my eye was I want to kill. It's a brand new way of waking up, wanting to kill, wanting to hide, wanting to vomit, wanting to start again. I think this is a great early line because it has everything about Joe's personality all wrapped up into one sentence. I believe he wants to hide, vomit, and start again on a regular basis. He seems to really loathe himself. He feels a lot of his own shortcomings and seems to feel that he's inadequate, which is why Anna wants nothing to do with him. I'm a godawful lonely prick whose very being or way of being has ultimately put off anybody I've ever gotten close to.

There's also a lot of contempt in him, at least for his family. I'm the oldest male, the only male with an IQ over sixty. And of course his feelings towards Roger. It really fascinated me when his dad was asking him You're not ashamed, are you Joe?... There's nothing to be ashamed of. As long as you tried. You did your best. Joe's response The ribbon's blue, Dad. I came first. I get this feeling during this piece that everyone is really only thinking of themselves and their own situation. The dad is so worried and possibly ashamed that he's talking over his son and trying to justify his own actions via his son. Completely strange.

When he goes to that coffee shop, his reactions are equally interesting. I find his obsession with people knowing he has to "pay for it" to be a lot like the psychiatrist's obsession with why he's not being offered a drink. One of those weird nagging loops that gets in your head but is not usually shown in writing. But he feels so much guilt and shame over "paying for it", yet brothels are perfectly common there so obviously plenty of people are. Another weird tic that I couldn't make sense of was when Joe's talking about what Anna makes Sam for breakfast. She makes soft-boiled eggs for him four and a half minutes. He can't grow up without knowing that I know that it's four and half minutes. Why in the world would Sam care? It's completely absurd.

In the piece where Joe confesses to Anna Anna, her name is Angelique, Anna says she knows. How does she know? Did she get the psychiatrist's communication? Did she merely ask some questions at the police station?

On the subject of his insecurities, when he's talking to Anna and Anna says the teachers think Sam might have ADD Oh, that's bulls**t Anna. He gets plenty of attention. I really laughed at this. Not only is it ignorant, it also really shows that he's automatically defensive of everything. It seems to be a reflex for him. Like a constant refrain is going through his head saying "I'm not good enough". Speaking of not giving Sam enough attention, how about that heartbreaking birthday party? That whole situation was absolutely awful. All of those kids that didn't show up and then his own dad doesn't show either. Why? For the good of the family of course. And of course his dedication to the good of the family also involves dealing with his work/money problems first but never getting in touch with the police despite numerous attempts on their part. His son has been recently kidnapped! Who in their right mind is worrying about work and just not bothering to contact the police. Later on it occurs to him that it could be about the reporter, but that's only later on. He gets a call or two before that and it just doesn't seem to be important to him. His only concern seems to be that he think Anna was involved with Simon. Again it seems to be insecurity that keeps him from believing his wife, and from obsessing over the situation and imagining everything.

One thing that this author captures perfectly is the less than smooth way that our minds go around and around with lots of little leaps sideways. At least, my brain works a lot like this. And the way it keeps returning back to something that's bugging you. It's not something you usually read in books, and although it can be irritating to read, I think the author is doing a brilliant job.

All in all a fun, if nauseating, week.

[Linda]

This book is hard to put down! OK, stopping at this section until next week, and I didn't even peek ahead to see who's POV we would be reading from next.

Sarah, you brought up a lot of good points about Joe, the husband. It's interesting that I found myself thinking a little bit differently about some of these points, though, which is completely in sync with what the book is trying to convey, I think. How different people see and think about the same situation or given information in different ways?

There were a couple of passages that struck me in this way, one being the conversation between Joe and Sid: "Wait a minute, Sid. You said he's talked to you that time. You mean you've only spoken to him once about this?.....You want me to get Sheere to pour a vault of money into Health National on the basis of one throwaway line capable of misinterpretation?"

Anyway, as to Joe himself, I felt quite sorry for him actually. Yes, there were things he thought or did which were pathetic, such as thinking that people know he has to "pay for it", and how he couldn't get that out of his head, along with impressing the waitress with his platinum credit card. But it appears, from his POV of course, that he came from an inadequate upbringing which he has tried to overcome. In his view, he has married a beautiful woman, he has a wonderful son, and is able to provide for his family financially. He has done everything "right", so why at this point in his life does he feel so alone? This passage really stuck out:

Someone should really come check on me. I bought this house, and I am Sam's father. These cannot be said to be bad things. No one can say that. How does a person come to be so alone? One is born in it and, somehow, despite parents, siblings, girlfriends, colleagues, a wife - despite finding a wife - I can't shake it."

And we find out later that although he went to the brothel for the sex initially, but later he sometimes goes there just to have a friend to talk to, tell all of his inner thoughts and feelings. How sad is that? It makes me wonder if he's ever had close friends to talk to. And also, how close were he and Anna ever in their relationship?

As to the conversation between Joe and his father concerning Joe's athletic ribbons, my take on this scene was that Joe's father didn't really see Joe for what he was. He didn't even take time to look at what the ribbons were, that Joe had a blue ribbon, meaning first place. It appeared to me that Joe's dad just assumed that Joe had not done well and the ribbon was simply for "participation" or something. Joe had to point out to his dad that he actually got the blue ribbon.

So we have Joe's father trying to provide for his family financially, but getting imprisoned instead and not being there for them, and not paying attention to his children's achievements. And try as he might be different from his father, Joe seems to be following in his footsteps. He feels that he has escaped his upbringing, but really he is neglecting his family by trying to provide for them financially (missing Sam's birthday party so he could work instead). And like Anna pointed out, how much money is enough? They appear to be doing very well to where Anna doesn't really need to work. So why is Joe so set upon working this deal in the wake of Sam's kidnapping, when he really should be at home working things out and being there for his son?

Another thing I wondered about was Joe's thinking back to the time before he and Anna were married and the shopping scene. First, I found it interesting how Joe changes the way he remembers it happening as he's telling the story:

We made a date to go to Country Road so she could choose some things more to her taste....Actually it wasn't prearranged...I dragged her into Country Road to choose some clothes for me...She said she didn't care what I wore...She could mold me, put my money where her mouth was.

If Anna found him so pathetic at this point (as Joe speculates), why did she marry him (it will be interesting to see the story from Anna's perspective...)? Another thing I see from this, is Joe seems to think that money will fix anything, that he could simply purchase what he thought Anna wanted in a husband. A well-dressed husband, I guess? There is way more to a good partner than simply dressing the part.

[Linda]

Sarah wrote: " Another weird tic that I couldn't make sense of was when Joe's talking about what Anna makes Sam for breakfast. She makes soft-boiled eggs for him four and a half minutes. He can't grow up without knowing that I know that it's four and half minutes. Why in the world would Sam care? It's completely absurd."

This struck me as a feeling of inadequacy on Joe's part. In a defensive way, he is saying that he also can make a perfectly good hard-boiled egg for his son, and going into the minute details to show that. But of course Sam is not going to care if his dad knows that it's 4.5 minutes to cook a hard boiled egg. Sam IS going to remember that his dad was not there for his 7th birthday, though.

[Sarah]

Linda, I find it interesting that we seem to be experiencing things the same but having different emotional reactions. I felt that he was experiencing a lot of self-loathing, but this made me despise him and you feel sorry for him. That's fascinating.

There is a real sense of panic to his acquisitiveness. Like if he earns a bit more money then everything will be perfect, and it's always just a bit more money that he needs.

I thought the same thing about the blue ribbon; it was like his dad couldn't see beyond himself to the reality around him. Total self obsession. Was this like Joe's insecurities and feeling of inadequacy? I think maybe they were both focused on success as the key to happiness. Their routes just took them in opposite directions. Maybe.

That memory about the clothes shopping was a really weird one. Do you think the memory was a genuine one? Either one of them?

[Linda]

Sarah wrote: "Linda, I find it interesting that we seem to be experiencing things the same but having different emotional reactions. .. That's fascinating."

Yeah, that is fascinating Sarah. I'll be interested in hearing what other readers thought of Joe.

As to the shopping memory, it sounds like Anna and Joe did get in a fight over it afterwards, so it seems genuine? But I guess I can't say that for sure since he changed his memory of it while he was telling the story. I want to hear about the same scene from another character, say Anna during this same shopping scene. But of course, we will only hear the memories that Anna deem important to tell. Perhaps she has forgotten about the shopping scene because it had no importance to her. You know how someone can focus in on some small thing and pick at it, but someone else won't even notice the same small thing and promptly forget about it?

it was like his dad couldn't see beyond himself to the reality around him. Total self obsession. Was this like Joe's insecurities and feeling of inadequacy? I think maybe they were both focused on success as the key to happiness. Their routes just took them in opposite directions.

I think you summed this up perfectly.

[Anna]

I loved Joe's first line: "I am irritating her. Again." Looking at Anna through Joe's eyes, she doesn't resemble the woman the psychiatrist is speaking/writing to.

She wouldn't love the way Joe sees her. He wonders why she makes him feel so unworthy.

"I wasn't seeing anyone. I sleep with whores." He doesn't consider his relations with Angelique as infidelity. He comes across as being a misogynist.

Joe's POV doesn't shed a good light on himself or Anna but I don't dislike them. I feel sorry for them. They lost a baby soon after he was born then suffered more torment when Simon kidnapped Sam. Not to mention all of the other issues Joe describes.

I love this book so far! :D

[Linda]

Anna wrote: "I loved Joe's first line: "I am irritating her. Again." Looking at Anna through Joe's eyes, she doesn't resemble the woman the psychiatrist is speaking/writing to."

That first line was great. I'm anxious to see how Joe appears to Anna from her point of view. Was there something that Joe did, or how he acted towards her, to make her appear so cold to him? Something more than what Joe says is his "pathetic-ness"? Was there something other than the loss of their baby? What is he not relating to us that is important to her? It appears she has built a wall up around herself, but why?

"I wasn't seeing anyone. I sleep with whores." He doesn't consider his relations with Angelique as infidelity.

And yet, his relationship with Angelique isn't just about the sex. In a way, it's almost worse than that. He has a relationship with her where he tells her things that he can't talk to his wife about. She is more than simply the "whore" he says she is.

[Zulfiya]

I am nearly there. I will be with you on the page later tonight. I have been grinding my teeth through the technically intense investor dialogue. So painfully true and so annoying. That is the reason why readers do not go in for the cut-throat business of reaping profit by buying or selling something through the clandestine information.

[Teanka]

Sarah wrote: "I have to say that the husband, Joe, nauseated me quite a bit. I found it interesting though that it was his interpersonal relations that bothered me but his work related ones did not. "

That's funny, because for me the opposite is the case: like Linda, I feel sorry for Joe when it comes to his family life. It's his work I have issues with. To me, the part about the stock market and how he's going to buy the hospitals for Sid Graeme is morally wrong. Take a look, for instance, at the following dialogue:
‘Sid Graeme: - If the relationship between the health insurer and the participating private hospitals and private specialist doctors were contractual, it would transcend the relationship between a patient and his doctor or hospital.
Joe -What do you mean, transcend?
Sid -It would take precedence over the doctor/patient relationship’
Nobody seems to have any qualms about it, and I’m shocked. Some parts of this chapter constituted in my opinion a strong social critique of modern society.

Also, I’ve been wondering since the first pages, where is the action taking place? Is it the US or Australia (seems a viable question since the author is Australian)

As for Joe’s personal life, I agree that he’s a guy struggling to have a normal life and not succeeding at all. He has a strong inferiority complex probably coming from his childhood and feels insecure about himself. As for his repeated accusations aimed at his wife: We, the readers, already ‘know’ from what the psychologist had said that Anna has not been seeing Simon. Therefore his words are irritating. However I understand why Joe could think the opposite. They never touch each other anymore and he suspects her of meeting someone else. At this point, I’m most of all interested in reading a chapter narrated by Anna. To me, she seems to be the most mysterious character right now, because I have no idea what she thinks and why she behaves the way she does. At least two guys: Simon and Joe are obsessed with her and keep her constantly in their thoughts and both of them used to think she loved them. Yet somehow that feeling has gone sour and she despises both of them, or at least her husband? I suppose that she might have big problems of her own.

I’m also interested in the psychologist’s identity. I have a suspicion that he might be Alex Klima, the psychiatrist who is the strongest opponent of the managed care system. No way to prove it, just a thought based on premonition that all narrators should be somehow related to one another, making the story more dense and there was no other psychiatrist mentioned in Joseph’s story.

[Sarah]

The book is taking place in Melbourne. It says on pages 13 and 14 that Angelique ran away to Melbourne and that she met Simon her first night working the streets.

I've got notes all over so hopefully I don't forget anything.

I've been wondering more about the shopping trip. I'm getting the impression that maybe working his image over was his idea but he wanted to look how Anna wanted him to. Maybe she didn't want to and that's why she got someone else involved and wandered off. So he wants to go, wants to be what she wants him to be, and when she doesn't participate enthusiastically he turns the entire memory around to where she was at ashamed of him and rejecting him. Maybe it was all some misperception on his part. It's the only thing I can think of.

I'm really hoping we do get Anna's perspective at some point. I'm not sure we will though, because that would be giving us answers of a sort. I don't think this book is about answers.

I noticed that Anna commented that Joe suffered torment when Simon kidnapped Sam, but I don't actually know that he did. He's far more concerned that Anna might have been involved with Simon, and the thing that really made me want to strangle him is that he wouldn't call the cops back. I mean, once it occurs to him that it might be about his assault of the photographer I can kind of understand the cringing fear keeping him from calling them. BUT this didn't occur to him until the second time they called. His son was kidnapped and he won't call the police back? What the hell is up with that? He's too busy trying to make a less than ethical business deal. It's appalling.

Which is another thing that makes me despise him. I see that everyone else so far seems to feel sorry for him but self-loathing is much too close to self-pity and I have no patience for self-pity. I think this is why I dislike him rather than feeling sorry for him. His business deals are shady and selfish, he sleeps with a prostitute, he misses Sam's birthday, partially because of the shady business dealings, he won't follow up with the cops... There isn't one thing about this man that makes me not want to slap him around.

I do agree what he's doing through work is morally wrong. He's actually very average in this respect. There are so many people who do immoral things on a daily basis that this felt normal to me. I was appalled as they were talking about what they were doing with the healthcare system until I put a little more thought into it and realized it's pretty much what we have here in the U.S.. When our doctor's send info into our insurance system, they have to code what the visit was about. As long as you use your insurance at least. So if you're going to be diagnosed with something that you don't want anybody to know about, I guess you have to private pay. But I had never looked at it that way and never realized how horrifying it is. We think of doctor patient privilege as sacrosanct but it really isn't when insurance gets involved.

I also think Alex Klima is going to be our psychiatrist. Interesting that he seems to be on the "good" side in this piece. I think.

[Linda]

Teanka wrote: "It's his work I have issues with. To me, the part about the stock market and how he's going to buy the hospitals for Sid Graeme is morally wrong.....Nobody seems to have any qualms about it, and I’m shocked. Some parts of this chapter constituted in my opinion a strong social critique of modern society."

Oh yeah, I was completely disgusted by this part. I may feel bad for Joe in some regards, but his hand in helping people to make gobs of money hand over fist, and no hesitation with how it will impact people's lives was disgusting.

With this section going into so much depth about the scheme, I couldn't help but wonder if this will play a major point in the book? I also wondered this because of the part at the end of this section with Joe's mom being hysterical with the possibility that Roger will be evicted from the assisted living home "because of the government". Joe couldn't care less about the people his money-making scheme will hurt, but on the other hand he seems to care about his mom and brother and making sure Roger will be taken care of no matter what happens? It doesn't appear that Joe can see how these two issues are related.

I’m also interested in the psychologist’s identity. I have a suspicion that he might be Alex Klima, the psychiatrist who is the strongest opponent of the managed care system.

I had the same suspicion. I mean, how many psychiatrists named Alex can there be in one book? :)

[Sarah]

He seems to have some desire for a level of success that will always be unattainable. There doesn't seem to be any thought beyond that goal that's driving him, so consequences aren't something he realizes are there. I don't think.

Linda, does it mention the name Alex elsewhere? I missed it.

[Linda]

Sarah wrote: "I've been wondering more about the shopping trip. I'm getting the impression that maybe working his image over was his idea but he wanted to look how Anna wanted him to. Maybe she didn't want to and that's why she got someone else involved and wandered off....Maybe it was all some misperception on his part."

I was thinking along those same lines. And I bet Anna doesn't even remember this particular incident because it was nothing to her. Joe could have turned the small misperception into something much bigger than it actually was, so he's remembering it for what he made it into in his mind.

I noticed that Anna commented that Joe suffered torment when Simon kidnapped Sam, but I don't actually know that he did. He's far more concerned that Anna might have been involved with Simon, and the thing that really made me want to strangle him is that he wouldn't call the cops back.

Hmmm...you bring up a good point, Sarah. He did keep saying "I want to kill him", which I assumed to be a natural reaction towards someone who kidnapped his son. But...it's also a natural reaction towards someone who you think your wife has been sleeping with.

I see that everyone else so far seems to feel sorry for him but self-loathing is much too close to self-pity and I have no patience for self-pity. I think this is why I dislike him rather than feeling sorry for him.

Although I immediately hated Joe's involvement in the business deal, his going to a prostitute, and missing Sam's party, at the end of this section I still felt sorry for him. I do see where you are coming from though, Sarah. I wonder if my immediate emotional response was partly due to the fact that it was Joe telling the story himself? That if someone else was to tell the exact same story, I wouldn't have the same reaction? That I would have seen it leaning towards self-pity? It's interesting to think about, and you have me thinking!

[Linda]

Sarah wrote: "Linda, does it mention the name Alex elsewhere? I missed it."

I thought so? But maybe I'm wrong, I will have to backtrack and try to find it.

[Linda]

Going back, of course in Part One the psychiatrist does not mention his own name. And I couldn't find in Part Two where it talks about the first psychiatrist. I think I must have thought when the name Alex Klima came up as being the psychiatrist against the healthcare plan was "oh, now I know the psychiatrist's name" because how many psychiatrists can there be in one book. Plus it seems everyone is connected in this book. Anyway, my mistake - sorry!

[Zulfiya]

Enjoyed reading everyone's comments about this part and found it as intriguing as its predecessor, but obviously in a different way. If the previous part had some lyrical tone to it, this one is a part written by a man who is deeply unhappy and does not have the recourse of lyricism, poetry, and beauty to make his life more meaningful.

I have read the Wiki article about the author, and it is obvious that he is more of leftist views based on his background and especially his quotes, so this part is mostly a critical but human portrayed of someone we would describe a wolf of the Wall Street. His desire to earn more and more money regardless of the drama in his family is simply paranoid. Money and financial success are the only things that make him feel confident; part of it is his childhood trauma when his father was not able to take care of his family.

His brutal attitude to women as a object of consumption is everywhere in this chapter. He consumes the services of professional prostitutes and believes that was not the act of infidelity; he repeats again and again that he bought the house they are currently residing in; he has the car he wants, and even that Anna's paycheck is just a small supplemental income but they can easily do without it. He does not understand how important for any woman in this situation or any situation to be financially independent. Money sublimates his 'penis'. There is a ruthless joke in the Russian culture that says the most sexual part of any man is his bill folder or in his case, his platinum credit card.

I really feel sorry for him, but at the same time, I am so happy that I am not the one who worships money as Joe does.

The situation with the medical reform does not compliment either the financial investors or the parliament, but we all know how corrupted these buddies are, and I found it relevant to the current USA situation with the medical reform that is being implemented with serious opposition and difficulty in the Red belt states.

I also find it ironic how Joe still alludes to his religion or at least to his religious tradition. This is obviously the most sarcastic part of the novel. Excuse me if I do not quote correctly (I am not religious), but the quotation from the Bible says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." And these are the people with the lip service to their religious tradition who keep alluding to it all the time and who want to become richer. Even Anna keeps asking her husband how much money he wants to make and how much is enough for him. Scathing criticism of religious hypocrisy right here.

[Sarah]

Linda wrote: "Going back, of course in Part One the psychiatrist does not mention his own name. And I couldn't find in Part Two where it talks about the first psychiatrist. I think I must have thought when the..."

It has to be him, right? I saw the name on Amazon and thought that it was still a name without gender. So I was particularly curious when he came up, making sure that it said "him".

Zulfiya, I missed the religious tie ins. I remember the comment about the camel but I don't remember why it was used.

[Sarah]

Linda wrote: "I wonder if my immediate emotional response was partly due to the fact that it was Joe telling the story himself? That if someone else was to tell the exact same story, I wouldn't have the same reaction? ..."

I'm pretty sure that my response is the more abnormal one. Although self-pity makes me want to smack someone, what Joe is feeling is more along the lines of self-loathing, shame, and worthlessness. I can't even begin to imagine living this way. Maybe his slavish devotion to money comes from the fact that it's the only place that he does feel worthy. He can't keep his wife happy and he can't be a good father, but dammit he has a platinum card and a great car.

Actually TT Roadsters are pretty nice cars. Maybe unethical behavior is the way to go ;)

[Zulfiya]

The quote about the camel is usually used to show that rich people and people who enjoy making money will never end up in the better place, and that is the driving force of Christianity - be nice to people and you will be rewarded in your afterlife, but Joe enjoys making money; profit is above the morality in his case. At the same time, he often identifies himself as a Catholic or at least as the one who was raised as a Catholic. He even finds companions if not friends based on their religious background. I had to roll my eyes when I was reading these pages. I believe I might have a heightened sensitivity to religious hypocrisy because I live in the Bible belt state, and such hypocrisy often infuriates me. I am perfectly aware of the fact that faith can be beautiful in some people and even make them better, but this is not the case with our guy here. He is pathetically immoral when it comes to money. He never thinks about the moral consequences of his actions. He is actually entertaining an idea (I do not know how serious it is) to kill Simon fully believing that it is a righteous thought.

Perlman in his interview mentioned that his favorite writer is Graham Green, a writer who explored the complexities of faith and ambiguities of moral decisions. Reading this novel, I do feel how Perlman's work is influenced by works of Green.

[Zulfiya]

P.S. What about Mitch and Joe's relationship? Is anyone reading homoerotic vibes here?

[Sarah]

Zulfiya wrote: "P.S. What about Mitch and Joe's relationship? Is anyone reading homoerotic vibes here?"

God, yes. In a skin crawling way. I was kind of surprised they chose to go to separate prostitutes rather than "sharing".

I had completely forgotten that Joe was even Catholic. And wasn't that the supposed basis of his friendship with Mitch? Slipped my mind entirely.

[Zulfiya]

Sarah wrote: "I had completely forgotten that Joe was even Catholic. And wasn't that the supposed basis of his friendship with Mitch? Slipped my mind entirely."

Yep! This is exactly what I was talking about.

[Teanka]

Sarah wrote: "I had completely forgotten that Joe was even Catholic. And wasn't that the supposed basis of his friendship with Mitch? Slipped my mind entirely"

Coming from a country which is officially 99% catholic, I'm unable to connect 'religiousness' with 'poverty'. The Roman Catholic church itself is immensely wealthy and becoming ever wealthier, so why should the believers feel bad because of being rich? (of course they should if they truly believe, but that seems almost never to be the case). But I was outraged at the managed care system - we still don't have it although we're headed in that direction, I'm afraid. Interesting how readers with different backgrounds pick and choose different moral issues to fret about.

[Zulfiya]

I agree with you, Teanka, it is very interesting. Where are you from, if I may ask? Your profile says that you are from Sweden, that is currently one of the most non religious countries in the world. I might be mistaken, but the number of atheists in Sweden is among the highest in the world, and the major religious congregation is Lutheran. I am from Russia, but my husband is an American, and we live in the USA. When I used to leave in Russia, religion was more of a cultural tradition rather than a moral compass. Nowadays it is becoming a part of the ideology, and that is always bad. I was raised by agnostics, and religion was never an issue, basically, not the denial of it, but absence of it, so when I came to the USA, it was a major shock that people went to services every Sunday and sometimes on Wednesday; church activities are a major thing for many people, and they often identify themselves communally as members of specific churches, saying, 'Oh, I know him through church' or 'He is a good Christian'. Basically, it is a certain allumni system or an old boy network, but only via churches. That is the reason that I often pick up the themes of spirituality and religious hypocrisy.

Another theme is the ruthlessness and amorality of big business. I live thirty minutes away from the Walmart head office, the biggest retailer in the world, so the problems of big money is another topic I pick, and maybe my political convictions.

This book illustrates perfectly these two topics, but it also discusses human drama on a superb level. I also like the fact that the book offers ambiguity in its interpretation, and that is the essence of any GOOD book because as Terence said, 'As many heads, so many opinions'. ... I am lazy to find its Latin equivalent, but I do remember memorizing this phrase for my freshman Latin course, but it was an eternity ago, twenty years to be precise.

[Linda]

Zulfiya wrote: "P.S. What about Mitch and Joe's relationship? Is anyone reading homoerotic vibes here?"

I thought I felt a bit of that vibe, but then I ultimately put their relationship into more of the "bromance" category.

[Linda]

Zulfiya wrote: "The quote about the camel is usually used to show that rich people and people who enjoy making money will never end up in the better place....but Joe enjoys making money; profit is above the morality in his case. At the same time, he often identifies himself as a Catholic or at least as the one who was raised as a Catholic."

I didn't pick up on that quote, only that Joe was Catholic. That's an interesting point, Zulfiya.

[Zulfiya]

This book is really intriguing, and as you said, I can hardly find it unputdownable. On the other hand, it is good that we actually read it in sections because I can get more out of it thanks to the current discussion.

[Teanka]

Zulfiya wrote: "I agree with you, Teanka, it is very interesting. Where are you from, if I may ask? "

Oh, LOL, I forgot it says Sweden now. I'm from Poland and moved to Sweden only recently. And I'm an atheist myself, but obviously with a catholic cultural background. I agree that the majority of people (at least in Poland) attending weekly masses in the church do it mostly out of tradition. I believe that in Sweden it is a bit different, in that only people interested enough in religion decide to go. I don't think it was ever mentioned in the book that Joe or his family went to the church, it was probably what he did as a child with his mother and sisters.

Linda wrote: Joe couldn't care less about the people his money-making scheme will hurt, but on the other hand he seems to care about his mom and brother and making sure Roger will be taken care of no matter what happens? It doesn't appear that Joe can see how these two issues are related."

I also noticed that, Linda. I actually was wondering if the bill went through and Roger was back with his mother, would Joe be able to connect the two events? Now we'll never find out, I guess.

[Sarah]

Teanka wrote: " I actually was wondering if the bill went through and Roger was back with his mother, would Joe be able to connect the two events? ..."

I've also wondered about this and I'm glad you guys mentioned it. It's almost like his need for money and success is not entirely tied to reality. Like he's focused on the feeling of success rather than what happening to create that feeling. Like an addict? I'm not sure what I'm trying to describe exactly. I don't think he would ever make the connection with Roger because I don't think he's even seeing who he's stepping on to get what he wants.

Again I find it interesting about different responses to the book. I'm getting resentment and contempt towards Roger, and a feeling of simmering frustration towards his mother. After all, hasn't she ever heard of candy with chocolate?

A lot of times when you read books with people you get different opinions to what's going on. That's a good thing to me. I don't think I've ever seen one that inspires such varied opinions as this one. And we have relatively few people participating. There seems to be... Okay, I'm having a hard time expressing myself right. Have you guys seen polygraph images? When someone tells the truth you get a nice tight pattern, right? This book is the "their lying their a** off" pattern where it's all over the page. Does that make sense at all? That's a visual sense of how I'm perceiving our thoughts.

This is a fascinating book to do a discussion on.

[Anna]

Sarah wrote: "Again I find it interesting about different responses to the book. I'm getting resentment and contempt towards Roger, and a feeling of simmering frustration towards his mother. After all, hasn't she ever heard of candy with chocolate?"

You reminded me about how Joe goes on about his mom's hard candies. He talks about his mom being uncomfortable in his house. He says, "She acts like it's stolen." Maybe mom has a good idea how Joe makes a living. He seems to talk about it freely.

[Sarah]

That's a very good point. I was obsessing about the hard candy animosity and missed that.

[Sarah]

Did anyone think that it was weird that Anna went straight to"Did she pee on you, Joe?"? I can't even fathom what would lead someone to ask that question. I probably don't want to know why she would ask that, but I was certainly gaping at the book.

[Teanka]

Sarah wrote: "Did anyone think that it was weird that Anna went straight to"Did she pee on you, Joe?"? I can't even fathom what would lead someone to ask that question. I probably don't want to know why she woul..."

I thought that was explained by Joe pretty well in the next section: Years ago, in the period after our first son had died and I was trying to rejuvenate an intimacy between us, I had once, during a thus far unsuccessful lovemaking session, suggested that she sit on top of me and just let herself go. She was horrified. (...) What was wrong with that? I didn't particularly want it. I thought she might like it. She didn't and obviously she had never forgotten it.

I thought that conversation reflected badly on her, not on him. Shouldn't she at least try to talk to her husband, for the sake of their son, instead of shouting madly and asking distasteful questions? We don't know her side of the story yet.

[Sarah]

It was an extremely strange place to go on her part. All of the things that are going on and that's what she comes up with. I had forgotten about that description later, thanks. This is the problem with reading over time, I forget things.

[Teanka]

Yeah, I thought it was pretty weird too. That's probably why I remembered that particular fragment. Lots of small details in this book, that's why it's so interesting to interpret! :)

[Linda]

Teanka wrote: "I thought that conversation reflected badly on her, not on him. Shouldn't she at least try to talk to her husband, for the sake of their son, instead of shouting madly and asking distasteful questions? We don't know her side of the story yet."

I had the same reaction, Teanka.

Here, Joe sees the suggestion as "rejuvenating an intimacy", but she might remember it completely differently, maybe more along the lines of a fetish of Joe's. So she sees it more as him satisfying his own needs, whereas he sees it as trying to reconnect with his wife.

I really hope we get to see Anna's POV.

[Sarah]

I'm not a hundred percent sure but I think we get Simon and Anna both. Won't that be fun.

To me Anna's reaction seems so far out of left field. "You're cheating on me with a prostitute! Did she pee on you?" I kind of laughed because it was so bizarre. That would most definitely NOT be my first question.

Rejuvenating intimacy seems like it would often involve trying new things and stretching boundaries. Maybe a conversation about why he suggested this would have been in order. I hope Anna's POV addresses this just because it was so surreal.

[Linda]

Sarah wrote: "That would most definitely NOT be my first question."

Ha ha! I know, me too. I only thought that this must have been a big enough issue between them in the past, that it was feasible this was the first thing she would ask.

Rejuvenating intimacy seems like it would often involve trying new things and stretching boundaries. Maybe a conversation about why he suggested this would have been in order.

Totally. I thought it strange that THIS was the thing he wanted to try to renew intimacy. Maybe it was a fetish on Joe's part, Anna is sick of hearing about it, and he is spinning it to make it sound like he's trying to renew an intimacy.

[Sarah]

That would make sense. He does seem to spin things so that he looks better. Which is something we all do to a certain extent, but he seems to have perfected it!

[Jess :)]

Sarah wrote: "To me Anna's reaction seems so far out of left field. "You're cheating on me with a prostitute! Did she pee on you?"

I thought Anna's reaction was understandable.

Joe clearly has intimacy problems. In some ways he's just not very bright. I truly feel sorry for the guy. I mean…. he thought that asking his wife to pee on him might help their marriage? How dense can you be!

I'm sure Anna thought this was some fetish of his. Who can blame her?

When she and Joe finally talk, Anna has known about the whore for a long time. She's had a long time to stew. It doesn't surprise me that anger and accusations come spilling out of her. I think she does ask the most important question (did he use protection?) in the midst of her anger.

I think she asks did she pee on you? to shame Joe. Most people would regard this as base and disgusting, and he's got to be ashamed of it. She's forcing Joe to fess up to being a pervert. Then, she uses it as ammunition to force Joe out of his bed.

She's pissed and hitting below the belt. But really, who can blame her?

[Ami]

Linda wrote: "Sarah wrote: "I've been wondering more about the shopping trip. I'm getting the impression that maybe working his image over was his idea but he wanted to look how Anna wanted him to. Maybe she did..."

Sarah wrote: "I have to say that the husband, Joe, nauseated me quite a bit. I found it interesting though that it was his interpersonal relations that bothered me but his work related ones did not. Did anyone..."

Joe's POV left me with a better understanding of why he approaches life the way he does...He's a go getter and if it's within his sights, he's going to go after it come hell, or fire. It's comparable to Wall Street mentality...Successful Wall Street Mentality where morals and ethics aren't always on the top of the priority list. Perlman describes this life and the downfall associated with it i.e. drug/alcohol addiction, infidelity, divorce, early death, perfectly. I get it, I understand Joe, I don't have to agree with all of his decisions, but I get it.

I have a question...Since when does early morning nookie initiated by husband to wife in a slumber constitute rape...What type of woman says to her husband It's rape, Joe "matter-of-factly?" A bitter and spiteful woman, I think. Joe may be half way out the door wanting a do over in his life, but it's not as if Anna isn't pushing him out. For a wife to behave like this with her husband...Talk about distance and disrespect in the marriage. Joe's description of Anna's reply to a cup of tea as a semipermeable viscous membrane of bitterness ...Wow (54). She holds him in contempt for instances which are immeasurable; for example, not grieving enough for their child who passed after seventeen days, he didn't grieve for him like she did. Well, of course not, they are two different people with two different relationships with a child no longer-how do you quantify the amount of grief one expends? Anna knew early on in their marriage, Joe was not the guy for her, but it was too late and she was already committed. They are involved in the worst kind of marriage with one another, one where each of them has committed to someone who makes them feel lonelier when together than when they are apart-There's nothing worse than surrounding yourself with people who make you feel alone. However, isn't it ironic in the aftermath of the abduction, Joe doesn't think Anna is as worried about Sam like he is-She's not as bothered...How does one begin to measure something like this? Again, it's Joe's POV, it's "his truth" which I find believable, but there's something to be said about the faults and contempt each of them find in another.

It's funny, in the previous section Simon is described as knowing Anna like the back of his hand, but so does Joe. He knows her to a tee and I think he's still very much in love with her. Right now, I see Joe in a marriage where his wife has great difficulty in reciprocating any affections for him. I know it takes two to tango and it will be interesting to read Anna's POV as it will be insightful to read about the genesis of her disdain for Joe. According to the doctor, Anna may have left Simon because he was a phase, or that his optimism, opinions, an his touch too predicable and tiresome, stifling, I wonder if her issues with Joe also consisted of him never being around...The opposite of Simon (10)?

Once Joe could put a name and association to Sam's abductor, he becomes rather disturbed about the fact that Simon could still be involved with Anna. I thought this characteristic in him actually emphasized his own guilt associated with his extracurricular activities with Angelique. I don't think he's too happy knowing he has to pay for attention, be it companionship or sex, from a prostitute...He shouldn't have to pay for it, we read it over and over again. It's a slap to his ego, his own wife finding him inadequate. But isn't it interesting, taking into consideration how Anna ignores Joe, that he chose Angelique at the brothel ...I think I chose Angelique because she didn't choose me...Every woman in the place was attracted to me by market forces and so I chose the one who seemed to most approximate the outside world, the one with her back to me. In this respect she could have been my wife. And in another respect too (67). He was going to get his "wife" one way, or another!

I'm not repulsed by Joe, or his actions. In fact, I too mostly feel sorry for him...I think it's terrible he's involved in this situation where his son was abducted by the ex-lover of Anna, that Anna is apathetic towards her husband, and because he still feels so inadequate in spite of the success he has achieved. Here we've read about two men, Simon and Joe, both unglued to the point of destruction (well, one has surpassed this point) and at the root for these two is a woman, Anna...Who is this woman? In one section she's portrayed as this untouchable work of perfection, a real class act, but in this section she's an apathetic sharp tongued barracuda...

[Sarah]

I will answer more tomorrow but I think the issue with the morning nookie was that he was inside her before she had a chance to say yes or no. So yes, he forced her. My question is, did she find a less harsh way of telling him it wasn't okay? Because if she did and he continues, this may have been the only way to get through to him. If she did not, this is a whole new level of screwing up your relationship.

[Ami]

E :) wrote: "Sarah wrote: "To me Anna's reaction seems so far out of left field. "You're cheating on me with a prostitute! Did she pee on you?"

I thought Anna's reaction was understandable.

Joe clearly has..."

Linda wrote: "Sarah wrote: "That would most definitely NOT be my first question."

Ha ha! I know, me too. I only thought that this must have been a big enough issue between them in the past, that it was feasib..."

Linda wrote: "Zulfiya wrote: "P.S. What about Mitch and Joe's relationship? Is anyone reading homoerotic vibes here?"

I thought I felt a bit of that vibe, but then I ultimately put their relationship into more ..."

Sarah wrote: "Teanka wrote: " I actually was wondering if the bill went through and Roger was back with his mother, would Joe be able to connect the two events? ..."

I've also wondered about this and I'm glad y..."

I'm getting resentment and contempt towards Roger, and a feeling of simmering frustration towards his mother. After all, hasn't she ever heard of candy with chocolate?
I can see this for when he was a child, but as an adult I see it more as another burden he will have to carry on his shoulders since his sisters aren't really in the picture. I think he feels sorry for his mother because she's had to shoulder all the responsibility for their household on her own. I think the hard candies are the one constant reminder of his inadequacy (seeking approval) surrounding his success. He lives well, but his mother finds it frivolous. The candies are given to Sam by a grandmother who expresses great discomfort in her son's house. It seems Joe is always looking for some sort of approval from his parents and his wife, but nobody really gives it to him. I think the candies represent disapproval "to him."

Bromance
I agree with you Linda, but I don't even think it's as sweet as a "bromance." It felt one sided to me. The joy found by one in the other didn't seem reciprocated by Mitch in Joe. Granted, it is Joe's POV, but he was so animated about Mitch and Mitch was too on the straight and narrow with Joe.

Golden Showers
Oh my...Where to begin? I like Sarah laughed at Anna's callous retort to Joe. Their marriage is beyond repair, I hate to say it...How do you come back from disrespect like this? Her only intention, I thought, was to shame Joe in regards to the delicate subject matter. His attempt at rejuvenating their intimacy by means of implementing a golden shower, I think, it came out of left field and not something he contemplated...He never asked Angelique to perform this act, she did it on her own. If it was a fetish of his, then wouldn't he have asked for it...And on more than one occasion?


Joe clearly has intimacy problems. In some ways he's just not very bright.
Anna hasn't felt the need to have sex with her husband in quite some time. When he's initiated it, in one particular instance, she tells him what he's doing is comparable to "rape..." Why is it exactly Joe has the intimacy issues?

I mean…. he thought that asking his wife to pee on him might help their marriage? How dense can you be!
I don't think it's a matter of being dense. I think Joe was desperate to have his wife and life back and he was going to do anything within his powers to regain some normalcy in their lives. I think there's too much emphasis on the act itself and not enough about the motivation behind the request. It's more about finding "something new," reigniting a spark, and finding an act enabling them to share an intimacy in another way. As we've read...A shower, of sorts, was what he came up with.

I'm sure Anna thought this was some fetish of his. Who can blame her?
If she thought it was a fetish of his, then why was she so taken aback by his request for it...It wouldn't be so much of a surprise if she knew? Anna's scorn for Joe aside, she was horrified by his request and it was just one more thing to hold him in contempt for (107).

Most people would regard this as base and disgusting, and he's got to be ashamed of it.
This sounds like a bit of a generalization to me "most people." Sure everybody has an opinion, but I don't feel it's my place to consider what somebody else does in their bedroom as "base and disgusting." I also don't think Joe "has to be ashamed of it..." Why? Hypothetically, if golden showers are a fetish to him and he enjoys them, then why should he feel "ashamed" of it...Because somebody else doesn't approve?

She's forcing Joe to fess up to being a pervert.
Yes, she is and she's shaming him like you said...What kind of person does this make Anna? In conjunction to her anger and utter hate for Joe, I think it makes Anna rather sanctimonious and judgmental, actually.

[Ami]

Teanka wrote: "Sarah wrote: "I have to say that the husband, Joe, nauseated me quite a bit. I found it interesting though that it was his interpersonal relations that bothered me but his work related ones did no..."

I’m also interested in the psychologist’s identity. I have a suspicion that he might be Alex Klima, the psychiatrist who is the strongest opponent of the managed care system.
I agree with you here.. I think they are the same person as well.

[Ami]

Sarah wrote: "I will answer mite tomorrow but I think the issue with the morning nookie was that he was inside her before she had a chance to say yes or no. So yes, he forced her. My question is, did she find a ..."

Yes, I understand. I think Anna is so disgusted with Joe that any little thing is obviously setting her off; including non consensual morning sex with her husband. She doesn't want him or him anywhere near her. What I can't wrap my head around is how she said it, matter-of-factly-she wasn't horrified, or disturbed? Maybe "she's" the sociopath? Can you imagine a rejection so vile first thing in the morning? LOL!

[Sarah]

I think there's too much emphasis on the act itself and not enough about the motivation behind the request.

I couldn't agree more. If it is a fetish of his, then he's totally laid his soul open for Anna and she's laughed in his face. I don't think a marriage actually could recover from this. I think if someone asked me for this, my first step would be to find out if it was a whim or a deeply held fantasy. To be honest, I also struggle with using the word "fetish" for this behavior. This is actually not an uncommon thing. It's mainstream enough that I'm surprised that someone would be surprised by the request. I researched it a bit and found there are actually a number of fetishes that involve urination, but that this one is pretty common. Also, urine is sterile so there's no actual danger in it. Except that it can apparently pass Hepatitis B.

Can you imagine a rejection so vile

I have to admit that I'm totally on Anna's side here. I'm hoping that she addressed the issue in a better way and he just wasn't listening to it until she was so blunt. It's a harsh thing to say but what she's saying is an accurate assessment of what's happening.

[Ami]

Sarah wrote: "I think there's too much emphasis on the act itself and not enough about the motivation behind the request.

I couldn't agree more. If it is a fetish of his, then he's totally laid his soul open f..."

I have to admit that I'm totally on Anna's side here. I'm hoping that she addressed the issue in a better way and he just wasn't listening to it until she was so blunt. It's a harsh thing to say but what she's saying is an accurate assessment of what's happening.
you're right, what she says is representative of what's happening, literally by definition, but isn't there a gray area? How often is morning sex consensual between two married people, one or both parties is/are usually half asleep in the beginning, isn't this what distinguishes it from sex any other time of day? Joe's timing was terrible and she was just being Anna. They are each taking advantage of marital liberties (is this the right word?); it's not a matter of sides for me, they are both at fault.

I do understand your point, Sarah. :)

[Jess :)]

Ami wrote: "Anna hasn't felt the need to have sex with her husband in quite some time. When he's initiated it, in one particular instance, she tells him what he's doing is comparable to "rape..." Why is it exactly Joe has the intimacy issues?"


So far, we're only hearing about the marriage from Joe's perspective. Joe seems to be very caught up in his own insecurities. I have the suspicion that he's missing many clues from Anna.

I do think he has intimacy problems, which is not to imply that Anna doesn't as well. From what Joe's shared, his attempts at intimacy consist of suggestions of golden showers and "good morning" c**k. Has he tried taking Anna on a date recently? Making her dinner? Having an intimate conversation? While we can't say for sure, I'm getting the impression that he hasn't. (Am I missing anything here?? It's possible that I am)

In the early morning sex scene, Joe is inside Anna before she even wakes. He's not suggesting sex and waiting for a response; it's not a choice they make together. He's entering her without her consent. And, uh, I don't want to get graphic here, but depending on the uh.. relative sizes of the equipment, I can imagine this being quite painful for Anna; she's not prepared for it.

I wouldn't go so far as calling this "rape", but I still think it's harsh to write Anna off based on the first words out of her mouth in the morning. Perhaps she's not a morning person; perhaps she's waking up to something painful; perhaps her husband should already know this isn't her cup of tea.

My point was not that I personally pass judgement on the "piss on me" request. My point is that she "goes there" because she is shaming Joe. If the act were not generally considered to be disgusting / embarrassing / or etc, then why would her question shame him? She's using it to shame him because, well, it's not your standard request! If it were, we wouldn't have gems such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syqo3.... :)

Anna is disgusted, yes, but she likely thinks there is more behind Joe's request. We may know that this isn't a secret desire of his, but I doubt that Anna would. Many people hide these sorts of things, and I don't get the impression that she and Joe are very open.

[Jess :)]

Ami wrote: "Anna knew early on in their marriage, Joe was not the guy for her, but it was too late and she was already committed....."

From Joe's perspective, this is what we're to think. I'm wondering how much of this is real and how much of this is due to Joe projecting his insecurities.

I was once in a relationship with a very insecure man. Often, my innocent actions or comments were twisted in a way that touched on his insecurities. Regarding the shopping scene and the argument that follows, Joe says she kept denying what seemed obvious to me… the shopping scene had induced … irritation, same, contempt…. from then on I knew….. I had the capacity to look ridiculous and pathetic to her… Anna had found me out. This seems all too familiar to me. Thus begins a destructive cycle!

The fact that the scene led to a bitter augment doesn't mean that his insecurities were founded. It is very hard not to argue with somebody who insists on interpreting your actions in a twisted way; she kept denying what seemed obvious to me. Insecurities like this lead to serious problems for a relationship.