The Children's Book by A.S. Byatt - the discussion

[Barbara]

And, I didn't realize that the Kaiser was related to Queen Victoria!

[Hazel]

Barbara wrote: "And, I didn't realize that the Kaiser was related to Queen Victoria!"

If I remember correctly, Barbara, half the crowned heads of Europe were related to Victoria.

[Jane]

One of the notes I jotted down was about Patty Dace who was a friend of the vicar, Frank Mallett, and the one-time apprentice of Fludd, Arthur Dobbin. This is from p. 131 of the hardback edition:
Miss Dace had had a good Christian upbringing....Until recently, she had also, through something called the Christo-theosophical Society, tried to arrange discussions of esoteric spiritual life, and especially the female aspect of Christian spirituality. Patty Dace wanted more life and thought it might reside in Theosophy. She had been put out to read in the pages of Lucifer, a passionate denunciation of Christianity's attitude to women, written by Blavatsky herself, studded with quotations from the Bible and the Church Fathers about woman as the organ of the devil, the hissing of the serpent, the most dangerous of wild beasts, a scorpion, an asp, a dragon, a daughter of falsehood, a sentinel of hell, the enemy of peace. Mme Blavatsky noted that in the New Testament "The words sister, mother, daughter and wife are only names for degradation and dishonour."
This passage spoke to me because I remember being upset with Bible stories when I was a girl. My mother said to me, "Well, you know, Jane, the Bible was written by men." I am still a Christian, but I take most religious books with a grain of salt. According to the interview that Hazel posted, Byatt rejects God altogether.
This is one of the many points that Byatt has packed into this novel. When I come across something like this, I have to stop and consider it before I move on.

[Jane]

The discussion has stopped for the time being, so I thought I would post some quotes that made me think. Yesterday, I posted a quote about religion and women. Today,I am posting a quote from p. 206. Olive is considering Methley's book.
She thought about the relation between readers and writers. A writer made an incantation, calling the reader into the magic circle of the world of the book. With subtle words, a writer enticed a reader to feel his or her skin prickle, his or her lips open, his or her blood race.
This is how I feel when I am reading a book that I love, and I felt that way during some portions of this book. I felt transported to the setting of the book. At other times, I was pulled outside the book by the history portions. The history was important to understand the time period, but it did break the spell.

[Sherry, Doyenne]

Thanks for posting these quotations, Jane. I had the same reaction you did to the Bible stories, but my mother had a different answer. Let's just say, she thought the Bible was written by God, through men, so we had to make the best of it. I love Byatt's description of readers and writers, too. "Incantation" is a good word for the relationship, especially this book, with so much make-believe in it.

[Hazel]

Jane wrote: "The discussion has stopped for the time being, so I thought I would post some quotes that made me think. Yesterday, I posted a quote about religion and women. Today,I am posting a quote from p. 2..."

Yes, Jane, I remember a few times that the historical digressions seemed to jar. Your quote about Mrs Dace reminds me that most of the time, Byatt succeeds in communicating the feelings of individuals, and the reasons that social/artistic movements had such influence.

[Jane]

I am going over to the Salon to start a new thread about women in religion. Carry on!

[Mary Ellen]

A few posts back, someone mentioned that half the crowned heads of Europe were related to Victoria...notably, both the Kaiser and the Tsar. WWI was such as waste on so many levels, and in this respect, it was one of the most tragic examples of family dysfunction ever. And of course, it put an end to the world depicted by Byatt in this book. Whatever Dorothy, Philip and the other survivors do with the rest of their lives, theirs will be lives their parents could not have imagined (to the extent that their parents gave much thought to their children's lives, of course).
...

[Barbara]

Jane, I loved the many sections of the book that described women's awakening to their limitations. I thought Byatt did a particularly good job in that area. It made sense that one of the Wellwood girls would be a suffragist. I was just recently in the London Museum of History in which they have an excellent section on the women's movement in that time period to get the vote. It was very much as Byatt described it. Under each woman's name in the museum, it describes what she was arrested for and if she engaged in hunger strikes, etc. I was somewhat surprised at the violence of what they did. Even though I read a lot about early feminist movements when I was younger, I forgot about that part.

[Hazel]

Barbara wrote: "Jane, I loved the many sections of the book that described women's awakening to their limitations. I thought Byatt did a particularly good job in that area. It made sense that one of the Wellwood..."

I concur, Barbara. Somehow, I've missed/overlooked the brutality involved in the Suffragist movement. Perhaps we prefer not to think about the extremes our foremothers went to, for the rights we take for granted now. I need to read more about that.

[Dottie]

Hazel wrote: "Barbara wrote: "Jane, I loved the many sections of the book that described women's awakening to their limitations. I thought Byatt did a particularly good job in that area. It made sense that one..."

There was a program on PBS years back about the suffragist movement in UK -- and it was amazing in what I learned of the violent actions and the harsh/viloent treatment of the women who were jailed. We really need to remind ourselves of this from time to time especially when issues come to hand where politicians wish to move us/women backward.

[Michael]

Jane, to your comments in post 53 (at the risk of continuing a tangent) -- I'm not sure what to make of Madame Blavatsky; it's hard for me to take that secret, unsubstantiated stuff with wild claims too seriously. In this case, at least, her statement is false. In the synoptic gospels, the women are taken very seriously and play important roles. Even if these gospels were written by men. Women were the last people left around Jesus at the crucifixion; Mary, the first to find him gone from the tomb, and maybe the first to see him alive again afterwards. The woman who washes Jesus's feet, who bathes him in oil or perfume.... Jesus explicitly corrects disciples who criticize her. These are just a few observations from memory. Jesus also spoke against divorce, and for the sanctity of marriage. One result was that early Christianity was a tremendously liberating force for women, socially.

Jane wrote: "... Mme Blavatsky noted that in the New Testament "The words sister, mother, daughter and wife are only names for degradation and dishonour."
This passage spoke to me because I remember being upset with Bible stories when I was a girl. My mother said to me, "Well, you know, Jane, the Bible was written by men." I am still a Christian, but I take most religious books with a grain of salt. According to the interview that Hazel posted, Byatt rejects God altogether.
This is one of the many points that Byatt has packed into this novel. When I come across something like this, I have to stop and consider it before I move on.
..."

[Michael]

Mary Ellen wrote: "...Barbara: what did you think about the gulf between the "idealistic" era Byatt was portraying and the generally horrible behavior (at least toward their children...or the people who thought they were their children) of the alleged idealists?..."

What did you think of it, Mary Ellen?

[Jane]

Michael wrote: "Jane, to your comments in post 53 (at the risk of continuing a tangent) -- I'm not sure what to make of Madame Blavatsky; it's hard for me to take that secret, unsubstantiated stuff with wild claim..."

Michael,
Your examples do show women in a good light, but the apostle Paul states many times in the New Testament that "man is the head of woman" (1 Corinthians 11:3, for one reference) and in 1 Timothy, Chapter 2, Paul says "During instruction, a woman should be quiet and respectful. I am not giving permission for a woman to teach or to tell a man what to do. A woman ought not to speak, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterward, and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and fell into sin. Nevertheless, she will be saved by childbearing, provided she lives a modest life and is constant in faith and love and holiness."

I don't know if you ever read LA SYMPHONIE PASTORALE by André Gide. The main character is a Protestant pastor who discusses his view of the Bible: Jesus is all about love and Paul is also about laws and criticism. That has stuck with me.

[Jane]

Barbara wrote: "Jane, I loved the many sections of the book that described women's awakening to their limitations. I thought Byatt did a particularly good job in that area. It made sense that one of the Wellwood..."

Barbara,
One of the scenes from the book that has stayed with me is the Suffragette who stepped in front of the King's horse during a race. She ended up dying and Hedda became angry enough to attempt to smash things in the museum. Hedda was sentenced to a year in prison and tried not to eat much of the time. I remember seeing scenes in various films of women being force-fed in prison. There was violence and brutality on both sides.

[Mary Ellen]

Michael (#63): I didn't see much idealism in the adults with the principal roles, so to speak, in this book. I guess I was blinded to their idealism by their (IMHO) insufferable behavior. (I recall a heated CR discussion about the poor mothering by the character Trudy in The Story of Edgar Sawtelle. Compared to Olive, Violet, et al., Trudy was a model mother!) The London Wellwoods were not idealists, just decent people whom, I suppose, many of the others regarded as conservative philistines. Olive had had to struggle to escape the poverty and limited circumstances of her childhood. Perhaps her remarkable self-absorption was a result of all that. And I thought her husband was simply an idiot. And they were somewhat benign compared to Methley.

I was surprised by the violence perpetrated by the suffragists, too. Did it come from a sense of powerlessness? From frustration at being seen as "little women"? (In some ways it reminds me of toddlers' behavior -- they like to smash things because it gives them a sense of being in control of something, if only in a negative way... I don't mean, completely, that these women were childish, but that they may have taken to violence because they were otherwise ignored.) And why the hunger strikes in prison? To keep their cause in the headlines? They seemed to have a will toward destruction, with self-destruction as a last resort. Certainly all that would have appealed to Hedda, who was angry from early childhood. Interesting that she ultimately became a servant of the very power structure she despised, working as a nurse (which, ultimately, supports a war effort).

[Barbara]

Mary Ellen, from my reading, I think that both the violence and the hunger strikes were efforts to be recognized as serious. They didn't start out at that level but gradually escalated their approach after being ignored and patronized for years.

[Mary Ellen]

Yes, that is what I picked up too, Barbara. Do you know whether these tactics were effective in the end, or whether other factors gained British women the right to vote? I can understand the women's frustration (What woman hasn't had the experience of being patronized and/or ignored?) but I wonder whether acts of mindless violence would convince the Establishment that their perpetrators were worthy of suffrage.

[Sue]

I am jumping in to the conversation late since I just finished the book. I'm glad I took the extra time since it seems to have made the experience much more enjoyable. I really did like this book. There have been so many topics discussed so far I'm not sure where to start.

One thing I do feel though, I believe that Byatt used WWI effectively as her endpoint as it marked the virtual end of a generation of young men throughout Europe, women were forced to assume a new and different role, the world that had been so important was gone. In fact we see the seeds for WWII being planted at the end of the novel.

I am amazed that Byatt was able to bring so much history to life through these families and individuals and her historical asides. I guess I do like history, but I found that as the reading went on and I paced myself, I enjoyed the historical patches more and found they added to each chapter by setting the table for what was to come.

Oh well enough for now, and probably somewhat repetitive. But I really wanted to say something.

[Carol]

No your observations were pointed. Where specifically did you see the seeds planted ? I think I want the passage, I passed my book on to another to read.

[Sue]

I will have to look it up, but there is mention of the lack of food in Germany because of the penalties of the war and the ever increasing anti-semitism when the suggestion arises about trying to get the remaining Stern family to England. The Versailles treaty and the heavy penalties on Germany led to much of the unrest and nationalism that ultimately fed Hitler (to state it very simplistically).

All of this is within the last 10 to 20 pages.

[Sue]

Actually, I just looked it up. It's in the last 2 to 3 pages of the book, beginning "In Portman Square there was happiness.." Then Byatt runs through the chaos in Bavaria, with the overthrown governments, assassinations, anarchists temporarily in power. There is mention of the retaking of power, theories of pure and impure blood, the symbol of the swastika.

"Charles/Karl said he had been to the Spiegelgarten of Frau Holle. Anselm Stern and Angela...thought they would move to Berlin, as Munich was now not a good place for Jews."

I didn't realize it was all there at the very end. Personally, I think that's why the novel ends so "quickly", as I saw noted in earlier comments. After this devastation, what else is there to say.

[Carol]

True but in the first part of the book didn't you feel she led nicely up to the first conflict. The good times in Germany and across Europe and the restlessness of the people. I thought Byatt masterfully led into WWI.

I thought Byatt gave an ambiance of each decade with astute accuracy. Was it because we know the history and she fleshed it out with her descriptions?

[Dottie]

Susan wrote: "I am jumping in to the conversation late since I just finished the book. I'm glad I took the extra time since it seems to have made the experience much more enjoyable. I really did like this book. ..."

Susan, wonderful points here. Thoughtful posts. I, too, found the historical aspects of this story to be highly important to my own final enjoyment of the stories of the families. I believe the loss of that generation of young men is still rippling through European history today and to some lesser degree through our own though in this country we are far less aware of the effects which WWI had (I may be way off target there but I'm thinking of the awareness of the public generally of the effects -- I think Americans pay less attention overall to history as it impacts us -- at least prior to WWII). And I found those small soundings of what was ahead to be so ominous -- and poignant. the more I think about the book, the better I come to understand my earlier responses to it.

I have been enjoying this discussion though I've not said much -- have had little time to ponder what I might add and made little headway on my reread and may simply revisit this discussion once I actually do my rereading.

[Sue]

Kitty wrote: "True but in the first part of the book didn't you feel she led nicely up to the first conflict. The good times in Germany and across Europe and the restlessness of the people. I thought Byatt maste..."

Yes, I thought the development was great--you could feel the disparity between the classes building along with the dissatisfaction of women. Even some of the changes in the arts was reflecting change. Of course we, and Byatt, know the history, but I think she did a masterful job of giving it humanity. It's amazing to me how she combined her knowledge of the specific (the artists of the time) with her obvious knowledge of European history.

I think that after the first third of the book, I really read it as an historical novel of the turn of the century rather than as a story of the Wellwood family.

Also, I thought of Tom as schizophrenic myself. He did not seem to have any sense of reality and his apparent break occurred when he was a teen--the usual time for this to occur. The unreality of seeing himself portrayed on stage probably only added to his hurt and confusion. Yes Olive was a terrible mother, but I don't see her a the whole cause of Tom's problems. A contributing cause definitely.

[Sue]

Dottie wrote: "Susan wrote: "I am jumping in to the conversation late since I just finished the book. I'm glad I took the extra time since it seems to have made the experience much more enjoyable. I really did li..."

I think you're right Dottie. In English novels there are frequent references to The Great War. And there were probably families whose lines ended with the war with all sons lost. In the US the impact was not as great proportionally on the population and that, I think, is what leaves the scars.

[Hazel]

Susan wrote: "Also, I thought of Tom as schizophrenic myself. He did not seem to have any sense of reality and his apparent break occurred when he was a teen--the usual time for this to occur..."

I can echo your ideas in this post, Susan, but I can't agree with your diagnosis. Certainly, Tom seemed to withdraw, and particularly from adulthood. Poor boy.

Susan wrote: "In English novels there are frequent references to The Great War. And there were probably families whose lines ended with the war with all sons lost...."

We have villages here where most/all young men went off, and didn't return. There are memorials in village squares that mark the loss of the entire generation. I think the last remaining survivors passed on last year. I hope we don't forget them. they were an extraordinary cohort.

Here's a link to a BBC page about Harry Patch .

[Sue]

Hazel wrote: "Susan wrote: "Also, I thought of Tom as schizophrenic myself. He did not seem to have any sense of reality and his apparent break occurred when he was a teen--the usual time for this to occur..."

..."

Thanks for the link Hazel. I forgot you are in Britain. As far as my diagnosis, I'm an armchair diagnostician so all with a grain of salt. I was remembering that affair with the fox though!!

[Hazel]

Susan wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Susan wrote: "Also, I thought of Tom as schizophrenic myself. He did not seem to have any sense of reality and his apparent break occurred when he was a teen--the usual time for this ..."

You kidding? I talk to our foxes all the time!! :-)

[Dottie]

Hazel, I'm thinking that my response to the WWI historical aspects of this book spring from my experiencing first hand so many of those very monuments in the tiny village squares on the continent during our years in Belgium. I recall vividly one where I stood and read every single name -- not only the soldiers who were lost but the village itself had lost a great many of the women and children in a battle there. These experiences affected me deeply and have remained with me since. I believe the youngest child on that monument was something like a year and a half -- yes, obviously affecting me even now.

[Sue]

Hazel wrote: "Susan wrote: "Hazel wrote: "Susan wrote: "Also, I thought of Tom as schizophrenic myself. He did not seem to have any sense of reality and his apparent break occurred when he was a teen--the usual ..."

!!??!! love it. Actually I talk to my computer and TV and to myself!

[Sue]

Dottie wrote: "Hazel, I'm thinking that my response to the WW! historical aspects of this book spring from my experiencing first hand so many of those very monuments in the tiny village squares on the continent d..."

I guess my response is from a love of history. I've been reading since childhood and an Anglophile probably since high school. The tragedy of those times is immense. I love how this book combined history, the arts and literature to bring everything to life.

[Dottie]

My step-father used to address the Wall -- as in the old expression, I might as well have been talking to the wall -- when he felt he was not being heard he would actually address his remarks to the wall to call attention to what he wanted others to hear. Every now and then I find I now do likewise -- though I tend to do it under my breath -- which defeats the purpose, I admit. Okay -- back to the book -- as you were -- ahem.

[Hazel]

Dottie wrote: "Hazel, I'm thinking that my response to the WWI historical aspects of this book spring from my experiencing first hand so many of those very monuments in the tiny village squares on the continent d..."

I agree, Dottie, it's a poignant experience to stand in those little squares and realise what those communities went through. I also feel moved, thinking of it now.

I'm a history-lover, too, Susan. I think we need to learn from our mistakes, so we have to try to understand them.

[Barbara]

Was anyone else as enamoured of the description of the Grand Exposition Universelle as I was? I thought it was Byatt's sensual writing as its best. I loved her opening description that it could be seen as a series of paradoxes, the huge and the miniature, forward-looking and backward looking, etc. There are some beautiful photographs of the Exposition at the following website:
http://www.paris-in-photos.com/paris-...

I particularly love the opening entrance.

[Carol]

Wow thanks for the link Barbara. That really brings the writing to life.

[Sue]

Thanks Barbara. It's great to have some images to think of along with the writing. I agree about the sensual writing. The descriptions of the sculptures and each person's reaction to them were amazing.

[Janice (JG)]

It's a couple weeks since the last posting on this book, but as I was getting ready to list The Children's Book on Paperbackswap, I thought I'd add a comment and a question here before I gave up on the book forever.

I tried reading this book in order to join this discussion, but I couldn't make it past the first 200 pages... I skipped ahead and landed on a passage where the father tries to molest the daughter (can't remember the names now, it's been several weeks). The reason I gave up on the book at that point was because I didn't care about what was happening to either of the characters in that scene, which surprised me as well as let me know how little investment I seemed to have in the characters... and as I read the passage, I realized the reason I didn't care was because the author didn't seem very invested in her characters either.

It was as if she was talking about some people who lived down the street, but unlike, for instance, East of Eden, where Steinbeck built the story around people who lived down the street, I never got the feeling the author really knew (or even cared to know) her characters.

After reading the discussion, I still wonder, did you care about any of the characters? Love or hate, it doesn't matter, but did the author flesh out her characters in a way that made any of them real enough to catch and hold your imagination so that whatever happened to them mattered to you?

[Sherry, Doyenne]

They did to me, Janice. I really felt I knew Tom about as well as anyone could, and his mother, and I especially liked Philip and Elsie (did I remember the names right?) I did get a bit confused at times. Not enough for me to quit reading though.

[Hazel]

Janice Geranium wrote: "It's a couple weeks since the last posting on this book, but as I was getting ready to list The Children's Book on Paperbackswap, I thought I'd add a comment and a question here before I gave up on..."

I'd agree, Janice, that characterisation was not a strength in this story. I felt for Tom, and was angered by his mother and others, but no, I didn't care much about many of the characters.

[Sue]

I particularly liked Philip and Elsie also. And I also enjoyed Dorothy's story (I admit I used the cheat sheet for the name). I liked seeing what it took to enter "a man's world" at that time and become a doctor. I also liked Charles and all his wanderings on the way to becoming Karl. In the end I found I also liked Julian.

[Mary Ellen]

I think the great historical sweep of this book (really just 23 years...but very broad & deep) is both its strength and its weakness. I liked Dorothy and cared about what happened to her. Tom became totally unreal (to me) and the elder characters were generally unappealing. I thought the book was worth the read, but can understand why someone might abandon it.

[Sue]

I found it interesting that I liked the book better as it moved along. I think maybe this was because it moved away from the older generation which really didn't have anything to hold my attention. They were pretty unreal. The next generation, each in their own way (except Tom) was trying to find a real place in the world and develop some sort of skill. Tom really didn't seem to belong in either generation--damaged goods in a way, with no place anywhere.

I agree with you, Mary Ellen, if a reader was not inclined toward the historical extent of this book it would be a tough go. I am glad I read it. Might even read it again someday though there's so much else to tackle.

[Barbara]

That's a good question, Janice. I don't know that I "liked" any of the characters, but I definitely was interested in them, all of them, I think. As Byatt built the story over time, I understood the reasons for the behavior of the younger generation. In the older generation, I understood the reasons for the behavior of Olive and Violet, but not so much the rest of the them.

What really grabbed me about this book is the way she built the wide range of thought, philosophy, etc. that was going on in England prior to WWI. And, she built it detail by detail in each of these characters. It is such a striking period to me because so many people were curious about what was going on in the world. There seemed to be very little apathy, at least among those who were educated and even among some of those who weren't. And, Byatt wasn't manufacturing those attitudes. I've read about this period before. And, there was so much going on that she required a huge case of characters to express it. But, then, it is all stopped by the enormity of the influence of WWI and the mowing down of a huge segment of this whole generation.

[Sue]

Barbara wrote: "That's a good question, Janice. I don't know that I "liked" any of the characters, but I definitely was interested in them, all of them, I think. As Byatt built the story over time, I understood ..."

So well put Barbara

[Barbara]

Thank you, Susan! I've been having a hard time putting my reasons for loving this book into words since I finished it. As I was writing that note, it all came together.

[Sue]

I found what you wrote about the coming together of so many ideas, etc in that relatively brief period of time seemed well captured in the book. From what I've read of the time also The Great War did bring things to an emotional, economic and physical standstill. I really do find that it is the great scope of the novel that made me like it so much--the grasp of history and placing all the characters in a very alive society that was changing.

[Hazel]

I imagine this is why she won the prize. As a novel, it's flawed, particularly, I think, in terms of character-building. But this weaving together of all those historical threads into a tapestry that's an accurate representation of the rich, burgeoning social change of the period. It's quite an achievement.

[Jane]

When people talk of the losses in the Great War, we, in the U.S. didn't have the same losses at that time. I do think we had comparable losses during the Civil War when whole families and towns were wiped out. During WWI, France was so completely devastated, it is no wonder that they couldn't hold back the Germans in WWII.

I haven't commented for the past couple of weeks, because we took a trip to France. I thought of the Exposition when we were near the Grand Palais in Paris. I could just imagine that Exposition as I stood in front of the building. Barb, thanks for that marvelous link.

[Sue]

Those are very interesting comparisons Jane. I hadn't thought of the devastation of France in WWI as a cause for their inability to withstand the Germans in WWII. As for the Civil War, there certainly were tremendous losses. Perhaps it's too far back for many of us to remember or could it be that the losses were greater in certain areas than in others? This is something I really don't know enough about.