Painted House ~ John Grisham ~ 5/02 ~ Book Club Online
patwest
March 5, 2002 - 05:43 pm




Welcome to A Painted House
by John Grisham


Cotton, once King Cotton of the South, is the focus of Grisham's new story Painted House, and what a story it is!

Join us and enjoy the story, the company assembled, and learn a bit about this humble plant which revolutionized the world.

Links For Your Enjoyment and Interest:

Cotton! (Scroll way down!) Including a diagram of a cotton gin, and the history of Wesson Oil and Crisco!...|| Cotton Prices and Production ...|| Growing Cotton: NC State Agricultural Service

A John Grisham Contest, Audio Excerpt from the Book, View TV and Video Spots and More!

What it was really like: Picking Cotton in Oklahoma, Photos, Memories, and Music


The Sod House--submitted by Judy Laird

Themes to Watch for in Painted House

Plot Summary for Chapters 10-19

Johnson Grass: Mr. Johnson's Curse-- submitted by Pat Westerdale


For Your Consideration:


  • Do the "secrets" take on an additional role in this section? What part do they play in the narrative?
    "Big secrets can get you in trouble"...page 129, pb)..."More secrets to keep" (page 176 pb) "Let's keep it a secret" (page 183) "This is a dark secret" (page 214) "We keep our secrets, remember?" (page 222)
  • What would you say is the "tone" of the book?
  • Why did Pappy take the shotgun to the cotton gin with him, do you think?
  • What does the way the episode in Chapter 19 is presented say about the Chandlers?
  • How many points can we identify in our own lives that changed everything that came after? ---(Babi)
  • How many turning points in this book can we identify?
  • Why does Pappy decide to allow Hank to remain? (Wilan)
  • Why are we all so insecure that we have to find something wrong with the other guy?-be it skin, religion, language, culture or whatever else we can find. (Wilan)
  • Couldn't believe how cavalier & dismissive Pappy & Jesse were about Percy's message! (MegR)
    --Did this reaction change the way the Chandlers present themselves to the resder?
  • Could it be that Grisham is showing his skill as a writer in making us scratch our heads this way? It seems he is telling a straightforward story while weaving in a rich subtext. (highcedar)
  • I think I was trying to say that I don't sense as many hidden layers in his writing. (Betty). Do we identify any hidden layers or meanings in this narrative? If so, what are they?
  • Trot is an interesting character, can we look at him? (Hats) _ After all the talk about how expensive paint was, how are we to understand Trot's motivations? (Babi)
  • "I'm beginning to see Luke as a metaphor for the kind of southern life that is just starting to experience the changes that will bring major alterations in the not too distant future. Both the boy and the region are poised on the brink of conflict, Luke's personal, the south's political and moral." (mstrent)

  • Could the Painted House be a metaphor, too? If so, for what?
    ---Painting is used as a device to cover up whatever may lie below. Like that old ditty, "A little powder, a little paint will make a lady what she ain't." The color choice of white is to indicate a purity. Troy and Tally were expressing their view of the Chandlers in color. ---Jany

    ---The house continues to get painted, perhaps a metaphor for "out with the old, in with the new." The house is painted simultaneously with the changes that are coming about---Keene

  • Does anyone have a take on how he will treat Tally? Will he use and abandon her somewhere in a northern city, or will he be a loving husband and good family man? ---Shelby
  • Do you understand the character of Cowboy? Is it well drawn? Can you understand what the attraction might be between Cowboy and Tally or how their running off advances the plotline?
  • What do you think is the most memorable scene in the book? Does it in any way tie into what the climax in the book IS? What IS your idea of the climax of the plot and what is the resolution?

  • Discussion Schedule
    May 1-7 Discuss chapters 1-9
    May 8-15 Discuss chapters 10-19
    May 16-20 Discuss chapters 20-29
    May 21-26 Discuss chapters 29-36
    Finish up the entire book

    Comments? Write Judy or Ginny

    Click on the link below
    to buy the book



    Click box to suggest books
    for future discussion!




    Our Ratings of the Book:
    (* - *****, five being the best)
    Reader Rating
    pedln *****
    mstrent ****
    HATS *****
    highcedar **+
    Annafair ***+
    Betty G ***
    Keene ****
    MegR ***
    Zwyram ***-
    VOTE NOW ?????
    Fiction Readers Series 2002
    These books were all selected from suggestions made by participants.
    Month Title
    February A House for Mr. Biswas
    March Revolutionary Road/Corrections
    April Sea, the Sea
    May Painted House
    June Any Small Thing Can Save You: a Bestiary
    July Grapes of Wrath
    August Bonesetter's Daughter

    Judy Laird
    March 6, 2002 - 09:50 am
    Ginny and I are proposing to read John Grishams book A Painted House.

    Would anyone be interested in joining the discussion? By all the things I have read it should be a great read.

    Who all would like to read A Painted House with us???

    The book will be read in May

    Ginny
    March 6, 2002 - 01:53 pm


    Let me add my enthusiasm to Judy's and say that we're quite excited about this as it's one of the most talked about books of the year.

    Everybody knows who John Grisham is and that he can write, but this one is a departure for him and they say it's really really good.

    Find out for yourself, somebody is bound to be talking about it, we're aiming as Judy said, for May 1, MAYDAY.... and we hope you'll be there with us. This selection is the choice of the Book Club Online for May and by all accounts, it's a worthy one you won't want to miss!

    (I hear it's fabulous) Come read with us and find out!

    Who will make it 3 Readers present for May 1??

    ginny

    Harper
    March 6, 2002 - 03:07 pm
    Read the book, and it really is good - very different from anything Grisham has done before. Should make for interesting discussion. I'm looking forward to lurking.

    Judy Laird
    March 6, 2002 - 04:47 pm
    Harper welcome!!!! Maybe if this discussion comes about you will want to join in and not just lurk. I love to lurk and let me tell you this will be good as the 2 people co-leading this discussion are both some what off the wall. Even so I think you will have a good time.

    Elizabeth N
    March 8, 2002 - 01:26 pm
    I have the book and will wait until May 1 to read it with you. What a treat!

    pedln
    March 8, 2002 - 06:49 pm
    I am so happy you are doing this. During the month of February my community had a "United We Read" project organized by the high school librarian here. Everyone in town was to read "A Painted House" and there were discussions every day of the month. The organizer did a terrific job and this was a big thing.

    I loved the book and am really looking forward to the discussion, as I did not get to any of the scheduled ones here. But I talked about it with lots of folks casually, and am really surprised by the different reactions to it.

    Have loaned my copy out three times, the last time just this week. She said she's a slow reader -- by golly she better be done by May.

    MegR
    March 8, 2002 - 07:27 pm
    Judy & Ginny,

    Here's 'nother "off-the-wall" gal to join Painted House in May. Also read the book shortly after it appeared & will try to recollect copy of text for this discussion. See ya in May! Meg

    Ginny
    March 9, 2002 - 05:22 am
    Whee!!

    Elizabeth!
    Pedln!
    MegR!


    Welcome!


    What fun, can't wait till Miss Judy mushes her way in here and sees this! (She's one of those near Seattle slogging thru the snow if she still has phone connections) this is wonderful!!

    Pedln, a discussion a day! Just like us here, you must bring us all the ideas you've heard as well as your own formidable ones, can't wait, Elizabeth, Meg, (the Original Theme Queen) ahahahahahaa, Harper, MIss C (as Judy calls herself) this will be a TRIP!

    ginny

    Judy Laird
    March 9, 2002 - 11:58 am
    I can't keep up I am so confused is it May or is it July or is it tommorow. I am supposed to be as assistiant DL in here and I can't even know when it is. Elizabeth, Pedlin and Meg this should really be fun. Ginny is the smart one and I will just tag along and pick up the pieces that she leaves in her wake.

    Judy

    Yes we have horrible snow but it is going away. Me and mine do fine in the snow as we all drive 4 wheel rigs. Its just getting out of the way of other people that panic when there is 17 snow flakes. One cop stopped to help someone who had slid off the road and got hit by two different people. If I was him I would have just gone for coffee. Also a lady had her baby at the side of the freeway.

    Ginny
    March 10, 2002 - 06:10 am
    Hahahaha, Judy, bless your heart, we've had a change of date almost every day during the pre planning sessions, and I think Judy who IS the DL for this one but who is as you all will learn EXTREMELY modest, has been a brick!

    Every day a letter came to her changing the date but she, in characteristic fashion, kept saying yes I can, yes I can, yes I can: that's the kind of people we have here in the Books & Lit, it's a true labor of love here for all of us and I think it shows!

    MAY it IS!!

    Looking forward to this one and if you're reading this and thought you might like the super read that Grisham always is, and would like to see what all the shouting has been about this latest (non legal thriller ) book, come on down!!

    ginny

    Judy Laird
    March 10, 2002 - 10:16 am
    O.K. May it is now I have it. Went out and bought the book yesterday so that is good.

    My 1st question would be to you do you read the book before the discussion or during it? I have been in discussions before where I had read the book and others hadn't and when they asked a question I answered and gave away the ending. Well who knew????????????

    Ginny
    March 10, 2002 - 12:40 pm
    GOOD point, Judy !! As per usual.

    We can do it any number of ways.

    We usually in the books favor a "Read Along With Mitch" sort of thing, that is, in the first week we will DISCUSS only what comes, say in Chapters 1-3 or something (we usually divide the book in quarters or however it makes the most sense)....

    This allows people to come on board a couple of days or even a week into the sessioin, and fit right in.

    People misunderstand this, tho, and think they should only READ that far each time, a person can READ anything he likes. He can READ it 100 times before May 1? But the DISCUSSION is held to those pages.

    And yes, in that, you'd not want to refer to what's to come as those who ARE reading along won't know what you're talking about.

    The other alternative is to DISCUSS the entire book as a whole from Day 1. Obviously you would have to have read it.




    Actually, I find I do have a preference. We've done both here in our Books in the last 5 1/2 years. The discussions which take it a small section at a time seem to get more out of the book, and have more to say, look more closely at the material and the discussion lasts longer and it seems to me, and....this is just a personal feeling...they seem to enjoy it more.

    There's something exciting about reading along like one giant brain, excitedly putting out theories which may or may not hold, and laughing when they don't.

    It's a process which is unique to us, and one I think we ought to do with this book, but am willing to do it any way you all would like.

    I vote for Read Along With Mitch (or more accurately, Discuss Along With Judy!~) hahahahaha

    I'm looking forward to it, no matter what we decide: what do you all think?

    ginny

    MegR
    March 10, 2002 - 01:52 pm
    Judy,

    I agree w/ Ginny's "Read along w/ Mitch" approach also. Discussions that have used that method have been much richer & more fun to do! Although Painted House isn't a difficult read & won't provide much fodder for the "paper hangers", its discussion probably would benefit from a sectional approach. If you haven't read the book yet, just briefly mark down (as you read) what plot actions occur in each section. That way you'll know where & what each week's gabbing will cover. Will also help with not "leaking" upcoming stuff. Enjoy your discoveries! See ya in May!

    betty gregory
    March 10, 2002 - 02:32 pm
    What would I do without you folks! I've thought about getting this book time and again, but didn't. This is the push I needed. So, I just ordered a used hardback from Amazon for $2.88, a "library copy in excellent condition." Then, I ordered another used hardback, "new, never been read" for my mother for $2.95.

    I still like reading a book straight through before the discussion begins and have so thoroughly, recently, enjoyed discussing in sections that this format may have become my preferred format over whole-book discussions. What a surprise!

    Lead on, Judy!! (and Ginny!)

    Betty

    pedln
    March 10, 2002 - 04:50 pm
    Just so you know -- I'm invitin' my cotton-pickin' friends.

    Judy Laird
    March 11, 2002 - 08:55 am
    Pedlin you whole bunch of cottin-pickin friends will be more than welcome. O.K. As our leader Ginny says we will read it section by section and that sounds like fun. I just have to remember not to give away anything that is ahead in the book.

    Betty I went to my used book store to get Painted and I was actually amazed they didn't have it, they usually have everything I want. Ended up at Target for 5.99 a real concession for me.

    Meg someone told me when I was on my search that this was a great book and a departaure for him that it was more of a novel and less of a mystery.

    anicat38
    March 14, 2002 - 04:00 pm
    ..new here, I'm a "lone" reader, don't usually go with the book club type thing. But A Painted House is one of my favorite Grisham's--have read it cover to cover twice--and will again, I'm sure. Hope you all enjoy it as much as I did--both times. Anicat38

    Ginny
    March 14, 2002 - 05:10 pm
    Welcome, Anicat 38! My goodness, what a ringing endorsement, you've read it two times! When our moderator gets back from fleecing Las Vegas she will be thrilled to see you!!

    Why not take a chance with a reading group and read along with us? You don't know it, but you have stumbed fortuitously into the very best site for readers on the internet and the BEST groups, do hang around, you won't regret it.

    ginny

    GingerWright
    March 14, 2002 - 08:10 pm
    Hi anicat38, Welcome to the best place on the Net especially for a reader. Please subcribe at the botom of the page and come back as your reading it twice tells us how good a book this is and Well worth reading. You will be a Great asset to this group. Thanks for your post.

    Ginger

    anicat38
    March 16, 2002 - 08:17 am
    ..and, yes, I did subscribe, thanks. And thanks for the rousing welcome. Of the John Grisham books I've read, A Painted House stands out--I'll be pleased to read it again. Sure hope I didn't loan my copy out--I changed some things around and haven't unpacked all my books yet. But I'll find it--or get it back. See ya, Anicat

    Judy Laird
    March 20, 2002 - 09:28 am
    Anicat Hi and Welcome to the Painted House discussion. I am back from Vegas and happy to be home. Leaving two weeks from tommorow for Reno so away we go. I read the Painted Table House and enjoyed it which surprised me. This is a departure for Grisham and very enjoyable. Meg I agree with you that it is not a difficult read and I hope there are enough things to discuss. It seems to be a book that sticks with you and I am going to read it again. Closer to May because I can hardly remember yesterday. Have a great day everyone.

    ALF
    March 22, 2002 - 02:27 pm
    And when them cotton bols get rotten--

    My friend just gave me her book and I'm in.  Strapped in there, but I'm in!

    Welcome, welcome Anicat. I hope you enjoy your time with us as much as you did with the reading --- twice. Cool!

    Catbird2
    March 23, 2002 - 02:09 pm
    Judy Laird, I-81, running north into Canada, was closed yesterday--huge pile-up in blizzard conditions. No serious injuries, and no babies. Was your snow part of the front that hit in Alaska ( see pic section)? I-81 is at the east end of Lake Ontario.

    Yes, I started Grisham's "A Painted House". Am on page 34, and think it will be an important book. Please count me in for the May discussion.

    Ginny
    March 23, 2002 - 02:43 pm
    Andrea! (ALF!) and Catbird!

    Welcome!!

    I can't talk about snow but I wish I could! I don't have my book yet but I have been astonished to see all the places that grow cotton! We think of it as a Southern crop but I have seen it in the West and I think, I'm pretty sure, in Europe, too. What a strange plant cotton is, and now of course it's the most popular fabric, isn't that ironic?

    We may learn something from this book, I know I will.

    (if nothing else we can learn about the cotton bole song from Andrea) hahaahaha

    Welcome, All!

    ginny

    Judy Laird
    March 23, 2002 - 05:02 pm
    WELCOME -WELCOME Alf and Catbird. We have quite a group now. Meg R, Harper, Elizabeth N., Pedlin, Betty, Af and Anicat.Thats just great and it is only March.

    Catbird I don't know where our snow came from or where it went but thank God its gone. My kids and Grandkids are over the moon. We had 8 feet of new snow last week iin 10 days. They are sking, snowmobileing and snowboarding their brains out.

    Yes we will know all there is to know about picking cotting. Dry, wet and just damp. hehe

    This is going to be fun.

    SarahT
    March 23, 2002 - 05:52 pm
    Ah, what the hey, I'm always up for John Grisham. I'll be there in May! Looking forward to hearing both from old friends and from new folks!

    Judy Laird
    March 24, 2002 - 03:51 pm
    Sarah how great. I can't do all the big bright letters. But you are certianly welcome. I think perhaps it is you who should be the leader. I will say now that I think this book may have been more about secrets than anything else.

    Ginny can I say that ????

    Ginny
    March 24, 2002 - 04:14 pm
    Sarah! Welcome!! What a group here!!

    Judy will next master fonts and colors, you watch!

    You can say whatever you want, Miss C (as Judy likes to call herself), we're all entitled to our opinions here, and I am looking forward to hearing all of yours.

    I guess our next step will be to set up a discussion schedule (not a READING schedule) but we like to try this "Read Along With Mitch" process in which we look at small sections of the book at a time ....those entering late can catch up and the only problem, really, is that you can't refer to the end of the book till we get there.

    It allows for greater in-depth looking at the book and the issues and in Lorrie's Sea, The Sea, the partcipants have overwhelmingly just declared they prefer that method, so that's what we want to be using also, after all, it's our own Books of SeniorNet invention.

    (Besides it's fun, and it works.)

    This is quite a group assembling here so early for a discussion 5 weeks away, that's a very good omen!

    ginny

    Ginny
    March 24, 2002 - 07:24 pm
    Just a note that the book is out in paperback and I got my copy from our own SeniorNet B&N Bookstore and will put the link here asap. When you buy thru our SN B&N bookstore SeniorNet gets 7 percent of the price.

    In this case that's not much, it cost me $4.77 for the book discounted by my B&N Reader's Digest card to $4.55 and the shipping was free as I got another book with it.

    Hope everybody can take advantage of the super low price and join us!

    Here's a link to our Bookstore, it will take you to a main B&N page, just type in Painted House in the blank on the top of the page and click SEARCH.

    Click on the link below to buy the book





    ginny

    kiwi lady
    March 26, 2002 - 04:38 am
    The Painted House

    I read this book a couple of years ago. The style employed by Grisham reminded me of Steinbeck. One day the book may be a classic. I will look in on the discussion when it begins.

    Carolyn

    Judy Laird
    March 26, 2002 - 09:02 am
    Hey Kiwi lady that is great. This was sure a departure from Grishams usual writing, I couldn't believe it was him.

    Ginny and I will be looking forward to seeing you on May 1st. Thanks for looking in.

    SarahT
    March 26, 2002 - 10:43 am
    Kiwi - glad you mentioned Steinbeck, since we'll be starting a Steinbeck series here in July!

    annafair
    March 27, 2002 - 01:51 pm
    I sent Judy and email and then scrolled down and found everybody here...bought the book today ..paperback at the BX for 5 something...but I think the BnN price looks smaller and if you get two which is easy since there are so many things out there worthwhile you get free postage as well...anyway I do have the book and will be joining everyone ..looking forward to it...anna

    Judy Laird
    March 27, 2002 - 09:17 pm
    Welcome Annafair we are going to have a great time come May 1st and we are really happy you are going to be with us.

    Wilan
    March 29, 2002 - 04:45 pm
    Thanks Ginny-I have been waiting for more than six weeks for this book-read your e-mail and ordered it from BN. Now, I have to cancel at the library-too long to wait! I want to join the discussion in May-I love Grisham. Did not realize this was a non-legal book. That makes me happy-I did not like his last one-I felt as though he was burning out! Perhaps, I just don't like to think of judges as being so greedy! Don't know-just did not like it-cannot even remember the name! See you all in May! Will be surfing in meantime! Wilan

    SarahT
    March 29, 2002 - 05:01 pm
    Wilan - it was The Brethren.

    Ginny
    March 29, 2002 - 06:15 pm
    Kiwi Lady!
    Anna!


    Welcome, ALL!

    Good heavens, Judy, this is amazing, a wonderful group assembling, am quite excited! (Judy's mother is about to have surgery soon so she is more busy than usual but I know she will be thrilled!)

    So glad to see you again WILAN, where you BEEN??

    What fun, I know this one's a success already.

    ginny

    Judy Laird
    March 31, 2002 - 12:19 pm
    Let me run this buy everyone

    This is my proposed discussion time table for Painted House. You may want to read along, have already read, read again whatever.I plan to read it again as I have a ever growing memory problem hehe.

    May 1-8 discuss chapters 1-9 May 8-15 discuss chapters 10-19 May 15-22 discuss chapters 20-29 May 22-29 discuss chapters 29-36 and finish up the entire book.

    I am sure most would want to be done before Memorial Day. I will be in Seattle at the folk life festival all four days. That is always subject to Mother's health.

    Does this meet with everyone's approval? I am always open to a new or different way to do. Hi Wilan glad to see you are going to join us.

    Catbird2
    March 31, 2002 - 06:23 pm
    As we discuss Chapters 1 - 9, do we act as tho we have no knowledge of the rest of the book, so as not to spoil it or confuse those who have not read the whole book, and are keeping to the schedule?

    I've never done a discussion online, so not quite sure I can keep my mouth shut and not reveal secrets.......and this book is about secrets and how they influence our lives and the lives of all around us......

    And I can see the 'snake' thing coming (I may be wrong and Grisham will drop it) but it seems he is foreshadowing an incident. (Shades of "Poisonwood Bible"--oohhh)

    I'm on page 147.....chapter 11....Catbird....

    Ginny
    April 1, 2002 - 05:58 am
    Thank you for the schedule Judy, and the intelligent questions, Catbird, (interesting name!!) isn't there some expression about the "Catbird's seat?" That came to me this morning and I have no clue what it means! ahahahaha Sounds powerful!

    Anwyay, (Judy, here's an ignorant question, when IS Memorial Day?)

    Anyhoo, yes, Catbird, we do have several ways here of discussing a book, you can READ whatever you like? But we will stick to the information contained in the pages Judy has put up for each week's discussion. (No please don't tell what's coming) but never fear, there will be sooo much to discuss in those pages you'll soon forget what's coming.....love your use of the "forewhadowing" thing, please don't reveal right now if it turned out to come true or not. We need that sort of critical look when we begin on May Day/

    There are several ways a group can discuss a book, but when you meet every day for 24/7 we have found that to sustain the type of in depth discussion we like here you need to look closely at a section at a time, (as if you were one giant brain reading and experiencing together for the first time) and so that's what we'll do this time, in future we might look at the book as a whole.

    And, as you say, in THIS book perhaps that might create a conflict and it will be exciting to see the result! Our book discussions here are a living thing, I'm glad to hear that there may be a difficulty (as perverse as it sounds) because it will add spice to the mix, thank you for that!

    Now I REALLY look forward to this! I love challenges!

    ginny

    Judy Laird
    April 1, 2002 - 09:26 am
    Ginny Memorial day is May 27th. Catbird I share your fear of giving away the ending but with this book maybe that won't happen. I just participated in a discussion and I had read the book and someone asked a question and I am afraid I gave away something I shouldn't have, but who knows. I feel that most everyone that particpates in this discussion will already have read the book and we can use the chapters as a guide line. Who knows???But I feel we are going to have a good time.

    Ginny is you are in the catbird seat you are the BOSS !!!!!

    SarahT
    April 1, 2002 - 10:30 am
    Welcome Catbird - glad to have you with us. You're in very able hands with Judy and Ginny and they'll give you all the guidance you could possibly need.

    Ginny
    April 1, 2002 - 05:43 pm
    Whoops! That being the case, Miss Judy, we need to conclude the discussion on the 26th, because I am also leaving on the 27th, for Europe.

    I think the adjustments to the schedule now in the heading (thanks, Pat W) are very workable and I know we will all enjoy this and get a lot out of it!

    ginny

    Catbird2
    April 1, 2002 - 06:37 pm
    "foreshadowing" I think I used the term incorrectly. Since I posted, I read elsewhere a definition that seemed to imply that the author spoke directly to the reader. I have had the notion that foreshadowing meant giving hints in any way, that were followed by an event in the story. (sort of like breadcrumbs--if you had paid attention, you would have seen it coming)..

    It's not that my training in understanding literature is RUSTY, it is non-existent!!

    And you sent me to Bartlett's re "catbird" Thurber..In the Catbird's seat---a southern expression....Catbirds like to sit up where they can overlook the whole scene. Used in reference to the guys reporting the baseball game, also meaning being in a good position in regard to the situation....

    None of that applies.....when trying to choose a handle for Seniornet, I thought of two things that I love, and "pop" into my head, the name of one of my favorite birds.... so named because their call sounds like a cat meewing...

    ALF
    April 2, 2002 - 04:48 am
    I don't know about this book. I am nearly finished with it and it just does not grab me. It's boring. If you look thru the eyes of our 7 year old perhaps it is alright but I can't seem to get too aroused by this work. Did somebody say this could very well be a classic in its time?

    A Dissenter

    Catbird2
    April 2, 2002 - 05:45 am
    maybe it's seen from the world halfway between the women and the men--and this point of view allows Grisham to tell a story about life in that time and place..what page are you on?

    Ginny
    April 2, 2002 - 08:08 am
    Catbird:


    I have had the notion that foreshadowing meant giving hints in any way, that were followed by an event in the story. (sort of like breadcrumbs--if you had paid attention, you would have seen it coming)..


    Bingo, that is exactly correct!

    Andrea, again with the boring? hahahaah Well you are nothing if not honest!

    Let's let everybody decide for themselves in May how they see the book if we can? If we discuss it in April there will be nothing left on May Day, ahahahahaha

    I haven't read it yet, am holding off for the discussion, but no matter what YOU all think, we want to hear from you your honest opinion. I remember so many people just had to throw down The Corrections, just couldn't stand it and we just concluded the BEST discussion of it (thanks to Sarah) I believe could be made of it, so take heart, but let's hold off any analytical or critical comments on the book till May 1?

    ginny

    ALF
    April 3, 2002 - 06:57 am
    Catbird: I've read over 300 pages and there isn't much more to finish. I read while I'm on the treadmill and today I will not be treadmilling. I gardened and golfed on the same day and my joints feel out of sorts today. Ginny knows that I'm always honest when it comes to critiquing books. I never NOT finish a book even if I don't care for the theme. There's always something to learn as well as to discuss. I feel apathetic about this book. The monotony and the listlessness of the ole south seems tedious to me. Totally not-Grisham, the plot is vapid and boring, IMHO. I do love little 7 year olds so keeping in mind that the story is thru the eyes of a child, it's palatable.

    I was never one for Tenessee Williams either so don't judge any book by my opinion.

    Catbird2
    April 3, 2002 - 07:49 am
    Alf--I finished it last night, and still say WOW!

    I think it is really intersting how we bring all of us to a book, and then see if there is a mix with what the author is saying....

    I quit "The Red Tent" after most of the babies were born.....like, I never had the experience, and I found it interesting, but repetitive..

    After I had put it down for a while, one day I had a eureka:

    It's the other point of view -- to show the results of all the "and he begats" in the Old Testament..

    I'll go back to it soon....

    Lorrie
    April 4, 2002 - 05:04 pm
    Hi, Everybody!

    I managed to get a copy of this book, so I will be joining you all when we begin the discussion, in spite of what Nurse Ratchett (Alf) had to say about it. So there!

    However, I don't want to read it before then. With me, books grow dim with memory, I'd rather wait until we start. Judy, this will be fun!

    Catbird, I hope we get more people with your enthusiasm!

    Lorrie

    Judy Laird
    April 5, 2002 - 09:17 am
    Hey Lorrie that is so cool. I can't believe the great people that are joining this discussion. Its going to be way too much fun. YEAH LORRIE

    Hats
    April 6, 2002 - 12:55 pm
    I just finished reading The Summons. I loved it. I would like to try The Painted House.

    HATS

    Judy Laird
    April 7, 2002 - 10:07 am
    Hats you've got plenty of time. Just grab the book and enjoy. I loved it and we have a great group here waiting for May 1.

    annafair
    April 8, 2002 - 06:28 am
    It was an easy read and for me a fascinating one...some of my mother's brothers ( my grandfather died at an early age) were sharecroppers in southern Missouri about 2 miles from Arkansas so this book resonates with me.

    I am looking forward to OPENING DAY....anna

    Judy Laird
    April 8, 2002 - 08:17 am
    Annafair I am also looking forward to this discussion. Ginny had to beat me over the head to agree to co-host with her, but It looks like its going to be great.

    Off to the hospital should have my nurseing degree before the end of the week. That is if I learn to spell between now and then.

    MaryZ
    April 9, 2002 - 07:53 am
    Hi y'all,

    I'll be joining you, too. I read the book a while back, but I'll get it again. I love Grisham's legal things (haven't read his latest one yet, though), but this departure was delightful.

    BTW, Ginny, (and possibly others) don't be confused. ZWYRAM is two people. John ("Z") is the contributor to the Mutiny on the Bounty discussion, and Mary (me) is on the other sites. When he started with Bounty, I suggested that he set up his own account, but he said he'd just use mine...so that's the way it is. We'll try to keep signing our posts so you know who's who.

    Mary

    p.s. Somebody mentioned a Steinbeck discussion getting started. Where can I find information about that?

    Ginny
    April 9, 2002 - 03:37 pm
    Mary! Welcome!!

    AHA!! The plot thickens! There are TWO of you there, for heaven's sake! ahahahahah

    I am so enjoying "Z" in the Bligh and now we get ZII or Mary here in the Painted, what FUN!

    You can find Sarah's taking opinions for the Steinbeck series which will begin with The Grapes of Wrath in the Book Club Online on July 1 here in the Prized Fiction

    Hope you will join us there!

    ginny

    Ginny
    April 9, 2002 - 03:41 pm
    Lorrie!!
    Hats!!!

    I see I left off a colorful greeting even tho our HostESS with the mostess Judy L (Miss Congeniality herself as she likes to call self) has welcomed you, I will too.

    Judy is keeping long hours at her mom's bedside in the hospital, you need to get some rest, Judy!

    But Judy, I believe this is one of the biggest groups we have had in a long time, that should cheer you!

    ginny

    goldensun
    April 16, 2002 - 08:17 pm
    This sounds like it will be a fun discussion. I loved this book, but a few months after I read it last year I started getting the story mixed up in my mind with a couple of other books about young boys, maybe because I read them all within a few weeks of each other. One of them was "A Boy Called Jim" or very similar title. I need to get over to the library and get these books to reread and sort them out. looking forward to May and getting the discussion going.

    Ginny
    April 17, 2002 - 05:27 am
    Highcedar! Welcome!

    This is jsut super! And here Judy worried that we'd give a party here and nobody would come! YAY!

    Wow this is going to be SOME discussion, am looking forward to it!

    So glad you're with us,

    ginny

    Judy Laird
    April 17, 2002 - 08:32 am


    Lorrie !!!!!!!!! Hats !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Highcedar !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    We are going to have to much fun

    Wilan
    April 17, 2002 - 06:08 pm
    I just started the book. I am not going to say a word until the discussion starts-well, maybe one opinion (can't resist!) Love that little kid-warm and funny so far! No Tennessee Williams, here! More than one? See you on the first-can't wait! Wilan

    Judy Laird
    April 17, 2002 - 08:40 pm
    <<

    Wilan we have such a diverse list of people to discuss this book and I see no end to the fun we will have. So glad to see you here.!

    Judy Laird
    April 17, 2002 - 08:42 pm
    <

    Woops. Well that was a little overwhelming, well everyone knows I don't know zip about big colored letters. That was supposed to be purple and not quite so bold. hehe

    ALF
    April 18, 2002 - 06:45 am
    It's a good think you are "painting the house" Judy. hehehehee You'll get it just takes practice. I still goof uyp with those colors.

    Ginny
    April 18, 2002 - 06:53 am
    Actually Judy's coding was almost perfect, our new SN iteration is not forgiving of even the tiniest error, but I have a feeling she'll be roaring back soon! hahaha If any of the rest of you want to learn colors, pipe up now? We're in pre book discussion and the floor is yours!

    I've just spent the most fascinating morning learning about cotton: the plant! This insiginificant plant revolutionized a whole society and culture, it's amazing.

    Did you know much about cotton? I don't. Did you know that the cotton plant is a perennial? It wants hot and warm weather and is grown in the US as an annual. But it's a perennial?

    It will flare back up with the rain?

    I've put three different yet startling sites in the heading: the first has a wonderful drawing of what a cotton gin does, and how Wesson Oil and Crisco were developed....super site! The Prices site tells you the current economic state of US Cotton, and the current price per pound, I think it said 60 cents, I may have misread that. The third site tells how to grow it.

    As a child traveling back from Pennsylvania in the car to my parent's home in SC, we'd pass, while traveling thru NC, long lines of wagons pulled by mules and horses lined up at the...? What? with cotton. Long long lines of wagons cotton and mules.

    I wanted to get a couple of plants to show my children but the sale of cotton seed in the south (and it's no different now, see below!!) was EXTREMELY regulated in the late 60s and early 70's and you could not even get 2 seeds to plant!

    My husband is from South Georgia and he's promised to get me some seeds that I can sow for this discussion and I'll let you know later on, I'll pick a boll for YOU! You can each have one if you want one! hahaha In memory of this memorable discussion!

    And when you travel now anywhere they grow cotton (and I'm not able to find a state by state distribution nor the world wide things), but that first article mentions China and another mentioned Pakistan, and South Africa.

    I did find this:







    In the United States, the leading cotton-producing states are Texas, California, Georgia, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Arizona. Other leading producers of cotton include China, India, Pakistan, Brazil, and Turkey. While some of the market for cotton is being taken over by synthetic fibers, the cotton plant is still considered the fiber (and oil) of life.




    I have seen it in Europe, too, but when you travel through where they grow it, you know it's cotton in that field because you'll notice little strange looks like upside down plastic cups on sticks at the end of the rows? That's to see if they have Boll Weevils, a Weevil trap? Even today, it's not just history!

    Now you do know that they spray the plant to make it defoliate so that it only shows the cotton and not the leaves? I wonder how they used to do it, hopefuly the book will tell, I'm holding back so I can read along with the group.

    I'm so glad we're reading this book, I've already learned something and am going to plant some "Book Club Cotton" and we can watch it grow (and if you want will send you a piece if it ever makes anything, but NO BLOOD!)

    OOPS, mebbe not!

    I just called the local Feed and Seed and asked if I could buy a couple of seeds and was told you can't buy cotton in the state of South Carolina without a permit!

    It's big business here and tighly regulated!

    ginny

    Ginny
    September 14, 2003 - 02:19 pm
    Here's another link from the publisher for A John Grisham Contest, Audio Excerpt from the Book, View TV and Video Spots and More!

    ginny

    ALF
    April 18, 2002 - 07:13 am
    Wow ginny, the heading looks wonderful. A splendid job you've done again.

    Ginny
    April 18, 2002 - 07:32 am
    Thank you, Andrea, just a note to everybody on that first site, you want to scroll down to see the gin.

    We live surrounded by mills going out of business, every day in the paper another one is gone, huge huge things, with such strange occupations as doffers, spinners, etc. I have a friend whose father worked in the mills until his retirement, if it gets to the point that any of you want to ask him a question about mill life (an entire world in itself), they had their own store (remember Tennessee Ernie Ford and the "I owe my soul to the company store)?" built their own houses for the workers, (called Mill Villages) and generally ran their own world, I find it fascinating, the entire cotton---fabric process)...I hope somebody interviews these people before it's all gone.

    ginny

    ALF
    April 18, 2002 - 07:36 am
    Ginny: when I click on that first url the botany url comes up but there is nothing on the screen. I tried it 3 times. Is it me or the link?

    The other two sites work for me but not the first one.

    Ginny
    April 18, 2002 - 07:40 am
    Andrea, it should showo Botany and then Coastal Peru for some strange reason and then you keep on scrolling way way down and suddenly there is a diagram of the cotton plant and boll and if you keep going you have the gin?

    You don't see anything but the word BOTANY (I realize it's strange to see Peru there)

    ginny

    ALF
    April 18, 2002 - 11:06 am
    Ginny: On my screen the botany web address is there. That is all, I don't even get a scroll bar and at the bottom ist says "Document Done."

    Ginny
    April 18, 2002 - 01:24 pm
    How about the rest of you? I've asked two others and they can see it, can anybody see it??

    ??

    Can't imagine what's wrong but we SHALL find out, thanks for the head's up Andrea!!

    ginny

    MaryZ
    April 18, 2002 - 05:52 pm
    We've been out of town, but I'll be getting the book from the library to get started. Re the defoliant for the cotton plant leaves - I'd doubt that they were using anything in the 1950s in rural Arkansas - which is the setting of the book. But, as you say, it'll be neat to compare the methods of that time to those of today.

    They do grow cotton in California, but IMHO, that's a terrible thing! California is such a water-starved place, and cotton needs a lot of water to flourish - so it has to be irrigated a lot. Seems such a waste to use California's precious water and land for something that will grow quite well in other places. Well, maybe I should get off my soap-box for now.

    BTW, Ginny, where is Pauline, SC? (Of course, I could get my map out, couldn't I?) One of our daughters lives between Abbbeville and Due West, SC, between Greenwood and Anderson (western SC to most everybody else who doesn't know these metropolitan (?) area.)

    Not much longer now.

    Mary

    MegR
    April 19, 2002 - 06:16 am
    Ginny, Mary, Lorrie, Judy, Andrea & everyone else!,

    Well, Hi! Have got my copy, my highlighter & pen ready for margin notes to start this one for the second time! All this talk about cotton reminds me of vivid pixs of Danny Glover & Sally Fields picking cotton by hand in the movie Places of(in?) the Heart. Have read about picking cotton in many novels thru the years, but that visual portrayal made me "see" just how backbreaking and physically painful this labor can be - and how quickly crop had to be picked or lost! Remember being surprised to see the hands of pickers wrapped because tips of bolls were razor sharp and could slice fingers as easily as a Gillette razor! Never knew that until I saw the film. Sure developed a much greater appreciation for those multitudes who pick(ed) cotton by hand. It also gave me a vicarious experience with a tornado too (which was replaced when an actual one flew thru this burgh a flew years ago!)

    Side note/query: Do any of you know author - Lewis (Buddy) Nordan? Originally from Mississippi, he's a writer in residence & prof at the University of Pittsburg. He's penned a number of novels including: Music of the Swamp, Wolf Whistle, Sharpshooter Blues and Lightning Song. This new book of Grisham's reminds me very much of Nordan's work in some ways. Was just curious if anyone else had read Nordan for comparison?

    Well, it's another unseasonably warm & gloriously sunny day here again. Am going to attack another flower bed to prep for planting. Wanna plant pansies because of the warm spell, but none are to be had here yet!

    Meg

    Ginny
    April 19, 2002 - 06:23 am
    Mary, Pauline is also in the upstate of SC, it's between Spartanburg and Clinton right off I-26, am not sure you'd SEE it on a map but it's a great place to live!




    Meg, I've not heard of Lewis (Buddy) Nordan. Have any of you heard of him?

    Do you like his works, Meg, and he's right there at the University of Pittsburgh too? Which of his works do you recommend most? Maybe he's an author we need to know more about?

    ginny

    Elizabeth N
    April 19, 2002 - 11:32 am
    MegR, I just finished a wonderful first novel titled "The Mysteries of Pittsburg" by Michael Chabon. DON'T MISS IT.

    ALF
    April 19, 2002 - 12:04 pm
    Michael Chabron? Isn't he the author of Kavelier and Clay, another enjoyable book that we discussed last year?

    betty gregory
    April 19, 2002 - 07:55 pm
    Same guy, Alf. I just looked it up at Amazon.com. Mysteries of Pittsburg was Michael Chabon's first novel in 1989. Those who liked that book predicted great things....and they were right! Which of the prizes did Kavalier and Clay win? Pulitzer? Let me go see......yep, 2001 Pulitzer.

    Betty

    kiwi lady
    April 19, 2002 - 10:07 pm
    The Painted House shows us that Grisham is truly a great writer. I have loved all his other books although the subjects are not to my usual taste. I just admire the way he develops his characters.

    Carolyn

    MegR
    April 21, 2002 - 05:58 am
    Hi, Elizabeth, Andrea, Betty & Carolyn!

    Hmmmmmmm! Curious that you should raise this author too! Don't think he's from Pittsburgh, but I'm pretty sure that he did attend Carnegie Mellon University here before publishing Mysteries of Pittsburgh. To be honest, a local reviewer (with whom I seldom agree) went into such apoplexies & palpitations over that novel that I didn't bother getting it. Think he (Chabon) also did Wonder Boys which was later sold & made into a movie w/ Michael Douglas. Missed that one too.

    After my last post, met w/ a friend with whom I swap books and was given a copy of his short story collection - Werewolves in Their Youth & started reading them before I saw your posts. Am finding him to be a really fluid storyteller (a little too precious w/ language/metaphor at times), but think he has an incredibly observant eye that minuetly captures multiple levels of behavior/meaning. Am really looking forward to rest of the tales in this book - have only read 2 & 1/2 so far. May even go out & scrounge up Mysteries, Wonder Boys and Kav & Clay too. Am curious to see what happens when reading his books in sequence.

    Only asked about Nordan to see if anyone else out there had read him and/or had seen similarities to his Grisham.

    See ya later! Meg

    antoinette
    April 25, 2002 - 06:36 pm
    look forward to discussions on the painted house.

    antoinette
    April 25, 2002 - 06:39 pm
    look forward to discussion on the painted house.

    Ginny
    April 25, 2002 - 07:08 pm
    Welcome Antoinette!

    We are delighted to see you here and looking forward to our May Day opening. Can everybody read my print here? Can everybody see the first link next to the cotton in the heading? Would everybody like to hear Judy's own rendition of When Them Cotton Bolls Get Rotten You Can't Pick Very Much Cotton? hahahaah Stay tuned!!!

    ginny

    Judy Laird
    April 26, 2002 - 08:22 am
    a small red colored HA HA

    Judy Laird
    April 26, 2002 - 08:24 am


    Welcome Antoinette

    Just think next Wednesday is the Ist of may !!!

    Judy Laird
    April 26, 2002 - 08:41 am


    Welcome Antoinette we are so happy you are here and ready to go.

    Just think next Wenesday is May 1st.

    Ginny HaHa on the cotton balls.

    BaBi
    April 30, 2002 - 02:51 pm
    Could Judy also do "Mr. Boll Weevil" (aka, "Just Lookin' for a Home") for us. As a member of a Texas family that got here by way of Arkansas, "THE PAINTED HOUSE" struck some chords for me. I 'spect this discussion will pleasure me considerable. ...Babi

    Keene
    April 30, 2002 - 03:16 pm
    I'm eagerly awaiting tomorrow to begin the "A Painted House" discussion.

    Keene

    SarahT
    April 30, 2002 - 04:54 pm
    Finished the book while on vacation and will be interested in others' views of it.

    mstrent
    April 30, 2002 - 05:19 pm
    I was struck in reading "A Painted House" by how little the life and lot of the cotton farmer had changed in the ten years that had elapsed since I spent time on my grandfather's cotton farm in Texas and the 1950s. About the only difference I could see was that no labor came into that part of Texas from Mexico in the 1940s. The bracero program?. The advent of machine harvesting changed everything - including, I think, the size of the cotton plants. No more tall cotton for kids to lurk about in.....

    Judy Laird
    April 30, 2002 - 06:43 pm


    Welcome Babi, Keene and Mstrent. We are so glad to have you all here. This may be the discussion of the year. We are going to have' fun and hopefully that is what it is all about.

    See everyone tomorrow May 1st !!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ginny
    May 1, 2002 - 06:26 am
    Good morning and welcome to the opening bell of the discussion of Painted House.

    This will be a bicoastal/ international effort! I, here on the East Coast, typing in the literal crash of a lightning storm, must hurry and get off. Judy has very kindly posted last night as she lives in Redmond, California, not far from Seattle on the West Coast. Redmond is the home of Microsost and Judy often tests their products ahead of time, but more on that later on.

    We have Carolyn as well from New Zealand, so we're truly international and what a strange little book this is, as Babi said, it hit some chords, didn't it? Sure did with me. Long buried memories surged forth.

    A person might be tempted to tend to dismiss this as Mayberry Meets the Darlings with a Twist but I think there's a LOT more going on here and I think we are going to get a lot out of this discussion, thanks to you.


    Let's mention a few ground rules first? We are going to talk about in this first week only the first 9 Chapters? You can have READ the book 100 times, but we'll address only what is said in the first 9 chapters.

    Your opnion is what we want to hear? YOUR insights and what the words in the text suggest to you. We have a wide range of experiences here, we have farmers (Pat W I thought continually of you when reading this, I hope you are here?) and now we have mstrent as well and don't know who else, will you all share with us what the memories in this book brought up for you?

    Like mstrent I was struck by some what I thought of as incongruities, (Mexican labor) am I the only one? Was there something which struck you or not about these opening lines.

    Was that a simpler time? It certainly seems relaxing, or does it? Everybody on the porch after supper shelling peas. Saturday bath. Church on Sunday. The Waltons incarnate.

    I'm seeing something strange, tho and I wonder if I'm the only one. Grishsm is no hack writer, he knows what he's doing.

    What do you make of the first sentence in the book? Can we understand fully the force of the title words "Painted House," and what they symbolize? Do YOU have any such triggers in your own experience or can you tell us some you have seen like that? I have a bunch.

    How about the days when baseball on the radio was a national pasttime? Were we more naive then? Were we more ingenuous? Stan the Man Musial. Baseball cards.

    Does this book in the first 9 chapters say more than it appears to?

    Inquiring minds want to know what you think about any and all things mentioned in these first 9 chapters! The floor is now open for your own "take" on this section, and your comments and experiences.

    Looking forward to everything you have to say,

    East Coast Storms

    BaBi
    May 1, 2002 - 08:44 am
    Were we more naive then? More ingenuous?

    I think we were more innocent; I know we were.

    I think the first thing that struck me were the harsh realities of "between a rock and a hard place" for these cotton farmers. When Pappy hired the Spruills he knew they were not what he wanted. Shucks, even little Luke knew they weren't good news. But to Pappy it was imperative to start harvesting the crop as quickly as possible, so he took what he could get.

    Another association that came up for me: My stepmother was born and raised on a Mississipi cotton plantation, where her father was the blacksmith as well as operator of the plantation's cotton gin. You would imagine a large, burly man, wouldn't you? Yet this man was small and thin, about half the size of his wife. Strong, undoubtedly, but totally different from the image most of us have of blacksmiths. And the family was poor. Every one of the eight children put in their hours picking or chopping cotton. To this day, my stepmother is stronger, healthier and more active than I am. There's a lesson there somewhere, isn't there? ...Babi

    Judy Laird
    May 1, 2002 - 08:47 am
    If I didn't have bad luck I wouldn't have any at all. Couldn't get on the internet this morning and after 45 minutes with the ISP I know have a new number to dial and am 30 minutes late for leaving for work. I am struck by the fact that this story is set in 1952. I assumed and didn't read til second time around that is was not in the depression. I say 1939 truck and just assumed it was during the depression. I graduated from high school in 1952 and boy it wasn't like that here. We had nice house, car , plumbing. Now a day I don't thing there is anywhere that would make children work all day like that boy did. Am totally befussed because of my computer problems. Must go to work be back this afternoon.

    Hats
    May 1, 2002 - 12:45 pm
    While reading The Painted House, I think of school days. The Sisco children never went to school. I find this unbelievable and sad. I remember going to elementary school in the fifties (I was born in 1950). During those days, it was a well known fact that no attendance at school meant that there would soon be a truant officer at your door. I don't hear the term truant officer used any longer. Is that a job long gone?

    I went to a city school. Reading this book, helps me compare city life to rural life. City life, of course, had its own set of problems. This time does not remind me of a "relaxing" time. I see a time of hard, back breaking labor for adults as well as children: hot sun, rat snakes and that cotton had thorns! It must have been awfully difficult to pick.

    Then, there is a sort of racial tension between Luke's family, the Hill people and the Mexicans. Poor Luke, seems to be caught in the middle. It's not a Walton family existence at all.

    I enjoyed reading about the delicious biscuits. My boys and my husband thought I could bake the best biscuits in the world. Now, because my husband thinks of his diet and the boys are gone I no longer cook biscuits, but they were really good.

    "My grandmother's biscuits were heavy and perfectly round, and so warm that when I carefully placed a slice of butter in the center of one, it melted instantly. I watched the yellow cream soak into the biscuit, then took a bite."

    Hats

    MegR
    May 1, 2002 - 02:38 pm
    Well, Ginny & Judy, we're off & running!

    Judy, sorry to hear about your server problems. Know what you mean. Mine changed access number a month or so ago to improve server receiver capacity & I'm having much more trouble now getting a connection! Go figure!!

    Anyhow, some initial notes/observations:

    1. For reference for those who have finished the book chpts. 1 to 9 end with Deputy Stick Powers' questioning of Luke Chandler and Hank Spruill about the fight behind the Co-op.

    2. In addition to events of opening lines/paragraph (Mexican & hill people arrive, 1952, league standing of Cardinals & cotton fields ready for picking) the Korean War was also being fought at this time; Luke's Uncle Ricky is in Korea - so that war & violence are also repeatedly mentioned.

    "Painted House" -personal associations When I first picked up this book (hardback), cover illustration showed a wood frame house. Grew up in a town that is a third class city - but it's in the middle of surrounding dairy & agricultural lands. We always joked that it was 20 years behind the times compared to Pittsburgh (which has not been one of the top 10 trendsetting cities in this country). We lived in a 3 story wood frame house that had been the main residence of what had been a large farm just before the city/county line. My dad was a painter and every 5 years or so, we'd all get up on ladders, porch roofs, scaffolding during summer vacations to scrape chipping /peeling paint & to sand & apply primer before new paint was applied. Don't think latex paints were available for most of the time that I spent there - so painting our house was dirty (flying paint chips & dust), smelly (oil based primer & turpentine or paint thinner to clean brushes & self), hot & tiring & monotonous. Absolutely HATED "time to paint the house" periods! (laughing) I brought all of this baggage to Grisham's book.

    "Painted House" - book references Ya know, I don't think that we see these words until the last line of Chapter 2 when Luke gives us a little of his mother's background. He says on p.24, "She'd been raised in a painted house." Of course, there are other references to painted houses in these 9 chapters & meaning of phrase takes on different colorations for each one!

    Am gonna post this so far, before I lose it! Meg

    Judy Laird
    May 1, 2002 - 03:17 pm
    Hats you are right this sure is not the Walton's We have a new store in Seattle which I understand has its major stores in Texas. It is called The Whole Food's Market and if I am within ten miles I am there to buy their biscuits. I never tasted anything so good. I don't believe I ever had any home made but these must be a close second. Meg you are right there seems to be like class distinction of people who live in "Painted House's" and those who don't. It still bothers me that this kind of living went on as late as 1952. I also have a hard time believing 1952 was 50 years ago.

    mstrent
    May 1, 2002 - 03:52 pm
    This is only a sidelight....cotton doesn't have thorns, but it does have burrs formed by the bolls. After the bolls have popped open and dried, they are very hard and, well, burr-like enough to cut pickers' fingers. The economics of the 1950s: Pappy was worried that the pickers' wage might be up ten cents over the previous year. $1.50 per hundred pounds (the previous year's wage) was three times the wage per hundred paid ten years earlier. Inflation had already set in...Too often we get the notion (the Waltons?) that rural life was once some sort of idyl - "A Painted House" goes a long way to dispel that fiction. The important thing this story tells us about is the solidarity found in rural life. People stuck together, and as the Chandlers show, most never hesitated to come to the aid of anyone in need.

    Hats
    May 1, 2002 - 04:25 pm
    Judy, I bet those biscuits are delicious. My husband brought some home one day, and those biscuits tasted just like biscuits from scratch. I think it's great that people, like the Chandlers, seemed to use their time more wisely than we or I do today. I am thinking about Luke's mother who kept that garden with all of the vegetables and such. Then, she had time to pick the cotton.

    Mstrent, I am sorry about using the word thorns instead of burrs. I am learning a lot here.

    MegR, your father was a painter. My father was a tailor. He had his own tailor shop called Hi-Lo. Luke hated to pick cotton, and I hated keeping the shop. I thought of it as an intrusion on my teen-age years. So often, our plans were centered around what time dad would close the shop, etc.

    Hats

    mstrent
    May 1, 2002 - 06:18 pm
    Hats, no need to feel sorry! We're all learning from each other. That's what makes this fun and interesting.

    Keene
    May 1, 2002 - 06:53 pm
    Well, what can I say? The first few chapters of this book bring back so many memories, both for myself, and my husband Howard. He was raised on a farm in Oklahoma which indeed raised cotton and employed people from the town nearby, Davis, on a daily basis to pick cotton. As I read the description of the food served at the meals, onion, okra, tomatoes, corn bread, corn, my mouth began watering for the food that brings back my childhood memories of visiting my grandparents in Arkansas. I actually grew up in Washington, D.C., and cherished the visits to my grandparents and the "down home" cooking which I cherished. Grisham's visual images are gifted. My mouth waters for the food served. I can remember lying under a tree and seeing the sky through the branches. Can't we all remember ordering a Cardinal shirt or some similar bit of clothing from the Sears catalogue which we will wear "for the rest of our lives." An element of humor sifts through the seriousness of the descriptions. So, having read the first few chapters, I am eagerly looking forward to the others. A question: is is better to read the entire book and then participate in these discussions, or is it better to read along as we go through the assigned chapters?

    Keene

    Keene
    May 1, 2002 - 07:00 pm
    Judy, yes, Whole Food Markets originated in Texas, Austin to be exact. I am rushing off tomorrow to try their biscuits. I have their wonderful breads often, but have never had their biscuits. For shame, since I live in San Antonio.

    Keene

    Judy Laird
    May 1, 2002 - 08:11 pm
    Keene you are going to be one happy guy. Those biscuits are to die for and you can sit in the cofffe area and have them warm with strawberry jam. I guess it is a matter of preferance wheather to read the whole book first or by chapters. Personally I like to read the whole book first. I am always afraid that I am going to give away something but that is just me. Mstrent I am dying to find out what your book club discussed today, was it interesting??

    You have to hand it to the Grandmother and Mother in the story. The garden, cooking all three meals and picking cotton all day. It makes me tired thinking about it. Do you think women today have it easier or is it just a different kind of hard?? I may not have picked any cotton today but I mowed a very large lawn.

    betty gregory
    May 2, 2002 - 12:09 am
    What a wonderful discussion this is going to be!

    I've been there, Judy, switching dial-up numbers, etc. Then I switched to DSL...high speed, always connected....and about the time I felt safe and smug, what could possibly go wrong, etc., the "card" on the line to my house (whatever that is) kept malfunctioning. So, instead of giving me a new dial-up number, a PERSON had to come check the outside line each time, a 2-3 day process. This past week, they put in a new "card" on the outside line and said I should now have trouble-free service. Uh huh.

    mstrent, your words, "solidarity found in rural life," rang true for me, too. Of all the ways that 1952 rural life is different from city life (and especially present day city life), solidarity is right there in the top factors. There are remnants of it in smaller groups, don't you think...such as a close-knit church. Also, the smaller the community, the higher the solidarity, but only in general. A modern day concept is "support system," a substitute, maybe, for the solidarity found naturally in the hard life of rural farming. Your comment caught my attention because that's missing from my life.

    ---------------------------------------------------

    Keene, oh, absolutely, "Grisham's visual images are gifted." I was transported immediately and for the whole book back into my grandparents' lives and my childhood. My mother's parents had already moved to town by the time I was born, a small central-Texas town, but they still lived in many ways as if they still lived on a farm and the stories of picking cotton as children were plentiful. Their garden was my grandmother's love, obsession, life. And it fed them and many of us, grandchildren of 4 families who lived within 15 miles. I cannot picture my grandmother without smelling something from her garden cooking on the stove, or without remembering shelling peas and beans with her, pealing and slicing peaches with her for her "canning." Name a vegetable from her garden and I can still call up the distinct smell of the plant, like the fuzzy green leaves of okra. Her blackberry bushes were as tall as my mother....which doesn't match my present day knowledge of low-to-the-ground blackberry bushes at all. That was my specialty, picking blackberries.

    My grandfather worked on the railroad for 20 years, then was a postman for 25 years. I'd give anything to know who Pappy was to Grisham, because he has captured my grandfather to a T, except for the need to fight or brawl. But the stern, quiet manner? With deep love for his family just beneath the surface? The dry wit? "This ain't Michigan," is my grandfather. That's a quote found later in the book.

    Just as I was graduating from college and a wedding date was set, my fiance and I were part of a large family gathering, 50 or so. My grandfather was "grilling" my fiance. The rest of us were trying not to grin because WE knew how harmless it was, but Clark, my husband to be, did not. When asked why he didn't play football in high school or college (small town Texas talked football on the porch at night and Clark was 6'2" and looked like a linebacker to my grandfather), Clark gave a long, defensive answer about breaking his wrist 3 times in junior high football. My grandfather studied his wrist for a long minute and said, "It looks ok now," meaning that that was a flimsy excuse. They were great friends later, but not that day.

    As a child, I stayed overnight with my grandparents many times and was there in the morning for the before-dawn breakfast. Bacon, eggs, toast and at least one kind of fresh fruit was the standard meal. Unlike other meals that took place in the dining room when other people were there, breakfast for the 3 of us was in the tiniest kitchen, sitting on the rope-seat, ladderback chairs close to the oven, our only source of heat before the rest of the house warmed up. One of those rope-seat chairs is in my living room now, my most prized possession, representing those two people who were the stablizing force in my childhood.

    ---------------------------------

    Ginny, I agree that Grisham is doing more than chronicling a simpler time. Possibilities....racial divide, class distinctions WITHIN rural communities, north vs. south, multi-generation families, freedom and safety for children to roam around vs. adult labor expected of children. In a large category by itself is violence...."little boys must learn to fight" was a cultural expectation (notice Luke's father and grandfather).....which led to.....adult boys fighting. Nothing new under the sun.

    Betty

    MegR
    May 2, 2002 - 07:52 am
    Morning all! Feel like I'm gonna be all over the place this morning. So much good stuff from everybody!

    Our general associations/assumptions etc.

    Judysaid, I am struck by the fact that this story is set in 1952. I assumed and didn't read til second time around that is was not in the depression. I say 1939 truck and just assumed it was during the depression. To be honest, I also slipped into the same timewarp for a little bit when I read about the outhouse. Then, I remembered that family friend of the time had a "vacation" cabin (really rustic) on the banks of the river NE of Pittsburg that also had an outhouse when we visited it in the 50's. Luke's mention of Stan Musial brought me back to that decade!

    Hatsasked,I don't hear the term truant officer used any longer. Is that a job long gone? No, the job's not gone. It's been renamed with some new inflated title (like "sanitation engineer" for garbage man) and recording and enforcement chores have been divided among teachers, administrators, social workers or sw interns, probation officers, local jp's and juvenile courts. Although there were 1,000 kids in my high school graduating class - back in the stone age- I do remember a truant officer scouring town & eateries around the high school to "pick up" a small handful of regular hookey players! Having worked in a large urban district, volume management was much more difficult - so more folk were involved in process.

    Hats you also started my mouth watering with descrips of your biscuits dripping with butter & I dreamt of them last night! (What does that say about me - that I dream of & can taste & smell food in my sleep! laughing!) Then! I wake up to find Betty's description of my favorite breakfast at her grandparents home! You're all just tooooo cruel! (laughing!) I can just smell those biscuits, bacon, toast & coffee!!! Yummmmmmmm!!!

    Keene, Thank you for your lyrical images of your own childhood! As to your question about entire book or read along as we go: I prefer to do the latter for this type of discussion. Think I've participated in 4 or 5 SN book groups so far. For some - I've read book cold, doing assigned chapters along w/ the group. If I've read a title before it's posted for discussion, I also reread as if the book is new territory. I find that I don't recall many pertinent details from initial reading and also discover that I'm unable to locate quotes, specific examples etc. to support my opinions when I've been away from that text for months. If I'm reading something just for pleasure, of course, I go from page one thru end non-stop. Have found that I need to do my SN reading (or rereading)"assignments" more immediately to discussion segments in order to specifically respond to questions/ issues that we raise. Does this make any sense? Don't think there's a right or wrong on this one. Use whatever process works best for you - pieces or whole book!

    Idyls of Farm Life??

    A number of us have commented on this:

    Babi: harsh realities of "between a rock and a hard place" for these cotton farmers. When Pappy hired the Spruills he knew they were not what he wanted. Shucks, even little Luke knew they weren't good news. But to Pappy it was imperative to start harvesting the crop as quickly as possible, so he took what he could get.

    Hats: I went to a city school. Reading this book, helps me compare city life to rural life. City life, of course, had its own set of problems. This time does not remind me of a "relaxing" time. I see a time of hard, back breaking labor for adults as well as children.

    mstrent: Too often we get the notion (the Waltons?) that rural life was once some sort of idyl - "A Painted House" goes a long way to dispel that fiction. The important thing this story tells us about is the solidarity found in rural life. People stuck together, and as the Chandlers show, most never hesitated to come to the aid of anyone in need.(Betty also commented on solidarity.)

    Judy: You have to hand it to the Grandmother and Mother in the story. The garden, cooking all three meals and picking cotton all day. It makes me tired thinking about it. Do you think women today have it easier or is it just a different kind of hard??

    Do think that many people do idealize farmlife. Serendipitously, I found a PBS special that ran 2 hours for the last three nights. Was able to catch about 1/2 of it. Am blanking on title - but 3 families were dumped in wilds of Montana to establish homesteads (shelter, food & fuel for coming winter) - living as those 1800 settlers would have done. It made you chuckle at times over the pettiness & pampering that most of us are accustomed to in terms of modern conveniences & life. It was interesting to see how three 2001 families from California, Tennessee and ?(missed origin of young social worker, his dad & later his bride) were able to and not to cope with the hardships of life back then with varying degrees of success. What was most gratifying to see was how much most of these "homesteaders" (from children to grandpa) did develop the "solidarity" within each family that mstrent and Betty mention. Also evident was their pride and investment in their individual, group and personal accomplishments. Judy's points about the difficulty, monotony and repetition of women's chores was made visually evident! Wish I had been able to watch entire series.

    Have been on here too long! Need to get some work done! Later! Meg

    lgrod
    May 2, 2002 - 08:35 am
    What a pleasure to read all the references to baseball, my favorite sport. Since the 1970's, professional football and basketball have taken over as America's favorite sports because I guess that people want more action and violence. I remember during the Korean Was is when my family first got a television set, and that's the period Grisham is writing about.

    Ginny
    May 2, 2002 - 09:11 am
    Hi, Igrod and Welcome~! I'm typing in the teeth of storms here today so have to type fast, but I have just LOVED all of your points and thoughts, want that biscuit recipe the worst way! Let's make this experience a permanent one hahaha let's each get something new out of it! I'm planting a cotton plant and will mail you the progress and I expect each of you with fingers bandaged here in the Fall!

    hahaha

    With a long long sack, looking for photos of that sack.

    I'll just add this one personal thing to the mix here, for my offering. I know several of you know that my husband lived this life as a child, in the deep south. The same life we're reading about here at the same time. In 1952 he was 9 years old.

    He would rise with his father before dawn and go work other people's farms to keep their own farm going, go to school, come home, and work their own fields. His mother made all their clothes by hand, every pair of jeans, every shirt, every suit for Sunday, every thing they put on except shoes, entirely by hand.

    I believe such an upbringing, particularly in the deep south (this story is in Arkansas which some consider "south") and perhaps the south is a country all its own, leaves a mark on the person who goes thru it forever, as does many an upbringing, but there are certain engrained things which are left behind.

    I've been getting into some very interesting debates wtih my husband over some of the details in the book, namely the fresh eggs for breakfast thing, which I personally think is Grisham's idea of Life on the Farm Happy Breakfast, we have a bit of a disagreement but it's still going on. I have raised chickens here (we live on a farm too) for 21 years (my last hen died or I would say 22) and I think that gathering of the fresh eggs would not have happened in that way, but it's still a topic of conversation here, have any of you raised chickens and did you cotton (sorry) to Pappy and the morning fresh eggs?

    Yet on the cotton and the difficulties of harvesting, etc., Grisham has struck a note with me and I made the mistake of mentioning the hardship of that life to an....I don't know what to call it, an amazed, or incredulous, or disdainful look, am not sure if it was not all three, from my husband who did both cotton picking and tobacco, who said,



    If people want to know what hard was let them introduce themselves to the tobacco field and the tobacco barn. There is no comparison to picking cotton in the fall and a tobacco field in July in Georgia. None.


    In other words, those of you who, like me were raised in the city, (Philadelphia) there are actually as hard as it is to believe, times and crops that were worse?

    I think Grisham has done an excellent job of painting (sorry) a portrait of a very hard life. For the VERY FIRST TIME I understand why the mill and the mill village, the company store Tennessee Ernie Ford spoke of, and that way of life caught on here in the South. Almost anything would have been better than this life, it seems to me, BECAUSE of the math.




    How many of you did the math that he said any farm child could do? I did. How many of you noticed something strange in the math?

    Where is provision for cloth for clothing? Where is provision for groceries? Is there something left out of the math?

    More anon, am about to be blown away by the lightning, Hats, can we have that biscuit recipe? Let's make a Painted House dinner!~

    ginny

    Hats
    May 2, 2002 - 09:30 am
    Hi Ginny, this is so much fun! I would gladly give you the biscuit recipe, but I sorta did it out of my head or remembered the way my sister made biscuits, or God forbid, the recipe might have come from the back of a Gold Medal flour bag (Oh, I hate to admit that). Anyway, it's like baking bread. It's all in the hands, I think. Well, a little bit of flour, crisco, milk....I can't remember anything else accept rolling them out and cutting them. If I felt lazy, I just made a round circle in my hands and then, flattened the dough. These biscuits sound awful, but they were really good!

    I don't remember much about my grandparents cooking or way of life. I grew up in Philly, and my grandmother lived in Fla. I remember visiting her once. My aunt took me by train. I have a memory of a pump outside her door, and every morning she cooked oatmeal. That water pump really stands out in my memory. I have totally gotten off the track here. Please excuse.

    I think someone in Betty's family was a railroad man. My grandfather worked for the railroad in Fla.

    What is it about this book that makes you remember all of this stuff?

    Hats

    patwest
    May 2, 2002 - 09:47 am
    There is no comparison to picking cotton in the fall and a tobacco field in July in Georgia. Or hoeing soybeans in July or detasseling corn.

    Plumbing --- The 'little house' (out house) was for use in the summer (to save water) and the hired help. We had inside plumbing for use in the winter.

    Elizabeth N
    May 2, 2002 - 10:16 am
    I visited my grandmother at the shore who always had a banked fire in her huge woodburning stove. On the other side of the family, I visited my grandfather's tailoring shop on Madison Ave in Manhattan and got to drag a very large magnet on a string across the floor to pick up the pins that workers threw on the floor as they pulled them out of the garments they were sewing. No farm experiences though.



    Judy, the next time you are in Whole Foods, check out their own botanical shampoo, brandname "365." A very nice shampoo for only 1.99, the regular price. I buy several at a time and use them for bubble bath as well.

    BaBi
    May 2, 2002 - 11:36 am
    Ah...another memory. The first television, which was next door at Aunt 'Buckin''s house, and had a screen all of five inches square. On the radio, I remember we listened to 'Dr. I.Q.', 'Inner Sanctum', and 'Lux Radio Theatre'. (Was it Lux, or have I mixed that up?) In Grisham's book the ball games in the evening and news in the morning seemed to be the bulk of the radio listening. You noticed the women weren't really all that interested in the ball game, but sat on the porch with the men for both coolness and company.

    It's only natural this book is bringing up so many memories. It is set in the time when most of us were young (from today's vantage point, at least). ...Babi

    kiwi lady
    May 2, 2002 - 11:46 am
    John Grisham is a VERY good writer. He is no hack writer as one of the other posters says. The book we are discussing now will affirm this statement.

    I have read The Painted House some time ago. My first impression was - This is real literature. I can see it being used in high schools as compulsory reading for Senior English Lit classes before too long.

    It was a hard life for the tenant farmers in the South and every time I read a book about the cotton industry I marvel at their staying power.

    Carolyn

    Keene
    May 2, 2002 - 01:30 pm
    Well, Ginny, we have a lot in common My husband lived the life described in this book, too. He was thirteen years old in 1952. Regarding breakfast, he did indeed gather fresh eggs for his scrambled eggs and also milked the cow to have fresh milk. Once in a while he would encounter a "chicken snake" curled up in a nest eating the eggs. It was a frightening experience to put a hand in the dark nest and find a snake instead of eggs! This was in Oklahoma, but I'm sure it was the same as the in the deep south.

    The first chapters in this book indeed show the disparity of classes in these communities. Living in "a painted house" indicated that you probably lived in town and possibly had some other occupation than farming.

    I have often asked myself the question why so many young people wanted to escape their rural/farming life and move to the big city. It's because it was AWFULLY HARD WORK. And, of course, the old adage of "how do you keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paree (Paris)" during WWI plays a part, too. I know that my husband's main desire growing up was to escape the family farm (much to his father's disappointment), and to escape small town life, both of which he has managed to do successfully!!

    Judy Laird
    May 2, 2002 - 03:36 pm
    Keene I am sure you think I am an air head. When I looked at your e-mail address I assumed you were a male person. When your post mentioned your husband I decided I was wrong. If I reached in the chicken nest and found a snake I would be in another state before the sun went down. Igrod your right I remeber the first TV set I bought was in 1952 on my first job. For my Father because we were embarresed we could never find him and there he would be at the nighbors watching Gene Autry or some such western.

    Meg I am blown away by your posts. Please keep up the great posts. Thank You so much

    Hey Pat Westerdale. Nice to see you. BTW what were you whining about?

    Elizabeth I will most surely get that shampoo next time I am at the Whole Foods store. It is in Seattle and a long way from where I live but I will be there again for sure. The 365 seems to be their own brand. Its on water flour everything as I am sure you know.

    Hats this book did not impress me so much the first time around, I enjoyed it but the second time when I found out it was in 1952 then it really got me.

    BaBi do you remem

    ber one program was a creaking door? Also there was one, Will ----- find happiness in the little town of ---- Wist I could remeber that one.

    kiwi lady I think you are right. This should be required reading for Seniors. I feel almost guilty that I lived in the city and had no real problems and worst of all had no idea they were happening as I skipped along totally unaware.

    Keep up the wonderful posts everyone I am really enjoying all your comments.

    betty gregory
    May 2, 2002 - 04:17 pm
    Ginny, I know nothing about tobacco farming or how awful it is/was, but what could be worse than the heat and humidity of a Texas cotton field in August at 112 degrees and September at 102 degrees? Is he talking about something worse than heat? Smell, the weight, or? (What I appreciate is whatever it was someone picked HAD to be the worst!)

    ----------------------------------------

    Well, I dug out my mother's transcriptions of several years of love letters between her parents before they married...even though they lived 20 miles apart in central Texas and saw each other almost every weekend. I remembered, but wanted to double-check before saying anything....my grandparents MET, in their teens in 1923, while PICKING COTTON in his father's cotton fields!! In her words in a Grandparents Book interview when she was mid-80s, Grandmother said...

    "Uncle Walter Rambo lived about 4 miles south of Killeen and he wanted us to pick cotton for them. That included Mama, Fred and me, as Estelle was staying with Porters and in college [her sister]. The Sanderford's farm was close, as they had some cotton needing to be picked first. We picked over there 2 days and I met Max. After that, he would call and take me to the picture show on Saturday night."

    Remember when "call" meant to come for a visit?

    Almost every letter (2 years of letters) from April through November has a short reference to planting, chopping or picking cotton. Usually the one sentence about the weather contained the one reference to cotton. After getting married, my grandparents lived with his parents for several years before moving off the farm and into town. Hmmm...that would have been the late 20s. My grandfather must have been really fortunate to get a job with the railroad.

    Looks like I'm gonna be swamped with memories of these wonderful grandparents....Grandmother and PaPa. Bear with me, or scan through for book references or skip over....I'll do my best to limit the "memories."

    Betty

    Wilan
    May 2, 2002 - 05:04 pm
    Yes, Ginny, I did the math and found it 'off', too. Perhaps I did it wrong. I did it on an average and in spite of the awfully hard life they had I found that in the fifties their income wasn't too bad! Did I do something wrong or is this not about being poor, but working too hard? I cannot imagine a seven year old child dragging a six foot long sack on his back and being expected to add fifty pounds or so to it! I wonder what the sack weighed before the cotton was added. Did we not have child labor laws in the fifties? And THAT was a child sized sack-adults carried a nine foot sack and added three or four hundred pounds to it in the run of a day's work! As for picking tobacco in July-I am sure it was awful, but wasn't it just as hot in October in Arkansas? I am sure that WHATEVER you had to pick in th field was hardest!

    I am an Easterner and was raised in the city-this book does not bring back any memories for me of farm life, but the scrambling for a living and the relationships in families is the same, regardless of whether you are in the city or on a farm, I think.

    Judy, I think women have a different 'hard' today. Women have always worked hard for those they love. Good men have, too! I was really tickled with the relationship between wife and mother-in-law. Loved the 'who has time to bicker'.

    I have read the book and am re-reading it again-I am getting much more from it. I do not know who mentioned 'Places in the Sun', but that is what I see when I am reading this. I have always loved l00% cotton garments-let me tell you, I will respect them far more, now!!

    Yes, this should be read by Seniors and school kids, alike. It is a 'in your face' story-it has been a long time since I was so entranced! Lots of insight into a seven year old's view of the world. Wish I had read this when I had seven year old boys-but who had time then?! Sorry, guys, I don't like biscuits! Wilan

    Judy Laird
    May 2, 2002 - 05:22 pm
    Betty please don't limit your memories I am sure we all would love to hear all you care to share.

    Wilan you're right I liked how they picked out their own territory and didn't get in one and another way. One stayed by the sink and pealed and washed up things and one did the cooking by the stove. Smart women, even if you don't like each other you can figure ways to get around it and not make it uncomfortable for everyone involved.

    My husband who died of lung cancer was born in West Texas in a sodie. His Mother died giving birth to him. I guess that's how you spell it. Years later she was asked to write her memories for the library. She said" Mr Reed came to call for 4 saturdays in a row and took me to the dance, chaperoned by my brother. Mr Reed asked me to marry him and I said yes, why not I loved him." That always shocked me she was 14 years old and he had 4 sons and she took them and the farm on at 14 years old.

    Keene
    May 2, 2002 - 05:37 pm
    Judy,don't worry about the confusion concerning my name, Keene. It is a family name, my grandmother's maiden name to be exact. Her name was Irma Keene. It's a southern tradition--to use a surname as a first name. It has been confusing to everyone I have met for the past sixty years, so don't feel bad at all.

    kiwi lady
    May 2, 2002 - 08:21 pm
    Just popping in while I think about it to say Grisham wrote another novel not related to the law in 2001. Its called Skipping Christmas - very funny!

    Will be back Sunday for my thoughts on the painted house. Had to babysit 2 year old boy (Grandson Nikolas) for two days and nights. I am still recovering LOL.

    Carolyn

    MegR
    May 2, 2002 - 08:40 pm
    Ginny, You asked about the math working out & Luke's statement that any ?-yearold could do the numbers. Was curious when I read that part. What the Chandlers borrowed for seeds & planting preparations equalled exactly what they hoped to get from harvest. The "earned" income did NOT include land rental fees, picker wages or any household expenses for food or necessities. Seemed as if they would be in a perpetual state of debt and would continue to be! Makes you wonder why they'd choose to keep farming when it was sooooo hard and so unprofitable. Seems to put Luke's mother's garden into a little different perspective doesn't it!

    Wanna go back and relocate & respond to "painted house" references and the "racial" thing that a number of folks have mentioned. Will get exact $$$ numbers and info to bring back.

    Baseball business - Have always been bored to tears with that game. Almost as exciting as watching golf or paint drying (chuckles!) Just figured it was a guy thing for Luke & Jesse & Eli to do some male bonding stuff! Do remember Stan Musial's name & was tickled to read that my city's Pirates trounced the Cards in the first broadcasted game that we read about.(a little hometown pride snorting here!)

    Ginny & mstrent, I have a question. Both of you remarked about the "incongruities of Mexican labor." What did you mean by that? Were there no Latino harvesters in eastern southern states during the '50's??

    More in am when I'm awake. Meg

    betty gregory
    May 2, 2002 - 10:45 pm
    Ok, I'll plunge right in and hope my words don't cause pain, even indirectly or inadvertently (to someone here or lurking or in repetition later). Right from the first chapter, the Mexicans in Grisham's tale (his memory?, depending on how autobiographical the story is) go against the stereotype....lazy, not dependable, unmotivated. In the story, they are very hard workers, focused, dedicated, motivated. In later chapters, I can add other positive traits. At the first, we're not sure of Cowboy, don't know if he's an exception to the group, but it doesn't matter...the group standards are clear.

    If I could sum it up, this story says Mexican workers are dependable. That goes against how they are often portrayed in stories...books and movies.

    It was interesting that the only person to raise a red flag about how the Mexicans were treated was Luke's mother. She hated that they were transported like animals...unprotected in the back of a big truck. From Mexico to Arkansas would be at least 3 long days, probably 4 or 5. Across just Texas would be 700-800 miles. Exposed to the elements late summer? I can't imagine anything worse.

    There are other, important instances later that reveal how this community felt about the Mexicans.

    Why am I having so much trouble thinking of this book in sections? It's difficult to stop in the middle of a point I'm trying to make to say, stay tuned. Sitting here thinking....to Grisham's credit, this story feels like a whole. It has a seemless quality. Maybe that is what is causing me trouble. That will end up helping the discussion, so I'll just be patient.

    Betty

    Hats
    May 3, 2002 - 04:28 am
    And aren't there still hard working migrant workers in California, Texas and other areas? And aren't they still stereotyped as lazy and all those other bad attributes? And don't there children still miss the chance to get a good education?

    Why is it easier to stereotype a race of people with ugly traits rather than seeing their true characteristics?

    I did like Luke's mother willingness to speak out and care about the Mexican workers.

    Hats

    MegR
    May 3, 2002 - 05:09 am
    Well, I went back to the text for specs on three things and here's results of my search.

    "Doin' the Math"

    Okay, Ginny, here's the "math" citation and a Q. Grisham says on page14: "A bale of cotton was worth a hundred and seventy-five dollars, give or take, depending on the markets. A good crop could produce a bale an acre. We rented eighty acres. Most kids could do the math. ($175x80=$14,000) In fact, the math was so easy you wondered why anyone would want to be a farmer. . . .Pappy and my father had borrowed fourteen thousand dollars in March from the owner of the gin. That was their crop loan, and the money was spent on seed, fertilizer, labor and other expenses." The math is pretty simple here. (-$14,00) + (+$14,000) = 0. But - didn't he say that the Chandler's owned house and 3 acres? If so that would give them $525 as possible profit????

    Was also surprise to find this on page 53: "There were, of course, eighty acres of cotton, all of which had to be picked twice during the next two months or so." This work sounds so hard! Imagine having to do it twice!! Did that mean that each acre yielded a bale per picking or for entire season? I'm not clear about that. Can anyone help out here? If yield was per picking - then they could make money???
  • **********************************************************************

    When I read something I usually try to notice repeated things: images, issues, actions etc. For me, keeping track or being aware of these repetitions helps me to make meaning or better understand what the authors actually say. There are quite a few that occur in this novel so far. Am gonna start with two of them here.

    Snakes Usually, the most immediate association that I have with these critters in lit is connected to Garden of Eden story. The Snake is the tempter, evil, the destroyer of innocence. For me, there are also conflicting reactions to them. They are pretty to look at and are a necessary part of chain of being, but they also instill fear. Our innocent young Luke is afraid of three literal snakes so far:

    p.39 ...last month while gathering eggs in the darkness, I'd stepped on a huge rat snake and cried for two days.

    p.45 ...I watched every step around our farm, especially in the fields(the Chandler family's "big garden"), since there were cottonmouths near the river. Aren't cottonmouths quite poisonous?

    p.56 (in Luke's mother's "garden") A long green snake froze us for a second, thn it dissappeared into the butter bean vines. The garden was full of snakes, all harmless, but snakes nonetheless.

    A Q: Isn't Hank Spruill, the snake of his family, a figurative snake in Luke's existence too? He hisses, and sways and "plays with" Luke before he snaps in to strike?

    The Painted House

    Am going to post this one as is & do house on next so I don't lose typing.
  • Ginny
    May 3, 2002 - 05:27 am
    OH super points, Meg, am now totally behind because we are having our own little drama here on our own farm and it's ...let's see, Sunday it kept us out until after dark in a tornado warning putting a tarp back on the barn roof (we're having it retinned) and late yesterday the tin blew off the east side of part of the barn over to the west upside down so they were out here after 11 pm and a msjor conference is supposedly taking place this morning in a terrific storm between all the contractors, it's a zoo and it's like Grand Central Station, and here I sit with fingers so swollen because of planting herbs in a fire ant nest I can hardly type, so HEY!!

    I love your focus on the snake and Hank himself IS a snake, isn't he, lazy, slow moving and quite menacing except when he strikes. I was thinking last night that Luke did not tell Pappy because Pappy or his father would have gone out there with a stick and whipped Hank after what we just saw I think maybe it would have had another ending, Hank is the quintessential "Deliverance" mountain man, isn't he?

    A stereotype?




    The first sentence of the book stopped me cold.

    "The hill people and the Mexicans arrived on the same day."

    This book was not written in the 30's , pre PC days, it was written in 2001. Grisham knows what he's doing, so WHAT is he doing? THE hill people? THE Mexicans?

    I read that sentence several times in wonder. I think it's the author's attempt to put us in the mind of a child to whom THE hill people and THE Mexicans are intrusions and exotic.

    As far as Mexican labor, it's relatively new here in the "Southeast,", that is, the Carolinas and Georgia, opposed, perhaps, to Arkanasas, where this story takes place which is, like Texas, closer to Mexico? Just in the last few years here, and replaces the black "field hand" who used to run the farms. I had to smile at the litte boy sharing Miguel's and Juan's lunches, I found out much later that my own little boys had done the same thing, hung around with the field hands and eaten their lunches. One of our field hands was the famous "Ax Murderer of Woodruff, " killed another with an axe, but unfortunately that will end my own reminisences for today as the thunder is booming, more anon on everything you have said, bring those reminiscences and thoughts on there's more on the math, somewhere I swear it said they were RENTERS, maybe they RENTED some of the acerage?

    Confused on that one.




    PS: Those of you who are reading this who, like me, grew up in the city, what is YOUR opinion of what's depicted here?

    There are a lot of people we have not heard from yet, if your own reminiscences do not include a farm life, what is YOUR take on what you are reading here?

    Let's hear from every perspective and opinion!

    (gee am still printing out your thoughts, you have raised some super ones)

    ginny

    MegR
    May 3, 2002 - 05:48 am
    There are four references to "painted houses" in Chapters 1 to 9 and each seems to have a different meaning for characters connected to them.

    Mom's Childhood Home The first one appears on page 24. Luke gives us a little info on his mother's background when he says that, "She'd been raised in a painted house." At this point, I think that simply means that she was raised in a town. Luke doesn't seem to make any judgements about this fact.

    Hank Spruill The next instance occurs on page 73 when Hank baits & bullies Luke and demands food. Hank says to Luke, "You ain't gonna believe this, boy, but our houses's got paint on it. White paint. You ever see paint boy? .... Why don't you sodbusters paint your houses?" Seems as if that white paint on Spruill house is a symbol to Hank of his own sense of superiority to this little seven-year-old kid. Or isn't this rather Hank's sense of inferiority (which he'd never admit). Doesn't he, in some way, see himself as he accuses Luke of perceiving him?? "We're just one notch above them wetbacks, ain't we boy? Just hired labor. Just a bunch of hillbillies who drink moonshine and marry our sisters. Ain't that right, boy?"

    The Clench Family After discussing how hard-working and industrious this neighbor family is, Luke tells us about their house on pp.75-76. "And their house was painted, the first one on the highway into town. White was the color, with gray trim around the dges and corners. The porch and front steps were dark green. The paint here is a symbol of this family's efforts, industry and pride in their home. Their example influenced others on that road into town. Luke acknowledge that, "Soon all the houses (on that highway) were painted."

    The Chandler Home Still on pages 76-77, Luke fills us in on the "paint" issue with his family. He tells us, "Our house had been built before the First War, back when indoor plumbing and electricity were unheard of. Its exterior was one-by-six clapboards made of oak, probably cut from the land we now farmed. With time and weather the boards had faded into a pale brown, pretty much the same color as the other farmhouses around Black Oak. Paint was unneccessary. The boards were kept clean and in good repair, and besides, paint cost money.

    But shortly after my parents were married, my mother decided the house needed an upgrade. She went to work on my father, who was anxious to please his young wife. His parents, though, were not. Pappy and Gran, with all the stubborness that came from the soil, flatly refused to even consider painting the house. The cost was the official reason. This was relayed to my mother through my father. No fight occurred--no words. .....My mother vowed to herself that she would not raise her children on a farm. She would one day have a house in town or in a city, a house with indoor plumbing and shrubs around the porch, and with paint on the boards, maybe even bricks. "Paint" was a sensitive word around the Chandler farm."


    So, paint is a frivolous waste of money to the thrifty Chandler grandparents, and a sign of "town" civility to Luke's mother.

    Names Found it interesting that Chandler family names are biblical - except for Uncle Ricky in Korea. Eli & Ruth (grandparents); Jesse (father); Luke (son). Can't find his mother's name at all in these chapters. Is that an indication that she's an outsider & doesn't merit "naming" or did I miss it? meg

    MegR
    May 3, 2002 - 05:57 am
    Ginny, We must be posting at same time.

    You have had one disaster after another with that barn roof this spring haven't you!!! You seem to have gotten a good bit of the rain that we were hoping for. Visited Mom (50 miles north of here) over weekend & a mini tornado actually landed in one small part of her county. It took off a roof too! Fire ants!!!OUCH!!

    Yes - Chandlers did rent 80 acres from Mr. Vogel of Jonesboro & owned 3 of their own.

    Wanna come back to that first sentence & PC business too. Maybe tonight or tomorrow morning. Have to do mowing & laundry today!!! meg

    Ginny
    May 3, 2002 - 07:39 am
    Meg, yeah it's been a nighmare, Rental of Acres costs money too, was that included in the estimation of the math?

    Wilan, I'm like you , did we miss something? Now if you pick the crop two times, do you get twice the income/ Assuming it does not rain and the second crop is as good as the first?

    Our Pat W IS a farmer and I see she has posted, want to talk some about any of these issues, Pat? How did the math strike you

    Storm has passed and another coming just in time to make a few comments on your fabulous posts.

    Judy, what is a "sodie?" Have never heard that term, please elaborate if you will.

    hahaha, TEMPERATURE WARS! hahaahhaha

    gee I wish I had not mentioned what Winston said about the tobacco fields, but FYI those who mentioned temperatures, here's a super site, The Climatology Index Page which lists the average temperatures for the different cities and areas of the US.

    Soo the question was asked about October in Arkansas (took the lowest area of the state Little Rock, figured it would be hotter than the mountains,) average temp (of course we know temps can vary anywhere) is 75. Average temp of Claxton Ga in July: 92. Average temp of San Antonio Texas (again a big state and took a southern area trying for the hottest, if that's not right I'm sure I will be corrected) 95 in August and 89 in September.

    So the temps are running about equal.

    I find also that, like many of you and your memories of grandma's cornbread, sometimes it's ok for people to keep their own memories without too much challenge? I asked again (for the last time) and was told this, for what it's worth, mentioned the 102 and 112 degree heats (boy that IS hot, isn't it, not too much contest there!) and he said "picture a jungle. Picture the humidity so high you could not draw a breath just walking out the door (this is 60 miles inland of Savannah and I guarantee you it's a humid place). Picture a tobacco field higher than your head and in which no breath of air stirs. Add high temperatures, working all day and coming down a row and finding grown healthy strong men passed out from the heat lying on the ground That's what it was like."

    Now to a city girl raised (Hats we need to get some Philly time in here) roller skating in South Philly, it sounds like hell to me, but hey! My worst memory of South Philly was being chased by a gang of bad boys home from the ice house, go figure!

    I now yield the floor on the hard times issue to the next guy! hahahahaa


    On the fresh egg issue, again, that usualy can be a child's job, and Pappy is doing it because of the snake issue, I can see that. I can see milking the cows and gathering the eggs in the morning. I personally, if I'm cooking breakfast, don't want eggs from the hen house brought in my kitchen, would rather gather them myself at a less busy time due to the extreme clean up required and the nastiness of same, in fact I can't imagine trying to do both, and not every egg needs the same attention every time, but that may be just me!




    Are you struck here by how many of us visited, if we did not grow up in a rural area, grandmothers who did? Can we see the wealth of experience you all remember and who it centered around? I love that, myself.




    I agree with MegR, Keene (I want to talk to you about SHIRTS!! i will write you so as not to gum up the discussion) I want to see if your Howard and Winston have that similarity!!

    Anyway, I agree with MegR that it's best to read it along in the segments, as several people have mentioned, it's hard not to givev anything away and it's hard to stick to the chapters but we've found out in the Books that if we announce something we need to follow thru on it and so we shall.

    I always reread even if I have read the book 3 times, that particular section. We get sooo much out of it!

    more...

    Ginny
    May 3, 2002 - 07:54 am
    Keene mentions the images conjured up. The food! The Sears Roebuck catalogue! (Do any of you remember Monkey Wards?)

    How about the afternoon NAP?? Did you catch that? I remember visiting our relatives in the South and everybody took a NAP and it was HOT and the ceiling fan (note Mom ...great point Meg that MOM does not have a name!) gave...or who did? I forget? Gave theirs to the...to Miguel and the hands?

    I also liked Keene's "element of humor" in the seriousness of the descriptions, great point as well. The long slow drives were kind of humorous and good natured I thought, with respect as well, tho.




    Judy, great question on women today, what do thte rest of you think, do we have it easier?

    I do. Compared to what I see women doing on those PBS series that Meg mentioned and the one on Victorian England, I have a lot more free time than they did, but that show the other night pointed out the average life span in ...what the 1800s was 40, did I hear them right? I wouldn't be here anyway, then, I guess. Worn out?




    Actually I was surprised at some of the "solidarity" issues I did not see, who was it, Pappy being sort of irritated if a neighbor got ahead and wanting the best labor?

    And then there's the issue of the deputy on the porch while the family eats dinner and being taken a plate?

    What did you all think of that? Anything at all?




    Igod and Meg, I remember baseball and the obsession with it very vividly, baseball cards, statistics, it was a passion and mania in Bensalem County PA where I lived as a child from 5-8th grade. It was BIG stuff and so were the Philadelphia Phillies. and Robin Roberts...is there any person alive who knows who he was?

    He once threw me a ball.

    IN....was it Connie Mack Stadium?

    What a delicious book this is to bring so many memories we have out,

    Elizabeth, picking up the pins, have you seen the statue in the Garment District to the Garment Worker?

    I would love to hear more about your grandfather and his tailoring shop, I am obsessed with tales of the Garment District, isn't this marvelous, I wish we could batch up all these memories and do something permanent with them, they're all so different!

    What might we do with these super stories?




    Babi!! Ok RADIO!! RADIO!! Inner Sanctum! Johnny Dollar! Who was it with the huskies? "On KING!" he'd holler! The Lone Ranger!!

    One of my new obsessions (hahaha) is the old Basil Rathbone Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes adventures. They have the original commercials, and the original war ads and exhortations to save your fat from cooking, lubrication is needed, the war effort, etc. They are simply marvelous, have ordered a CD of them, very inventive and exciting, even today, have you all heard these new renditions of them?

    I love them.

    Old Time Radio left a LOT to the imagination!

    more...

    Judy Laird
    May 3, 2002 - 07:54 am
    Ginny I am sure someone from Texas can tell you better. I don't even know if I am spelling sodie right. I never saw one but Buddy said it was kind of like a cave dug in the side of a hill and at the entrance was a roof, kind of half cave half cabin?????????

    Somebody help!!!!!!!!

    Must run I won't bore you with my day but I doubt I'll be back before tonight and there will be 150 more miles on the rig hehe

    Hats
    May 3, 2002 - 07:56 am
    Hi Ginny and all,

    I have gotten lost in the cotton fields. I can't contribute much, but I am learning a great deal. MegR's comments are wonderful and very helpful to me.

    I like to follow along with the chapters outlined above. Then, read over them if time permits me.

    South Philly? My stepgrandma lived on Federal St. She had french doors that led from her dining room to the living room. She cooked the best candied yams! She had a very bad case of Asthma. Well, that was a totally different world from Arkansas.

    Listening and learning and having fun.

    Hats

    Ginny
    May 3, 2002 - 08:15 am


    Judy you have to say more now, what? They lived in caves? Do tell!




    Hats, riding the subway at 5 years old! I can still remember the stops, one was Ticongeroga, what a wonderful old name. Standing on the front and looking at the tracks though the window of the first car. Hearing the El screeching overhead (David Mahmet put that in one of his plays).

    When I moved south I said to my husband but there are NO SUBWAYS!! He said, why would you want one? hahahahaha




    Wilan, I expect this book is about both being not very well off and working much too hard, seems a very confining existence to me. and I'm with you on the sacks, canNOT imagine dragging such a thing, am burning up the search engines looking for a photo of same. Imagine the life. It's no wonder people wanted to get out.

    You don't eat biscuits? I wish I could MAKE a biscuit, mine are like hockey pucks.




    Carolyn, I marvel at their staying power, too, but one of the most impressive movies I have seen is A Place to Call Home about sheep farming in Australia? Now you talk about a hard life! Do you have anything like that type of work in New Zealand (excuse the ignorance here please) which we would also marvel at?

    That A Place to Call Home is now being rebroadcast, by the way, it stars Linda Lavin and Lane Smith in a true story of one family and sheep farming in Australia, it's well worth seeing over and over, essentially it was THEIR dream to take the kids and move to a ranch in Australia but when they got there he was delayed on business and never came. She had to do it herself.

    Amazing!




    Betty, I'm just wondering (and have not read beyond our point here) but I'm always nervous when any group of people seems to be portrayed with universal attributes, and of course Cowboy himself seems like another potential snake, do you think Grisham is portraying these groups as "industrious" or whatever for a reason?

    I can't get too far away from the title A Painted House and what it symbolizes. I think Keene way back there said a great point about "Living in a painted house indicated you probably lived in town and possibly had some other occupation than farming."

    How many times have we seen a division between "town and gown," the "town mouse and the country mouse." etc. I wonder if we will see a point being made here later on...

    Isn't it a wonderful book which can open all these ideas, remembrances, and speculations? Let's hear more of yours!

    I'm going to say women have it easier today!!

    ginny

    Ginny
    May 3, 2002 - 09:34 am
    OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH OHMIGOSH!!

    Look look look!!

    Look at this super site with memories and photos of Cotton Picking in Oklahoma and the wonderful photo of the SACK!!! Love the music, check out the PHOTOS!!

    Here's some small snatches of thought from it:

    At an early age, I picked cotton and had the old-fashioned pick sack, as it was called. Boy was that a long time ago and hope I never have to go back to that, I would starve to death.


    Here's another one on the length of sacks and what you eneded to carry with you to the field, MARVELOUS STUFF!



    There are things, that's an absolute must, to take to the field. For instance, we didn't go to the cotton field without a long sleeved shirt. The stalks and the burrs on the stalks made it almost a must to have a pretty heavy, long sleeved shirt. And when it was cold, we would always wear more than one layer so we could pull off one layer, now and then, as the day got warmer. Another necessity was gloves! Nothing was more devastating than getting into the field without your gloves, or maybe two for the right hand! Well, there was an answer for even that! We would turn one of those wrong side out for the left hand! A little ragged, but it worked until we could do better!


    First, I'll define the length. Sacks come in certain lengths if you bought ready made ones. Some was 10 ft. and then some was 12 ft. and over, but homemade ones could be just about any length. Strong people or big boys usually had a 12 ft. or 15 ft. sack, whereas, women and children ranged from 5 ft. to 12 ft. ones.



    What it was really like: Picking Cotton in Oklahoma, Photos, Memories, and Music

    ginny

    Lorrie
    May 3, 2002 - 09:40 am
    Hi, Everybody!

    I feel as though I’m among old friends here! It’s so much fun reading all your memories of farm life, and this book really beings it all back, doesn’t it?

    I also spent a great deal of time on my grandparents’ farm, and, probably because we were never asked to do more than the usual chores, it was always a time of sheer pleasure and wonderful summers. Yes, we had it all. The warm summer nights on the porch listening to the ball games, (shades of Stan the Man!) The weekly shopping trips to town, the egg-gathering, the stupendous meals the women put on when “the threshers” came, and oh yes, the Saturday baths. Only our baths were in a huge wooden tub out near the clothes lines, with sheets for privacy. My sister and I would bathe first, and then my two brothers, and then Grandma would wash our hair with regular bar soap she made herself, and rinse it with vinegar and rain water she got from a barrel. For days we reeked of vinegar.

    When I read about the Mexican workers and the “hillbilly” people in Gresham’s book, I was remembering Steinbeck’s “Grapes of Wrath” and that wonderful prize-winning documentary in 1960 by Edward R. Murrow, “Harvest of Shame.”

    Are things so much different for migrant workers now? Apparently not, accofding to what some people say. This is an excerpt from a book by A.V. Krebs, “Corporate Reapers—The Book of Agribusiness,” written in 1992. Take a look.

    Corporate Reapers

    Lorrie

    WONDERFUL LINKS, GINNY! Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton, tum de dum dum!

    BaBi
    May 3, 2002 - 10:41 am
    On the question of the sodies, (soddies?)..it was just a short term for sodbusters. Out on the plains where there was little timber for building houses, a new homesteader would start out by digging a space out of a hillside and then building a front that extended a few feet out from the hill. This required much less timber. If you prospered, eventually you would be able to afford to have wood or stone hauled in.

    Betty, was it you who remarked on the negative stereotyping of the migrant workers? It has always seemed to me that people accept negative stereotypes because that provides them with an excuse to ignore the injustices being done. They can just blame the victims. "If they had any gumption they could do better for themselves." That kind of thing. At the same time, (esp. on the small farms as opposed to today's big conglomerates)the low pay and hard working conditions were not so much a deliberate injustice as a fact of life. I think the Chandler farm reflects well what a well-intentioned, but poor, farm family could and could not do for their laborers.

    ..Babi

    BaBi
    May 3, 2002 - 10:44 am
    PS: Snakes are a fact of country life. You could hardly write a realistic farm story without them. My brother once went to a summer camp out in the country, and coping with the snakes (including the cottonmouths at the swimming hole), was a part of the camping adventure. (At least he saw it that way.) ..Babi

    MegR
    May 3, 2002 - 11:07 am


    Still wanna talk about PC & racial issues & stereotypes here. Haven't organized ideas yet. A few quickie thoughts on ideas raised since I last checked in.

    "Sodie" Know what,Ginny? When Judy included this term, didn't give it a second thought. Immediately saw it as an abbreviated form of "sodbuster" (which was what Hank called the Chandlers). Judy when you expanded info on this you said something about living in a cave-like thing. Maybe because I just saw that PBS special about Montana homesteaders - I immediately pictured a structure similar to what they built for root cellars. Now that I think about it - two of those men had a very difficult time "busting" the sod with a plow pulled by a horse. Also think I recall pictures somewhere of sodbuster houses that were built/dug into a hillside with a regular A shape roof - but roof was covered with soil and grass. Seem to recall a photo somewhere with a milk cow grazing on roof grass next to the home's chimney. Those poor folk lived underground for a good stretch during the winter.

    Memories?

    "Monkey Wards"- Gosh! Thought that was a Pennsylvania quirk! Believe it or not - the Montgomery Wards in Butler (old home town) just closed this year!!

    Heat & Working - Can't imagine working in heat & humidity described. Have visited relatives in D.C. in July/August when temps have reached 99 to 102 & humidity is in 90%+ range. It was an effort just to walk two blocks to local grocery. Can't imagine picking from dawn to dusk in that heat! Have hiked in 102 weather in high desert areas of Arizona - but lack of humidity & constant breeze made weather seem like high 70's here.

    HOCKEY PUCK BISCUITS! Ginny, you've warmed the cockles of my heart! Another biscuit-making failure! I don't feel so alone! (laughing!) I can cook & bake, but for life of me can't make biscuits or pie crusts!!! Can make a pastry dough that is as flakey as pie dough, but my pie crusts - even though rolled paper thin - need a sledge hammer & chisel to cut them!!!

    Drier buzzed. Off to change loads!

    BaBi
    May 3, 2002 - 11:11 am
    To Ginny and Meg...I have one word to offer you: BISQUICK! Makes great dumplings, too. I could never make succssful dumplings until I latched onto Bisquick. ....Babi

    MegR
    May 3, 2002 - 11:11 am
    BaBi, we must have been posting at the same time - with sodbuster bit! (laughing!) You started some really good points here & want to come back to them & look at them even more. Lorrie, HI! Nice to see ya again! I really need to get some work done! At least lawn is mowed! Later. Meg

    patwest
    May 3, 2002 - 11:50 am
    My first question... It is hard for me to believe that a boy of seven could have had that keen observation and the math skills of Luke. But it makes good reading.
    I was a city child in the midwest until '48 and married a farmer... Did I learn fast!!! We moved in with Charlie's parents and had many of the same problems that two generations of adults have living together. Whether the need to leave is financial and otherwise, one family has to leave eventually.

    Painted houses? The house we moved into had not been painted since '29 just before the folks went bankrupt and would not be painted again until '58 when my grandmother died and left me $500.00. It was a solid old farm house and paint money was needed for seed, a new boar pig, or parts for the old Case tractors, like the Chandlers. A painted house was a status symbol in our community, and it had to be white.

    Labor: Before we could afford a mechanical corn picker, we hired Mexican day laborers (very good help) who drove out from Galesburg, 15 miles. The CB&Q railroad had a large camp there where the Mexicans lived in the summer while working on the tracks. Some stayed on to help with the harvest. (Fifty years later we have a 25% Mexican population, who hold many city and county offices.)

    I remember the waterjugs covered with burlap.. and someplace we have an old photo of Charlie hauling water jugs to the hay help.. four jugs tied to the horn of his saddle.
    I'm going to say women have it easier today!! Well, yes, physically , but financially the farmer here in the midwest is still in a pinch. They just lose more and go under faster. Many farmers and farm wives hold full time jobs off the farm to support their farm and families. In our county alone, (one of the most fertile areas in the country) there were 35 bankrupcty cases last year.
    Hard work, 16 hours a day and 8 days a week, pays off... Besides raising hogs was a money maker.. (Now, I still get up at 4:00 -- old habits die hard)
    Gathering eggs? My problem was more with the boys throwing the eggs at each other... but that only happened a couple of times. After that they were assigned certain days.
    Baseball: I was a Cub fan from about age 6 on... That I can understand. As a child my mother listened to every game.. And we had a box seat at a Cub Game once as guests of Gabby Hartnett. And I still have autographs of Gabby and Ernie Banks. It was cheap entertainment.
    Enough of my ramblings about farming... Wouldn't have traded it for anything else.. We aren't as well off as we might have been had Charlie gone to work for an ag related company, but he was his own boss, and had the freedom to make his own decisions, good or bad.

    kiwi lady
    May 3, 2002 - 12:41 pm
    Sheep stations - yes we have sheep stations mostly in the high country. There are more sheep than people in NZ I think.

    Being Poor- We lived in a rural area when I was a child. We were poor but I never realised it until I grew up! I found out that if our grandparents had not helped out we would probably have not had food on the table sometimes. I guess because NZ is so pretty and the beaches were nearby we were rich in the important things. That is to be surrounded by beauty and to have space to run and play. To me to live in a concrete jungle would be to be spiritually poor.

    Re the Mexicans - Isn't it funny that all over the world people who have darker skin than us are portrayed as being lazy. What does this perhaps tell us about our society.

    What does the sharing of food amongst the little boys tell us about how children view the world?

    Carolyn

    MaryZ
    May 3, 2002 - 01:33 pm
    Wow! Here I am off the net for about 24 hours because of thunderstorms, and there are zillions of posts to catch up with. What fun reading all your memories!

    Mine are somewhat different. I was born in St. Louis, and grew up in Houston, TX - and no farm folks in the previous generations. So I have no recollections of that type. I did grow up in the southwest, before air conditioning was everywhere - and it was miserably hot and humid. As to the time, in September, 1952, I was beginning my senior year in high school.

    Grisham does write so very well, and you know he's laying the groundwork for things to come. It's important to read carefully, but still you can get lost in the story. The "portents" aren't so obvious that you are hit in the head with them.

    I do have a couple of quibbles, however. Right at first, he refers to the cotton being waist-high on the father, but over the head of Luke. That would make for either a giant-high father or a very stunted 7-year-old.

    Another picky note, which is really about faulty research, is when he describes the wonderful garden produce being distributed by the mother to the Hill People and the Mexicans. He refers to Vidalia onions - and this is an error on two points. "Vidalia" onions are only those that are grown in the area around Vidalia, GA, in the SE part of the state. Also nobody ever even heard of Vidalia onions until about 20 years ago - so she certainly couldn't have been growing them in her garden.

    I guess when somebody writes that well, you want everything to be perfect, and hate the little unnecessary errors.

    A comment on the racism of the time and locale - As I remember, there wasn't too much comment on prejudice against blacks - the schools were still segregated, and there was just not that much contact between the races, except maybe for domestic help in the homes. As has been noted, usually prejudice is shown against people with whom we come in contact frequently. "Hill People" would certainly be those to be looked down upon - because they had less. At that time, if you were near the bottom of the pile financially and/or socially, you looked down on those who were below you. There were many more Mexicans in that part of the country, and they would have been more likely to have been in daily contact with the local farmers than, for instance, blacks.

    I hope the weather cooperates, and I can keep up easier. And hope we all stay safe during this spring weather.

    Mary

    Judy Laird
    May 3, 2002 - 03:14 pm
    Ginny I am sorry to hear about your barn troubles and lightning we don't have excitement like that here. hehe

    I am more sorry about the fire ant bites though. I had never heard of fire ants til I went to the Virgin Islands and I was bitten twice both times on the feet and you talk about pain. I remeber the doctor coming to the condo, of course I am a big baby but that puts child birth to shame.

    SarahT
    May 3, 2002 - 04:24 pm
    zwyram, great post. I'd be curious if the Mexicans Grisham writes about were part of the bracero program, which has been widely criticized as limiting laborers' rights etc etc. I somehow found the gentleness with which the Mexican laborers were treated as somewhat hard to believe, given how deeply racism runs in this country.

    Judy Laird
    May 3, 2002 - 06:05 pm
    To anayone who is interested Ginny put a heading up on the top called The Sod House. It was very interesting site.

    mstrent
    May 3, 2002 - 06:20 pm
    #1 The discussion at our book group was very similar to many of the posts. In a group of eight women all in their late fifties to mid-sixties, many of us had some experience with farm life and felt close to the characters for that reason. My favorite story was from one member who told us of how her mother used to put the yongest child on her cotton sack and drag him/her up and down the rows all day long.

    #2 Mexican farm labor seemed to have been concentrated largely in the Central and South Texas. When my family moved to North Texas from Central Texas in 1948, I remember being surprised at how few kids of "Mexican" descent there were in my new school. "Mexicans" were segregated along with "blacks" in parts of South Texas, and were forbidden to speak Spanish at school. It's always a numbers game with segregation, the more the ratio of them to us, the more likely "them" will be set apart. There weren't so many of Mexican "them" so the only black "them" were segregated.

    #3 I think farm labor was largely done by blacks until the bracero programs brought labor from Mexico. I do think the people described in the book were likely from the program. As I recall, the program persisted through the fifties, however, my experience dates from 10 years earlier and at that time, there were no "Mexicans" working in the area where my grandparents owned a farm.

    #4 I also thought that was awfully tall cotton, but I do definitely recall that the strain that was grown before machine harvesting was certainly taller that the strain seen now which seems to grow no more than eight to twelve inches tall. There was an old saying related: when things were easy and going well, it was said that "we're pickin' in tall cotton."

    #5 My late father-in-law and his entire family picked cotton in West Texas when he was a boy. They weren't hill people, but the were "Okies" which in some quarters meant they were looked down on for sure.

    MaryZ
    May 3, 2002 - 08:21 pm
    mstrent, I had forgotten about "being in tall cotton". I do remember using that phrase to one of the exchange students from Venezuela we hosted years ago, and then having to explain what it meant.

    I'm sure Mexicans were segregated in South Texas, too, but not in Houston (except by housing patterns). There were Mexicans in the high school I attended.

    Things do change, though. I still have family living in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. We were there recently and campaigns for local elections were in full swing. We commented on the fact that all of the candidates had Hispanic surnames. But, we noted, too, that there were very few African/Americans in the area.

    Well, back to 1952 Arkansas.

    Mary

    betty gregory
    May 3, 2002 - 09:18 pm
    Biographical background of Grisham....

    Born Feb. 8, 1955, in Jonesboro, Arkansas, a rural town (northeast). Father a construction worker, mother a "homemaker." (Jonesboro is mentioned in the story and is very close to the setting of the story.)

    He dreamed throughout his childhood of being a baseball player.

    College: majored in accounting, Miss. State; attended lawschool at Ole Miss. Practiced law for 9 years in Southaven, Miss.

    Elected to Mississippi State House of Representatives in 1983 and served through 1990.

    Published A Time to Kill, a legal thriller, in 1988 and has written a novel a year since then. 6 novels have been made into movies....The Firm, The Pelican Brief, The Client, A Time to Kill, The Rainmaker, The Chamber.

    His first book, A Time to Kill, was turned down by most of the major publishers because it didn't fit any genre. By the time he wrote The Firm a few years later and the movie was made (Tom Cruise played the main character), A Time to Kill was selling as well as his other books and plans for the movie were taking shape.

    Divides his time now between 2 homes....a victorian home on a farm in Mississippi and a plantation near Charlottesville, VA.

    His biggest passion is baseball. He serves locally as Little League Commissioner. The 6 ballfields he built on his property have played host to over 350 kids on 26 Little League teams.

    All this information is from his publisher, who writes that A Painted House was "inspired by his own childhood."

    THAT makes me want to ask him if, as a child, he saw someone beat to death. Also, DID HE HAVE TO KEEP SECRETS, as a child? At the end of the book, I would have another several questions.

    SECRETS....I would add that to your list of things to watch, MegR. Grisham captures well the burden on poor Luke of his secret about Hank and what he witnessed Hank do. Think how traumatic this must have felt to Luke...and in so many ways....he felt responsible for saving or ruining his family's cotton crop. And he must have felt personally in danger. That's too much for a 7 year old.

    Betty

    betty gregory
    May 3, 2002 - 10:25 pm
    The best tasting biscuits are made with LARD, not vegetable shortening (though I'd be shocked if Whole Foods uses lard). (Lard is beef fat.) Remember the bru-haha over McDonalds adding beef and beef lard to its french fries? That's for taste. Other good restaurants were "outed" at that time for using lard in their biscuits. Just beware...some restaurant biscuits that are so good might have that arterie clogging fat.

    But you can still make wonderful biscuits with regular shortening. I've never used lard.

    The way to avoid flat, hard biscuits is really, really simple. It's all in how much the dough is handled. Truly! When you turn out the glop of wet dough onto the floured board, the less you do to that dough before you begin cutting, the higher and fluffier your biscuits will be. In fact, the uglier the "rolled out" dough, the better the outcome. Use as little flour as you can, but enough to work fast to get the dough rolled out. Ideally, with a floured rolling pin, roll in one direction one time, then roll across one time. Then, if you have to, use floured hands to lightly pat a spot or two into place. You're working for roughly uniform height, not a finished looking surface.

    After the first biscuits are cut, use only your hands to assemble the scraps for the second cut. Use the lightest touch possible and while it is still an ugly mess, CUT.

    In a best-biscuit discussion among friends not too long ago, I started to talk about minimal handling of the dough and someone said, "That's just what Martha Stewart says." If that's true, maybe she has those directions somewhere in a book. I don't own any Martha Stewart books...been hot and cold on this woman for years....but maybe someone else does? Her directions might be easier to follow than mine.

    Don't you just LOVE what side issues we get snagged on???????

    ----------------------------------

    Tell Winston, oh, yeah?, oh yeah?, well, WE had to walk 15 miles in the SNOW to get to those cotton fields, BAREFOOTED, and by mid-day, it was 118 in the SHADE!! So, THERE!! sniff

    -----------------------------------

    Winston....one point for his side for the name....Winston..tobacco fields. Very nice.

    -----------------------------------

    Somewhere in the book (I didn't mark it) Grisham explains the replacement of the tall with the short cotton plants. Let's watch for it. The phrase I'm familiar with is "high cotton," such as "We're in high cotton now!"

    Betty

    goldensun
    May 4, 2002 - 12:48 am
    This is the first time in two days I've gotten in here to post as we're having a little housepainting of our own. Actually just the 20' by 30' upstairs area, and oh, what a job! I always forget what a mess painting creates, with moving furniture and emptying shelves and closets.

    The math didn't make sense to me either and I wondered if a comma had gotten slipped one place in the editing stages. It seems as if there is no way (short of writing to the author) to clear up the matter so I put it aside for the time. Now the quandary surfaces again- how DID they make a living even if the very best crop made only enough money to pay back the loan?

    We didn't grow cotton in our area of Tennessee so I don't know much about it, just what I've read. However I do know about country living as well as city life, as I was on that farm for four years in about the same time frame that the book is set in. As I remember, the houses there had been painted at some time early in their histories, but then left in various stages of weathering.

    I did not find country life satisfying or particularly pleasant. The kerosene lamps, outdoor toilets and red clay mud were not to my liking. The church we attended was hardly united- rather the congregation argued and split down the middle frequently. Some of the men dabbled at KKK but racism wasn't as bad as in some parts of the country. Many of the women gossiped visciously- that seemed to serve as their entertainment- and you better watch your p's and q's to avoid becoming a target. Outsiders stayed outsiders.

    I don't think many of the men made their living farming. They grew gardens but went to work in town. My step-father worked for the county and lost his job when his candidate lost the election- good luck for me because he had no choice except to move to Detroit- something many men in the south had already done. That is how we came to move to the city, a 100% improvement in my 13-year-old opinion.

    The sort of life described in this book seems unbearably hard. I almost said that if there had been more opportunity many of those women might have bolted, but maybe not. I wonder if any man really had to stay on the farm and work this way for an unsure profit. This was the early fifties after all, a booming time for this country.

    It is getting too late and I am having trouble even thinking. I am re-reading the book in my spare moments however and hope to catch up when we get this job finished.

    Snowycurve
    May 4, 2002 - 04:08 am
    I would appreciate knowing if you have any book discussion questions I could ask my book club members about the book "We were the Mulvaneys"? I can reached at: a.ciancarelli@worldnet.att.net Thank you. Antoinette

    Snowycurve
    May 4, 2002 - 04:15 am
    How can I get a discussion of the above book, "The Painted House" by John Grisham? I would appreciate knowing how I can get an online discussion on the Internet. My e-mail is: a.ciancarelli@worldnet.att.net

    (I would appreciate any discussion questions I can ask my book club members to stimulate conversation at my May Meeting of the book club.)

    Thank you. Antoinette

    Ginny
    May 4, 2002 - 04:23 am
    BETTY!!!! LARD LARD LARD!! I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT!! YES! Babi, bless your heart, what do you think I'm making those hockey pucks out of? Hmmm? Bisquick Hockey Pucks! hahahahaha

    Betty is right and I have ALWAYS suspected same! LARD!

    Betty, will you teach me how to make biscuits, if I follow your directions? I will take a photo Sunday after next of my Book Club Biscuits if you'll take me thru it! Is it a deal?




    highcedar, you have made a very important set of points, you and mstrent above, I enjoyed each thought, thank you both so much.

    highcedar said, "I did not find country life satisfying or particularly pleasant."

    If you read the Personal Ads (people looking for dates) you will find "enjoys the simple life." The simple life. Simple pleasures, the simple life.

    Thie morning I turned on the television and saw another episode of the old Andy Griffith Show, which is now taught in colleges and Sunday Schools. I happen to be a total fan of the show which is about a simpler time when things were more....simple?

    Would you say this story is about a simpler time? Is THIS the time people long to get back to? A way of life people long to emulate, get out of the rat race of the space age and diesover the values of?

    But was it? Really?

    You know Judy asked the question earlier about do we have it easier. I wonder if another quesiton might be, could we do it the way they did?

    I don't know if you read all the way to the bottom of the Oklahoma link I put in the heading, but near the end a person says that the cotton fields brought out the best and the worst in people, I found that fascinating.

    Were the "simpler times" all that simple or easy? Would you trade how you live now for the "advantages" you see depicted in the book?

    Pat W, I asm so glad to see you here, our Pat W was famous for her hog raising and huge farming, what do you think of the MATH here, Pat?

    highcedar also made the point about the men working and not depending solely on the farm to live, Pat spoke of the farm women holding down a town job too, those are important points we should not overlook.

    Just imagine YOUR ability to buy groceries depending on whether or not it rained. Or did not rain. Or some bug flew by and eat up the crop. Or a hailstorm destroyed the crop.

    How could you NOT be anxious? Why was "Mom" so dismissive and cheerful about the men and their worrying? I would have had ulcers just contemplating such a life.

    Why do we crave the simple life in 2002 and was it really desirable?

    Mstrent and highcedar, again and Pat W, many thanks for those comments. Sarah, have never heard of that program and have enjoyed learning about it from our readers, thanks!

    ginny

    Ginny
    May 4, 2002 - 04:26 am


    Antoinette, welcome, I’m sorry we have not read that book and so do not have any information for you on it. Have you tried google? Just type in http://www.google.com in your browser and put the title of the book in the window follwed by Study Guide and see what you get? Good luck!

    (As far as being in a disucussion of A Painted House? You’re HERE, draw up a chair and set a spell!)




    I think we’ve had a blip on the internet, we've lost somebody's post from yesterday about humidity, if it was yours, so sorry, that happens sometimes, please put it back if you can?







    Judy’s excellent link to the Sod House is incredible! I urge you to read it. (isn't it AMAZING what we are learning here?) has some of the most interesting facts in it I have read. The ROOTS spread and held the blocks together? Amazing, the whole thing. I'm so grateful to the people in this discussion for learning all this stuff.

    And look there's mention of "Monkey Ward!, " too! hahaahha "In 1872 Montgomery Ward marketed windows and frames for $1.25, and the railroads carried these and other supplies to the Great Plains frontier."

    And JOHN DEERE, too! Notice the "grasshopper plow!" I was reading a super new cookbook I got yesterday and it began telling the history of John Deere.

    Did you know that until John Deere came along in 1837 and set up a blacksmith shop the farmer had a big problem trying to plow his field?

    Deere "noticed that the cast-iron plows were slow and too laborious because the soil would stick to the bottom of them and the farmer had to constantly stop every little bit and remove the dirt by hand."

    !!!

    Remove the dirt from the plow by hand! Can you imagine?

    In 1837, using steel from a broken saw blade, he created a plow where the blades were hightly polished and would clean themselves as they moved through the fields. Before long manuifacturing plows became the center of his business." (The John Deere Story from Turning the Pages of Time Cookbook). Here is a picture of : John Deere with his plow invention from Turning the Pages of Time courtesy of Deere & Company



    I am truly enjoying learning all these new things.

    Mary!! (zxwyrm) hahahaha WELCOME! And what a close reader you are, thank you for that! The height, I got up laughing about that! hahahaha and the Vidalia onion, you are so right, if you call it "Vidalia," it has to be grown in Vidalia Georgia. I don't have time to look it up but the Vidalia is actually either GranoX or Grano, a hybrid of onion also grown in Texas and other places, and in blind taste tests the Texas Sweet or whatever they call it, actually beat out the Vidalia but that's heresy and I won't repeat it where anybody can see it! hahahahaa

    more...

    Ginny
    May 4, 2002 - 04:49 am
    Betty, me, too, "high cotton," and me too on Martha Stewart, ever since I saw her show about whitewashed and painted chicken coops. She lost me on that one, I'm afraid.




    PatW, what a super thought, " Wouldn't have traded it for anything else.. We aren't as well off as we might have been had Charlie gone to work for an ag related company, but he was his own boss, and had the freedom to make his own decisions, good or bad."

    Today's small farmer is going the way of the dodo, isn't that right? Big conglomerates are forcing him out of business, huge agribusinesses. Do you all think that maybe Grisham's book is sort of a wave of the "back to the land" movement?

    If you all want to read the funniest true book you ever read, on a par with The Egg and I (remember that one? The Claudette Colbert--was it Ed McMurrey movie?) Did you know in real life she got divorced from the Egg Farmer? And wrote a whole bunch of new books?) anyway, please run out and find You Can't Live on Radishes by Jerry Bledsoe about a city slickers true attempt to go back to the land, you will laugh until you cry.

    Carolyn had a super point: "What does the sharing of food amongst the little boys tell us about how children view the world?




    Lorrie, welcome, thank you for those memories!!! Made her own soap? My parents shipped little Philly me off to my aunt and uncle's every summer, they had a well and a pump with cold water in the kitchen sink (a major new improvement!) but no running water in the house, an out house and chamber pots, I will never forget that well. Talk about the old oaken bucket, will have to look up those words and song, drew water from the well. The three things I remember most were slopping the hogs, my uncle preferring the neck of the chicken because as one of 11 children he never got anything else (my husband says I remember that wrong hahahaha) and no KETCHUP!! My uncle considered ketchup "frivolous and unnecessary." In Philly you eat KETCHUP with eggs, nearly died without it.

    Thank you for that splendid link! Yesterday on C Span Brian Lamb went to the Steinbeck House (Sarah you would have loved it) and inteviewed a Professor at Cal Davis who specializes in Steinbeck and has written The Grapes of Wratha: with modern applications to workers.

    I'd like someday to read about Ceasr Chavez if I've spelled his name correctly, who lobbied against the sending of workers into sprayed fields, that took courage.

    Do any of you remember a ditty called Grandma's Lye Soap?

    ginny

    Hats
    May 4, 2002 - 04:56 am
    Ginny, you asked about simpler times. I think the supposedly simpler time was a harder time in which to live. Just think, I can choose whether to make biscuits from scratch or buy a can of Pillsbury Grand biscuits from the supermarket. I love my two bathrooms. I don't want to take a relaxing walk out to the bushes or the outhouse!!! It would be just my luck to see a snake, my worse enemy. I don't even like snakes in the zoo. I love central heat and air in the house. I get hot very quickly. Of course, that might be the beginnings of the change of life.

    If I have to choose some part of their lives in Arkansas, I would choose family life. I like grandma, Pappy, grandchildren, at least, living nearby. Living under one roof? I am not too sure. I know my husband would holler NO!!! He likes family, but he likes to see them leave and go home and then, come again.

    Ginny, you were shipped from Philly to your aunt and uncle's house. Me too! When my mother was hospitalized with Cancer, I was shipped to Baltimore to stay with my aunt and uncle until she recovered.

    Hats

    Hats
    May 4, 2002 - 05:01 am
    About biscuits, I used a can of Crisco. Stupid or not, I thought that Crisco was healthier than lard. And my biscuits were good! If I made a biscuit now, it would probably fall apart.

    Hats

    patwest
    May 4, 2002 - 05:50 am
    (Lard is beef fat.) NO... Lard is the fat rendered from the hog The fat rendered from beef is called tallow or suet before it is boiled down.

    Lard is used for cooking, soap making, skin softener, anything that requires greasey grease..

    Suet or tallow is used for cooking, soap making (needs other oils blended), candles, leather preservative, anything that requires a dense not so greasy lubricant.

    And lard makes the best pie crust and biscuits. I don't render my own lard anymore, but buy it from a neighbor, who still does his own butchering.

    MaryZ
    May 4, 2002 - 06:31 am
    Simple Life? Not for me. I like indoor plumbing and heat/air conditioning. I don't want to HAVE to grow my own food (although I love home-grown tomatoes as much as the next person.)

    I think most people who want to return to the "Simple Life" have romantic ideas of what life was like in those earlier times. And I think, to some degree, that's what Grisham is telling us. That these "simpler", "uncomplicated" times were anything but that...even as late as 1952. People really did (and still do in some places) worry about whether or not they were going to make it through the winter, or have enough money to buy new shoes.

    When John was first working for duPont in Nashville in the mid60s, he was talking with some of the "old guys", and some were waxing nostalgic about "the good old days". One of the other "old guys" interrupted, saying "Y'all are all crazy. THESE are the good old days! Times were hard in what you're calling 'the good old days', and you don't really want to go back there."

    The PBS program, the Frontier House was mentioned earlier. I think these people had these wonderful ideas about how they would be returning to "simpler" times. And even with the training they were given beforehand, they were horrified by the amount of physical labor and hardships they had to endure, and that food couldn't be acquired just by running down to the corner store.

    I think many who long for the "good old days" are thinking of the a more uncomplicated lifestyle, but don't want to give up indoor plumbing, refrigerators, grocery stores, and the like. As Hats said, I think it's the close-knit families that some people miss. But again, this is a matter of history, too. Neither John nor I grew up around extended families, and when we moved to Nashville in 1962, that was one of the "culture shocks" - that all our friends seemed to be surrounded by parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, etc. It wasn't something we felt we missed out on or envied - it was just different. And, even now, though we still live in Tennessee, none of our children/grandchildren live very close (from one hour to four hours away)...and that's fine with all of us.

    Mary

    mstrent
    May 4, 2002 - 07:06 am
    I've always thought the exodus from the hard life on the family farm started as far back as the '20s. My mother couldn't wait to get away to the city and was disdainful of her contemporaries who remained in the town where she had grown up. Initially, was partly economic, as with the Chandlers moving north to find work, but in greater part the motivation seemed to be, at least from my mother's standpoint, not to have to live on a farm or pick cotton ever again. There are still family farms, but in the area I knew as a kid, there are none left and the little town my mother disliked so intensely is gradually wasting away. It may eventually be a ghost town. The primary thing that sustains it is its being a "section point" on a railroad between Dallas and Houston.

    It was a hard life, no doubt about it, and the poverty of the life wasn't just economic. I suspect being on a farm charmed me so as a kid because I knew I would go home to the indoor plumbing, real fridge, radio, short walk to school and the mom and pop grocery store just across the street. I think my grandparents (like Pappy and Gram) kept farming because that was all they knew ....or maybe it was because their house was always painted... but they seemed proud that both their children left home and made an easier life for themselves

    Sisso
    May 4, 2002 - 07:27 am
    Hi, I just tuned into your talks on The Painted House. I read the book. I grew up in Arkansas myself, left in 1950 to live in Michigan for 38 yrs.,returnd here in 1988 after retiring.To me, the simple life was not the hardships of outdoor toilets,no running water,no running to the grocery stores for everything, but it was the fact that everyone was willing to help each other when it was needed. The people here are just easy going, friendly,& neighborly still.There are no longer single family farmers, just the big ones who make a lot of money,have machines to do all the picking of cotton, they raise a lot of rice too, my dad farmed with a team of mules, backbreaking work-he would be amazed to see the farmers of today,how they do things. We did all have big gardens,we had to to survive. We raised our own chickens, hogs,canned everything for winter food. I never felt I was deprived of anything, because we were all in the same boat, very few farmers then made a lot of money. The simple life then was also, no drug addicts, no alcaholis,(if so it was hidden) men & women stayed married, raised their children,& did the best they could. I would no longer want to pick cotton as I did as a kid,It is not done now-the machines do it, but I do miss some of the simple times we had as children.I left in 1950 & I questioned some of his book, but in asking a friend who has lived here all their life, was told some of it was not fiction. Times were hard then,but there are big beautiful homes,& cities that took over a lot of the farm land.Thats progress. Thanks for listening. Sallyjo

    Ginny
    May 4, 2002 - 08:00 am
    Sallyjo! Welcome! We are delighted to welcome you here to our midst and you actually lived the life we're reading about, how marvelous.

    And they grew RICE too? Is flooding required for rice? I don't know why I think of rice paddies. I just learned the other day that cranberries are not grown in bogs (I hope I learned this correctly) but flooded so they are easier to harvest! Have always wanted to see them harvest cranberries, is rice the same?

    Am loving everybody'e take on "The simple life," or "enjoys simple pleasures," please keep them coming, just rushed in to welcome Sallyjo.

    Peraonally if i were answsering an ad for a Personal and the guy said simple pleasures, I'd run, I'd figure he was cheap? hahahaha

    ginny

    SarahT
    May 4, 2002 - 10:52 am
    Zwyram - thanks for that post about the "simple life." I think a lot of city slickers like me have this unrealistic dream about living in the country. Highcedar, you made some good points about the gossip and backbiting that one had to avoid in a small town. There is something to be said for the anonymity that one has in a large city (my family is city city city back several generations).

    Betty - you brought up the theme of keeping secrets, and that was one that bothered me terribly throughout this book. This poor kid (he wasn't even an adolescent yet) had so many secrets weighing him down. I was also extremely frustrated by the . . . I don't know . . . futility I guess it is of complaining about bad behavior. If the hill people caused problems, oh well, there was nothing that could be done because they'd just go back into the hills and all that cotton could just rot in the field.

    I watched the American Bandstand special last night and it's so easy to remember things as simpler and easier than they really were. I'm 42 and came up during the disco era, believe it or not, and it's so easy to think of it as a wonderful time to be young - and it was - and yet nothing is ever as romantic and perfect as we remember it.

    The beauty of being a child - and I watch this in my niece - is that you see things through such unjaundiced eyes. I guess that's why our memories of the past are so romantic - we were kids then, and things really did seem better because we didn't have the experience of adulthood through which to filter our experiences.

    kiwi lady
    May 4, 2002 - 01:01 pm
    I have lived the simple life and the good life as an adult. I probably live a simple life even now compared to most of the people who post. I only have one bathroom. My kitchen is very basic with very little counter space. However when we were young marrieds we bought a rural orchard property. We had no capital to improve the house and it was very basic indeed. The toilet was outside and water was in tanks. The river was 17 acres away at the bottom of the property. When we had a drought we had to get on the tractor take the washing down to the river and clean it on the stones like you see the native women doing in the documentaries.We also had to wash in the river during a dry season. I bathed the children (tots) in the laundry tub each night to save water. Then the water got carted to the vegetable garden. During this time I worked full time all day and then again cleaned for 4 hours at night. Weekends were spent in the orchard. It was very hard work but I was very fit. I even managed to bake and preserve. The children loved the life and cried when we moved back to the city. We sold because the govt removed subsidies off sprays and fertiliser and we just could not absorb the extra expense on a relatively new orchard. I found the mod cons in the city simple as ours were a treat.

    Carolyn

    BaBi
    May 4, 2002 - 02:19 pm
    I can answer the question about the rice, as rice is grown in this part of Texas. Yes, the fields are flooded, and the rice shoots planted underwater. How long they are kept flooded I don't know, but perhaps there is a rice farmer hanging around here somewhere.

    This line raised memories, too: "Most things were sinful in rural Arkansas, especially if you were a Baptist." I remember having relatives who were "hardshell" Baptists, which mean they were very strict. Card-playing was sinful, never mind dancing! The ladies cooked for Sunday dinner on Saturday, and attended Sunday services morning and evening. Movies, of course, were straight out of the pit of hell. And Arkansas was, of course, solidly in the "Bible Belt". The Methodists were more easy-going; less aggressive. The two groups socialized in a "Christian" spirit, as in the picnic and baseball game Grisham descrbes so well, but the Methodists generally felt the Baptists were too harsh, and the Baptists thought the Methodists were edging mighty close to unrighteousness! But the cotton dresses, the blankets on the grass, the fried chicken, chocolate cake and home-made ice cream of the church picnic...these I remember well! ..Babi

    betty gregory
    May 4, 2002 - 07:36 pm
    EEEoooo, gross, lard is hog fat. Wonders never cease on what I learn here! Thank you, Pat. Now I know. Maybe we could get the same taste by eating bacon with our healthier Crisco vegetable shortening biscuits.

    Oh, dear, oh, dear, if you only knew how funny that is....ME teaching anyone how to cook anything. I DID make biscuits years ago, regularly, but beyond not over stirring, just like with pie crust, and not over-rolling-out, as I described, I know no more secrets. I'm sure the recipe I used came from the original Good Housekeeping or Betty crocker cookbooks.

    Unlike pie crust that's pretty dry already when you turn it out onto the floured board, biscuit dough is VERY wet and sticky, so floured surfaces are a must while sprinkling flour lightly over the sticky dough as you're turning it. Use the lightest tough and stop handling and start rolling the minute the dough hangs together. If you only knew how ridiculous I feel writing this out. I haven't "cooked" in such a long time. Am I leaving something out? Help!!

    Where does someone purchase lard? Is it sold in grocery stores? Is your test kitchen going to find and use lard, Ginny?

    ---------------------------------------------

    "Mom's" name is Kathleen.

    Carolyn, back to your interesting comment about children eating with migrant workers. To me, this is about our natural curiosity and acceptance of all people, which all children have, before we are taught racism by the culture. (Luke's mother will prevent Luke from becoming a racist, but other curious children will learn hate.) What is that song about "we have to be very carefully taught" to hate?

    Oh, hey, guess what I just remembered....both my grandmother and mother used fresh bacon grease, very hot, in the bottom of a round cake pan for cornbread batter. Years ago, that is. The idea was for the bottom of the cornbread to brown darkly with a crusty taste. Cornbread is still one of my favorite breads.

    Betty

    kiwi lady
    May 4, 2002 - 08:23 pm
    Betty I do the unthinkable with biscuits. Here in NZ we have always used butter for biscuits and I Knead mine!!!!!!! I make a reasonably soft dough and for mixing I use half milk half warm water sometimes I add an egg even. Mine are always light and fluffy. Of course you do not knead the dough like bread! A light kneading and just push the dough into a square about one and a half inches thick and then cut or cut out in rounds. I use a glass to cut round ones. I make them with cheese and onion in sometimes and plenty of black pepper. Of course you grate the cheese.

    Carolyn

    MaryZ
    May 4, 2002 - 08:24 pm
    Betty..."You've Got to be Carefully Taught" is from South Pacific - an amazing song, particularly for its time.

    You can buy lard at the grocery store - in our store, it's on the bottom shelf in the same area as Crisco. We use it to mix with equal parts cornmeal and flour to pack into holes drilled in a piece of log as a bird feeder. The woodpeckers love it! But, eat it? Never! I always used a biscuit recipe out of the Betty Crocker cookbook that I received as a wedding present. But then I discovered Bisquick, and used that exclusively - at least until a year or so ago when one of our daughters told me about the wonderful frozen biscuits. If you haven't tried those - give it a try.

    Mary

    kiwi lady
    May 4, 2002 - 08:26 pm


    Oh dear now I have got myself drooling and I am off to make some cheese biscuits!

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    May 4, 2002 - 08:52 pm
    The biscuits are in the oven! Cheese and Onion. What a shame you cant all pop over for afternoon tea!

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    May 4, 2002 - 11:19 pm
    Now I am seriously into reading. I love the little boy Luke being so eager to practice his Spanish on the Mexican worker who comes into Pops store. Isn't that like a kid!

    As for Pappy he is turning out to be typical of the man of his era. Fiercely proud. Honor is everything to him. He is a hard man and one who will never back down if he sets his mind to something. I am glad my Pop was not like him although he was born in the Victorian era!

    As you can see as usual I am into the people not so much the setting! But thats just me!

    Carolyn

    betty gregory
    May 5, 2002 - 12:37 am
    With each discussion, I stay fascinated with how different we are from each other and how similar we are, and how easy it is to define ourselves by those differences or similarities.

    I don't romanticize my childhood....because it was too awful. I thank my lucky stars, however, for my grandparents and mother.

    I did go find the simple life. In 1994, I moved to a very old cabin/cottage, built by an architect, half a block from the Pacific Ocean on the northern coast of Oregon. No heating or air conditioning, no dishwasher, no possible way to add a washer and dryer. 1,200 residents lived in this village town at the base of coastal range mountains. Because of my physical disability, each convenience missing at home or in the town made things pretty tough, but for 5 and a half years, it was so worth it. A dream come true, plus some.

    I thought I would never have to leave and some days, I think leaving was a mistake, no matter how tough it became (physically) to be there. Also, the simplicity of being there had a long list of pluses that balanced out the physical difficulties. None of us locked our doors!! The owner of 1 of 2 local grocery stores delivered my groceries himself. The owner/cook of a local sandwich/burger place let me call in a lunch order of anything I wanted to be delivered, whether or not it was on the menu. I would say, "Let's see. What about a cup of clam chowder and a half turkey sandwich?" He would say, "Ok, that's about $3.00." We just made it up, every time I called. Sometimes I'd say, what fruit do you have, and could I have something like a large fruit plate? How much fun that was.

    The roar of the ocean as a companion....talk about good sleeping!!! The trees, the trees, the trees, mostly ancient spruce, surrounding my cottage. A place of wonder that was mine.

    I won't let myself second guess leaving for too many minutes whenever I have those momentary feelings of doubt. I've decided just to be so grateful, to feel so lucky that I got to be there for so long. Very, very lucky. I urge everyone to go do the one thing you've always dreamed of doing.

    Betty

    Ginny
    May 5, 2002 - 07:12 am
    Wonderful posts, no, Betty, no lard will approcah the Anderson kitchen tho W says the mince pie I INSIST everybody eat at Christmas IS lard and I think he may be right. hahaha

    OH I also remember the little jars of bacon fat on the kitchen stove in fact I have my mothers now, in the barn. Gives you a homey feeling for some unknown reason, to look at it.

    All right, Carolyn! That does it! Will you PLEASE write out that recipe in every detail and let us give it a try? I promise I will, and I promise I'll be frank with the results and it will be next Sunday's piece de resistance, if you only will! "Carolyn's New Zealand Cheese Biscuits!" (and yes, I AM typing in the apostrophes but for some reason they are not showing up, have asked the Tech Teams here in the Books to look into this?)

    Betty and the try something you have always wanted to try really hit a chord with me, you're NEVER too old and NEVER too reduced in circumstance to take up something new! Through the wonder of the Interent here we are a chatting about New Zealand biscuits, growing rice and cotton, etc.

    When I turned 59 this year I decided this year to learn 59 new things. I'm keeping a list. Bread Baking (check out Father Dominic's Breaking Bread site if you have not seen his PBS program!) was among them, so was taking the cello, now I wish to add New Zealand Cheese Biscuits and other splendid new things.

    Let's learn something new this week and report back here!!




    In the heading you will now see a splendid new HTML page entitled Themes to Watch for in Painted House. On it we will continue to add recurring themes. My thanks to Meg R who suggested so many of them, and Betty for adding the Secrets, and Jane DeNeve for making it up for us.

    If you notice any other recurring themes, please note them here, and we'll add them to the growing body of our analysis.

    Thank you all for your marvelous stories and remembrances, I still wish we could somehow display them, but this discussion will stand archived so they can always be seen.




    "Paint was a sensitive word around the Chandler farm" (page 77). Sometimes trying to communitate with others is like walking across a mine field, due to their own backgrounds and interests, have you ever noticed? The old Godfather thing of "showing respect" is ingrained in every culture, and the most innocent remark can be totally misinterpreted.

    I'm struck in this book by the growing menace of Hank. He's threatened a little boy in private and now in public. 7 years old is almost a baby. He's shown to be a killer. He calls upon a 7 year old child to back up his story for the police,



    "Tell him the truth, boy," he shouted. "One of them Siscos picked up the stick of wood, didn't he?"



    Yet he is allowed to remain on the farm. Why?

    Stick says he has to take Hank in.

    (Page 113)

    "Mr. Spruill took a step forward and said to Pappy, 'If he leaves, we leave, too. Right now.'

    Pappy was prepared for this. Hill people wer enoted for their ability to break camp and disappear quickly, and none of us doubted Mr. Spruill meant what he said. They would be gone in an hour, back to Eureka Springs, back to their mountains and their moonshine. It would be virtually impossible to harvest eighty acres of cotton with just the Mexicans to help us. Every pouns was crucial. Every hand."



    I'm going to say here what we are seeing Pappy do, the choice he makes even in the face of the intimidation by Hank, is of his own necessity, and not out of any positive "solidarity" motive, standing behind your own workers ("this is my place, this is my farm these are my workers"), and as such, even tho I have not read one word beyond Chapter 9, I can see what's coming. The question I have is, if this were YOU would you have let the Spruills stay?

    If this were YOU would you have made that same decision? I have a feeling we have just witnessed a turning point here among all the talk of Satan and sin, (ironic that it's the child worrying over sin here, huh)? I wonder if I will turn out to be right?

    What do you think? What would you have done? Would you have allowed a field hand to shout at your 7 year old son like that? Have we just seen a decision with portent for the future? Was there no other choice? Or?

    ginny

    annafair
    May 5, 2002 - 09:20 am
    I planned on joining the first day but thunderstorms , bad headache from sinus which I still have and this absolutely changing temperatures ..has done me in..

    But I did read the book and will do so again as soon as I can find the time and my headache backs off ...

    So many of the posters are writing from a younger age...I am in my 70's and was born and raised in a city but had many aunts and uncles who lived on farms. We visited them a lot and I always found it fascinating..I loved all the wonderful food .the fresh vegetables from the kitchen garden ..the fresh eggs and butter, the milk which they pastuerized for health reasons. The quiet nights , the zillion stars denied in the city, I even loved the privey ..My relatives outhouse was always kept clean but some of the neighbors we visited and I had to use the outhouse were awful...

    Some of my relatives were sharecroppers and their children chopped and picked cotton...I must say all of my aunts were the best cooks...biscuits, cornbread, pies and cakes and real butter and homemade jellies and preserves.. most made from wild grapes and blackberries. Peach and strawberries ...for a city child there life seemed wonderful to me...of course all I did was to pick the vegetables for dinner and help with whatever was needed.. Breakfast was always a wonderful meal often of country ham, pork chops or even steak.Several different kinds of fruit, fresh or home canned. Lunch and dinners were good too but I think I liked breakfast best.

    My mother used a can for the bacon fat and made the best cookies using the fat ..she used it to season a lot of things and while she used SPRY she also used lard and to this day I think the best fried chicken was fried in a cast iron skillet in lard. I think she used lard in biscuits and then dipped the tops in melted butter or bacon fat before baking they were marvelous.

    Although I loved to visit my relatives on the farms my cousins left the farm as soon as they graduated from High School and went to the big cities. Some of the girls married service men and stayed in the communities the men came from, others went to Detroit or places in the East..they all did well, buying thier own homes,educating their children, living an a much easier life than they had as children. But those that left recall their childhood with fondness even if it was hard..AND my mother had 11 brothers and sisters so I had lots of cousins. Since I was younger than most many are no longer living...

    I am constantly surprised the story here is set in 1952...because except for the hiring of help it seems to be more like what I remember of my aunt and uncles places which were located just north of the Arkansas /Missouri state line.

    I noticed the use of Vidalia onions as well, that seems to me to be an error on the the author's part. Also I remember when I was in school we had a lot of Spanish speaking students ( well it seemed a lot) and only a few Mexican students ..now I wonder why they were there and where they came from..I had several girl friends who were both Mexican and Spanish , although the Mexicans were more or less looked down on by the Spanish speaking girls.

    Now I will hope the weather improves and my headache goes away so I can find a hour or two to re read the book and absorb all of the things shared here...anna

    kiwi lady
    May 5, 2002 - 11:21 am
    Last night I read til Chapter 19. Remember of course I am a speed reader but that was slow for me because I wanted to make sure I did not miss anything. The math for the crop payment - $160 x 80 is $12,600 so the Chandlers would not break even and would end up $1,400 in debt even after all their hard work. Remember they had borrowed $14,000 dollars against the crop. I dont know whether Grisham made an error with this or whether he was making a point about the hopelessness of the industry at the time.

    I found the plight of the Latchers pitiful. They were looked down on because of their poverty and yet there is no mention of the father being a drunkard or a violent man. They seem to be respectable but dirt poor. Even the child Luke does not want to have anything to do with them because of the towns attitude towards the Latchers. I found it sickening that Mrs Chandler jun was visiting with vegetables just to satisfy the morbid curiosity of the townswomen who wanted to confirm that fifteen year old Libby was indeed pregnant.

    More later.

    Carolyn

    BaBi
    May 5, 2002 - 02:44 pm
    Ginny, in the scene you were discussing where Hank was questioned about the fight, I was most struck by Luke's understanding of what was involved. He knew that if he showed Luke up as a liar, Pappy would be obliged to send him away, and they would have no crop. Just as earlier, if he had told anyone about Luke threatening him, the Chandler men would have been out on the porch with their shotguns, ordering the Spruills off the property 'instanter'. Same result: no crop. Yet their pride and love of Luke would have made it impossible to do anything else. So Luke kept his secrets.

    Carolyn, I agree the Latchers were pitiful, but it was not just their poverty that caused them to be looked down on. I can remember my grandmother, who had an extremely hard life, insisting there was no excuse for anyone to be dirty. She only had three dresses to her name, but while one was on her back, another was being washed, and the third was pressed to be ready for the next day. The Latchers lived right on the river. Whatever they lacked, they had no lack of water. I understood so well that Mrs. Chandler called Mrs. Latcher 'Darla', but tho. she invited Mrs. Latcher to address her by her first name, she would not. It as always "Mrs. Chandler". It's hard to be on a first name basis with someone to whom you are 'beholden'.

    I was somewhat startled to vaguely recall that there have been people I would have been surprised to hear addressing me by my first name. It would have seemed an inapproprite familiarity. And this had nothing whatever to do with race, nationality, cultures, etc. Now I am going to have to see if I can remember any specifics, and put my finger on why I felt that person was being rude and inappropriate. ....Babi

    kiwi lady
    May 5, 2002 - 04:47 pm
    In another part of the book it says that the Latchers house was no bigger than the Chandlers tool shed. It may well have had a dirt floor. Mrs Latcher I think had got to the stage where hard work and bad nutrition had just worn her down. My grandparents were poor but had good facilities and it was only luck that they did not have a string of children too. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be as poor as the Latchers and I dont know how I would cope. From passages in the book the sharecroppers were regarded as the lowliest in local society anyway, so they did have their social hierachy and racial hierachy - ie the Mexicans. We would be fooling ourselves to think otherwise.

    Carolyn

    Judy Laird
    May 5, 2002 - 08:44 pm
    Sarah I think you are right about the secrets. One of the things that stick with me is the fact of this little boy being burdened with so many secrets. I am sure he didn't tell his Grandfather and Father about the Spruill's threating him because he knew they would throw them off the farm and then all the cotton wouldn't get picked and they would have no money and in his mind it would all be his fault because he told.

    Last time I looked which was a long time ago you could buy lard in the meat department in small wax paper boxes. Also you could buy corn meal mush in bricks and slice it, fry it and put syrup on it and have a wonderful breakfast. I don't know who invented cholestral but I don't wish him well. Now I can't eat butter, salt, ice cream and most anything that is good. Somehow I don't remeber any of our older relatives having cholestral problems. My own theory is they worked so hard that they could eat anything and it was just O.K.

    Sally Jo your comments on the water brought up one of my favorite peeves. Wasting water. I lived on St Croix for over 5 years and I learned about wasting water. I believe probably not in our lifetimes but maybe even in our childrens lifetime that there will be shortage of water everywhere. I drive around here in the cities and see sprinklers on when its raining and when its not half the water runs down the pavement. We will ultimately pay for the wasting of massive amounts of water.

    Mary I love frozen biscuits. How far have we come we have a delivery company here called Schwans and you just call in a order and they bring it to your house ready for the freezer and their food is GOOD. They h ave sacks of plain ones and also cheeze and you just make as amy as you need. I am the queen of take out and quick fixes.hehe

    Kiwi Lady I think you are amazing, Whast a life and here you are posting on Senior Net. It absolutly blows me away.

    As most of you know I just met my birth Mother and 2 sisters last June. This adjusting to haveing family is something. Today we went to IHOP for breakfast and then went out to a huge nursery called Flower World. You remember Flower World Ginny. Mother walked for over an hour, not to bad for 86 years old and having a total hip replacement on April 3rd. My sisters are awesome and life is good.

    All your posts are wonderful. Thank You All

    kiwi lady
    May 5, 2002 - 10:20 pm
    Cheese and onion biscuits (We call them scones remember)

    3 heaped cups high grade flour

    3 heaped tspns baking powder (rising agent)

    2 oz soft butter

    pinch salt

    black pepper

    one medium onion chopped finely

    one heaped cup tasty cheese grated or cut in tiny cubes

    Rub butter into dry ingredients or give them a burl in the processor and then tip into mixing bowl. I do this as I have athritis in my fingers. Add cheese onion and if you want some finely chopped parsley. Mix then add enough liquid (half warm water half milk) to make soft dough. Press out on a floured board into a big rectangle about 2 inches thick. Cut into squares or if you like rounds using a glass or round cookie cutter (plain). Put into a preheated oven at about 200C which is about 400F. Cook for about 15 mins or til golden brown on top. These freeze well.

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    May 5, 2002 - 10:24 pm
    Forgot to say you can also add smoky bacon substitute the one thats dry and you soak in warm water to make soft (from health shop its soya product)to the cheese and onion biscuits makes very tasty addition.

    Carolyn

    betty gregory
    May 5, 2002 - 11:56 pm
    I have snooped around here and there and from the Martha Stewart recipes on her website, have shamelessly pilfered the following buttermilk biscuits recipe....it sounds pretty close to one I've used before.

    Buttermilk Biscuits Makes 15

    4 cups all-purpose flour, plus more for dusting

    4 teaspoons baking powder

    1 teaspoon baking soda

    1 1/2 teaspoons salt

    1 teaspoon sugar

    1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter, cut into pieces

    2 cups buttermilk

    1. Preheat oven to 375°. In a medium bowl, whisk together flour, baking soda, salt, and sugar. Add butter; using a pastry blender or two knives, cut butter into mixture until mixture resembles coarse crumbs.

    2. Add buttermilk; stir just until mixture comes together; batter will be sticky. Transfer to a lightly floured work surface; use floured fingers to pat dough to 1-inch thickness. Use a 2 1/2-inch round biscuit cutter or cookie cutter to cut biscuits; cut them as close together as possible to minimize scraps.

    3. Transfer to baking sheet; bake until lightly browned, 18 to 20 minutes. Remove from oven; cool on a wire rack. Serve warm.

    Betty

    goldensun
    May 6, 2002 - 01:04 am
    Sorry to say, I have not read any of Grisham's other books. The titles alone kill my interest. Sounds if they're very modern, and about lawyers, men, their wives, crime and power. I don't like that sort of thing at all. But Painted House caught my attention right away on the "new books" shelf and more than lives up to the expectations it aroused. I like Grisham's writing style and the way I felt pulled into the story.

    Luke spends a goodly amount of time describing his experiences at church, and the author has a reason for this. Church and religion are a major part of the Chandler's lives. He has been taught since the cradle to tell only the truth. He has been told this by his parents, his grandparents, his Sunday School teachers, the preacher. However in only an instant "the truth had just been rewritten" and he has learned a lesson that makes a lasting impression on his young mind, that as a practical matter, truth takes second place. An adult can take this hypocrisy for granted, but not a child. I don't believe he will grow up to be a religious man.

    MegR
    May 6, 2002 - 05:38 am
    Carolyn, you've made my day! You tortured me with your 3 cheese & onion biscuit posts & to now find a recipe!!!! thank you! Thank You!! THANK YOU!!! and Betty, here you are with another one!!!

    Sorry, I've been away for a few days dealing with family stuff. Have to go back & catch up on posts. Will do so and come back.

    Think I might be ambitious today & try one of your recipes if there's time! meg

    BaBi
    May 6, 2002 - 08:02 am
    Thanks for the scone recipe, Kiwi. I'm looking forward to trying it. I love cheese and I love hot breads. (I am happy to report that I have familial type high cholesterol, and a low cholesterol diet does not help that type at all. When I tried drastically reducing my cholesteral intake, my body just produced more.)

    Trust a child to see the inconsistencies in the adults' preaching. The Sunday-school teacher was trying to be charitable, but only succeeded in confusing her fledgling Baptists. "If outlaws like the Siscos could make it to heaven, the pressure was off the rest of us." Reverend Akers, to me, represents the worst type of preacher/pastor. To Luke, he seemed always angry and the sum total of his Christian message was hell and damnation. Highcedar makes a good point. It has always seemed to me preachers like Mr. Akers ran off more people than they saved. ...Babi

    Hats
    May 6, 2002 - 09:47 am
    Hi All,

    Thank you Carolyn and Betty for the wonderful biscuit recipes. I am babysitting my grandson today. My daughter-in-law is having an outpatient surgery done. Will be back soon to enjoy all of the posts.

    Hats

    betty gregory
    May 6, 2002 - 10:02 am
    Babi, the quote you gave...."If outlaws like the Siscos could make it to heaven, the pressure was off the rest of us".....felt to me like Grisham's adult level humor squeezed into his 7 year old character, Luke. He did this throughout the book, I thought, and I found myself suspending judgment of what was possible for a 7 year old's thought processes, because the humor was wonderful throughout!! I also remember, the first day or two of the discussion, Pat questioning the observation skills Grisham gave a 7 year old. I thought she had a great point, but also was thinking to myself that the character of Luke sometimes seemed like an adult remembering back to his 7 year old self.

    Betty

    mstrent
    May 6, 2002 - 11:46 am
    Sharecroppers were essentially serfs. They lived on someone else's land in whatever kind of shelter was available. If they made a crop, half went to the landowner, so escape from the life was almost impossible. Add illiteracy to that and the hopelessness becomes palpable. Poor whites were one thing, poor white trash something quite different. cf: Jerry Springer.

    I think having all these observations made from the standpoint of a child is important in that, although it was working on Luke, the culture had not yet had time to instill its prejudices completely. Eating tortillas is an example.

    I agree completely about the preacher. He's a throw back to Cotton Mather and Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, but common then, and unfortunately, not uncommon to this day.

    kiwi lady
    May 6, 2002 - 12:12 pm
    Talking about a 7 year olds observations I think a 7 year old can be very observant. My grandaughter Brooke met up with a friend in the supermarket one day (he was newly seperated from wife he being the one who had left) All Brooke knew about the situation was that he was not living at home any more. He said hello to her and her reply was "Did you know there is someone up in ------ Village who is missing you very much?" Brooke was three and a half. I think children can be very very observant. She had also figured out how to say what she wanted tactfully. My daughter nearly fainted when Brooke came out with her observation!

    Got to go I have dog coming for three days and they are dropping her off at 8.45am, I want to tidy up, have a shower etc before she comes. I will catch you later.

    Carolyn

    MegR
    May 6, 2002 - 01:21 pm
    Babi Just caught up w/ reading posts. BISQUICK!! (laughing!) Does it for me! Could probably adapt Carolyn's wonderful cheese & onion "scones" with this goodie too! Can't tell you how many years it's been since I've used Bisquick. Seems a waste just cooking for myself. When we do family gathering meals (of 25 to 35 of us), Mom does bread baking before we all gather at homestead.

    Betty G Thanks for "Mom's name". Have only reread to end of Chpt 9 for first week's discussion. I scoured those pages for her name. Where did you find it?

    Ginny, You said something about the "...growing menace of Hank....He's shown to be a killer. He calls upon a 7 year old child to back up his story for the police....He is allowed to remain on th farm. Why?"

    I think he stays because neither Eli or Jesse know for sure that Hank killed Jerry Sisco. They know there was a fight & that Jerry died. Neither Eli or Jesse were present during that fight. None of the adult witnesses that were behind the Co-op will come forth because they fear Sisco retaliations. I get the idea that Eli & Jesse may really not trust Hank, but they have no evidence or proof to support his guilt or possible arrest or eviction. Luke is the only one on the Chandler place (other than Hank) who knows the truth. Luke chooses to support Hank's version of events because he feels that he's protecting his family and their income & crop for future. Does this make any sense?

    meg

    kiwi lady
    May 6, 2002 - 02:35 pm
    Luke is protecting Hank firstly out of fear. He has seen how violent Hank is and his first thought is self preservation. I think the secondary reasoning for not speaking up is that he does fear the hill people will be forced to leave should Hank be arrested and the crop will not be picked in time. He also hates working in the cotton fields and knows should the hill people go he will have to work all the harder.

    Carolyn

    BaBi
    May 6, 2002 - 02:37 pm
    It may be that Grisham sometimes transplants adult perspectives to Luke's 7-yr. old mind, but only inadvertently I believe. I would have a hard time saying whether my view of something that happened that long ago was the original perception, or had altered over the years. As far as the powers of observation of a 7-yr. old, and their understanding, I suspect that depends on the child. Children see far more than we realize, and while they sometimes misunderstand what was said, their instincts can be better than ours. From what I can recall of my children at that age (very bright kids, of course) ...they were pretty shrewd. ...Babi

    MegR
    May 6, 2002 - 03:24 pm
    "Them" vs "Us" is my awkward tag for this issue. I welcome any alternate suggestions that would help to clarify this more. Apologies ahead of time if I offend anyone with my comments on this topic, and for the length of this posting. This one's been stewing for a few days.

  • ******************************************************************

    Ginny started us off back on May 1st with this issue and it bothered me too. You said, "The first sentence of the book stopped me cold. 'The hill people and the Mexicans arrived on the same day.' This book was not written in the 30's, pre-PC days, it was written in 2001. Grisham knows what he's doing, so WHAT is he doing? THE hill people? THE Mexicans?"

    A number of folk have offered related and/or expanded observations and comments on this.

    HATS: There is a sort of racial tension between Luke's family, the Hill people and the Mexicans.

    Betty: Ginny, I agree that Grisham is doing more than chronicling a simpler time. Possibilities...racial divide, class distinctions WITHIN rural communities, north vs. south, multi-generation families, freedom and safety for children to roam around vs. adult labor expected of children.

    Keene: The first chapters in this book indeed show the disparity of classes in these communities.

    Betty: Right from the first chapter, the Mexicans in Grisham's tale (his memory?, depending on how autobiographical the story is) go against the stereotype....lazy, not dependable, unmotivated. In the story, they are very hard workers, focused, dedicated, motivated. ....The only person to raise a red flag about how the Mexicans were treated was Luke's mother.

    Ginny: I think it's the author's attempt to put us in the mind of a child to whom THE hill people and THE Mexicans are intrusions and exotic.

    Babi: Betty, was it you who remarked on the negative stereotyping of the migrant workers? It has always seemed to me that people accept negative stereotypes because that provides them with an excuse to ignore the injustices being done. They can just blame the victims. "If they had any gumption they could do better for themselves." That kind of thing. At the same time, (esp. on the small farms as opposed to today's big conglomerates) the low pay and hard working conditions were not so much a deliberate injustice as a fact of life. I think the Chandler farm reflects well what a well-intentioned, but poor, farm family could and could not do for their laborers.

    Mary: A comment on the racism of the time and locale. - As I remember, there wasn't too much comment on prejudice against blacks. The schools were still segregated, and there was not that much contact between the races, except for maybe for domestic help in the homes. As has been noted, usually prejudice is shown against people with whom we come in contact frequently. "Hill People" would certainly be those to be looked down upon - because they had less. At that time, if you were near the bottom of the pile financially and/or socially, you looked down on those who were below you. There were many more Mexicans in that part of the country, and they would have been more likely to have been in daily contact with the local farmers than, for instance, blacks.

    Carolyn: Re the Mexicans - Isn't it funny that all over the world people who have darker skin than us are portrayed as being lazy. What does this perhaps tell us about how children view the world?

    Sarah T: I somehow found the gentleness with which the Mexican laborers were treated as somewhat hard to believe, given how deeply racism runs in this country.

  • ********************************************************************

    Initially, I did expect to see racial tension in this novel because Grisham has dealt with this problem in other books and possibly from the opening line. I was surprised to discover that there were NO RACIAL issues in this text considering its setting. There are NO CONFLICTS concerning ethnicity or skin color. Ginny's initial discomfort with the opening made me think about this a little more. Guess I agree with her about the two visiting groups being "intrusions" & "exotic" to Luke. Their arrivals signal a season of labor that Luke doesn't particularly like, but he is fascinated by another language and diet. But, I do think that Grisham is subtly doing more here than generic Mexicans vs Anglos or hill people vs sharecroppers - or class distinctions & stereotypes(as Betty says).

    Mary's comment triggered something for me & helped me to focus a little more. She said, "As has been noted, usually prejudice is shown against people with whom we come in contact frequently."

    Mary, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and grossly disagree with this statement. I think prejudice occurs when we DON'T KNOW another race or ethnicity well or consider them as a group rather than individuals. A little sidebar background: I grew up in an all-white community. Graduated from high school in 1965 in a class of 1,000 - and was stunned to find 3 black faces in the senior photo section of my yearbook! I never saw those students in school or an Afro-American in my hometown - ever - until then. Granted the time, the community & the enormous size of the school, those three people may have been relegated to special ed or votech classes and not mainstreamed - so I would never have encountered them. But - they were totally invisible to me & most of the population of the school. I had no experience with any other ethnicity or race during the first 18 years of my life.

    I came to the city for college and stayed. My first encounters with Afro-Americans,Asians, Indians (of both continents) etc. were in college classes, with my sister's roommate and then in student teaching. During my junior year, Dr. King was killed. Went home for that Easter break to learn that extended family had been concerned about my safety because rioting had occurred in a predominately black area of the city. Remember being shocked by the blatantly vicious and bigoted comments of my uncles about events in the city, blacks and Dr. King "getting what he deserved". These men had lived very insular lives and had not been out of their small hometown - except for service in WWII and the Korean War. I was speechless & appalled by their reactions. My parents never expressed such blatant ignorance, intolerance or prejudice. They tried to teach us to learn about others and to respect everyone. Lost my innocence about my "good old uncles" that spring.

    My first job after college was teaching in an inner-city, very low income neighborhood where the population & staff were about 50/50 black and white. My mother said multiple novenas for me - that I would either survive that school (it had been in the papers the spring before for major riots) or, preferably , that I would miraculously get transferred to a "better" school or neighborhood. I was fortunate to land in a building where the staff helped one another and into a small feeder neighborhood that was racially mixed, but united for the most part. Learned very quickly that no stereotype was applicable. (It's been 33 years since I taught that first class and I still have their graduation photo hanging here on my wall. I remember every kid's name & story. Still keep in touch with a few of them.) Was surprised back then to discover that those kids were prejudiced against an adjoining, wealthy, Jewish neighborhood; against middle-class neighborhoods on the other side of the river; and against Asians. But they were vehemently loyal to each other, regardless of race - because they were all very poor & from the same place. Was surprised, a few years later, when ou
  • MegR
    May 6, 2002 - 03:32 pm
    Sorry, transfer didn't print all of this. Here's rest of that post.

    But they were vehemently loyal to each other, regardless of race - because they were all very poor. Was surprised, a few years later, when our school was closed & a new & larger high school was built. My old kids were bussed to it along with to it along with kids from those other neighborhoods that they claimed to hate. Media expected us to explode when new school opened. Initially, there were some fights (primarily conflicting neighborhoods rather than racial), but once kids got to know each other on a daily basis - those old preconceptions disappated for the most part. School social events crossed neighborhood lines; friendships developed - regardless of race or home stompin' grounds. Kids got to know one another and prejudices slowly began to disintegrate.

    ANYWHOOO - to my main point on this one. There ARE prejudices displayed in this book - but they aren't the blatant ones of the stereotypic racial variety. They're prejudices against "them" or "the others" or "those who aren't like us". Methodists vs Baptists concerning who's more righteous. Hill people & townies/sharecroppers over who's more valuable: those working own/rented lands vs land owners who are migrant workers. Those with painted houses & those without. Those who farm and those who don't.

    Prejudice has nothing to do with economic or social status - no, I take that back. Status, parental training & education can affect prejudice or lack thereof. Think what I wanted to say was that prejudice can and does exist in all strata of modern life. It stems from an insecurity that needs to feel superior to others. It can be exhibited by that millionaire toward domestics. Adults to children - to almost any relationship or combinations of folk that we can imagine. As soon as we righteously consider ourselves morally superior to anyone else - we are exhibiting prejudice. Think that's one reason why I've like Grisham. He does recognize this failing in all of us, acknowledges it and tries to shine a little light on it. Sarah, I found your notice of the "gentleness with which the Mexican laborers were treated" a hopeful sign in this story. Have to admit to validity of your disbelief too; have witnessed first hand the cruelty, rudeness and invisibility of some whites to Mexican & native American Indians in our southwest. But, it was heartening to see Luke's mother and her "churchlady" friends concerned about their welfare.

    Apologies for "preachin'" Meg

    kiwi lady
    May 6, 2002 - 03:50 pm
    Meg I agree with everything you say. I was brought up in an area where there were no native New Zealanders in any number. I went to a large high school where there were three Maori children. These were cousins of Kiri Te Kanawa the great opera singer. My family though poor were very prejudiced. Then later I met my husband who had lived in rural New Zealand and went to schools where he was in the minority as a white kid or Pakeha. He changed my ideas. I live in a very multi cultural neighbourhood with a good number of Pacific Islanders and Maori families.

    I am often at odds with my family because they have not changed. It hurts me to hear them stereotyping people. However they are happy to live in neighbourhoods where the majority of people are wealthy Asians. You see they are not considered to be black. In fact our Natives are brown very light brown but people still call them blacks. Here this is not meant in a literal way its meant in a disparaging way.

    We do not have obvious prejudice here but it does simmer hidden under the surface.

    Carolyn

    betty gregory
    May 6, 2002 - 04:18 pm
    Thanks, everyone, for responses to thoughts on thought processes, observations, etc., of a 7 year old. I have more to say, but don't feel as certain about how to express it. I don't disagree at all about how kids uncannily pick up all kinds of information or tension or feelings or anything else that is in the air that adults think can't be detected.

    Grisham is an adult. When he sat down at his desk to write in his fictional character's 7 year old voice, he had to play make believe. He had to pretend he was 7 years old. That's where I think Grisham was too consistent, too wise, too clever, too perfect with his funny smart-mouth come-backs in the thoughts of Luke. It's very enjoyable reading, though. It just didn't seem as child-like as it might have MORE of the time, I guess I'm saying, degree, maybe. There is one glorious scene later where he is very much a small child.....so, maybe there is not enough of the inbetween, for me.

    --------------------------------------

    Ginny, were you asking how could the father and the grandfather stand there and do nothing after Hank, in front of everyone, explodes at Luke??? Why couldn't his father step into the line of sight from Hank to Luke, while everyone is waiting for poor Luke's answer, and say...."You wanna try saying that again to my boy?" The Sheriff, the father, the grandfather all just stood there.

    Maybe it's not Luke who is too observant....maybe the adults in his life are not observant enough.

    ----------------------------------------

    MegR...ok, ma'am, I'm turning myself in. Can I make my one phone call? (Later, an out of town visitor calls her Kathleen.) You gonna throw the book at me?

    Betty

    MegR
    May 6, 2002 - 08:36 pm
    Dear Betty,

    Of course, there will be NO book throwing! I knew that young Mrs. Chandler had a first name from my initial reading of novel months ago. I scoured our chapters hunting for it & couldn't find it. Seemed strange to me that she wouldn't be named in first quarter of this story. My request was an honest appeal for help to locate her name. Thank you for finding and supplying it.

    Meg

  • ********************************************************

    Carolyn,

    How did I not know Kiri Te Kanawa came from NZ?!!!! Your #194 brings so much old stuff to mind. Have a younger brother & sister-in-law considering adoption. We may have a child with a permanent tan in the family. Wonder what those old uncles will have to say about that!? Hope they now have the sense to not be so hurtful. Was reading your post and one of my favorite authors popped into my head? Do you know Bruce Chatwin? He wrote On the Black Hills(among my top 10 favs) and The Songlines about the native peoples of New Zealand and Australia. Developed a real respect for them and their traditions from that last book. I'm so glad you've joined this group of gabbers! You've added somethings very special to our mix! Thanks!

    Meg
  • MaryZ
    May 6, 2002 - 08:57 pm
    Meg - you wrote that prejudice "stems from an insecurity that needs to feel superior to others".

    This is pretty much what I was trying to say - but you said it so much better. Thanks

    Mary

    kiwi lady
    May 6, 2002 - 08:58 pm
    Brooke and Grace my two little granddaughters are part NZ Maori. Brooke has olive skin and brown eyes and Grace is VERY white with blue eyes. Grace however has a definite native nose LOL. Their grandfather who was one quarter Maori was an executive in Otis Hongkong. They have the thickest and longest hair I have ever seen for their ages they have both been having regular hair cuts since 4mths. People call them porcelain dolls.

    Carolyn

    betty gregory
    May 6, 2002 - 11:14 pm
    Meg, I hope you heard the grin in my words when I implied I'd been caught doing something. Since I think you've discovered something purposeful and important by Grisham.....Kathleen is only referred to as "my mother" and Mrs. Chandler until an out of town relative visits in Chapter 19 and talks about "Kathleen" having a beautiful garden....so, I'm on thin ice again, getting ahead of where we are in the story. I'll let you take first crack at what this means. (About Kathleen.)

    My difficulty with taking this book in segments isn't a complaint, just a confession.

    Betty

    annafair
    May 7, 2002 - 03:30 am
    And have examined the book very closely..I was interested in the comment that sharecroppers were looked down on...Since I had several uncles who were sharecroppers I can say I never observed that when we visited them.

    To be sure they had brothers who became business men..owners of barber shops, welding shops,and one son who was apprenticed to a pharmacist and later bought the pharmacy when the owner retired..and one uncle gave up sharecropping and worked for the government...am not sure in what capacity now but apparantly did well and eventually became a judge in the small community they lived.

    We are talking about during and after WWII.The only thing I was appalled by when I visited was the obvious dislike of the blacks. Since I was raised in a family where to call a black a nigger would have caused me to be verbally chastised. In fact although as the time the community was segregated we had black families that lived in the alley behind us and I played with a little girl named Jennifer and the younger of my three older brothers was friends with her older brother.

    He was shocked to learn when they agreed to join the Coast Guard at the start of WWII , thinking that meant they wouldnt be sent overseas, that they were separated and his friend was sent to an all black group.

    Sometimes I feel Grisham has made a 7 year old too observant. I find though my own memory of my childhood full of observations. Remembering how my relatives disdained the blacks in their community..I refrained from making a comment while visiting and had a hard time when they would come to the city in summer and make rude comments about the black neighbors.

    My one cousin, a boy my age, noticed we had a black man every week ( payday I presume) would stop at the Polish tavern ( opposed to the Irish on the other corner) and get rather drunk before sort of stumbling down the street to his house. He always seemed (the black man) rather happy and singing to himself. My cousin said how do I know he isnt talking about us? I can still remember looking at him with shock and incredulity. And I asked Why do you think he is talking about us? I was so used to it and never heard anyone make a comment about the man that even recalling that evening makes me angry. It was like somehow he thought less of us city folks because we tolerated blacks walking down the sidewalk in front of our home.

    In all of my visits to thier homes I never remember seeing any Mexicans ..nor mention of them ..so I dont know when Mexicans entered the picture ...I have mentioned there were some in my school.

    Perhaps the second world war enabled my sharecropper relatives to move up...cotton was what they raised and it became very valuable at that time..for I remember my uncle's share one year was over $10,000 and near the end of the war he left sharecropping as I have said and worked for the government ..I have no idea in what capacity ..frankly I always loved these hardworking cousins better than my cousins raised in the city in fine homes with all the amenities and in spite of the opportunities and the wealth of thier parents ( and some were very wealthy) few of them amounted to a hill of beans ( a saying from my childhood) while all of my cousins from Missouri did very well after they left and found jobs in the North.

    Grishams book takes me way back and my mind visits all the people in the past.The farm relatives, whose lives were hard and yet they seemed to find a satisfaction in what they did and a sort of contentment with being their own boss. I always met many of their neighbors and as I grew older even dated some of the young men when I visited.

    Living in the city over time I met some people as mean as some of the characters in the book and I can remember how they made me feel a sick fear because they always thought what they said or did was justified. So Luke's not saying anything served lots of purposes.

    In some ways Grishams books makes me feel like a little girl again..which isnt bad....anna

    OH OH forgot about the biscuits ..have copied both recipes and will give them a try ....I think my biscuits are pretty good but I am always trying new recipes. My husband used to say in 40 years of marriage I never made meat loaf the same way twice...and he was right! And my youngest son said one time I was an exotic cook...because I was always trying something new..he also said as I experimented with chicken recipes...YOu know Mom there is no way to make chicken taste bad...he loved all of them.

    Keene
    May 7, 2002 - 05:38 am
    I'm thoroughly enjoying this book and all the memories it brings back.

    I'm having a bit of trouble, as many of you have mentioned, with the intelligence, insight beyond his years, of Luke. I think Grisham sneaks his own mature thoughts into those of the little boy. I taught in a program for the Gifted many years ago and little Luke would certainly have qualified! Oh, well, it's a good story.

    Another issue that has appeared in the discussion is the calling of acquaintances by their last names. My grandmother lived in Texarkana, Arkansas, and had a neighbor for at least fifty years. She always called her "Mrs. Jordan," and in turn, Mrs. Jordan always called her "Mrs. Hoover." As a child I questioned this and her response was, "It would be an insult to her to call her by her first name." This was very often the custom in the old South.

    Ginny
    May 7, 2002 - 08:57 am


    I know Judy agrees with me that this ia a Discussion Leader's DREAM COME TRUE: intelligent, insightful participants actually talking to each other about the points in a book, and the associations they bring up! I want to frame every word.

    I don't want to break the spell even by posting so I won't, except to say MANY thanks, Carolyn and Betty for the two new Painted House Biscuits (Scones) recipes, and will make them starting Sunday after next as I'm not cooking this Sunday, can't wait to try them.

    Tomorrow we begin a look at the material covered in Chapters 10-19. I frankly think you have done a WHALE of job addressing the issues so far, is there any issue that you would like to bring up now in these first 9 chapters before we move on? You can always, of course, refer back?

    I believe this is the largest group we have ever had continuing to post together, I'm very proud of what you're doing here and what you're saying, it's a good thing!

    ginny

    MaryZ
    May 7, 2002 - 10:30 am
    In Chapter 14, p. 149, there is a letter from Ricky. He addresses it: "Dear Dad, Mom, Jesse, Kathleen, and Luke". Just a small way to sneak in that information.

    I wasn't cheating - just read it last night getting started on the next assignment.

    Mary

    p.s. I wrote this once, and it got lost somewhere.

    BaBi
    May 7, 2002 - 11:25 am
    Just a brief note about the matters everyone has been discussing with so much insight. I never felt Grisham's opening statement was inappropriate. Sure, he wrote the book in the days of "politically correct", but it is set in 1952 in rural Arkansas. I also see him deftly undermining some of the preconceptions so many people hold. The Mexicans, as we have all noted, were very hard-working, gentle, amiable people, with one hot-headed knife-wielding stereotype. Not all hill-billies, we are informed, live in dirt-floored shacks. Also, I saw the primary tensions as lying between the Mexicans and the hill-billies, with the Chandlers trying to keep the peace. Okay, onward to the next chapters. ...Babi

    Judy Laird
    May 7, 2002 - 03:25 pm
    All I can do is echo Ginny's coments on such a insightful group of people. All your post are beyond anything I have ever seen in a group discussion of a fiction book.

    I will be off until until sometime Friday evening. Tommorow and Thursday are my new familys "extravangza". We are staying all night in a hotel in downtown Seattle tommorow night and going to Tea Atro Zinzani tommorow night. You remember Ginny?

    Sorry to be flighty but I never had a Mother or sisters before and its just too much fun.

    Take Don to the airport at 6AM Friday morning as he is leaving for New York. Then I am going home to sleep for 10 days. hehe

    betty gregory
    May 7, 2002 - 03:44 pm
    Judy, each time you mention your mother and sisters, I feel so happy for you. It must be your happiness affecting me. Have a wonderful time on your get-together!

    Betty

    MaryZ
    May 7, 2002 - 04:11 pm
    Judy, your happiness is contagious. Thanks so much for sharing your good news!

    Mary

    Judy Laird
    May 7, 2002 - 05:04 pm
    Betty and Mary thanks so much for the good wishes. This is a wonderful time for me. Meeting your Mother for the first time when she is 86 is mind boggling. Its lucky that we have this short time for my new sister and my Mother and myself to get togeather. Sandy lives in Nevada so this will be special.

    goldensun
    May 7, 2002 - 09:54 pm
    Judy, I also want to add that I am happy for you as well. I followed your story in the adoptions forum from the beginning and was delighted at the way it turned out.

    The opening line of the book did not seem inappropriate to me. After all they WERE Mexicans and they WERE hill people and I cannot see that it is insulting to name them as such.

    What an author chooses to write as the first sentence of his/her book sets the tone. This one is riveting. It hones in straight to the point with no scene setting or other buildup and told me something big would happen here.

    I have no problem at all with the way Grisham wrote this book. If one of us sat down to write about our seventh summer (and I remember mine very well) we would have no choice but to write it in our adult voice with our adult thoughts and wording. I have no idea at all how I talked as a child, and would need a pile of tape recordings in order to capture my young style. I believe Grisham is writing as the grown man, Luke, going back in his memory to record the experiences he had as a seven-year-old and flesh them out in the way no child that age could do. This is a wonderful device for making a book readable and interesting to readers of all ages. Can you even imagine plodding through the thoughts and writings of a real seven year old?

    Ginny
    May 8, 2002 - 04:56 am
    I must have missed something, but my own remarks certainly did not indicate there was anything "inappropriate" about the opening sentence, rather that it was there for a purpose?

    I want to be clear that no person thinks I think anything in the book is inappropriate.

    It did startle me, and stopped me in my tracks. When you refer to any group of people as "The" it makes me personaly uncomfortable. "The Blacks, have ...." "The Yankees, are...." "The Immigrants, are....." and I think Grisham, as I hope I pointed out, did it for a reason.




    Judy's story is one which should be written up in a book, or at least on the cover of Parade Magazine, when she gets back if you have not heard it, we'll ask her to tell us about it.




    Babi is right, the first sentence sets the tone. And what a tone it is. In Edit: Super question, what would you say IS the tone of this book? Of all the books we've read since we began our books sections here in 1996, and it's been hundreds, this one, to me is the most difficult to discuss coherently.

    Why?

  • The writing is superb, so you want to forgive the author anything: the author manages to capture in a few words whole images from everybody's youth.

  • The plot is dramatic, almost, in this section, a pot boiler, each chapter a new and exciting adventure. For people who can discuss who passed by in a car for a week with the neighbors and at church socials, this is either truly the mind of a child or a very eventful 10 days in the lives of the people.

  • The Secrets theme abounds, joined by another more subtle theme: the Christian and his behavior, very strong in a sort of hypocrisy in this setting.

  • In Chapter 19 however the laughter stops. At least it did for me. We have the "Nasty Yankee." We have the shitsnake, that was hilarious. Overall the bad Yankee got her just deserts.

    Did you laugh at that? Were you rooting for that stranger to get her comeuppance? Did you laugh, Pat W? I cried.

    That shows you how it is when you read a book. Here in Chapter 19, Grisham has exaggerated, for the sake of his readers who might not know how strong a particular feeling might be, the obnoxiousness of the "Yankee" and her derisive remarks said out loud. But here he, in my opinion, makes a mistake. It would not have been necessary for the Yankee to have said any of those remarks, the result would have been the same: that would have been accurate.

    And if that had happened the reader would have looked upon our little group as less than Mayberry, wouldn't he? I can only assume from that we are meant to bond with the family? Do you think so? The writer has us in the palm of his hand, what is he wanting the reader to think?

    The story is distorted, I can't figure out why. Is it all distorted? I was OK till Chapter 19.

    When Sampson appeared, we knew who would challenge him, didn't we? And all these remarks about Rickey, for those who have not read past Chapter 19, wanna take a bet on if he's coming home? That might be interesting, the foreshadowing there is intense.




    Am going to put up in the heading a small box in which you may ask your questions or suggest things that you wish people would address this week?

    Please feel free to share your thoughts on any aspect of these chapters?

    I'll start with one I could not figure out:

  • Why did Pappy take a shotgun along to the cotton gin?

    Let's hear from your opinions, whether or not you agree with any other person, we want to hear what YOU have to say.

    ginny
  • Keene
    May 8, 2002 - 05:15 am
    Judy, I am not familiar with your story as I'm new to this group, but your happiness is contagious. How wonderful to have discovered your new family. Have a wonderful visit and best wishes.

    Keene

    MaryZ
    May 8, 2002 - 07:06 am
    I assumed that Pappy took the shotgun along to the gin to forestall any possible threats by the Siscos. I thought he felt that, because Hank was working in the Chandler fields, the Siscos might hold them responsible for Hank's behavior.

    Mary

    p.s. I, too, did not know Judy's story, and would love to hear at least an abbreviated version of it.

    MegR
    May 8, 2002 - 07:29 am
    Mizz Judy, hope you have a wonderful time. Don't know your story either, but your excitement and anticipation are contagious! Enjoy!

  • **************************** FYI: (For our pals who have finished entire book) Week 2 chapters end with the carnival & visit by cousin Jimmy Dale Chandler, his new Yankee wife Stacey, their new red Buick & Luke's visit to the woodshed w/ Jesse for the shitsnake.

  • ********** Mizz Ginny, Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that your comments or the opening lines were inappropriate! In fact, you're responsible for getting my brain into first gear about that! (laughing!) That looooooooong diatriabe of my that went on for two posts about "Them" vs "Us" was all your fault!! (laughing!) You & Mary were the catalysts for that one!!!!! So much meaty stuff to talk about in these chapters! Where to start??

    Meg
  • Ginny
    May 8, 2002 - 07:55 am
    Those were two beautiful long posts, Meg, in fact one thing you said among many great things really stuck out at me, I want to come back to it, I'm just concerned lest somebody think I feel something is inappropriate, I don't.

    But if somebody DOES feel something is inappropriate, that is also their right, everybody is entitled to whatever they think here.

    I've put in the heading a small box with some ideas or topics and eagerly await what you all think might be added to them as worth discussing in this section.

    Mary, that's an insightful thought, do you think all of the emphasis suddenly on tough ol Pappy might bear fruit later on (if you have not read to the end, and I have not)? I never considered that angle, what do the rest of you think? You are a very close reader, Mary, we're so glad you're with us, and EACH of you, so glad to see you back ,Keene, Annafair, we have broken the record here for the sheer numbers of insightful posts, as I said it's like a spell, I hate to break it.

    On with the show, as Meg says, where to start? What's on YOUR mind on these chapters?

    ginny

    BaBi
    May 8, 2002 - 09:14 am
    Good points, good comments, good questions. (I do love this forum!)

    To me the tone of this book is both thoughtful and nostalgic. It not only has taken us all back to the past, it takes a keen, insightful look at the summer that marked the turning point of Luke's life. How many points can we identify in our own lives that changed everything that came after? And do we understand what happened, and why? I'm still muddling over one or two myself. ...Babi

    MaryZ
    May 8, 2002 - 09:47 am
    This really has been a great discussion. I had read the book when it first came out a couple of years ago, and I have forgotten a lot of the details. On this reading, I'm just keeping up with the schedule. Right now, I think I'm in Chapter 15, and scurrying to get through this week's assignment.

    Mary

    Trina
    May 8, 2002 - 11:01 am

    Trina
    May 8, 2002 - 11:05 am
    please put a setting and plot summary at the beginning of this posting.

    MegR
    May 8, 2002 - 12:44 pm
    Funny you should ask, Trina! I sat down this afternoon to do this for myself - just to keep track of events 'cause so much DOES happen in this week's ten chapters. So, for you, me & any of our compatriot gabbers who might be helped by this - here's chapter summaries for this week's reading for anyone who wants it.

    Meg

    Ooops! Posted & forgot to "paste" before I posted! Thank goodness for that "Edit" button! (laughing!)

    Chpt 10 - Sunday afternoon - first visit to Latchers w/ veggies; stories of Ricky's catfish & a family drowning; Jesse questions Luke about Co-op fight

    Chpt 11 - Monday morning - Trot to stay in yard & not pick; Pappy announces no town trip on Sat.; Sat. afternoon - pick-up baseball game & Cowboy injured by Hank's pitch

    Chpt 12 - Sat. afternoon continues - Tally pumps Luke for info & takes a bath

    Chpt 13 - Sunday morning - Mrs. Dockery's relative has died in Korea; Pappy & Luke skip Sunday school & return for just services; Cowboy's injuries treated & Luke sees switchblade

    Chpt 14 - Monday morning - groups divide in fields; Tues. evening Pappy & Luke take trailer & shotgun to gin; story of Pappy & mules & burlap sack; Luke talks with Jackie Moon; letter from Ricky

    Chpt 15 - Thursday afternoon - Luke & Kathleen see Trot's painted board; take veggies to Latchers again; Gran & Mom go to help Libby Latcher

    Chpt 16 - Tally & Luke sneak to Latchers to watch birthing of Libby's son

    Chpt 17 - Friday- late sleepers and fake "sickies"; war news; Percy arrives at supper & names father of Libby's child; Chandler men deny & "talk with" Latchers

    Chpt 18 - Saturday - Carnival; girlie show and Samson & Delilah & Hank

    Chpt 19 - Sunday - cousin Jimmy Dale Chandler & his new Yankee wife, Stacy, & their new red Buick come to visit; Luke gets a whipping

    Wilan
    May 8, 2002 - 03:53 pm
    I loved the way Luke's mother and father would throw him in the truck and take him out for a while when things got 'stiff'! That rings a bell-I would often did this with my own children when home life got hairy. It did us all good! ---------------------------------------------

    Looking 'down' on someone else seems to be a national pastime-probably worl pastime would be a better way to describe it. Why are we all so insecure that we have to find something wrong with the other guy?-be it skin, religion, language, culture or whatever else we can find. I think that is exactly what Grisham is saying to us. --------------------------------------------------

    The hollering, angry preacher, the unmarried, pregnant girl and her very poor family, the watching someone get beaten to death and walking away-there is nothing different under the sun whether you are a cotton farmer or a big time politician! The world is full of hypocrisy and bigotry-we seem to need it as human beings. It makes us feel better about our lot in life, I think. All of that churching and pride-where was it when all of this was going on? If I sound angry, I am. I don't know about the rest of you, but Grisham has touched me, made me cry and made me laugh. That is some author! -----------------------------------------------

    The shitsnake-I was locked in an outhouse once by a young boy-he probably was about nine. I was visiting his mother in Nova Scotia and my three boys were with me. This young man evidently did not like these 'city folk' because they were 'city folk'!-God knows, I did not say the things that 'The Mean Yankee' lady said. I was not in there for long-I think he was afraid of his mother, but I howled when I read this. Thank heavens he did not find a 'shitsnake!' Loved this incident! By the way, I never said a word to his mother-wanted to confuse the kid! --------------------------------------------

    I work in Walmart three nights a week in the ladies accessory department and see little boys, younger than Luke, feeling and commenting on ladies bras, panties (especially thongs!) and nightgowns. If I did not see this, I would have not believed that Luke could be so interested in Tally and her body at such a young age. Ah,the ignorance of mothers about the male sex interest! Here I am, an aging lady and just getting the message about little boys and their secret thoughts! ------------------------------------------------

    I cannot figure out why they let Hank stay on the farm. Luke's father and grandfather both knew that he was dangerous in spite of the fact that they could not prove it. Luke was very sure that his family would stand by him if he told and I have a problem with believing that Luke could put money first at his age. But then, I would not have believed he could have these thoughts of Tally a few years ago! He feared Hank so much-I do not know how he kept all of this to himself-he is a little boy-his parents know this in spite of the fact that he lived on a farm and was expected to pull his weight, most of the time! --------------------------------------------------

    This is a great discussion-so many different ideas and NO problems with differences of opinions! Wilan

    betty gregory
    May 8, 2002 - 05:12 pm
    Connected to one of our themes, "secrets," is something bigger and far more important and I have just found a word for it.

    In this book, Luke, the farm child, is ALONE. He's alone in his secret thoughts, his wanderings at night, his discoveries (naked women bathing), his abuse at the hands of adults who boss him around (bring me water!!) and threaten him...don't tell, or else!

    He's alone in having to weigh choices of behavior....either telling on Hank and being responsible (he thinks) for the hill people leaving and his family losing their cotton crop.....or continue to keep his secret in escalating agony.

    --------------------------------------------

    Tone of the book....escalating tension, for Luke, for the whole Chandler family.

    ---------------------------------------------

    Ginny, I might not be giving as much credit to Grisham for writing skill as you are. I don't see as much purposeful mystery and understated themes as I see mammouth attempt at straight forward story with serious themes. I think he is trying mightily to say something about power struggles between groups of people (racial, rural) and about how tough, even abusive, rural farm life is for children.

    Grisham is known for great plots, whereas his co-leader in the new genre of legal thriller, Scott Turrow, is known for great writing (3-4 years between books compared to Grisham's book a year).

    -------------------------------------

    Wilan, you said you had a problem with Luke "putting money first, at his age." Luke thought he was putting the survival of the farm, of his family first, not money, per se, but I think I have the same problem you do.....this is definitely the biggest leap of faith we have to make about this child...that he had foresight and wisdom at age 7. What would be more believable to me in a story about a child would be an unusual gift of foresight that might slow him down for AN HOUR OR TWO, before the need for safety overcame him, and he went to his mother/father for reassurance.

    BUT, WAIT A MINUTE, and here's where we have to apply 2001 information......a child who is threatened, is abused and threatened and told "Don't tell your mommy or else I'll......" WILL NOT TELL. We know that from thousands of abuse cases.

    I still want to know what happened to Grisham as a child!!!.....HERE's where I see inklings of mystery, Ginny.

    Betty

    Hats
    May 9, 2002 - 04:57 am
    I found it interesting that Luke needed "solitude." He finds contentment while fishing because he could avoid all the "strangers" that had come onto his parents and grandparents home. At first, I found it difficult to think that Luke could desire aloneness, but I bet it could be difficult for a seven year old to see the grounds of his home fill with people who had different lifestyles, people with whom he had no personal connection.

    I do remember relatives visiting us from Ohio, Florida and Baltimore. For the first few days, it could feel a bit trying. I felt this way with relatives. It had to seem or feel worse in Luke's case. These people were strangers, and people whom he might not see again. Next year there could be a whole new group of people.

    And back then people didn't sit down and talk about feelings. Luke was expected to work and adjust which I think makes him a strong little boy. He was expected to be a child and stay in a child's place. Don't ask questions. Don't wonder why.

    I think his mother did tune into her son's emotions. I think the time spent walking through the garden was a very important time for Luke and his mom.

    Hats

    Ginny
    May 9, 2002 - 06:09 am
    Babi, Wilan and Mary, I agree with you, this discussion is almost a revelation and it's certainly a testament to what intelligent, articulate, perceptive participants in a book club discussion can make of a book. I am always flabberghasted at what you have come up with, and today is no exception.

    I will admit to being totally flummoxed by this book and entirely dependant upon you and your perspectives. You must lead as I'm back in "why did Pappy take the shotgun to the cotton gin" Land and equally stunned that I would ask such a question? I'm in stunned land but I see this morning that you ALL have added so much meat to the table here, I will be a week trying to get it all in the heading.

    First off, let's take it in order:




    BaBi, How many points can we identify in our own lives that changed everything that came after?

    Well now there's a good one. Here's this happy little Mayberry family going right along, (but hist: is MOM sick? Why is she always lying down?) There is stress and all but suddenly evil, like a snake, has intruded into their lives.

    IN more than one way. Let us count the ways?

  • Hank
  • Prejudice?
  • Hypocrisy?


    What else?

    Turning point, Babi spoke of a turning point, we've already seen one, Pappy decides to allow Hank to remain. Wilan asks why? Ginny asks why? Good question, let's have that up.




    Mary thank you for rereading and keeping to the chapters, I know it's hard and we much appreciate your efforts there.




    Trina , Welcome! Thank you for that excellent suggestion and as you can see Meg R the Magnificent has lept to your rescue.




    Many thanks, our Meg, what would we do without you, your Chapter Summaries are being put into an HTML page by Marjorie and will be inserted in the heading today so those who read the book a while ago can recall the specific details and thus join in!




    Wilan, wonderful points, you said, " Why are we all so insecure that we have to find something wrong with the other guy?-be it skin, religion, language, culture or whatever else we can find."

    Excellent question, and why does it appear in this book, in more than one manifestation and in more than one guise, is Grisham making a subtle (and not so subtle) point here?

    And you are dead right, too, in "This is a great discussion-so many different ideas and NO problems with differences of opinions!"

    Why is that, do you suppose that we can have such radically differing opinions and enjoy hearing them rather than getting all put out of joint that somebody dares to think differently than we do? The apex of a book discussion, you're creating it here, yourselves.




    Betty, Super point here, "In this book, Luke, the farm child, is ALONE."

    Aren't we all?

    Is Grisham saying that?

    So you see the Tone of the book as "....escalating tension, for Luke, for the whole Chandler family."

    So the Waltons have something to bang up their existence against, a snake in the garden, will how they handle it show us who they (and we) are?

    (I have to say you have to get the next Book Club Online selection, Any Small Thing Can Save You, it's NOT about what you think, it's short stories and the first one is about a farm house and a snake in the kitchen and who is dealing with it, the husband or the wife, and what that says about their marriage. I urge you all to get it and join with us there)....

    Ginny, I might not be giving as much credit to Grisham for writing skill as you are.

    Oh yeah Grisham is a master writer, in a couple of phrases he can call up our youth, we have "been there" we can "see" what he's describing, the description of the impromptu baseball game? Cowboy on the mound, we are there. Tally in the water? We are there, I bet you all can call up better examples of his descriptive powers then I can, the porch and the snapped beans? We are there.

    HATS, Another excellent point. there are a lot of secrets in this thing, a lot of supressed stuff, there's one point where Grisham says the hill people may not answer you at all, " And back then people didn't sit down and talk about feelings."

    Yes that's so true, the myth of the stoical tough farmer, was there another reason why he did not talk?

    Wonderful points this morning what aspect of this jam packed section would you like to look at next?

    Inquiring Minds want to hear from each of you today what you thought was important or what struck you about this book?

    ginny
  • MaryZ
    May 9, 2002 - 06:18 am
    I hadn't really thought specifically about all the "secret" things going on. But, in working that over, keeping secrets (i.e., not communicating, not telling the truth) is at the crux of most dramatic plots - and, of course, in real life, too. To go back to a real oldie, "Gone With the Wind", if Scarlett and Rhett had ever actually talked to one another, admitted their love for each other, there would have been no drama to hang the plot on.

    And, as has been mentioned, it's a really major thing for small children to keep secrets - both from everybody else, and to share with an adult (again, the child abuse thing).

    I, too, would like to know more about Grisham's actual childhood.

    Mary

    MegR
    May 9, 2002 - 06:22 am
    (Thought this'd be an appropriate color for this post!)

    So much GOOD STUFF here already!!!!I've tagged some things on notepad to add or expand. When I was finished w/ these chapters I was royally p.o.'ed! Couldn't believe how cavalier & dismissive Pappy & Jesse were about Percy's message! DUH! Like good ole boy Uncle Ricky has not been a saint! Have nothing to base this on, but suspect that he was encouraged to enlist to keep him from getting into more trouble around Black Oak, Arkansas! Those guys immediately deny any possiblility of Ricky's culpability! Found it very strange that NO ONE seemed to even consider poor Libby's age. The child was 15 when she delivered - so she most likely was 14 when she was impregnated by an 18 yr old Ricky. Isn't that statutory rape?!!!!* Just made me MAD!!!!

    meg

    MaryZ
    May 9, 2002 - 06:40 am
    Meg, I certainly agree with your points. But, in the rural South, in the early 1950s, I would think that a 19-year-old getting a 14-year-old pregnant was not that unusual. It would probably be hidden by the family, with perhaps the girl being sent to an out-of-town relative for the duration, and then the child being raised by the grandmother as her own. There are many stories of girls that young being married.

    It certainly doesn't make it right or even accepted - just something that was probably not too uncommon.

    Mary

    Hats
    May 9, 2002 - 06:54 am
    I think Trot is an interesting character. He is the brother and son in the Spruill family, but no one really pays attention to him. I think he is disabled in some way so, he is not able to really get involved with the farm work, picking cotton. I like him. He seems like a gentle person. Luke is aware of him. I wonder am I not suppose to notice Trot either, but I can't help myself. He sticks in my memory.

    Maybe Grisham used him to show that if you were not able to "pick cotton" than, you weren't important or significant. In a way, Trot did work. He began the painting of the house. He seems lost in some way.

    Hats

    mstrent
    May 9, 2002 - 09:12 am
    The novel's tone seems to be changing - it's a "becoming" that's going on - Luke is becoming, if not wiser, at least a boy who is experiencing and learning at a dizzing pace - he's been within earshot of a birth, seen a viscious beating that results in a death, and had his first titilation spying on Tally down by the creek. At the same time the south is becoming, as well. The insularity of backwaters like Black Oak is beginning to erode. Television, the great leveler, has just poked its nose under the tent; foreigners (real ones) have come and with them more revelations that there are other cultures and other ways of living; foreigners (locals) have come and cast doubts about the family's prosperity (unpainted house); and finally another kind of foreigner, from the north, has come in and again raised doubts by pronouncing all of them ignorant, benighted and just unbearably awful - and announcing that there is a better life (red Buicks) to be had by these "country cousins" elsewhere. And above all, real evil and danger has come in the person of Hank and later in the person of Cowboy. Luke is reacting to all this as a child, but I'm beginning to see Luke as a metaphor for the kind of southern life that is just starting to experience the changes that will bring major alterations in the not too distant future. Both the boy and the region are poised on the brink of conflict, Luke's personal, the south's political and moral.

    MaryZ
    May 9, 2002 - 10:57 am
    MsTrent - what a leap of perception! As Henry Higgins would say, "I think she's got it!!" And something else for us to keep watching for as we go along.

    Many thanks, Mary

    BaBi
    May 9, 2002 - 11:23 am
    Meg and Mary, don't forget that other frequent result of early pregnancies in rural America.....the 'shotgun' wedding!

    Hats, I was also greatly touched by Trot. He is impaired, and frail, and the poorest of a poor family. Yet he takes it upon himself to start painting the Chandler house, with Tally supplying the funds. After all the talk about how expensive paint was, how are we to understand Trot's motivations? Had he taken a liking to Luke? Did he want to show the Chandler's that there was something he could do? Was he just bored? I would like to know more about Trot.

    The Chandler's saying goodbye to the visiting cousins brought back memories for me. My family did exactly the same when visitors left. It was like we hated to see them go...and doesn't that make people feel welcomed and loved? Everyone would stop and chat in the doorway on the way out, and then we would follow the visitors out to their car, still talking. It could easily take a half-hour or longer to say good-bye. I think it was a warm and lovely custom, and I think I will revive it! ...Babi

    Hats
    May 9, 2002 - 12:03 pm
    Babi, the goodbyes brought back many memories for me too. At the last moment, by the cars, there seemed so much more to say. The conversation would be very light and full of laughter. All of a sudden the real meaning of family and friends became real. There was a feeling that the moment might never be captured again. I could really feel those moments all over again as I read the passage in the book. Grisham really knows how to touch the inner soul.

    Hats

    kiwi lady
    May 9, 2002 - 12:08 pm
    Oh what great comments! I have been very busy last couple of days but will try and post my thoughts tomorrow. Helping with my sons payroll this morning and then daughter and Little Brooke and Grace coming for lunch! I am really enjoying this discussion.

    Carolyn

    betty gregory
    May 9, 2002 - 03:39 pm
    Ginny, responding to me, you wrote,

    "Oh yeah Grisham is a master writer, in a couple of phrases he can call up our youth, we have "been there" we can "see" what he's describing, the description of the impromptu baseball game? Cowboy on the mound, we are there. Tally in the water? We are there, I bet you all can call up better examples of his descriptive powers then I can, the porch and the snapped beans? We are there."

    No question at all. I felt all that, too, and my enjoyment couldn't have been higher. I think I was trying to say that I don't sense as many hidden layers in his writing. He's tackling some pretty tough issues, and I certainly don't have them all figured out, by a long shot, but I see his writing as pretty straight forward. Also, when I wrote that I "might not" give Grisham as much credit for writing skill (meaning hidden layers), I fully meant to imply that I don't know which of us is correct.

    Or, or....I DO have the feeling that Grisham is trying to tell us something important, maybe several things, but from the story as a whole. Farm life is/was wonderful, but the price for small children, too high. Farm life in the 1950s was terrible. Rural racial hatred is alive and well. I don't know if any of these is even close. I do know he is shattering the INNOCENCE I thought farm life represented. There is DANGER at every twist and turn here.

    Betty

    goldensun
    May 9, 2002 - 11:47 pm
    Could it be that Grisham is showing his skill as a writer in making us scratch our heads this way? It seems he is telling a straightforward story while weaving in a rich subtext. One describes people's words and actions, while the other- the underlying theme- concerns the lessons Luke's family members unknowingly teach him about truth-telling.

    He has been taught never to lie, that always telling the truth is the most important thing he can do. Now he learns that this teaching, in itself, has been a deception of sorts. In this time of crisis with the cotton harvest, his family members encourage him (by their ready acceptance of obvious lies) to shade and hide the truth as their personal need and convenience require.

    With the birth of the Latcher baby and ensuing events, they show their own willingness to lie. Ruth knows it is Ricky's baby but denies it to Luke, throwing in scurrilous remarks about the Latchers as well. Kathleen, also well aware of the facts, backs her up. Later, Luke hears her tell his father that there is no doubt but what the baby is a Chandler. What Luke does with this new knowledge about his family will determine what sort of man he will become.

    I believe that, in spite of these discoveries, he will take it all in stride and continue growing into a well adjusted and pragmatic person. A more sensitive child might be deeply wounded and disillusioned, but tough-minded little Luke adapts quickly and has few illusions to lose.

    BaBi
    May 10, 2002 - 08:04 am
    Highcedar, your post made me do so more thinking re. Ruth and the Latcher baby. I think Ruth does not want to believe the baby is Ricky's, and is vehemently denying it to herself as well as Luke. If Kathleen contradicted her on this, it would cause a harsh break in their carefully constructed relationship. Of course she tells her husband the truth. It will take time for Ruth to come around to a place of acceptance. To Luke, Ricky had been first and foremost his playmate. He does not, however, hold his grandmother's idealized view of him. When his father says there is no question of acknowledging the baby until Ricky says it is his, Luke's thought was: "Not likely, knowing Ricky." We are now getting a quite different picture of Ricky, aren't we? More shaking and shattering of the status quo. ...Babi

    Ginny
    May 10, 2002 - 08:45 am
    You guys are something else, always a new and exciting perspective! Grisham himself would be in awe, we're trying to see what we can do vis a vis getting a line to him, stay tuned!




    Mary, keeping secrets (i.e., not communicating, not telling the truth) is at the crux of most dramatic plots - and, of course, in real life, too.

    So true, in this section it almost seems like secrets beget more problematic secrets, what a tangled web we're having woven here, nobody seems to be telling the truth except those pesky "foreigners," great point, mstrent, that just stunned me.

    MegR: Couldn't believe how cavalier & dismissive Pappy & Jesse were about Percy's message! is this some sort of circle the wagons and protect the family stuff, do you think?

    If the girl had not continually said "I'm sorry," and I had read the entire book, I'd go way out on a limb and say I don't think the baby IS Ricky's.

    However we have one of those moments where little Luke has a surge of adult knowledge and he says that Ricky was known for his "tomcatting" or something like that, definitely not the words of a 7 year old, I can't find it but it's there somewhere.

    What, Meg, would you say this does to your perception of the Chandler family?




    Page 222, "We keep our own secrets, remember?"

    Irony of ironies, poor Mrs. Latcher, so afraid that her own secret might get out, that she would endanger her own child by not calling the doctor, when all the town knew about it.

    "They're not good Christians, that's how the girl got pregnant," Page 213.

    Oh I agree with several of you, the fabric is about to give way under the strain here, there is a lot of nastiness here (as in real life?)




    Hats mentions Trot, and that's another sublte statement by the author, here's poor Trot, let's look at him, can't pick cotton but can...and does attempt to change the status of the family he hears his own family deride, because of their PAINTED HOUSE.

    What is the author saying thru Trot, do you think?




    mstrent, I am in awe of your powers. The novel's tone seems to be changing - it's a "becoming" that's going on - Luke is becoming, if not wiser, at least a boy who is experiencing and learning at a dizzing pace

    Foreigners (locals) have come and cast doubts about the family's prosperity (unpainted house);

    Do you suspect that is always the way? Could that be why some areas are so strongly entrenched against ANYTHING foreign, just simply because of what it would show about them? Super point on the great leveler, television!

    !!!

    And THEN as if all that were not enough:

    I'm beginning to see Luke as a metaphor for the kind of southern life that is just starting to experience the changes that will bring major alterations in the not too distant future. Both the boy and the region are poised on the brink of conflict, Luke's personal, the south's political and moral.


    OH boy, what a thought, into the heading it goes, Luke as metaphor, then what is the Painted House a metaphor for?




    BaBi, with Tally supplying the funds. After all the talk about how expensive paint was, how are we to understand Trot's motivations?

    Another excellent point in a sea of valuable thoughts! Into the heading it goes. What IS Trot's motivation?




    Betty: I think I was trying to say that I don't sense as many hidden layers in his writing.

    THAT is an excellent point too and one that I've been debating by myself for some time. IS this, in fact, a discussable book at all?

    YOU here are creating one of the best discussions I have seen with almost no help from the author, but IS there layer of meaning or NOT? Excellent question! Into the heading it goes!~

    Won't you all take a crack at some of the points in the heading box?




    highcedar, Could it be that Grisham is showing his skill as a writer in making us scratch our heads this way? It seems he is telling a straightforward story while weaving in a rich subtext.

    Again, splendid remark, we know that Grisham is not some 7 year old himself, he was an attorney, he writes quite involved and clever books, is this just s trip down memory lane? If so, is anything at all being said? Is anybody except me uncomfortabble with some of the things being said in the book?

    Let me race to get up your points in the heading box, I think when you see them you will begin to see our little nuclear family a bit differently, or maybe NOT? It's yours to say!

    ginny

    annafair
    May 10, 2002 - 08:50 am
    I have enjoyed all the feelings and perceptions given by everyone. Whether we live in the city or the country there are many things that never change. I think all children have secrets. Conversations never meant to be over heard and many adults feeling that children wouldnt understand if they did overhear.

    And one reason children keep secrets is because to acknowledge them would bring on denial and as a child you would feel punished just by an adult saying I didnt say that or asking what were you doing ???listening in, sneaking around?

    I am smiling as I say that because while I dont recall any particular time in my life I must have observed this in some way as a child because I know it is true.

    Remember I had wall to wall relatives as child and visited these relatives at various times when growing up. What did I hear that the thoughts of this little boy tells me Grisham has touched on a nerve and a true one.

    I know while in my own immediate family I never heard any one use a racial or religeous put down I am aware of the adults in that childhood from my relatives to the neighbors gossiping and putting down people of other nationalities ,religeon, color etc.

    My dearest friend from the first grade on was a Jewish girl named Helen Soffer. When I heard people speak disparaging of Jews it always appalled me and what is worse I always felt like less a friend because I could not defend them against the adults that were speaking. I knew then as I know now it is a cowardice not to speak up but also as a child I knew most adults who said these things would be angry at me for saying something. So I understand Luke keeping his secrets. Perhaps Mr Grisham noted that as a child and is giving us a picture of what he may have felt or expierenced then.

    Since I was a city girl and was very protected by my mother..my country cousins were amazed at my lack of knowledge about sexual things. The mating of the farm animals etc and they were always more curious and talked privately about those things even at a young age. I can state none of them would have admitted to any knowledge in front of adults.And most children were never believed when they told secrets...so Luke is burdened with these secrets.

    We have had so many heavy thunderstorms and I have been so busy trying to get my yard taken care of ...I still have not been able to return to the book itself..although I read it through when I brought it home.

    Ricky would have been forgiven for "sowing his wild oats".And blaming the victim is still being done.

    I am out of milk and bread and have to go to the store so ..take care have a great day. anna

    mstrent
    May 10, 2002 - 09:22 am
    How nice you are, Ginny

    I've thought quite a bit about Trot, his role, and the way in which he stopped Hank from harassing Luke early on in the story. Someone told me once that there is often a "Christ like" figure in much of western literature. I've about decided that Trot may fit that bill in Grisham's story. Is he acting out of appreciation for Luke's staying with him when had to leave the fields sick, or is he the good member of the family who seeks to "redeem" the Spruills from the bad brought onto the Chandler farm by Hank?

    I've been giving a lot of thought to the meaning of the painted house, but I don't want to get ahead of the story, so will hold it until we get toward the end.

    Regarding the Chandler men and their attitude about Libby's baby. It's a classic double standard. Ricky (and every other good ol' boy) is entitled to sow his wild oats, but the "gal" is a whore and gets what she deserves. I don't see this attitude ever dying. A very telling line is the one in which Luke remarks that his daddy won't go anywhere to look at any illegitimate child.

    Just as an aside - the dean of attendance at my high school in 1952 was named Miss Lona Belle Spruill - pyschologically, she was as terrifying as Hank was physically any day....must be something about that last name.*-)

    Judy Laird
    May 10, 2002 - 01:12 pm
    I am back from my little mini-vacation and a good time was had by slmost all. It was not a really good decision to take my Mother but at the time it was planned she was not expecting hip surgery. My sister's and I had a great time. My younger sister found the Westin museum gift shop and the rest is history.

    What a discussion you people are fanatastic. This may be the best fisction discussion ever on the senior net.

    Nice to see you Annafare Meg you as usual astound me. You should be hosting this discussion and I should listen and learn.

    The thing that impressed me and left me thinking most that this book mwasa mostly about secrets. I felt it was bad to impose so many secrets on a seven year old boy.

    I myself think predjuice is a learned thing. I grew up mostly in the city and there were no people of other races. When I was a young woman and had 5 children under 10 I drove them to Missouri to see their Grandparents, Uncles, Cousins ect. It was at the time when the law was passed for equality. I sat in the living room and listened to them talk and I was beyond speech. In this small town in Missouri black people were not allowed to spend the night, they were not allowed to walk on the side walk when a white person was they had to step off and let them by. I still can't believe some of the things I heard on those trips. It was like from the west coast this Missouri was in another world. Not sure if I should post this but it was a unbelivable true experience that I had.

    My thoughts on Ricky is he will not have to take any blame because after all he is a boy and not only that but he is away at war so he can get away with most anything.

    annafair
    May 10, 2002 - 03:13 pm
    As I have mentioned some of my uncles were sharecroppers and they lived near the Missouri/Arkansas state line...When you talked about what you heard when you visited your relatives I can hear the voices from my past saying the same things. I even heard it when visiting relatives in the city.. and we did have a mixed group in my own neighborhood.

    There was a tavern on each corner..one was called Julie's and she was Polish, then there was Teel and Stephens which was an Irish pub. The drygood store on another corner was owned and operated and they lived above the stores by a Jewish family. There was a German Grocer on another corner and at the far end of the same block was a Polish grocer.

    We had black families living in the alley behind us. A drugstore was run by an atheist and perhaps now that I am more knowledgable a homosexual. We had a good number of Catholic families on my street as well as many Methodists. We also had a Mormon family across the street. We had doctors, dentists, shoe repair places, radio and eventually TV repair places, a dry cleaning estabishment. One block over two black school teachers lived. It was real mix. Of course there were the Irish as my family were.

    It was a very peaceful neighborhood and when anyone died someone in the neighborhood collected money for flowers from the neighbors and at the funeral home there would be this enormous floral offering with a ribbon that said Neighbors in gold ...

    What Grisham has succeeded in doing is giving us a key to our own past. I am not sure young readers of today would get as much from the story as our group.

    anna

    MaryZ
    May 10, 2002 - 06:16 pm
    Prejudices may be hidden deeper now, but they are still there. In NE Georgia, between Atlanta and Chattanooga, there is the town of Cumming, Forsyth County. As late as about 10 years ago, there were no blacks living in Forsyth County, and it was written up in the newspaper. That's a fast growing area, and it may have changed by now, but probably not very much.

    Mary

    MegR
    May 10, 2002 - 07:26 pm
    Sorry for absence. Have been doing the kerplink-uh-inks with a molar & stitches. Haven't been able to get online w/ my server for most of today. Will try tomorrow. If not:

    Happy Mother's Day to all of you Mums out there!

    Meg

    betty gregory
    May 10, 2002 - 07:37 pm
    Zwyram, I had a similar memory. In northeastern Oklahoma, close to the Missouri state line, where we lived early 70s when my son was a baby, there was a county that had worked at remaining all white. Until the early 60s, a large sign hung over the highway as you entered the county, annoucing an "all white county." When I lived in the area, people also told me of county, city and educational literature that mentioned this fact to attract residents.

    At some point in the book, Grisham made it clear that the little rural town with the cotton gin was all white. Racial group antagonism is only hinted at in this story. Direct references seem mysteriously missing. Anti-north comments were included....why not anti-black?

    Ginny, you wrote, "Is anybody except me uncomfortabble with some of the things being said in the book?" Could you say specific things that make you uncomfortable? Is the odd jumble of racial group affinities among them?

    Betty

    MaryZ
    May 10, 2002 - 08:36 pm
    I just remembered another example of overt racial prejudice. I was probably about 10 (mid 1940s), and we were driving to my grandparents in NE Texas. In the town of Greenville, TX, there was a banner suspended over the road into town reading "The Blackest Land, The Whitest People". The soil in that part of Texas is wonderfully black and fertile, and I'm sure, at the time, there were no African/Americans living in the town.

    Mary

    mstrent
    May 10, 2002 - 08:45 pm
    Mary, that sign has been gone for a long time now, but as you might imagine, it took a quite a fight to get it down.

    goldensun
    May 11, 2002 - 12:22 am
    Betty, you have brought up something I had been wondering about- why are there no comments about blacks in this book? Maybe that would overload and detract from the developments upon which Grisham has chosen to concentrate so he left it out.

    In the rural southern community where I lived for four years there was plenty of anti-black sentiment and plenty said about it. It seemed to be an all-white community, but there were blacks around somewhere because their schoolbus sometimes drove by our own bus stop, and then how we would all stare at each other.

    Our school was attended by three children of mixed race and they were accepted by their classmates without a second thought. One was the child of a white community member and the other two were a brother and sister of very fair complection. Their father had been denied an education because he was too white for the black school and too black (in those Jim Crow days) for the white school, and neither would accept him.

    Annafair, you mentioned never never having heard racial slurs in your family circle and that jogged something in my memory. Among my REAL family, my father's mother, sisters, brother and nephews, I never heard racial talk. They all lived on or near the family farm in another county and were honest, hardworking people, but not regular churchgoers. After my father's death my mother moved us back to her family home in Knoxville where we joined the Methodist Church. We remained there until my Mom remarried and we moved out to Concord.

    Babi, I think we are on the same wavelength about Ruth's reasons for denying Ricky's culpability. She needed time to come around to admitting it. This is a very human reaction, and though it is understandable, I find it unacceptable in light of the motto she has taught to Luke for years: "Just tell the truth and get it over with."

    Further, her comments about the Latchers (They are not trustworthy people. They're not good Christians. That's how the girl got pregnant. They'll probably want some money out of the deal. p. 82) seem to violate the principles of Christian charity. Kathleen says little. Luke is learning more still about when lying is expected, even required.

    I have tried to add up the various situations, problems and concerns that Luke has to deal with this summer and have come up with eight. I wonder if anyone else will find more (or fewer) and if they would be the same as mine.

    MaryZ
    May 11, 2002 - 06:23 am
    mstrent, where are you from in NE Texas? My parents and grandparents were all from Bonham,TX, and that area (I never lived there, though).

    Mary (Sorry, off topic. I'll try to do better.)

    BaBi
    May 11, 2002 - 08:42 am
    Betty, I see Ruth's harsh remarks about the Latcher's as a way of justifying herself in believing they are lying. By labeling them as untrustworthy, and scheming to get some money out of the Chandlers, she can more easily reject their claims regarding her younger son. I believe Kathleen is being kind in keeping quiet and not confronting her mother-in-law. Ruth is really quite torn up about the whole thing.

    Mstrent, thank you for your comments about the character of Trot. You bring up an interesting possibility, and I find myself really wanting to know more about this boy. He intrigues me. ...Babi

    Judy Laird
    May 11, 2002 - 09:30 am
    Mary don't appoligize about getting off the subject here I think we are all enjoying just being here and we can comment on whatever we want.

    Babi I think you are right I hope we will learn more about Trot.

    I wonder if any of you are having this problem. I know what I want to say and I go to write it and I can't spell the words. I used to be a good speller and now I'm not. I need a spell checker in here. In fact sometimes I back up and put in a easier word.hehe

    betty gregory
    May 11, 2002 - 11:30 am
    Judy, I must have two areas of the brain in charge of spelling. One is for spelling know-how and another is for confidence in spelling. I don't trust my spelling and end up looking up the simplest words. More times than not, my guess was right, but it didn't seem right. This happens all the time. Very, very frustrating!

    Betty

    mstrent
    May 11, 2002 - 04:55 pm
    Mary, I lived in Dallas until three years ago when I escaped to the hill country of Central Texas down near Austin. My father was born pretty close to Bonham and grew up just up the road in Paris. His father came to Texas from Tennessee in the 1890s, so I feel as though I have some roots up there, too. I think there may be more people in Tenessee with my maiden surname than anywhere else in the USA. Reckon that makes us sort of home folks.

    MegR
    May 11, 2002 - 08:05 pm
    Have been away for a few days & am now out of town. Just finished potato salad & spice cakes for tomorrow's luncheon for Mom when our gang all collects here in her house for the holiday. Caught up on reading posts late this afternoon & wanna talk & squawk about a few things. ( I KNOW - I'm barin' the neck here! [laughing] Go for it if you want - my skin is pretty thick!)

    'Literary Value' of this Novel?

    There seems to be a great variety of opinions on this issue - some of which I just DON'T get!! There were very early & very fervently enthusiastic raves about how wonderful this work is & how it SHOULD BE mandated reading for every high school English student. (Sorry, I can't go that far back on this computer to find those fans to give credit.)

    Then Betty seems to be a bit disconcerted (my word, Mrs. Gregory - call me on it if inappropriate) because Grisham's "writing is pretty straight forward" and doesn't seem to have "hidden layers of meaning." Betty, I'm not sure if you're implying that you feel that Mr. Grisham is not as competent nor as sophisticated an author as some other folks that you may have read or not - OR - that his type of writing is not one that you prefer - OR - if you're still in that same stage that I am of trying to figure out what he really IS doing here. Yup, I read this about 6 months ago as "book candy" (a tag supplied by a good friend - used to refer to fast reads for pleasure - or as another friend snootily refers to this kind of reading - as "those shiny-covered drugstore books"). Initially, it was an easy, engaging and fast read & I enjoyed the book. This time around, my PURPOSE is different; I'm not reading just for pleasure - I'm reading to try & figure out what the author IS DOING here. I know that I did a disservice to Mr. G as a reader before because I am reading more slowly and carefully now . I'm discovering that there's a whole ton of stuff going on here that I missed the first time because I read so fast.

    I'm not sure what you mean or want here instead, Betty. Would you prefer different (& often unnamed) character voices in each chapter (like Poisonwood Bible, or House of Sand & Fog? Do you enjoy the challenge more of multiple plot lines & shifting times & settings like Louie de Bernieres employed in Corelli's Mandolin? Do you thrive on the opportunity to decode or translate Faulknerian sentences that go on for pages?????:!!! (I'm teasing you on this last one - go ahead & aim that book at me!! Laughing!) I'm trying to clarify this issue for my self. Is it simply a matter of personal preference? Do you prefer books that provide you with an opportunity to "solve the puzzle" to figure out where the pieces go? Highcedar offers a contrary opinion that " it seems he is telling a straightforward story while weaving in a rich subtext."

    Then, our pal, Ginny, says "this one, to me is the most difficult to discuss coherently. Why? Last time I checked, we were up to 250ish postings on this - so discussion IS occuring & we've just hit the halfway point in the book. Ginny, do you feel this discussion is (think somewhere you called it)" undiscussable"(??) because of its focus/ foci - or maybe sometimes lack thereof???

    Some Observations & Suggestions

    Remember the first time you read The Little Prince or Old Man and the Sea? Both were simple, straight -forwardly told tales. Initially, we probably enjoyed their plots, characters, magic & maybe even language. Subsequent rereadings helped us to discover how much more does exists in these two simple tales - those "hidden layers of meaning" - as Betty calls them. Like rereading Shakespeare , those onion-layers keep peeling back as we discover new meanings & understanding. Am not ready to put Mr. Grisham in the same skill level class as our pal, Willie S., but - am also not ready to relegate him to just above hack status either. We are only at the half-way point. Suggestion #1: Let's save final judgement statements until we/re finished with the book .

    Have also noticed (after having read last 100 posts in one stretch) that a good chunk of our posting has nothing directly to do with this book. I'm not making a value judgement here - just an objective observation. We've ALL done a great deal of sharing of personal memories & experiences that I personally have found very interesting & have learned from your sharings. Events, characters in Mr. G's book have activated memories for us - which is (as Martha S says) "a good thing." Who hasn't tried Carolyn's Cheese & Onion Bisquits yet!!! (Yummmmmm!) But, on the other hand, I think we could look at some of the really meaty Q's that have been raised & try to address them. Suggestion #2: Let's try to focus on the SPECIFICS of this story & text a little more."

    At the beginning of this discussion, I remember a posting from Ginny?, Judy? or Ginny & Judy that asked us to try to support our opinions with evidence from the text - i.e. what the author ACTUALLY SAID! We've been doing a lot of predicting and imposing our own ideas onto this story & its characters. Predictions are good as we try to make meaning of what we read, but - as we progress, we have to test those predictions against what actually happens down the road to see if they are/were valid or not. We also have to be accurate with the evidence that we cite - we can't rewrite Mr. G's story. There are some things that we CAN'T ANSWER at this point. We can't tell what "THE" turning point of the story is yet - 'cause we haven't read the whole story yet to determine what that might be. We can't tell what "A Painted House" is a metaphor for yet - EXCEPT for those few instances that were cited earlier. So far, we've seen Luke & his Mom discover that part of ONE board on the side of the house is painted white. They SUSPECT Trot of doing that - but we, as readers, don't know for sure yet! Since we're not sure IF Trot is the painter - we can't comment at this point about what his motivations might have been. There was not mention of Tally buying the paint in chapters 10 to 19. Suggestion #3: Let's try to focus on specifics of week's chapters and try to be as accurate as possible with supporting our opinions & interps.

    Okay, Go ahead & start throwing things at me! Pectin Jellybeans & plain M & M's are preferred! Seriously though, what do you think?

    Next time I get on, I promise to try to respond SPECIFICALLY to some of the wonderful & insightful Q's that have been raised above in the red box. Off to bed now. Have to get up w/ roosters tomorrow morning for church so I can roast the chickens for lunch.

    Hope all of you Mom's have a wonderful day, your kids take you out to eat or prepare a fantastic meal for you!

    Meg







    .

    betty gregory
    May 11, 2002 - 11:56 pm
    What I'll throw at you, Meg, is a "Hooray!" for your questions. We don't do enough of this....asking each other for clarifications. If we were sitting together in person, we would say often, "Say more. I'm not sure I get what you're saying."

    I beg you (you, as in everyone) to hear more neutrality in my words. I love the interaction here, and am still very uncertain about EVERYTHING. My words "straight forward story" without that many "hidden layers" were very specific responses to others' posts. A feeling I had from so many posts was that it would be so difficult to figure out what Grisham had to say. That too many things were too mysterious. My response was more a declaration of faith in US.....that, by the time our discussion was ending, that we would have presented MANY possibilities of meaning that made sense to most of us.

    Layers of meaning...yes!! Not hidden layers that we'll never untangle. Sorry, sorry for the confusion!!

    Again, I meant something good by "straight forward." I didn't mean to convey simplistic story by unskilled writer. When I wrote that I might see Grisham as less skilled than Ginny saw him, I wanted to convey a degree of difference...not an either/or of skill. From her recent posts, she doesn't seem anywhere near finished evaluating him, so where we end up with assessments may be completely different than how we sounded last week.

    Because of what happens toward the end of this book....I think our discussion has been a different kind of discussion than it would have been if we had taken the book as a whole from day one. Not better, but different. There is certainly plenty to sink our teeth into section by section, absolutely.....but there is enough unknown, or with knowledge and frustration not being included until the final week, that some of our paths of discussion might be very different. For those who are just now reading the end of the book, imagine what it has been like for some of us to pretend ignorance!!!!

    Betty

    annafair
    May 12, 2002 - 03:44 am
    As we can see the book has somewhat different meanings to each of us.It has certainly stirred our memories and reminded us of our past. Each time I read a book I am facing first the author's story. Second I am looking at my own expierence and how the story resonates with my memories or opinions.

    Reading anything or viewing a painting we bring to the expierence our life expierences. So we not only have the author's story but our own. I find it nearly impossible to separate the two.

    Certainly in the 50's segregation was still alive and well. Who just posted about the lack of blacks in the story. As mentioned we have Mexicans and Hill people but no blacks. I wish one of my uncles who were sharecroppers was alive so I could ask WHO HELPED PICK THAT COTTON???I know they had large families...11 children in one and 8 in the other but I dont think they could have picked all that cotton by themselves...so who helped them???

    A strange memory just came to me ( and I know this has nothing to do with the story) but it was my male cousins who seemed to most affected by blacks rather than the females. Now I wonder why?

    In any case HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY My youngest daughter has invited me to her house this afternoon...yesterday two bouquets of gorgeous pink roses arrived ..one for her and one for me from a friend of hers who joined us Thanksgiving for our family dinner. I will take the roses to her this afternoon. Since the florist was local here I suspect it was easier to send the flowers from one florist than calling one 20 miles away for a delivery there. ...anna

    SarahT
    May 12, 2002 - 07:17 am
    MegR and Betty, your posts bring up in me how "on the fence" I am about this book. I too dismissed it as beach reading - don't even have the book anymore - left it behind at the beach, actually! And yet this is a great discussion - possibly BECAUSE it has caused people to reflect on their own lives and actual American history. So I don't know that the lack of direct reference to the text is necessarily a bad thing. (Part of that is just an excuse - I don't have the book anymore so can't make such references. That's probably why I've been so sporadic in this discussion.)

    In terms of themes in the book, I was most taken with Betty's reference to the importance and pervasiveness of secrets, and how disturbing it was for me that a 7-year-old should be forced to keep so many (let's leave aside my criticism that too many secrets came up to be believeable in one short picking season). And the futility of telling the secrets also frustrated me - because if Luke had told, what difference would it have made? Telling Hank's secret would accomplish nothing for his family except financial ruin, since Hank (and the rest of his family) would just leave the farm. Futility also comes up in terms of the impact of the weather on the farm - one can work and strive and do everything just perfectly - and weather can destroy that in one fell swoop. The financial futility of running the farm also struck me - they only ever broke even, if they were lucky. From this city slicker's perspective, it made it hard to understand why anyone would be in farming unless they had no other choice.

    betty gregory
    May 12, 2002 - 10:31 am
    Do you realize that we're creating a new art from scratch? This process of discussing a work of literature by leaving messages on an electronic bulletin board......except for the speeded-up element of time, it's like writing letters to each other! Our task is doubly challenging, though.....we're dealing with understanding an author and understanding each other!! (Patience, tact and sense of humor are probably as necessary as our skill of communication, don't you think?!)

    And so many of us are learning and changing. I am. I can barely keep up with myself......with new ways of thinking how to talk about books. I mean, how to read, think and talk about books. I'm slowly learning that what the book pulls in me...memories, etc., is something I should try to keep separate from my assessment of the book. What I learn about the author, also. Just because we know where Grisham grew up doesn't mean that he has to justify not mentioning "blacks" in this story. However, maybe he DOES have to answer for not mentioning attitudes towards "blacks" because he has hinted in many ways about attitudes toward Mexicans IN the story.

    I'll bet we have a mixture of ideas on whether there is a correlation between the skill of a writer and our ease of understanding his writing. I've been thinking about this and it's probably not accurate to say that a better author is easier to understand, although that sounds good. I think that's what got me into trouble with my words "straight forward." My thinking was that the author (his book) is good enough for us to identify and understand the various sub themes. That's faulty thinking....I think. A combination (interaction, even) of factors influences our ability to make sense of a book. The specific subject or theme of the book and sub-themes. Format of the book. Our knowledge of the subject matter, our interests/perspective/biases/reading skill, our discussion format (in general). Decisions made by the author....style, footnotes, editing, foreign phrases. AND, for some styles of writing, the author's skill?

    Toni Morrison has a Nobel Prize for literature, but her work is not necessarily described as "easy" to understand.

    ----------------------------------------------

    Ginny, am I stepping on discussion-PLAN toes by asking what specific things in the book make you (your word) "uncomfortable"? Did you already say as much as you wanted? I'm thinking that we need your input now, but if you're deliberatly holding off until later (as you sometimes like to do), well, um, uh, don't, my vote of one would say. See, your thoughts on the first sentence regarding "THE Mexicans and THE hill people" (hits the same raw nerve in me as when I hear "THE disabled" or "women think", as if each person in any of those groups has only a flat, group identity and not a separate, multi-faceted identity) feels pertinent to current posts on race, just to list one reason.

    Bill (nicknamed Shortstop), is 37, a Republican who tells baseball jokes and makes great homemade beer and adores his wife (a Democrat and expert seamstress) and two daughters, 4 and 11. Bill, who has a short temper when he's exhausted and is like a little kid at Christmas, was born in Mexico. He was a sharecropper in the U.S. with his parents until he went to live with his uncle in San Diego at age 26 to finish his GED. Next year, at age 38, he will graduate from UC San Diego. He hopes to go to Boalt Law School in Berkeley. He has another uncle named Hank who has been in trouble with the law for most of his life. Not only is Bill a separate person from any group named "Mexicans," he is a different person from who he was 20 years ago and 10 years ago.

    Betty

    BaBi
    May 12, 2002 - 12:22 pm
    Meg, I found myself grinning thru' your post, also. And you are quite right; when I brought up the subject of who paid for the paint, I forgot that I was getting ahead of the reading frame. No fair!

    I identified with your reference to "The Old Man and The Sea", which left me feeling somewhat perplexed. But I somehow never read "The Little Prince", and have now seen two references to it in one week. Okay, I'll have to go back and read it now. (I thought it was a children's book; is it?)

    On the subject of Grisham's use of "The" Mexicans, etc., I have been asking myself what word he might have used instead. Apparently, two sources of field labor were most common in that area at that time, and they had been expected. They had arrived. Would you say "A group of Mexicans and a group of Hillbillies arrived on the same day", as though it was unknown who they were or why they were there? "The" expected people had come, and as expected they came in a group. I simply cannot see any labeling taking place in Grisham's choice of words, other than the obvious one that the laborers were from Mexico or they were from the hills. ...Babi

    mstrent
    May 12, 2002 - 04:48 pm
    Remembering that the time frame of this story is the early 1950s, and also remembering that at that time the black populations in the south still lived largely "across the tracks" in a shanty town or down the road a piece in some remnant enclave of plantation days and were segregated to the extent that the two races came face to face only occasionally, it could be construed that the author's silence on the matter of the black population is a subtle way of remarking on their "invisibility" at that time. Since they were considered controlled, they could be ignored.

    kiwi lady
    May 12, 2002 - 07:04 pm
    Sorry I have not been in here but have been really busy, babysitting, doing my contribution for WREX and now contibuting with critiques for nine works.

    There is one word that comes to mind which covers almost everything that occurs in this book. Hypocrisy! With a big H.

    The family who is outwardly godfearing yet hides a felon, pretends to be tolerant but in fact they are not. Deny Rickys' child, lie to Luke. The list goes on.

    Maybe John Grisham has experienced this hypocrisy in his childhood? It would be good to get his input.

    I think to write a great book one does not have to have a complicated plot or sub plot. That is my opinion. The depth of the characters to me makes a great book and if it has something to say as well about social issues of the day then that is appealing to me also.

    It has been my experience here that the smaller the town the more unshakeable the inbred prejudices of the people. When the children go away to school and come back that is when things begin to change because of the exposure to a much wider world.

    I don't think that Grisham was weaving a complicated tale at all. This does not in any way detract from the importance of the work.

    Trot I think was a lot smarter than he made out. Why did he begin to paint the house? Maybe it was just that his house was painted. He really liked Luke and maybe he thought Luke was deprived not having a painted house. Maybe he just did it for Luke.

    Ricky - youngest son, Momma's darling, spoilt rotten and made too much of. Hence his notion that he could do as he wanted with no consequences. It was he who plainly seduced Libby not the other way around. Haven't we all seen this scenario many times? I began to see another side of Ricky quite early in the book.

    I am enjoying the varied opinions in this discussion.

    Carolyn

    MegR
    May 12, 2002 - 08:06 pm


    Okay, I'm going to be a bit more colorful w/ this one to try to respond to some things that Betty, Annafair, BaBi, Sarah T and MsTrent have contributed in the interim posts. I think that we're catching snatches of something & will try to see if I can kind of pull our ideas together to solidify them a little more. Speak up to expand or challenge anything here!

    Who We Are

    I'm assuming ( and I could be wrong & am at times! [smile!]) that those of us who join these SN discussions have a number of commonalities and do so for a number of reasons. 1. We love books and *sybaritically love the pleasure that reading provides! (*How was that for a good 75 cent word!) 2. We're social and like to talk about what we've read with others. 3. We love the challenges of books; we like to sink our teeth into a work that exposes us to new things, challenges us, scrambles our brains & perceptions by making us look at subjects in a new way. 4. We like to share and expand our own knowledge and understanding ; we're continuous learners. 5. We like the work of trying to figure out the hows, whats & whys of an author's piece.

    Our Purposes

    Maybe this is the time to try and clarify or state our purpose(s) in this discussion. Kind of did some of this w/ attempted descrips above. (Note: I am NOT a part of the official SN organization or hierarchy by any stretch of the imagination - so I DON'T claim to be an SN spokesperson. I'm just an ordinary on-line discussion member attempting to see if I can figure out the WHY of why we are here & WHAT we're trying to do. These comments are mine & not SN's)

    Think that Betty prodded me to think about this when she said, " Our task is doubly challenging, though.....we're dealing with understanding an author and understanding each other!! (Patience, tact and sense of humor are probably as necessary as our skill of communication, don't you think?!) " (Yes!!! I think that your 'requirements' for participation are necessary & very helpful in this forum, Mrs. G!)

    But, - you've touched on what I think are two of our purposes/goals for these discussions, Betty: Understanding an author and his work and understanding each other. I also think that we're looking at a third element here too - understanding our own processes of reading, making meaning, discussing & getting to know each other. You imply this too when you say,
    ...so many of us are learning and changing. I am. I can barely keep up with myself......with new ways of thinking how to talk about books. I mean, how to read, think and talk about books. I'm slowly learning that what the book pulls in me...memories, etc., is something I should try to keep separate from my assessment of the book. "

    We're here to mainly talk about a book that we've read & to try to enrich our individual and collective understandings of it. The pleasure of sharing personal anecdotes and learning about each other is an added secondary bonus. Many of us have gained new friends. An unexpected bonus (for me at least) has been discovering how very differently each of us processes how we read and make sense of what we read.

    Processes We all have developed our own methods of preparing for & encountering these discussions. Annafair says, "Each time I read a book I am facing first the author's story. Second I am looking at my own experience and how the story resonates with my memories or opinions. Reading anything or viewing a painting we bring to the experience our (own) life experiences. So, we not only have the author's story but our own. I find it nearly impossible to separate the two. Miss Annafair, you're doing what most of us do AS WE READ something for the first time too! We each tap into our own "prior knowledge" to find similarities to try to understand someone else's ideas! We don't just do this with reading; we do it unconsciously as we deal with everyone & everything that we initially encounter each day! Sarah also added, "...this is a great discussion - possibly BECAUSE it has caused people to reflect on their own lives and actual American history. So I don't know that the lack of direct reference to the text is necessarily a bad thing. ' Sarah, yes there is great value in conversations that force us to learn about others, reflect on our own lives and learn more about something unfamiliar, BUT - that's NOT WHY we're here! If we don't keep OUR primary purpose in mind of talking about a book, and try to adhere to it, we might be better served in a chat room. The trick here for all of us is trying to make the attempt - after that "initial tapping into what we know" - to objectively THEN - look at what the writer has actually said! Have to admit that that wasn't always easy for me to do - but it's the next step that we should try to take. It's in this next leap that our discussions become much richer and intellectually exciting - for me at least.

    One reason why I have preferred the SN method of reading & discussing a book in segments - rather than as a whole - is because I have a really lousy memory. I tried participating in a discussion on a book that I had read a year ago & hadn't looked at when discussion began. I absolutely got major plot info wrong, characters, & even confused secondary plot with something I had read in another book!!!! In other words, I made a real A of myself! Have learned that I HAVE TO read immediately before next block of chapters come up to just be authentic & accurate w/ my comments.

    Does any of this make sense or is it helpful???

    Meg

    betty gregory
    May 13, 2002 - 12:16 am
    I see something differently, Meg. Since I tend to honor process....I like watching how something is happening as well as what is happening....then it's impossible (for me) to ignore what Sarah noticed and appreciated about this discussion. Both the book and others' comments sparked memories and often very moving reflections on a range of issues....as the more direct book discussion was proceeding along. All of it mixed together has been SO enjoyable to me.

    My sense of the process (in this discussion specifically) is that our personal memories and reflections have added something of value to, have even deepened interest in the scheduled book topics. (Not even the biscuit recipes would I send off to the chat room....but, that's just me.)

    It's particularly interesting how many read this book privately for surface enjoyment, but might be rethinking the depth of the book in a group discussion! Now, THAT'S interesting. As a psychologist (not practicing now), I always marveled at what could happen in a group. Some group experiences I had still give me shivers. Wanna hear one? I knew the group was doomed at the first of the semester because I had allowed the age span to get out of control. The punchline...it was the 19 year old who was finally able to break through the wall the 45 year old woman brought with her. I loved that day.

    So, I'm not that surprised that our group could find something different than the sum total of individual readings.

    Back to the personal stuff. It's good, it is, that this topic keeps coming up. That's part of a evolving process, too, as we keep wondering how our experiences/perceptions affect our reading and discussing books. I guess I see a difference between sharing personal reflections (which I hope will always be welcome in our discussions) and allowing those reflections to unwittingly overpower our assessment of a book. So far in this discussion, I personally am thrilled with how OPEN and interactive everyone is and what a wonderful group effort is evolving!!

    Betty

    P.S. Nothing in your post upset me, Meg, except what you called me. Please call me Betty or Gregory or hey, you or Now, damn you, but don't call me Mrs. (please)

    kiwi lady
    May 13, 2002 - 12:56 am
    Betty your revelation did not surprise me I had already guessed in the Murdoch discussion that you were either a Psychologist or a Psychiatrist!

    I too have thought the way everyone has shared in this discussion really wonderful and has not distracted from the discussion of the book at all for me.

    I hope we all get together in the Steinbeck discussion!

    Carolyn

    BaBi
    May 13, 2002 - 08:51 am
    Meg and Betty, I can't tell you how much I enjoy the input from both of you. You are knowledgeable, expressive, highly literate, ...did you by any chance engage in debate in your younger days? <smiling>

    Now that we are moving on to Ch. 20, it seems a good time to bring up Hank's relationship with his own family. They obviously fear him. Even his father's rebuke seems to me fearful, done as a matter of duty. At the same time he is their son, he is family. If Hank is sent away or arrested, they will all leave as an expresion of family solidarity. Only Trot seems to have any influence on him, probably because he is so frail as to appeal to any protectiveness Hank may have, while offering no challenge at all to his need to be feared and respected. (I am NOT a trained psychologist, so I would be esp. interested in BETTY's view on this one.) ...Babi

    MegR
    May 13, 2002 - 09:27 am
    Betty, Yes, I will honor your naming request! Think we really are in agreement here concerning the issue you raise at beginning of your last post. Both a close examination of the book and sharing our personal remarks/experiences are of value. Think what I was trying to say & obviously didn't do too clearly was that we have to be careful about maintaining a balance here between the two. If we spend most of our time focusing on the latter, the book discussion weakens. If we only stress the former, we lose the richness that our shared, individual experiences & knowledge bring to the discussion. Think you were in Dubus' House of Sand & Fog discussion too. 'Member how much Persian (Mahlia)'s input as a woman of Iranian background helped all of us to really understand the Colonel much better - and - appreciate & understand the entire work more? That was an example of a good balance of the two valued elements. Am I making myself any clearer???

    Absence of Afro-Americans in this Novel"

    Annafair, Betty, BaBi and Mstrent
    have all raised or referred to this issue. Know what? For some reason I didn't consider this at all. It's not like Grisham is trying to avoid the racial issue - he did some pretty powerful stuff w/ it in A Time for Killing! Even movie based on it w/ Samuel Jackson, Sandra Bullock & Matthew McConahy (sp?) didn't pull any punches about what Grisham had written. He doesn't skirt or avoid or do a polite tapdance around racism at all. There's so much going on in this novel - so many examples of intolerance, presumed inferiority's need to feel superior etc., keeping secrets, violence etc. -that adding the racial issue - to me - would seem superfluous and another distraction - in this book. Black/white racism is not a part of this book. Think Mr. G is dealing with other issues here.

    Serendipitousness (Is there such a word??!)

    Yesterday's (Sunday) Pittsburgh Post-Gazette carried a front page picture w/ caption & an article in a later section on Mexican workers here in western Pennsylvania! I never knew this was happening here. Brother threw out article w/ name of government sponsored work program. Any how it talked about farmers in Beaver County (NW of Allegheny - Pittsburgh's county) not being able to get enough high school & college kids for summer jobs. Caption under photo read "Migrant worker Miguel Ordaz rests in the back of a truck in Beaver County after trimming evergreen trees. Only a handful of workers enroll in Pennsylvania's special visa program for migrant workers; they earn $7.37 an hour and wire back the wages to Mexico, hoping to improve their families lives." Article mentioned that owner of this Christmas tree farm paid for bus fares (to & from) and lodging (I think but don't quote me on this one ) in rental houses. Here I thought that migrant workers only appeared in southern parts of US! Dummy me!!!

    Debating??

    BaBi
    Nah, no experience with this at all! (Laughing!) Have absolutely paralyzing stage fright & wouldn't be able to get up in front of an audience to do that! Come from a very large & vocal family though where each of us "fights" to be heard at times in the midst of the babel & din of our gatherings. We all are just gabbers who like the sounds of our own voices & occasionally say something of merit or import - but also tend to be very silly for the most part! (Laughing!)

    Hopefully, I'll get back to the 'burgh tonight & will be able to really talk specifically about some of the great Q's above! My sister Trees is here & baking apple, blackberry (frozen from last summer's pickin's) and lemon meringue pies!! You can imagine aromas here in Mom's house! Am off to see if an apple one is done & to get some lunch! (Aren't ya'll just too jealous for words! - laughing !) Carolyn, now YOU'LL know how torturous your cheese & onion biscuit-baking spree was for me! (Chortles!)

    Meg

    BaBi
    May 13, 2002 - 09:44 am
    Meg, I'm laughing! My ex-husband came from a large family and they were all highly vocal and opinionated!

    Do you really have a sister named "Trees"? How delightful! I had a set of great-aunts all named after flowers; Myrtle, Daisy, Rose, Iris, Lily. Surely there is a story behind the name "Trees", and I want to hear it! (I also had a grandmother named Missouri Mineola, called Minnie, and I have had a lifelong fascination with unique names. Which includes names like "Trot".) ...Babi

    Ginny
    May 13, 2002 - 09:58 am
    What a fabulous discussion, loved Meg's post on Who We Are and Why We Do This and Betty's response, I really do not think this discussion could be more satisfying.

    I have two questions directly to me unanswered so I hope you will forgive this momentary lapse this morning if I only address those, because:

  • I am typing in the teeth of a thunderstorm and they are working on the phone lines, and...
  • You all are talking to each other so well you don't require an assistant moderator to help, the APEX and goal of every discussion, you hit it.

    So here goes my answer to the two questions (by the way we have through Wednesday to discuss what happens in these chapters, so I'm going to let it all hang out here, hold on!)

    First:
    Betty said, "Do you realize that we're creating a new art from scratch? This process of discussing a work of literature by leaving messages on an electronic bulletin board......except for the speeded-up element of time, it's like writing letters to each other! Our task is doubly challenging, though.....we're dealing with understanding an author and understanding each other!! (Patience, tact and sense of humor are probably as necessary as our skill of communication, don't you think?!)"


    Yes I do thank you for articulating that so well as usual!




  • Then, our pal, Ginny, says "this one, to me is the most difficult to discuss coherently. Why? (Meg)

    I'm not sure. I am confused when what appears to be a straight forward happy story told by a 7 year old includes some pretty obvious things I don't consider the normal purview of a 7 year old and I wonder when I see them if the author is saying something to me about the time and the situation in which the 7 year old is moving? I see more than the happy Walton story here or the Waltons Meet the Deliverance Hillbillies and how will the Good Waltons React? I don't know what Grisham is saying about the nastiness in all of us and so I keep mum here because it's very difficult to discuss, to me.

    If you take it prima facie you feel guilty even mentioning these things alongside Mom's apple pie, but they are there, in spades, it's very difficult for me, this book?

  • Ginny, am I stepping on discussion-PLAN toes by asking what specific things in the book make you (your word) "uncomfortable"? Did you already say as much as you wanted? I'm thinking that we need your input now, but if you're deliberatly holding off until later (as you sometimes like to do), well, um, uh, don't, my vote of one would say. (Betty)

    Jeepers how nice to be even asked an opinion, I appreciate that, no I have not said, was afraid to, yes I was holding back to see what you all said and have been quite frankly blown away by what you've said, I'm truly in tune with that metaphor thing, for instance, that was brilliant, and I have a feeling you all aren't thru.

    OKO here are some of the things which bother/ repel/ me or make me very uneasy? I have not, as I told Meg above, decided what to DOOO with how I feel here or if I'm right and it may be that I need to come to the end of the book to be sure.

  • "Christian behavior" A lightning rod if there ever was one. Here are a few "examples" of it:

  • Mom's repeated efforts at Christian charity done for the sole purpose of discovering whether or not the Latcher girl was pregnant (isn't it ironic who the father is in view of these excursions,...throw not the first stone time, huh?) "We'd return in a few days witho another load of produce in a second attempt to confirm the rumors. As long as they kept Libby hidden, the Latchers would be well fed." (page 125). That's not my idea of Christian charity, is it yours? " She would have no choice but to come out and accept our vegetables. We could blindside her, nail her with Christian goodness while her protestors were away." (page 180-181).

  • "They're not good Christians; that's how the girl got pregnant." (page 214-215).

    How do we react to these and all the other manifestations of the "Good God -Fearing Chandlers" who:

  • dismiss Cowboy's wounds as not worthy of attention because:

    (a). the men were terrified of having to pay a doctor (page 165) and
    (b). both [men] had fought in the trenches. They had seen stray body parts, mangled corpses, men with limbs missing, and they had no patience with the small stuff. Routine cuts and breaks were hazards of life. Tough it out." (page 165)

    Hogwash.

    "Gran knew she would not prevail.' If he dies, it'll be our fault.'


    'He ain't gonna die, Ruth,' Pappy said. 'And even if he does, it won't be our fault. Hank's the one who broke his ribs.'" (page 165).

    Uh....lemme see now about the rationalizations here. Both men had fought in the trenches....er...ok is this a WWII situation here? Is this a war or a baseball game?

    er....let's see...routine cuts and scrapes...er...again, did somebody say his lung might be punctured by a deliberate act? Gran says his ribs are broken and there might be internal bleeding, there might be a punctured lung too, but .....

    er.....

    What can we say here? Are we admiring of the tough Channdlers who are very tough when it's not their own hides in question? When it is, and Ricky is revealed as the Pappy of the new baby, what's the reaction? Do we admire the cowardice and the greed behind the decision NOT to get rid of this obvious loose cannon in Hank who is about to, it would seem kill all of the other help?

    How much use will it be to keep the Spruills if Hank maims or kills the other help? If the knife had not popped out there's no telling who would have been next, why keep a time bomb on your farm when you have children and women present, o TOUGH OL PAPPY?

    GEEAH

    I know I am in the minority here, but I almost wish Pappy got his comeuppance, but that's not PC of me either, is it?

    Is it axiomatic that the hard life makes people hard also, is that what Grisham is saying, looks like Gran is not as hard as the menfolks, huh? Does this kind of life make everybody insensitive to others? Are we supposed to say as we look thru the eyes of a child, "I see this and not only is the evil in the Chandlers revealed but so is the evil in all of us, of every station?" If so then we have two stories here, running parallel.

    THE Mexicans and THE hill people like THE wife and I went on a cruise, THE wife got sick....

    ARGUUUHHHHHH

    See why I'm quiet?

    And there's more but the 1 inch hail and 70 mph winds promised are arriving on this farm, do any of the things above bother anybody BUT me?

    ginny

  • Keene
    May 13, 2002 - 11:04 am
    Here I am again attempting to add something to the discussion. My daughter is here for a visit from Boston with her two little toddlers so sitting at the computer is a feat in itself.

    This book engenders so much thought about the various elements involved: the disparity of the classes, lack of communication between family members (a dysfunctional family?), hypocrisy with regard to religion and SECRETS. The curiosity about the various circumstances of each other (i.e.,Libby's pregnancy) but the unwillingness to openly discuss reality leaves me frustrated but at the same time aware of human nature. The brutality in the story (Hank) keenly awakens us to the frustration of these poor folks. Memories overwhelm me as I read the book. It appears that we all remember our youth as pointed out by various themes. I look forward to continue the reading.

    Keene

    mstrent
    May 13, 2002 - 11:25 am
    I will apologize in advance to any Southern Baptists who may be among our number on this one, and will gladly stand corrected if I have misunderstood the theological stand of the church.

    It is my understanding that the belief in that denomination is that once a soul is saved by the grace of Jesus, it is saved period. No "backsliding", no "falling away" is possible from then on. If this is correct, then Ginny's realization of the inconsistencies between Christian mores and the expected Christian behavior revealed in these instances would not necessarily be the concerns of a Chandler with a "saved soul". Christian charity could be coupled with gossip and curiousity to lay eyes upon the sinner up the road with impunity: "I am saved." Unconcern for the injuries and tribulations of others: "It don't concern me, I am saved." Good works? Not necessary. Premarital sex and fatherhood, no problem. I guess what I am saying is that it isn't the hardness of the life that makes for insensivity, it's more the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY of religious beliefs that say "You're forgiven in advance (by the grace of Jesus) for whatever you do --- with the possible exception of dancing, of course. All that other stuff about "loving thy neighbor as thyself" and doing good works is nice and all, but do that or not, I am saved and that's that.

    Is everyone who accepts Jesus as his savior "saved"? I'm not too sure. Methodists, after all, sprinkle babies....is that a sign of not being truly saved?

    MaryZ
    May 13, 2002 - 11:42 am
    Addressing comments from several posts (sorry if I can't keep them all straight)...

    Pappy fought in WWI, and the father in WWII.

    I have to be careful about judging 1952 mores by today's standards. Getting pregnant out of wedlock was just NOT done by the better people (or at least hidden as well as possible).

    I never lived on a farm, but I would assume that the so-called "smaller" injuries were treated at home, and the injured party was expect just to work through it. There was nothing that could be done about broken ribs - at least in that rural/small town setting. And people died of things that are routinely fixed now. (An in-law's mother died from an infected hangnail sometime in the 1950s - absolutely unbelievable now.)

    I do agree about the seeming "Christian" hypocrisy that is implied and, certainly, it is a poor lesson to teach a child. But it seems like Luke is pretty well catching on to that, though (at least from the narrator's adult viewpoint).

    Mary

    SarahT
    May 13, 2002 - 05:18 pm
    Ginny, your post really hit home for me and really helped me focus on why this novel frustrated me. In a way, this frustration demonstrates that Grisham is a better novelist than I first thought (I think - see below).

    I thought we were supposed to like the Chandlers, but they kept doing these things I didn't like - like failing to get rid of Hank out of their own self-interest, looking the other way at any bad behavior by their workers in favor of getting the crop in; snooping on the Latchers under the guise of delivering vegetables; denying that Ricky was a scoundrel playboy who got Libby pregnant. I felt I was supposed to like them but I didn't and I felt somehow guilty for not appreciating this hard-working down home salt o' the earth farm family, when, as Ginny points out, they did some pretty bad things.

    I also felt I was pulled backwards and forwards and side to side by Grisham about Cowboy. Was I supposed to like em or hate em? First he seemed sinister (bad). Then he stood up to the more evil Hank (good). Then he ran off with Hank's sister, but I think I was supposed to like her (although I wasn't always sure of that either).

    Was Grisham just being wishy washy and drawing characters badly and inconsistently, or is he a genius who draws deep, complex characters that always keep you guessing.

    Is it live or is it Memorex? I'm still not sure.

    MegR
    May 13, 2002 - 07:31 pm
    BaBi,

    FYI: I & most of my siblings have abbreviated versions or manglings of our given names. Some make sense, others don't. "Trees" (pronounced 'treece' to rhyme w/ Reese - as in Della & PeeWee) is our shortened form for Theresa. Go figure?!

    Wilan
    May 13, 2002 - 08:34 pm
    Ginny, you have voiced the very thing that I have been feeling since the beginning of this story I agree, I have not liked the Chandler's very much, either. I love Luke, his grown up seven years, his innocence and am so afraid that he will be 'taught to hate'. I definitely do not like Pappy and am not too sure about Luke's father-he does not seem to be much of an influence except for some discipline. I do like Ruth, and do understand her denial of her youngest son's 'tomcatting' I do not approve of it, but do understand it-in spite of whether she approved of the illegitimate birth or not, she rushed to help! I think that I liked both of the women in the family-they seemed to be the gentle side of Luke's life. I loved the time in the garden with his mother and the Sunday morning coffee time with his grandmother. With all of the church going (sometimes several times a week) the men in the family do not seem to 'get it'! The women are missing some of it, too, but they are better at it!

    I have yet to understand why Trot decided to paint the house. Or why Tally decided to pay for the paint. Trot and Tally seem to like Luke, and all of the Spruitts seem to fear Hank. Why would Hank's taunting of Luke and his unpainted house move Trot and Tally to paint the house. I know that I am missing something here-clues, anyone? Wilan

    MegR
    May 13, 2002 - 09:01 pm


  • **FYI: EVERYONE - We don't start chapters 20 to 29 until this coming Thursday, 16 May!!***

    Ginny,


    Am finally getting around to answering your Q about whether or not Pappy's reacton to parentage of Libby's child has changed my mind about them. Your most recent post & responses to Betty's Q's & Sarah's comments helped me sift ideas a little better. Sarah said, "I thought we were supposed to like the Chandlers, but they kept doing these things I didn't like". You added (my paraphrasing here) that you found 7 year-old narrator's "eyes"/voice (maturity/omniscience/experiences/observations) unsettling. (Why does this narrative technique bother you so much? Did it bother you to hear Pip's voice speaking of the horrors of his childhood & that crazy old Miss Haversham & Mrs. Joe in Great Expectations? Same thing here! You have also repeatedly compared/referred the Chandler clan to Mayberry folk or the Waltons.

    I think that BOTH of you gals are making invalid assumptions here. (Yeah, yeah - I know! Can hear you muttering to yourselves, "There goes that mouthy broad again!" - But, please - just read!)

    Ginny, YOU ARE imposing your own perceptions of idyllic families, small town & farm life portrayed in these two fictional tv shows upon the Chandler family and upon Black Oak. Betcha 5 bucks or Mr. C's coconut cremes that you can't find one refernce to either Mayberry or Waltons in Grisham's words!!! (Ya can't, can yuh? huh? Huh!!! Double Dare Yuh! [laughing!])

    Sarah, WHY did you think we were SUPPOSED to like the Chandlers???? Just because Luke's one of the main characters & the narrator? Do his roles in this novel demand our blind allegiance & acceptance of him? Don't think so!!!

    Grisham just puts these folks out there for us. He's doling out glimpses of moments in their lives over a few weeks via what Luke sees & hears. I think that it's the story (plotlines) & recurring ideas/themes (yup, Oh Queen of the Jellies, I actually did use that word here!) & character actions that are what's important here - NOT whether or not we like characters! Remember how everyone was initially identifying with the evicted gal, the sheriff, the colonel or his wife in House of Sand & Fog? We were all over the place with them: vehemently arguing support or disdain for characters, changing our views, seeing positive & negative qualities in each character- even though most of them were pretty sad examples of human beings for the most part. We eventually began to feel compassion for Dubus' people - even while we were horrified & disgusted by their actions at times. Think Mr. G is doing the same thing here - he's giving us a family that's very realistic. Be honest - don't each of us have a petty streak? Don't we all have some family or personal secret that we prefer remains stored in back of top shelf of closet or down in the root cellar? Don't we all have our own prejudices, intolerances, lack of objectivity about ourselves &/or family members at times? Don't we all color, rationalize, create & monitor our own visions of the world & our individual & collective places in it??? And on & on & on?

    Ginny, think you're moving in this direction yourself when you say, "I don't know what Grisham is saying about the nastiness in all of us and so I keep mum here because it's very difficult to discuss, to me.....Are we supposed to say as we look thru the eyes of a child, 'I see this and not only is the evil in the Chandlers revealed but so is the evil in all of us, of every station?' If so then we have two stories here, running parallel." By George! I think you're helping us to start to "get it!" Why don't we hold off on these "two parallel stories" 'til the end when we see where Grisham is going with them?

    The "Christian" Thing Here we go again with that labelling bit! Mexicans & Hill People. Baptists & Methodists. Townies & Farmers. Them & Us!!! Why does honorable, ethical, moral (are those last two synonyms?) and charitable behavior have to be identified with ONE major religious group??? As soon as we tag Christianity to being a good person -doesn't that immediately set up an us/them thing? Doesn't that seem to suggest that Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus etc. are excluded from being moral or devout humans? Shouldn't we maybe try to be a little more sensitive to similarities rather than differences - especially considering today's world & events?

    Yes, Ginny, you're absolutely right! Many folks here are not behaving wisely, honorably or morally. Think we need to watch where Grisham goes with this as the book continues.

  • ************** Not Going for the Doctor

    Yes, Mrs. Latcher DID want to keep Libby's delivery a secret, but wasn't there another reason why she wouldn't send for the doc & why one wasn't called for Cowboy. Am almost positive that $$$ was involved here. Could swear that I read that they'd have to pay the doc $1.00 a mile to come for a house visit. ($18.00!)

  • ****** "Wish for Pappy to Get His Comeuppance?"

    Yes, I am petty enough to hope he gets his after his cruel & wretched comments about Libby when his horny kid was to blame!!!

    Will check in tomorrow!

    Meg
  • Jany
    May 13, 2002 - 09:31 pm
    Sorry for weighing in late but I have been away and just returned. Almost stayed home so I could be a part of this discussion, and the comments to date are great.

    Painting is used as a devise to cover up whatever may lie below. Like that old ditty, "A little powder, a little paint will make a lady what she ain't." The color choice of white is to indicate a purity. Troy and Tally were expressing their view of the Chandlers in color. The Chandlers treated the children's family with respect and did not condesend toward the folks parked on the lawn. The Chandlers regarded hard work as a virtue and anyone else sharing their work ethic was left alone as long as they worked. Social considerations, status, living situation, etc were only important in the context of the church, not in the context of the fields. Troy and Tally felt grateful to not be subjected to demeaning behaviors from the Chandlers. Painting the house was both gratitude and repayment for being treated decently, despite Hank who truly reflected his family's enviornmental origins. Thanks for letting me wiegh in, late as always.

    kiwi lady
    May 13, 2002 - 10:39 pm
    I do not think there is anything deep and hidden in this book. Grisham has set out to show us a picture of a small cotton growing town in the 1950's. He is showing us the people warts and all making us see the hypocrisy and prejudice which existed at that time.

    I do think the hill people felt they were looked down upon by the cotton farmers. There is mention early in the book about their house being painted whereas most of the houses in the Chandlers area were unpainted clapboard. I forget the exact words but the meaning was that the farmers were in a lot of cases poorer than many of the hill people and had a far too high opinion of themselves.

    The only reason the Chandlers did not disturb the Hill people in their chosen camping spot was they were afraid they would leave. They had agreed to work for the price Pappy wanted to pay. There were some farmers paying a little more.

    As for painting the Chandlers house; Trot was simple and he thought as a child. He liked Luke and Hank had been mean to him. He wanted to paint the house for Luke as he felt in his child-like mind that Luke should have a painted house like his back home. Tally paid for the paint because she loved her brother he was happy painting and also she was fond of Luke.

    As someone else has said. I dislike the Chandlers as portrayed in the book but that does not matter. I enjoyed the book because the characters are real. Human beings are flawed and often dysfunctional. Thats life!

    Carolyn

    annafair
    May 14, 2002 - 02:49 am
    Perhaps we are looking too hard to find deeper meanings in this book. Grisham has written a story.....a slice of life. For most of us it has reminded us of real people we have known. Like Carolyn says he made the characters real, flawed as real people are.

    Even the persons we have known that were similar have flaws as well.

    I have dabbled a bit writing stories my self. An idea will come to me and the story unfolds almost as a surprise. The characters take on a life of thier own. I dont know how real authors choose a story to tell or how they flesh out the characters. I remember reading a story a long time ago..The name is almost there in my mind and I can even see the book jacket. What I remember was a quote from the author, who was female.

    When she started writing the story she had in mind a different book and a different ending. What happened was one of the characters..this woman in the story took over and the book became her story instead of the one she set out to write.

    Perhaps this happened to Grisham or maybe to all authors. Their imagination starts the process but then the characters take over. I know when I write I allow my mind to become the characters and try to see how they would react to a situation. Not how I would but how the character would.

    I am influenced by my own memories of my sharecropper relatives. By my own memories of what it was to be 7 and how you keep some things secret. The characters Grisham writes about perhaps only exist in his mind but he has given us a story that reminds us of real people we have known.

    I am not sure I am explaining what I think or feel well. We are all looking for Grishams motives when all he may have been interested in was writing a good story. AND that is what he has done.

    anna

    Ginny
    May 14, 2002 - 05:43 am
    This is super, we're taking opposite sides of the coin, super! IS there or isn't there something beyond the plot line? IS there a "secret" purpose under the fairly straightforward plot?

    Carolyn and Annafair say no? Meg says wait? Jany says, Painting is used as a devise to cover up whatever may lie below. Like that old ditty, "A little powder, a little paint will make a lady what she ain't." The color choice of white is to indicate a purity

    Oh dear, that's good, well done!! Welcome and don't you go anywhere else! Ever!

    Wilan notices the women seem a bit more developed than the men, that is, they...what's the word?

    Sarah says she can't figure out where Grisham is going or what he would like for us to see.

    Meg used the THEME word!! Somebody take a photocopy of that post, she used the THEME word!! hahahahaha

    She says wait? The reader, when reading , finds his mind a Pandora's box of speculation, his mind will not wait, his mind wants answers. AS he reads? We're reading together here, one big gigantic pulsating brain reading toegher?


    There may be little or nothing beyond the grave
    But the strong are saying nothing till they see?


    With aplogies to Robert Frost, the strong have held back two weeks, and want to occasionally peep?

    Don't even get me STARTED on the silence bit. I admit some of this book rubs me the wrong way, rings long distant buried bells and really shakes them.

    Thank you for saying WWI and WWII, had missed that, trenches, I need to get the name of the person who said that but it's not showing on my screen , will go back.

    Sarah asks are we supposed to like these people? What do you think? Did Grisham deliberately set out to put characters in his book which are unlikeable? All these references to Mayberry like situations? Is Grisham making a statement about all of us? We're all flawed but in different ways? Tough is a virtue? IS it?

    I'm sure we all have stories in our families of "tough?" My paternal grandmother, for instance, watched her own mother sew her brother's little toe back on his foot on the kitchen table, with a needle and thread? Later on when the doctor saw it for some other reason he remarked they had wasted their time, it was black and would fall off. It didn't, he kept that toe till his dying day. My other grandmother was married to a country doctor. My mother who died at 91 two years ago used to tell me of riding with him in a buggy up to the mountain folks in NC to try to spread what passed for medicine then: hygene. Often a basket of eggs or a cake was the entire payment for the doctor, and in the 50's we did have welfare, did we not? Perhaps these folks are too proud.

    NB, please, that Pappy is being free with the injuires of others, not his own? What, in his defence, WAS the burden of the farmer who had temporary help come in for a crop? Perhaps there WAS no burden? Perhaps Pappy for his time (somebody mentioned this earlier) was acting more than responsibly. Perhaps not.

    Life continues so full of these little moral tests, doesn't it? Is Pappy succeeding or failing here in your estimation?

    You know they say the measure of a man is how he trests those who can't possibly do him any good? Points to ponder here this morning, perhaps?

    Meg you asked, " that you can't find one refernce to either Mayberry or Waltons in Grisham's words!!! (Ya can't, can yuh? huh? Huh!!! Double Dare Yuh! [laughing!]) "

    Do you mean the actual words "Mayberry" or "Waltons?" No. Do you mean a replication of the situations? Definitely yes. Be careful how you answer, you are going to owe me a lunch! hahahahahah

    Yes I admit it I said I did not "like" Pappy and did not like what they are doing.

    It's true that has no meaning in the story.

    but it's also true that their behavior is not always what we associate with our dear old grandmother or aunt or uncle and BECAUSE I did not write the book nor frame the characters, I need to LOOK at the inconsistencies the AUTHOR presented and I need to ask myself why they are there and what it means to the plot.

    Is this meant as some kind of bildungsroman (growing up story)> Why is it that it's the adults who keep secrets? These are not the secrets of a 7 year old playing games? These are adult secrets?

    LOOK at all the mentions of secret in the heading, for every mention in that red box there are tons more, WHY? Secretive little bunch, aren't they? Is YOUR life full of secrets?

    The reader, you, me, and the people we meet on the street, all the readers are entitled to their own feelings about this book. Carolyn and Annafair say it's a straightforward story, ginny doesn't think so. We have not heard from all of you, let's see what you think SO FAR, up to Chapter 19.

    I believe, having thought on this this morning, and after reading your excellent posts, that Grisham here may be, in fact, showing us that the innocent world of the child, when it comes up against the cruelty we all know is in the world, is shaped and changed and the outside world is ILLUMINATED by those who "protect" him (lots of instances of that protecting) but that his passage is from innnocence to something less simply because his own mentors are flawed.

    What I'm trying to figure out, only for myself, is IF Grisham is saying we're ALL flawed, and some of us hide it behind pride and "toughness," and religion. I note that the 7 year old telling this story gets a wry, almost humorous look at some of the things done for religion's sake, and the ironies sometimes are a bit startling.

    But that's how I see it, YOUR opinion is what we want to hear, one thing's for sure, you've made a super discussion out of this!

    What, if anything at all, is Grisham saying here?

    ginny

    Ginny
    May 14, 2002 - 05:53 am
    Catching up!

    Keene, I'm so glad to see you here and I know you will enjoy your daughter's visit, I agree with this one, in spades, "but the unwillingness to openly discuss reality leaves me frustrated but at the same time aware of human nature."

    Bingo, I agree too, frustration and the reasons for same as a result of the author's writing, bingo!

    mstrent, I don't know the answer to your question about "saved," and the subsequent behavior, but it's an excellent one, it would appear "sin," may be in the eyes of the beholder here, too, do you think?

    Mary, thank you for the WWI and WWII stuff, I knew somebody had said it but my computer would not show that post while I was typing.

    MegR:

    The "Christian" Thing Here we go again with that labelling bit! Mexicans & Hill People. Baptists & Methodists. Townies & Farmers. Them & Us!!! Why does honorable, ethical, moral (are those last two synonyms?) and charitable behavior have to be identified with ONE major religious group???


    Because your author is the one doing the labelling.

    It's the author who calls our attention repeatedly to the word "Christian," none of us made that up and he calls attention to it in a wry ironic sardonic way, too.

    The author writes, and having writ, moves on and what's left is the reader's to do with as he wishes.

    We really ought to put your names and your stance on the book in the heading but we won't because it's not a battle, it's a dialogue and we want to see what you all make of it, please say your piece! hahahahaha

    Let's hear from you,

    ginny

    Ginny
    May 14, 2002 - 05:57 am
    Since we're sharing amusing family names, I had an aunt whose first name was Floyd (and she was obviously a woman), and my grandmother's brothers (2 of the 11) were named Babe and Both. I have a neighbor named Early (which I think is sooo poetic for some reason) and those are all given names. My grandmother's name was Arsinoe (pronounced Ar Sign A) which means Water Nymph in Greek. Her mother was quite inventive, wasn't she? She was called Sina (as in Sigh na) by her friends.

    ginny

    mstrent
    May 14, 2002 - 06:43 am
    Ginny, I think you're right about its being in the eye of the beholder and whoever, whatever, trains that eye will determine its definition. I think others have pointed out that it doesn't appear that Luke will be stuck with the attitudes he has observed as a child all his life.

    I'm very interested in the various takes on the story. There are so many ways to read - none of them wrong, none of them any better or worse that the next person's way. What we get from our reading is certainly deeply influenced by what experience we bring to it. I read this book as just a good story with lots of characters and action...set in a part of the country that I know all too well. As I've started to think back over it, it seems to me that there is more being said. I'm struggling to figure out what about the story has gotten under my skin and made me start looking for meaning. I'm convinced Grisham wants us to take more away from his story than what we can see on the surface....but that's just me. I've noticed these same reactions in discussions of poetry, too. A poem can have various meanings depending on the reader, and none of them may have anything to do with what the writer had in mind. For some, as I heard a student complain to a teacher once, a poem is just gibberish. The teacher couldn't understand or respect that attitude, but I think I can.

    My favorite given name for the sub-discussion: Bluferd

    mstrent
    May 14, 2002 - 07:06 am
    ...and perhaps Mark Twain is right ....

    "Don't explain your author, read him right and he explains himself".

    annafair
    May 14, 2002 - 07:14 am
    Here we are all struggling to discover the "REAL" meaning behind the words..Grisham is a story teller..plain and simple..He is an author, a writer of fiction and it is not only his talent, his profession but the way he earns his money.

    I have read so many books sometimes I cant recall when I am trying to make a point, some years ago a famous female author came out with her newest book. All of her books I had read I enjoyed, they were full of good plots, well thought out and intriguing. Good reading..Kept you engrossed ...when her latest book at that time came out I purchased it and sat down for a good read. Did I have one? NO ..when my daughter who also enjoyed her books asked me about it I replied..Well I think her publisher said It is time we had another book from you. Dont want to wait too long and this was the result. A very boring book.

    The Painted House is not Grisham's usual ..his other books kept me reading into the night...The Painted House may be his reply to a publisher's plea...It is more simple and since it is from the view of a seven year old we dont argue with that premise. If he lived or knew someone who lived during that time frame he wrote the story about that. As we struggle to make it a monumental achievement he is picking up his royalities and going on.

    Just an early am though...anna

    DorisA
    May 14, 2002 - 07:51 am
    I have been lurking through this discussion and I have finally decided too post. I agree with Carolyn and Annafair. I think we are looking for too much hidden meaning instead of the reality that all people are flawed in one way or another.

    The posts show our prejudices almost as much as those of the Chandlers. Luke being typical of the hill people environment does not reflect my experience of the Ozarks. After all, Black Oak had it's mean family that was beating up on a person from the hills when Luke interceded. The Mexicans had Cowboy that had a dark side too. Also what is more cruel than destroying a person by gossip?

    I hate the term "good Christian". Being Christian has nothing to do with being good. An atheist can be good. In fact I find Christians to be self righteous more than good. If you are involved in the working of a church you know what I mean. It is not much different than running a company. Some do the work and others take the credit and that is from the minister on down to the bottom of the ladder.

    I can see why Trot would want to paint the house. It was one thing he could do that would make him feel useful and repay a kindness. That could also be something taught by environment. I remember hill people as being very independent and not wanting to be "beholden" to anybody. I think that is a hill word.

    I read for pleasure and never look for a deeper meaning in fiction. The characters can influence my thinking but they have to be very powerful if they do. This book left me a little depressed. It was the beginning of the end to small farms and a way of life that many of the readers seem to have pleasant memories of. The almighty dollar wins again as people have to move away to be able to support their families and give them the things they want. I was a city girl,(St.Louis) but my grandparents were farmers.

    Another comment - We have bought green onion plants that were sold as Vidalia onion plants. Maybe that is what Grisham has reference to. These were sold in Missouri.

    Doris

    Ginny
    May 14, 2002 - 08:08 am
    Hi, Doris, and welcome to this discussion! We appreciate your views , perhaps I should not have suggested "taking sides," we're not about that, but we are about our own opinions here, and we, as are you, are all entitled to them, thank you for your viewpoint.

    We all read for pleasure? We all read for the same things. When we discuss a book some of us like to look a bit deeper than others? That does not mean those who like anchovies, or like to look deeper are wrong? That means they like to look deeper. Please keep in mind I was asked for my own opinions and I gave them?

    I thought your statement " I think we are looking for too much hidden meaning instead of the reality that all people are flawed in one way or another." is quite interesting.

    If you had not been reading this discussion, would you have come to the conclusion that all people including the Chandlers are flawed or would you have just thought the book was a nice discursion on farming in the 50's?

    I am trying to say, and probably failing, that the thought that we're all flawed is not expresed in the plot lines by anybody? You have to look deeper to find it.

    What do you think? At least not up till Chapter 19. Welcome aboard, I love your thoughts, and I'm glad you came forward and expressed them.

    ginny

    Judy Laird
    May 14, 2002 - 08:29 am
    What a wonderful discussion. I just sit and read before I start on the road and do enjoy all your posts, you are great.

    Doris and Anna I think you are right what if Grisham just wrote a story plain and simple. Is it necessary to question each and every line? Maybe he had no hidden meanings, just spun out a good story??

    Just wondering.

    MaryZ
    May 14, 2002 - 10:41 am
    In general, because I read for pleasure, I look for a good story from an author - and am happy if he/she provides it. Then again, I don't usually have the opportunity to really dissect a book.

    When I read this the first time, I just found it a "good read", and didn't ask more. It is interesting to re-read it, along with the discussion and see what others are finding, and seeing if I find these things, too.

    Mary

    p.s. MommieD, thanks for the information about the onions. I'm the one who brought it up in the first place - I had never heard of Vidalias until about 10-15 years ago, and then they were sold in the grocery stores as rare, available only a few months out of the year, and price-y. And now, only onions grown in that particular county in GA can be labeled "Vidalia".

    annafair
    May 14, 2002 - 10:51 am
    While I appreciate those who have more or less agreed with my idea that Grisham wrote a story //plain and simple I would like to say what we are doing here is exploring how that story affected us.

    AND that is the best part of the whole discussion. Not to find out what Grisham meant, but to find out what the story meant to each of us.

    When I was studying some poetry we were looking into and I am no longer sure about this ..but I keep thinking it was e.e.cummings..it was a male poet I do know that and we were trying to decide what he meant ..The poetry professor said that a high school class wrote to him to find out what he meant..His secretary replied that his answer to the question was "Whatever you think it means."

    I have some friends who are recognized as poets being both successfully published and recognized by those who judge writers. They write for the same reason I write ..because we cannnot not write.

    Often I will write a poem and return to it later and realize the poem has more meaning to me than when I wrote it. My dreams are the same way. I have a friend who has made a study of interpreting dreams and she loves to interpret mine..which are really interesting to me..

    After she tells me how she sees them I mull her opinion over in my mind and for the most part I can see why myself..they are about the things I read that day or saw on TV..or thought about ..but they really werent about what she thought. They were uncomplicated, often funny which is my own personality. I seldom have disastrous dreams for as soon as I dream of an impending or terrible calamity my mind changes it so it comes out funny or positive.

    I think what I am saying as we read Grisham or any author's writing and attempt to see if there are deeper meanings I believe it has a positive affect.. We are using our brains..we are digging deeper into not what the author thinks but what we think. It is just what the heading says A DISCUSSION ...

    here I am hungry for lunch and I am going to have a personal discussion ..shall I have that bologna sandwich with dill pickles and mayo or something more healthful????anna

    BaBi
    May 14, 2002 - 11:48 am
    Briefly (very briefly) I see these characters as very human. Complex; not all good or bad, and definitely inconsistent. Certainly more realistic than the TV depictions such as the Waltons and Mayberry.

    Anna, your mention of the poet's response above reminded me of a story told me by someone who claimed to have been there at the time. It was an adults class on American literature, and the professor had selected a contemporary poem for discussion. The professor found all sorts of hidden meanings in the poem, and many opinions re. the poet's intent. Finally, one of the students got up and said that all that was so much hogwash. It was all in the professor's mind. The professor, quite annoyed, demanded to know what made the student think he was better able to understand the poem than a professor of literature. The student replied, "Because I wrote the damned thing".

    We do bring so much of our own history and views to anything we attempt to understand. ...Babi

    [PS: Meg, nicknames are even more fun!]

    pedln
    May 14, 2002 - 12:19 pm
    This is a great discussion. I've been lurking, but have been travelling and have only had time to play "catch-up on reading the posts. Should say that this is my second reading, and after hearing all your comments, I realize I first read this book superficially. "Secrets" never occurred to me, but now that you have discussed them, I find them throughout the readings.

    Every time I had a question with this second reading, I'd start reading posts, and someone would always up and answer. Please forgive me if I don't remember who said what.

    BaBi, I was glad to see your comment about not seeing hidden significance in referring to "Mexicans" and "hill" people. I don't see any political incorrectness or preducial overtones there.

    Regarding racial prejudice against blacks, I don't see it here. Maybe I'm being naive, but I'm accepting at face value that there were no blacks in Black Oak at that time.

    So far, I don't dislike the Chandlers. They're not perfect, but I don't find them evil, either. They're realists. Do you really think they should kick Hank off the farm, knowing that they will lose six good laborers, which can make the difference between breaking even or going further into debt, perhaps even losing what they do own. Pappy is not my favorite, but at least he didn't tattle on the deacon. Is that a bad secret?

    I'm not ready to comment on the "Ricky/Libby" situation yet.

    That was an interesting comment about white paint covering up what is flawed underneath. Wow. Very perceptive.

    This discussion is really pulling out the "hidden layers" (re:Betty). I love it.

    Mommie D -- great to see you here in the Book Section.

    goldensun
    May 14, 2002 - 09:56 pm
    Grisham has written a plain story about plain people and what he is saying to me is that there is nothing idealistic about their lives or their culture or the times in which they live. He puts the lie to the myth of Mayberry and the Waltons, and to farm life as safer and simpler. The country child faces his own set of dangers and fears just as serious as any faced by a city child.

    Was Grisham having a little joke with us by naming his knife-wielding Mexican "Cowboy"? In the old west, the cowboys and other white westerners were horrified by what they thought of as the "cowardly" Mexican style of fighting- knifing the enemy in a silent, up-close encounter. They were of the opinion that a REAL MAN would have an "honest" fight out in the open with his six-gun. Never mind that he would have a smaller chance of survival!

    Where did Mrs. Latcher's unbridled outrage at her sons come from the night she beat them to a pulp for attacking Luke? I see her as the absolutely most pathetic individual in the book. Twenty years earlier she probably was as young and pretty as Libby, and hopeful about her future. Very sad. If you want to look for hidden meanings (which may or may not be written into this story) her anger is a good place to start.

    betty gregory
    May 15, 2002 - 02:12 am
    A few phrases and words in our posts may be about semantics, not differences in meaning---for some of us. I think I first interpreted "hidden layers" and "hidden meaning" to mean that what the story was about would be close to impossible to figure out. So, I wrote, no, no, the story is more straight forward.

    Others have written that this is a story about a farm family that's pleasurable to read, but that it probably doesn't have any "hidden meaning."

    To me, the book is full of meaning. It's about something. A 7 year old boy is suffering because a murderer has secretly threatened him. He will suffer more before the book ends. Our culture's collective mythical picture of the down-on-the-farm or rural grand place for a boy to grow up (Waltons, Mayberry, perfect images, Ginny) is noticeably absent. Those television stories usually presented a conflict that was resolved as the young ones learned about morality, ethics, responsibility, etc. Luke, or if his publisher is to be believed about who Luke is, John Grisham learned other things during his rural childhood.

    We cannot know if he is commenting on his family, his region, the South, in general, or 1950s' America. Can we?

    I wonder if Grisham grew up to feel bad, as an adult, feel guilty about how his family or his region (etc.) treated sharecroppers, much as his mother worried. I wonder if this book is a tribute or an apology?

    A simple story might have had one bad guy. Good vs. Evil. But, all three groups (the family, the Mexican sharecropper family, the family from the hills) had a mix of good and bad people. Even the town had its mix of good and bad.

    The family's secret was Ricky's bad behavior. While Luke was being threatened from the outside by those who said, "Keep this secret, or else," he was suffering an equivalent threat/damage from inside his family by their denying the reality of Ricky and feeling themselves superior to the people from Mexico and from the hills, or what Carolyn (Kiwi) first labeled "hypocrisy," and what Ginny has described in incredible detail. Each of the incidents of "assistance" to the Latchers or denial of assistance to badly injured workers.....were all part of the we're-better-than-you superiority.

    I keep trying to find words to compare the compassion coming from Trot to the lack of compassion coming from the Chandler men. Who IS superior to whom?

    -----------------------------------------

    John Grisham, if you're reading this, we truly need your input. Won't you come on in and set us all straight??

    Betty

    BaBi
    May 15, 2002 - 10:48 am
    HIGHCEDAR, I was also shocked by Mrs. Latcher's ferocity toward her sons, but I thought I could see where it was coming from. It was fear, plain and simple. The fear that the boy's treatment of Luke would cut off the family's one source of desperately needed help...Luke's mother.

    Hardnosed, hardheaded, opinionated Pappy was hard to get along with, but the only thing he feared was losing the farm and home that were all he had. He didn't want Hank to leave; he wanted him to work! He did not hesitate when he suspected that Hank was the one throwing clods at the barn at night, disturbing the rest of the Mexican laborers, and injuring one of them. He went 'snarling' and angry to confront the Spruills. I believe with Pappy it was a matter of "first things first". Right or wrong, everything else went on 'hold' until the crop that could save them was in.

    Incidentally, one humorous note that crops up occasionally was the dire nature of Ruth's home-made medicines. The injured Luis was quick to pick up on Luke's alarm, and wisely declined to be dosed, to Ruth's great frustration. ...Babi

    mstrent
    May 15, 2002 - 11:04 am
    I agree that Mrs. Latcher's beating of her children likely does stem in large part from her frustration and anger about her own life, but as the incident with Luke and the cousin's wife from Michigan shows, there's more. Luke gets taken to the woodshed for his prank in part, he indicates, because he crossed the line and was impolite to a guest. Southerns might hate someone's guts, but they would always be polite (at least until he/she was out of sight). The Latcher boys crossed way over the line and it seems to me their mother's reaction was also rooted in a need to save face, to let the neighbors know no matter how unfortunate the family was, those boys were "raised better" and were not going to be allowed to behave like hooligans. With the existing firm belief in "spare the rod," a good "whuppin'" was the corrective measure of choice.

    BaBi
    May 15, 2002 - 11:24 am
    Very good point, Mstrent! I believe you are right on target there. ...Babi

    kiwi lady
    May 15, 2002 - 12:31 pm
    I agree with MsTrent embaressment was the reason Mrs Latcher took to her sons. She felt she had lost face.

    Carolyn

    goldensun
    May 15, 2002 - 12:39 pm
    Excellent points, Betty, and I enjoyed reading them and mulling a bit. Who was superior to whom, Trot, who was caring and compassionate, in spite of his physical impairment, or the Chandler men with their (Pappy's, at least) callous attitude toward Cowboy's pain and risk? He was right about one thing- there wouldn't be much a doctor could do except bind him up. On the other hand, absolute rest is called for in order for the person to heal without further injury and Pappy ignored that part of the picture. If Cowboy had happened to move badly, like stumbling in the cotton field or reaching too far, couldn't a stub of the broken rib have puntured his lung? Wasn't Ruth right that he could have died? Pappy was willing to let him go on working and take this chance. Would he have been willing if Jesse had suffered the injury? Maybe and maybe not. More likely he would have been willing to take the chance, even adamant about it, if it had been himself. The decision was rooted in his stubborn obsession with the cotton crop.

    Mstrent and Babi, I found it shocking that they were still using the woodshed variety of punishment for young children. I remember when I was that age and had been naughty my mom used to pluck a switch off the bush next to the front porch. I always felt like I was being tortured and screamed at the top of my lungs. <Laughing to think about it!>

    Judy Laird
    May 15, 2002 - 03:10 pm
    Mstrent I think you are right. Spankings as I prefer to call them, were alive and well in Washington State in the 1950's. As I didn't know any better I thought that was the way to go. Didn't seem to hurt my boys to badly they turned out way better than I hoped and astound me at the parents they have turned out to be. They are raising their children with such love and attention I am amamzed.

    Ginny is off on a personal time and you are stuck with me. Hope we can make it throught the next chapters starting tommorow. I am looking forward to hearing all your comments.

    I enjoyed the baseball game.

    EllH
    May 15, 2002 - 06:31 pm
    I have been lurking in the shadows throughout this discussion, and I enjoyed each and every post. We have a small pick-your-own strawberry farm in the northeastern part of the country. Fortunately, we do not count on this produce as our sole income. If a rainy four or five days comes when the berries are at their prime, you can lose much of your investment. Many months of work, much of it hand labor with the weeding,turn into strawberry mush. The Chandlers yearly income depended on the cotton crop. Until you're in that position you cannot appreciate the desperation Pappy felt about getting the crop in. Illness,injury,even a killing-of course,of someone else's son- might take a back seat to how you are going to provide for your family for another year. Why do farmers do it when all they worry about is the weather, the crop etc.? I have no answers to that. Perhaps,they feel they've invested in all of the tools to do the farming, now they better farm.

    Grisham,to me,was was just picking up on the foibles of everyday life. He exposed our worts as well as our beauty marks. A good tale so far!

    kiwi lady
    May 15, 2002 - 07:02 pm
    Spanking not beating was alive and well in NZ well into the mid eighties. There is still controversy with the spanking (not beating) brigade and the non spanking brigade. Have to say in our family the ones who get the spanks for very persistant disobedience end up the best behaved of the kids. They certainly do not have crushed spirits they just know how far they can push the buttons. However the law says you cannot spank. All other methods are exhausted before spanking, amongst my family. Spanking is reserved for life threatening behaviour like running away from parents on the street. I rarely spanked and the kids told me it was next to useless and they would go to their bedrooms and stuff their fingers in their mouths and laugh. They said I may as well have slapped them with a wet bus ticket!

    When we were small some parents used straps or canes on their kids. My father once used a carpenters rule on my legs for giggling at the dinner table. My mother blew her top and it was never used again. I did not see any of my peers grow into violent adults. I guess there were some kids who were beaten and I only knew of one family of boys who had a really cruel father who used a horse whip. (He was a horse trainer)

    Carolyn

    Judy Laird
    May 15, 2002 - 08:18 pm
    Carolyn WOW a horse whip???That does seem over the top. My oldest son told me a while back he was thankful for each spanking he got.He also said for everyone he got there was at least 3 I missed.

    Ellh nice to see you here. I am sure we have more lurkers than we know. I usually lurk and am not comfortable at all in the position I am now in, but I will live through it. I think you are right in your coments about farmers. It is a hard way to go. Don't you think that many of them came up that way and didn't know anything else?? Also many times I think the land was in the family and that was just what you did.

    MaryZ
    May 16, 2002 - 04:57 am
    We've talked a lot about racism and prejudice and labelling. Grisham addresses it directly at the beginning of Chapter 23 (p 247). From his wording, it is clear (at least to me) that the narrator is Luke as an adult telling the story about his childhood.

    He refers to "...blacks or Jews or Asians...". In 1952, blacks would have been referred to as "coloreds" or more formally as "Negroes" or many times using "N.....". "Black" didn't come into usage for African/Americans until much later. Also the term "Asians" is much more recent - at the time, they probably would have been called "Chinese" or "Japanese" or even (so soon after WWII) "Japs" or something even more pejorative. But the whole paragraph on the variations of "them" versus "us" is quite descriptive.

    Mary

    mstrent
    May 17, 2002 - 08:42 am
    EllH, Thanks for the viewpoint of someone who has actually been there. It's hard, I think, for those of us who now live in a largely urbanized nation to realize the position small farmers were and are in with regard to battling nature to make to crop and pay off the bank.

    Judy, I also enjoyed the baseball game and along with it, Luke's devotion to his team and his dreams of being in the "bigs". Baseball has always seemed to me to be the most boring game to listen to or watch, but one that I always enjoyed playing. The picnic that preceeded the ball game in the book made me feel right at home, too. Used to attend one just about like that every year when the families of the dead buried in one of the country cemeteries spent a day caring for the grounds and eating each other's fried chicken and potato salad.

    Mary, I think we always come back to that subject in this book. It was that pervasive and it sometimes seems that it still is. I agree that the story is being told by the adult Luke.

    Judy Laird
    May 17, 2002 - 11:49 am
    Wow this surprised me. John Grisham wasn't even born in 1952. That for me starts some thinking in a different direction. I have kids his age. I thought he might have lived through a life that he writes about.

    John Grisham was born in Arkansas in 1955 and received his law degree from Ole Miss in 1981. He specialized in criminal defense in his law practice. John began writing in 1984 and published his first novel "A Time to Kill" in 1988. It was released as a major motion picture in the summer of 1996. All of Grisham's novels have been bestsellers and many will be made into motion pictures. My favorite book is "The Firm". His major novels are: A Painted House - 2001 The Brethren - 2000 The Testament - 1999 The Street Lawyer - 1998 The Partner - 1997 The Runaway Jury - 1996 The Rainmaker - 1995 The Chamber - 1994 The Client - 1993 The Pelican Brief - 1992 The Firm - 1991 A Time to Kill - 1988 Hi is also a legislator in Miss.

    Judy Laird
    May 17, 2002 - 12:04 pm
    This is probably more information than you want but I thought it was interesting.

    Long before his name became synonymous with the modern legal thriller, Grisham was working 60-70 hours a week at a small Southaven, Mississippi law practice, squeezing in time before going to the office and during courtroom recesses to work on his hobby -- writing his first novel.

    Born on February 8, 1955 in Jonesboro, Arkansas, to a construction worker and a homemaker, John Grisham as a child dreamed of being a professional baseball player. Realizing he didn't have the right stuff for a pro career, he shifted gears and majored in accounting at Mississippi State University. After graduating from law school at Ole Miss in 1981, he went on to practice law for nearly a decade in Southaven, specializing in criminal defense and personal injury litigation. In 1983, he was elected to the state House of Representatives and served until 1990.

    One day at the Dessoto County courthouse, Grisham overheard the harrowing testimony of a twelve-year-old rape victim and was inspired to start a novel exploring what would have happened if the girl's father had murdered her assailants. Getting up at 5 a.m. every day to get in several hours of writing time before heading off to work, Grisham spent three years on A Time to Kill and finished it in 1987. Initially rejected by many publishers, it was eventually bought by Wynwood press, who gave it a modest 5,000 copy printing and published it in June 1988.

    That might have put an end to Grisham's hobby. However, he had already begun his next book, and it would quickly turn that hobby into a new full-time career -- and spark one of publishing's greatest success stories. The day after Grisham completed A Time to Kill, he began work on another novel, the story of a hotshot young attorney lured to an apparently perfect law firm that was not what it appeared. When he sold the film rights to The Firm to Paramount Pictures for $600,000, Grisham suddenly became a hot property among publishers, and book rights were bought by Doubleday. Spending 47 weeks on The New York Times bestseller list, The Firm became the bestselling novel of 1991.

    The successes of The Pelican Brief, which hit number one on the New York Times bestseller list, and The Client, which debuted at number one, confirmed Grisham's reputation as the master of the legal thriller. Grisham's success even renewed interest in A Time to Kill, which was republished in hardcover by Doubleday and then in paperback by Dell. This time around, it was a bestseller.

    Since first publishing A Time to Kill in 1988, Grisham has written one novel a year (his other books are The Chamber, The Rainmaker, The Runaway Jury, The Partner, and The Street Lawyer), and all of them have become bestsellers, leading Publishers Weekly to declare him "the bestselling novelist of the 90s" in a January 1998 profile. There are currently over 60 million John Grisham books in print worldwide, which have been translated into 29 languages. Six of his novels have been turned into films (The Firm, The Pelican Brief, The Client, A Time to Kill, The Rainmaker, and The Chamber), as was an original screenplay, The Gingerbread Man.

    Grisham lives with his wife Renee and their two children Ty and Shea. The family splits their time between their Victorian home on a farm in Mississippi and a plantation near Charlottesville, VA.

    Grisham took time off from writing for several months in 1996 to return, after a five-year hiatus, to the courtroom. He was honoring a commitment made before he had retired from the law to become a full-time writer: representing the family of a railroad brakeman killed when he was pinned between two cars. Preparing his case with the same passion and dedication as his books' protagonists, Grisham successfully argued his clients' case, earning them a jury award of $683,500 -- the biggest verdict of his career.

    When he's not writing, Grisham devotes time to charitable causes, including taking mission trips with his church group. He also keeps up with his greatest passion: baseball. The man who dreamed of being a professional baseball player now serves as the local Little League commissioner. The six ballfields he built on his property have played host to over 350 kids on 26 Little League teams.

    MaryZ
    May 17, 2002 - 12:53 pm
    Judy, I'm amazed that he is that young. Of course, it never occurred to me to look (and we all thank you for doing our work for us). I certainly assumed (and you know what happens then) that this was a fictionalized autobiography. But, from what you have found out, the only things he has in common with Luke is being from Arkansas and the love of baseball. Most interesting. Makes me think of things in a whole new light. Thanks again.

    Mary

    annafair
    May 17, 2002 - 08:27 pm
    I should have researched this myself. It makes me believe what I have considered as we pondered the who, what and why of The Painted House. Mr Grisham is a story teller, a gifted one and as he did with A Time to Kill bases his stories on a what if agenda.

    His is not just a skill but a talent. It has always been my feeling that a writer writes because he must. The same way a composer writes music. There is something in them that wont let them do less.

    In fact I think that also applies to other fields...not with everyone. Most of us do whatever we do because we cant do any thing else. By that I mean we have to make a living, raise a family and we are most blessed if we find ourselves in jobs or positions where we not only get paid but enjoy. Many people are very successful doing that but it is not a calling. They would have found another job as interesting and as long as it paid well as satifactory. AND thank goodness that is true. For we would have a lot of unhappy people out there if everyone had a special calling that required them to follow it even if it meant barely existing.

    I use ideas from the newspapers and from newscasts to write some of my short stories. NONE are in any way autogbiographical. Just my imagination taking a real event and trying to see how it could happen.

    While I have won a few awards at Writer's Conferences I really do it because once I get an idea I have to see how it will turn out. I suspect many real writer;s do the same.

    What has more meaning to me is the insight and sharing we have seen here. The memories triggered and our view of the happenings in the book.. Almost anything we read can be a lesson. Lots of times when I re read a book I have enjoyed I am amazed about how I view it. Did the writer have a hidden agenda or have I gained some wisdom in the intervening time that takes a good read to a good study?

    It seems I can relate to all of the characters to some extent. Not always by first hand knowledge but by reading in the news about real people doing some of the things they do.

    Some of my relatives farmed all their lives and in some way they are like the writers and composers. They have to do it..not only to try and make a living but because it gives them a satisfaction they could not get any other way. Some of them left farming as soon as they were able and went on to make a better and in some cases a much better living somewhere else. Others debated doing the same but there was something in thier nature that wouldnt let them do less. They farmed until they could no longer do that ..and when they moved to a small house they wanted enough land to tend a small garden. There they could labor in the earth and feel a satisfaction not easily obtainable.

    I have really enjoyed this book. Some of the characters I feel I have known and all of them I think I have read about at some time or other.

    I think I have rambled and used my fifteen minutes ..anna

    Keene
    May 18, 2002 - 07:24 am
    I'm back, having had a wonderful week with my daughter and her two toddlers here for a visit. Now, it's time to catch up with the readings.

    JUDY, thanks so much for the biographical information on Grisham. Knowing a bit about his life helps me understand his thoughts.

    My daughter has not read the book, but in discussing it with her, I realized how much life has changed in the U.S. She is thirty-five and simply could not relate to certain aspects of the book: farm life, small-town prejudices, heavy reliance on others to make a living (hiring of cotton pickers), and the "Secrets" element of the book. With our knowledge of psychology today we immediately pick up on problems with denial of reality.

    I guess my discussions with her made me realize that I'm getting older. Ha, ha. The descriptions in the book were the descriptions of my youth. Although having been raised in a large city (Washington, D.C. to be exact) I visited my grandparents who were still on the farm or newly removed from it. I notice from reading the posts that many of you have had the same experience.

    I am wondering if this novel appeals to ones who are much younger than we who are on Seniornet. Anyone else have thoughts on this subject?

    And, now, back to reading.

    Keene

    BaBi
    May 18, 2002 - 07:40 am
    Keene, I was interested to see that you find the 'secrets' aspect of the story as a "denial of reality". It has appeared to me that most of these secrets were the result of awareness of a real and rather harsh reality. Could you elaborate a bit on that? ...Babi

    Keene
    May 18, 2002 - 08:41 am
    Babi, you have brought up a great point. My thought process on this subject is probably somewhat convoluted, but it is based on dealings with some of my family members who react in this way: they deny realities by not dealing with them, and by not acknowledging problems, but rather "put" them in a psychological compartment, never to be dealt with again nor any discussion of such "problems" allowed. Thus, to me, having "Secrets" may be, as you said, having an awareness of realities, but at the same time, denying them. Does this make sense? Thanks for your thoughtful question. Keene

    SarahT
    May 18, 2002 - 08:43 am
    Keene, I am 42, and don't think my doubts about the book were due to my age. Rather, I thought the book too pat and easy. Of course, this discussion has done a lot to prove that first impression wrong.

    On your question, Babi, about secrets. I think you and Keene are both right.

    The secret that Ricky was the father of Tally's baby was a denial of reality, of what was true, and of what undercut the family's image of Ricky (against better evidence) as some kind of god. I suspect that they were in denial because they really loved him despite his scoundrel qualities. I also suspect families tend to look the other way about a loved one's faults - especially when they're off being a hero in war.

    But Babi you're also right. For example, Luke's kept the secret about Hank because he knew that if he told, Hank would go to jail and the whole family would return to the hills. His father's crop would fail and that would be the end of them financially. So he knew the effect telling the secret would have and therefore chose to hide the truth.

    pedln
    May 18, 2002 - 09:15 am
    Judy, thanks for the biographical info. I knew he had been born in Arkansas, but didn't realize he was as young as he was.

    I first read this book back in Feb. as part of a community read, and enjoyed it just for the great story it was. Now reading it again, I am getting so much more out of it, due to this discussion.

    I hadn't thought about any age aspects, but I had the book with me at my doc appt. the other day. She's probably 35 -45 -- told me she just didn't like the book at all, couldn't get into it, but liked Grisham's others. (Believe it or not, a doc who takes time to discuss books with patients.) This is a book that brings forth memories -- the other night I lay in bed and tried to remember the first time I saw TV, what was my life like in '52.

    Grisham has a real talent for painting pictures -- can't you just see the family sitting on the front porch, Luke on the steps, chin in hand, listening to the radio. Or, see the terror in his eyes and his trembling, as Cowboy lies on top of him, pointing with the knife.

    I wonder how they'll do the movie.

    Judy Laird
    May 18, 2002 - 09:18 am
    Now that we know the authors age this makes a great deal of difference at least to me. Ddid he make the story up or did family members tell him stories or how did he come up with this particular story??

    This may be overkill but I found this article about a magazine about the south that Grisham is very interested in. If its too long I don't know.

    Entertainment: Literary magazine Oxford American in danger of folding

    Copyright © 2002 AP Online



    By JOHN PORRETTO, AP Business Writer



    OXFORD, Miss. (May 15, 2002 3:17 p.m. EDT) - The Oxford American, the National Magazine Award winner that's been financially challenged since its inception 10 years ago, is on the brink of folding if a new backer isn't found soon.

    Best-selling author John Grisham, the magazine's publisher, financier and patron saint since 1994, and editor Marc Smirnoff decided a year ago that it was time for the magazine to either break even or cease operations.

    In a May 2 e-mail to some 150 contributing writers and friends, Smirnoff said last year's music issue was a modest financial success, and the follow-up fall issue made even more money, but the winter movie issue was a flop by advertising standards.

    In the e-mail, which spread quickly in literary circles, Smirnoff said the publication - billed as "The Southern Magazine of Good Writing" - had two weeks to find new ownership.

    "As Jeeves told Wooster, where there's life there's hope, so we're still not giving up on finding investors or buyers who want to see the OA continue," Smirnoff wrote.

    In an interview last week with The Associated Press, Smirnoff said he's had numerous responses from possible backers who want to sustain the magazine, which has featured the works of William F. Buckley Jr., Donna Tartt, Barry Hannah, Roy Blount Jr., Larry Brown and Willie Morris, among others.

    "All of a sudden I went from feeling like things were pretty grim to feeling sort of oddly optimistic," he said. "I think something's going to happen."

    Smirnoff said he's received word from Grisham that the author - a former Oxford resident and Mississippi legislator - may extend the two-week deadline.

    Over the years, Grisham has devoted not only money but his writing talents to keep Oxford American afloat. The magazine serialized his novel, "A Painted House," in 2000.

    Grisham, who's written such blockbusters as "The Client" and "The Firm" and whose latest work, "The Summons," was published last week, could not be reached for comment.

    Smirnoff said Grisham's requirements are simple.

    "John is willing to sell his majority interest if we can find a person, group or company that's willing to commit to the magazine," he said. "He's willing to listen to any proposal that's reasonable."

    Smirnoff made the magazine's financial difficulties public in last summer's critically acclaimed music issue, which featured a CD with music from B.B. King, Billy Bob Thornton, Dolly Parton and Emmylou Harris.

    In a letter to readers, he said the magazine would start publishing quarterly instead of bimonthly, but the subscription price of $19.95 would remain the same.

    Smirnoff also warned that the number of subscribers needed to grow from 30,000 to 38,000 by year's end. The number grew enough to proceed into 2002, he said.

    But even though the latest issue of the magazine is complete, it is stranded at the printer for lack of money.

    Samir Husni, author of the annual "Guide to New Consumer Magazines" and a journalism professor at the University of Mississippi, said low circulation is largely to blame for Oxford American's woes.

    With 100,000 subscribers, the magazine would have a healthy revenue flow and the readership to attract national advertising, Husni said.

    To get there, though, "the costs are unbelievable," he said.

    "They were never able to get over the hump that this is not a regional magazine" said Husni, who helped Oxford American create a marketing plan two years ago.

    "Yes, it's a national magazine of southern good writing, but it was always viewed by the national markets as regional, no matter what," he said.

    The floundering economy and lower ad sales have made things increasingly difficult. This year has already seen the decline of Talk and Homestyle. Several other magazines also have shut down recently, including Mademoiselle and The Industry Standard.

    Neither Husni nor Smirnoff would discuss specifics about Oxford American's finances. Smirnoff said he's thankful for Grisham's patience and money, not bitter over his decision to pull out.

    "All I know is that he's put more money into this magazine than he ever thought he would. And he has repeatedly saved us," Smirnoff said in a March interview from his office in a small house near Oxford Square, best known as one of the haunts of William Faulkner.

    "This magazine would have died eight or 10 painful deaths if it hadn't been for his generosity and faith."

    DorisA
    May 18, 2002 - 11:26 am
    To me the majority of the "secrets" are to keep Luke from discussing private family matters. You wouldn't want you neighbors to know how poor you really were or that you knew you had a wild son or a hired hand that you couldn't control. After all if you wait a little while most problems go away all by themselves.

    Keene
    May 18, 2002 - 04:00 pm
    Many of the secrets are to keep Luke from discussing private family matters. We "don't want to air our dirty laundry in public." Thanks for this insight.

    Keene
    May 19, 2002 - 02:10 pm
    Well, I must confess, I think this is a really good story. I got so enthralled (and curious) that when I started Chapter 20, I just kept on reading until the end.

    The conflict between the Mexicans and Hank grows until Cowboy gives Hank his due (in a rather grotesque fashion). Poor Luke. This time he had a REALLY BIG SECRET to keep.

    We picked up on the foreshadowing in the beginning of the book when Cowboy and Tally seemed to take an interest in each other. Sure enough, they ran away together, but were thoughtful in leaving the truck with a full tank of gas. Nice people!

    The description of Luke's first encounter with television brought back wonderful memories for me, of watching Hoppalong Cassidy, Kukla, Fran and Ollie and the early shows in the late 1940's. I think we had our first t.v. in 1948 or 1949.

    And don't we all remember church picnics and playing a game of baseball. Loved it that it was between the Methodists and the Baptists--quite a rivalry.

    The house continues to get painted, perhaps a metaphor for "out with the old, in with the new." The house is painted simultaneously with the changes that are coming about.

    I hope all of you are enjoying this reading as much as I am. Keene

    Ginny
    May 19, 2002 - 02:45 pm
    Keene, we are posting together, ahhaha about many of the same things!

    Super point on the metaphor of the house getting painted, too! Well done!




    Welcome EllH, so nice to add another farmer to the mix here, and strawberries! I can't grow a strawberry to save my life, what's your best variety? We're in the middle of strawberry season here in SC, I bet you're busy as can be with a you pick it, we've run a vineyard here for 22 years so I have some idea of what you're saying, but I can't grow strawberries no matter what I do.

    Fascinating information on Grisham, Judy! Thank you for that, too.

    Betty and all what super posts and points. I agree that this 7 year old has really had a time of it.

    Just think, he's seen two murders, how many have you all personally witnessed? I have witnessed 0 murders.


    I have changed my mind about Pappy, believe it or not, I still think he's motivated by the wrong reasons (he'd lose all those Mexicans so Hank is confronted) but I no longer want to see him get his comeuppance, I think I've had enough comeuppances in the book for a while.




    I just know this is going to be a movie, don't you? I bet they are casting is now, who do you see for Cowboy? I see Benjamin Bratt, wouldn't he be a ferocious Cowboy? It's fun sometimes to say who you would cast in the various parts.




    So many interesting things in these chapters:

  • The tornadoes: did you all realize there were so many kinds and colors? I didn't. One of the strongest things I recall from the very first encyclopedia my parents brought was the section on paintings and the one of the farm family running to the storm cellar (we don't have those here in SC, do you all have them? ) and I used to stare at it for hours, fascinated and horrified me. In this area of the country you can't SEE them coming like you can out further west, but you can hear them and the sky turns green.

    I can't imagine Dad, no matter how many wars he want thru, sleeping thru a tornado!!!!!!! I get wildeyed here if the wind picks up at all.

    hahahaha

  • The church (town) picnic....what memories, do you remember them? These folks are a bit ahead of us, we never invited the rival churches, but I think this is a town picnic, and all those potato salads and deviled eggs, and then the softball game, our church did that for ages and ages, it was fun. Do any of you who grew up in the city remember the "block parties" and the "company picnic?" Same thing, people getting together, is that a unique American thing, do you think?

  • Mrs. Latcher's whupping involved the boys with their hands on their ankles, that's going a bit far I think, don't you?

    I remember a friend who taught 3rd grade, she had a child who was always violent and always picking on the other kids, called Mom in for a conference and mentioned it. Mom said, and I quote, "Air thar no limbs?"

    My friend thought she was asking about the children's arms and legs, and said yes.

    The lady said, then just grab yoursln a limb and whale the daylights out of him, I guess that is where he got that orientation, perhaps. Think about the hands on ankles position a minute.




    I loved the part with the television, Luke's first glance of the television and how Pappy tried to explain to him how it worked. My mother's mother, (my mother died at 91 two years ago) never got over the feeling that the television was a "miracle." She could not understand how it worked, how those people got in that box, and you know what? I don't either, really. hahahaah Do you?




    "Lots of secrets but no way to unload them." page 351.

    "Modern America was slowly invading rural Arkansas." (page 325).

    "The secret was becoming too heavy to carry alone," (page 364).

    And now it's raining and the creek is rising and we all know who is in (presumably in one piece) the creek.

    By the way, wasn't it interesting that when Cowboy and Tally took the truck Luke thought, "We'd be in the same boat as the Latchers," (p. 370), I thought the implication was stunning.

    I thought the mention of Johnson grass was interesting, on page 332, have you ever seen Johnson grass? It's quite something, almost as bad as kudzu in its own way.




    One of the things you look for in a book is character development. Does the character change? Does the character grow in any way? Here we have a plot and it's full of events, if you plotted it on a graph I don't know where you'd make the peaks, what would be a peak and what would be a valley? Lots of peaks.

    Despite myself I want to find out what happens. I notice on the picnic that it's "The Methodists," and I'm bemused in wondering IF this is the way all children categorize others other than their immediate families, or if it symbolizes something (she's a Latcher she'll have another one soon." and "Women do stupid things.")

    There's a word for that type of thinking but I can't recall now what it is, it's not pejorative, it's just a fact, and the narrator is, after all, a 7 year old who, I guess, is having to grow up fast, like the Arkansas around him, maybe. He's wanting the world to slow down, I have a feeling he's not the only one.

    Interesting themes to look at, action filled plot, and Hank's in the river (I forget, what's holding him down?) and the creek is rising.

    And there's very little left in the book so there will have to be a LOT crammed into the last few pages, kind of exciting, huh?

    ginny
  • pedln
    May 19, 2002 - 05:19 pm
    Ginny, Jesse also had Luke grab his ankles before he used the paddle. But the big difference was that Jesse did not do it in anger, Luke knew he'd done wrong, and knew why he was being punished. He could also negotiate a little bit.

    I guess today's counterpart to TV and how it works would be the Internet. Of course the explanation is reversed, with the grandkids teaching Grandpa about it.

    One of my relatives, whose last name was Johnson, loved to tell about when radio first came to his house. They turned it on and some man was singing, "How do you do, Mrs. Johnson, How do you do." Scared his mother to death "TURN THAT THING OFF."

    goldensun
    May 20, 2002 - 12:09 am
    Keene, I did the same thing. Couldn't stop till I finished the book.

    I had already read it last year but didn't remember anything except the encounter between Hank and Cowboy, and Luke's being out in the ditch by the field watching. What a realistic depiction- I could almost feel his discomfort and fear! True, it stretched my credibility some that Cowboy would perceive Luke's presence in the dark as he did. Either Cowboy was mighty calm and cool or Luke wasn't as quiet as he thought. Of course, there is an even more likely explanation- Cowboy saw Luke BEFORE he did his deed.

    Ginny, you posed some interesting angles to discuss. Luke, didn't seem to change much during those few weeks, but change he did. Some of these changes are subtle and eased in. He is becoming more aware of the world around him and his family's relationship to it. After that tortuous drive on their road through the mud, the family truck, turning onto the highway, leaves a long trail of mud on the asphalt. Luke observes this critically and wonders why all roads couldn't be paved. (p. 223) His mother lets him ride the road grader and suddenly he sees the farm tractor as simple and unchallenging. (p. 292) The seeds of dissatisfaction with country life- already sown by his mother- are sprouting already, and will eventually bear fruit.

    He is wise enough to say NO when asked if he'd run from Percy (p. 245) but admits to us that he would have if given the chance. No one would have thought of asking a girl such a question, but boys are expected to toughen up. The long days in the cotton field at age 7, and the woodshed could be part of this toughening process also. Are his obsession with baseball and his interest in the way television works part of the "boy" way of thinking and looking at things, or does he think about them because they are possibilities for him?

    When the truck was found nicely parked with gas in the tank, I gave the credit to Tally, figuring that Cowboy would just as soon have left it parked in a ditch somewhere, or worse. On the other hand, maybe Tally is already starting to have a good influence on him. Does anyone have a take on how he will treat Tally? Will he use and abandon her somewhere in a northern city, or will he be a loving husband and good family man? He is a puzzle to me.

    What fun to cast the to-be hoped-for movie!!

    Kathleen: Sandra Bullock. Pappy: Robert Duvall. Ricky: Is Brad Pitt too old? That's okay, Hollywood has plenty of young punky actors. Luke: Can't remember the actor's name but he played the little boy, Rufus, in a drama on PBS couple of months back- A Death in the Family, or something like that. The little boy's father is killed in a car accident. He was the most talented child actor, and by far the best looking, that I have ever seen, like a little blond angel. The kid was dazzling, and would make a perfect Luke.

    And weren't those picnics on the church grounds great? That's where I discovered the great love of my young years- big, giant, DILL PICKLES!!

    Shelby

    betty gregory
    May 20, 2002 - 04:13 am
    Ok, Shelby, you've inspired me. For the Chandler family, I see Sam Sheppard and Ellen Burstyn as the grandparents, Luke's parents...John Voight or Billy Bob Thornton for father and Laura Dern or Sissy Spassik for mother. Sean Penn for Hank. For Tally....Winona Ryder or Uma Thurman or Marisa Tomei.

    Betty

    Ginny
    May 20, 2002 - 05:21 am
    PEDLN!!! I had to blink and rub my eyes, THERE you are! So good to see you here again!

    Oh the position of the hands on ankles, I recall reading something about torture in some foreign prisons, can't remember which, but that particular position, without going into a lot of detail, hopefully, is quite damaging, I'll say no more, will leave it to your imagination but it's unusually harsh, no matter who does it or why.

    Oh good point on the internet, too, here I am typing in my pantry, here you are, typing...where? Where ARE you all? And somehow what I type appears on YOUR screen? I still don't understand television myself hahahaha

    Funny on the Johnson story!




    Where are the rest of you? Ollie Ollie Oxen FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, if we haven't heard from you in a while: Harper, Elizabeth N, MegR, anicat38, ALF, Catbird, kiwi lady, Wilan, Lorrie, HATS:, Mary, antoinette, lgrod, mstrent, Sisso, Snowycurve, Trina:, Jany:, Mommie D, let us know your thoughts! tomorrow we begin the last segment, can you believe it?

    Both Judy and I will be leaving on trips, Judy on the 26th and me on the 27th, Sarah, can we ask you to watch for and wrap up any last remarks? (Sarah is our Fiction Coordinator in the Books and a powerhouse in her own right)!



    I think we should give our own rating of this book, don't you? More on that tomorrow, can't believe we're at the end already!





    Shelby had mentioned that "I had already read it last year but didn't remember anything except the encounter between Hank and Cowboy, and Luke's being out in the ditch by the field watching."

    THAT is an excellent point! In the nest few days, let's ask yourselves what one or two things YOU will carry away from this book? What things will you remember? What interesting things you remembered, Shelby! I guarantee you if he hid in Johnson grass he got cut up, I just pulled out two huge bunches (only because it's been raining here, you couldn't do it otherwise) yesterday, I would not be surprised to find it marching on the house roots in air, I'll go try to get a photo of it today if you all are not familiar with it.

    What one thing so far sticks out most in your memory? I am interstedin plot development, and would like to know what you all think is the apex so far here?




    Oh Sandra Bullock, as Kathleen, I love Sandra Bullock. What's the MATTER with Kathleen? She's always sick? Lying down? I hope that's explained at the end of the book, reminds me of Wang Lung's wife in The Good Earth, remember her? I will never forget that. "I have a fire in my belly." Never forget that one, and here's , hopefully not, another one.




    Betty, Ellen Burstyn as the grandmother? I keep seeing Irene Ryan and the Beverly Hillbiillies for some reason, or maybe I have that confused with the Spruill's packing up to leave, maybe that's it. ahahahahah I did have to stop with the "Otis" name and the obvious connection to Mayberry. ahhahahaa this thing seems to have elements of everything in it, doesn't it?

    Wynonw Ridar is the PERFECT Tally!

    Ellen Burstyn did a star turn on a little watched tv show recently about the Italian family, can't recall the name but the episode where she got a computer was one of the best I've seen, she's a BABY, too young for GRAN!!!

    I see Irene Ryan and Buddy Ebsen as Pappy and Gran.




    Wonderful question, Shelby on Cowboy and Tally. Tally paid for that paint, what can she SEE in Cowboy? WHAT?

    What do you all think was the attraction?

    ginny


    mstrent
    May 20, 2002 - 06:30 am
    I can't decide who is using whom in this duo. I suspect Tally sees Cowboy as a way out of Arkansas in general and a way to get away from Hank in particular. Yes, I think Hank is likely a sister abuser. Cowboy probably is looking for a chance to get out of Mexico for good. It might be true love, but I doubt it. Perhaps we need a trilogy here.

    Ah, Johnson grass! How do I love thee?

    patwest
    May 20, 2002 - 06:49 am
    It can take over and ruin a good alfalfa seeding in 2 or 3 years. The food of goats and sheep, cows will eat it on occasion, horses generally won't.

    Mister Johnson's Curse:

    BaBi
    May 20, 2002 - 08:20 am
    A take on Cowboy? I see Cowboy as a young man of fierce pride, which he is quick to defend with his knife. I suspect he has been put down all his young life, and is now determined not to take anything from anybody. To Tally, he is not only young and handsome, he is, as others have pointed out, a way of escape. I don't think Cowboy will abandon her; she is now part of what he takes pride in. How long he will survive himself, given his quick temper and quick knife, is another matter. We already know he will not hesitate to kill, and I suspect he will himself be dead or in prison before too much longer. Tally, to me, has a core of toughness as well as gentleness, she is not stupid, she has her own pride and sense of what is right. I think she will be all right, whatever happens to Cowboy. ...Babi

    pedln
    May 20, 2002 - 09:52 am
    Shelby, what good points you make about Luke's character. Up until then I had been thinking that the characters were very well developed, but showed little change. But you're right, his ability to make value judgements is growing -- road grader, life on the farm. He is also learning to think differently about the Latchers.

    I don't know who I want to play Luke in the movie -- just as long as it's not some real "cute," precoscious little kid, like you see so often on the weekly sitcoms. An average looking little boy, if there is such a person.

    SarahT
    May 20, 2002 - 03:38 pm
    BaBi - thanks for that on Cowboy. Wasn't he portrayed as fairly sinister at the beginning of the book? Someone Luke might have cause to fear? I recall being surprised that he hooked up with Tally - a very sympathetic character, I found. Somehow, his association with her removed the stain I felt he had at the beginning of the book. For me, this struck me as one of many inconsistencies in how Grisham drew his characters, but I suspect many of you will disagree.

    The thing I'll remember most about the book is the futility of cotton farming in that era. To me, the strong themes we have talked about are what will stick with me - secrets, futility.

    What other themes will you remember?

    Certain the violence and cheapness of human life stand out. The pressures on such a young child are also unique The racial issues (although Grisham skirted these here, perhaps intentionally as many of you have observed)

    Anything else?

    betty gregory
    May 20, 2002 - 05:58 pm
    Sarah, Cowboy's association with Tally leaves me worried for her, as we know Cowboy is someone who cooly waited in the dark to stab Hank to death....I can't get over that part. After that, nothing redeems him. Since Tally seemed to add something fresh and hopeful to the story, I agree with you that Grisham is, at the least, inconsistent with her character when he has she and Cowboy take off. I'm all for unanswered mysteries, but this pairing is too troublesome.

    Betty

    MaryZ
    May 20, 2002 - 06:09 pm
    I felt that Cowboy and Tally would be matched from the beginning - she was the young nubile female, and he was the dark exotic stranger. She was looking for a way out of her dead-end situation, and that would undoubtedly come as a result of her sexuality. Cowboy was just the man who could help her. She is certainly a sympathetic character, but I do not see her as an innocent. And I don't see Cowboy as all bad - certainly ready as a rattlesnake to strike, but only when provoked. And Hank did provoke him by throwing rocks against the barn to keep the Mexicans from getting rested. Cowboy did not go out of his way to look for trouble. In their future, I would not expect Cowboy and Tally to stay together, but each was definitely using the other for his/her own ends.

    Mary

    Keene
    May 20, 2002 - 06:16 pm
    I, too, am bothered by the relationship of Tally and Cowboy. I don't think this relationship has what it takes to last any length of time due to different backgrounds. I think Tally had a very sensitive side, one capable of sincere love. Cowboy, on the other hand, is portrayed from the very beginning as a rather sinister, black character. Who knows what he is capable of doing? And, for sure, he murders Hank in cold blood, albeit with good reason since Hank provoked a fight by throwing clods of dirt at the Mexicans in their quarters. So, we have a problem. Tally runs off with her brother's killer, although she is not aware of what has happened. I wonder what her actions would have been if she had full knowledge of the actions of Cowboy. Somehow, I think she would have questioned running off with him if she had known that he killed Hank. And, I wonder about the future when she discovers what has happened. Will she stay loyal to Cowboy? We will never know the answer to this question. Keene

    DorisA
    May 20, 2002 - 09:55 pm
    I find Cowboy a better person than Hank. When he hurt someone he had a reason. Hank just like to kill or injure. Wasn't it Hank that broke Cowboy's ribs when they were playing ball?

    annafair
    May 21, 2002 - 06:21 am
    Tally in some ways reminds me of my cousins. Wise instinctively, hardened by a way of life that itself was hard,inherently good,ambitious and determined.

    My cousins fled the cotton fields and went north ..to Flint Michigan and New York. Some married as I believe I mentioned service men and after the war moved to where they lived.

    Regardless of what happens to Cowboy and I agree with whomever posted that saw him being killed or in prison down the line, I believe Tally will survive. She will get a job and work hard and end up with a place of her own. She most likely will have children and end up a senior lady with lots of stories to tell her grandchildren. Being naturally intelligent she will absorb knowledge and manners and by the time she is that old lady she will give the appearence of the gentry. My cousins were raised to think of improving thier lot and they did so ...VERY much so.

    The book has intrigued me since it wrote about cotton farming and it was something I knew a little about.

    I dont remember the churches of my childhood having joint picnics but my husband came from a suburb of Philadelphia and there were four churches on four corners and he used to tell how in summer the windows would be open and the choirs would sing in unison...and they did get together for a joint picnic each year and shared some of the festivities at Christmas and Easter.

    The Painted House is a slice of Americana...we have all related to it in some way and apparantly the reviewers did as well. I am not sure if young readers would enjoy it as much or get as much out of it.

    anna

    Ginny
    May 21, 2002 - 08:30 am
    I'm so enjoying all of your comments on Cowboy and Tally, and all the other issues in the book (I loved that about touching the lives of everybody and Americana, Annafair)...

    Cowboy and Tally were surely a most unlikely pair, (wonder what his name signifies?) he provided her with an esacpe, and she in her goodness (buying paint for somebody else's house) provided him with....not sure, you never know what attracts people. I would say offhand, anybody that quick to flick out a knife would be a person I would hate to get in a serious disagreement with, you all picked up on the danger issue quickly. Well they say Mike Tyson has to fight off women, remember Robin Givens found him dangerous and exciting? Jeepers. Sometimes I think maybe the whiff of excitement turns into a bit more when you have to live with it.




    Anyway, we've come to the end of the book and the discussion, you might say our row is picked, hahahahaha and I'm interested in your opinions on the very last of the book, the MAJOR unkept secret, what you thought of the family leaving the farm, why it seeemed so importnat to Mom and Dad to paint that house before leaving , what the title PAINTED HOUSE is supposed to signify, what you thought was the climax of the plot was? Can we identify out of all the peaks in the action, (the millions of peaks) a point at which the action , which has seemed to build up and up, sort of explodes and then things change forever, and everything after is downhill from there (the denouement). (I apologize for that definition of climax but can't think of any other.)

    But what IS it? I'm racking my brain here. Does this book even have one?

    In this Book of Events, what turning point do YOU see as most importnat, from which everything elst changed? Let's start with that before we each give our rating of the book?

    I can also see that this is going to be a sequel, do any of you think so?

    ginny

    Ginny
    May 21, 2002 - 08:42 am
    Thank you soo much, Pat W for that splendid link to the history (amazing) of Johnson Grass, and the super photos, loved the one and the spading fork, that stuff is unreal and so is the site, many thanks!

    Well, Cotton Pickers, bring over your sacks, and let's see what's in them as far as what's the turning point, what does the title really signify now that we're thru the book and any other thing you'd like to say before we sign off with our peraonal ratings (more to come on that...)

    For instance, whose side do YOU take in the "leaving" issue? Think on this? Think a minute? If Pappy needed Mexicans and the Spruills to pick a crop and make a living this year, what's he going to do next year? I note at one point Luke mentions they are leaving Pappy and Gran with Ricky. Oh? Do we know for sure that Ricky is coming home?

    Why do I feel here for Pappy and Gran now? Who do you most identify with here and what's that strange smile on Kathleen's face and does it have to do with the "Painted House?"

    ginny

    Keene
    May 21, 2002 - 08:49 am
    Good morning!

    One little thing: wasn't a tiny part of the house left unpainted when Luke and family left? Didn't Pappy promise to finish it? I can't seem to find the passage now, but am picking up on something that might be another metaphor with regard to the painting of the house.

    Also, I loved the last paragraph. "When I could pull my eyes away from the window, I looked at my mother. Her head was resting on the back of her seat. Her eyes were closed, and a grin was slowly forming at the corners of her mouth." What a beautifully understated comment and an ending to the novel. She only allowed herself a tiny grin, but, oh, what thoughts she must have been having, to finally be escaping from her hard life.

    Keene

    Keene
    May 21, 2002 - 08:57 am
    Ginny, I think we were posting at the same time. You asked about our feelings for Pappy and Gran with regard to their family leaving. I feel so sorry for them, not only to be left with the responsibilities of taking care of the homestead, but also having to deal with the void in their lives with their family gone. I cannot imagine having to face life without the much-loved grandchild who had lived with them all of his life. I have a terrible time saying good-bye to my two little ones who live in Boston after they have visited, and I would imagine that Gran and Pappy were going to have a terrible emotional time. And, like you mentioned, who knows whether Ricky would come home to be of help to them. After all, he appeared to be somewhat irresponsible, even though we never "met" him in this novel. Poor Pappy and Gran! Keene

    MaryZ
    May 21, 2002 - 09:28 am
    First thoughts on finishing. I felt the ending was weak - I don't know what I would have expected, but it seemed to me to just sort of drift off. Perhaps Grisham was just leaving things open for a sequel.

    The turning point for the whole thing possibly was very, very early - when Hank beat the Sisco boy to death. Everything changed after that.

    As to Kathleen's small smile - I read that as a tiny outward manifestation of the exaltation she was feeling at finally getting away from the farm. And you knew she was never, ever going to have to return to stay - that she was free at last.

    Mary

    Judy Laird
    May 21, 2002 - 12:16 pm
    Babi, Pedin,Sarah,Betty,Mary,Keene,Mommie,Annafair I have enjoyed all your posts in the last few days. This has been a wonderful experience for me. I will be gone this week-end and Ginny leaves for Europe at the end of the week but I am sure I speak for both of us that this is one of the best discussion's I have seen on S.N.

    For me this book has always been about secrets. If you remember in the begining it was mentioned that Lukes Mom did not get along well with her mother in law but they both made the best of it. She was not happy on the farm and longed for a different life. I can see the small smile on her face as they are leaving, she really has won. My crystal ball see's Luke playing for the Cardinals.

    I too feel sorry for the Grandparents being left behind. They will grieve for their family which has left. On the other hand farm life is all they know and they probably would not be happy any where else. I wonder how they could make a go of the next years crop without their family?

    In the movie I see Wilfred Brimley as the grandpa and Angela Landsberry for the grandmother. hehe

    Wilan
    May 21, 2002 - 12:27 pm
    I saw Tally as a young girl, hating her life, and taking the only way out that she could to get away from it. Also, do not forget that Cowboy was a sexually attractive young man to a young girl. Tally was not exactly world wise and, at seventeen, it is hormone time! I liked Tally, did not like Cowboy at all-I did not think that Hank's tormenting merited a murder. I do not find any good reason for a brutal murder (and all murders are) and considered Cowboy dangerous and evil. Hank was evil, too but where does it stop? I do not think that he would take care of Tally, but agree that she would be OK!

    I said at the beginning of this discussion that I found this story about racism, bigotry and child abuse. I have not changed my mind. I think that we only figure on these attitudes in the 'big' cities and the author was setting the record straight. The wonder of his story is that Luke stayed so 'good' (worrying about sins and lies).

    The paint was the 'face' that all families show to the world, I think.

    I felt bad for Pappy and Gram-they had chosen and lived a very hard life on their cotton farm and to their credit did not whine or try to hold the ones they loved to the farm, in spite of their pain at losing them to the 'big' city. I liked Pappy better at this point than I had liked him in the whole story. I always loved Gran!

    The smile on Kathleen's face-she and her family were free!-she had won!

    The climax-if everything is going down hill after a climax, I think that it was Hank's murder and Luke watching it in the dark. That raised the hairs on the back of my neck and after that Hank was gone, Cowboy was gone, the Spruills went and Luke, his Mom and Dad left, too!

    Good book, great discussion. Thanks Wilan

    MaryZ
    May 21, 2002 - 12:37 pm
    Wilan, I think you got it exactly right! Thanks for having just the right words for it.

    This has been the first book discussion I have followed all the way through, but it certainly won't be the last. It's been very thought-provoking, and great fun as well, and personally, I thank you all.

    Mary

    mstrent
    May 21, 2002 - 01:14 pm
    ...it's almost certainly a smile that says we're out on our own at last, but it also occured to me that if just might be because it took this terrible crop failure to release them to look for work in the north. Question: Had Kathleen secretly prayed for this kind of chance?

    The Painted House...somewhere I recall a remark to the effect that Pappy didn't see any reason for painting the house, it had always been unpainted. Just about everyone on the farm wound up doing some work on the painting job - the work brought them all into a kind of a family relationship, without regard to any of their past prejudices. The paint job suggests that just because something has always been accepted doesn't mean that it has to stay that way, and perhaps the painted house is a symbol of unity, understanding and hope for the future.

    kiwi lady
    May 21, 2002 - 02:54 pm
    Casting - I have only one definite actor in mind if Painted House was made into a screen play and that is Meryl Streep for Lukes mother. I have to say that not many of the new actors around today impress me as being great character actors except maybe Cissy Spacek.

    Carolyn

    kiwi lady
    May 21, 2002 - 03:10 pm
    The first time I read this book I liked it better than this time. I think it was somewhat spoiled for me because of reading a Murdoch novel right before it. Grisham has depth to his characters but nowhere near the depth of Murdochs work.

    As I have said before I see no deep meaning in this work. To me it is a narrative of life in the 1950's in a cotton growing area. It is as someone else said a part of Americana. Our children will benefit from reading it no matter where they live in the world. There are few children in the developed world who are expected to work hard like Luke and the other children, it should make our grandchildren count their blessings.

    The ending of the book portrays a scene which is still happening time and time again within families. Children leaving to find an easier life and a better future. Our children leave NZ in droves to chase the big dollars or pounds they can get with their University degrees on the Global market but often they come home again to raise their children. Maybe Lukes parents will find that the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence when it comes to raising a child in the City. My son comes home in October leaving his big salary in pounds behind because he says NZ is the only place in the world to bring up his two children.

    I dont have a lot more to say about The Painted House except its a book well worth reading by all the family.

    Carolyn

    DorisA
    May 21, 2002 - 10:14 pm
    I think the flood was the biggest turning point. It caused the Spruills to leave, the Mexicans to leave, Hank's body had to wash away, the Latchers had to be taken in giving Gran a chance to shower her affection on Ricky's baby and it forced all of them to realize the farm could not support them.

    I think Ashley Judd would make a terrific Tally. You would need a wrestler to play Hank because of his size. Let's make Tommy Lee Jones and Sissy Spacek Lukes parents,Matt Dillon -Rick, Sam Shepard and Meryl Streep the grandparents and Billy Bob Thornton the cousin from Detroit. Benjamin Bratt sounded good too as Cowboy.

    goldensun
    May 21, 2002 - 11:26 pm
    This discussion has been fascinating. I have enjoyed your most thoughtful insights and evaluations ever so much! Grisham should feel honored.

    When Pappy tells Luke he will finish the painting job, it is the signal that he has accepted the changes that have already begun. I believe mstrent is right: The painting of the fifty year old house signifies that a thing can change even though it's always been the same.

    Luke's father will never take his family to live on the farm again, but he will help Pappy and Ruth with getting the debts under control and this will comfort them enormously. He is leaving them but not abandoning them. Pappy will most likely never farm cotton again.

    I believe that Ricky will return and he WILL do the right thing by Libby and the baby. Ruth would see to that even if he weren't inclined to, but most likely the war will have matured him. Ricky will come home a man; his tomcatting days are past.

    The turning point in the book? In my view, it is when the flood brings Mr. Latcher to plead for help. Those few moments in the yard change Luke forever. When Ruth takes charge and offers them the barn, he resents the idea of sharing their food, and thinks how unpleasant it will be to have the Latchers living there. He is furious with his grandmother for offering to take them in- and then he looks at Mr. Latcher's tears and trembing lips, and sees him as he is- poor, dirty, ashamed and broken. Luke's young heart melts and he learns compassion.

    What a wonderful lesson he has learned from his Gran. He will remember her actions as far more important than the unkind words she spoke about the Latcher's earlier in the book. That is the turning point as I saw it, but for Luke and Kathleen, the turning point in their lives was the day they left the farm (p. 384).

    I don't think Ruth and Pappy will grieve long. True, they have lost their little Luke BUT there is a replacement grandchild on the farm, for indeed, the baby is a Chandler. Luke sees that particular handwriting on the wall (p. 372) and is "not exactly comforted" by it.

    My guess is that Libby and the baby will soon be moved into the room Luke has left. The baby will get a name and will grow and get over his colic and start to smile. He will become a little person and will fill a place in Ruth and Pappy's hearts as they wait for Ricky's return.

    Shelby

    Ginny
    May 22, 2002 - 08:17 am
    OH well done, ALL, the book may have petered out but you sure didn't!

    Yesterday I got in a fascinating conversation with my hairdresser over this book, and she thought it was quite signifigant WHO bought those two last cans of paint and with what money and what Pappy had to do with the painting there at the end, she felt that was the turning point. I love talking books with people.

    And what fabulous answers you've all given to that question and almost all different, and I'm going to put them in the heading if I miss the plane (am leaving Monday, Judy) and I think that Judy who is too modest to tell you so was totally wracked with anxiety over leading this thing and I know she is tickeled pink at what you all have made of it; a very satisfying experience.

    Is there any person we have not yet heard from who has some input on any aspect of this book?




    Keene, you said One little thing: wasn't a tiny part of the house left unpainted when Luke and family left? Didn't Pappy promise to finish it?

    There again is the Pappy theme, is it important and if it is, what might it signify? I can't understand watching a child labor to paint your house, 7 years old is a baby, how could you let a child take that on? Wouldn't you be ashamed to have the Mexican workers doing it and you standing there with your hands in your pockets?




    Mary, well said!! I felt the ending was weak - I don't know what I would have expected, but it seemed to me to just sort of drift off. Perhaps Grisham was just leaving things open for a sequel.

    How do the rest of you feel about this issue? I read an opinion of one of our other Bookies the other day on this in another discussion, she said she thought Grisham threw everything in this BUT the kitchen sink and it did not hold together and was a waste of her time! Now THAT'S a strong opinion, where does YOURS lie?

    It's time to VOTE!



    On a scale of 1-5, with ***** being the absolutely best book you ever read and * being the worst, what rating would you give this book?




    Mary, you thought the climax was: when Hank beat the Sisco boy to death. Everything changed after that.

    Good point!




    Wilan: The paint was the 'face' that all families show to the world, I think.

    So what would painting it mean? Beautifully said, into the heading it goes!

    The smile on Kathleen's face-she and her family were free!-she had won!

    Did she plan this? Was her gift of money for painting the house some kind of guilt offering so they could have the Painted House she was about to?

    Your climactic moment: I think that it was Hank's murder and Luke watching it in the dark.

    Hope I'm not getting your names mixed up, will double check before putting in the heaidng....more....

    Ginny
    May 22, 2002 - 08:26 am
    Our poor Meg, you've been wondering where she has been, she's off with mouth surgery and we hope she gets well soon and can give us a few parting shots, get well soon, our Meg!

    I need mouth surgery so I can lose some of this blubber! hahahaha




    Mstrent: Oh well done as per usual: Had Kathleen secretly prayed for this kind of chance? Oh good point, are we seeing any indication of Kathleen's planning here? Did you notice that the adults had conferred with each other on the leaving but the little boy did not know that? Well done on Grisham's part, truly told from a child's perspective, I feel sorry for him and that accent up north tho, don't you? He's not going to have an easy time of it.

    the work brought them all into a kind of a family relationship, without regard to any of their past prejudices. The paint job suggests that just because something has always been accepted doesn't mean that it has to stay that way, and perhaps the painted house is a symbol of unity, understanding and hope for the future.



    Besutiful, it's a pleasure to converse with you intelligent, insightful readers, well done.




    Carolyn- Maybe Lukes parents will find that the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence when it comes to raising a child in the City.

    I thought the same thing, the grass will not be greener it will be concrete, working in the Buick plant (is this whole thing a metaphor for the industrialization of America because it sure does mimic the mass migration to the mill in the south) is not going to be all that much fun either, and I have a feeling the green green grass of home is going to be nostalgically remembered for a long time.




    There were a lot of turning points in this thing, let me ask you this, because I don't know the answer, myself?

    What one thing allowed Kathleen and Dad to leave? I am still having a bit of a problem with the old folks left behind (maybe they aren't that old? Gran kept right up with the menfolks in the fields and Luke is only 7 ? What sort of age ARE we talking about here, Wilfred Brimley and Buddy Ebsen and Judy and I think or maybe people younger than we are?)

    Are they going to send money home as my hairdresser (Deloris who is smarter than I am) thought?

    What do you think? Otherwise aren't they deserting poor Pappy?

    What are your thoughts here and your rating?

    ginny

    Hats
    May 22, 2002 - 08:55 am
    Hi Ginny and Judy and All,

    My rating is 5 stars. I loved the book, and I hope he writes a sequel. I became lost trying to reread all of the posts. All of the posts helped me learn more about farm life and made me recall city life and kind of do a compare and contrast theme paper in my head.

    Luke witnessing the murder really struck me. It made me think about children who do witness crimes. That's so horrible. No child should witness an act of violence. I think Grisham left us on our own to think through Luke's emotions.

    On another note, it is difficult for me to think about a seven year old seeing the birth of a child. I remember a little boy's story on the Today show awhile back. The boy's mother went into labor before the ambulance could arrive. This little boy helped his mother give birth and tied the cord! No adult was present. He did have 911 on the phone. Can you imagine that? This makes me think that Grisham also wanted us to think about how quickly children do have to mature in some environments. Probably, that maturity makes them stronger children with better values. In a later interview, the little boy said he wanted to become a doctor.

    I don't think this is a happy la-de-dah book. I think there are a lot of hidden messages in the book about people and how they treat one another. Also, I think it is about how our experiences, whether good or bad, how theyshape us into the people we become later.

    Ginny, have a great trip!!

    Judy, you did a wonderful job!!

    Meg, get well soon!!

    Hats

    BaBi
    May 22, 2002 - 10:02 am
    Ginny, Luke's dad is definitely going to be sending money home to help pay off the debt. That's why he is taking the factory job. And until the floods subside and a new house can be built for the Latcher's, they are going to be there to help Pappy and Gran on the farm.

    I had not sense of a "weak ending" to the book, but only of appropriateness. To me, the keynote of this book has been it's solid reality. This is life, with it's good and it's bad. It has it's horrors and it's turning points, but it doesn't end with a climax like a story plot. People absorb events, adjust, hopefully grow...and move on. As I now will, with appreciation to all. ...Babi

    mstrent
    May 22, 2002 - 10:10 am
    Based on the prejudice instilled in me by a college prof who didn't believe anything warranted a perfect score, I'll give "A Painted House" a four.

    I agree that the flood is the climax of the story, and the boat trip in to bring out the Latcher family is surely the part of the book that will stay with me.

    This is my first time out with this group and it has been a great pleasure to see so many well thought out opinions on this book. I'm looking forward to more in the future. Thanks to you all and many more thanks to our fearless leaders.

    pedln
    May 22, 2002 - 10:20 am
    I give this book 5 stars -- it's a wonderful story, it makes me think. and it causes me to focus on memories. It came across as a series of little vingettes (where is spell-checker) -- like a slide show.

    Could this be considered a modern Cather "My Antonia"?

    When I first read this back in February another reader said she wished there had been more closure -- knowing Ricky's fate, the discovery of Hank, the family in the North, etc. But I don't think that's necessary -- we all move on, without knowing everything that happened.

    Last night I was doing some browsing about Grisham and came across an interview where he discussed the serialization of this book in his magazine, Oxford American. Said they decided not to include the epilogue in the book, one reason being that his wife (and others) didn't like it. EPILOGUE??? WHAT HO!

    Thanks Ginny and Judy for your great coordinating and thanks to all the rest of you for your wonderful posts which opened my eyes and made this book such a pleasure to read again.

    kiwi lady
    May 22, 2002 - 10:46 am
    About Luke painting the house. All my kids would have loved to be able to paint something at age 7. Brooke at age 4 went through a painting mad stage and her parents gave her an old paintbrush and she went about painting everything with water!

    Carolyn

    annafair
    May 22, 2002 - 01:44 pm
    I enjoyed this book very much ..as I have said it reminded me of my relatives in the south very near the Arkansas line..and how they all fared and what they did to leave behind , sharecropping and cotton. How well you did depended a lot on the person you sharecropped for.

    Like my relatives there was a great sense of family...to me the ending was just right. Not only for the story but for the people. America was changing and everyone was going to have to change too. I dont see Luke having problems..a lot of Southeners went North to well paying jobs and a future that farming did not offer. Like early immigrants to USA they will find a place where there are others like themselves.

    I am sure they will help the old folks at home..dont most of us do that when we can? War matures everyone and Ricky will not be the same person he was when he left. He will have the opportunity to use his education credits for his time in service. And he just might do that.He has seen another world ..other places and people from different parts of America..I know all five of my brothers served in the Armed Forces..the three older in WWII and the other two in Korea and Vietnam. The younger ones stayed in an made a career of service life. The older ones came back and two returned to the jobs they had when they left and the youngest took advantage of his education credits and did very well.

    While it was a good story and I enjoyed it ..more because we had the opportunity to discuss it ..I feel it wasnt as fleshed out as it could be and I can think of other books I have read not once but some three times because the story gripped me. So I think I will give it 3.5...one I am glad I read..One that certainly gave me reminders of my past ..I dont see as I have said before younger people relating to this story.

    AGAIN the best part of reading any story is sharing your outlook and view with other readers.. THAT is BIG PLUS and thanks to everyone...anna

    goldensun
    May 22, 2002 - 05:40 pm
    The story ended where it should have in my opinion, and I don't expect a sequel, or maybe just don't hope for one. Sequels have proved disappointments to me in the past. While I want the story to begin EXACTLY where it left off, the author probably will have different ideas. No doubt the story will have grown and changed in his mind, while it would still the same in mine. Now, if he should start a sequel with Luke and family getting off in the new city that would be great!

    Since I have read two stories about farm boys in a row (the other was Jim, the Boy- a very good tale) I now am ready to read about a girl growing up on a farm, so at the library this afternoon I picked up a book called "A Thousand Miles" by Jane Smiley. Again, the first sentence set the tone, and it was a grabber too. If it is against the rules to mention another book, I apologize. This is my first book discussion and it has been terrific!

    Painted House is a great story, and I have enjoyed reading it twice, and picking it apart for meaning, but for several reasons, I can only give it a 5 on the scale of 1 to 10.

    Shelby

    betty gregory
    May 22, 2002 - 05:43 pm
    All I am sure about is a rating for the discussion, definitely a 5, with much thanks to such smart and thought-full readers and to the good support from Judy and Ginny (good team).

    As for the book, maybe a 3, though from sheer memory-provoking energy, it could be higher. The voice of Luke wavered in age from 7 to 50 and it never was clear if the author meant to document and condemn racial hatred and child abuse (well, Cowboy's threats WERE abuse and hot field work for a CHILD?). The good 'ole days, they were not, THAT was clear, but just WHAT did the author want to say about those days? I don't think that ever jelled. We did a lot of filling in the blanks for him, decided among ourselves about the hidden messages, but Grisham's voice/intent remained hazy.

    I must be the only one who thought that Kathleen, Luke's mother, put him to work painting the house as a remedy for the trauma he was still suffering. He'd been through what would have been tough even for an adult. She knew they were leaving and wanted the triumph of painting the house to be his last large memory.

    Thanks, everyone, for such a wonderful discussion. You're all terrific.

    (Please go check out that new biography of Eleanor Roosevelt under proposed discussions. I think it looks wonderful. This last part of her life may have been her happiest. More people need to sign up before it can be a discussion.)

    High Cedar, I think A Thousand Acres won the Pulitzer, or some other grand prize, and is one of my favorite books. THAT is level 5 (1-5) writing.

    Betty

    Judy Laird
    May 22, 2002 - 06:21 pm
    I couldn't figure out why so many people gave the book a 5*. Hats, Pedin, Shelby, Betty. This book taught me one thing I don't absorb very well all that I read. Maybe I read to fast or am too tierd. I just skimmed Ginnys post and figured it was on a scale of 1-10. I think maybe I should read everything 3 times before I say anything.

    I have so enjoyed everyone's comments this is just the best.

    If some of you are interested the author of Madam The Grass is High has posted some comments about senior net and the books and its fun to see how impressed he is.

    Judy Laird
    May 22, 2002 - 06:27 pm
    On another subject entirely. As many of you know my story I do not want to go through writing it again. It's not only emotionaly draining but its is on Senior Net.

    In December 2000 I found out that my birth mother was alive and well and living alone somewhere in Seattle. I did not get to meet her and my sisters until June 21 2001. My struggle and story is in the Adoption and Biological Search's folder. It begins with post number 495.

    Thanks

    Keene
    May 22, 2002 - 06:33 pm
    Well, Ginny, in response to your asking us to rate this book, I'm having a bit of trouble. I guess I would say it's a "four." It was a great read, with lots of thoughtful themes, but the best book I've every read has to have the answer "No." I guess as a Spanish major in college I still go with "Don Quixote" as the greatest novel ever written.

    betty gregory
    May 22, 2002 - 07:02 pm
    Judy,

    My rating is a 3 for the book, 5 for the discussion.

    Betty

    goldensun
    May 22, 2002 - 07:32 pm
    Oooops! Sorry all, I also overlooked the fact that the rating was on a scale of 1 to 5. My vote should have been 2.5 going by that scale. But the discussion has been a 5 by all means.

    MaryZ
    May 22, 2002 - 08:37 pm
    I'd give the book a 2.5-3, and certainly agree that the discussion (and the leaders) rate a 5. It's been great fun!

    Mary

    MegR
    May 22, 2002 - 08:55 pm


    Hi all & new folks too!

    As Ginny mentioned, was a miserable, cranky & unbearble person to be around for a bit cause of mouth stuff & didn't even have my Painted House with me to do reading. Left it out of town at my Mom's on Mother's Day. Retrieved it yesterday & just finished parts III & IV of reading. Also read last 50ish posts. Was surprised to discover that Part IV seems to be done when discussion calendar indicated that it started yesterday!!! This post will be all over the place as I try to catch up. Maybe I'll do 2. _______________________________________________________________________

    "PAINTED HOUSE" METAPHOR

    Many of you have offered a number of valid interps of this metaphor of Grisham's. We know that that paint meant something different to almost everyone in book.

    Don't know why, but back in part I the phrase "whited sepulchre" (sp?) popped into my head. Had recently been reminded of a play by Paul Osbourne called On Borrowed Time. (There was a revival done in past 10 or so years on Broadway with George C. Scott playing the Gramps character) Anyhow - main family in play faced & would face major changes in their lives (like the Chandlers have & will). There was an obnoxious, greedy, self-righteous, "Christian" Aunt Demetria who drove almost everyone nuts. Think the Gramps character referred to her as being a "whited sepulchre". I didn't know what this meant & asked a friend. If my recalled explanation is wrong - would someone out there correct it, please?

    Supposedly in the ancient Mideast (current area of Israel/Palestine), the dead were not buried, embalmed or cremated. They were wrapped, annointed & placed into caverns or tombs that were sealed until next internment. The exteriors of these "sepulchres" were sometimes ornately decorated, but usually painted with a whitewash to put a sealed "pretty face"/exterior on a chamber that reeked & contained decaying corpses. So - a "whited sepulchre" was a "pretty false front" that masked rotteness within.

    Think Wilan was right on the $$ when she said that the paint represented the face all families show to the world.

    BUT - remember this white paint of Grisham's was put on bare, untreated wood. Paint is a SEALANT too! Usually, that's a good thing because it acts as a protectant & can extend the life of wood. BUT - the Chandler clapboards were made of oak - which is a darn hard wood that wears very well anyway. Would have held up for decades more. Seems to me that that paint did a number of things & meant different things to folks in the book.

    1. Lack of paint - an issue that Hank felt showed his family's superiority to the Chandler "sodbusters" 2. Paint - a frivolous luxury to Pappy & Gran (waste of $$ desperately needed for other things) 3. A symbol of urban civilization for Kathleen. 4. A peace offering & thank you from Trot & Tally 5. Painting - a task of ownership, contribution & gift-giving on Luke's part 6. An activity of comradery w/ Miguel & guys contributing to "Tom Sawyer" game - like earlier baseball game & because they liked Luke 7. An attempt to repay or start to thank Chandlers for rescue by Mr. Latcher 8. A shared activity w/ son & final "gift" to parents by Jesse. 9. An acceptance of "gift" & LAST SEALING by Eli (Pappy)

    Found it almost poetic that Eli had to "finish" last of painting, last of sealing of wood, last of sealing up of secrets in family. Luke passed on his biggest secret to Pappy & was relieved of it. It stayed w/ Pappy to be sealed up & left in Arkansas, on the farm, in the house w/ him & his new "whited" exterior. Know this is really stretching it a bit, but makes some wacky sense to me????? ______________________________________________________________________

    Movie Casting - Think I have ta agree w/ our Ginny on this! Jesse & Kathleen are probably in their mid to late 20's/early 30's! Idn't Meryl S, Tommy Lee Jones & Billy Bob T & some of the folks mentioned a little long in the tooth to play those characters believably???!!! Ya made me chuckle! ______________________________________________________________________

    Shelby, I so envy you discovering Jane Smiley's A Thousand Miles for the first time! Enjoy & savor it!! ______________________________________________________________________

    This is getting too long. Will post & continue on another one. Meg

    MegR
    May 22, 2002 - 09:41 pm
    Johnson Grass - Thanks to pix above, finally have a name for the weed w/ the insidiously inexhaustible & eternal root systems that I've been pulling from my flower beds for ages! Now I know it's name!!!! ______________________________________________________________________

    Climax or Turning Point of Story - For some strange reason (whether right or wrong), I've always thought that the"climax" of a book occured when the main character performed an action that changed everything, that prevented things from returning back to what they had been before that chosen action. (Like Hamlet kills Polonius - Polonius can't be brought back to life & Hamlet's action cannot be ignored.) Don't see Luke (as our main character) doing anything like that. So, I guess I don't see a climax caused by a character choice. Think Ginny and Carolyn helped me w/ this a bit. Back in #316, Ginny said:

    One of the things you look for in a book is character development. Does the character change? Does the character grow in any way? Here we have a plot and it's full of events, if you plotted it on a graph I don't know where you'd make the peaks, what would be a peak and what would be a valley? Lots of peaks.

    Carolyn later added in post #341,

    The first time I read this book I liked it better than this time. I think it was somewhat spoiled for me because of reading a Murdoch novel right before it. Grisham has depth to his characters but nowhere near the depth of Murdochs work.

    Think I agree w/ both of our gals here. This is an episodic & engaging story, but I don't think we get any in-depth character developments from our Mr. G on this one. Folks in this book are "types" for me - with names - rather than uniquely & distinctly separate individuals. You're so right, Carolyn! When this book is compared to another writer, differences do stand out!!! For instance, Colonel Behrani in House of Sand & Fog is someone I feel I know as well as members of my own family. Dubus made him so explicitly real & defined for his readers. I know what made that man tick because his own thoughts, actions, reactions & Dubus' input rounded him out for the reader. I don't have that feeling with anyone in this novel. Does this make any sense?

    I think the book engages us with a full, action-packed storyline of events that sometimes titillate us & horrify us. Grisham is also pretty good with including nostalgic & familiar elements that cause many of us to recall those events from our own lives or experiences. That's why so many of us (me too!) were "sucked into" this story. Therefore, because this was an episodic novel, rather than one focusing on character development, I think I agree with Mommie D and Mary that the TURNING POINT for the bulk of the characters in this story was the flood & resulting destruction of the crop. ___________________________________________________ _ Rating I'd rate this book a 3 for being a good read w/ an engaging plot.___________________________________________________________________

    Wanna talk about Cowboy & Tally and Pappy & Gram at the end too, but fear this is getting long too & I should post. Meg

    MegR
    May 23, 2002 - 04:34 am
    Spring has returned & frost warnings are gone- again! Sun's up, blindingly bright & those darn birds are just a little too busy, happy and noisy for this early in the morning! So, since they got me up, decided to finish last night's stuff.

    Cowboy & Tally

    Was really surprised to read such strong reactions to Cowboy. Some of us have described him as being "dangerous and evil", as "having a stain on him", as having a "sinister, black character." These are really powerful and revealing words. Wonder if they really tell us more about Cowboy or about the readers who said them? Someone else said that "Hanks's torment did not merit a murder"(by Cowboy). That one stopped me too! Come on folks! Our L'il Hank wasn't just a rambunctious "good ole boy"!!!! Hank was the epitome of evil here in this book - and also the one without 2 cents worth of sense in his head. Don't ya remember that HANK not only beat the Sisco brothers -after he had won the fight, he kicked, stomped & repeatedly beat them with a 2x4 until he killed one of them! HANK was the one who deliberately threw the baseball at Cowboy during the game & severely bruised or broke Cowboy's ribs when the Mexicans were trouncing the "Anglos" during the baseball game. Think HANK also deliberately aimed at some of the other Latinos too if I'm not mistaken. HANK was the one who viciously beat Samson - well past the point of just pinning him down to win the challenge. HANK also laughed & bragged to his brothers about this & mentioned following carnival around to set up & repeatedly beat Samson as a new career. Grisham has shown us multiple examples of Hank's twisted & cruel bents. HANK was the one who threw mudclumps at the barn to prevent the Mexicans from getting a good night sleep. HANK was the one who chose to throw a rock at Luis when he looked out of loft door during one of Hank's mud attacks - & suffered facial injuries as a result. Hank enjoys hurting and threatening others. He chooses this type of behavior over & over & over again. Don't you also get the feeling that he's probably been a bully in a number of ways with his own family too?

    I don't think think Cowboy is anywhere near being in the same league with Hank. He appears to be flirtatious, easy-going. Machismo definitely is a part of his makeup. He easily joins the fun & silliness of the baseball game with his countrymen. He too seems to enjoy the playfulness of it. We really don't see anger in Cowboy or his switchblade until after Hank's injured him w/ the baseball. Sort of agree with Mary's comments in #327, "I felt that Cowboy and Tally would be matched from the beginning - she was the young nubile female, and he was the dark exotic stranger. She was looking for a way out of her dead-end situation, and that would undoubtedly come as a result of her sexuality. Cowboy was just the man who could help her. She is certainly a sympathetic character, but I do not see her as an innocent. And I don't see Cowboy as all bad - certainly ready as a rattlesnake to strike, but only when provoked. And Hank did provoke him by throwing rocks against the barn to keep the Mexicans from getting rested. Cowboy did not go out of his way to look for trouble. In their future, I would not expect Cowboy and Tally to stay together, but each was definitely using the other for his/her own ends."

    We know that Cowboy & Tally spent quiet, private time together because Luke heard them whispering & giggling in the field together. Don't think that we're to assume that that was the only time that they did that. What I found puzzling was the timing of Hank's "gutting". Was a good stretch of time - after he had hurt Cowboy. I'm not condoning Hank's murder at all here. Just am not sure what Grisham wants us to infer about the WHY of Cowboy's killing Hank. What was his motivation? Cowboy seemed to me to be a little more deliberate & rational when compared w/ Hank's rash impulsive behaviors. Yes, Cowboy did threatened Luke & we know that he succeeded in frightening Luke into silence. But - I'm not sure that Cowboy was ready to carry out his threats. Just saw them as a way to buy some time.???? What do you think?

    Meg

    betty gregory
    May 23, 2002 - 07:17 am
    Meg, you asked, "what do you think?" I think Cowboy waited in the dark and killed someone. No excuses. He's bad news. Hank is not better or worse. He deliberately beat someone to death. No excuses. He's bad news. Besides, Grisham doesn't develop Cowboy enough for us to compare him to Hank.

    Betty

    Wilan
    May 23, 2002 - 10:32 am
    Cowboy followed Hank and murdered him-gutted him. That is savage and all the other bigotry's and racism that occurs in this tale dims in the sight of this awful offense. I cannot see Cowboy as a kind, giggling,put upon, well meaning Mexican laborer. I will grant that Hank is as bad, but one murder does not excuse another, does it? I do not think that Cowboy murdered Hank as revenge for the Sisco boy's murder-it had nothing to do with Cowboy's act. He needed money, hated Hank (justly so) and wanted to run away with Tally. She is a young girl with dreams of escaping her life and I fear, made a very bad choice! Hank was on his way home, out of Cowboy's life-I do not see a justification for Cowboy's murder of him. I understand and empathize with Cowboy's hatred of him, but not his reason for murder. Then to threaten a seven year old boy! Not a nice man, at all! Tally will be far better off when he leaves her-and leave her, he will! Wilan

    goldensun
    May 23, 2002 - 01:24 pm
    Meg,

    I agree with your assessment concerning Hank. His actions as much as said that he needed killing and Cowboy did it for him. If Cowboy hadn't, someone else would have. It wasn't out of anger or revenge though that Cowboy did it, although he hated Hank with good reason. But in the end, it was the ill-gotten money won from Samson which doomed Hank.

    After all the evil and stupid things that Hank did, the VERY stupidest was to leave the Chandler farm alone in the dead of night, carrying a large amount of cash- his earnings plus Samson's money. After the way he had conducted himself and treated Cowboy, this was a written invitation. Cowboy saw this as killing two birds (so to speak) with one stone: He destroys his enemy and he gets money for himself and Tally to start new lives.

    I'm not so sure Cowboy is going to end up dead or in prison. He has his own code and won't go around willy/nilly knifing people for their earnings. After all, he didn't harm or rob the Chandlers, the Spruill family, the other Mexicans or Luke- only his evil tormentor. Cowboy is not a lazy opportunist, but a hard worker, and I think he loves Tally and that there is a chance they will build a good life together. I base this upon what he actually did as opposed to what he COULD have done. He could have killed Luke and thrown him into the river with Hank, and disappeared into the night with the money leaving the brokenhearted Chandlers and Tally behind.

    mstrent
    May 23, 2002 - 01:57 pm
    Simple in either Spanish or English: venganza-revenge. Hank's money was just so much icing on the cake. How much of that revenge was personal and how much, if any, was because of Tally we'll have to decide for ourselves. At any rate, of the two bad guys, I'd be more willing to take my chances with Cowboy than with Hank, the one a cold, calculating murderer, the other an out of control, beat 'em to death for thrills murderer.

    betty gregory
    May 23, 2002 - 02:22 pm
    I know this will sound like heresy, given how much fun we're having examining the painted house for subtle meaning. I think it's possible that it's a true memory of Grisham's and a mystery. I wonder if someone "not right in his head" (remember when this was said about people who were slower learners or not very well developed socially?) actually began painting a house as a friendly gesture. Then, to continue the unusual story, a child was assigned the balance of the project.

    It almost sounds like a great family story where people begin to chuckle right from the beginning....."Remember the fall of 52? When the back field flooded in 2 days and 'ole Jackson's kid started painting the house?" (knowing laughter) Then the now-adult 7 year old says his line, "I'll never forget the shock I felt when Mother handed me that paint brush and announced that I would finish it. I WAS ONLY 7 YEARS OLD!! (laughter) Today, we'd call that CHILD ABUSE! (loud laughter) Then, everyone pitched in and, by god, we painted Pappy's house!!"

    Then someone would say, "When Pappy was still alive, he would say, 'Lot a good it did me....I had a fancy house and ruined cotton!!' Then he'd look over at John and wink."

    Remember, Grisham's publisher believes that Painted House is based on Grisham's childhood. I believe that he attempted to document some serious negative aspects of the 1950s' southern society, but I am less convinced he used metaphors or symbols. If "painted house" refers to a true memory of the odd way his grandfather's (or someone's) house got its first coat of paint, then there is no extended meaning. You have to admit, it is the weirdest, oddest idea OR a true memory.......that a son of a sharecropper secretly began to paint a farmer's house. Maybe it rings true, is believable, in the book because it is true. Who could risk the success of a book on a FICTIONAL oddity like this, I keep asking myself. So, I wonder if this really happened.

    Betty

    kiwi lady
    May 23, 2002 - 02:58 pm
    I agree with a previous poster, I dont believe Cowboy will kill again. I believe he liked Luke and only threatened him to ensure he and Tally would get away to make that new life they so desperately wanted. Hank had such a cruel nature who knows what Tally suffered at his hands during their childhood?

    Betty I am still sure that there are no hidden meanings in this book. I think you are correct in your suppositions about the painting of the house.

    Carolyn

    betty gregory
    May 23, 2002 - 03:49 pm
    Ah, my treasured reading friends, wouldn't we make the MOST interesting JURY!!!!! Just look at how we come to our different perspectives of Hank and Cowboy and their awful deeds. This is so interesting.

    Some old, old studies looking at how women and men make moral judgments were often cited as reasons why women could never be court judges....that they would be too "emotional" and not capable of using cool reasoning. The way the old studies were designed, by men, of course, tested only whether people could follow RULES in making moral judgments.

    Later and more sophisticated studies did reveal somewhat different paths to moral decisions by women and men. On average, men want to know, "What are the rules?" "What are the laws?" Black/white, right/wrong. On average, women wanted to know, "Along with the rules, what human elements are involved? Are human CONNECTIONS at issue. What is morally GOOD?" (Would the mother steal the medicine to save the life of her child?....that old, famous German study. That she might do it, if it was her only way to save her child, was used as "proof" that women would not make good judges, years ago.) More recent studies still show a distinct difference (in averages)....men, on average, are still inclined to ask, "What are the rules?" Remember, these are averages....my comments about Cowboy and Hank are closer to "what are the rules" than others' comments. "No excuses," I wrote.

    Betty

    MegR
    May 24, 2002 - 05:18 am
    Some interesting stuff's come up here!

    Betty, think we're "buttin' heads again"! (chuckling) Was surprised by your reactions, considering your profession! Would have expected the direct opposites from you! (Go ahead - get those M & M's & shoes ready to throw! Laughing) You said, Some old, old studies looking at how women and men make moral judgments were often cited as reasons why women could never be court judges....that they would be too "emotional" and not capable of using cool reasoning. The way the old studies were designed, by men, of course, tested only whether people could follow RULES in making moral judgments." (Implications here that this reader was reacting "emotionally" & not following the "RULES" of making moral judgements??!??)

    You also added earlier, "Cowboy waited in the dark and killed someone. No excuses. He's bad news. Hank is not better or worse. He deliberately beat someone to death. No excuses. He's bad news. Besides, Grisham doesn't develop Cowboy enough for us to compare him to Hank." On the contrary, Betty, Grisham DOES give us enough info to compare these two guys! I never condoned either man's act of murder. There's no justification for taking a life. BUT, Grisham does give us evidence of "differences" between the two men. Yes, both did commit murder - absolutely NO argument on that issue. BUT these two guys are totally different. Evidence in text shows only ONE act of violence performed by Cowboy. Grisham provides MANY acts of violence done by Hank. Wouldn't your objective judge (either male or female) consider "prior records" as a case is heard? Ya have to admit that Hank was the more "all wrong" of these two men! Would Hank have left the Chandler truck at bus station at all - let alone filled the tank??

    I agree w/ you that characters are not rounded as individuals - but explicit actions do provide evidence for comparisons!

    Know what did confuse me about Hank's slaying? The timing & why of it. How did Cowboy know that Hank was leaving that Friday night? Who told him? Thought that conversations about Hank's departure took place down by road in Spruill "camp" in front yard. Barn was well behind the house. Then 48 hours later, Cowboy & Tally take off w/ the truck.

    Shelby offered Hank's money roll as a possible motivation for Cowboy's actions. Have to agree that Hank's wad would help w/ their escape, but have to wonder still. There was a vehemence & fury to Cowboy's knifing that wasn't necessary for a simple robbery. Seems to me that there should have been some explanation for that intensity of his slaughter - which of course, Grisham didn't provide. Can only speculate about the "why" of Cowboy's actions on that bridge. Just bugged me, don't know why, but I wanted an answer there - maybe I read too any mystery novels! (laughing!)

    Carolyn, Just have to tell you - made your cheese & onion biscuits last time I went to gathering at my mom's. They were a big hit & my brothers & neices & nephews clamored loudly for more! Your yummies are now officially on menu for family gatherings! All of our gang say, "Thank you!"

    Last bit of Silliness Know how we all get postings forwarded to us via email from friends? One of my pals sent me a nostalgic "remember when" list that kinda fits into period of this novel. Will send it in next post for you to have another trip down memory lane & a few chuckles!

    Meg

    MegR
    May 24, 2002 - 05:21 am
    REMEMBER WHEN?

    betty gregory
    May 24, 2002 - 08:00 am
    No, no, Meg. Everyone's thoughtful comments on Hank and Cowboy prompted me to think of those terrible studies with their turn-of-the-century thinking on women. The erroneous conclusions at the time underestimated the value of contextual thinking....somthing that many women do well. (And on the subject of women being accused of being "too emotional," I usually respond that men are not emotional enough.)

    As far as Hank and Cowboy are concerned, to me they are poor candidates for comparison. Hank's habitual violence and mean spirit are terrible and Cowboy's cold, calculated violence is terrible. (I have each of them on their own scale of good to bad, not both of them on opposite ends of one scale.) (I'm not sure what surprised you about my post.....I have little tolerance for violence; that's an acknowledged bias.)

    Hank's and Cowboy's importance in the story, to my way of thinking, was their cumulative effect of trauma on poor little Luke, who began to disintegrate emotionally after watching Cowboy kill Hank and threaten to kill Luke's mother. Kathleen's intuitive wisdom to put Luke to work painting was very smart, though she didn't understand why Luke was suffering.

    Back in a minute with thoughts on the good 'ole days.

    Betty

    SarahT
    May 24, 2002 - 10:12 am
    Betty, you intrigue me with your comment that the Hank/Cowboy behavior caused Luke to "disintegrate emotionally." Do tell how.

    kiwi lady
    May 24, 2002 - 10:56 am
    That 'remember when' post is travelling the world but it has been adjusted for each country. We have a NZ version someone did in the UK and all the homesick kiwis are passing it around. Its funny to see the differences in the cultures in the two posts! Also the different terminology. I just got the post yesterday so I was quite tickled to see someone post it up here!

    Meg I am glad you family enjoyed " the biscuits" (scones!) Its funny to think this British/Kiwi recipe could one day become an American family recipe! Its a small world isn't it?

    I am just lurking here now and enjoying all the posts. Its so very interesting to see the differing opinions. I think its all in our personalities which way we see the happenings in this book. Betty do you think this is the case? Maybe we can all be right? Its fun anyway!

    Carolyn

    goldensun
    May 24, 2002 - 11:42 am
    Meg, when i read this part of your post it was as if a flare went off in front of my eyes:

    Know what did confuse me about Hank's slaying? The timing & why of it. How did Cowboy know that Hank was leaving that Friday night? Who told him? Thought that conversations about Hank's departure took place down by road in Spruill "camp" in front yard. Barn was well behind the house. Then 48 hours later, Cowboy & Tally take off w/ the truck.

    How could I have missed it! I just had never drawn the the connection before that of course it was Tally who tipped off Cowboy. She didn't just take advantage of opportunities, she created and maximized her own opportunities! What a revelation.

    betty gregory
    May 24, 2002 - 12:58 pm
    Well, shoot, I loaned my book already and can't look up the specifics, Sarah. I was thinking only of Luke's hiding under the bed, clinging to his mother, refusing to eat, staying in his room during the day and fearful of leaving his mother alone. I think his father sent him to the fields the next day, saying one day of moping was enough....though no one knew what was wrong because he wouldn't answer. If I remember correctly, then he was terrified seeing Cowboy. The first step out of his fear was his ride on the road grader, wasn't it?

    Betty

    betty gregory
    May 24, 2002 - 01:45 pm
    Sarah, this is good that you asked what you did, because it has reminded me to be careful. I MEANT less than "disintegrating emotionally" implied. I meant whatever Luke's mother would have called it when she looked at her son with worry, possibly thinking that the season of field work was catching up with her son or that he had run into child-sized hurt feelings or was "coming down with something", never for a minute guessing that her son had witnessed a murder. In today's slang, a mother might have thought "falling apart" after shouldering adult-size responsibilities.

    Or, who knows, this 1950s mother may not have given a second thought to a child working in the fields, but Kathleen knew SOMETHING was bothering her son.

    I'm still trying to write something about that good old days list, but after two tries, my computer has crashed, taking long posts both times. AAArrgghhhh.

    Betty

    Keene
    May 24, 2002 - 02:50 pm
    Thanks for the "Remember When" post. It brought back many wonderful memories. Keene

    pedln
    May 24, 2002 - 03:16 pm
    There have been frequent comments about child abuse here -- re: a seven-year-old picking cotton. But, if you have nothing to compare, you raise kids the way you were raised. No doubt Pappy and Jesse both picked cotton from the time they were very small. Kathleen, raised in town, is the one who is changing the pattern.

    Our country's history is agriculture, and kids always worked on the farm. Hard? Yes. Child abuse? At that time, no.

    betty gregory
    May 24, 2002 - 03:44 pm
    Pedln or anyone, does anyone know if there were families who thought 7 years old was too young to work? For those families who could afford to let children reach 8 or 9 before putting them in the field, was there such a thing? Was there pride in number of children born and working.....or pride in being able to say, "not our daughters, only our sons" in the fields? Wasn't there pride in being able to let a child attend school instead of work, not for the welfare of the child, but pride in financial status? I can't get a sense of what was expected.

    Betty

    SarahT
    May 24, 2002 - 03:47 pm
    Did this book change the way you think about farming?

    About kids?

    About migrant laborers?

    About farm families?

    mstrent
    May 24, 2002 - 04:56 pm
    I've heard my older relatives say that families took pride in working together to bring in a crop. It was pointed out somewhere in "A Painted House" that for many farmers cotton was their only source of cash for an entire year. There are also stories that have come down about how all family members went together to work on the harvest. Some of the children served by taking care of the toddlers and babies, but everyone in the family worked at something. As for taking pride in being financially able to let children out of work to go to school, it was common practice in this state that the schools didn't even "take up" until after most of the harvest work on the farms was finished along about mid-September. If you went to public school, no one got started before anyone else no matter what their financial situation. I talked with a young woman not too long ago who told me of a record her grandmother had kept of her earnings from picking cotton and how she spent her money. She kept the record starting from when she was eight and she must have been working for someone else because traditionally family wasn't paid. Cotton crop money went for the benefit of all on those things that a family couldn't produce for itself, such a material for clothing, coffee and other staples. It was a matter of necessity and survival. Perhaps for that reason it wasn't and couldn't be considered child labor, only being part of the family.

    kiwi lady
    May 24, 2002 - 06:29 pm
    Children here still have their work on the farms. Children of strawberry farmers pick after school and at weekends. Children of dairy farmers help with the milking before and after school. Sheep farmers children help during school holidays with drenching, dagging, and in the winter feeding out.

    My children had chores in the 70's after school. There was a roster. There had to be with four kids and both parents working full time. The interesting thing is they all have done very well in life. Some of the rich kids who had no chores and never worked in school holidays have nothing. My eldest son had his own home at 20, the second son had his own home at 26 ( a very nice home he designed and built himself) I think a work ethic has to be learnt. I think we have so many problems with teenagers today because a lot of them are spoilt and have never had any responsibilities. I dont think we are necessarily being kind to our children relieving them of responsibilities within the family.

    Carolyn

    Ginny
    May 24, 2002 - 06:45 pm
    LOOKIT you guys! I came flying in here to try to catch up with the votes and (HEY! The Cotton Fairy has put them all up, thank you, Cotton Fairy!) and here's the Gummy One (Meg) sparking another fire, and isn't it fascinating?

    Are you all saying that Tally betrayed her own brother?

    ??

    Sarah what super questions, up they go, did you all see this:

    Did this book change the way you think about farming?

    About kids?

    About migrant laborers?

    About farm families?

    What do you say, Guys?




    Meg, you don't have Jonhson Grass, surely! it's a curse, grows as tall as you do? Razor sharp leaves?

    I'm jealous over Carolyn's cheese and onion biscuits, was in tears last Sunday over THREE (count 'em) THREE loaves of bread because my oldest son just mentioned that he'd like to try that Italian bread I had made the week before Mother's Day, do you think the dadgum thing would RISE? Made one with whole wheat flour, no rise, and two with bread flower, no rise, I'm GOING, when I get back from my trip, to MAKE Carolyn's and Betty's scones and biscuits respectively and will email you all with the results, since my husband did NOT bring me any cotton seed from his last visit (but a trunk load of Vidalias).

    So, just LOVED your take on the possible meanings of PAINT and the SECRETS it sealed, Meg, well done, I'm putting that in the heading, too!




    Keene!! You were a Spanish Major! Run, don't walk to this discussion: Books in Other Languages where you will find our Sarah conversing in Spanish! We are now hoping to get enough people who can read in Spanish so we can read a book in the original langague, (in this case, Spanish, we already have one in French scheduled for September 1, Les Peregrines). Please dust off those old high school Spanish texts, Everybody, and join us there!

    Tally betrayed her own brother, is that what you're saying? How about Sarah's questions here, what do you think??

    ginny

    SarahT
    May 24, 2002 - 06:55 pm
    Hmm, good question about whether Tally betrayed her own brother. I felt she was torn in between what was right (exposing Hank for the brute he truly was) and what would protect her family. I often found myself annoyed that she did not take a more anti-Hank stance earlier in the story. I felt especially indignant about this because it felt that she was betraying Luke - a little kid.

    Ultimately, though, her decision to go with Cowboy was a betrayal of Hank. I wish she had chosen another way to "get back at" him, but I was glad she did something to break the (unhealthy) family connection.

    Sorry to say it, but I give the book a 2. I give this discussion a 5++++, however!!!

    mstrent
    May 24, 2002 - 07:24 pm
    I got the feeling in reading about the Spruills that Hank ran the family through terror. They all seemed afraid of him and likely knew many more instances of his violence. This is all between the lines, of course. I even wondered if it wasn't possible that Trot's condition might not have been the result of a beating by Hank. If Tally betrayed him, I think in doing so she freed the lot of them - can't say as that justifies serving him up, but might make doing so more understandable.

    MegR
    May 24, 2002 - 08:39 pm
    ?Tally's Betrayal??"

    Know what? To be honest, I didn't think or wasn't sure about Tally's involvement or responsibility for "lighting the fuse" that resuted in Hank's murder. Also am unsure about WHY Cowboy did kill him in such a violent way. Author just throws in Hank's demise & moves on to next events. Just found it curious that Grisham left such a pivotal event in the lives of the three groups so vague/ so unexplained. Left this reader very confused & unsatisfied. I do suspect that some real talking did occur between Tally & Cowboy, but again - Grisham provides no evidence of any direct encounter between them - except the one Luke witnesses. Even there we have no clue of what was exchanged.

    The fault lies w/ the author. He just doesn't provide needed info & as a result, we're force to make inferences that the text just doesn't and cannot support. Really, it's the same thing, Sarah, with Tally standing up to bully Hank, with Tally's "betrayal" of Luke (his & your word) and her "betrayal" of Hank (did she really do that?)- Grisham doesn't give us evidence to support these ideas. They're inferences we're making based on a lack of supporting info. The same is true, MsTrent, concerning Hank's terrorizing the Spruills, inflicted beatings on them & Hank as the cause of whatever afflicts Trot. Grisham doesn't tell us or show us enough to support our inferences. Personally, I'd like to think that Tally's elopement with Cowboy was an act of survival on her part - Just like Jesse & Kathleen's exodus was from Black Oaks to Chicago - BUT - again - no evidence to support my preference/ inference!

    Just had a thought. Maybe we don't need to know answers to all of these Q's! They all have to deal w/ peripheral characters & not the core family, the Chandler's. This book is primarily to story of the disintegration - no , that's not word I want - help me! It's a story of a family, its way of life forced to change as MSTRENT said above. Other characters & events are just incidental. ???????Does that make any sense? Sorry, I'm just p.o.'ed w/ Grisham in this one if I really think about the book's events & characters!

    Am off again. May check in early am. Happy Memorial Day festivities! Ginny & Judy - enjoy your trips! Hope to see ya'll again in another SN discussion!

    Much thanks!! Meg

    Elizabeth N
    May 24, 2002 - 09:21 pm
    I don't think that Tally "betrayed" anyone; she just shared the family news with her lover--like Hank is leaving tonight, etc. My understanding of the violence of the murder on the bridge was that the body had to be gutted so it would sink and not float--thus giving Cowboy time to get out of town. I think Cowboy lived by his lights; and that Hank didn't have any lights.

    pedln
    May 25, 2002 - 10:42 am
    I loved this book, but the discussion has really brought home the messages and meaning. So much to think about.

    In answer to the last question above -- the most memorable scene
    -- it's one of two -- Ruth and Luke at the table in the kitchen, listening to the radio, waiting for news of the war -- and the family on the front porch, listening to the baseball game, idly talking over events of the day. They're universal -- families have done this for generations (perhaps with a different medium), waiting for news outside their little world, sharing a quiet momemt before bedtime.These scenes appear throughout the book, and the focus is always on the family. I think this is a strong family, not a distenigrating one. Jesse and Kathleen's leaving is also universal -- the young leaving the nest, some to return, some not. That's how our country grew.

    I'm rambling. Time to quit.

    Have a great weekend everyone. To all who made this such a successful discussion, thanks.

    Ginny
    May 26, 2002 - 07:39 am
    Since this is Judy's day of departure for her trip and I leave in the morning I just want to take this opportunity to thank EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU for every insight, memories, and slant on this book, I agree that your points and your unique perspectives have made the discussion a 10 + on a scale of 1-5, you really pulled it off, Judy was as nervous as a cat fearing nobody would say anything and I did not know WHAT to say and in true Bookies fashion, you've pulled it out of the fire, and behold, it's shining and gold.

    That's one of the things I believe I enjoy most about our book discussions here on SeniorNet, the fact that true discovery and learning and even creation of something new can take place in a good discussion, and I can't think of any way this one could have been improved. Sarah will take the helm for the last few days here, just in case you have any final thoughts, please feel free to expres them, and I can't stop thinking about her question in the heading because as with all Sarah's questions, it has a punch, do consider it? The very last one.

    Thank you for the gift of your perspectives, we have treasured them.

    ginny

    Keene
    May 26, 2002 - 08:23 am
    Have a wonderful trip, both of you! I have so enjoyed this discussion and getting to know a bit about each of you. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and bits of your lives. I'll look forward to "seeing" you in other discussions. Keene

    SarahT
    May 27, 2002 - 10:03 am
    MegR raises a really good pint - did Grisham give us enough material to make the leaps of faith we're making? Or are we making leaps of faith at all? MegR says;

    "The fault lies w/ the author. He just doesn't provide needed info & as a result, we're force to make inferences that the text just doesn't and cannot support. Really, it's the same thing, Sarah, with Tally standing up to bully Hank, with Tally's "betrayal" of Luke (his & your word) and her "betrayal" of Hank (did she really do that?)- Grisham doesn't give us evidence to support these ideas. They're inferences we're making based on a lack of supporting info. The same is true, MsTrent, concerning Hank's terrorizing the Spruills, inflicted beatings on them & Hank as the cause of whatever afflicts Trot. Grisham doesn't tell us or show us enough to support our inferences. Personally, I'd like to think that Tally's elopement with Cowboy was an act of survival on her part . . . ."

    I truly recall feeling that Tally's wishy-washiness toward Hank through most of the book was unfair to Luke. I don't know that Grisham needed to tell me about the characters' underlying motivations to figure this out.

    The one thing about the book that I liked was its spareness. A lot happened - too much in my view - and Grisham could have turned this book into an enormous tome to fill in all of the details about each event.

    I think Grisham would have been better off with fewer "turning point events"

    I mean, for gosh sakes:

    The first Hank fight/killing The secret Cowboy-Tally relationship and escape The pregnancy and what it said about Ricky The Cowboy-Hank killing

    What else happened in this short time? Does life really cram this much into the life of such a small boy? Do you recall having so many things happen to YOU at the age of 7?

    What this book taught me about farming is that it is a far tougher engagement than it seems. I truly don't understand what motivates people to keep at it. It seems a far less idyllic life than one would imagine.

    About children - very little. I never for a moment believed that this 7 year old was able to keep so many secrets, to understand so deeply what was going on and the implications of his telling the truth.

    kiwi lady
    May 27, 2002 - 12:56 pm
    Children do keep secrets when its to protect the ones they love. Take abused children. It takes a lot for a child to accuse a parent of physical abuse. Thats the terrible thing about the whole horrible business, kids often protect parents to the point they give their lives for them.

    Carolyn

    Judy Laird
    May 29, 2002 - 08:08 pm
    I want to personaly thank everyone that took part in this discussion. If you all agree I will leave it up for a couple of days in case you would like to say anything else and then have it taken down.

    Thanks again from both Ginny and myself.

    MaryZ
    May 29, 2002 - 08:18 pm
    Judy, thanks to you and Ginny for your super job as DL. You made it fun for all of us.

    Mary

    Keene
    May 30, 2002 - 11:04 am
    It's been a great discussion. Thanks so much. Keene

    DorisA
    May 30, 2002 - 08:26 pm
    I enjoyed the book and all the posts. A very interesting discussion.

    Doris

    kiwi lady
    May 31, 2002 - 12:21 pm
    Yes I would like to add my thanks to the discussion leaders and participants. You have been a really great bunch!

    I am going to join the S