Constant Reader discussion
Reading List
>
The Children's Book by A.S. Byatt - the discussion
I just finished this book. I was only able to enjoy it because I'm essentially on vacation so had a couple of hours every day in bed to just dive deeply in it. It is kind of amazing what an entire community of unusual people she created, especially Olive, her children, and stories. Occasionally I skimmed; did they ever say who impregnated Elsie? I assumed it was Methley (but could see an outside possibility of Fludd). Interesting to see free love depicted in that time, when the costs of it are borne much more heavily by the women. I enjoyed the characters of Elsie, Phillip, and Dorothy especially. Still thinking about Tom and what was up with him, just better at being a youth than an adult? Interesting that besides Olive, he connected best with Dorothy, who was so practical. Seems like he connected closely and easily with nature, but was lost when it came to fitting into adult society.
I actually just found this thread by the one comment above, and then went back and read the whole thread. One reaction I have from reading the comments is to notice that so many of you blame Olive and she is called a horrible mother. I wonder, why does Humphrey get off so lightly? Expectations of women are so much heavier! Olive was the major bread earner for a humongous family. I thought actually they gave their children quite a bit of opportunity generally, and also quite a bit of freedom to become whatever they might. One thing I do find odd is that neither Olive nor Humphrey really talked to Tom as parents after he came home from school. Olive and he were somehow connected more closely through her story for him than in reality, and then when his story became commercial, it seemed that there was nothing left for Tom. He never really had any adult longings or ambitions.
I agree that blame went too much to Olive. I think in those days women in general didn't have a whole lot of time for individual children. There were so many of them that they were taken care of more in bulk or by each other. Tom needed to be an only child maybe.
Lyn, isn't it lovely to have the time to read the way we do on vacation? You can really sink into a book like this. I agree with you about Olive too. Particularly when you think about her background before she married Humphrey and, also, about the burden placed on her in the end to financially support the family, I'm wondering how any of us would have navigated this maze.
I thought both of them were horrible parents. Olive deliberately courted Tom as her favorite -- those sessions snuggled together in her bed, sharing the story -- then when he came home from school, ignored him and, finally, cannibalized him, metaphorically. Humphrey seemed less horrible because he just seemed less all around, but he was certainly no prize! I was more outraged by Humphrey's failings as a husband (his role at the time would have been breadwinner, and he dumped it on Olive without a thought) than as a father.
I also found Olive hypocritical. She claimed to have a special bond with and sympathy for children. But while ostensibly pursuing her art, she neglected and abused her own.
I wonder if some of what we are critical of is that Victorian distance between parents and children -- surface emotions without true bonding. We are judging from a modern perspective.Although, to be arbitrary with myself, we see many different types of parenting in this book.
Susan, I am probably judging Victorian parents by 21st-century standards, but certainly some of the parents were better than others.
They definitely were. And I imagine that's true throughout any society whatever the prevailing childrearing philosophy. I can't recall all the names at the moment but I believe it's Humphrey's brother who shows such a different way of parenting and fostering young adults.
Hazel wrote: "I also found Olive hypocritical. She claimed to have a special bond with and sympathy for children. But while ostensibly pursuing her art, she neglected and abused her own." Agreed.I just finished this book and enjoyed it immensely. I don't believe that there ever was a definitive answer as to who was the father of Elsie's baby - but I do tend to think that it was Methley. I was also struck by the hypocritical nature of the women who were not treated well by the men in their lives all the while rushing off to listen to lectures on the Woman Question.
Funny, I simply assumed Methley was the father of Elsie's baby. She was so anxious to leave her home and so anxious for attention and he certainly gave it--as I guess he was famous for doing with others.Perhaps what we are seeing in this novel is a reflection of a cultural difference between those days and ours also. Poor women appear to have worked so hard they barely had time or energy for their children. Women with more assets were caught up in "culture", newly emerging women's issues, etc. The children appear to get the short end. Is it only with the latter half of the twentieth century and the shortening of the work week that the advent of more family time really began?
I think one of the reasons I enjoyed this book so much (one of my "best reads of 2010) is this historical aspect to so much of the novel and the actual history in parts.
I just read this book, and like Jane and Barbara and some others, I absolutely loved it. It's my favorite book since I read Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall. I think The Children's Book is a magnificent achievement. I just loved it, every minute I spent with it. I think it's Byatt's masterpiece. I would not have liked for the book to have been shorter or less sweeping in scope.I am distressed to learn about Kenneth Grahame, though. I so adore The Wind in the Willows.
I thought you would like it, Gabrielle. Slightly off topic, have you heard anything about Mantel's next book?
It was my favorite of last year Gabrielle and I agree, it could not have been any shorter.
Hi Sue, I just loved the book.Barbara, you were right, I did love the many characters and the multiple plot strands.
I loved The Children's Book even more than Possession, though I loved that book, too.
I know Mantel's book is titled The Mirror and the Light and that it follows Thomas Cromwell until his execution. Much if the book, I think, centers around Jane Seymour. It should be released in the UK fairly soon, but as far as I know, there's no release date for it yet. I wish I knew more. I'm anxious to read it, too, given how much I loved Wolf Hall.
Guess I'd better schedule Wolf Hall at some point. (I seem to be saying that a lot these days...one reason I definitely give up on books I'm not interested in)
Ive just read the discussion on the book and you have made some good points. As I have just finished a literature and history class at uni, I can inform you that 780.000 British young men were lost in the first WW. This would be like losing a whole generation of young men if you can image that. I was very fortunately to meet A.S. Byatt last autumn here in Copenhagen at an International author event. She talked about The Childrens book of course and of the new project she was working on.(Ragnarok). Afterwards I got her to sign my copy. I must admit I was a bit intimidated by her strong energy. She sure is not a woman you would mess around it. But she was very nice though.
One thing I would like to say about the book. When I read about Tom and what his mother did to him, I cried. It effected me so strongly. I read this part with Jung in mind and it went to the core of my soul.
I did enjoy all the historical people and events in the book. Try and google some of them, its quite fun.
Thank you all for a great discussion.
I just reread the comments about Byatt needing an editor, or a more aggressive one. I don't know if people are aware of the fact that Byatt dedicated The Children's Book to her British editor, Jenny Uglow. I'm pretty sure this book is exactly the way Byatt wanted it to be. She wasn't looking for a "lean and mean" story, but one brimming with the history and culture of the Edwardian age.I loved the book, and I loved every minute I spent reading it. Wolf Hall was my favorite book of 2009 or 2010, and The Children's Book my favorite read of 2011. I can't see anything eclipsing it in the months to come.
I agree about Tom. He believed the children's books had to remain private, between the child and Olive. At the bottom of page 9 (US hardcover edition) it reads:
Olive plundered the children's stories sometimes, for publishable situations, or people, or settings, but everyone understood that the magic persisted because it was hidden, because it was a shared secret.
I agree Gabrielle. some of what some might see as excess in The Cildren's Book I see as part of the portrait of the time and the characters (some of whom did have odd excesses of their own). Yes this was a long book, but I can't imagine what could have been left out without very much altering the characters and story.
I guess this is an agree-to-disagree matter of taste. I believe the book ended up as Byatt wanted it, but also that this argues for the need for a stronger editorial hand! :) But in any event, it was a rich & absorbing reading experience! So much of it stays with me months later and Tom's tragedy still has real "punch" to it, for me.I read & loved Possession, too. Any suggestions on another Byatt?
I still need to read Possession. this was my first Byatt. Maybe gabrielle or someone else will have some ideas.
As for what else of Byatt's to read, I love her short stories -- my favorite collection is Elementals: Stories of Fire and Ice but there are others worth reading as well: The Djinn in the Nightingale's Eye, The Matisse Stories, and Little Black Book of Stories. I also love the two novellas in Angels & Insects. Byatt is so varied and everything she writes is good in my opinion.
My favorite Byatt short stories are in the volume: Sugar: Stories. The Children's Book is my favorite Byatt novel, but I also like Possession and the tetrology that begins with The Virgin in the Garden. Like Dottie, I like the novellas in Angels and Insects.I think wanting to edit The Children's Book is akin to wanting to edit War and Peace. These books that move along slowly over many years and contain so many characters aren't to everyone's taste, I do know that, but I don't think the book needed editing at all. Just speaking for myself, I didn't find anything that could be removed that would enhance the book. I suppose the fairy tale snippets could have been removed, and I'll admit, I'm not a fan of fairy tales.
I, personally, don't care, in general, for books told in the first person that are tightly focused on just a few characters. I like something more sprawling. I guess I like old fashioned storytelling more than modern.
Here's Byatt's editor, Jenny Uglow, the woman she dedicated The Children's Book to: http://www.jennyuglow.com/
Jenny's also a writer and has written some wonderful books.
Gabrielle, I started laughing at myself as I read your post because, believe it or not, I think War and Peace could use editing, too! ;) Not to cut down on the characters, subplots, etc., but to reduce the tedious "this is my theory of history" section in the end, which was a real slog, IMHO. I realize that Tolstoy said W&P was not a "novel," but another type of writing and that he wrote the part I love in service of the part that bored me silly, but...to each his own!
Dare I admit it here?... but I didn't read the second epilogue in W&P, and I still consider that I have read the book. On the other hand, I've read it twice, so maybe the first time I did.
Sherry, this is probably the best place to admit it. I will admit to some skimming during the reading of the Brothers Karamazov (I've finished half). the religious treatises do have a tendency to go on a bit. I haven't read W&P yet.
I love big, sprawling novels too. If I like the place that the novel places me, I like to stay there. The first time I read War & Peace, I skimmed the second epilogue too, but on my second read, I did it all. I am so insatiably curious about Tolstoy's mind that I'm motivated to read almost anything he writes. Dostoevsky, however, is another matter. I don't skim his writing because I'm usually so bewildered that I'm afraid to leave out a word, but I don't enjoy the process.
I want to thank all who have written on this subject. I was very excited to receive this book at Christmas, 2009. I spent almost a month getting through it and was appalled at the end that I had wasted so much of my valuable reading time. I liked almost nothing about the story except what some here disliked the most, the history. Some of the history written into the story was new to me and I was happy that I picked something up. But I found the whole to be a huge disappointment. I remain with the opinion that the author got as tired with the writing of the book as I was with the reading of it. As with all books that I stick with too long, I kept thinking it would improve.But reading these posts has made me appreciate the book a little more and see that I gained more from it than I realized at first glance. When reading everyone's thoughts, I agreed with some, disagreed with others, and gained insight into the book that I hadn't gotten on my own. All is appreciated and I owe you all!
Lori -- your lovely post speaks to one of the very best aspects of the constant Reader discussion threads -- so many people thinking out loud/speaking concerning the reading experience gives so much back to each reader. This is the best group for that very reason.
It also points out an advantage for newer members who can take advantage of older discussion threads (something I have yet to do, but plan to when I read Possession).
Same here for Surrender. I now have the book to read.
I thought the book was too finely crafted for Byatt to have "just ended" it. The last section, though impressionistic at times, was a beautifully written as anything I've read. Byatt writes her books for herself more than for her readers. I know she thought about this one a long time before starting it, and did a lot of research. I feel it's exactly the book Byatt wanted it to be.I can see why some don't like it, though. The big sprawling books that follow many characters aren't for everyone. Some people just prefer a more intimate book. Nothing wrong with either preference. We need both.
I would agree with you Gabrielle. The novel met what appeared to be its goals in my opinion and needed all it included to do so. Not to everyone's taste--yes, but it is a whole and, obviously, I loved it. (bias showing)
I know I'm really late to the party on this discussion, but if anyone reads this and has any thoughts, I thought he or she might answer.MAJOR SPOILERS ABOUT THE BOOK BELOW - DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK AND DON'T WANT TO KNOW
I was wondering if anyone else thought both Benedict Fludd and Tom Wellwood walking into the sea at Dungeness seemed a little repetitive? I certainly wouldn't hold that bit of repetition against the book, which I loved, but I was wondering if I missed something significant. It just seems odd to me that Byatt had the two suicides conducted in the same manner at the same place. That's what made me feel I might be missing something significant. It would have been so easy for one of the suicides to have been accomplished in another manner.
Any thoughts? Thank you.
It's been so long since I read this book. I remember Tom's suicide but don't recall Fludd's. Fludd was the one with the daughter's wasn't he?
MAJOR PLOT SPOILERS BELOWYes, Benedict Fludd was the master potter, Kitty, whose wife was Serephita, and whose children were Imogen, Pomona, and Geraint. Unlike Tom, we didn't actually witness Fludd's suicide, we just learned of it when someone came to notify Prosper Cain that Fludd's boot (I think it was a boot) had been found. But Fludd and Tom both walked into the sea at Dungeness.
Gabrielle, I thought it was OTT to have the repeat suicides, especially since there was no strong connection between the 2 characters - no reason for a "copy cat" suicide method. If there was a deep meaning, I missed it.
Wasn't it a popular suicide site due to the rocks and the lighthouse?
Thank you, Mary Ellen and Kitty. I don't remember if it was a popular suicide place, but I would expect it was, given the rocks and the swift current. I felt like Mary Ellen, that it was a bit of overkill to have two such suicides in the book. I think for Tom, though, the suicide, and the choice of place, was just an afterthought as he was out walking, feeling betrayed by Olive. I felt Tom's suicide was a realistic outcome for him, but not Fludd's. I didn't feel Fludd would commit suicide, but maybe that's because we don't see him wrestling with his dark side. Well, Tom didn't seem to, either, but Tom lived in another world.I loved the book, but I did feel the suicides shouldn't mirror each other so. Unless I'm missing something significant, and I well could be.
As for Fludd, I had the feeling that he may have believed that all was over for him, that the truth of his life with his family would come out, that he would be eclipsed artistically, etc. Sort of he was finished. And the setting for the suicide was right there where he lived. It was natural for him to go there.As for Tom, as you said he just sort of wandered and ended up at the sea. The sea does tend to draw people to it and that was a very intimidating but natural spot. What better spot to just give in to nature. I don't really think he was consciously thinking of killing himself when he arrived there. He became drawn to the water and it did it's worst (and also freed him from the pain he was in).
Wow. Taking a suggestion, and meandering through some of CR's previous discussion books. I WISH I'd been around for this one. I haven't read the book, but I find the concept really interesting. I've put it on my To-Read list, but the length of the book will probably put me off reading it for a while. I'm so intrigued though...
If you enjoy historical fiction with a touch of...so much else. I loved this. It was my first Byatt. Now I've got several others to read.
It's not so much the historical fiction as the "......so much else" that appeals I think!
Ruby wrote: "It's not so much the historical fiction as the "......so much else" that appeals I think!"Ruby -- if that's the case and you have not yet explored any of Byatt's works -- you are in for SUCH a treat -- she is one of my top favorites and the range of themes and the writing never disappoint, in my opinion.
Dottie wrote: "Ruby wrote: "It's not so much the historical fiction as the "......so much else" that appeals I think!"Ruby -- if that's the case and you have not yet explored any of Byatt's works -- you are in ..."
Fantastic. I might get another Book Depository order together soon. I'll make sure to include Byatt.
She even has another book coming out in late September.
Sue wrote: "She even has another book coming out in late September."Glad to hear that!
Ragnarok is the name of the book. It revolves around a girl in the English countryside and the Norse myths. I'm not one for myth myself. :(
Constant Reader
Books mentioned in this topic
Possession (other topics)The Vertigo Years: Europe 1900-1914 (other topics)
The Djinn in the Nightingale's Eye (other topics)
Little Black Book of Stories (other topics)
Elementals: Stories of Fire and Ice (other topics)
More...
My sentiments exactly. I am late commenting because I put this down for a few months after 100 pages in, the story still hadn't started for me. I am actually just now forcing myself to finish this and it is taking me forever. I think this could've been a really great book she just needed to take quite a bit out.