This book has piqued my interest. Any idea when?

Welcome MME. Hello Sarah. Sarah is the reason that I purchased this book. I admit that I have not started it yet but will this weekend. It should be interesting, hey?

MmeW and ALF - I'm so glad to have you here. We will start this discussion on November 20. This book fascinates me - for some reason the mix of South American guerrillas, Japanese CEOs and opera is about as unique as an author could devise!

I'm looking forward to this one! The book is out in paper, and all over the libraries, so pick up a copy and let us know if you'll be joining us too!

Would this be too premature to ask: What the he** does Bel Canto mean? Is it a solo? An aria? Where is Maryal the glossator?

Mal: Bless you, bless you. Reading along I kept wondering if the title was a bit more important than it sounded. Yes, it is! It's an absorbing tale and quite gripping. Thank you.

Honestly, Andy, you are the most confusing person. It took me this long to figure out your email! The link went to information about you, and I only just figured out to click on OK.

Mal has already provided the definition, I see.

I am bizzzy grading papers. On King Lear. Sigh.

But I am most grateful to be alerted to the beginning of the discussion of Bel Canto. I am now subscribed.

If you think I am confusing you, you should be inside this head.

Andy, Andy, Andy, Thank you for the chuckle. I don't think I would feel like I was in such a foreign place were I able to get in their. A scary thought, no?

This was one of the most interesting books I have ever read. I can't get over how beautifully it was written. Lorelle

Lorelle, the discussion is drawing near, so I'm glad we've got you in our corner! Can't wait to start - welcome!

Welcome here in our Books and Literature site. We are always most excited when we have another new reader join us. Will you be participating with us on this one? Sarah does such a top notch job leading discussions, you will be pleased. Here in SeniorNet/Books we are always interested in your thoughts, opinions, insights and your comments.

I cannot put this book down. From page one, it is fascinating! Please pick it up - it's out in paper - and start reading. You'll be amazed how quickly you get into the story.

I'll be here, but rather late I fear. My daughter is giving me her copy of this book, says it is WONDERFUL but meanwhile she loaned it to a friend. I get it next and as we both like the same books, I'm looking forward to it; judging from all your comments this is going to be a good group of folks with a good book!

When I bought Bel Canto, a few friends saw me with it and immediately wanted to borrow it. It is HOT HOT HOT right now! I'm hanging on tight for this discussion. I'm so glad you'll be with us, Ella - better late than never!

Hahha, my daughter has asked me to leave it there in NY with her when I leave from our week there, at Thanksgiving! I think NOT!

Bel Canto is on the 7-day new book shelf... I may have buy it.

Did you notice the new heading? Isn't it gorgeous? Marjorie, one of our SeniorNet Books "tech team" volunteers, made it - and I just love it. Thank you, dear Marjorie.

I can't help be reminded of Saramago's Blindness as I read this book. We read it awhile back as part of SeniorNet. Does it have that same ring for any of you?

I suggest we discuss the first three chapters the first week. That takes us about a quarter of the way through the book. I'll get up a schedule and initial discussion questions in the next couple of days.

A few requests:

In posting, respond to each others' posts.

Don't criticize others for their viewpoints. If you disagree, don't personalize the disagreement. Base it on the text of the book.

Be nice to each other! I love SN for its friendly, warm atmosphere, and intend to maintain it in this discussion.

Don't be shy about expressing your viewpoint. You matter! Your opinion matters! You don't have to be eloquent, cite other authors, etc. Just say what you feel!

You say:A few requests:

In posting, respond to each others' posts.

Don't criticize others for their viewpoints. If you disagree, don't personalize the disagreement. Base it on the text of the book. This is great as Pat won't have the book and will NOT be able to disagree with me.

Be nice to each other! Oh NO I have to be nice!I love SN for its friendly, warm atmosphere, and intend to maintain it in this discussion. you go dear Sarah. That's us--- a bunch of friendly, little nuts, just looking to spread our word.

Don't be shy about expressing your viewpoint. You matter! Your opinion matters! You don't have to be eloquent, cite other authors, etc. Just say what you feel! I like this one the best. We matter, send me monies! My opinion is NOT asked for as a rule. I wonder why?

You do know that I am teasing. We are in total agreement with you Sarah and anxious for you to begin. Frankly, Blindness scared the hell out of me right from the rip but this one has an element of harmony even with the disagreeable setting.

Alf, I am Lol Go girl Go. Smile.

Love it, ALF! I'm makin' you the enforcer!

Is everyone okay with doing chapters 1-3 the first week? There's plenty there, and I find we often run into a crunch late in the discussion, so I'd rather take a big chunk first.

Here are some preliminary points to consider as you read that portion.

Why do you think the author chose the setting he did?

Is it helpful to have so many cultures and classes blending at once? The Japanese, the Latin American, the American; upper classes vs. servants; workers vs. rulers; one language vs. another.

Gen is very reminiscent of the doctor's wife in Blindness by Saramago (which we read and discussed here about a year ago). Gen can speak many languages and bridges the cultural and linguistic gap, as did the doctor's wife - the only sighted person interned among so many blind people. Could this story be told without Gen? Is it essential to have a character that bridges the cultural gap in this way? What does such a character add? Does he subtract anything from the story?

Are there other gap-bridging characters in the book? The priest, Father Arguedas? The accompanist? Messner from the Red Cross? Do they serve a similar purpose to Gen, or do they have separate roles?

Patchett seems to have a mixed view of religious figures. In one figure -Monsignor Rolland - we have all the worst stereotypes of an ambitious, self-centered, social climber with little regard for the clergy except those who might advance his career. At the same time we have the self-sacrificing Father Arguedas, who is good, virtuous, pure - the embodiment of religious virtue.

She also has little regard for politicians - either President Masuda whose soap operas are more important than his office, or the Vice President who cannot help admiring the furniture in his house despite the fact that it is filled with hostages.

There is a certain absurdity in many of these characters and in the situation itself, and yet the book is very rich, and packs a lot of fascinating characters and lives into a very small space.

Yes, Sarah, there is a certain absurdity in each of these characters but that is what makes it such a great story. We, as individuals lend an illogical, laughable, irrational twist to life, don't we? i.e. You might possibly approach their dilemma with an authoritative, magisterial attitude and I might strive for the humorous, playful lighter side of their dissidence. Characteristically we each react, respond and conduct ourselves to situations based on our own individualism. More times than not it seems mighty strange to others but we know what works for us, especially if you are a leader. I have always said there are only two types of people in this world- the givers and the takers. This novel is evidence of those behaviors.

We haven't begun the discussion yet. I just wanted those questions out there for folks to chew on while the read chapters 1-3.

I read part of Chapter 1 from the link in the heading and am going to try to get the book. Our county library system has 29 copies of the book and I am 13th on the list of people who have holds on it. I don't know what that means. I may end up reading it AFTER the discussion even though I expect to be here at least lurking.

It is OK Mal and Marj. We are not divulging anything that would make a bearing on your reading of the novel when you get it. It's a great idea to post those questions before we begin.

Welcome, Ginny! Did you see ALF's reaction to the rules for this discussion - hilarious!! Just re-read them and laughed out loud!!

Are you ready? Is there anyone else out there that is considering joining us? This is a fast, easy but very enjoyable read, with lots to discuss, so join us!

I would like to join your discussion!

Welcome, victoria! It's great to have you. The discussion will start officially on 11/20, and I've put a schedule and a few preliminary questions in the heading. We will discuss the first three chapters in the first week. Read at your own pace - if you have finished the book, or are past the three chapters - have no fear, but we'll discuss only the first 3 during the first week.

Sarah, I just got Bel Canto from our library yesterday, and am looking forward to reading it. But I'm a little reluctant to say "yes, I'll join you," because I have flunked out of so many discussion groups. But I'm a great lurker. (Excuse me, Ginger, what's the word you prefer? Observer?) Yes, I will be here, in body, if not in mind.

I would like to join as well as this book sounds both interesting and vaguely familiar.

Hooray, just look at this esteemed group we have assembled for this discussion. I just finished this book this morning. It was raining, my golf date was cancelled and down to the counch I went. I love this book. There are so many nuances and analogies to consider. I can't wait until we start.

Pedln: You are most welcome at anytime, lurk, talk, whisper or shout. We would love to hear from you.

Victoria and angelface555: Are you both new to our site? A welcome letter will be sent shortly. In the mean time if you have any questions, please speak up and ask away. We are all her for one purpose to share a good book. Welcome aboard our reading train.

angelface, Welcome it is good to see you here in Bel Canto.

Pedin, You remembered that I like the word observer instead of Lurk I am pleasently surprised.

Lurk: makes me think of a Sneaky window peaker.

Observer: Person who watches without taking part and that is what I do. Smile.

As long as you have me talking another word that is used a lot pertaining to a Get together is Bash: Which means to hit like on the head (boo). I perfer Gathering: A group getting together to meet and include people you have met like folding a gatherin in a skirt etc.making them part of the fold as we do here grouping together to make extended family. Ginger

Ginger~~I understand your objection to being called a lurker although I like the word "lurk" myself. I think it's the sound of it that appeals to me. Anyhoo, from henceforth I shall think of you as an Observer Extraordinaire.

Maryal, Thank You So Much.

The smiling Observer, Ginger

Victoria What a beautiful name. Welcome to Bel Canto It will be so good to see what You think of this Book.

Ginger

Here I am, a new person to this site. I'll get Bel Canto tomorrow if possible and begin it. How does the discussion work? Do we come to this site???? I have been promising myself that I will get involved here but just haven't made it until now. I don't have a lot of computer time but LOVE to read.

Penney,

Welcome to Bel Canto. It does look like a good book to read, especialy at this time.

Penney yes you do come back in here to discuss Bel Canto so you need to scroll to the green subcribe button and click on subcribe and then a screen will show and it will say you are subcribed and you click on the ok button and will be brought back here when you click on the check subscrition button in any place here on Senior Net and it will bring you here.

Ginger

I shall be paying attention to the Bel Canto discussion. It is of particular interest to me as it is our book group's February pick.

Showdog, Welcome to Bel Canto. Good to see You here.

ANGELFACE: Good to "see" you here and not just in the Cats Discussion.

Welcome VICTORIA and SHOWDOG.

PEDLN: What do you mean you "flunked" discussions? I didn't know we were grading people. If so, I will probably flunk too.

Looks like this will be a very active discussion. I am still waiting for my copy of the book. I will be observing at least until I start reading and maybe after that also.

pedln, angelface (love that), penney, showdog - all such great screen names!

It's wonderful to have you. The most important thing I can say to you is that our discussions are about treating each other in a friendly way, talking to one another, and having no fear about expressing oneself. Your ideas are welcome and valid, so please don't be shy about expressing them, even if you feel they are not "intellectual" or "brilliant." We are all learning together here!

Sarah, Well said and so true.

GINGER, Thanks for the information. I have now subscribed.

Can we start early, Sarah? Maybe just one day.

Alright I'm kidding don't get derailed. I'm just like a kid when it comes to waiting to start a good book.

Sarah Well I went to the library to get Bel Canto and it is out till Dec. 7 so I did go to another library and should have it in a week. Hope so.

Ginger

The suspense is building! Now remember, folks, I'm on the West Coast, so some of you early risers may just beat me in here tomorrow. That's entirely okay!

Today I talked with my Seattle daughter, and was just getting ready to recommend Bel Canto as a gift for another daughter who had lived in Central America, when she said, "Oh, I'm reading that for my book discussion group. It's really good."

I invited her to browse here, but advised her to NOT go to the reading guide until she finished the book. I went there last night and saw some things I shouldn't have seen, YET.

Pedin, OH yes Your daughter could be a Great Asset here I am so Glad that You have asked her to Join in.

When the lights went off the accompanist kissed her.

The mood has been set by this short introductory statement. The brilliance and radiance have disappeared and a kiss has been introduced in salutation and adoration of the Diva. I love first statements. What terrific writing , here. They were so taken by the beauty of her voice that they wanted to cover her mouth with their mouth, drink in.

Thank you, ALF, for getting things started. And what a start! The kiss at the very beginning of the novel signifies so many things. Clearly, we are going to learn something about love and romance. The mouth - and voice - is also quite critical to this book. The role of an accompanist, a sidekick, translater, supporter, secretary, intermediary - also very important to this story. Beauty, and the ability to find it in the most unlikely places. The setting - the Vice President's home - is so very beautiful and yet terrible things threaten to happen there. The beauty of song and of the woman, Roxane Coss, who sings it. Drink - nourishment, the power of food and drink to bring people together, make them fight one another - and the elements - for it. And lust too - the desire to drink in the essence of another, to be one with it.

I think the author brilliantly captures a lot in so few words.

I've put a few first questions in the heading, and to them would add the following themes that you might want to address in your comments:

1. The book touches a great deal on the role of men and women in life, society, the professions, in social settings. Mr. Hosokawa, Nansei's CEO, lives the typical life of a businessman, working long hours, devoting his life to his work, having a less than passionate relationship with his wife. In many ways, opera is his only escape. How ironic that he finds a certain level of freedom while in captivity.

We also meet the terrorists - all men (or so it seems) - gruff, dirty, rough, course, crass - stereotypes almost. It seems hard to imagine any of them having a soft side. They all seem rough and hard and violent.

The world of male politicians and priests is also filled with glory-seeking self-promotors (the President, maybe the Vice President), Monsignor Rolland.

Similarly, we have a number of women who appear fit fairly closely the roles they are "supposed" to occupy - Esmeralda, the maid and seamstress, who sews up the Vice President's head as neatly as she would stick a seam; all of the wives in their finery who are viewed as so weak and powerless that they are allowed to leave detention early.

What's interesting is that those who are allowed/forced to stay in the house actually break these stereotypes quite early. Mr. Thibault, the French diplomat, wears his wife's scarf in a clear mixing of roles. We discover that the captors are all not what they seem. The men begin to pursue their love of music and their own musical abilities. The rigid roles that society imposes on us begin to break down.

There are other themes: the "stockholm syndrome" (I think that's what it's called), where prisoners begin to identify with their captors.

Opera, of course, and its palliative and soothing powers. I am not an opera buff or expert, so I would love your input here. Why is it that every book and movie that deals with opera focuses on its ability to transform peoples' lives? Pretty Woman/Julia Roberts; Moonstruck/Cher, etc. The notion appears to be that no matter what your station in life, the music will change you, it will find your heart and make you see things anew, differently? Is this just intellectual hogwash or is there something to this? Perhaps if we extrapolate beyond opera to music the concept holds up. I tend to wonder, so I'd love your input.

Revolutionaries vs. terrorists. Somehow, yesterday's revolutionary is today's terrorist. How times change! And the names - La Familia de Martin Suarez, La Direccion Autentica indeed! There is humor here, and this is one instance. Somehow the whole idea of revolution in South America seems a bit passe, a bit 80s. Patchett seems to find the captors pretty ridiculous, actually, and paints them as pretty disorganized and silly. However, there are serious issues of poverty and inequality in Latin America and this may be something you wish to talk about.

So let's hear what you think!

Welcome, all.

Hello Sarah and all those people who are new - whose names are not familiar to me (how wonderful to see new people in our discussions, come early, stay late!) and Hi to all old friends!

I started reading the book this afternoon during "rest period" from working outside. At first, I was confused as to where these people were - what country, what city? What language? It took awhile for me to understand that Spanish is "THE" language so I assume south of the border? Still do not what country or city.

I felt the guilt the Japanese man, Mr. Hosokama (we must shorten his name somehow, perhaps to HK?) had in whose honor the party was held! How terrible for him. I also saw some tenderness on the part of one of the terrorists as he held the hand of Roxanne - most of these people believe they are going to die at the hands of these terrorists and their ambitions will never be realized.

Esmeralda, the servant girl, has a few admirers among the group, particularly the men; I feel we will hear much of her as we continue reading.

The RED CROSS fellow was very brave and the President of the country very foolish - who do you suppose the author patterned that fellow from?

As if you couldn't tell, I didn't get through the first three chapters - just into the second chapter somewhere.

So, what were your first impressions everyone?

ELLA: I got my book today and am "into the second chapter" as you are. I guess I haven't gotten as far as you have because I haven't met Esmeralda yet.

I like the way this is written. The words are crafted together so that a very clear picture emerges to me of what is happening. I haven't read enough to answer any of the questions SARAH has asked, either in her post or in the heading.

Perhaps we could call Mr. Hosokama Mr. H. I feel sure he is a pivotal character. His guilt is very clear. This gathering was just for him. If he wasn't there, none of the others would be either. Whatever happens to anyone wouldn't have happened without the party. I hope there will be good things happening as well as bad ones in this story.

I am about halfway through chapter three. It took me awhile to "get into" the book. I think because there was no geographical setting with which to relate. I was saddened by Dr. Gomez and his inability (unwillingness) to help. But his lack is made up by the actions of Father Arguedas and his selfless actions. Does anyone else need to go back on occasion to re-read a passage for clarity?

Good morning, Penney and Marjorie! Yes, it takes awhile, Penney, if I had not been told it is such a good book by someone whose opinion I value I may have put it aside by now, but let's hang in there awhile.

Thinking about what I've read so far, the word "behaviors" becomes more meaningful in the book. Think of the variety of behaviors we are reading about among these people.

Yes Penney, when I first began I kept going back to reference WHICH country this could be. It is not stated but we're told that they want to move up from the cocoa trade and for some reason I got Peru stuck in my head right from the get go. It could be a dozen different countries reaching out for reform , money and new factories to alleviate their poverty and harsh living conditions.

As Marjorie and Ella noted, poor Mr. H has a guilty conscience. He hates travel, hadn't intended on bringing any new Nansei electronic plant to this country and accepted this invitation only because of Roxane Coss'es presence. Opera is his love! Music calms the savage beast , Sarah , so I don't think that it IS hogwash. Who does not respond to harmony and/or melodious, symphonic sounds? A melody, whether of not it is opera makes one pause. It produces an alliance and attunement with the world. One sways, hums, and moves in unison with the chords.

Every country, with its different language has their musical genius with voices as pure as Ms. Coss'es.

Hi Everyone

Just got into chapter two so don't know a whole lot, my impressions and first thoughts are these:

The back cover of the paperback book tells us that the story takes place somewhere in South America. Evidently the story could be anywhere in South American-which country doesn't matter.

Mr. H's passion for music got my interest because Western music has got to be so different to the Japanese ear. I say this because I tried listening to Japanese music once and didn't quite manage listening to the whole CD. But then I am not an expert on music.

That Mr. H's passion for Italian Opera is so pervasive he studies Italian instead of English-is to me very funny. Particularly when you know that Mr. Masuda, the president of the host country, has the same type of passion only it is for a SOAP OPERA. That Masuda was home wathching the Tuesday night soap opera (where Maria might be freed) and that this is what saves the vice-president from being shot by the terriorist is hilarious. It seems to me Ann is not being serious, I think she is having a great deal of fun creating stereotypes amd poking holes in them. The idea of the little boy crying because he doesn't distinguish the hired girl (Esmeralda)from his mother; and Esmeralda in her work clothes not standing out from the guests in their evening dress--to me this is just fun.

However, the music reminded me of a couple of things. Just recently, read "The Man Who Heard the Land", where the native-American hears the land through music pointed out to me that music is universal and is the "tie that binds". The second thing is that a music teacher from my high school days said he did not know what heaven is like; but, he did know there is no heaven without music. That's the only thing I remember from my music class.

Showdog, You make some very good points. I had really not considered the contrast of social positions and dress, which is of course, probably central to the story. The contrast of soap opera obsession and professional opera obsession in two highly placed men is interesting. Also I'm interested in Messner's ability to interact with everyone and move freely in and out of the house making demands of both sides.

SHOWDOG: Thanks for linking Opera and Soap Opera for me. I missed that and wonder if that is one reason it is Opera that Mr. H. likes so much and not piano or violin or something else.

I was thinking that the author might be an opera fan. If not she is a vocal music fan. She uses words to describe Roxanne's voice that, I think, only someone who loves voices would even think of.

There is also contrast with the singing, and constant recollection of the singing, to the loud voices coming from outside the home after the takeover.

Showdog, what an interesting comparison/connection -- opera and soap opera. I'm sure the author wanted us to note that, and as some of you have pointed out, she is having fun.

Somewhere it was asked, why did the author pick this country for the setting of the novel. I think it had to be a poor country, underdeveloped, with few haves and many havenots, with a history of injustices. Thus far, it seems it had to be a Catholic country, not a country of religious fanatics, but one in which revolutionaries are still somewhat in awe of priests. The generals don't quite know what to make of Father A. They don't want him there, but can't exert enough authority to make him leave.

Mr.H is a good nickname for Mr. Hosokawa, Marjorie. In spite of the guilt he feels for his false pretenses, he is not to blame for this hostage situation, anymore than Roxanne Coss is for coming to perform for a large amount of money. They are both victims.

I am wondering who is narrating the story because it is in past tense, and every once in a while something is said to let you know that the situation is now over.

Sarah, I agree that Patchett finds the revolutionaries/terrorists ridiculous, but not necessarily comic.They have found themselves in a mess, un revolu, a bruhaha. They have more hostages than they can handle, they did not get their quarry, but they cannot leave empty-handed.

I have finished the first three chapters, but now must go back and refind some of the points you all have touched on.

Is there any reason why Patchett calls the translator Gen and then names the "terrorists" Generals? I keep getting confused!

Penney - I too am interested in Messner - and other intermediaries like Gen and to some extent Roxane (after all, she is the one who gets things brought in for the others from outside). They are the glue that keeps things together, that seems to bring out the humanity in everyone even under such dire circumstances.

I completely missed the Opera/Soap Opera connection too, showdog. What's funny is that the Soaps seem to have the same capacity to soothe the savage beast, as we learn once the terrorists discover (I hope I am in the right chapter here) that a TV is not just a mirrored box in which to watch one's reflection.

Do you think Patchett is poking fun of the high browedness of Opera by using Soap Opera in such a similar way? I can't help but think she is poking fun at lots of things in this book.

And yet you're very right, Marjorie, that there are characters in this book who truly love the music and are transformed and made more human by it. This seems to be a serious message.

Or is it? Is she poking fun even with her use of music?

ALF and Ella, you talk about the setting for the novel, and I guess I jumped the gun by reading the back of the book and learning it is set in South America. I hadn't even noticed that the book itself doesn't tell you this.

Do you blame Hosokawa for what has happened? It is true that Nansei has no intention of building a plant in the country, and that H is only there because he loves opera and Roxane Coss.

By the same token, the terrorists aren't after him or Coss, but the President. Even without H, some state dinner would have taken place, and the terrorists would have stormed another fancy banquet in search of the President.

So in the end, I don't blame him, and don't think he should feel guilty about being there.

Now, what about the idea that the party is at the VP's home? Isn't that a bit odd. After all, this dinner has all the trappings of a state dinner, and Pres. Masuda has as much interest in being there as anyone. Why, therefore, isn't the dinner at the presidential palace? Why is it at the VP's home? Masuda is only absent because of the soap opera. I find this very suspicious!

Mr. H is a man on loyalty and honor. As a CEO he is used to being accountable and bound by his position. Of course he would feel guilty. Imagine the guilt alone admitting to himself that his appearance in this country was under false pretenses; a facade and a misstatement all for his own benefit and indulgences.

Hi everyone--I'm here too and have read the first chapters, but I need to go back and review.

Sarah--I don't think Opera is being poked fun at here. Hosokawa genuinely is a real fan and Roxanne has a wonderful voice. I do think there is a parallel between the President's choice of obsession--soap operas and Hosakawa's. One is entertainment, the other art.

I am glad to hear that someone else was confused by the translator's name, Gen. I had the hardest time when I started reading this book not confusing Gen with the general, given that Gen. is the common abbreviation for that rank. I am almost certain that Patchett chooses this name deliberately, to slow the reader down.

Remember Blindness? One of the devices used in that novel to slow the reader down was not using quotation marks or indenting when people spoke. And running the introduction to the thing said right into the thing said even when there were several speakers. My students suggested that this device could be to call our attention to how it is to be blind and thus more dependent on--and sensitive to--sound. Writing dialog without quotation marks certainly does make us more aware of the blindness, but I'm also convinced that it slows the reader down, makes him/her take the time to pay attention to the words on the page.

Andy--I agree on the opening sentence. It is a gem. I don't think that it necessarily sets up a romance. It does tell us about what people in the audience think about the relationship between Roxanne and her accompanyist, without any evidence other than the passion of the music.

Maryal

Pedln, I think Mr. H feels guilty because he had no intention of giving the country what it wanted from him and came only to hear the diva. Had he refused the invitation the situation would have not happened. I see him as generally a highly honest man who succumbed to the temptation to hear the great diva no matter what.

SaraT, I suspect Masuda had the party held elsewhere because he had no plans to attend and would have found it difficult to slip away for his soaps with a house full of guests. I too get Gen and the generals confused. That is a case of bad characterization I think. Or maybe there is a reason which we have yet to discover.

I was surprised that two of the guards turned out to be girls! I wonder what will develop through that.

I am beginning chapter 5 and keep waiting for some big event. Either I am easily bored or this is a very slow moving book. However, it's a good psychological study so I keep plodding on.

Maryal - great point about the author slowing us down with the use of the name Gen. Are there other ways in which the author does this? What is she slowing us down for? Is there something we'll miss if we gloss over things?

And on the parallel between entertainment (soaps) and art (opera) - what's the point there?

ALF says Mr. H is a man of loyalty and honor? Do you agree? Are loyalty and honor traits that are useful in the situation?

What traits do each of our main characters bring to this situation that help them cope - and perhaps even flourish - in their very unusual circumstances?

Penney - so you believe that the situation would not have happened without Mr. H - but wouldn't it have happened another day, with another crowd of people? I can understand why he would feel guilty - and appreciate that he does (one who didn't would really annoy me!!) - but I think it was just a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Do you find that time is also confusing here? It sometimes feels that they have been there for a very long period, and then Patchett will tell us it's the second day, or the second week, and I'm surprised that so little time has passed.

Ah yes, the time period is confusing for me as well. Perhaps we feel it has been longer because we have watched what is going on with so many different people. Also time most pass very slowly if one is a hostage in a terrorist takeover.

Remember the recent Chechnyan terrorist attack at the Moscow theater? Some 170 people died from the gas that was used to put everyone to sleep. When that event occurred, I thought instantly of Bel Canto and how sometimes art imitates life before life happens. Not to say that art creates life, but sometimes writers seem to be eerily prophetic.

Alf, you said earlier that you thought the country might be Peru because of the cocoa connection. Not to get hung up on locale, but I think you are right.

When the "Generals" are told that the president is not there, they send the boys to look for him. One of them stares long and hard at Mr. H, and he is told by one of the generals that the boy thought he was the president. I don't know who is president of Peru now, but the former president was Fujimori, who is of Japanese ancestry. Also, the story's president is President Masuda. Masuda is a city in Japan.

I do like this author's play with words. It will be fun to see what other interesting connecting tidbits she leaves for us.

What are the Chapter parameters for this week's discussion. I don't want to jump ahead of the game. Are we beyond chapter three now?

I just came from the library with three opera music CD's. So now I shall sit back and listen and read. And I keep thinking of Inspector Morse, also a lover of opera.

An abbreviated General he DID become, as a translator. He delivered messages back and forth to all in attendance. What a massive mission for one mere mortal of a man. (HA-talk about alliteration.) He would listen in one language, ponder it and translate it into another. How many things must have been overheard by him alone. Technically, I guess he was the man in charge. He could rule thru language, change a word here and there and be in command. He even set the pace when he translated, pausing, then piloting and dominating the thoughts of others. He was the shepard, guiding and governing everyone else. That makes for a much better General than what we've been introduced to thus far.

I'm off to NY State to visit with my "honey-girls." I will be checking in late tomorrow with you all.

Bless you--Andy

Betty I agree, it sounds like more of a 50's, 60's situation. It reminds me of when we lived in Puerto Rico. There were a lot of plane hijackings to Cuba around that time, and friends, travelling with a family, were caught up in one of them. They were put up in a hotel while waiting to get out, and said it wasn't bad. Their biggest problem was running out of diapers. They ended up using pillowcases. You're right -- the mundane would not be considered in today's world.

What are Bel Canto's terrorists wanting now that they don't have the president? Passaage out? Prisoner release?

Is this Gen's story? As Alfpointed out, he's the man in charge, ruling thru language. A strong reminder that in today's world those with information are those in power.

Betty, ALF, pedln - I agree - this setting feels almost passe, definitely something that was written pre-9/11. And indeed, the book was published in 2001 so unless she is a mighty fast writer, Patchett wrote it before 9/11. For me, it's very reminiscent of the 80s, when Latin American "terrorists" (revolutionaries, freedom fighters - whatever) were all you heard about.

The idea that she pokes fun of terrorists and terrorism is definitely pre-9/11, don't you think? I suspect the jokes and humor post 9/11 will not take over for some time to come.

Penney, angelface, showdog, Marjorie, PatW, Mal, Ginger, victoria - where are you? We want to hear from you!! Comment on what the others or saying - or introduce a new subject entirely - but join us - we miss you!!!

May a "New Kid On The Block" jump in?


I have just started Bel Canto and have read through the posts.


The "theme" I have noticed in this first part is one of "the least shall become the greatest". Gen has gone from translator-by-chance to translator-no one-can-function-without. The Vice President is doing the housework.


Interesting that Roxanne is no longer dressed as a diva. I wonder how long it will be (if ever) before she is no longer seen as one?

Someone said she thought the book dragged. I agree - but that may be because I prefer plot development through dialog instead of endless descriptive passages.


This is my first attempt to follow a SeniorNet book discussion while reading the book.
Callie

I've plowed through over a hundred pages and just don't find it a gripping story so I'm going to jump this ship, take the book back to the library, and find my way to the mystery section (mysteries are my favorite way to escape the daily difficulties of my life as a caregiver). Good reading to all!

Welcome to the discussion. Yes, we are open to all comers. Very good to have you with us.

Betty--I'm not much of a symbol person myself, but I really like the point you make about Gen and the abbreviation of General, Gen. Yes, indeed, in this situation, Gen who seems to speak most languages certainly has a certain power. But he doesn't have a gun. So there's more than one kind of power. Gen even translates various commands by the terrorists into languages that he's pretty sure no one in the audience speaks. He has a good job as the translator for a major Japanese CEO, and now he is in a position to decide exactly how to translate what those with the guns have to say.

Another point. I think to really get the picture here, you have to imagine the hostages as all dressed up in their best clothes, which are very likely NOT their most comfortable clothes.

ALF--Have a good time with those "honey girls"; I know that you will. Glad to hear you will be checking in with us. The internet is such an amazing thing.

Maryal

Clara O, I tend to agree with you. I keep waiting for something to happen. The characters are so resigned, I want them to riot and take over those few terrorists. Maybe they will. I'll keep plodding along. I confess I have cheated and have read on so I won't make any more comments until the discussion starts on the next chapters. What mystery writers do you enjoy?

Sarah, I am reading the posts but have not recieved my book from the Library as they had to order it from another Library. Hope they get it soon.

Ginger

Welcome to you CallieK - I'm so glad you chose this discussion to join SN Books with! I feel lucky to have you. Your point that the least shall become the greatest is just perfect. I'd love to hear what you think of the Vice President. When I first met him, I thought he would turn out to be your typical hack politician buffoon, but he has somehow endeared himself to me. Even though it seems shallow of him to worry about neatness - in the end, he keeps things from completely degenerating into filth and chaos.

Maryal, I remember when we discussed Blindness here that someone commented on how quickly the inmates there allowed their environment to degenerate. One wanted them to preserve order, and instead their surroundings became utterly squalid overnight.

So the Vice President clearly, as CallieK points out, plays an important role.

Do you find that the setting somehow improves everyone in it, ironically? That's what is so surprising - people rise to the occasion, offer up what few - or substantial in the case of Gen, Roxane and the pianist - talents they have to offer. Mr. H feels awakened, nerves sharp, attuned to beauty and the music in a way he normally does not feel. Gen too has feelings that begin to blossom inside of him.

For me, Penney, it's hard to imagine them rioting. Everything seems so cozy and enjoyable somehow. The hostages clearly are settling in and becoming comfortable in their situation.

But why? Is this story even remotely believable?

MARYAL: I admit that I forgot that the hostages were in their party clothes. Sleeping on the floor is bad enough. In dressy clothes. Yuk!

I can't imagine how that many people all lasted so many hours before they were given access to the bathroom. It sounded like they were all using one but this is a large home so that must not have been the case.

CALLIE: I prefer plot development through dialog just as you do. This is slow going for me.

I am into the 4th chapter however. I don't want to post about something that belongs in next week's discussion. (like PENNEY said she is doing)

Just a quick thought about the VP. I expect that his neatness about the house is his way of keeping order in his limited situation. It gives him purpose and a feeling of control. He is keeping his little part of the world (his home)in order.

I agree with Penney about the Vice President's use of the "housework". However, I got a bit ahead of the first week's reading when I mentioned this. Sorry.
I tend to do somewhat the same thing; when there is a crisis in my life, I "organize something". (From the looks of my house, I could use a crisis ASAP! LOL)


What do I think of the Vice President? I think he has always felt helpless in his political position "Vice presidents were merely calling cards, things sent in lieu of things desired....replaceable...exchangeable. No war was fought or won over the inspiring words of a vice president and no one understood this more clearly than...Vice President (Iglesias)." (page 43 (paperback): But he now realizes he is in a position to show his abilities "He was a better man for the job than President Masuda. ...Ruben could be the servant, the straight man, and in doing so he could save the lives of his wife and his children and their pretty governess and...Roxanne Coss." (page 67, when he is sent to announce to the press that some hostages will be released:


Two author comments I found interesting:
When the hostages are divided the first time, Patchett writes: "Even in these uncharted circumstances, the social order stood firm." (pg. 90, paperback).
When the second division is made - for the releases - she writes: "One could almost tell from the cut of the tuxedo who would be staying." (pg. 102,paperback)
Does anyone think these comments foretell a change in status for some or all characters later on?

I try to limit my mystery reading to women writers, but once in a while I stray. I like Nevada Barr (I love the National Parks she writes about) and Sara Paretsky since she reminds me of my years in the Chicago area, and I also like the lighter type of quick reads like "The cat who" and Mary Higgins Clark and even Margaret Truman's attempts at authorship. Others are too numerous to mention - and I confess that I quickly forget one book when I start another, and have reread several that seemed new to me until I got into them. As I said before, they provide an escape from the daily responsibilities.

Still here - reading all the posts and looking forward to more. Someone mentioned time and I wanted to point out there is little reference to time that I remember except at one point one of the terrorists shot at the clock and I wondered why. Another reference to time is on page 93 when Mr. H. wonders what a lifetime is and thinks perhaps it could be "this afternoon" or "this evening."

He says the kidnappers "had reset the clocks and no one knew a thing about time anymore."

Why? To keep the hostages complacent; not anxious about how long they have been kept in captivity or how much longer they will have to stay?

Another point I'm curious about and one that will eventually be made clear is what the hostages will do now that their mission to overthrow the government, start a revollution, has failed.

At one place they are considering asking for the exchange of prisoners or getting money for their cause.

Some of you have commented about the Vice President and his role of "housekeeping." Funny in a way, but I think he is a man who wants to keep busy, don't you? I would do the same if I were in captivity. At one place in the book the V.P. says he had to make an attempt to put the furniture back into place "so as to keep things bearable."

Yes, I understand that also.

Interesting point about time, Ella. And like you, I'm also wondering what the revolutionaries are now seeking. Perhaps they don't really know.

So order in our lives keeps things bearable, according to the VP. I'm beginning to wonder about SeniorNet's reading and viewing. In the film Remains of the Day, Mr. Stevens quickly returned a chair he was to have been sitting in, to its proper place. And in Ian McEwan's Atonement, the child Briony, a lover of miniature and order, is compulsively neat, and has the only tidy room in her household. Now if it would only rub off in real life.

pedln - I forgot to ask you this - awhile back, you said: Sarah, I agree that Patchett finds the revolutionaries/terrorists ridiculous, but not necessarily comic.They have found themselves in a mess, un revolu, a bruhaha."

What is un revolu? Also, what in your view is the difference between ridiculous and comic? I ask because I'm interested in knowing whether Patchett intended this book to be funny, or something else - pathetic, tragicomic perhaps.

Ella and Penney - I agree that the Vice President is trying to assert control. Sometimes I see him as the most important character in this book - more so than the obvious front runners such as Gen and Roxane.

Ruben Iglesias is important because he keeps things clean and ordered. When you're captive, I suspect filth and squalor begins to strip you of your humanity - at least if it's not something you're accustomed to in your everyday life. And these hostages are not poor people, but people who live in luxury. Somehow, those little chores Ruben does are critical to their sense of well-being. If the place became squalid as it did in Blindness, the entire tenor of the experience would be different, and terrible, I think.

What other little things make a difference in these hostages lives? Obviously, the music is a huge and important part of their well being, as are Gen's translations, but are there other small things that help them along?

Pedln, if you think we like to read about neatness, you should read Blindness by Jose Saramago, the Nobel Prize winner. It doesn't get an dirtier than that! Positively funky - but a GREAT read!

What do you make of the fact that both General Benjamin and Ruben have terrible injuries to their faces? Benjamin has shingles; Ruben has the infected wound the terrorists inflicted. I'm looking for some symbolism here!

Ella, it almost seems that the time seems longer without clocks - the days drag on forever. Interestingly, Gen is allowed to keep his watch, because he later gives it to Beatriz who is then made nearly mad with it.

What do folks think of Messner, the Red Cross man? Is he at all effective as an intermediary? Do you trust him?

One of the reviews I read compared this book to Lord of the Flies, only in this case rather than degenerating into chaos and cruelty, the occupants all become better people as a result of their experience. Do you find this to be true of all characters? Does anyone change for the worse as a result of the experience? And if not, is this story at all realistic? Does it bother you that Patchett is portraying hostage-taking in this way? Is her vision overly romantic?

Are there other books you've read that deal with this theme of finding freedom in unlikely places? What characters have found a type of freedom in this novel, and how?

Is it just the beautiful music - the bel canto - that causes the experience of captivity to be pleasureable for the hostages - or are there other aspects of the experience that make it so?

As SARAH requested, I added a schedule to the heading and it appears we will start discussion chapters 4 to 6 tomorrow. I am just getting ready to start Chapter 6.

Time,- isn't that a stroke of genius the way that time is no longer relevant? Time, the indefinite duration of an occasion. We know that the hostages are held over "time" and isn't time a musical reference too? The tempo of the novel slows and they compose their own time restraints as time is measured in regard to the intervals that Rox performs for the group.

Now, we haven't mentioned her before but I'll be the first to say, I think she needs a "Whooping!" I've known many prima donnas in my day but never a true diva, such as she. She has detached herself thru her music and she quarantines herself apart from others, by secluding and seperating her own indulgences. Here is a chick that has long been molly-coddled, pampered and indulged. I don't have nmy book with me up here (drats, I forgot it with all of the many books that I brought up for the kids) but I remember reading the part where the revolutionaries were persuaded to release some of the hostages. Little Miss Diva decided that she should be one of the women released and the general grabs her arm and yanks her hair (if I remember this correctly.) I recall that she screeched out"soprano style." I cracked up when I read that. At that point, I think is when she situated herself beside a painting that was lesser than she. These men are absolutely besotten with her; they became confused, in awe, trembling and restless when she was near them. What a shallow little tart! As soon as the reserved, passionate accompanist proclaimed his undying love for her, she shunned him and literally began to "hate" him.

Sarah, The library called and I got Bel Canto today so will start reading tonight, I hope I like it.

Ginger

Clara O, I love you! I too quickly forget titles and authors, sometimes even while I'm reading the book! I don't care for Mary Higgins Clark but like almost all others.

Well folks I have a confession. I must now just lurk. I finished the book tonight. Although I can't say I enjoyed it, I'm glad I read it. Such a psychological study! It would be interesting to know how long Patchett researched this book before she began writing. She is so well informed about so many aspects of human personality as well as opera and other music. I will enjoy reading your thoughts as you move through the book.

Penny

ALF - I just reread your last post (I was at work when I first read it and didn't have time to respond) - hilarious! "What a shallow little tart" indeed! Hahaha

It's funny, but because opera stars are often a bit . . . rotund. . . I imagined Roxane as chubby and not particularly beautiful. Somehow, the fact that practically everyone in the house fell in love with her never rang true to me.

Would they have loved her without her gift of song?

Ginger - I am so glad you'll be joining us. I know some didn't like the book, but I REALLY did. It's not a book where there's a huge plot and story line. Really, it's a quiet story about how people change and find freedom and something new within themselves as a result of their captivity. It is the kind of story that will stay with me a long time.

Penney - you're right - it is a psychological study, subtle, and really well written in my view. I find myself continuing to have revelations about it.

For example, I was thinking about the fact that the hostages and terrorists create their own world inside the house. They have no information about the outside world - and don't seem to care about it a whole lot - so they create a society of their own. It is equipped with a whole range of characters, an international cast, a priest, music, singing, love, lust, illness and pestilence, friendship, parent-child relationship, complex gender roles. In some sense, I feel that a world's worth of activity happens in this home.

It speaks to the power of human beings to adapt, to make something positive from adversity, to their desire for love and happiness in life. It's a very optimistic story, quite ironically.

Is there anyone who hasn't finished the book yet? Ginger, I know you're just starting. I was wondering if anyone would mind if we opened up the whole book for discussion starting this weekend. If you'd rather we wait, that's fine too. We have (if we want) until Dec. 20 to finish our discussion. As currently scheduled, we are discussion Chapters 4-6 between now and Nov. 30.

I've added a whole host of new questions to the heading too, so please let me know your thoughts on them.

Finally, I'd like to give thanks for each and every one of you, and for the books so many fine authors give us the opportunity to read, enjoy, discuss and learn from.

Happy Thanksgiving, all.

SARAH: My interpretation is that people "love" Roxane because of her voice. I gave no thought to her appearance. The music seems to affect everyone.

I have been thinking about the comments some time back about women as terrorists. I believe that the 3 women who are left are essential to move the story ahead. If Carmen was not a woman, I do not believe she would have asked Gen to teach her to read. That just is one of the ways that the two groups, terrorists and hostages, connect. The VP takes over the housekeeping role and that works because he is the Host. The Frenchman can be the cook and that works. However, to create some "softness" in the interactions requires that there be some women. I feel that is true even if the women are not all "soft."

I have only read through the 6th chapter. It is not the type of book that encouraged me to read to the end. This is very different from the books I usually read.

In one of my first posts, I remember saying something about how the words are crafted together to paint a clear picture. I think I forgot about that as I was reading the last couple of chapters. I will try to pay attention to how the author uses words as I continue.

Sarah, I have read to page 190 today and am so enjoying it as when in the first grade I stayed with an Aunt that was a music teacher at a high school and she tried so hard to teach me but could not but I had a cousin that stayed for awhile that was learning to be an opera singer so I did learn to apprieciate her singing and admire her singing so much. She married and so I don't know if she continued her singing career after that or not.

I do have your questions printed out and will answer what I can if I can as I am about done with chaper 6. Just letting you know that I am reading and enjoying Bel Canto.

Thanks for picking Bel Canto to read.

Ginger

Sarah, I would not mind if you opened up the whole book for discussion starting this weekend. I will just keep reading and would like to so. .

Sarah, I would love for the discussion to be opened up. I love reading the posts but hesitate to comment because I can't remember exactly in which chapter things happened. Thanks for your comments (questions?) above the heading. Thought provoking! It's interesting how each of us sees different meanings in situations related in the book.

As to the love everyone shows toward Roxanne, I think it reflects her concern for everyone else as well as her talent and her willingness to share it to relieve the tedium as well as to entertain.

Sarah FYI I have just finished Bel Canto and enjoyed it so much till the last. Will be thinking of your questions next. Thank You so much for bringing it our attention as I would not have read it other wise.

I will never forget when I wanted to do Biograpy and you stood tall with me. Thank You for that also. I now have no interest in being a DL now and like what I do.

Yay - Penney - Ginger - let's do it! (Thanks for such kind words, Ginger!)

So, let's talk about the book as a whole.

I am convinced that this is a fable, a kind of magic story. Patchett isn't trying to convey to us what happens in the real world - if so, she'd have missed the mark in many ways. Indeed, one of the reader reviews I read on amazon.com excoriated her for creating terrorists who killed no one, who fell in love with their hostages, who had inner beauty that allowed them to fall in love with opera, and who had the capacity to blossom and inspire those around them. Only the governmental officials on the outside were the bad guys who killed everyone.

This reviewer talked about how unlikely it was that an opera singer would get up every morning and sing; that any diva would know the range of arias and operas Roxane did.

Clearly, these were not your usual terrorists.

Apparently the story is based on true events that happened in Lima, Peru with the Tupac Amaru guerrillas. I need to do some research on this, but it seems things did not happen - or end - in the same way Patchett portrays.

But as a magical story about what we would hope all human beings are capable of - of transformation when they experience beauty, of love in the most unlikely places, of appreciating art even at its most unfamiliar - it's very uplifting and inspiring.

Is there another way to view the story? Is Patchett expressing a political world view? A pro-guerrilla view, perhaps? Could she have told a story without having to use terrorists and hostages? Why take such a terrible situation and turn it into something beautiful?

Sarah: Is this really based on a true story? I didn't know that. You say that it is a magical story. I guess that could be considered as such as the choices are between two different worlds, aren't they? Doesn't it seem as if they lived in a dreamers paradise, controlled by euphonious notes, that lil Missy tart belted out? I agree with that review stating that it was not too feasible that a Diva would arise daily and perform for anyone.

It's also realistic in the sense that the author strips all of the hostages as well as the captors clean of outside stimuli. They soon were looking "within" weren't they? The negotiator was the main focus of outside stimuli and soon they negated him. The kids enjoyed the TV stimuli but to them that was a whole new pleasure to experience. Now-- the point (IMO) was to show that no matter who, what, where or when we assemble, we are all mere mortals. We are all seeking the same basic needs, regardless of our race, religion or heritage. These folks found ways to communicate their ideas and their intents. It just made it easier to have Gen tell us what they were saying. Isn't it true though that no matter where we convene, people are people, world wide? There are the givers and the takers!! There are those that lead and those that prefer to follow. Those that bear grudges and wish only to retaliate, seeking revenge. We have the youths filled with idealistic fantasies, hoping to "fix" the world. We find all of these prototypes in the reading of this novel.

I wish I had my book, i'd break down my thoughts better if I could designate each character as to what attributes they brought to the book.

Alf Book or no book up there where you are you did put it just right but of course you will dig out more. Smile.

I agree with Ginger, ALF - you do a great job without the book. I was struck by your point that those inside the house negated Messner, the Swiss Red Cross worker. You're right! He seemed so critical at the beginning; I couldn't imagine anyone being able to function without him. But in the end he was just an ineffectual blob, a mere mortal - tired, on vacation, beginning to resent his role, unable to bring the two sides together. His famous Swiss neutrality got him nowhere.

Indeed, when I read of him, I was reminded - for some reason - of the latest revelations about the Swiss role during WWII as the Germans' bankers. Far from being neutral bystanders, they actively assisted the Nazis.

Somehow, I felt I could not trust Messner - and that Patchett wanted me to begin to doubt him as the story went on. I mean, criminy - couldn't he have warned those in the house of what was to come? Did he have to simply let them die?

Who do you think was responsible for the way things ended?

I finally looked at the "Reading Guide" in the heading - was afraid to beforehand because I didn't want to ruin the story for myself (please, don't look at it if you haven't finished the book although I may have already ruined the story for you by my last post - sorry!).

Linked to the Reading Guide is an interview of Ann Patchett, who says the following about her inspiration for this book:

Usually it's hard to pin down the exact point at which you come up with an idea for a novel, but this one is easy: December 17, 1996, the night that the terrorist organization Tupac Amaru took over the Japanese embassy in Lima, Peru. I'm sure I didn't know that day that this story would turn into Bel Canto, but I was completely focused on it from the start. It had so many elements that were compelling to me: confinement, survival, the construction of family. For a long time I'd wanted to find a way to experience the things I read about in the paper, to grieve for disasters that had no immediate effect on my life. Turning a tragedy I knew nothing about into this novel was part of that process.

--------

I found some sites that discuss that actual Tupac Amaru embassy takeover (which lasted from December to April!)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/peru_12-18.html

http://www.terrorism.com/terrorism/MRTA.shtml

http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=42

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9612/18/peru/#3

I expected one the Hostages to Phone or go to the police and say that they were no longer Hostages so don't hurt the terroist. I enjoyed all the rest but not the killing and I am not against killing if threatened as I would kill if need be to protect love ones or my self. I will think on the rest of the questions in the header.

This is a link to another Bel Canto review, by John Mullan, Guardian, where he talks about the use of confinement in literature.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,745833,00.html

Sarah, you asked me a couple of questions awhile back -- "que revolu" -- just an expression used in Puerto Rico, can be interpreted as "what a mess." (My Spanish is just about non-existent.) Regarding "ridiculous" but not "comic" terrorists -- their actions were ridiculous and ill-conceived, but they themselves were not meant to be "funny."

AlfAs usual, you are on target and to the point, with book or without. But have you changed your feelings about Roxanne Coss? Do you still think of her as a tarty little prima donna? I thought that assessment to be a little harsh. I do believe she was a woman who had always been in charge of her own destiny, but I really can't pin a lot of negative attributes on her.

Sarah -- I'm agreeing with you again -- you call it a fable. All during the reading I was thinking "fairy tale." But that's okay, it doesn't have to be totally realistic. Also, throughout the reading I kept seeing some of the events as little vignettes, that really didn't lead anyplace, but were still part of the story -- the cooking scene with the French Ambassador, Beatriz's confession, and Gen having to get caught up with the Russian's declaration of love -- that was hilarious.

I just finished reading the book. I will wait to make any more comments until I have a chance to think more about the questions.

Sorry to join you late. I finally read the posts but have yet to re-read the book which our live afternoon book group discussed a year ago. Your posts have refreshed my memory and I will ponder the questions and your comments further before I comment myself.

However, there is one point I'd like to make, if I may, and it is a technical one : Patchett uses the word "translator" throughout while "interpreter" would have been more proper because there is a huge difference between a translator and an interpreter. A translator works from a written document - letters, a book etc. and translates the complete text unaltered from one language to another.

An interpreter, on the other hand, works with people who speak different languages, and he/she has the ability -- and considerably more leeway -- to convey (only) what he/she thinks "appropriate" in (or omit from) a conversation, and can do so in whatever form and nuances he/she chooses. There is ample proof in our book that Gen did precisely that. He interpreted he moderated. (Yes in the end, as I recall, he became a real translator, but I must check that out.)

It is easy to see that the power, if you will, of an interpreter is much greater than that of a translator, who - after all- has to adhere to a written text which can be checked and verified. Verbal utterances cannot.

This is a significant distinction, and I sincerely wish it were fully understood here and the terms were used in the proper way. You have to forgive me for feeling passionate about this, but I am a translator and an interpreter myself and have worked in both capacities in several languages. We underestimate the value of knowing a foreign language to our peril - remember the fact that umpteen documents were left untranslated after the first attack on the WTC because no one read Arabic ? That's of course only one example. And now I will get down from my soapbox.

You're right, Traude. I have worked as an interpreter, but hate being a translator - even though I'll do it reluctantly. Welcome!

Who here has read Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain? (I have not.) In the interview with Patchett linked to the Reading Guide in the header, she says that this book is inspired by that one. I know SN Books "did" Magic Mountain awhile back and sure would like some input on any parallels that exist between them.

Pedln - I thought about your little vignettes all night last night. You're right - these tiny stories don't necessarily "fit" within this story, but they are part of what makes this book so endearing.

Did you think Beatriz truly was transformed when she learned to confess her sins? I had trouble trusting her even to the very end.

The Russians were also a whole piece of the novel that almost did not register with me. I had trouble seeing how they "fit" into the story. Did they fit for you?

Mr. Thibault moved me a great deal. In answer to question 8 in the heading, I did not find that his life was better as a result of his experience. Why? I think Patchett wanted us to know that for characters who already had everything in life they could truly want - and Mr. Thibault already had the truest love imaginable - there was no possibility of transformation in that house. Only characters who were already missing something benefitted from the experience.

Mr. Hosokawa, of course, had a regimented, workaholic life. He had his secret pleasures, but he did not feel true love in his life.

I suspect Roxane also did not have everything she could have wanted in life. She was purely a musical being, and only when she was freed to be all about the music - and the love that it inspired in those around her - was she able to find pure happiness.

What were the flaws in the other characters' lives that made them able to grow from their experience as hostages?

JERYN: Before this experience, and at the beginning of the story, it seems to me that Gen was always doing what someone else asked of him. It took some time before he was able to reach out for something for himself. He had to first do as Carmen asked and teach her to write before he began to get other ideas of his own.

Jeryn - are you here? Did I miss you?

Yes, Marjorie - I was so happy for Gen when he finally began to take something for himself. Not only was he the interpreter, but did you notice how the household began using him as errand boy as well? I felt for him, and he was too nice to say no. I enjoyed it when he finally began to break the rules a bit and take something for himself. He really deserved - and needed - love.

I was also very taken with Carmen. Obviously, she was beautiful, but I also loved Patchett's point both with Carmen and Ishmael that it doesn't matter where you're from or what is your upbringing. Intelligence and talent live not only among the educated and practicing artist, but also in dark corners around the globe, untapped and unrealized.

I found this myself when I spent time in Central America in the early 80s. You'd be in the most remote village, and yet there were artisans and near-geniuses hidden away there. They probably had no chance of ever leaving where they were, but I found amazing people there who thoroughly inspired me and challenged me intellectually.

SARAH: Since you spent some time in Central America, you must have a good reference when you are reading this book. I have been in Europe for a visit but not Central America, South America, Mexico, or Canada.

I am sorry I made a mistake and meant to refer to SARAH and not JERYN in my previous post. I guess it was a senior moment.

I have looked forward everyday to reading the posts regarding Bel Canto. Nothing prepared me for the ending even though I had a rough idea of what it would be like. By the time the ending came I had gotten to be friends of both the terrorists and the hostages. In saying that I realize what a terrible thing I am saying. Terrorists and terriorism can't ever be acceptable. Eradicating terriorism by whatever means is where the focus of attention must be. Nevertheless the ending bothers me; I know it will haunt me for a long time to come.

Terriorists and hostages together are a serious matter and one I don't want to read about in "light" fiction. However, at the very beginning, I was taken in by the humor and continued to be as the story unfolded. The humor in the preparation of the dinner scene is priceless. For example, the thinking of the men involved goes something like this: cooking is what women do; Roxane is a woman; therefore Roxane must know how to cook. The idea that a woman might not know or care about cooking seems to be a hard concept for the men to grasp. I laughed because I don't care about cooking. For me, it's a waste of time, I'd rather be reading.

Then I got to chapter seven. I was reading it while enjoying my free morning coffee at the athletic club. I not only laughed out loud but tears rolled from my eyes. I identified with Victor Fyodorov. I am shy and reticent; I can easily break out in a sweat making an effort to fully express myself. I can and do talk endlessly to get my point across even though I know I am boring everybody to death. Like Victor, I am seeking validation and I've learned validation is hard to come by-hence the rambling. Here is where I got to love Roxanne.

By listening to Fyodorov and accepting his gift of love, Roxanne accepts him as he is. In doing so she frees him of his burden of guilt. In other words in hearing him out she recognizes him as he needs to be recognized; thus, he is free to be the loving person he is. At this point, Roxanne proves to be more than just a Diva, she is a woman of wisdom. She tells Gen there are two kinds of love-a person loves another for what the other does; or a person loves another for who the other is. The second love requires investment in knowing the other person. I wonder how many of us are willing to get to know the other person for who they are. True love, it seems to me, is rare indeed.

It wasn't apparent to me as to who was most changed for living the experience. Because the terrorists were killed there is no way of knowing what type of bridge they would have made once the ordeal was over. Gen and Roxanne were transformed by the experience so that they became free to choose each other in marriage. Thibault believes Gen and Roxanne's love encompasses more than love for each other; if so that is quite a transformation for both of them. Perhaps Thibault changed the most. When we first meet Thibaut, it is said that entire days passed when his wife, Edith, never crossed his mind. As a hostage, after he and his wife are separated, he thinks of her all the time. At the end you get the idea that his love for Edith is like that of Gen's love for Roxanne. This would be a uplifting story with a happy ending if it were not for remembering how so many were denied the chance to live out their dreams and realize happiness.

SHOWDOG: I like your analysis.

I was just looking at question 2 in the heading.

Is it helpful to have so many cultures and classes blending at once? The Japanese, the Latin American, the American; upper classes vs. servants; workers vs. rulers; one language vs. another.

I think having all of this variety provides a lot to think about and to consider in this story. Some of the stereotypes don't apply in some cultures. A good example is the way Thibault takes over the cooking and doesn't think anything is wrong with that (at least the way I remember it). Other people are assuming the women will do the cooking (as SHOWDOG just mentioned).

In question 6 in the heading a point is made that both General Benjamin and Ruben have "terrible injuries to their faces." I have thought about this and not come up with a reason why the author decided to do that unless it is that station in life doesn't matter when it comes to physical disfigurement.

showdog - Beautiful post! I was reading back a bit about our terrorists, and wondered just how awful they truly are. General Benjamin: His brother Luis "had committed the crime of distributing flyers for a political protest and was now buried alive in a high-altitude prison. Before his brother's arrest, Benjamin had not been a general at all. He had taught grade school. He had lived in the south of the country near the ocean. He had never had a moment's trouble with his nerves." Carmen: 17 years old, a native Quechua speaker, whose only commitment to the cause is that she "works to free the people." Cesar, who could sing as beautifully as Roxane. Ishmael, a genius at chess. Beatriz, so moved by her newfound religion.

Were any of them truly bad people? I think one of the messages here is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, that for the benefit of a group aim, people will do things that they might not be capable of on their own.

I know we are supposed to hate terrorism and terrorists, showdog, but do we hate these terrorists? Is this a situation as in Doris Lessing's novel The Good Terrorist where the end justifies the means?

Hmmm, I do not see this book as "light" fiction at all. True, there are moments of humor and great irony, but when I think of light fiction I think of John Grisham or the woman who writes those A is for ___ books.

Now, how do we reconcile showdog's wonderful analysis of Roxane and her gift with Fyodorov with ALF's assessment of her as a "little tart"?? Can she possibly be both.

Showdog, did you feel in the end that Gen and Roxane truly loved one another? I felt very strongly that they married as a substitute for the ones they truly loved, like a brother who marries his dead brother's wife, in an expression of their joint pain.

I thought about the injuries more, Marjorie, and wondered if somehow Patchett felt that some characters - Ruben and Benjamin being the most obvious - needed a true jolt in the form of physical pain to make the transformation they made. Because Ruben really was very small minded in the beginning, concerned only with material things. He made a big leap in this story. Benjamin too came a long way. Or maybe the stain of their injuries told us something about the badness within them. I found myself thinking that Benjamin's creeping, supporating wound was Patchett's way of telling us there was evil within him. And the two men were also joined in their injuries; Ruben ultimately offers Benjamin his remaining antibiotics in order to help heal him.

What about General Alfredo? He was the one who hit Ruben Iglesias in the first place? I didn't pay much attention to him afterwards. Can anyone sum up what he was all about? Was he evil? Did he have any redeeming qualities?

What about General Hector?

Somehow, I found myself far more focused on Benjamin throughout the book.

Showdog, I like your point about the Russian (Fyor?) and Roxanne. She did see a need for him to express himself, and became a gracious taker.

Marjorie, I think you're right about what Patchett was trying to say about the injuries of Ruben and Benjamin. Your station doesn't matter. How many times have many of said, "I wouldn't trade places with him and his wealth. It couldn't buy him health."?

I think Ruben changed the most -- at least, Patchett lets us see the change -- from someone who just blindly followed the path laid out for him to a man who knew what he liked and what he wanted. He woke up and smelled the roses. Yes, Gen and Mr. H experienced true love, Mr. H was enjoying his freedom, and Gen was showing how capable he was, but I don't know if that was real change or simple opportunity.

I was disappointed in the epilogue, that Patchett had Gen and Roxanne marry. Too soon, and for the wrong reasons.

Thanks everybody for your input, I will make good use of it (when I lead this discussion in February) whether the comment was "this book has nothing happening for too long" to the other extreme (which is my complaint)too many characters and too much going on.

As for the cooking scene, it is true that a man, Thibault, takes over but he is French--another sterotype because everybody knows cooking is France's national sport. Again the humor, later on it is noted that Thibault is passing the time by reading a cookbook.

I thought about the ending some more today and I came out with a more satisfying conclusion. My thinking went something like this--if my life is threatened by a terrorist, I can imagine myself killing a terrorist in defense. But if I put a name to that terrorist like Carmen, Cesar, Beatriz, or Ishmael, and know some things about these people, I would want to safeguard their lives as much as my own. Like Mr. H who is willing to take on the responsibility for how his birthday party turned out to be a mess, I would feel responsible as well as guilty for taking someone's life even if it were in self defense. There has got to be some other way besides killing. Then the paragraph in which Roxanne talks about the two kinds of love came to mind. I think the key in making killing less an option lies within the second kind of love.

As for Gen and Roxanne getting married, that was a suprise. They are both independent, career people who can get along (be happy) unmarried as well as married. But the thing they have in common is that they both survived a horrific ordeal. Both have suffered the loss of their "significant other" and so have that mutual bond. What better grounding for love than shared experience is there? True love is not just loving your partner in marriage--that's too limited. Ture love is expansive--it's loving your partner and loving all the time. Marriage is just a convention.

As to the injuries of Benjamin and Iglesias, the only significance I could come up with is as follows: their facial disfigurements were to draw attention to the fact that even though they held positions of power they really were weak men. They didn't handle themselves very well. Benjamin's shingles were probably brought on and were certainly agrivated by stress. Iglesias, as vice-president is pretty much ignored; his recourse is to keep the house in order and worry about garden weeds; this doesn't speak well for a man in his position.

Whoa, Showdog, you're talking about my friend Ruben. I like the guy. Somebody had to take the responsibility for the upkeep of the house (which really wasn't his house.) I'm not quite sure i understand what you mean by " this doesn't speak well for a man in his position." This is a man who came from meager beginnings, got into politics, but was more or less the president's lackey -- didn't question the party at his house, but did the president's bidding. Now he's not afraid to admit his humble origins, wants to take time to smell the roses, spend more time with his family.

Just as I had finished a long message, AOL threw me out. Well, I never ---- Undaunted I will try to reconstruct what I said.

Thank you for your insightful posts. I am still in the process of rereading and had, again, the same problem with chapter one (very slow going). Then I became caught up in the narrative flow - if not totally happily so. I believe that the epilogue was sprung on the reader, the solution is not altogether satisfactory, at least not for me.

As important as Gen was in his role as unifying force, allowing communication between the diverse people, making an unlikely coexistenc possible, he never came fully to life for me. One of you asked (and I paraphrase) whether he changed or was just opportunistic. I see him as a survivor, not necessarily as changed. What would he have changed from and what to ? (I saw him as chamelon-like.) After the crisis he continued to do what he had done before, i.e. use his knowledge of foreign languages.

By the same token, Roxane emerged unscathed. The reader is not told a lot about her life before the hostage-taking; she thinks of Chicago once in a while, but we never learn in what context. Did she have a life of her own or is she just living vicariously through the operatic heroines she personifies with such perfection ? And isn't it interesting that those two characters, Gen and Roxane, should end up together ? What do they have to offer each other ? Is this really credible ?

The young terrorists are adolescents from backward rural areas, innocents, easily impressionable, illiterate, recruited for a cause they barely understand, trained to kill, but unaware of the power they wield because of their weapons. They were not intrinsically evil, and the real guilt lies with their trainers, the generals, especially Benjamin, a former teacher (!). Even so, all had to pay with their lives.

I liked the Vice President who was a complacent, self-satisfied follower but came into his own during the crisis. I found him thoroughly believable and sympathetic.

I also tend to cast a mild eye on Mr. Messner, the Swiss intermediary, whose role was not enviable. He happened to be THERE and was called in when he would much rather have gone home. I don't see any special reason to distrust him, in fact I think he did what was expected of him. He alone knew what was going on outside and inside, that the conservative forces outside were superior to the hostage takers, that there would and could be no equitable outcome, that there would be no accommodation. We see the hopelessness of the entire venture in his figure alone.

This leads me to ponder how effective a neutral intermediary can be in today's hate-filled world, and whether he can exert any real, meaningful influence on opposing parties. In this respect I believe Patchett was prescient.

Just remembered an item from my earlier post that didn't make it. Was the President of the unknown country absent deliberately, had he known what was coming, had he been informed by a mole ? All of this matters little, of course, in light of what happened afterward.

This is my first time in a chatroom.

Welcome aboard but this is not a chat room. This site is available for posting 24 hrs/day. As you see, you posted at 10:24 AM and I just signed on and read all of the posts before yours. It is 2:30 something my time. We're here all of the time.

Did you read this novel?

I've just returned from the tundra of the north. It was bitter cold and I am most happy to return to 70 degree weather here in SW Florida. I loved coming back and reading all of the posts that each one of you has offered about Bel Canto. I long to validate many of your points and as I am accustomed to doing, also deviate from some of them. When I unpack and get settled today I shall return to speak of lil miss Tart. Pedln, you are too sweet to see anything malicious or selfish in anyone.

I keep thinking about Sarah's question # 6 above. Poor Reuben-- it seems as if the poor fellow would have gone forever unnoticed had it not been for the ugliness of his wound and the genuine concern of others about his condition. Gen. Benjamin's,as showdog stated, was most likely caused by stress. Shingles is a very painful herpes viral condition that is often exacerbated by illness or stress to internal or external stimuli. He had lived in the south of the country near the ocean. He had never had a moment's trouble with his nerves.

Gen. Benjamin really was an ordinary man, with a wife and children. He was a grade school teacher and all of his converts respected him. He was delighted when he found the chess set upstairs and pleased that these folks would take the time to teach the game to their young son. He taught HIS kids to play the same game, different country! He really wants to get the he** out of there but what purpose would all of this have served as his brother(S)had not yet been released.

TRAUDE: I am so glad to see that someone else thought the Epilogue was abrupt and out of place. I thought there should have been another chapter (if not another section) explaining just how Gen and Roxanne decided to marry and live in Italy. I felt as if I had been pushed out the door before the party was over.


Do you suppose there is a sequel planned?


A friend of mine has had a career in opera as a performer, teacher and coach. She is not the diva that Roxanne is - but I could see sides of her personality in Roxanne's. Having known my friend and her parents all my life, I think the diva-ness must be part of the training. My friend was just like all the rest of us as a little girl - but, as an adult, she can't quite manage to let down her guard enough to be "a regular person" - no matter how hard she tries.

Alf,, welcome back. It appears you left the cold north just in time. Today I am held hostage as no doubt many of you are, by the weather, which keeps us inside and off the roads, and cancels many activities. When I was working I looked upon such a day as a gift because time stood still. I still do. I think that is how some of the hostages in Bel Canto began to feel. "I can sing the whoe day." "I can listen to music the whole day." Or Ruben, "I can putz around the house all day."

Good assessment of Benjamin, Andy. He was also probably a leader in his community. He would have spoken out for justice for his people, and they no doubt looked up to him. One of my daughters worked almost three years with Mayans in Guatemala. One of them was Miguel, 45 years old, and asst. director at a mission hospital. Miguel finished his "basico" education -- up to grade 6 30 some years ago. He finished Jr. High at age 44 and high school at age 45 -- all the time working full time, and farming, and being a father to his 7 children. He was active in the coffee cooperative in his area. He was now getting ready to attend college and study law. The Sisters at the mission told me that he had been asked to run for political office from his area. When first reflecting about Miguel I thought of Benjamin, but maybe he is more like Ruben.

pedln

It is good that someone has more respect for Ruben than I because he is a nice guy and deserves the respect that I am not willing to give him.

I think Ruben was meant to be a comic character. From the beginning we learn he is short in stature which is not comic in itself. It is only funny because of the way he sees himself. He believes he really should be president (rather than Masuda) and thinks he would have been president except for his height-he is too short.

To me the author is saying Ruben has shortcomings. He doesn't have what it takes to be vice-president, let alone the presidency. That Ruben forfeits the role he has aspirations for is told on page 25 (paperback edition) when he tells the terrorists Masuda changed his mind about coming to the event. "The people who didn't know were as appalled to hear it as the ones who had known all along. Ruben Iglesias had at that exact moment ended his own political career". No one takes him seriously as a leader and this is told on page 43, "He was the highest-ranking political official in the room and yet no one was looking to him to be either the leader or the near-presidential hostage replacement.

Clearly Ruben is out of order even as Vice-president; no wonder he expends so much energy in keeping "his" house in order; no wonder his wound goes unhealed.

Well folks, I have really enjoyed all of the comments and ideas about this book. Wasn't the ending a shock? Thanks for letting me share. I'm on to other good books. I have recently read a little book called Life Beyond Death by Warren Keith. I loved it and have talked to many people who did too, and also to a few who thought it was a waste of time. I guess if you don't believe in an afterlife any information about it would seem pointless. Anyhow, if it's in your library and you are interested in life after death, check it out. You might like it.

Traude, your comments really made me think. I hadn't realized how flat Gen was as a person until you pointed it out. What did we really know about him or his life? Part of me wondered whether Patchett's portrayal of him wasn't just a bit stereotypical: stoic, quiet, undemanding Japanese man. He felt more like a conduit through which we came to know other characters and was a bit of a cipher himself. By the same token, I LOVED Gen. I truly did. His giving nature with everyone, his willingness to play a role that must have been terribly hard, his tenderness with Carmen, his support for Mr. Hosokawa. Who would not want a friend, a colleague, a lover, an intermediary like this man?

But you're so right, CallieK, that someone who has taken on the "diva-ness" of someone like Roxane doesn't seem particularly suited to a person like Gen. Many reviews I have read were very critical of the ending. I have read few reviews that liked it. I cannot understand why she felt she had to add it. Was she trying to salvage a life for Gen on the assumption that we all loved him as I did and couldn't have stood seeing the story end for him with the death of all of those people? Was it just a ridiculous need to tie things up neatly and avoid ending the story on such a terrible note?

Did you all like Roxane? Something Traude said made me feel she did not, and I have to agree that there was something in her "diva-ness" that I found offputting. When she told Cesar to stop singing and he escaped to the tree, I was angry at her. I was sort of annoyed that she got to sleep in a fancy room all by herself. She seemed to feel very superior to the others. And yet, she gave everyone a beautiful gift - the gift of music. However, I couldn't help but feel she did so from a pedestal, as if looking down on her audience. Perhaps she changed as time went on, but I never fell in love with her as I did with Gen.

What about Mr. H? His passion for music was an attraction. But did you like him either?

showdog - many good points about Ruben. I thought he would end up being a devious and fearful character, but he really redeemed himself. We've talked about how a small thing such as keeping things clean can take on such significance when one is keeping things clean for a horde. His cleanliness kept things from degenerating into chaos inside the house, I think. But his relationship with Ishmael, his generosity with his antibiotic for Benjamin - he really proved himself to have goodness within him.

Pedln, did the Mayas in Guatemala ever take over a party and take hostages? I never thought that was one of their tactics. The situation in Guatemala always seemed far more black and white, good vs. evil than the situation in Peru with Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path - Maoists known to have committed various extreme acts) and Tupac Amaru, the smaller revolutionary group. How great for your daughter to have spent so much time in Guatemala. I've been there three times and never seen such a beautiful culture as I've seen among the indigenous people of Guatemala. But were these terrorists as "good" as the Mayans in Guatemala?

ALF - welcome back! Maybe Ruben's need to be clean and the contrasting supporating bleeding wound also brought him into clear focus as a man of contrasts. It's hard to miss the guy cleaning up after you if he's dripping blood in his path!!

Penney - we hope you come back our way for some other discussions! If Atonement or Seven Sisters (Margaret Drabble's latest) strike your fancy, join in!

SarahI really don't know all the ins and outs of Guatemalen and Mayan history, and have never heard of a Mayan group taking hostages. However, they suffered terribly, and suffered many injustices during a 30 year period of upheavel. A lot of people disappeared. There are many widows among the Mayan population.

To answer your question. "But were these terrorists as "good" as the Mayans in Guatemala?" I couldn't help but think of people such as the Mayans in Guatemala while reading this book. The book revolutionaries did not set out to kill anyone. They wanted to kidnap the President in order to press their demands -- for prisoner release and other reforms. I don't justify what they did, but my feeling while reading was that they had been oppressed and felt they had no other choices.

Oh my goodness, there are so many valid interesting perspectives that you've all shown me. Why then do I feel as if we haven't even touched the surface of this book? The old adage of people are people world over stands on its own in this novel.

Aside from the characters that we've discussed (I'm still not done with lil Miss tart, Sarah) I agree I think that her benevolent gift of singing for the "masses" originated from her own need; her need to practice her skill and her need for adoration and attention of everyone in attendance. There is so much that music opens to reveal beauty hiding under an ugly guise. I kept waiting for Roxanne to open and disclose something other than what she thought important, mainly Roxanne!

Selfishness- Roxane and the priest.

I love the thoughts that I kept shifting around in my head as Patchett shed the characters of themselves, their time, their watches-- even their facial hair.

Transformations- all of our characters, the food- I loved the way they each redirected their lives.

Choices-- what bigger word is there in any language? Each character choice their own cup of tea, so to speak. They elected NOT to be involved in an insurrection. That kept surprising me. No insurrection, no rebellion or uprising against their captors. I have trouble with that one.

Responsibilities were delegated and one of you already picked up on the gender thing (the cooking in the kitchen.)

I feel the same way, ALF, that we've only scratched the surface and that there's a whole lot to say about this book. I am definitely coming around to your view of Roxane!

But the priest? Selfish? Arguedas, you mean?? He stayed behind when he could have left. He reached out to Beatriz - someone who truly needed spirituality, I think. Or are you thinking about the pompous Monsignor who left as soon as he could skedaddle out of there?

ALF, that line "beauty hidden under an ugly guise" is so appropriate to this story. Both Ruben and Benjamin had this quality, didn't they?

Why are you surprised they didn't have an insurrection? I suspect at the beginning they were fearful they would be killed. These weren't exactly street smart people, after all. They were rich, coddled, comfortable, privileged people not used to the ways of the gun, presumably. They may have believed waiting was the safest course at the beginning. And then it seemed they grew complacent and stopped caring somehow. By the end, of course, they were all entangled with love for their captors, and did not want to leave.

Did you often find that you thought of the house as far smaller than Patchett tried to describe? The picture I had in my mind was just a regular sized, but finely appointed house, filled only with the characters Patchett actually named.

But there were far far more people than that, weren't there? Do you think Patchett fairly captured that sense of a large number of people being held in confinement? I never felt the presence of a large horde of people as there must have been.

Incidentally, the actual Tupac Amaru takeover ended in no apparent hostage deaths, but all of the terrorists were killed.

Pedln, you say, "The book revolutionaries did not set out to kill anyone. They wanted to kidnap the President in order to press their demands -- for prisoner release and other reforms. I don't justify what they did, but my feeling while reading was that they had been oppressed and felt they had no other choices. "

Hmm. Is it ever okay to take hostages that way - even to ensure the release of political prisoners? And it wasn't as if the captors were entirely innocent. They allowed the accompanist to die, didn't they? One of the Generals really injured Ruben quite severely. Had Pres. Masuda been present, those injuries would have been his, I suspect. So I don't know that I can let the captors off the hook. Somehow, their hostages were the ones who humanized them, who took the effort to see beyond the frightening surface and the threats of violence. They were the true heroes, I think.

I don't know that I would have objected to the captors' activism by staging protests against the government. But when they took innocent people - no matter what their social statiion - captive, I think they overstepped the bounds of what was right or civilized.

SARAH: I hadn't thought about it before your post but I certainly did not get the sense of very many people being held hostage. I could picture large rooms in a large house but the house wasn't crowded if, as you say, there were have been lots more people there than were mentioned by the author.

Marjorie - exactly!

Oops, sorry Sarah, it was Monsignor Rolland, not the priest.  He hid behind the sofa , with a stolen pillow for protection , dreaming of a hot bath and assuming he would be released and welcomed the publicity this would generate.  He felt that "as a leader he had the responsibility to protect himself!"  HELLO---
He felt that death was guided by God's hand BUT there were reasons that he should live.  After all there were the deals that he was involved in that "made for a wider path for the church."  Oh pulleeze, Monsignor, get over yourself!!  Father Arguedas represented the flip side of the monsignor's coin, he was gracious, humble and loving.

As is my practice, I placed myself in the middle of this story and felt the urge to "fight back" and rebel.  Sarah, you are absolutely correct!  These were not street folks, they were as you say comfortable in their stations and privledged.  They probably wouldn't even think of  antagonizing their captors.  I'm afraid that my bellicose nature would have sealed my fate and I'd be tending to my own wounds as well as the VP's.

Pedln, why do you think that they didn't have any other choices but to retain these people?  Do you think that they thought this through well enough?  I just can't seem to get the idea of them being revolutionaries, per se although by name alone they took drastic action because of political views.  I never could understand hostage taking in exchange for political favors.  Lord knows bloodshed and disorder beget more turbulence.

 Do you  remember reading that prior to the  accompanists death he reached up, stroked Roxanne cheek and said that "she would be alright and nothing would happen to her?"   Were those final words significant for us as readers do you think?
 

Sarah, Andy, thank you for the last posts. I just sent comments but when trying to edit out typos I lost the entire message. Sorry about that.

I will try anew this afternoon.

I have read many of your comments and feel I MUST get to the library and start catching up.hydro2

Welcome HYDRO! I'm glad you joined us. I hope you find the book so you will have some comments to add to the discussion.

I wonder if I should go back and reread Chapter 1 (the link is in the heading) to see how I feel about it now that I have finished the book. Hmm.

I've been reading today's NYT and came across this from its "Notable Fiction of 2002" Has anyone read this? It sounds like it might address some of the same issues we've been discussing -- borders of language and culture.

"CARAMELO. By Sandra Cisneros. (Knopf, $24.) A cheerful, fizzy novel whose heroine and narrator joins her large Mexican-American family in driving from Chicago to Mexico City and back every summer; colorful generalizations abound concerning the borders of language and culture that they cross when they must. "

And another. If this doesn't make sense it's because my post of 10 minutes ago didn't make it.

"THE TRANSLATOR. By John Crowley. (Morrow, $24.95.) A college student's crush on a Soviet poet in the 1960's serves to support this novel's fictional world full of conspiracy theories and paranoia but sustained with far nobler stuff: poetry, the souls of nations, the transforming power of language. "

Sorry, I've been away. Hubby took me for a nice "vacation in town" to a nice hotel downtown for some hot toddys and shopping! It was fun.

I did a lot of thinking about Bel Canto, since I saw so many "fancy people" while shopping. While this may not be the case when you are a diplomat or business leader in the third world, I feel so many of us walk around completely unprepared for anything bad to happen to us. We humans are eminently adaptable, and most of us follow the leader to a great extent. I wonder if normal human passivity and restraint prevented this group from revolting. This is a group which, after all, chose as its leader someone like Gen, who was a passive intermediary, one who never (until late in the game) injected his own thoughts and feelings, but who simply repeated words dryly in another language. Is it any surprise that a group that came to rely as heavily as it did on him never got it together to stage a revolt?

Perhaps had there been a more strident leader among them things would have been different. But who was really rebellious and strong among them. Ruben was content cleaning up; Roxane singing; Gen interpreting; Mr. Hosokawa listening to music. Who would have led such a revolt?

Hydro - Welcome! We have another 10 days to go with this discussion so please jump in as soon as you are ready!

Traude - don't despair - post again! I know it's never as good the second time around, but it's nearly always different!

ALF - knowing now what we didn't know when the accompanist delivered those comforting words to Roxane, I wonder why Patchett put that in? To lull us into a false sense of security? To emphasize the accompanist's selflessness?

Pedln - haven't read either of those books, but two of the top 10 on the NYT list for 2002 are on my list: Atonement (discussion is ongoing here) and Middlesex.

Marjorie - good idea! I'm going to reread Chapter 1 now too and see how it "feels" after all this thinking!

I feel very remiss not having returned to this discussion earlier because there is indeed so much more to discuss in this story.

Early on we read (on pg 13) that after the home invasion of the vice presidential mansion "It was the unspoken belief of everyone who was famliar with this (terrorist) organization and with the host country that they (the hostages) were all as good as dead when in fact it was the terrorists who would not survive the ordeal."

But could there have been a realistic hope that such a bold enterprise might actually succeed in the face of overwhelming odds, fuelled as it was by desperation? When the masterplan, the capture of the president, failed, and since there waw no follow-up plan, the handwriting was on the wall.

The full paragraph on pg 26 is worth rereading. The first sentence alone could be discussed ad inifinitum in light ot contemporary developments; but I'll merely repeat it here "The Catholic priests, sons of those murdering Spanish missionaries, loved to tell the people that the truth would set them free, and in this case they were exactly correct."

Later in this paragraph we read "General Benjamin had no qualms about killing, believing from his own experience that life was nothing more than excruciating suffering." These passages speak for themselves and provide an explanation of something we cannot really understand, or can we ?

The commotion outside with the attendant bullhorns and police sirens is an indication that the forces outside are much more powerful than the people inside, whose days are numbered. It is not long before Messner, the Swiss intermediary, comes on the scene and suggests that the women be let go. There are 222 hstages to begin with. So the generals line up the men and the women on different sides of the room --- then the generals cut out the workers, the waiters, and cooks and cleaning staff frm the men and plae them with the women. "It ws their ultimate intention to free the workers through revolution and they would not keep them hostage."

Mr. Messner did not have an enviable job. The place of an intermediary is always betweeen two chairs as it were, that's what I read once, and it is true. Yes, I think the man was trustworthy. He had no personal interest in the matter, he had been recruited because this was an emergency and he had been vacationing in the country -- he was right there. This hostage situation involved prominent people and it as urgent.

The most important church representative there that evening, Monsignor Rolland, makes the sign of the cross over those who remained -- "a lovely gesture", says Patchett, pure irony, of course. Father Arguedas is a different man, a good man, so conscientous that the thinks he must report his love for opera as a sin.

I was also thinking of Roxane and her role.

Is it remotely possible that Patchett had meant Roxane Coss to be a unifying force in a crisis of unforeseen dimension simply by virtue of her extraordinary vocal ability that transcended all her personal failings or flaws (and who is without ?) But to take certain privileges for granted does not apply only to divas !

Everone fell in love with her - specifically with her voice, the eternal values, promises, hopes music holds - not only for concert goers but specifically for these captives. Whatever she may have done or not done before this unexpected turn of events, can't we give her some credit for keeping up the morale ? Is it possible indeed that through the combined unifying efforts of Roxane and Gen the outcome was better than could have been reasonably expected ?

And no, that does not excuse the hasty addition of the epilogue. Much more to be said. well, it's 6 a.m. and at least I said my piece!

I missed this discussion. Hadn't been keeping track of SeniorNet.

I thought time was difficult to keep track of in the novel. And it would be that way in a situation like that especially when the weather was such a foggy type.

The Messner character was an interestingly created one. He was what he was. I liked Gen - he had a pretty fleshed out persona. The diva was certainly a diva.

I thought she brought out how there are possibilities for different "out of the box" type relationships in life. Too often we only want to stay on one track.

Enjoyed reading all your posts.

~Marj

Marj - so great to see you after all this time! I've missed you in our book discussions - you always have such interesting things to say. I sure hope you'll stay awhile.

Traude asks whether we should give credit to Roxane Cass for keeping up the morale. What do you think? What would the experience have been without her? I think I've asked this before, but do you believe that music has the capacity to soothe the savage beast, as it were? Is music really as powerful as Patchett makes it out to be?

Why would Patchett choose to mislead us so with the line Traude quotes, "It was the unspoken belief of everyone who was famliar with this (terrorist) organization and with the host country that they (the hostages) were all as good as dead when in fact it was the terrorists who would not survive the ordeal."

Roxane Cass's voice/music brought peace as all loved her voice/music even those that did not understand much. Music is Univeral I think.

GINGER, indeed, the language of music is universally understood. It was the saving grace in this story- what grace there was.

SARAH, the setting Patchett has used is based on a real event, as we know, but she has fashioned her own somewhat romanticized- if not totally credible- version of events. The hostage-taking itself is indeed a reality in today's troubled world (think of the incidents in the Philippines, e.g.).

Perhaps Patchett introduced characters of such diversity of class and culture to better show the gulf that divides the poor from the rich and complacent (what is that saying 'to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted' ??).

I think Gen was essential in the story because he made verbal communication possible. Father Arguedas was the spiritual counterpart, if I may put it that way.

Messner was the mediator who found himself literally between a rock and a hard place, and knew it. He is described as pale, visibly tired, in dark clothing, invariably patient with the excitable, gun-waving generals and their unreasonable demands, which Messner knew would never be met.

A semblance of order was created in the house, a routine established, provisions brought in, duties performed, anxieties and uncertainty made bearable by Roxane's voice, after the sheet music was procured and an executive of Mr. Hosakawa's company emerged as the perfect pianist. Tensions eased and, in the minds of some, a peaceful coexistence might not be out of the question after things were "settled". Alas, life is rarely that accommodating. But I believe that anyone who survives a traumatic life-or-death experience like this would be forever changed by it and perhaps a better person in the bargain.

Yes, the story is beautifully written but Patchett's vision is overly romantic, the epilogue disappointingly abrupt and the happy ending contrived, in my humble opinion.

About music...music touches the soul. It has a capability of healing. I know music is used as therapy. And think of the spirituality in music. We don't know all the ways in which each individual was healed by her song. But we know they were drawn irresistably. Without the song there would inevitably been more personality clashes - possibly killings.

And I think there was more spiritual depth to Gen (as far as the story went)than to the priest except for his interaction with ? and helping her to learn about forgiveness. And she did make it a part of her life - however, that was a very fast happening toward understanding of that "process" or I would rather say "way of life".

I don't have the book in the house anymore. So can't look back at things.

~Marj

Thanks for the welcome. I have been busy reading and have not been on the computer. I have mixed feelings about this book, I love it and have trouble putting it down then in other areas I wish the author would quit all the suspense and tell me if they are finally rescued. Do they become friends with each other ( the captives ) after they leave, do they go back to their former lives without looking back or are they killed? I'm having trouble being patient.

Going thru some old information today I came across this paper that I wrote for the womans club chatter 2 years ago. I am in charge of the "Health and Home Life" area.

MUSIC: has an almost magical power to reach into our minds and bodies. It can act as a stimulant, helping us to think more sharply and work more productively OR it can act as a relaxant, creating a place of safety and beauty to ease the tesions of our day. Music can aid recovery from surgery and serious disease processes and best of all, the power of music is available to anyone, nearly anytime.

I swear I don't remember composing that piece of information, it was probably one of those "hurry up" and get it done numbers.

The power of Music certainly does remain mysterious and I know that there is research being done , as we speak. Music has a direct effect on the function of the brain as it can slow and equalize brain waves to create a meditative state. It can also energize brain waves, quickening the thinking process and enhance creativity. Didn't they have a big study going on a couple of years ago with Classical music being played for grammar school children? They were trying to prove that it created a more pleasant environment, improved alertness in the kids and boost their productivity.

I love piano music but they claim you should turn down the bass on you sound system turn up the treble and choose a piece of music with lots of violins for a quick energy booster. I don't know if Roxanne's scales and arias would have done it for me. there isn't any type of music that I do not like, albeit "rap", but a serious diet of operatic solos would get on my last nerve.

Here are some E-Cards that Senior Net has for us to use.

Senior Net E-cards for Your Enjoyment

---

---

Here is My Favorite Christmas Card.

Ginger's Card For Each and Everone who posts here and those that Obsever also

Love, Ginger

I'm sorry - my telephone was out from the storm over the weekend so I'm a bit behind.

I'd like to invite everyone who participated in this discussion - and those who are new to it - to give their final thoughts on this wonderful book, as the discussion will end Friday - in two days.

Sarah, thanks so much for leading the discussion of Bel Canto. I enjoyed the book,but I know tht much of my enjoyment came from the discussion and input of the others who were reading it at the same time. On my own, I would not have got that much.

I have a few more thoughts to add, but have spent the day travelling from SE Missouri to St. Louis to Washington DC, and the eyes want to stay closed. Hopefully, tomorrow.

Ginger, thanks for the delightful cards.

I absolutely loved this novel until I came to the epilogue. Please! Gen and Roxane marrying-- give me a break Ms. Patchett. All of the sudden the diva is transposed into a blushing, romantic bride, awaiting the return of her husband while she chats with Mrs. Thiaboult. The Roxane that we met during 300 + pages would wait for NOONE!

Roxanne never struck me as this type so come on, make me a believer folks.

" He was sure that Gen and Roxane had married for love, the love of each other and the love of all the people they remembered."

ALF: I won't help make you a believer because the Epilogue didn't fit for me either.

I think we're all in agreement about the Epilogue. I simply cannot understand why she put that in. It's astounding!

Here's another reader who didn't like the Epilogue.


IMO, it was too big a jump from the ending. There should have been another chapter, at least - possibly another section - to move Roxanne, Gen and the Theobaults from S.A. to Italy.


Shall we colaborate on a sequel? (Would help if I was sure about the spelling of collaborate! LOL)


My first experience with a book discussion here was fun - even though I didn't comment as frequently as most of you. I'm looking forward to another one in the New Year.


Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays
to each of you

Sarah,

thank you and all the participants here for a wonderful discussion. It is such a pleasure, and a privilege, to be able to voice our thoughts and impressions freely, even if they may not be shared. But that, I believe, is how we grow.

We tend to consider (I just avoided 'judge') everything and anything from our own national perspective- historically, culturally, personally, not to forget politically, and sometimes we don't stop to listen to other voices, willingly and patiently. But that is, in fact, an indispensable prerequiste, indeed quintessential for communication, for(a better) understanding, in short for awareness.

Ann Patchett is to be applauded for opening our eyes, as it were, to this vital need. In this context it is easy to understand the importance of Gen's role as a unifying force in the book. He is of course not alone - there are many other good people out there with linguistic skills in this troubled world of ours trying to do what Gen did (if not on that large a linguistic scale).

For me the book has essentially two messages: the one I have just mentioned - the need for communication, the other is music.

ALF and the poster before her (will scroll back when I finish this) have expressed that latter aspect beautifully, articulately and, if I may say, more eloquently than AP did in the second paragraph on pg. 318.

The author has great knowledge of music, opera specifically, the quotes are great, and her heart is obviously in the right place. The soliloquies by various characters in the middle of the book - all ultimately giving homage to Roxane - were a bit long. I thought in practical terms that the process must have taken hours because a long paragraph on a book page would most certainly be broken up into several shorter segments in real life.

All the more surprising then is the sudden ending; it is compressed into two pages, 312-313 in the paperback, and I had to read them more than once. The novel ends on a heroic note -- except for the Epilogue ----- which veers into the sentimental (is AP giving us yet another message about love and marriage ?)

If there HAD to be an epilogue, a different format of factual information of few paragraphs would have been a more fitting coda IMHO.

Thank you for your leadership, SARAH, and may normal weather conditions soon return to the SF Bay area. My California daughter and husband have experienced harrowing times as well. She is scheduled to fly in on Sunday, and I hope all will go well.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU ALL !

Traude, I'm grateful to you for your excellent observations here. CallieK - I'm so glad we now can count you as a member of this wonderful group of SeniorNet book lovers!

I've truly enjoyed this book and this discussion. It will end today, and then be archived for anyone to review in the future.

I feel very lucky to "know" each one of you. Book lovers - unite!

(By the way, I am now reading - and loving - Atonement by Ian McEwan. Barbara St. Aubrey, another discussion leader, is hosting the discussion of that book on this site, and if you are looking for a good read, you may wish to give that discussion a try.)

I wish all of you a wonderful, peaceful, serene holiday with no weather problems, lots of people around you who love you, and, if nothing else, plenty of books to read!

Much love,

Sarah

Callie:  It was so nice having you join us for your first read in Books and Lit.  I look forward to seeing you again and "swapping" thoughts.
Lorrie will be leading Lovely Bones soon,.  I'm really looking forward to that story.  will you be joining in?
Do you think Patchett IS planning a sequel?  If she is, the epilogue discouraged my reading of it.

Traude:  As usual, your insights are right on the button.  I always enjoy your comments, particularly about folks needing to stop and listen to other voices.....  This happens to be my biggest complaint  lately.

Marjorie:  You are the discussion leader in Romance.  Now, I ask you, how in the world can anyone buy that (Gen marrying Rox) for a grand finale?

Sarah:  YOU ROCK!!!!  You have led us with supreme skill, once again.  thank you for your time.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL OF YOU.  ENJOY THE PEACE AND LOVE OF THIS SEASON.

Good idea -- get rid of the Epilogue. It certainly added a note of fantasy. But a great bit of the book, much as I enjoyed it, struck me as fantasy, probably beginning with the arrival of the sheet music and the permission to keep it. I love music and books with a focus on music and musicians, and I believe in its soothing qualities, but I don't believe it has the power to do what Patchett wanted us to believe.

CallieK -- yes, a sequel. In it, Ruben will be elected President. He will initiate reforms that will improve life and offer more rights for the native population, like those from the Generals' home towns. More fantasy.

Yes, I have scrolled back (as I promised earlier) and would like now to

thank MARJV for her comments,

GINGER again for the cards and the much needed encouragement they provide,

PEDLN for being here with her sound comments,

declare myself with HDRO2 on being of two minds about this somewhat uneven book,

thank CALLIE for her most welcome participation here,

and to urge ALF to hang on by all means to that praiseworthy definition of the meaning of music and the healing properties ---it may be needed in the future !!

Please forgive mne, I am known for having a hard time letting go of a book and the company of readers.

However, the company is here, and so are the books ! Au revoir.

I truely enjoyed all posts. Thank you Sarah for leading the discussion.

I agree that the epilogue is wrong. The story ended and then there was this epilogue which turns out to be another story. (That this other story is they got married is fine with me. Marriage doesn't have to depend on romance; that we believe it does probably accounts for the high rate of divorce.) Gen and Roxanne's marriage did nothing to enhance the story of Bel Canto.

Roxanne is my idea of a heroine. She is a passionate person and expresses herself creatively. Others benefit from her passion but not because she intends that they do. As a person who has no immediate family (a husband but no children) I like the idea of being absorbed by what I do as opposed to giving my life over to relationships.

Traude, Thanks for liking my card and Repling to it.

Sarah, Thanks again for leading this Book discussion I enjoyed Bel Canto as a read and the posters have added so much to it with there opinions.

Oh how I love Books and Literature rather than just reading alone with no other opinions.

The book is being adapted for an opera to be performed at the Santa Fe Opera in 2004. Also expect to see a movie adaptation with the author maintaining control of content and use of language.

awv4travel: A movie? an opera? Oh my goodness, what a concept. An opera composed out of a book such as this. How wonderful.

Did you read the story also? Any comments? Who shall we cast as the relentless Roxanne?

Angelica Houston? How about Lara Flyn Boyle? She can look so severe and haughty.