21st Century Literature discussion
2015 Book Discussions
>
Euphoria - The Book as a Whole (March 2015)
I finished last night. I thought it was an easily read book with levels of complexity that are not immediately evident. I did not think the focus was on a love triangle or the attraction between Nell and Bankson. I'll just provide a couple of themes that resonated with me and will have me thinking for a while --
Strong woman v. weak man -- how often I have seen accomplished woman, recognized professionally, allow themselves to be battered (mentally and/or physically) by their male partners who are threatened because they have failed to receive similar kudos for their work.
Subjective immersion v. objective observation -- what is the best way to learn another culture? does it matter what the objective is? and a zillion other questions.
Regarding the strong woman/weak man theme did you think she actually tackled that? It was there but at times i felt Nell and Fen's relationship was perhaps the most fascinating subject but she chose to focus on Bankson.
Violet wrote: "Regarding the strong woman/weak man theme did you think she actually tackled that? It was there but at times i felt Nell and Fen's relationship was perhaps the most fascinating subject but she chos..."Yes, I thought she showed it very well. It is one theme I do not think is subject to the tell v. show issue that some readers had. But it is there in spades.
I guess what i felt overall was that she had a fabulous story but didn't quite milk out all its potential. I think with a good director it'll make a fantastic film.
Violet wrote: "I guess what i felt overall was that she had a fabulous story but didn't quite milk out all its potential. I think with a good director it'll make a fantastic film."Perhaps it is we as readers that are not milking its potential. I just read Leviathan by Paul Auster. Like Euphoria it was easy to read but also like Euphoria, I think, it had levels of complexity that could be missed/dismissed because it was easy to read.
Yeah, I agree Linda. Though having said that I think Paul Auster is in a completely different league to Lily King.
Mod
The longer this book has sat with me, the stronger I've felt like these characters, the history, and cultures presented were more appropriated than respected. I'm not sure if that's fair or not, but I'll throw it out there to see what others think.
Marc, As I noted above, I do think one of the themes was the strong woman/weak man relationship, where the strong woman puts up with the weak man abusing her. I wonder if King used Bankson as the narrator in order to highlight the abuse that the strong woman put up with? I think you may be right that the characters, history, and cultures were appropriated but I do not think that indicates a lack of respect. I think it is consistent with King saying that her novel was "inspired" by Margaret Mead's story.
Marc, I'm with you on everything you said. Bankson's infatuation allowed King to create a flattering somewhat sentimental portrait of Nell. I think her relationship with Fen was where all the real archaelogy was buried and Bankson's perspective was a cop-out. And yep, the cultures were exploited for exotic colour. I've grown to dislike this novel more with hindsight. Don't get it.
I didn't "like" this novel since its advertising blurbs (and rough description) first appeared, or at least I viewed it with concern. I felt as if it might be exploiting at least one very famous name and perhaps at least two others for sales. I came to this discussion to allay and assuage my gut reaction. (I didn't vote for reading it and chose not to buy it.)
Linda wrote: "Marc, ... I do think one of the themes was the strong woman/weak man relationship, ..."I did think one of the more subtle, yet pointed, passages was King having it be Nell's brother who objected to her not adopting Fen's name. (p57) King emphasizes the Nell/Fen aspects, but she doesn't quite ignore the larger societal pressures.
(I don't know if that anecdote was fictional or derived from research, e.g., perhaps a journal entry. I give as much credit for fiction as research on such tidbits, given the eventual arc of the story.)
Mod
I think that was definitely a theme (and probably still is an all-too-common one in today's world), but what did you think King brought to it besides letting us see that Nell inhabited such a relationship?
Writers/artists are free to tell stories how they see fit, but I personally grimace when characters come off to me as caricatures.
Ben, I think we see pretty eye-to-eye on this book, although I may have enjoyed it more than you. I found it entertaining, somewhat engaging, and it brought up a lot of topics/issues I thought about beyond the book. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
There's nothing wrong with simply finding a book or story entertaining. Certainly, I thought the prose itself was pretty respectable. It just felt like the effect as a whole was more commercially-driven than artistic. (I went into this book not knowing anything about the author, the prize nominations, etc. I was vaguely familiar with Margaret Mead.)
Largely unexplored in this novel, but of great interest, is how certain tribal cultures manage social relations pretty well with strong, sexually dominant females while the so-called civilized world still has trouble with this today.
I want to add one more dimension to this great discussion. I wished that these characters were not based on actual historical figures because it set up expectations in me for them to more closely follow the trajectory of Mead and Bateson's lives. King apparently draws closely on their lives in this one period of time. Then she lets her imagination kill off Nel. The book would have been stronger for me if that hadn't happened. It felt like a way to end the book quickly (it's a fairly short book) rather than play out further the dynamics between Nel, Bankson, and Fen. It also bothered me that it was the main female character that King knocked off rather than one of the men, especially in a book where the New Guinea society under scrutiny is matriarchal!
Casceil wrote: "Lily, as to what compelled Nell to throw the flute overboard. I think she felt she owed it to Xambun and Malun. Nell valued human life as sacred from an early age. Remember what she tells Bankso..."Does anyone know if and to what extent the flute story belongs to the "real life" of MM? I understand Casceil's argument re: Nell. I'm not certain, however, whether throwing the flute overboard was a more or less sacred move/ritual than preserving it could have been. I wanted the anthropological/moral/professional/??? arguments rather than "simply" off-stage actions that ostensibly led to abuse unto death.
Mod
There's a reference to the possible original of the flute here http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/mead/fiel...
I agree Lily that there was something unsatisfactory about the way King managed the flute - a sacred object belittled into a symbol of marital strife. I very much doubt this happened but it should be a moment of immense moral and professional struggle whereas it's dealt with almost flippantly in the novel. And it could undermine Mead's integrity as an anthropologist too.
Violet wrote: "...And it could undermine Mead's integrity as an anthropologist too...."Does it undermine Nell's (integrity as an anthropologist)? It seems to me the incident is presented as if to reinforce hers. Whether that is "true" or not felt slid over or romanticized to me.
Are there "shoulds" for a reader approaching a novel ("fiction?") like this? Is it entertainment? Is it a chance to learn "more" about a historic figure? Is it a way to see issues relative to anthropology and does it accomplish that? (If so, what are the ones this book at least brings to the surface.) Is it to look at the interaction of the personal and the professional with a sort of anthropological distance or perspective? Does it matter if the story, events, and characters are misinterpreted as closer to the "real" lives that inspired the book than those fictionalizations really are? What are the appropriate questions to be asking here?
Besides comparisons with Mantel's Wolf Hall, I find myself thinking of Shakespeare's Richard plays alongside the scholarly research to uncover the character of the kings who inspired Sir William. What matters and why.
I think that was definitely a theme (and probably still is an all-too-common one in today's world), but what did you think King brought to it besides letting us see that Nell inhabited such a relationship?Marc, it is a reality that is still all too common. I did not feel a need for the author to bring anything to it other than to show it. I think, through Bankson, that she also showed that it does not have to be that way. The larger point for me is that the theme is there, available for consideration by male and female readers.
Besides comparisons with Mantel's Wolf Hall, I find myself thinking of Shakespeare's Richard plays alongside the scholarly research to uncover the character of the kings who inspired Sir William. What matters and why.
Lily, you (and others) often raise the issue of how "real" a character in a novel that is based on a historical figure really is, which may have a relationship to how much scholarly research was done. That is not a point that often bothers me - unless the author makes a big deal about wanting to make his or her fictional portrayal as real as possible. That was certainly not the case here - King did not, as Mantel and Shakespeare did, even use the name of the historical person whose story was her inspiration. King said she fictionalized the story. So for me, Euphoria bears no resemblance to Wolf Hall or even to The Orphan Master's Son, where this question of acccuracy was also considered. So for me, it's not a concern and, hence, difficult for me to respond to the questions you raise, including the question of what are the appropriate questions.
Mod
Linda, I think you hit on the dividing point of this novel. It brought up so many amazing/deep topics--anthropology, colonialism, white privilege, sexuality, identity, tradition, power structures, female power/dominance/submission, etc. And for many readers that was enough to have just touched on those. For many of us, we felt like a huge opportunity was wasted... like someone went to the Sistine Chapel and took a picture of the outside without bothering to go in or explore its history.
I'm glad that many people got a lot out of this book.
I'm much more interested in the direction this discussion is heading about how true to Nell's character (not Mead) it was for her to toss the flute. Or how readers felt reading Bankson's description of the way Nell and Fen seemed to set up a mini-kingdom wherever they went putting the native's to work for them. (No offense taken if others have no interest in discussing this.)
Lily, supposedly the flute was inscribed with written language, an unprecedented find. Tossing it overboard seems melodramatic to me, more the gesture of some heroine in a cheap romance than a professional anthropologist. I'd be amazed if Mead did anything similar.
Mod
But what about Nell? Is she the type of character to let marital strife cloud professional judgment? Would she have thought it more respectful to destroy the flute than let it be traded for fame/attention?
Anybody have the passage handy where she tosses the flute (I don't recall it and my copy of the book is not with me)?
I don't have Lily's misgivings about fictional depictions of real people. For me a novel is fiction and is at liberty to take liberties with all manner of accepted truths. Hollywood has virtually rewritten history anyway! But if King's aim was to create a conscientious anthropologist I think she got that scene wrong. Anthropologists, like archaeologists, have to have their own ethical code because, at bottom, their work involves questionable moral standards. They don't live and let live. It's really difficult to find that passage because it was kind of slipped in when you weren't looking. "I have done it. Full fathom five it lies...Let him rage." She seems to be enjoying his rage above all other considerations.
I think you hit on the dividing point of this novel. It brought up so many amazing/dee..."Marc wrote: "Linda wrote: "I did not feel a need for the author to bring anything to it other than to show it. It brought up so many amazing/deep topics--anthropology, colonialism, white privilege, sexuality, identity, tradition, power structures, female power/dominance/submission, etc. And for many readers that was enough to have just touched on those. For many of us, we felt like a huge opportunity was wasted... like someone went to the Sistine Chapel and took a picture of the outside without bothering to go in or explore its history."
Marc, I am curious as to what you would have liked the author to do with the issues - express her own opinion in some way? Perhaps the author wanted the readers to go in or explore on their own? If she had expanded more, would there be complaints that she was doing to much telling (which I think there were about this book)and not enought showing? There are books where I've really wanted to know more than I was told or shown but this one did not strike me that way. I would, however, love to hear the author respond to the questions about the themes, just as I enjoy hearing this group's thoughts, which brings me to ....
I'm much more interested in the direction this discussion is heading about how true to Nell's character (not Mead) it was for her to toss the flute. Or how readers felt reading Bankson's description of the way Nell and Fen seemed to set up a mini-kingdom wherever they went putting the native's to work for them. (No offense taken if others have no interest in discussing this.)
I find these interesting questions. I do think Nell was true to her character when she tossed the flute overboard. I do not think she did it because of marital strife. I think she did it despite the marital strife. At times during the book, she kept her opinions of what Fen was doing in check in order to maintain a level of calm between them. It seems that on the boat she had finally decided that enough was enough. Having made that decision, she stopped trying to placate him and did what she thought was right -- tossed the flute overboard rather than to allow Fen to use the sacred item for personal gain. Perhaps she felt that Fen would not discover the flute being gone until they had reached their destination where she would have a chance at avoiding his rage. (my copy of the book and I won't be together again for a couple of weeks, so I cannot pinpoint where we learn she did that).
As to the "mini-kingdom" question -- I think there are 3 ways of observing going on. First is Bankson's objective manner of pure observation and not engaging anyone in the tribe to do household duties for him. Second is Nell's middle of the road approach. She asks a lot of questions and has no qualms about engaging tribe members to help with cooking, cleaning, etc. Last is Fen's complete immersion into the male culture of the tribe during which he maintains no detachment. It seems to me that there may be value in each approach but that which to use would depend on the circumstances.
Violet wrote: "She seems to be enjoying his rage above all other considerations."Interesting take - I did not get that vibe at all. I think she tossed the flute, knowing the rage it would incite, because she wanted to stop him using the sacred flute to his own advantage. I never got the idea that Nell enjoyed Fen's rages -- she subjected herself to too much abuse to avoid them.
Violet wrote: "I don't have Lily's misgivings about fictional depictions of real people...."My concerns include about the use of real names to sell a fictional book. I'm not certain why I feel more that way about Margaret Mead and Euphoria than I do about Colm Tóibín's The Master. Perhaps because of some gut intuitions about the differences in the questioning mode of the audiences for the two books? Silly on my part, perhaps....
Perhaps because a friend said she'd like to read Euphoria to learn more about Margaret Mead, and I don't think she is unique in the target market for this book.
Linda, my feeling was that if we really wanted to know Nell we had to know Fen. The shifting form of the novel allowed for a more balanced perspective but King chose to give us Bankson's adolescent crush which for me was a massive cop out. The novel ends up being about Nell and Fen so why was Fen virtually ignored for the entire novel except as a kind of stock baddie? She married him after all. That was the relationship that fascinated me. King chose to largely ignore it. I suspect this was a commercial decision. A love triangle is much more attractive commercially than a violent marriage. She's sold the film rights so it worked.
Lily, I have friends who feel like you do. Tolstoy probably started it with his clownish depiction of Napoleon. I know people who are angered by that. It's just one of those things that seems to either bother people or not.
Mod
Thanks for the quote, Violet. I could also see that as Nell feeling it had to be done regardless of the rage it would cause. I don't know--the two characters push each other's buttons and make so many little verbal jabs throughout the book, that it's hard not to see them as petty sometimes.
Lily, I'm more with Violet on not caring about historical accuracy, but it does feel like there's a kind of manipulation going on here... How would you describe "the differences in the questioning mode of the audiences" (I'm not familiar with The Master, nor its audience)?
Violet wrote: "Lily, I have friends who feel like you do. Tolstoy probably started it with his clownish depiction of Napoleon. I know people who are angered by that. It's just one of those things that seems to ei..."Thank you for that perspective/example, Violet. It helps. (So did Shakespeare's Richards!)
Sidebar on Richard III, totally irrelevant to Euphoria: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/20...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/art...
Violet wrote: "Linda, my feeling was that if we really wanted to know Nell we had to know Fen. The shifting form of the novel allowed for a more balanced perspective but King chose to give us Bankson's adolescent..."Why do you consider a "love triangle [to be] much more attractive commercially than a violent marriage? Do you think that the author actually chose a love triangle to heighten the possibility of the film rights being bought? I guess I'm asking why you seem to have a jaded opinion of the author's motives.
I also would not characterize Bankson's feelings towards Nell as an "adolescent crush." It seem to me that he first felt a real attraction to her that then grew as he came to respect her professionally.
Violet wrote: A love triangle is much more attractive commercially than a violent marriage. She's sold the film rights so it worked. Oh good. Maybe the climactic ending will be conducted on screen so I won't feel so ripped off.
Or maybe not. Maybe the screen writers will want to maintain the pretentious "artistic resonance" or whateveryouwannacallit and "allow the viewer to fill in the juicy bits for themselves."
Either way, I am gonna watch the movie when it come out.
King admitted the love triangle was what got her interested in Mead. That was pretty obvious I always felt. She wasn't anywhere as near interested in the anthropology. Within thirty pages I was seeing the novel as a film. I'm sure all authors want their novels to be films so i don't see why it makes me jaded for thinking it. Film rights are the only way most authors can make any serious money. I think King saw the opportunity to follow in the footsteps of Out of Africa and the English patient (both much much better books in my opinion) and like, Tome reader, I'm looking forward to the film as I have a hunch it'll make a better film than novel.
I see Lily’s point. If Mead was my grandmother I’d take exception to King's portrayal. And making some hamfisted attempt to differentiate Nell from Mead makes it worse because it gives King free reign to invent whatever she wants without having to answer to it. It’s like she’s got her cake and eaten it too. It would have been braver of King to research Mead and her work more thoroughly and write a transparently fictionalised account of her life. I felt she exploited Mead just as she exploited the cultures for picturesque decoration. And hey, I don’t mean to undermine the pleasure anyone got from the novel because it was an enjoyable read but is it any kind of modern masterpiece deserving of awards? I’d have to say, no way.
Marc wrote: "...How would you describe "the differences in the questioning mode of the audiences" (I'm not familiar with The Master, nor its audience)? ..."Mostly speculation, Marc. My reasoning, for what it is: Margaret Mead is broadly known in the United States across wide demographics, whereas as far as I can tell, Henry James's (subject of The Master) appeal is more towards a niche market of readers likely to have been trained, at least somewhat, in reading skills honed for making careful distinctions. (Just reading James's masterpieces requires some of those skills! lol)
Marc wrote: "...Now you've made me want to go find some interviews with the author to see what her expressed intentions were! ..."I don't know if this is useful to your interests, Marc, but I did find it interesting:
http://www.scmp.com/magazines/post-ma...
From the interviewer: "But what was Margaret Mead like as a human being? And will King be able to pull off this fictional reimagining of her?"
I may have linked this one previously:
http://savageminds.org/2014/09/04/the...
"Anthropologists may want to read Euphoria because it received high praise in literary circles, including a glowing review on the front page of the New York Times Book Review. It is a very readable work of fiction...."
"Much of the recent commentary from anthropologists about Euphoria has involved the accuracy of the portrayal of the characters, especially Reo Fortune, although King reminds us that they are literary creations, not literal ethnographers...It would be helpful to have more commentary on Euphoria from specialists like Deborah Gewertz, Fred Errington, Nancy McDowell, and the many other ethnographers of New Guinea who may be concerned about how the groups they know appear in the novel."
Mod
I gave the book 5 stars.
Mod
Marc wrote: "Thanks for those links, Lily! They actually helped me better formulate my own thoughts a bit more. I do wonder if the criticism I have of this book is not unlike my discomfort with anthropology as ..."Glad they were useful, Marc. I found one I posted earlier on Fortune to be particularly tantalizing, along with additional ones at the savageminds site above.
This has been an interesting discussion. Thank you all.
Enjoying and agreeing with some of Linda's comments.I have to say, I have zero (less than zero if possible) identification with any cares at all about how closely or otherwise Nell reflects Mead. I absolutely, literally couldn't care less. If it was presented as a retelling, that might be different, but as soon as it's framed as 'this inspired this, but is a story in its own right', I'm looking at it and judging it on its own merits.
For me, comparisons between Nell/Mead etc might be an interesting sidebar, but nothing more.
I also both tend to disagree with concerns about whether the author had film rights, etc in mind, and also don't care about whether she did or not. Again, what I'm looking at is the result. If the result felt manipulated for cheap commerciality, that would be one thing, but to me it doesn't. It seems to me that King was just straight-out interested in the triangle, as was I. I thought the interplay between the two was well-judged. The anthropology didn't feel like background.
I agree with the comment (Linda's?) that it felt like she left it to us to draw our own conclusions about many things rather than spelling it out to us. I think this is a balance that is incredibly tough as an author. If you come too far one way, you will always get criticised (eg The Goldfinch), but too far the other and you will as well, as here. In fact, though, different people have different tastes as to what's the 'right' balance.
I do agree that there could have been more exploration though. I don't mean exploration to a different level as such, but just more. More time to see Nell (and Fen, and Bankson) interacting with the cultures, so that the interplays had more of a stage to play out on, more time for us to consider their reflections.
Have we discussed somewhere in this about Nell as a woman of her time? How atypical was she? Did this come across in the writing, or is it something that's more obvious if you know a lot about that period? Does the book make us think about the difference between the place of women in marriage/work/society, then versus now?
Terry wrote: "Have we discussed somewhere in this about Nell as a woman of her time? How atypical was she? Did this come across in the writing, or is it something that's more obvious if you know a lot about that..."I'm not sure but I think she was meant to be a very atypical, remarkable woman, who has overcome the sexism in her era to become renowned in her field. She's so atypical that her success causes her marriage to self-destruct. I read Fen's increasingly macho extremism as a revolt against his wife's success, and as a reaction to his discomfort with her as an atypical woman. Just my reading!
I just joined the group a few minutes ago and I've really enjoyed reading through these comments about Euphoria. I 'read' the audiobook and got a lot of pleasure out of having the voices of such intelligent characters in my head, especially as read by Simon Vance.
For a completely different take on the theme of anthropology in fiction, I recommend Satin Island: A Novel by Tom McCarthy, published last month. I enjoyed reading it so close to reading Euphoria. It couldn't be more different.
I finished the book and felt that the author missed the boat on writing a rally good novel. It did seem to me that it was an outline for a screenplay and I wished that she had gone further. What she did write was so moving that I would have liked to see her go further.
Linda wrote: "I finished the book and felt that the author missed the boat on writing a rally good novel. It did seem to me that it was an outline for a screenplay and I wished that she had gone further. What ..."Linda: Exactly. I gave the book 5 stars when I read it because I enjoyed what was there, however incomplete. But the novel hasn't stayed with me, and the further I got into the book, the more rushed and thin it felt.
I have to wonder though what would motivate a writer to stick longer with a novel and to make it better when this novel was already great enough to land on many "best of 2014" lists.
Mod
Casceil wrote: "I don't think Euphoria would necessarily have been "improved" by being longer. I think the author told the story she wanted to tell, the way she wanted to tell it. Many people loved it, as is. F..."It's back-handed praise in a way, rather than criticism, to say of a book: "I wanted more." I would have been enthralled, frankly, by another 200 pages of cross cultural conflicts. I would have loved to read more about the way these three Westerners reacted to their environment and to each other. More about the way their goals conflicted. More about their shared understanding that by examining these cultures they were simultaneously destroying them.
21st Century Literature
Books mentioned in this topic
Vanessa and Her Sister (other topics)Euphoria (other topics)
A Rap on Race (other topics)
Remainder (other topics)
Satin Island (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Lily King (other topics)Colm Tóibín (other topics)
Paul Auster (other topics)
Paul Shankman (other topics)
Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (other topics)
Terry's and Casceil's comments sort of swung me over to the possibility that the narrative shift was simply a technique to permit opening with material Bankson could not have known so as to tell as convincingly in first person.
Fen could have been given more body as a character instead of rather cheaply been restricted to pantomime villain.
I wouldn't have said it so baldly, but after doing just enough reading to intuit how complex Reo Fortune's story apparently was, I'm inclined to agree. I felt throughout Fen's was not a sympathetic character development, but that his story was told by a rival.