Amsterdam ~ Ian McEwan ~ 6/99 ~ Prized Fiction Export

Here, courtesy of amazon.com, is a bit of information gleaned from a book about Amsterdam's author, Ian McEwan:

"The blurring of the mundane and the horrible, perversions of the ordinary, visceral twistings of everyday life: such is the territory explored in much of Ian McEwan's fiction - works that have brought him not only critical acclaim but also a notoriety that springs directly from the dark and violent nature of his subject matter. In such novels as The Cement Garden (1978) and The Comfort of Strangers (1981) and in the story collection First Love, Last Rites (1975), McEwan has dealt with incest, regression, brutality, perversion, and murder in what has been perceived as a conscious desire to repel and discomfit the reader. One of the primary objectives of Jack Slay's comprehensive, insightful overview of McEwan's novels, stories, and screenplays is to dispel this perception - that McEwan is a fine writer tainted by too frequent ventures into the darkest of psyches. Slay contends that by emphasizing the ordinary within the extraordinary, the normality within the abnormality, McEwan is able to depict the reality of a bizarre and often demented world. Slay sees McEwan as not just a fiction writer but a conscientious historian for our times. Slay concludes that McEwan's revealing glimpses into the politics and machinations of interpersonal relationships have exposed the foibles and lauded the virtues of the modern world. His dark portraits of contemporary society speak to the immediate present, illustrating the necessities and the needs, the dreams and the longings of every individual.

(Review of "Ian McEwan" by Jack Slay, Jr.)

I did get a call from the library that they had found the book and had it on the shelf for me. My wife will probably stop and pick it up soon.

SarahT, that last info on McEwan makes me think I will want to read the book when the sun is shining.

Larry

Larry - hahahaha! I think Amsterdam is much less dark than his other books - but that review kind of intrigues me into wanting to read some of those other books too!

Well, I can hardly believe it but I went to the library today and AMSTERDAM was on the shelf just waiting for me to get there. I'm going on a camping trip this weekend for the 4th and it will be the perfect companion to keep me busy. It's length makes me think that I can probably make it all the way through in a weekend with no trouble.

Yes,and mine just came in the mail and it looks JUST the perfect thing for the approaching storm! Always feel strange without a book to read, always!

Ginny

Have mine too. Am starting on it tonight, it's a gloomy night - cloudy with storm clouds gathering - Larry says we need sunshine to read it, but I can read anything anytime.

Prissy - I think you probably will be able to finish it over the 4th. It's refreshing to read a short book every once in awhile (having just come out of Man in Full, Poisonwood Bible and Memoirs of a Geisha)! The Hours (discussion also starting July 1) is also a nice slim volume. Easy on the hands!

I'm thrilled you'll all be with us. Let's say that starting July 1 we'll each be at least 20 pages into the book or so, and we can go from there as the discussion begins.

Here, thanks to our MarjV, is a whole series of links to Ian McEwan information:

Ian McEwan links

Just to let everyone know, I won't be lurking here until I get the book I don't want to ruin the read. I thought it would be here by now. I am stuck in the house so had no choice but to order from BN on the net they have not shipped I don't think I will ever do that again especially when they said 24 hours its been days and it hasn't even left.

So everyone enjoy i will be back

I started the book last night and just stayed up to finish it. A delightful read, but, of course, I won't comment on it until all have finished it.

Who can tell me what "poussins" and "porcini" are? Obviously British food - the poussins were taken out of the oven so could they be a small hen, such as our cornish hens?

CARROLLEE - I see you live in the Windy City? By chance is that Chicago?? If so, we have a lot of questions to ask you as many of us are planning to meet in Chicago in November (see Book Groups Gathering, 1999) below. Would love to have you join us and you, too, Sarah!!!

Carollee - Hmmm - I thought poussin was fish and porcini a mushroom. But as British food - who knows!! How disappointing about the book - what is their explanation for shipping so late?

Ella - wow - I'm impressed that you stayed up to finish it. I find it a fascinating read so far. It is definitely of the "can't put it down" variety. I look forward to your posts.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to come to Chicago this year. My husband and I are doing a big three week trip in October and that's about all the vacation time we can spare!! But thanks for the invite - I'll be very interested in hearing reports of how it goes!

Ella

I live in the South Suburbs, don't know about going though will have to see but will help you if I can

Don't know what there reason is but they have ticked me off will check in a little bit to what the status is

Read "Amsterdam" about a month ago and enjoyed it. The word "bizarre" comes to mind. A surprise ending that I never would have guessed, but that was the fun of it. Don't think I could read him every day. I'll be anxious to see what everyone thinks. I also like "slim" books especially after "A Man In Full", which was not as good as I expected. I wasn't a B&L member when the group read that one so don't know what other people thought.

Amsterdam went fast compared with another book I have on my plate at the moment.

Two delightfully wicked men in mid-life crises I would say! And I knew the ending of the book about in the middle - or at least I was suspicious. Throw in the reminiscing of a beautiful sexy "free" woman and a couple of other scoundrels and you have the story of Amsterdam. Lovely descriptive parts - particularly of Clive's walk. I did like that.

Sorry neither of you can make Chicago - maybe next year? Who knows where we may roam, it just sort of happens, but hope you can join us there. We had a delightful time in NYC when we met the first time and I know Chicago will be as well.

CarolleeWhat one thing should we not miss in Chicago? The world's largest library, nine floors of it, is intriguing to me and I just must give it a whirl. So am going to see that right away and take the Archtecture Tour.

lowe - Welcome, welcome! I look forward to having your thoughts on the book. I read some reviews of the book and they invariably mentioned (without revealing the nature of) the surprise ending. I am very intrigued. I'm trying to take this book a little more slowly than most because I love the writing so far. It is so slim that given my normal way of reading, I'd finish it in an evening.

I think the reviews of Man in Full were quite mixed. I came away feeling it was basically entertaining trash without much substance. Others liked it more and found it deeper than that. It was a great discussion - sorry you missed it.

Lowe, how nice to see you here!

We still have our entire discussion of MAN IN FULL in our Archives sections, although the discussion is over and we didn't have the benefit of your thoughts, you can see what we thought here: A Man in Full

"Bizarre" and "delicious," hah? Sounds like my kind of book.

Carrollee: I hope you are getting sronger and stronger every day, and will just cross fingers, maybe you CAN come to Lunch in Chicago in November!! Something to shoot for!

Sarah: have put this one off and intend, especially now that I see all the great thoughts so far, to sit down and have a great read tonight!

Ginny

I wanted officially to kick off our discussion. I am very glad all of you are here and look forward to your comments. Don't be shy about expressing your thoughts - I have read incessantly for years, but never joined a book group until a few months ago, was not an English major in college, and never even spent much time discussing books before this. Reading was a very solitary activity for me until I started looking in on the discussions here. So you're among friends here.

I'm trying to take the book in in small bites. I said we'd start with the first 20 pages or so today, and I'm only up to 27.

Early thoughts: How interesting to attend a funeral where one of the chief topics of conversation is the sex life of the deceased!! And to have all the former lovers there jealously regarding each other. Have you ever had this experience? I certainly haven't (although my father was quite the ladies man in his day!).

I also thought it interesting that Molly's most dull consort, George, "gets" her because of her illness - and that "her death had raised him from general contempt." I suspect there's more to George than meets the eye.

I hate the idea of a death involving "the loss of control of bodily function and with it all sense of humor, and then the tailing off into vagueness interspersed with episodes of ineffectual violence and muffled shrieking." And yet once you reach this point, you are too far gone to "check out." My worst fear.

Bottom line - what is this book about? I can't quite tell yet. Do any of you suspect what will come later? Is there any foreshadowing of what is yet to come?

What are your thoughts so far? And what in the heck is a bresaiola?

Good questions Sarah! Yes, a bizarre way to begin a book wasn't it? Grabs your attention though. One question that bugged me at the beginning was what in the world did Molly die of; what took her so quickly? Any ideas?

Clive at one point is thinking about Molly's death and mentions that doctors can "manage your descent, but they couldn't prevent it." Too true! I've had 2 sisters who died of cancer and the family was so grateful for Hospice - they do an excellent job of "managing one's descent."

I have no idea what a "bresaiola" - am still hoping someone can tell me what "pouissins" are and "porcini."

GINNY - are you there? You've been to England - come here and help us out!!!!

Oh - when you have read the book once before then you see the clues for the ending. I do enjoy reading this novel very much; and the second time thru also.

I decided the prose was a jarring type of prose; not smooth and slick; sort of like Clive and Vernon and George and Garmony.

Didn't like George the first time; don't like him this time either. Seems so cruel to withhold friends that come to visit; making judgements on their value to Mollie.

I am with you on the "descent" process. As a long time hospice volulnteer I know there can be kindness and love. Doesn't always happen because of the pattern of dynamics within the circle of those doing the care. We don't know much about George as yet. But his dynmaic isn't very loving and caring. But isn't the line interesting: "people didin't want to go and see her and were glad George was there to prevent them".....In my lifetime of care here and there people in discomfort like to have a rationale for not being there.

The description of the politician and his actions made me laugh out loud. There is much black humor in the whole book that can elicit chuckles and laughs.

Sarah, thanks for telling us you background. I also have been a long time reader; have never participated in book discussions.

I wondered what the word bresaiola meant so did some web searching and found the following from the Merriam Webster Dictionary on the web:

Main Entry: bra·ci·o·la
Pronunciation: "brä-chE-'O-l&, -'chO-l&
Variant(s): or bra·ci·o·le /-'O-"lA/
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian, literally, slice of meat roasted over coals, from brace live coals, probably of Germanic origin; akin to Swedish brasa fire
Date: circa 1945
: a thin slice of meat wrapped around a seasoned filling and often cooked in wine

Then I looked up porcini and found the following:

Main Entry: por·ci·no
Pronunciation: por-'chE-(")nO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural por·ci·ni /-(")nE/
Etymology: Italian, short for fungo porcino, literally, porcine mushroom
Date: 1976
: a wild edible boletus mushroom (especially Boletus edulis)

I tried to look up pouissins but didn't have any luck finding a definition. Hope someone else will have better luck than I did. However, every time I start searching on the Internet I am overwhelmed by the resources available.

Larry

Does everyone now have a copy of the book? Let me know!!

Poussin is French for fish. How did the term come up in the book?

Ella - it's not clear to me what Molly died of, although I immediately assumed it was cancer given that she was only 46.

How great that you are a hospice volunteer. I actually think that our view of death in this culture is very dark and negative. Most of us don't face it in our loved ones very well. To hear that you are there to help folks along toward this very natural ending is uplifting. My aunt also does hospice volunteer work, and I must confess I've always been amazed at her strength.

I found a ring of truth in the statement you quoted: "people didn't want to go see her and were glad George was there to prevent them." I feel helpless in the face of great suffering by someone I love deeply. I want to be near them, but often don't know what to say or do. Watching someone else die reminds us of our own mortality and can be very scary.

Ella and MarjV - tell us about your experiences with hospice. How do the volunteers and staff make the very scary experience of death easier for the dying person - and that person's loved ones?

And is it ever appropriate for loved ones to exclude visitors based on their own (perhaps distorted) views of what might hurt the dying person?

Clive - fascinating character. I love his struggles with the millennium symphony.

More tomorrow - computer misbehaving.

Now, why didn't one of us think to do that? Of course, the web is right there at our fingertips! I just never seem to get "out of B&L" - must get out more, really!

Sarah - I'm not a hospice volunteer - that was MarjV! And I do admire anyone that is! My daughter, a nurse, at one time was one and she handles death well as she has seen so much of it. I don't! Not at all! Fortunately, my two sisters went quickly - but I must admit I anm not good with sick people. The hospice people were wonderful and were there for several friends of mine also; they provided all the necessary equipment and medicines and were on call at all times - a wonderful organization.

My mother-in-law was dying slowly for about a week in the hospital and although I went I found it just truly terrible and I couldn't get near her! She was in a coma all that time and we had always been good friends. But my daughter talked to her constantly and was close to her.

MargV - where in SE Michigan do you live? My daughter lives in East Lansing - anywhere near?

From the early description of Molly, what do you think of her? Do you like her? Is she a user and manipulator of men? Do you feel there's any message here about her "getting what she deserved" for being so promiscuous (perish the thought)?

Sorry about the hospice mix-up, Ella and MarjV!

Molly controlled her men and now Charles controlled her contacts after she became so ill. Two control freaks - hmmm

Interesting how we find out who Molly is from each of their inputs. We don't even have letters from MOlly. We have the ashes.And more reminiscences of her "activities" as pages go on.

How do Hospice volunteers and staff make dieing "easier"... if it can be easier it is with our presence and listening, sometimes sitting in silent company. Isolation breeds fear and more pain. Altho of course some patients chose more aloneness than others. The staff has every possible means at hand to prescribe meds for comfort vs the very hesitancy of medical personnel when it is not a Hospice situation. So often there are family members and friends who cannot be there...and that is ok. Hospice encourages love and caring. Only one incident have I encountered where it was necessary for Hospice to get a court order to prevent an abusive spouse from visiting.

Back to the book - these characters seem to be on the edge of really relating in any kind way.

On p. 20, is a good example of how McEwan jars us....an idea is being developed and all of a sudden he throws in a sentence like: "There really wasn't much else to do. Make something and die". In the night as Clive is working on his piece after the funeral.

And how about Clive's tingling hand!!!!!! What do you think?

MarjV, I nearly dropped my teeth over that hand as I've had that myself and thought it was too much typing!! Or falling asleep on it, that's one of the sumptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome, tho there's not much indication Clive types a lot.

I'm almost afraid to read on and find out!

Whatever it is, I don't have it, I'm with Clive, there!

Sarah, are we taking the first 20 or so pages now? I stopped at 28 as it seemed to stop Part I.

Well what can we say about Molly? Apparently she slept with the whole town or the whole town liked to say so (witness the old man). Yet she married a rich man who "doted on her, " and "whom, to everyone's surprise, she had not left, though she always treated him badly." (page 5). Hello?? She always treated him badly? Why ever?

Why would she leave somebody she had married, I'm assuming of her own free will, and who was rich and who doted on her??

The plot thickens. But she DOES treat him badly, Oh good.

She dies "Brain-dead and in George's clutches," and he, apparently hatefuly, limited her visitors just as the lawyer did for the Duchess of Windsor.

Why, one wonders? Did he so hope to keep her just to himself even mad, one last time?

To tell you the truth, I don't like her already.

And how about this?

"Terrible funeral.

Not even a drink

Poor Molly." (page 19).

Hello again? This is British, isn't it? Didn't it say there were 250 people present? OR so? Pretty impressive list of mourners, even though apparently they were the pretty people who don't get out in the daytime much: "like cadavers jerked upright to welcome the newloy dead." (p. 10). Pretty strong stuff, our MeEwan.

What's that on the cover? It looks like JUDGE? Is that a red garter belt? I've only read Part I, but I would like to know what that is.

Now the stuff about composing left me cold, but I'm not a composer and don't have a clue how they think, but what on earth was that last bit of Part I: "He had swallowed his hemlock, and there'd be no more tormenting fantasies now. This thought too was comfort, so that long before the chemicals had reached his brain, he had drawn his knees toward his chest and was released...Hardknott, Ill Bell, Cold PIke, Poor Crag, Poor Molly."

HAH?? Have we seen the last of Clive? Are we forshadowing something here?

Do you like Clive?

How is it that the characters seem to resent George? Do you find his behavior so far tasteless or worthy of being condemned?

A mysterious start with intersting characters so far. But Molly seems to have been quite the girl, doesn't she?

Ginny

PS: Imagine that forgetting "bresaiola" would take you to the doctor!! I had to read Larry's description of it twice just to remember it long enough to write this! WHAT can this mean??

WHO has had it, it sounds good?

Ginny

Ginny - apropos of your question, I have taken the liberty of creating a reading schedule in the header to this discussion. It takes us to the end of July, and with a volume this slim will be quite leisurely. The only thing you should know right now is that I've scheduled Part II for July 6-12.

Don't feel wedded to the schedule. Say what you wish about any part of the book at any time (although please don't reveal any endings!!). But for those of us who like a schedule, use it at your pleasure.

Has everyone managed to put their hands on a copy of the book at this point?

I couldn't help think of the movie Amadeus when McEwan talked about Clive's struggle to compose his millennium symphony. When I read - "Make something, and die" - I thought of the scene in which Mozart was composing his Requiem Mass - and killing himself in the process.

Ginny - what if George was just a monstrous bore (as I sense he was)? McEwan describes him as a "morose, possessive husband." Given this, I don't think his being rich would make Molly love him. In fact, it's not at all clear why she was with him at all.

She was well enough to "treat him badly" when they got together. So he didn't just come into the picture after she was already sick. Why DID they get together? She was a restaurant critic and photographer and probably had something of a living from this - so why did she bother with a bore like George? I don't get it!

Ginny - I shouldn't skip ahead, but I'll just tell you that Vernon's low-brow paper is called Judge. I suspected the garter belt was Molly's.

I thought Clive's "hemlock" was actually his sleeping pill (page 27, bottom). I figured those very odd names - Blea Rigg, High Stile etc. - were places in the Lake District. Perhaps someone (Larry?) can educate us!

I finished the book so will have to be careful not to reveal anything I shouldn't. I really hadn't focused on the cover but as I look at it now it has a lot of meaning for this story, which is revealed later on.

I don't find any of the characters in this book very sympathic. I think they all deserved each other. Ginny, unless Molly had a brain tumor or something it is hard to understand how she became so incapacitated so quickly. Guess we have to say Molly did things her own way and lived her life just like she wanted, except the experience of her death.

Larry

AMSTERDAM has no characters without rather horrific faults. Even Mrs. Julian Garmony, despite her humane medical work, glibly lies, if I recall correctly. Because they are all so "bad", they don't seem real and it is hard to take them seriously. They seem merely to serve to advance the clever, amusing and entertaining plot with its surprising twists, and one cannot care about them as people. I found the book quite entertaining, but was surprised that it won the Booker Prize, as it seems to be primarily a bit of clever trickery rather than a serious work. June

It's funny about the Booker - some years I really feel a great, timeless book won (e.g., Possession by AS Byatt, one of our most brilliant writers; Regeneration by Pat Barker), and others, well, I don't! It's just like the other awards in that way. I suspect politics always comes in somehow - and a desire to reward an author such as Roddy Doyle or McEwan for a body of work.

My grandfather died of a brain tumor and the deterioration was quite rapid. Molly was awfully young, but I guess a brain tumor is a brain tumor (if that's what it was).

I don't really have a problem with the rapid onset of Molly's disease, it seems to be, or is it, sort of (I've only read the first 28 pages: I like this slow stuff, it almost lets you read and think, out loud) incidental to the plot.

It seems that it would have been, in fact, MORE effective if she had had a slow decline and George had kept her from her former....lovers.

I don't think it says much for Molly's character that she had so many lovers, but married a man who "doted," on her and whom she "treated badly," she's a bit old for that adolescent stuff, don't you think?

OK, so George was morose? He was boring? He was possessive? Is that IT? THAT'S it?? What, she married him eyes wide shut? She had NO clue he was like that? Did she, perhaps, reveal to him cheerfully that she had slept with half the town or was, in fact, in the process of sleeping with half the town? Don't get me wrong, it's fine to have wild oats sown in one's youth, I guess, but I have the feeling from the lecherous old man at the funeral claiming something that didn't happen and George's strange manner that something else went on.

If he was that bad she should have chosen one of the other prizes she ran around with.

Now AM I way out of line here and SHOULD I finish the book and DO you all, who have finished it, know the reasons WHY all this stuff happened?

Larry and June: I wonder why the author would choose a book totally populated with deficient characters? When you read, the reading experience is supposedly something you can latch ON to, something you can identify with? Did this book make you feel alienated, and if so, wonder what that says about the state of modeen literature?

It's interesting, really. People turn up their noses at EF Benson, who saw the same things in people's characters, but chose to treat it with humor and, in the process, make the reader feel not only better about himself but determined to do better in the world.

What feeling did you personally get from the book? So far, I think they are a thoroughly undesirable lot.

Sarah: Yes, I did think those were Lake District towns, I was struck by the fetal position, and the Socratic? like hemlock and what I perceived as a reference to same? In a book like this, somewhat spare of prose, I wonder if we're supposed to make inferences? Will look up the death of Socrates and see if it, in any way, pertains!!

As to WHY on the Booker, WHY on THE HOURS? Are these two books representative of our culture today? Does anybody know what the criteria are for these two prizes??

I'm glad to be reading them, anyway!!

Ginny

I finished the book this morning since I had to get up at the crack of dawn with the bad puppies who refuse to let me sleep late on a holiday.

I'm not too sure that I would call the ending "a delicious climax," strange would be closer to my opinion. I can't overall say that I enjoyed this book.

Molly had many lovers throughout her life and I personally didn't find much to like about any of them. Clive and Vernon have an uneasy friendship that seems to have been based largely on their individual relationships with Molly. That it continued long after Molly's original leaving of these two men makes me want to find a reason that they would have remained friends. That they had little in common (except Molly) is an understatement. Their only base of contact seems to be the ways in which they can denegrate each other and disagree on nearly everything. What a foundation to a friendship!!

And what a back-stabber and turncoat George is. He has had to wait for an opportune moment to finally take control of Molly's life, even if it is only to see her through to her death. Of course he keeps her friends away. He, only now, is the most important person in her life and needs this time to wallow in the pleasure that was denied him for so long. Then he uses Vernon to stab someone else in the back and finish the destruction of her closest friends. Can't say more about this now since I know most of you are still reading and I don't want to spoil it.

Both of the men we come to know in this book are so totally self-absorbed. Clive can ignore the near rape and murder of a young woman because it might interfere with his creative process which he is in the process of losing. Vernon uses the information that George supplies (even as George is using him in his plan of destruction) against his deep moral beliefs to further his career which he feels is slowly erasing him from reality. What a twisted pair.

No one in this book is beyond using whatever means necessary to further their individual cause. And look where it gets them. In the end only George is satisfied to any extent...now he's ready to finalize Molly's death, all the while still focused on himself and his control.

No one seems to truly mourn Molly. Clive and Vernon say that they do but they never stop what they're doing long enough to experience a sense of final loss. Even the cremation seems more of a party, to see and be seen. The memorial service George plans later is much the same, with an added pleasure of not having to share the limelight with any former lovers. I know funerals are said to be for the living and not for the dead...in this case that certainly applies.

That was brilliant, Prissy. What do you mean about the memorial service and the cremation being different? Is there something else to come that I've missed here in the first pages?

I do remember reading something about him not wanting to share the stage with her former lovers, but surely they didn't gather around the crematorium? Am confused. Actually I'm told that here in SC anyway you can do anything you'd like in the way of a funeral, cremation or not. So I plan a creative one myself, of course I won't be there to enjoy it.

Ginny

Am enjoying the discussion.

Ginny - a creative funeral? What have you got planned? Can we all come, hahaaaa! Is it O.K. to joke about funerals?

We (my husband and myself) have ours all planned and paid for - we had to do my mother-in-law's a few years ago and we just decided to do our own at that time. The funeral director brought out a catalog with pictures and all in it and you just choose from that as if you were ordering sheets from Sears. Of course, my husband had to be different - he wanted to look at his casket - in the flesh, so to speak - so he hiked himself down to the funeral home to make sure it was what he wanted (even though they can't guarantee it will be the same model). We even wrote our obituary and paid for the flowers on the caskets. And I said they could dress me in any old thing they had on hand, as I want a closed casket!

Very easy to do folks and it saves those left behind from making any difficult decisions.

I've finished the book, too. It goes fast, is well written and quite entertaining but... Booker quality?! I think I agree with June on that.

Ginny, the ending will answer your questions!

I have to wonder if McEwan is trying to tell us something a little deeper here??? Could he have a hidden agenda on the issue of euthanasia?

I bet my parents, my husband, and myself are unique in the world... our wills specify [with my parents, speciFIED] there is to be NO FUNERAL! Hate 'em. Don't believe in 'em. Barbaric custom!!!!

I don't think it matters, really, WHAT Molly died of--whatever vile disease matches the symptoms McEwan gives; take your pick.

I'm actually enjoying this book immensely. I don't like any of the characters, but I look forward to picking up the book each day, and to reading and rereading the (to me) delicious prose! I just finished a very long novel (Bone by Bone) that I'd tired of by about 2/3 through, and Amsterdam is a welcome respite.

I don't have a clue where the book is going - I'm well into Part II - but it's keeping my interest.

Wonderful posts!!

Ginny - are we sure Molly DIDN'T sleep with the lecherous old Beat poet? I know it would have been statutory rape for him, but I wasn't convinced it didn't happen. If it did, I wonder why Molly turned out this way.

I can't help thinking that we are being told that her untimely death is somehow her punishment for wild promiscuity.

Prissy - One "bond" between Clive and Vernon was Clive's propensity to borrow money from Vernon. It's not clear why Vernon was so magnanimous - perhaps trying to exert control over Clive???

Ginny - I'll do a little research on the criteria for the Pulitzer and the Booker and see what I come up with. I agree with you that it's often a mystery why certain books win. That's a good reason to make sure that our Prized Fiction discussions include books that were nominated but DIDN'T win - sometimes these books are better than the winners!

Ella - when my dad died, we knew he wanted to be cremated, and that he didn't want a "funeral" per se. It was SO helpful to know his desires beforehand. We had his ashes scattered off the Marin headlands. My brother lives near the Golden Gate Bridge and every so often I walk over there and look across the Bay to the spot where Dad was scattered. It's very comforting. On the other hand, I have rarely visited the graves of my grandparents down on Cemetery Row (Colma). It is very disturbing to me to think of them in a box underground - claustrophobic. So I definitely know what I want and don't want when I'm gone!

At least I think Garrison Keillor was talking about him this morning. I was eating a late breakfast with the radio tuned to NPR's Writer's Almanac. Keillor was talking about Barnum and his partner Bailey. One of them wanted to attend his own funeral while on his death bed and convinced a New York paper to conduct it for him. At least that is what I think I heard.

This book selection sounds interesting. I'll try to get hold of it and comment. Your comments on personal funerals are interesting. I agree that funerals are sad, but I think some kind of service helps those who remain. I plan to be cremated, but want a memorial service with my favorite music, and maybe friends and family saying a few words about me--kind, I hope, but primarily frank and honest. I think they will be helped through their grief by doing this. Sue

Sue!! Welcome, welcome! We are delighted to see you here, and look forward to your comments!

Funerals? Your plans sound nice, my plans are a bit bizarre, am not sure they should see the light of day! hahahahha

Ella, that was thoughtful of you, my parents did that, it's nice to know what people want. It's funny how your mind changes, tho, am beginning to feel like Sarah about the cold ground, have always had a touch of claustrophobia.

If I tell you the nicest funeral I ever attended was one we gave once for our dog, I guess that WILL brand me as nuts! Still, the truth is the truth.

I guess funerals are designed to give the family comfort tho sometimes it's hard to see that. Did you all see Brideshead Revisited? I liked the one in that movie. Of course we don't all have private chapels and cemeteries and black horse drawn carriages, but it did look romantic. I don't think quite the same effect would occur with our old horse. Or farm wagon!

Let me go find a photo of THE gravestone and put it here: hold on!!

Ginny

Ella, you All BETTER come! I'm counting on it!!

Jeryn, LJ didn't want a funeral, either. Lots of people don't.

Sarah: At that age? with that much older man? Who comes to chortle about it at the funeral? Was Molly open about all this? Do I need to read the book entirely?? At this point I'm pretty confused, actually. More unanswered questions than answered ones.

And since this is British funerals we're talking about, here's a monument to end all? It's the monument to Charles Herbert Barritt made in 1929, and is located in Hampstead Cemetery. I can find nothing at all otherwise in my books on him, but I think we can ascertain what his talent was?

Charles Herbert Barritt's monument in Hampstead Cemetery, London.

Ginny

SpringCreekFarm and Ginny - yes, I agree that while a funeral is not something I'd want - an uplifting memorial service some time after death would be nice. We did that for my dad. He was a painter so we had lots of his self-portraits around. We had a lot of food and talked about what he meant to us - but it was at a house, and there was no funereal music (the worst possible thing). In contrast, when my step-grandmother died, we had no idea what she wanted, and knew few of her friends. We had a gathering at the funeral home. It was dismal, dismal. Never again.

These are such unloveable (and interesting) characters. I am thinking how all of us have dark shadows, evil if you will, that are there, we don't act on these shadows, maybe don't even acknowledge them. Might lead to the prickly feeling we get now and again reading this novel.

And we all have fears.....acknowledged or not. Thinking about the first couple sentences on the next section. And Clive's anxieties on p.27.

SarahT

Oweing someone money creates a bond in a different way--people very often begin avoiding the one owed the money and friendships deteriorate quickly. These two men had known each other as younger men and that is where I believe their friendship was formed. Sharing their love for Molly and the fact that they had both been her lovers at various times gave them memories that bonded them for life (and beyond).

You come to my funeral too, Ginny. "If you don't go to other people's funerals, they won't go to yours." Hahahaaaaa

Of course, if it's raining that day, well------

Funerals - oh dear - they really are for the living aren't they. I hate the idea of being in a funeral home. Still remember when death visited family members, they were viewed in the living room on a big table and everyone came round for a drink and a story - Family stayed up all night to be with the body and kids all slept together in one big bed. That would be my druthers but, my children have never experienced the like and can not imagine such goings on. My brother was cremated two years ago and for me it feels so empty not having a place to visit with a stone that has his name inscribed but then, most folks don't visit the cemetary any longer either.

Bob Bullock, one of the last lions of Texas politics died last month and it was a funeral, Texas to the core, with rangers as pall bearers wearing western hats. He was buried right there next to Sam Houston and all the early greats of this state.

While reading Amsterdam, some of the scenes from 'Three Weddings and a Funeral' keep popping to my mind.

MarjV - you're so right. I guess my dark shadows are not nearly as hidden as I might like. For instance, Molly's latching on to George seems completely normal to me. Women hook up with boring, but rich, men all the time, don't they? Even into their 40s? Not that I'D do this (hahaha); I'm married to a middle class guy who has to work for a living just as I do. But I don't find her behavior shocking at all!!

Think about it - she's 46 at death. That means she's solidly in the baby boom generation - and came up in the swingin' 60s and 70s, when promiscuity was almost . . . expected of women that age. She just isn't that shocking to me. I grew up in San Francisco and there was a lot of wildness here during that time. I suspect London wasn't all that different then!!

Prissy - good point. How odd for two men to be bound together at least in part by the fact of having slept with the same woman! Now that's weird!

I agree about Molly. Probably a part of her way; and the ways of those she grew up with....didn't think of that. She is one of the many stories of the way people opt to live.

And how about Vernon's strange feeling of non-existence? I think these pages are full of marvelous description and insight.

My grandmother died when I was 8 yrs.old and I can remember many years of visiting the cemetary to visit her grave with my parents. Now the only time I go to one is for the graveside ceremony as part of a funeral. Do people still visit departed relatives as part of a family Sunday excursion? I doubt it.

Maybe Molly married George simply because he was boring and unable to control her. Since she seemed to have the upper hand in her relationships with Clive and Vernon it appears that that was her modus operendi with men. If she had married a man of great strengh of character she would have had to relinquish her mastery over the male race. Most men would never have put up with all the ex- and present lovers in the picture.

I think the only real purpose the character Molly serves in this story is that of uniting these two former lovers in the pact to protect each other from a similar awful death. Molly's traits, lifestyle, lovers and husband are more or less extraneous... until you get to the very end. Maybe I'd better shut up? How many of you have finished?

My parents share a gravestone in a real cemetary, even though they were cremated and had no funeral or service of any kind [their own request]. I do sort of like having a place to go where I can feel they are again close to me, even though we keep moving further and further away from it! I try to visit that gravesite once a year at least...

Jeryn - I still haven't finished the book. I'm reading other things in between to try to maintain the suspense of this book. So Molly is sort of like the character in the movie "The Big Chill" who ended up on the cutting room floor, but who brought all of those old friends back together???

Prissy - you're right - Molly was pretty abusive, wasn't she. Only a man like George would put up with her. But what did HE get out of it?

I'm cheating a bit and reading beyond where I should. Forgive me!!

My concerns about the money-borrowing/lending relationship between Clive and Vernon are deepening. Clive is just realizing how lopsided their friendship has been over the years - Clive gives, and Vernon takes.

Have you ever been in this situation? I find that I am less and less willing to tolerate this sort of relationship - even with family. I actually "divorced" a friend a few years ago because I felt like Clive in the relationship.

I was also intrigued by Vernon's feeling of not existing. Does this perhaps explain his inability to reciprocate with Clive? He is said to have no ability to make friends or allies. He may just have nothing to give.

Have you ever felt you don't exist? That you are not really who you think you are - that you're someone else's dream (or your own dream)? I used to feel that way a lot when I was younger!

What does the term "subbed" or "sub" mean? I think it's British for editor or reporter, but have never heard the term before.

I think there was a bit of foreshadowing of things to come during Vernon's editorial meeting. One of the reporters suggested a story about euthanasia in Holland. I immediately jumped - after all, the title of the book IS Amsterdam!! I think I'm on to something.

This does remind you of The Big Chill, doesn't it? I hadn't thought of that.

Well in this section, I like Clive. Vernon looks like an ingrate, for Pete's sake, LOOK at all Clive did for him and for some reason he doesn't want to go by Clive's house. So far no money has changed hands at all.

On Vernon's exist thing, I'll tell you, as you age, sometimes you wonder. Did I ever exist at all? Saw a newspaper clipping the other day which essentially said same of self, that there aren't any more of what I did anywhere and I thought? Hello?? What am I, Chopped Chicken Liver?? OH well.

And actually I've always had a strange (what am I, True Confessions?) sensation of self image? Like for instance, I'm always pleasantly pleased (or usually) by what I see in the mirror? I never expect to see anything and actually never know what I look like. Do you?? Have you ever walked up on a full length mirror and not recognized yourself? EERIE.

I don't know what that sub is, nor the Amsterdam reference, and I jumped at Holland, too!!

OK, so Molly didn't want to even share a bedroom (is this British, they don't, a lot) and resisted till the last moving out "to a bedroom in the main house, to be imprisoned and nursed by George." (p.58)

HAH??

Almost everybody I know in England has some type of help? Help is very cheap there. If George were rich, where's the help??

I don't know what a "placeman" is on page 33??

What in the world is the matter with Vernon? His head? His face? Good grief!!

What's Molly doing with photos of Garmony?

What's a "breciated marble surround" on the fire place on page 55??

I think the author is very good at suspense here, it's all I can do not to go ahead, too.

Molly even kept her guests separate, why on earth did she marry George? Will we ever know??

At least a good book for speculation!!

Ginny

Ginny, it sounded like Molly was really a slob at home and that George gave her a wing in the house so he didn't have to look at the mess. I can relate to that feeling with our daughter, who lives with us. She has the room over the garage and that way don't have to see it very often. I got the idea that George couldn't handle the turmoil that Molly created.

Larry

Don't know what a placeman is, but rereading page 33 made me laugh. Pategate! I wonder who paid for Joe Biden's hair transplant (hahaha)!!

Yes, Ginny, I often have the experience of being surprised at myself in shop windows. Who is that person?? Oh, it's me! Weird. Do you ever think that your perception of the world is completely WRONG - and that everyone else on the planet sees everything in a completely different way from you. It's an offshoot of the "I do not exist" feeling, I think!

Molly is a kinky gal, so those photos don't surprise me in the least. Remember her Adam and Eve tryst on the snooker table? I even guessed what the photos were - it had to be! (I won't say for those who aren't there yet).

I'd love to talk about the ethics of running the photos - but later when we're all there!

Larry, you sound like my husband, when we first put in a greenhouse he insisted on having it way way out by the pump house ("so we won't have to look at it!" I thought LOOKING at it was the reason we had it! hahahahahha But guess who turned out to be right? It's a mess. Guess he knows me better than I thought!

BUT these people are married and she has HER company separate, too. You don't suppose, do you that she had male company? Wonder if George hates her? You know people who hate others CAN dote?

Sarah: are you an only child? I think that's common for an only child. Oh yes I often wonder if the whole world thinks differently, one sometimes thinks that if you could just MEET more people, surely there would be somebody somewhere who thinks the same.

I also think that's a symptom of moving around a lot? Did you? I did, or maybe not?

Oh I think I already know what the photos are but will wait and see and watch George's character as to why he's willing to reveal them? Kinda like Virginia Woolf's husband?? And the suicide note??

So far, to Part II, Vernon looks like a loser, George is beginning to look not so loving, Clive seems to have been a faithful friend, and Molly was a good ol girl. Must be a tremendous lack in a person's life, or is it, to act like that? I really don't like Molly, do the rest of you??

Ginny

Have you ever walked up on a full length mirror and not recognized yourself? EERIE.

Ginny and Sarah - I think you both expressed that you have had this feeling? Can't imagine that! My problem is that I do and wish I didn't! Oh, well ---

But I often have the feeling of how inconsequential each life is, my own included, particularly when I'm in a new city with hundreds of people (such as Rome which I visited recently) and I see the ruins of centuries ago - just think of all those individual lives with their own hopes and dreams. In Rome they have these huge cypress trees pointing heavenward in all the cemeteries - don't know why that is their custom, does anyone? But whenever you see them, you know that is either a cemetery or a monument to the dead.

As to the custom of visiting graves - I don't, simply because it puts me in such a dreadful state of mind and takes a lot of mental energy to get "back on track." I would hope that if my relatives feel the same as I that they not visit my grave. Whatever gives people comfort in this life they should do.

Ella - a phrase to live by! I think of my dead relatives a lot. I figure if I can believe in God and not see him, I can also talk to them and not have to be physically at the gravesite.

Ginny - I'm ok with Molly so far. All I know about her is that she's promiscuous and wild. Not to be overly feminist about this, but would we judge her so harshly if she were a man? I also think she is very typical of her generation - a child of the 60s sexual revolution. So I don't dislike her immensely - yet!

But there's more to come.

I do agree that living in separate parts of the house is WEIRD. Who does that? (Who has space to do that?) Twin beds in one couple's bedroom are weird enough (my grandparents had them - couldn't understand that at all!). On the other hand, both Molly and George seemed ok with the arrangement. While I agree with you, Larry, that part of the reason they did this was so that George didn't have to see Molly's mess, I think the bigger part was that Molly didn't want to live close to George. She lamented having to move to his part of the house once she was too sick to care for herself.

What was Molly's reason for dating Garmony? Just to put him in a compromising situation? Pure sex?

Oh, Ginny, I'm neither an only child nor someone who has moved around a lot. I guess these feelings of not existing are universal - or are they? Maybe it's just you and I that are cracked!

I have been thinking more about Amsterdam and its cast of unethical characters, and this has occurred to me. What if the author is using this means (the book) where simply everyone is corrupt to say that our society is like that: everyone IS corrupt to a greater or lesser degree? What do you think of this possibility? Otherwise it seems to me that he has written a book which is just a step (a big step, of course) above a good thriller. June

June - back quite a few postings your ideas is what I was saying in another way.....I think everyone has the shadow/germ of corruptibility ..call it evil, darkness, whatever. We don't act on that. Our Clive thinks he is above a decision like he makes.

Sure, I have had experience of feeling not here. Think of being in a group where you don't fit!!!! People are looking and talking arouond you.

I have to say again that I enjoy his dark black humor. Thinking about the siamese twins discussion as only 1 instance.

I just received the copy I ordered from QPBC today - took over three weeks!!

Charles - I was missing you here. I'm glad you got the book. What is QPBC?? And why do you bother with them if they're so slow???

June and MarjV - good points. Amsterdam is so easy to read that my first impression was that it was just a lightweight book - fun but ultimately not that satisfying. Many of the on-line reader reviews at sites such as B&N and Amazon reflect that feeling. On the other hand, since this is the first discussion I've led here (and since the book is mercifully slim) I've been re-reading it. What I've discovered is that there is meaning, or humor, or foreshadowing, or just a nice turn of phrase in virtually every sentence (unlike your everyday thriller).

Did any of you ever read The Blue Flower by Penelope Fitzgerald? It won the Booker Prize a few years ago. I had the same reaction to it. I was at a book reading of AS Byatt's and she raved about Fitzgerald - called her a genius, said she never wrote a bad sentence, etc. I was mystified. And yet I want to read The Blue Flower again even now!

But you're also both absolutely right that there is not a decent person in this story - not yet, anyway. They're all corrupt for completely different reasons: Molly for the way she treats people (and, some might say, her promiscuity), Vernon for his greed and lack of ethics, Garmony for his politics, Clive . . . wait a minute. How is Clive corrupt??

Wait - Wait - Look - Look these characters have got to be symbolic of the 20th century - This book is brilliant - Molly is simply the crazy hippie and fast living outrageous party of the early 80s. The arts only became an important part of the national scene in about '75. the Journalists have been caught between expose' and responsible but dull journalism since Nixon - the politicians have been irrelevant without realizing it since Nixon and Johnson with both Watergate and Nam. Kinky; well British press does a great job there. Not only do we have Bill and Monaco but Hoover and of course, Charles and Parker Boles, Ferggie as well as, a few others. The symphony is just a devise to figure out how to frame not only the century but, the final New Year's eve of 1999.

Too late at night for me, to get all the great quotes from the book BUT when you reread Clive as he returns to his home from the funeral it's all there; symphony - ...would sound like some furious energy restrained. Releasing it later, in this final section ...Almost right, almost the truth, They suggested a dry yearning for something out of reach. Someone...this rising passage in terms of steps that were ancient...that it could play itself into public consciousness...longed for...one tune, a hymn, an elegy for the maligned and departed century...then set free to take its chances of an independent life in the public mind during the third millennium.

Molly is maligned and departed (ashes) - Clive is yearning for something out of reach and a rising passage in terms of ancient steps, (not the old guard with references to the holocaust - the voice of the public through the arts appealing to 'publicly subsidized concerts' - I love that phrase) - Vernon is almost right, almost the truth sounding like some furious energy (not restrained) - Garmony is playing himself into public consciousness...longed for.

I'm only to page 84 - I still cannot see what George symbolizes.

When I read these sentences and forget they are individuals but rather, just pay attention to the description and take the past or future away, making statements simple it's all there - Yes, Molly is like, in the 'Big Chill' but further, she symbolized our culture at a certain time even when she settled back and became companionable, too wry...to be passionate, and...liked to be free to talk. the introspective 90's especially after AIDS kept the bed hopping down to a numbered few. Clive is oblivious to the darkness...the muted, discordant...notes of the ...evening rush hour. It was only a bridging passage to the finale; what fascinated him was the promise, the aspiration...set on ancient worn steps turning gently out of sight--the yearning to climb on and up and finally arrive, by way of an expansive shift meaning, the final rush to the year 2000, the evening of the century, wanting, aspiring better with an expansive shift. Expanding rights for all, expanding the economic betterment for all through a world economy etc. etc.

Reading this as symbolic of the century and those professions - the arts that 'gave' to journalism and journalism printing the salacious intimacies of public figures, wiping out careers and reputations is the marriage of the outrageous behavior of a Molly and the drive to succeed of a Vernon the journalist/business man. I bet that is what the front cover is all about.

Wow, I am blown away by this book and yes, on the serface it could be read as a simple story of the 60s generation, grown but, this is an amazing discription of western civilization during the last century or at least the last 50 years.

Sarah, just wait. You'll find out how bad Clive is at the very end. Also demonstrated by his behavior on what he does or doesn't do on his walk through the countryside. All these people are self centered in the extreme, even, as I've said before the wife of the politician, who lies without a blink, though she is otherwise a doctor doing good for suffering children! The sexual indiscretions of a politician and his loyal wife remind me of the scandal that obsessed this country not so long ago, though I am NOT comparing the two cases in specifics. June

Barbara! Wonderful post! I think you've hit on something as far as symbolism is concerned. I hate to tell you but I think you will find George ends up symbolizing the Triumph of Mediocrity or something in that vein!

June, one does have to wonder at the parallel between our US political fiasco and this fictional political couple! Lots of ways to look at what, at first, seems to be a rather simple little novel of suspense.

I, for one, felt there might be some social commentary here on the significance of Amsterdam in the euthanasia issue. But read to the end before we get into that... Has anyone else finished the book?

I think our dear SarahT is off on her vacation now. I'll be looking in daily [barring equipment failure!] but not really attempting to take her place. Impossible!

OK, for those curious about all those locations Clive mentions as he mentally prepares for his getaway or long walks towards inspiration to finish his symphony. Included are pictures of the areas.

CUMBRIA & THE LAKE DISTRICT
Scafell Pike from Hardknott Roman Fort
SCAFELL PIKE
PENRITH, CUMBRIA
several walks that include Esk House, Pavey Ark, Blea Rigg, Cold Pike, Allen Crags

"Make something, and die." – Seems to me that this is the impulse attributed to many artists (Clive here; Richard in The Hours??). Out of Clive it seems….resigned, rote, not quite angry, but certainly resentful. In The Hours (Clarissa Vaughan), it is a more hopeful wish: create something beautiful, if not lasting, at least memorable – these are the hours of our lives to express ourselves in creative ways. To Clive, it’s almost like a dog leaving his scent, nothing very grand. Maybe just the after affects of the funeral and his loss.

Vernon and Clive: Siamese Twins?

With Molly, “it began with a tingling in her arm.”
With Clive, the cold from the funeral remained as a “tingling” in his left hand. “Wasn’t this the kind of sensation Molly had had…?”
With Vernon, his sense of being, or lack thereof, is starting to manifest itself as “a sensation for which there was simply no word” on the right side of his head. “His right hemisphere had died.”
Isn’t the right side of the head connected with the left extremities (the left hand)? – the “creative” side. The symptoms/sensations of Vernon/Clive seem to emanate directly from thoughts of Molly.

”Make something, and die” – Molly is dead. Are their creative impulses dead or dying? Or, more to Barbara’s point, are our creative impulses in danger of dying off as we near the fin-de-siecle?

I thought Chapter II, section iii was terrific. Molly’s remembered description of Clive’s inherited house, the outside was “painted purple.” How many houses were painted purple in the sixties and 70’s? I still remember a huge old Victorian house in Brookline (Boston suburb) that was converted into a Hare Krishna house – painted purple of course.

His use of Rock n’ Roll references to describe the people passing through Clive’s house really captured that time, and had me roaring, too: “John Lennon and Yoko Ono spent a week there” – Remember their Peace-In in New York – spent a week in bed? “Jimi Hendrix stayed a night, and was the likely cause of a fire that destroyed the banisters” – obviously Jimi was perfecting his lighter-fluid-guitar-burning-techniques at Clive’s place. “As the decade progressed, the house calmed down…and no one slept on the floor” – Futon on the floor – the only way to go. Later, in the great compromise of the eighties, I raised the futon onto a frame (off the floor). I’ve resisted for years (through many futons) my wife’s insistence that we get a “regular bed.” Soon, as it’s time for another futon replacement, I will loose that battle. Boxed Spring and Mattress for me. The end is near. I’m thinking why don’t we just go straight to a Craft-Matic adjustable?? You know - the ones you see on late night cable or UHF TV. I thinking, the higher off the ground you sleep, the closer you are to God 'n I ain’t ready to meet my maker yet!!

Then the Rock posters. Inspired.
The Beatles at Shea Stadium (8/15/65) – the American explosion of British Rock and the beginning of an era
Bob Dylan on The Isle of Wight (8/31/69 – the British explosion of American Rock – the pinnacle
The Rolling Stones at Altamont (Fall 1969) – the death of an era
Concise use of seminal events – the case can be made that these three concerts framed the latter half of the sixties musically, and that they represent the rise and fall of a short period in Rock and Social History. At least for the British. As an American, I’d opt for Dylan at Newport to make it four concerts.

Previous Post: And now I see Clive “gently massaging the palm of his left hand” as he’s thinking about Molly and “the way she died.”

Charles--

Speaking of the Stones at Altamont--the movie of that concert, "Gimme Shelter," was on Encore last night and I ended up watching the last 45 mins. or so of it. I saw it at the movies when it first was released but had forgotten just how awful the Hell's Angel's were as a choice for a security force. Watching it now makes me wonder why there weren't more deaths there, with all the violence taking place it was only a miracle a lot more people weren't hurt.

OH, thank you so much, Barbara, for those wonderful URLs. Pictures are just beautiful. Did not realize England had such mountainous mountains!

You and Charles have made good cases for a lot of cultural symbolism in this book. I'm afraid I tended to read it like a mystery--quickly to the end to see HOW it ends! --missing all the stuff that the Booker judges must have seen too, along with the two of you. Keep commenting. Each observation so far makes sense on reflection. What do the rest of you think?

I say thank you a million billion times, Charlie and Barb for that background information (ALL the music stuff had gone right over my head) and the lovely morning I spent looking at Cumbria, one of my favorite places to go, have a friend there and could stay for eons, never have had enough time there, think I'll write her!!

But the best thing of all was something not on Barb's links: Langley Castle. You see, I thought, heckers, if all those hotels and B&Bs have urls wonder if Langley Castle which is now a hotel does, too, and went to hotbot and typed in "Langley Castle," and well, Just LOOK: Langley Castle .

It's on the border of Scotland, but not far from Cumbria and the Lake District tho strictly in Northunberland. The doors are arched into points inside. There are gardrobes. If you want to see Hadrian's Wall and to "stay nice," this is it, we thorougly enjoyed every minute of our stay and would go again in a heartbeat.

Thanks, Barb, for the memories!!

So it's ON to Part III tomorrow, Jeryn? You're doing a fine job!!!

We'll have to have you do another when this is over, going off to read Part III. Had to restrain self from continuing last time.

Ginny

Ginny, That's a beautiful place. Which room did you have?

When Clive asks Vernon for an emergency visit, Vernon reluctantly, with guilt, comes. Clive, after thinking a lot about Molly’s last days, asks Vernon for his help to end his life with dignity, should it ever come to that. Vernon, on his way to see George about the pictures, tells him he’ll “need to think about it.”

George presents Vernon with the pictures, and wants them published in The Judge. He tells him he’ll “need to think about [it] very carefully.” So Vernon has been presented with two, can we call them both moral dilemmas (?), in two visits. This “man without edges”, this “nonentity” has been asked to take on two very important (for different reasons) tasks. After leaving George’s with the pictures, and after sitting in an idling cab to sort it all out, he heads for Clive’s and leaves him a note, taking him up on his proposition. The meeting with George seems to have convinced him that he should take on the responsibility that Clive has asked of him, as a friend. Is there a connection here? McEwan seems to be making one here, but I’m not sure what it is – if he is. Just a coincidence?

A really sort of hilarious take on The Booker Prize as the equivalent of LA's Oscar Night: Making Book on The Booker

Charlie, what a MARVELOUS link, what a lark! I think we may want to look at "Beryl the Bridesmaid" here in the future, and the bus driver, have heard a great deal on him, and they're both short listed.

Somebody asked in some folder about Penelope Fitzgerald, I love her. I have not read THE BLUE FLOWER but several of her others. The one on the houseboat was electric, just jabs itself into your soul and won't let go.

Prissy: I saw your question and panicked!! OH I thought, Prissy has been there and wants to know the room names, and I forgot they had names and there they all are, stuck out in public view and I have a terminal case of CRS. Also it's plain they've done some decorating and so which on earth?

So I fired off an hysterical note to Sandy who was one of those who went with us, and she writes everything down and replied that it was the Radcliffe!! (That alcove with the curtains is a window in the wall of the castle, right over the front door, from the front the front center little window upstairs, it's got two stone seats on either side). I was leaning toward that one tho it doesn't look familiar, because of the sauna, we did have a sauna. The room was huge, just huge and so was the bathroom, I expect the room is used as a family room you could have a reunion in it. OR play tennis.

Charles, what an interesting point: This “man without edges”, this “nonentity” has been asked to take on two very important (for different reasons) tasks.

I wonder, now, if McEwan is making an ironic point here? We have two people being successes who don't seem to be much, altho Clive still has my vote as good friend, things may change in this next section. But Vernon is such a non person that not only does HE feel it, but those who work for him and with him do, too?? Can this be a sly jape at those who have made it while lesser talents slave away unheeded? Interesting. Or is he saying sort of a "once to every man and nation....comes a moment to decide?"

Can't wait to see what this new section brings!

Ginny

I started thinking about the words to the old hymn "Once to Every Man and Nation," the one written in 1890 by Thomas John Williams (not the one with the same tune as "There's a Wideness in God's Mercy,") and found myself haunted by it this morning, and think the second verse, especially, applies here.

Here it is, and it's interesting that the clip begins with an echo of the chorus: "Twixt that darkness and the light...." before it starts out with:

Once to Every Man and Nation

Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood,
For the good or evil side;
Some great cause, God's new Messiah
Offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever
'Twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble,
When we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit
And 'tis prosp'rous to be just.
Then it is the brave man chooses,
While the coward stands aside
Til the multitude make virtue
Of the faith they had denied.

Powerful stuff, huh? And, I think, very germane to what's happening in Part II.

Ginny

Great stuff being shared here. Wow Charles you really know your concerts, and the Booker link is a jewel - Ginny, inspirational - the poem, another voice of what is being said!

I must confess I have completed reading 'Amsterdam' and therefore, I do think some of my thoughts are colored by having completed the read - As I read I did have favorable sympathy for Clive until his reaction to the woman in blue. Now it hits - he is representing the historical, traditional, conservative financially successful man. The fact that he writes music is illustrating his type of patriarchy is still writing the music (law/economics etc.), the beat, for Western civilization.

He has a soft spot for Molly, the party woman who could outrageously dance on a snooker table but, he would rather tend to his work then help the woman of the 90s who has shouldered her pack and wants to walk the same paths as traditional man. No, he does not contribute to the rape and really doesn't have an eye for the criminal. In fact he wasn't even identifying what was happening and only thought she was having a confrontation that he didn't want or believe he should be mixed up with. He only wants to get on with 'his' work. in abstract the long historyof his lifetime Also, A way of denying the randomness that spawned us and of holding off the fear of death.

They are hiking in an area of mountains and sites that go back to the Romans. Tying together mans 'climb every mountain' (although sung by a woman ha ha) and the status of 'man the conqueror' - mans power to overpower and subjugate as the Romans some 1600 years ago. - On this path is the criminal tossing aside the woman's 'work'/pack to make her submissive to his power while Clive works toward his raison d'être.

I love the way he philosophizes that anyone walking these paths alone has ...a reluctance to be overcome. It was an act of will, a tussle with instinct, to keep walking away from the nearest people, from shelter, warmth, and help That his daily grind...had reduced him to a cringing state He would be large again, and unafraid. Then when he comes to a bridge and must make a decision to make the ascent that required hand-over-hand scramble or give into his feeling weak or his age and take the valley, he makes the ascent. But then, judges and criticizes, those he knows as being happy without wilderness, curses his friends for their dullness then, (poor baby) feels let down, unappreciated, isolated. Good grief is that the feelings typical of the goal oriented Man of the 90s? Judgment and Self pity rains on their parade?

Then he even judges the landscape as becoming a gigantic brown gymnasium Again, we have a middle age guy proving to himself he is as capable as, when he was in his thirty's.(Reminds me of some of the men in 'Hours') I wonder if this is alluding to the idea that the traditional, powerful, patriarchal, male dominated, society is threatening to wind down and it must become strong again so that the mood of society will improve as Clive's mood improves after his climb? Or being less critical maybe McEwan is simply saying any difficult undertaking will improve the mood of western civilization.

This conservative, traditional patriarch has no truck with herds of school children either. I guess that is referring to how difficult it is to get proper childcare or money for public (large groups) education as an important budget goal. And the fluorescent 'colors' of today sure don't match his idea of tradition. And yet, Molly was a fluorescent colorful woman wasn't she? The 60s? Does anyone know when Day-Glo hit the marketplace?

So his symphony's climax or the climax of the traditional, conservative, western man should be 'Courage'.

From Cooper's Encyclopaedia of Trad. Symbols -
Gray The neutral; mourning; depression; ashes; humility; penitence. Death of the body and immortality of the soul.
Bird Transcendence; the soul; a spirit; divine manifestation; spirits of the air; spirits of the dead; ascent to heaven; ability to communicate with gods or to enter into a higher state of consciousness; thought; imagination;
Children the embodiment of potentialities; possibilities of the future; simplicity; innocence. In legend children are brought by fishers such as the stork, or water-dwellers as the frog, or are born of Mother Earth, under a bush or in a care, hense are embryonic in the Great Mother, controller of the Great Waters.
Colours symbolizes the differentiated, the manifest; diversity; the affirmation of light. Colors that give back light are active, warm, advancing.

The perpetrator a tweed jacketCoat/Cloak Ambivalent as both a symbol of dignity and position but also, as a disguise, withdrawal and obscurity; darkness; the secretive; dissimulation. Hides man's true nature White cloth around his neck is associated with both life and love, death and burial. Undifferentiated; trascendent perfection; simplicity; spiritual authority.- around his neck indicates office and dignity, but also binds to that office, diversity in unity.

The woman in Blue Truth; the Intellect; revelation; wisdom; loyalty; fidelity; constancy; chastity; chaste affections; spotless reputation; magnanimity; prudence; piety; peace; contemplation; coolness. The color of the great deep, the feminine principle of the water; It is also the Void; primordial simplicity and infinite space which, being empty, can contain everything. It is also a lunar colour.

Hmmm so the woman could symbolize more than woman's rights issues! Or is McEwan dressing a woman in blue saying these are her characteristics in today's western civilization? In other words the woman like the statue of Liberty or of Justice is a symbol herself ow these idilic virtues being raped by those secretly overpowering her.

Woman The Great Mother, the Great Goddess, the feminine principle symbolized by the moon, the earth and the waters (the tarn hardly bigger then a large puddle). The instinctual powers as opposed to the masculine rational order, receptive, protective, nurishing,...

Well! Ginny, Charles, Barbara!!! What WONDERFUL observations! I don't know why I even need to be here!! That article on the Booker was revealing and delightful, was it not?! Thanx for sharing that, Charles. I particularly enjoyed in all your posts the various descriptions of this little book...

"a political fable..."

"...pitiless study of the darker aspects of male psychology..."

All of Barbara's symbolism suggestions...

Now I would like to know exactly what the author would say to all this? Wouldn't you love to know!

The skilled editor; the talented, successful composer; the staid publisher--who will triumph in the end?

Jeryn: Me, too. I read the book all too quickly, but am enjoying reading all the posts. Lovely pictures of England.

Your comment......Vernon & Clive as perhaps the Siamese twins. Intersting! They were beginning to hurt each other re. the twins faces had bite marks!

The symbolism you brought out to us for chewing...thanks. Adds some more thought to the scenes.

Has anyone considered this aspect of Clive's selfish preoccupation with his composing problem [when he ignores the woman who needs help]: i.e., is ANYTHING justified in order to further the creative process? A la The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand?? Clive, with his self-admiration, does put me in mind of her philosophy of selfishness.

Keep posting, everyone! Don't be shy! Lots of material hiding in this "little" story!

Charlie, that was great, hahahaha, they ARE in a way, aren't they, tho how they differ may in fact be the issue?

I think that was a not so subtle slap at the popular press, "how low can you go?"

Part III seems to be about Clive, and Clive's own struggle, again, with a decision. I thought it was masterful the way McEwan wove INTO the story Clive's uncertainty about whether or not the girl in blue WAS in any real danger at all and how driven he was to get his musical composition right. And what he sacrificed to get it right.

Many times in we may read or hear of something happening that we KNOW we could have and would have done differently: the Kitty Genovese murder certainly springs to mind.

Here is Clive, undergoing a "composer's block," he's stifled, he's stopped he must finish, but he stays calm, he knows he can work thru it so he goes back up to the Lake District to walk it off and visit his muse there. And it does come to him but when it does, it comes on the horn of a dilemma. The girl in blue, the angry voices, the old?? man?? IS this something he should intervene in, but the music has come??

Then she whimpers? And his mind is made up, and I thought he was going to help? NO, he's going to finish the symphony.

Now what did you make of this thing? WAS this a clear cut case of victimization?

Last night I was reading James Joyce, trying in vain to catch up with PORTRAIT when I stumbled upon these words about decision making:

"The sentence of Saint James which says that he who offends against one commandment becomes guilty of all had seemed to him first a swollen phrase until he had begun to grope in the darkness of his own state. From the evil seed of lust all other deadly sins had sprung forth; pride in himself and comptempt of others, covetousness in using money for the purchase of unlawful pleasures, envy of those whose vices he could not reach to and calumnious murmuring against the pious, gluttonous enjoyment of food, the dull glowering anger amid which he brooded upon his lnging, the swamp of spiritual and bodily sloth in which his whole being had sunk."...moral decisions.

I think Charlie is right and this is a book about the morality of decisions, almost a morality play. Of course I have not finished it. Clive has just made a very un, I would say, Clive like decision. Where is the man who was a devoted friend, a loving companion? Doesn't the emotion of the one way of life extend to others??

I loved the end of the chapter, "surely it was creative excitement that made him pace up and down in the hotel bar....surely it was excitement that made him feel this way, not shame."

The little day to day decisions we make that nobody but us notices, how greatly they affect our lives, that's what I think the author is saying here, but I wonder WHY?

Ginny

I just logged in to my Excite Home Page. They feature today a Reuters news release from Amsterdam:

"Dutch crematorium is offering live coverage of its services on the Internet for those unable to attend the funerals of friend and loved ones."

I thought this might be appropriate to the discussion. Sue

As a political statement I thing McEwan is confronting the reader in chapter III with the ugly face of conflicting values and intolerance in society, and in the work place when men meet woman as well as, fame/success at the expense of community, truth, inclusion.

The composer, Clive, a man on a mission, fails to comprehend his own complicity in the corruption of civil rights. As both Ginny and Charles point out, there is a 'moral decision' developing conflict between the creative Clive and the tableau of confrontation, the backpacking woman in blue and the tweed jacketed, white scarf perpetrator. Against the background of an alienating, single focused, scurry for fame and success, Clive's vainglorious selfish behavior is brought into sharp relief. Clive may respect the old traditions and values but, he is symbolic of the obsessive 'need' of western civilization and the blatant single-minded, spare-no-effort climb to success that is the stuff of a billion dollar business in books and workshops today.

Western man's history and opportunity to succeed, now opened to many, supposedly, regardless of race, creed or color, hold an allure that separates us from not only our 'neighbor' but also, the values of 'Blue'. Namely; Truth, wisdom, loyalty, fidelity, constancy, spotless reputation, magnanimity, prudence, piety, peace, contemplation, the simplicity that allows everything. We are all caught inextricably in the long chain of fantasy and abuse that is the history of western civilization.

I believe McEwan is making a pitch here for team, community, national, inter-national effort toward a success that does not ingnore values of blue in the name of individualism. In other words some of the values expressed in the 60s before everyone became yuppies.

Sue, thanks for dropping in with that news brief from Amsterdam. Making funeral attendance as convenient, brief, and painless as possible; whoa! Complete with midi music, posting of condolences, and graphic floral tributes do doubt! The possibilities stagger the imagination! Sue, hope you'll chime in again!

Ginny and Barbara, you impress me so much with the interpretations and all that you "read into" this story. Getting too deep for me...

But ever onward... I too saw an article about Amsterdam in the paper. Apparently they are going to make it legal and official to perform euthanasia there--since they are already doing it anyway! I have further comment on this but will try to keep it on hold till the "end of the story"....

I sat down and read Chapter 3 tonight. My favorite line: “Such was the exalted nature of his mission. Beethoven. He knelt on the car-park gravel to stow in his daypack the grated cheese sandwiches.” Somehow I just love this juxtaposition. Beethoven and grated cheese!

His hike put me in mind of Hans’ Magic Mountain ‘Snowstorm’ episode. Sort of a minor Goldberg variation: The threat of nature…. “The sickness” from which he sought release….. The “elemental indifference.”….. The wish to control this indifference to wrench “human meaning” from the landscape…... Achieve the realization that he was an insignificant part of this order, and thus set himself free…... The “randomness” of our existence, the holding off of the “fear of death.”………… How he suddenly grew tired and lay down for a rest………. Caught in the rain (instead of the snow – the sweat and rain pouring in his eyes).

This little riff is suddenly broken by the thought that this is nothing more than a workout in a brown gymnasium in the rain. Cheese sandwiches! Well, we see our Clive now I guess. He morally shriveled up, no? Cheese sandwiches indeed! Grated. Yes.

I hate to say this, but what IS a grated cheese sandwich? I saw that and I thought, how did I miss this? How does one procure one of these things? Grilled, yes? Grated???

The walking paths of England are a wonder and unique, at least to me. Here are literally thousands of miles of path way, in which you can be isolated and alone in a tiny populated country, and on which you can walk (normally) without fear. I don't know why I had the assumption that the hiker in blue knew the man and was going forward to meet him. I thought that bit of writing was splendid. Even though you hike and you can separate yourself like Clive did, usually when you come over the hill you encounter a couple resting by a stream, or a family hiking up, all very cordial and civil. I have hiked over these very areas in the Lake District. I would think the incidence of crime on the trail would be shocking and very unusual and I can see why Clive hesitated, but surely he should have stepped forward.

Which segment of society did we say Molly represented? If these are all symbols of society at large, what segment was it that Molly represented??

Symbolism is a tricky thing, sometimes.

Ginny

Symbols. Symbolism. Could one compare it to a code? Or is it looser, hence subject to interpretation. E.g., MY symbol for, say, love is YOUR symbol for peace, or prosperity, or bad news, or or or... Am I getting a little out of hand here? Trying to play devil's advocate; any other little devils out there today?

I never HEARD of a grated cheese sandwich, Ginny! Just assumed it was a British dish--they have some weird ones. Weird names, anyway. I've always wondered just what is "spotted dick" for instance...

Well, Jeryn, tell us - I've never heard of a "grated cheese" sandwich, either. Unless you just grate cheese and stick it on - with a bit lettuce perhaps?

Is it true that in England you cannot put up "No trespassing signs" on your property? All land in England is open to all travelers thereon - heard that somewhere.

I was hoping someone could tell ME, Ella!

Did not know that about the open land but it sounds typically British. I was a little dismayed when we were there to note that dogs are allowed in restaurants, too! There was an interesting little skirmish between two fuzzy fellows in the pub one evening as we were having supper! I don't mean fuzzy-headed; I mean four-legged fuzzy fellows! <BG>

Several years ago I visited in Key West and they must have the largest cat population in the States. They lounge around restaurants, so overfed that they don't even beg for tidbits. You almost have to move them to sit down to a meal. Being an animal lover and someone who shares a small house with four large dogs it didn't bother me, I'm used to having animal hair drifting around my food. I could see that some people were uncomfortable, although in my mind it added to the charm of a beautiful vacation spot.

On pgs 67 & 68 Clive begins to realize there is a world apart from that in which he lives. That description began with the gum episode and continues as he looks out the window. A more base existence than he that in which he lives. I could see and smell and feel the gum on his shoe...ick! And the picture of life out the window was extremely vivid. A foreshadow of his walking tour not to be going as smoothly as he wished; or the symphony; or other plans.

Catch this - I have a copy of the National Trust Book of Long Walks - this alluding to distruction of what is valuable in the name of progress as the history of western civilization is symbolized by the location of the hike as well as, the land is duplicating Clive's lonely and soul baring journey to his destination, the finale for his symphony.

- quote from the book goes:" Robin Hood's Bay to St. Bee's 190 miles from the coast of Yorkshire to the coast of Cumbria. This is England's best walk because it runs against the country's grain. It defies the structure of the land...The Cumbrian mountains reach almost to the sea...Fell, beck, force, dale, tarn, kirk - all dot the maps of the north - are Scandinavian names for what Anglo-Saxons called hill, stream, waterfall, valley, small mountain lake and church. "

(We have not only the history of a Roman invasion but also the Vikings)

"...there are interval along the Aire, the Tees and the Tyne which are extremely gentle, but they are only intervals. For the most part the Way indulges in exposure, and for that one must be prepared. It would be lunacy to set off up Bleaklow, 2,006 feet high, without a sure knowledge of maps and compasses. The Way is genuinely dangerous, and that is part of the point of it...there is nothing like the sense of desertion and abandoned struggle that you find on the Way. Here the illusion is of man in control of his environment - trails, trunk roads, railways and grid lines all drive directly to their destinations, in contrast to the windings of communications o the moor and the hopeless meandering of streams here in this colourless flatness. All the fields are hedged with thorn, or post and rail fences...People have quite regularly seen ghosts of Roman soldiers in Longdendale. You trace a ditch called Devil's Dyke up to Alport Low, from there making for Hern Clough, a stream which you follow via the Hern Stones (a lump of two of grit)" (Don't you love these words)

"Much of what is now empty was not always so bare. The Pennines were covered at one time in trees, but climatic change and the felling by the Romans of almost inconceivable amounts of timber for smelting means that there are none there now...What is left is the moor. It can be grim at times. 'You do nothing casual here,'..."

Jeryn, thanks for the invitation to participate. I do read constantly and have been lurking here for a couple of weeks. My library doesn't have Amsterdam yet. I don't think I would like to buy it after reading some of these posts. However, if I run across a copy I will read it and try to join in. I do feel a little intimidated by the level of the discussion. All these themes, metaphors, etc. I usually read for enjoyment, not for enlightenment! Sue

Welcome, SpringCreek!! By all means read this book because it IS enjoyable just to read through and see how it all ends. Best of all, it is quite short and easy to read! Reads about like a mystery, actually. Then you'll know what all the shouting [?] is about! This is a book for all the "brows", the high and the low and the in between. Hahahaha!

I felt that way also.....jumping into something never tried before is scary business. I did!!! Amsterdam is a great read....hope you read it sometime.

I'm new to this discussion, but so far I've enjoyed reading the book (up to 110 pgs) and have enjoyed reading the comments. Even though Molly seems to have been central to the life of several of the other characters, I don't have a strong idea of who she was. As for Vernon and Clive, they are obviously very affected by Molly's death, understandably so. They had known her full of life and suddenly lost all her mental and physical powers. Both Clive and Vernon have symptoms that make them worry about their own health and how to protect themselves from a slow painful death. Also they worry about the meaning of their life. They identify with their work and a threat to their own accomplishments is a threat to their self importance. I find them rather sympathetic in spite, or maybe because of all their flaws. I'm curious to see what happens next.

bruna, welcome to Books & Literature and to SeniorNet. I certainly agree with you that Molly, while seeming to be a central character, really was just the connecting element among the main characters. Will be looking forward to your further comments on this and our other books. Nice to have you with us.

Larry

bruna - Welcome to the RoundTables. I'm glad you're enjoying the book and the discussion about it and I hope you'll find some of our other discussions and folders interesting, too. I've sent you some information that I hope will help you find your way around.

Yesssss, welcome bruna! Come early and often! Yes, Molly has no real importance to the story except to bring the two men together and cause them to examine the possibility of a death such as hers happening to themselves. Makes for an interesting agreement as they arrive at an imagined solution to such a development. Can we agree there are really three main characters here? Clive, Vernon, and George?

Hi everyone. Just got back from vacation today and am thrilled to see all of your posts. I'll look them over more carefully tomorrow and join you wonderful Bookies then. Missed you all - thank you to JERYN for her wonderful leadership while I was gone (don't go anywhere!!).

This is backwards a bit& relevant - I wanted to comment on the lines about friends on p.76.....As Clive looks at the photographs: " We knew so little about each other. We lay mostly submerged, like ice floes, with our visible social selves projecting only cool and white...here was a rare sight below the waves....." And back on p.54, after they were speaking of Clive's request..."Both men accepted that the nature of the request, its intimacy and self-conscious reflection on their friendships, had created for the moment, an uncomfortable smotional proximity, which was best dealt with by their parting without another word." Haven't we all had that experience when all at once we realize we revealed something that we weren't sure we now trust with the other person. Oh, and then, we need space! McEwan writes about this with such truthfulness...he must have experienced same during relationships somewhere. Who do we trust with our precious holy space?????????

Sometimes it's scary how books and themes can be made to tie in - it's usually not very hard. MarjV quotes the lines about "our visible social selves" and a rare sight "below the waves." In another discussion on Virginia Woolf's Mrs. Dalloway, a major theme is the many facets of a person that are seen in differnet ways by different people and the interior person that is for the most part submerged. And the "wave" motif is used extensively.

But to MarjV's point, McEwan does have a nice eye for these little social nuances, doesn't he? Just read Chapter IV tonight and I liked his observation, a simple one, but universal: Don't you just HATE it when the phone wakes you up from sleep and THEY ALWAYS KNOW YOU WERE SLEEPING!!!???

I am so sorry I've been slow in posting. I returned from vacation only to learn that my landlady is selling the house my husband and I rent, so we've been scurrying about looking for someplace else to live. San Francisco rents are horrendous (and housing prices obscene) right now, so it's been a bit frantic.

I will definitely return to discuss part IV tomorrow. Thanks for bearing with me!!

Much love -- Sarah

Charlie's right, the tie ins with the BC Online in this are dizzying, I myself forget which book I'm in half the time.

Marj: you said, "Haven't we all had that experience when all at once we realize we revealed something that we weren't sure we now trust with the other person."

Oh how true, just had that happen to me and it's stunning, isn't it? You actually reel, you think that you are on the same wave length, working toward the same goal, perhaps, and WHAMMO, you find out that not only is that not so (or not quite as you thought) but there are whole oceans of new stuff you hadn't (in your narrow focus) considered, and that everybody BUT you apparently, saw.

Yes, it's a shock, especially if you thought you had a handle on it.

Yet, as our Larry always says, when you expect a certain behavior from people you are bound to be disappointed, it's unrealistic for ME for example, to EXPECT anything from anybody else, sets us both up for failure and narrows the focus. Much better to let the other person be themselves, and not expect a thing: then the other person can add out of their own individuality and both of you are graced by the unexpected benefits. That's something I need to get straight.

I expect Clive has been burned more than once in relationships, and who hasn't? Yet some people have more tolerance for it than others. I feel sorry for Vernon, everybody thinks he's a NON person and it may be what's driving his sort of inappropriate behavior.

Now I'm going to read the next chapter and find out how wrong I am!

Sarah, worry not, what a concern for you, take your time!!

Ginny

Ginny, you quoted me very well, although I can't take credit for the concept. I learned that lesson early on in my marriage, as I expect most of us have, in that you think you can change a particular behavior on the part of your spouse. I soon found I was much happier when I realized that didn't work and just accepted my wonderful wife as she is and she did the same with me.

In my life experience I have found that men don't ever reveal very much about their true selves to others. While I may talk a lot, I usually am pretty reserved in terms of my true and deep personal feelings, especially when talking with other men. Think that is why we like to talk sports and jobs, etc., because we are not vulnerable in so doing. I think it may be this same thing that caused these friends in Amsterdam to feel they really didn't know each other and then to become uncomfortable when they did become more open with each other.

Larry

Ginny: A good post ... Gave me a lot to think about.

I must admit that I have a bias that says to me: Let the chips fall where they may as far as exposing hypocrisy is concerned. What I mean to say is if I am convinced that exposing this particular side of Julian Garmony exposes an hypocrisy – than I am all for it. If it just exposes a particular side of his private life to public ridicule, a side that he hasn’t taken a holier-than-thou moral high ground on, then I would say that’s none of the publics business and shouldn’t be exposed. That would be the distinction I’d make. It’s not black and white to me that this character has been shown to be exhibiting something hypocritical that deserves this kind of exposure. In other words, being pro capital punishment and compulsory conscription, although I may be politically opposed to them, wouldn’t lead me to publish pictures like this to embarrass or ruin the political proponent of these ideas. Now if it can be shown that this proponent of forced conscription was a former draft dodger, for instance, exposing this hypocrisy by any means necessary is all right by me. Ruthless? Does this distinction make any sense? Does it show a kind of cold attitude, perhaps? Is it logical? And I think that Clive is out of line in saying that Vernon is in no position to comment on his [Clive’s] “moral duty”. Vernon’s intention to publish the pictures doesn’t expose hypocrisy (as far as I can see) and neither does it, necessarily, prohibit him from commenting on Clive’s moral responsibilities. I do have a problem, however, with what looks like Vernon’s threat to Clive to call the police on him. One would think that, as a friend he’d do everything in his power to convince him of the right course of action – but relying on threats immediately is weak and lazy. Clive does score one though, when Vernon exposes his own hypocrisy by saying that “there are certain things more important than symphonies. They’re called people.” – (Why didn’t Vernon think of that!)

The Rose Garmony press conference was a master stroke of public relations – somewhat reminiscent of Hillary and Bill post Gennifer Flowers.

Charles - I think your approach to exposing hypocrisy works. It's the same tack the gay press takes on "outing" people. If a congressman, say, votes to restrict the rights of gay people, then he deserves to be "outed." If, on the other hand, he's just a conservative who never says anything abut gay rights one way or the other, I don't think he does.

It's not clear to me - yet - that Garmony has done anything to deserve to be "outed" as a cross dresser. But I'm not done with the book, either.

Ginny, your post was very cryptic. I hope you are ok!!!

From the AOL dictionary online.... "......from Greek hypokrisis active of playing a part on the stage...."

Charles --- yes, I agree about the press conference. Mrs. Garmony did it.

I'm enjoying reading people's comments as much as reading the book.

Somehow I'm not convinced that Vernon decided to pusblish Garmory's pictures because he wants to stop Garmory from becoming prime minister or whatever he's running for. At first I thought he wanted to hurt Garmory because of his affair with Molly. But I don't think so either. Earlier in the book Vernon has been complaining of feeling non-existent. I think he's looking for an opportunity to make himself and his paper a name and he hopes exposing Garmory double life shall do it.

Yes, I think Vernon is the 'look alike' for how we perceive most of the press ever since 'investigative' reporting became the cause célèbre for Journalists after Bernstein’s deep throat rocketed him to fame. It certainly brings to mind all the sexual exposés since Gary Hart and, as I understand it, sexual exposé of politicans has been the bread and butter of British press. They certainly did a job on the Royals in recent years.

I love how McEwan mirrored society in just a few characters and I laughed how jounalism is depicted as having borrowed and given a leg-up by conservative money and the educated elite (Clive). Would that be alluding for example, to the Cox family or Ted Turner, both who own much of the written press and TV press along with schools of journalism as a splinter group from English Departments. Who now owns most of the British press? Wasn't it for so long Murdock? Was he the one they found questionably dead on his boat in the Atlantic someplace near the Islands.

Great allusions, Barb, I agree, with just a few characters and not much prose McEwan has done quite a bit of work, not apparent at first.

I loved bruna's take on what might have spurred Vernon on, too.

I am behind and have not read this section so don't want to make a total fool of myself before I do, however wanted to comment on Charlie's remark on hypocrisy.

That's an interesting distinction in the Garmony case. IF Garmony had ranted and raved about morals, etc., while all the time carrying on a private orgy in whatever dress, then we could say he was hypocritical. But if he keeps mum, say, on particular practices, then we would hesitate to label him a hypocrite and would not want to see him exposed? That's a fascinating thought. I think everybody hates a hypocrite, and everybody secretly says, oh boy, you liar, and I guess our baser instincts would like it all revealed. But if we had no inkling of a person's personal deviations, say, like the Marv Albert thing: a perfect example. If we had no idea and then they were brought to the attention of the public, how would we feel? I mean, that man never claimed to be any kind of public saint, did he? And yet, as a result of what we now know, I can't bear to even look at him (nor, I am sorry to say, our own President). So in that way, I suppose the power of the press has the ability to change even the course, not only of people's lives, but of history, by changing the perception of the witnesses to that history. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

Is this making any sense? I guess I'm saying that personally for our own personal use if we want to expose a hypocrite, we can try tho most of them are such liars (even to themselves) they won't admit to ever being wrong, but to expose them publically and ruin not only their own lives but the lives of others to me is something else?

Of course if we didn't have this terrible NEED to elevate people to godlike status, and to allow the press to build them up to this level, none of this would matter anyway?

Sarah: am fine, thanks!! Cryptic post, hah? hahahaha, well, it's just amazing how things show thru posts in a Book discussion, that's one reason they're so valid!

Now off to read this section, I AM enjoying this discussion and think it's a fine book which allows so many interpretations and am so glad we have this discussion to chat with each other about it!

Ginny

Ginny - The exposure of a hypocrite – a Jimmy Swaggart, a James Baker for instance, bothers not my conscience at all. Simply if someone tells me that act A is morally wrong and that we burn for it, then finding out that that moralist engages in act A is something that I delight in seeing exposed because I believe it points out the fallacy of their initial argument – that they can be the arbiter of a general moral plane. Now as for Marv Albert – ok. I get some cheap pleasure over seeing him “brought down” even though it had nothing to do with what he does and he hasn’t set himself up as a moral arbiter. You are right – this is a base instinct – and I have it. I guess I feel somewhat guilty about it. And you are right that there is a great social game going on as we build up our heroes and delight in tearing them down – sort of a Humpty Dumpty syndrome. As for the power of the press – I think too much is made of their power to drive our tastes and compulsions. I believe they pretty much give us what we want and what we deserve. Sure it’s distorted and perverse, but it seems to be what we crave, as much as we protest that it is not. Is this some sort of latter day decadence? Portending the end? Well – it may very well be that we can look back at history and see the same instincts. Just that today they are magnified. Watching the recent tragedy on the airwaves: (1) Where we once had a once a day report (say on the evening news or in the morning paper) now we are bombarded with constant facts and near facts. (Bombarded may not be exactly right. Bombarded kind of connotes an innocence – an innocence which we have no right to claim it seems to me). Here a tire is found, then a headrest, then a beacon signal, then some insulation, then some identification papers, then some luggage, then some shoes…on and on. Unconfirmed and rumor make their way in as easily as “confirmed” reports. (2) And yet we are glued to the drama – the unfolding drama – and maybe it’s the unfolding part that fascinates us. The instant serialization of tragedy has an allure that seems to mesmerize our senses.

Charles - how interesting - I too had a sense of the relevance of this section of the book in view of what has happened to JFK, Jr. And yet the two events - the "exposure" of Garmony's peccadillos and the death of JFK Jr. really are nothing alike.

I guess it's the exploitativeness of the press that bothers me about both stories.

I don't make any value judgments about men who cross dress. Growing up in San Francisco inures you to judgments about human sexuality. On the other hand, I hate Garmony's politics.

I guess the analogy is to Reagan and Alzheimers. I really hated Reagan's politics. And yet, I have no desire to see him suffer personally - especially since there is no hypocrisy in his deeds as they relate to Alzheimers disease.

I feel the same about Garmony. I dislike him intensely, but he has done nothing to cause me to wish him personal harm.

So I was relieved when Mrs. Garmony "saved" him from ruin. I was rooting for the Garmonys. I actually LOVE her for what she did for him.

And I despise Vernon for what he's done.

The press sure has lowered it's standards as to what constitues news. Most of what I hear, see and read now was tabloied journalism. Sure flies in the face of the everyday culture lessons I received as a kid.

If there was an accident you were crass to stay and gape and, if a couple of boys started to fight in the school yard, a nun qyickly came out, shoowed us off with a look and an admonishment and the two boys were led into school, usually by the ear. There was a sing song saying we all lived by - tattle tale tit your tongue should be split and all the dogs in the neighborhood should have a little bit.

To bad the press can't leave us some hero's as role models. No one is perfect and yet many have some admirable qualities that do not need to be submerged by their private behavior. Most cultures want heros and heroic behavior can inspire many to develop skills they wouldn't have attempted without the picture of a 'hero'.

I guess watching a TV happening is like chasing the fire engines and watching the firemen put out a fire; with everyone watching and clucking about what did or didn't happen and commenting on the small glitches noticed as well as, being concerned if the victims need any kind of help.

Barbara - I heard a good analysis of the current media frenzy on the radio the other day.

The networks apparently are hemorraging viewers - to the internet, video games, movies, videotapes, cable, etc. The only programming that increases their viewership is this slew of Princess Di-JonBenet Ramsey-Monica Lewinsky-OJ Simpson-JFK Jr. events that they can milk for days, weeks or even months. In between these stories, they run "anniversary" shows about the same events (i.e., it's a year since JonBenet was killed, etc., etc.).

It's all about ratings. And I will admit it - I watch. Now if it wasn't there, I wouldn't miss it. But because it's there, I just can't help watching.

And I'm not one to gawk at an accident on the side of the road - I deliberately DON'T do that.

Go figure.

I felt like I couldn't get away from the coverage. At first I hoped they were, somehow, alive, a miracle. Sat by the set. Dan Rather makes me physically ill, with his saccharine bromides. They go out sailing, oh, they're consoling each other in their grief, I could NOT watch him. Switched to CNN. Then it became apparent that if the bodies were found the cameras would be right there, and that's when the tv went off and it's stayed off. There is a limit, and they over exceeded it. Last night on the news a woman in NYC who had never met and did not know JFK Jr was placing flowers at his door, having taken three busses to get there and cried out in anguish: "WE NEED TO GRIEVE."

I blame the media for this condition, this mass whipping up people into a frenzy. It's frightening, to me. We're all sorry. It's unspeakably sad, a tragedy. We feel for the families, but this coverage is just beyond belief.

Ginny

Hello everyone: I don't know how the JFK Jr media coverage ended up in this forum,but I have 2 recommendations that you might find interesting.

(1)New York Times..Thurs July 22,1999...Column by John Tierney on the first page of the Metro Section.

(2)Philadelphia Inquirer...Wed July 21,1999 column by Tom Ferrick Jr on first page of City & Region Section..you can read this on-line at www.philly.com/newslibrary...... you want to acess archives, select July 21..and click on Metro...Column is titled "Taking sides on John-John"

I'll be interested if you have any comments & opinions not already expressed.

Thanks Ed ... Good column... Wish the T-V people could read it, but they seem only to be able to talk and not read.

TV? Is that the thing in the corner that we sometimes use to play a movie from the library?

Ok, I confess, I finished the book last night. I had anticipated the ending, so it came as no shock to me, but I'll be interested in your thoughts on it when we discuss Part V next week.

In the meantime, what do you all think of Part IV. Of Garmony's escape from ruin? Of his wife's assistance? Did she really know he was a cross-dresser in advance?

I did think the book made it seem so, Sarah. A very forgiving wife... How many of you find this credible?

Really, this whole book, while quite entertaining, seems most unlikely and really fits the moniker of "fable"! Political, cultural, symbolic, or whatever!

Back quite a number of messages @#124 Larry talked of how men don't reveal themselves to each other. McEwan did a superb job in writing this way of relating. And then, here and there, Clive and Vernon begin to question their friendship. And so I ask...is this a reality also.

And re Mrs. Garmony.....how often do we learn about "secrets and lies?" Keep the status quo. Don't rock the boat.

Yes, there has been a saturation of depressing news these last few days, but I still can't fault the TV. I couldn't do without knowing what's going on in the world. When it gets to be too much, I just change channel, or turn it off for a while. It's still up to me. I suspect some people want to be whipped into a frenzy. If they don't get it from the news they'll seek it out in movies or whatever else. I've finished the book and the ending has surprised me. I'm not fully convinced why Vernon and Clive did what they did. I must have missed something. I must go back and reread it. I believe Ms. Garmory knew her husband was a cross-dresser and had come to terms with it long before it became public knowledge. After all, nobody's perfect.

I'm sort of afraid to ask this - but what would you do if you found out your partner/spouse was a cross-dresser? I'd like to think I could come to terms with just about anything - after all, as bruna puts it, no one's perfect. Wife beating, no. Child molestation, no.

I have to think I'd just accept it - painfully, yes, but accept it. I certainly admire Mrs. G for what she did.

On another subject, what is the point of Clive's symphony in this book? Its express intent relates to the end of the century and millennium. But why do you think one of our main characters is the one composing it? I am not sure why. The symphony runs almost continuously throughout the book, and yet I fail to see its real significance. Any ideas?

Sarah my take is - if you can accept Clive representing conservative thinking, achieving, exploitive, economically successful western civilization then, I see the symphony simply his or western societies continuing creation of the 'song', the voice, the beat, the rhythm, harmoney, sound, color, melody etc. etc. Western society at it's most noble, steeped in tradition, played by a full orchestra that have studied the ´beat, 'song', traditional behavior and accepted manner of playing with the large group that makes the most sound and is characterized by a harmonious combination of elements. In order to assure harmony, tradition is honored and that tradition is largly partriarchal in nature, conducted by a strong leader.

I didn't find the actions of Mrs. Garmony out-of-line at all. Don't want to make this discussion political but it seems to me we have a comparative example in American where Mrs. Clinton has done whatever was needed to assure the continuation of power. While Mrs. Garmony apparently did not have political aspirations, she undoubtedly enjoyed the perks that went with her husband's position. Not only was there cross-dressing but also infidelity in that Garmony was with Molly when the pictures were taken. When you think about it, this is really a story involving amoral people who seem to have only their own interests at heart.

Larry

I've just read Part IV and sort of half and half not agree with Larry. I have quite a few questions, tho and had to go back and reread Part III to refix the Clive/ Vernon thing in my mind.

Did we ever establish that Molly DID have an affrair with Garmony? Am I naive in believing what Mrs. Garmony said (didn't you find that stunning how MRS. is an elevation from DOCTOR?) The British don't look upon their doctors as gods, but that's another story I guess.

I just saw the movie with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, the remake of The Out of Towners? In that show, John Cleese plays a cross dressing hotel concierge, and at the end, he's doing it publically and is out with the family. Marv Albert cross dresses, he's not divorced. Surely this type of behavior shows up in other areas of a person's life, too? I would think that Mrs. G would be aware of this type of procilvity, I don't think it would come as a surprise.

Now the affair thing, I wasn't sure about that.

That's an interesting parallel that Larry makes to Hilary Clinton. Whereas I would have swallowed Mrs. G's spiel hook line, and sinker, I don't believe or respect Mrs. Clinton's stance, I don't understand how she can bear it. I guess she thinks it's better than.....than....what?? Crying?

I don't know.

But I was stunned and delighted to see the reference to Cassius and I will be very disappointed if McEwan doesn't carry that one to it's logical conclusion. Shakespeare had Caesar say, "Let me have men about me who are fat; sleek headed men and such as dream at night. Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look, he thinks too much: such men are dangerous." Didn't look that up, may have paraphrased it wrong. So the arch conspirator here is nicknamed Cassius, and, like Cassius, slinks away from the light of confrontation. Too delicious, I hope he follows up on it.

But WHY did George have time to pander through an agent, the photos? Why is there no mention of Molly's duplicity? Is there no outcry to find out WHO took the photos? Note that Mrs. G mentions Molly as the photographer? Then what does George get out of it and why did he do it and why don't the press glom ON to that fact?

Note the moral exchange between Clive and Vernon, and note that Clive now says the guy may have beaten her to death for all he knows. So Clive DID think there was danger, is this why he's still in bed at 4pm? Depressed??

I loved Vernon's moral outrage, don't you find that the MORAL POLICE among us are, themselves worse than anything we could ever imagine?

And Larry raises the best point of all: ARE these people self centered? I thought MRS. DALLOWAY was the most self centered (and lots of people don't agree) person in literature I'd read about lately! IS Mrs. G self centered, do you think, or does she love the guy and her life?

Ed: thanks so much for that, we Philly "Guys" think alike! (Altho I agree with the Philly reporter's assessment of Rather, I do feel extremely sad for the death of this bright, humorous young man: a tragedy by any standards, I felt the reporter was a bit hardened there)... I should also say in the interest of fairness that my husband and I disagree totally on Dan Rather, the press coverage and everything else in the news this week, but it's nice to be able to have your own opinion, just like we do here. Meeting of the minds, so to speak.

This section is very well written, I think, even down to the part where they had a piece all ready in case Garmony "offed himself." Perfect reflection on the viperous ....is it 4th Estate??

PS: Larry, you were right, I now see the meaning of the photo on the cover.

Ginny

Watching Lyle Lovet and his 'Large Band' last night reminded me somehow of 'Amsterdam'. In common is the look and feel that is stripped down intelligent. Lyle Lovet and his Large Band is sleek, dressed all in black, with a brilliant four person back-up, succinct lyrics and arrangements, a blend of jazz, blues, countrywestern - the Large Band is composed of: guitars, including electric guitar, fiddle, the addition of piano, base and drums in keeping with many country western dance bands and then, a cello.

Lyle has a terrific dry wit that comes out, not only in his lyrics but, in his stage presence. The Texas sacred myth, a Stetson, is un-shrined from a custom made leather carrying case made in the shape of the hat and the Stetson is then placed, ceremoniously and with dignity, on the piano as Lyle sings his song about, 'you can take my girl but you don't touch my hat'. Everyone cracks up with the truth of it said so uptown with no trace of cowboy in lyric nor whine of strings.

Amsterdam reminds me of this approach to story telling - clean, professional, simplified without being simple, terse, compact and yet with page turning wit and familiarity of current behavior.

Amazing analogy, Barbara - would never have thought of THAT!!

I wanted to let you all know that we'll be voting for our next Prized Fiction selection from July 26-29. We'll start reading August 15.

SarahT

Do we already have some nominations for the next book?? Where are they?? Or is this the time to start nominating?

Prissy

I am embarassed to admit I cannot get Prized Fiction in here as a clickable. I'm going to get someone to help me!!!

In the meantime, the nominations area is in Books & Lit/General Discussions. Prized Fiction is alphabetized there.

http://www.seniornet.org:8080/cgi-bin/WebX?13@@.ee7d1bf"> Prized Fiction Nominees

Thanks to Ginny - the clickable to the Prized Fiction nominees is now here (see my previous post). Please click over and add your nominees. We'll vote starting July 26.

Oh, the Prized Fiction clickable is also in the heading. Yeah Ginny!!!

Have we finished Amsterdam? I know I have become all mixed up when we were to be reading what. These short books - I'm telling you - they will just never do - just read them through and then your 'confussed', don't understand half the posts and just out of the group - ahuh shameful.

Where are we - maybe we are finished?

Barbara - see schedule in heading. We're not through, although I agree with you that these slim volumes are hard to sustain over a month. Shall we choose a tome for next month?

What? finished? No, nobody has a thought at all on my questions? Voice in the wilderness. I will say this, tho, on Dan Rather and then I rather promise I will shut up forever!!

The next time he talks on Charles, the Prince of Wales, Diana, the Princess of Wales, listen carefully, he always says "Prince of WHALES."

Betcha a dollar!~

No we're not through, are we?

Ginny

I hope not. I was looking forward to everyone's reactions on the ending of this novel. It's the most controversial, discussable part!

Yes, we're there. We can talk about THE ENDING. Finally!

Ok, who saw it coming?

Who liked it, and why (I'm especially interested in hearing from these people, since I suspect you'll be a lonely group!)

Who hated it, and why?

WHAT DID IT MEAN?

Was it a message about the end of the millennium? We're stamping out amorality, media avarice, selfishness, promiscuity, etc. by eliminating these two men from the planet?

Or was it just about these two men being punished for their deeds?

Maybe it wasn't punishment at all; maybe their lives were actually "over" and it was just time for them to go. Clive finished his mediocre symphony (and never WOULD come up with a proper ending). Vernon's newspaper career was over and he had nothing else to offer the world.

What happened to George? He just sort of disappeared, didn't he? As did Molly, actually.

I wish I could talk to McEwan about this book. It's frustrating. I really do need to know what the POINT of this book was!

I've looked in vain for some reviews that really analyze the ending; if anyone has seen one, post it here, would you?

Just time for a quick thought - I wonder is dead the end? If dead is the end, then the issue of polite caring Amesterdam as the home of euthanasia hangs as being redundant. Why would we care if dead is the end? We don't care if a flower or chicken is dead - we eat them - and so I am thinking, the fact that these bedfellows, the traditional patriarcal 'beat'-'song' and the invasive press, kill each other off, they are uniting themselves in death to be eternally linked as the Janus.

Just hearing what John Kennedy was about, his last days, seems he was trying to attract financing for his magazine. Sounds like publishing and big money are a required team.

And Molly was already dead. All the references were to when she was alive. If Molly represents the 60s we surely can see that the era of the peace movement and quiet dispersment at Woodstock was quite a contract to the distructive vandelizment at Woodstock in '99.

As a political satire I think Amsterdam works. My hope is, we all live long enough to see the phooenix rise.

I don't think that I really liked this book very much and as a result don't really care about the outcome of the characters. Molly's whole job was to introduce us to Clive and Vernon, neither of whom is a very sympathetic or likable person. George is never fleshed out, his whole persona is that of a fairly unknown entity. He doesn't make mush sense to me. Clive and Vernon are both pretty pathetic individuals and pretty much got what I felt they deserved. Clive felt that his feelings were so much better and more important than anyone else's. He tried at all costs to avoid getting involved with anyone else's life because it would only interfere with his. Vernon, under the guise of "doing the right thing", couldn't wait to destroy another man. He made it personal all the while pretending that it was for the good of the country.

I'm glad this was a short book because I don't know if I would have finished it had it been longer.

Prissy I hear you - if I was reaading this like wishbone playing a part, it would make me angry but, this is one that I can only read at a distance, much like listening to a Mark Russell comedy routine about the goings on in Washington.

Reading it that way, to me, it is a very clever book that is right on with it's analagies and is really mirroring what most of us have been saying about many issues, example the traditional male outlook. Although, that morality did achieve the success of western civilization it appears it must be embarrassed to open it's ranks to woman as woman have been injured in the fray. Also, we are all disgusted with the tabloid approach to news. Politicians come and go, their downfall being one scandel or another but, it is George that worries me.

What does George have to gain by controlling Molly and bringing her focus or private pictures of Garmony to Vernon's attention? Who is George - are we all George?? Wanting the full blast of the media's attention so we can kill off, as a result of that attention. Could Garmony be anyone in the public eye that has less then a perfect history and we seek, in our thurst for gossip, desire that others live as we and, to knock down anyone seeking something from us, like a vote, we seek to have their behavior, publicized. Or rather, we cooperate, support the publicity when buying the papers and books as well as, watching the TV coverage much as we did Diana during her life and therefore, feel guilt that this coverage my have caused her death.

George seems almost childlike - no focused ambition, just the inherited wealth from his family. Are we the George's that are all about, 'toys' (satisfying our curiosities and thurst for gossip) that we don't question or understand what is of 'adult' importance and are more interested in, what a Garmony does in his private life then whether or not he can lead as we need and want. In fact the other way - if someone looks good and lives as we approve in their private life is that enought to determine he can and should be given a status of leadership. Aren't we having trouble accepting Charles as the future King of England and would prefer William as 'Dianna's' son. And are we grieving 'our' loss because, we would have liked to see John Kennedy Jr.not only as J.F's son but as, 'Jacky's' son, president.?

Somebody asked where George went. There he is at the end..he and Garmony. We sure can't control how things will proceed. Clive and Vernon surely would not have liked their bodies and affairs finished by these two characters.

One of the difficulties in discussing Amsterdam is that the sections jump back and forth in time.

A quote from the New York Times review> "Like so many of the author's stories, ''Amsterdam'' concerns the sudden intrusion of violent, perverse events into his characters' mundane lives, events that cruelly expose the psychological fault lines running beneath the humdrum surface of their world. "

--"the fault lines" helps me to see the endings as a part of McEwan's thinking.

I am reminded by the ending of this book that we should watch out for what we ask because we may get it. That sure happened to these two. I just found the ending totally unacceptable. While one of the two might have carried out something like the pact they had made, I find it extremely hard to believe that both would have done so with no suspicion of the other. What cowards these two were to cease living because things had gone badly for them. They were not ill in terms of a terminal disease, unless stupidity qualifieds. Needless to say I really didn't like the characters in this book, although I found the writing interesting and it kept my attention to the end.

Larry

Like Larry, I really didn't care for the people in this book.. I just hope there aren't too many like them in this world..

Am I to understand that they murdered each other? Or did each commit suicide?

Pat, I thought they "euthanized" each other. I read the ending late at night and it's a blur - for instance, I didn't remember George reappearing. I'll have to reread it tonight.

I have to agree with most of your sentiments: this was not a book that changed my life. I found the writing interesting, and didn't want to put the book down at the end of each very short section, but I don't know that it will stay with me.

It was my understanding that Vernon and Clive had each other murdered, in essence. They were able to do this "legally" because of their "agreement" and the lax euthanasia laws in Amsterdam. I have a real hard time believing it could even begin to really happen? And that fact sort of destroyed any credibility the story as a whole might have had for me. Allegory? Fable? Prize winner? Welllll...

As for George. He's still bumbling along, busily planning the memorial service he will finally have for his dead Molly--now that he doesn't have to deal with any of her old lovers! There's got to be some significance here. George the obscure is allowed to live on while Clive the striver and Vernon the vermin have exterminated each other. And Garmony? Oh well. Some of these politicians can carry on through ANYthing!

Jeryn I love it - George the obscure - Clive the striver - Vernon the vermin - Garmony a politician that can carry on through ANYthing! Would it be Molly the lolly? And how about, the guardian of money for Garmony?

One of the things I wonder about is whether Holland is so lax in these laws that one person can arrange for another person to die without anyone ever talking to that person. Really wierd and I seriously doubt that it really is that way. Surely neither Clive or Vernon were in such desperate conditions that it would have been a compassionate thing to happen.

Larry

Exactly, Larry! I've read that the law in Holland is really rather strict, allowing a person to be euthanized only after quite a lengthy process involving the doctor's approval and the person's explicit desires. I just can't believe one person could "arrange" another person's death! Nope. No way.

I thought they, Clive and Vernon, had doctored each others drink - as to the Netherlands and euthanizia I think McEwan is stating his disapproval and saying, how can this very mild civilized country agree with this latest change in individual control and wouldn't it lead to the elderly becoming dispensable. I think the argument against euthanizia is, that the sick and old become depressed and in that state are not capable of clear choice making.

Barbara, remember the agreement Clive and Vernon made? To avoid having a prolonged death like Molly had? It involved arranging an illegal killing [quasi illegal in Amsterdam even] for the afflicted friend! Vernon had an article on such killings in his paper not long before the end.

Now, is this discussion going to metamorph into one concerning the pros and cons of euthanasia???! I'm ready...

This is a most interesting book. I was particularly interested in a previous comment that linked the characters to events or characteristics of the century. (With all the excitement about the millennium there is very little that goes beyond the 20th century. The millennium includes all the time of the Middle Ages, but few people know anything about them.)

Both men have much in common: 1. Both are completely involved in their work; their identity comes from their work. Their wives or lovers take second place. There are many people with similar lives; no time for family, or no family at all. With all the talk of family values there is little in the workplace that fosters care for the family. There is as much attention given to Vernon's work with meetings and phone calls as to Clive's efforts to produce the perfect musical phrase. I wish I knew more about music; there's more here than I can see.

2. Both men consider themselves exemplary examples of practitioners in their fields. Clive even considers himself a 'genius.' If this isn't 'hubris,' I don't know what is.

3. Both men have committed immoral acts because of devotion to their work, acts that showed disregard for the value and good of another person. Both of them were chastised by the other for failing to do the right thing; both reacted with anger and blindness to their own actions. This is like the words of Jesus in the Bible that we see the mote in another's eye but cannot see the beam in our own. There is no need to point out how common this is in humanity. Also, our own country is always telling other countries how to solve their own problems but has many of its own go untended. The immoral acts involved either not helping a victim or creating a victim. Again, there are many examples of victims of poverty and violence that people ignore.

4. Both men's aspirations for excellence and acclaim in their own fields were thwarted as a result of the immoral actions which, ironically, they performed to forward their aspirations.

5. Both men blamed each other for their failure, blind to their own actions and consequences. Another common trait of human beings.

The more I think about this, the more convoluted the story gets. I'm not sure what to make of Molly; she appears at the beginning and the end and is responsible for the pictures of Garmony. Could she be their conscience? She loved them both, and George, as well as Garmony. She's about the only one who shows any love. Did George produce the pictures to make a profit or to bring down Vernon?

As for the ending, I was reminded of T. S. Elliot--this is the way the millennium ends, "not with a bang but with a whimper."

Both Vernon and Clive were, at the end, as mindless and spiritless from spiritual disease as Molly was from her physical sickness. Thus, they fulfilled their promises to each other.

What a HOOT!! I LOVED it! hahahahah, oh what a hoot! OK, so it was contrived, OK so it was unbelievable. Oh the irony, the satire, oh gosh. hahahahaahaaa

And there's Mr. Dibben, Sir! Taking over Vermin's job! hahahahahaa, Yes, ol Cassius did win, McEwan did follow that through to the end. And he even made sly little references to it, too: Clive in his "ampitheatre of blood" a little earlier on, and poor Vernon, out foxed in his own sly craftiness by his own Cassius, Frank Dibben, a hoot!

And how about this one? "It can happen sometimes, with those who brood on an injustice, that a taste for revenge can usefully combine with a sense of obligation." (p. 162)hahahaahahah

So George was bent on revenge and determined to get rid of the extraneous suitors he'd had to endure at Molly's funeral: no problem, with Vernon, we can see how George got him, but Clive's downfall by the hand of George is a little more hard to grasp. I don't see it myself.

Yes, I saw that one coming, and yes, it's ridiculous: in the first place neither man could have been the parent of the other, the law concerned parents and the dual signatures the same, that was ridiculous.

I'm not sure why the staggeringly ironic bit about Clive identifying the policeman was included, are we to surmise that, of the two, Vernon's was the greater sin?

The writing of the ending of the symphony on page 171, first paragraph is wonderful, and then when we find out it was a parody of Beethoven's Fifth?? What a shock.

Another "stretch" was the appointment of Julian to bring back Clive's body? NOT!

So now George can have that memorial service for Molly without the smirking cuckolders standing nearby. It does make you want to go back and read again where the JUDGE got that piece about Amsterdam in the first place, I believe I'll follow a hunch and do just that!

I have really enjoyed this discussion, the pace was just right, the company exhilerating, and the book, while full of detestible characters, was, in the end, a hoot for me! I'm glad I read it.

Ginny

Artemis!! Welcome, welcome to the Books!

We were posting together, what a great post! PLEASE draw up a chair and stay a long while in our Books!!

Another thing I failed to mention I enjoyed was Sarah's deft hand here, and do you all realize it's her FIRST time out on this? Her first discussion led, and she did it like a champ!

Yes, such fun!

Ginny

AND (in Edit) if a thunderstorm hadn't thrown me off, would have said that our Jeryn in HER first substitute leader job, did wonderfully!!

If you REALLY want to read the Dutch euthanasia laws (or, more properly, the Dutch laws AGAINST assisted suicide) – go for it. Shades of Dr. D (Jack the K) – the disposal of dead bodies is really the crux of the matter. Talk about a profound desire to keep death at a distance…

Dutch Docs Do Death

By the way, Barbara - Reading your posts thinking not of George the character but of George the magazine was a revelation. JFK Jr. said something like "I want to make politics entertaining"!!

Jeryn: These words are wonderful: "George the obscure is allowed to live on while Clive the striver and Vernon the vermin have exterminated each other. And Garmony? Oh well. Some of these politicians can carry on through ANYthing! "

Artemis...you say convoluted ....I definitely agree.

I have enjoyed all the ideas to be munched.

The business with Clive working with the police was puzzling to me also...I thought it quite funny that he identified a police personnel as the rapist!!!!

Spent all yesterday thinking about Artemis' question: could Molly be the conscience of the piece? What a great thought. I disliked Molly, but her appearance as the Ghost of Murder Present made me pause. A lot.

I was wrong in my supposition that George had somehow introduced the Amsterdam Euthanasia thing or I didn't look far enough. Even McEwan (catch that smirk on his face on the back cover, love it!) Even says so: " Garmony beaten down, and trussed up nicely by his lying wife's denials of his affair" (I guess that answers that question) "at her press conference, and now Vernon out of he way, and Clive. All in all, things hadn't turned out so badly on the former-lovers front." (page 192).

Artemis' post also brought back to my mind the intense complexity of the layers of duplicity in the book, layers upon layers.

Clive's "hubris" in thinking that he would outlive ol Vermin, because he, Clive, had written a great masterpiece that would stand the test of time, but it turns out to be something no orchestra will play: more irony, turning out other than what you'd have thought.

Multi-layered.

If I had to say in one word what this book was about, I'd say "duplicity."

See you all next Wednesday,

Ginny

Artemis (great name): Welcome!! You make such interesting points. I have a question, however: You said "4. Both men's aspirations for excellence and acclaim in their own fields were thwarted as a result of the immoral actions which, ironically, they performed to forward their aspirations."

In Clive's case, are you saying that his refusal to stop the rapist caused his symphony to fail?

Is it "immoral" to fail to intervene to stop a crime? It's certainly not illegal - at least in the US. But immoral? I hated Clive for his selfishness in putting his darned symphony above saving the woman from harm. I thought he was a bad person. But I'm not positive that act makes him immoral.

By the way, if you haven't already done so, please click over to Prized Fiction and vote on our September choice (which we'll begin reading 9/15). Clickable is in the heading here.

Thanks to all of you for your wonderful, thoughtful, brilliant posts. You're a great group!! It's been a pleasure "meeting" you here.

xxoo Sarah

WON-DER-FUL posts since I looked in here last! Artemis! Welcome. Loved your comments. Ginny! You are such a hoot! I think you really enjoyed this book more than anyone! Thanks, MarjV and Barbara! Glad you liked my fanciful words!

Sara T.

Yes, I think that acts of omission can be immoral, although not to the same degree as those of commission. A few years ago there were reports of women being beaten and/or raped while people watched on from their windows; no one even called the police. In the case of Clive there was no one else to help the woman. He completed his composition at that point, but, when he had the inspiration for the grand finale, the police arrived, leaving him with no time to finish and interrupting his inspiration.

I am still puzzled about Clive's identification of the police officer as the perpetrator; it can't have been just thrown in. What about this: The policeman's job is the protection of people, but he was not present at the attack. Only Clive was present, like a surrogate policeman, but he did not fulfill his duty. When he identified the policeman, he was subconsciously indentifying himself as guilty. This is stretching it a bit, I understand, but I rather like it.

Hi folks. Today's the last day to vote for our August Prized Fiction selection. Come on over - see clickable in header.

I like it, too, Artemis! Whether there was purpose or not, that little twist was a laugh-out-loud for me!

"There is no huffing and puffing, no waste, no mess. Every sentence carries the fugue-like plot forward to the final catastrophe. " FROM THE WASHINGTON POST

This was my second reading of the book and in rereading I saw more clues to their planning of the other's demise.

Enjoyed this first venture into book discussion. Thanks again.

On this last day of July I bid adieu to our first Prized Fiction selection. It was wonderful having you all here. I hope to see you in our Charming Billy discussion, which officially begins on August 15.

And a big thank you to you, SarahT, for excellent leadership of a most interesting discussion of a quite readable little book. I still don't think it's prize winner quality, but what do I know. It was fun anyway.

Isn't the Booker Prize English? Maybe I don't have the same ideas of a prize winner. It was a good read and I liked it. The ending kept me reading until about 1:00am one night.

Sarah, I also want to express appreciation for your leadership on this book. I know we have all appreciated your efforts. We did have an interesting discussion. The book was different. Maybe that is why it won the prize.

Larry

I didn't want to let this discussion go without a few notes about the author we read.

I was interested to read the following about another novel of his, Enduring Love:

Considered by many critics to be the novel that should have won Ian McEwan the Booker Prize, ENDURING LOVE is an extraordinary exploration of love, faith, and obsession, the story of two delicately ordered lives thrown out of balance by a desperate, deranged passion. Joe Rose is a scientist by training and a science writer by trade. Though he has a secure, loving relationship with his wife, Clarissa, the stillborn specter of the scientific career he might have had still haunts him. Clarissa also has her ghosts -- those of the children a medical mishap has left her unable to bear. Despite these disappointments, they have established a careful emotional equilibrium between themselves and their professional lives. But while hiking through the Chiltern Hills one windy spring afternoon, Joe and Clarissa become unscripted players in a hot-air balloon tragedy that leaves one would-be rescuer dead and saddles Joe with the ardent and unwanted attentions of a disturbed young man.

____________

Clarissa??? Clarissa? I know some folks had trouble keeping The Hours/Mrs. Dalloway and Amsterdam straight in their heads. Had we read Enduring Love we would have been in som

Here's one more:

McEwan's name will be on everyone's lips with his startling new novel, an impeccably constructed psychological thriller set in Berlin during the Cold War. Basing his story on an actual (but little known) incident, he tells of the secret tunnel under the Soviet sector which the British and Americans built in 1954 to gain access to the Russians' communication system. The protagonist, Leonard Marnham, is a 25-year-old, naive, unsophisticated English post office technician who is astonished and alarmed to find himself involved in a top-secret operation. At the same time that he loses his political innocence, Leonard experiences his sexual initiation in a clandestine affair with a German divorcee five years his senior. As his two secret worlds come together, events develop into a gruesome nightmare, far more macabre than anything McEwan ( The Child in Time ) has previously written, building to a searing, unforgettable scene of surrealist intensity in which Leonard and his lover try to conceal evidence of a murder. Acting to save himself from a prison sentence, Leonard desperately performs an act of espionage whose ironic consequences resonate down the years to a twister of an ending. Though its plot rivals any thriller in narrative tension, this novel is also a character study--of a young man coming of age in bizarre circumstances, and of differences in national character: the gentlemanly Brits, all decorum and civility; the brash, impatient Americans; the cynical Germans. McEwan's neat, tensile prose raises this book to the highest level of the genre.

Now that we're all done, I thought you'd also find interesting this article on how Amsterdam was chosen for the Booker Prize. The selection was not without controversy:

Is this year's Booker winner a credit to its 30 years, or have the judges fallen victim to nepotistic niceness and the beguiling comforts of home? Lisa Jardine was on the spot at London's Guildhall and offers an inside view of a competition in which, according to the judges, "there was no masterpiece which was absolutely bound to sweep all before it."

by Lisa Jardine

The 30th anniversary Booker Prize for Fiction dinner at London's Guildhall was a more than usually glamorous affair. Minister for the Arts, Chris Smith, was prominently seated in front of the winner's podium. Leader of the Opposition, William Hague, and his wife sat discreetly somewhat farther back. There was a liberal sprinkling of distinguished academics, including last year's Chairman of Judges, Cambridge Professor of English, Dame Gillian Beer, and 1981 Chairman of Judges, Professor Malcolm Bradbury.

Not only were the six short-listed authors and their families in attendance as usual, but all the previous winners had been invited too. Bernice Rubens, whose Elected Member won in 1970, shared a table with the prize's administrator Martyn Goff. Ben Okri, author of The Famished Road (winner, 1991), swapped anecdotes with The Times newspaper's literary editor Erica Wagner. Michael Ondaatje, whose The English Patient won in 1992 was steered firmly around the room by his English editor, Liz Calder. Salman Rushdie, who not only won the prize with Midnight's Children in 1981, but who was also judged the all-time "Booker of Bookers" in 1993, presided genially over his table, urging his neighbour to find the time to read Proust's Remembrance of Times Past ("it really is worth the effort").

Unfortunately, the very presence of these heavyweights reinforced a general sense that the 1998 short-listed books were surprisingly thin. Most people seemed to agree that Julian Barnes' England, England was a slight satire, no match for his previously short-listed Flaubert's Parrot. The omission of Ian McEwan's Enduring Love from the 1997 short list caused a considerable furore, but this year's book, Amsterdam, was barely novella length, more of a short story than a novel. It seemed odd to imagine that either of these books might join the pantheon that included Rushdie's Midnight's Children and A. S. Byatt's Possession.

It hardly seemed to matter which of these competently executed slim volumes won. One couldn't help hoping that the judges might succumb to a collective rush of blood to the head, and give the prize to bus driver Magnus Mills for his first novel, The Restraint of Beasts. As the rank outsider, Mills was the only one of the potential prize winners who was clearly enjoying himself all evening.

The announcement, when it came, was predictably an anti-climax. Lord Hurd, Foreign Secretary in the last Conservative Government and Chairman of this year's panel of Judges, was startlingly frank in his introductory speech. This panel of judges had not felt the need to pander to public opinion by short-listing books by Commonwealth authors--the best authors writing in English were to be found within the British Isles. Neither had they concerned themselves with special categories like women, or ethnic minorities. No, these judges had settled for the intrinsic quality of good old English novels.

"This, we felt, was a thoroughly stylish year for the English novel," said Lord Hurd. "There were a lot of good candidates--after long and agreeably calm discussion we chose a sardonic but wise examination of the morals and culture of our time--Amsterdam by Ian McEwan."

Actually, Lord Hurd fumbled his script, and announced that McEwan had won the 1988 Booker Prize for Fiction--which seemed rather apt. His entire speech struck many in the room as a good deal more than 10 years out of date, and curiously out of touch with current discussions of writing in English and the burgeoning of English-language novels in India, Africa and Canada.

The bookies had made Beryl Bainbridge the favourite to win the prize with Master Georgie. Those of us at dinner never entertained such a hope. Bainbridge herself, short-listed five times before, and never a winner, looked poised and resigned, and greeted the announcement with a shrug. This was a year for safe decisions, comfortingly confirming the enduring place of the bright young men of the 80s in English fiction.

The previous winners rose from their tables to congratulate the winner and commiserate with the losers. Salman Rushdie rushed to express his delight to McEwan. Bernice Rubens wept openly for Beryl Bainbridge, and expressed the view that a terrible injustice had been done. Most of us, however, finished our dinner and went home in search of a really good book to read.

(Amazon.com UK