"In actual life there had been humiliation and disappointment, which she had tried to push out of her mind as quickly as possible."

But why would she HAVE to fit the "norm" (again, whatever that is), and what do we, the readers, expect HER to do, or how to react under HER circumstances ? HER circumstances, mind you.

This is in my field, linguistics, and I'd like to run with the ball.

"disillusionment" is in fact one of the definitions given in my trusted Random House dictionary; none of the others satisfies me.

Instead I (humbly) believe Munro means to express a sudden overwhelming feeling of alarm, shock, mixed with incredulity at what is happening. It is quite understandable under these circumstances, I think.

MAL, I have not gotten to the constellations yet. I am still thinking about Chryseis, daughter of Apollo's priest, whom the Greeks had carried off and given to Agamemnon as prize of honor. When she had to be returned, Agamemnon demanded that Achilles send him his companion, Briseis, as 'compensation'. Women as war bounties is nothing new. But ...

SCRAWLER, there is a parallel: Anna Karenina commits suicide on the railroad tracks in Tolstoy's epic novel, Anna Karenina, having left her husband and son and doubting that she'd ever be married to her lover, Vronski. Greta Garbo portrayed her most memorably, and no one else has surpassed that performance.

No one has commented on the movie Munro mentions early on, Hiroshima mon Amour , and its possible meaning in the context of the story. I saw the film in Washington in 1959 or 1960; it was in French with subtitles. But I remember little except a profound shock.

Some years later I read The Lover by French novelist Marguerite Duras (who died in 1996) and realized, with a shock of recognition, that she had written the script for "Hiroshima mon Amour".

I do not believe that the details have necessarily any bearing on Munro's story, except for the reference to a cataclysmic event and the relationship between the woman and a married man. But I may be wrong.

"Juliet had described Sam as looking like her--long neck, a slight bump to the chin, light-brown floppy hair- and Sara as a frail pale blonde, a wispy untidy beauty."

" Art must be an expression of love or it is nothing."" ~~Chagall

Traude S

February 9, 2005 - 08:50 am

JOAN, I'm confused

What story are we discussing from today to the 13th? Is it accessible on line?

Will every story in the book be discussed, and will each be given equal time? Are those who do not have the book (yet) at a disadvantage?

GOSSETT, please do bring up elements of style. Are we to look for, and quote, felicitous phrases, apt analogies? I have already mentioned form = different tenses used in the narrative.

Switching between present and past tense can sometimes be an irritant to readers. Munro must know that. Does she have a purpose for doing it here?

JOAN, ALF, I emphatically agree that we should not at this time go ahead and speculatively link Juliet's story to any others some of us haven't read.

Jan.E.

February 9, 2005 - 09:50 am

I haven't posted much so far on this story as I, also, have felt that we're getting a little off track here. Munro is a marvelous story teller - key word here being "teller". Each of these stories is telling us something, and ultimately, we need to ferret out what is she telling us, and what is she really saying.

The painting at the beginning is a clue, and it's there for a reason, so we need to find out why.

As TRAUDE says, the time switch can be irritating and in my mind, continues to be overdone in much modern fiction. Munro must have done this deliberately - I've not found that she uses this device in most of her stories. What purpose does it serve in this one?

Jan

Malryn (Mal)

February 9, 2005 - 09:53 am

I've seen many Chagall paintings, and was fortunate enough to see his stained glass windows at the Fraumunster in Zurich. They are wonderful.

Chagall was born July 7, 1887 in a ghetto in Vitebsk, Belorussia, the son of "humble Jewish working people."

He studied art in St. Petersburg, and arrived in Paris in 1910 where he studied art. At the start of World War I he returned to Vitebsk with his wife, Bella. In 1923 he returned to France. He traveled often in Switzerland.

In 1941 he moved to the U.S. because of World War II. Chagall died March 28, 1985, leaving a large body of work.

Chagall's paintings show the influence of all the places where he lived. He often painted people upside down or flying through the air. There's a wonderful painting called "The Birthday" which shows a man flying through the air and kissing the woman whose birthday it is. There's another with two lovers flying over the Eiffel Tower.

Many of his paintings contain chickens and goats, and your guess about the symbolism is as good as mine.

Chagall was influenced by Cubism and less influenced by Surrealism, though the Surrealists wanted to claim him. He had a style that seems French, but was distinctly his own.

About "I and the Village"; It looks to me as if this is a Russian village with a Russian Orthodox Christian church in the rear. I read that in World War Ii many Jews were killed in Vitebsk and the rest were exiled. That may be part of the cross symbolism here. No, this painting was done before World War II. As a Jew, perhaps he always felt exiled in Russia.

The goat on the left containing the woman milking the cow is obviously female. Goats and chickens usually are in Chagall's paintings. The man has a hard look, and the contrast of the green and the white eye make it appear as if he's leering at the woman-goat.

The farmer in the rear is carrying a scythe. It looks as if the upside down woman is directing him, or calling to him to come home.

What ANDY thinks are jewels in the triangle at the bottom look like nuts to me.

I don't have the book, so can't talk about Munro's interpretation of this painting. I will say that I see a lot of Cubism in it and a style and colors that could only be Chagall's.

Mal

Scrawler

February 9, 2005 - 11:13 am

At the beginning to Anna Karenin she witnessed a man throwing himself under a train which gives her the idea to do the same at the end. Are we seeing the same foreshadowing in Munro's book? (You don't have to answer that since we have awhile to get to the end of this trilogy. Just think about it.) Are the scenes working towards a similar end?

From the window of the train Juliet sees the lone wolf. Is there symbolism there? Does she think of herself as a lone wolf? A wolf is sometimes a predator? Is she that predator? People keep telling her she has to fit in. But fit in to what? Wolves run in packs yet it is the lone wolf that she sees.

Mal said that Juliet lives in a fantasy world. Tolstoy also portrayed Anna as living in a fantasy world of the 19th century. Anna fell in love with a man who by 19th century society standards was forbidden to her. Yet she went off and lived with him and suffered the consequences of her actions. Will this also happen to Juliet? Will she too suffer the consequences or has our society changed so much that we now accept adultery.

bimde

February 9, 2005 - 12:05 pm

Traude, I agree with you that we should stick to the story presented, and not jump all over the place with other stories that some of us haven't read. It's hard enough for some of us to consider all that Munro has to say in this episode.

bimde

February 9, 2005 - 12:36 pm

Scrawler, I am glad that you brought up the wolf. Juliet wonders if he thinks himself invisible.Iget the impression that she is doing the same thing in the observation car--being invisible to the ordinary women around her. She is observing, not taking part--the "lone wolf". Another thing, in the beginning, about the letter. It was "battered and torn" as if it had been carried about for a while.Why? Was Eric not sure about sending it? Or was he waiting for a more opportune time--maybe Ann's death?

Malryn (Mal)

February 9, 2005 - 01:22 pm

BIMDE, I don't know what other stories we haven't read you're talking about. In the heading above it says that on February 9th -- today -- we're to start discussing Alice Munro's, "Soon".

"Soon" is not published online, and I don't have the book, so that lets me out. My post about Chagall was in response to ANDREA's post #153.

Mal

ALF

February 9, 2005 - 02:22 pm

Joan and I both agreed before we presented this book for discussion that it would warrant a great confabulation. We decided to start with the first story and give it a shot of 3-4 days. Our second discussion Chance was given another 3-4 days, as was placed in the heading above and now we have gone on to the third story, Soon. Noone has discussed any other stories presented in this book to my knowledge and I think that we are on track. It is difficult to read a short story without giving the ending to the 40+ page tale and I think that everyone who has joined in our discussion has done a superb job in examining each story.
If anyone of you feel that 3-4 days is not sufficient, please speak up. We are not trying to restrict your thoughts, we just have attempted to keep the conversation flowing. Joan and I would be happy to slow down the pace and examine the story further. It is alright to compare the stories to what has already been read but please check the title and the times that have been proposed for today. Again, I repeat, if you would like to extend the dicussion at any point -- speak up ad be heard.

Thank you Mal for the info on Chagall. I agree with you the little tree ornaments look like fruit or nuts but Monro says:

"A hand that is probably his offers up from the lower margin of the painting, a little tree or an exuberant branch, fruited with jewels."

What is with the crosses? Are we to believe that perhaps there is something that denotes suffering here?

Malryn (Mal)

February 9, 2005 - 02:38 pm

ANDY, or Resurrection?

Mal

DeeW

February 9, 2005 - 02:47 pm

I wonder at Munro's setting the word "soon" apart from the rest of Juliet's musings about her interests being put on the closet shelf. It is italicized, further isolating it from the other words. Now we find that "Soon" is the title of the next story. I can't quite believe this is accidental. Anyone have ideas about this? Perhaps to make a connection?

horselover

February 9, 2005 - 03:48 pm

The first story, "Chance," ends with Juliet thinking that she will soon go back to teaching her beloved classics. But the word "soon" takes on another meaning in the second story when Sara tells Juliet that, during her long illness, she is buoyed not just by her faith but also by the thought of seeing Juliet. "When it gets really bad for me--when it gets so bad I--you know what I think then? I think, all right. I think--Soon. Soon I'll see Juliet."

What does this tell us about the relationship of mother and daughter? Why does Juliet not make some sort of soothing reply to her dying mother? Instead, she turns away. She goes to the kitchen where she puts away the dishes and, presumably, her whole past existence. This story ends with a quick summing up of what has happened to the various characters since Juliet's trip home and her mother's subsequent death. We don't learn much more about Eric in this story except that he gets along well with Sam when he visits Juliet with his new wife.

I love the part when Juliet finds the letter she wrote to him during the trip which Eric saved--perhaps by accident, perhaps not. "When she read the letter, Juliet winced, as anybody does on discovering the preserved and disconcerting voice of some past fabricated self. This is such a wonderful sentence! I can remember finding old letters and feeling exactly the same--wondering why, even in letters, we try to maintain the face we show to the world.

MAL, Thanks for the advice about writing a novel. Of course, I know this. Someone once said that 90% of success is just showing up.

Traude S

February 9, 2005 - 04:49 pm

JOAN, my book shipment from BN is "in transit" - Runaway is included - and I hope it arrives when we are still discussing Soon . If not, I'll be prepared for the other stories.

In the meantime I will keep up with the posts. Many thanks to you and Alf.

ALF

February 9, 2005 - 05:44 pm

Didn't you just cringe when Juliet saw her mother as diminished? I remember seeing my mother after an extended absence and thinking how much she had shrunk into herself.
Is that what Juliet sees in this woman with the lime green jacket with black polka dots? Juliet thinks that the outfit does not do her mother justice- that the colors are "unkind to her skin, which looked as if fine chalk dust had settled over it."
There doesn't seem to be a great deal that Juliet does like, does there? She is initially perturbed because of the unfamiliar station where her parents had to meet herand she doesn't care for Irene, "the good fairy". (Jealous perhaps?) She also took note of the streaked, faded car Sam still drove and the effects that of the winter salt had on it. the list goes on, what's with this girl? Why did this idealist even bother to visit her folks?

horselover

February 9, 2005 - 06:16 pm

"Clearly the magic of Marc Chagall is in the images of childhood memories that float through many of his works... we know that his heart was eternally connected to his childhood home of Vitebsk - nostalgic images of this small provincial ghetto in Russia are the backdrop to many of Chagall's best known works such as I and the Village (1911)."

Perhaps Munro has Juliet choose this painting as her gift because she also is still connected to her childhood home. In fact, toward the end of the second story, Munro says that Juliet now thinks of this as her "home" rather than her home with Eric.

"If we are to learn about Mark Chagall and his art we must look to his relationship with his childhood home town." Munro describes Juliet's home town as a street with a string of stores like the village at the top of Chagall's painting. Juliet is very hurt at finding her gift lying on the floor, and maybe this contributes to her realization that her view of her childhood is not the same as that of her parents.

Joan Pearson

February 9, 2005 - 06:30 pm

Traudee, good - we'll be looking for you. Florry too. You won't be that far behind since the first two stories were online and you already know Juliet from Chance. Or do you? I am having a hard time recognizing the girl who was deep into classics - the girl who resented the world pressing in on her quiet study, claiming her attention.

How long would you say she's been with Eric? The baby is a year old. Do you remember there being a specific time mentioned? How quickly has she changed???

Scrawler, I think Juliet WAS a lone wolf...as you say people wanted her to fit in, but she seems to have always done her own thing. Remember the way she was determined to lose her virginity - like a predator the way she marked the boy to do the deed. Has she preyed on Eric? She got on that bus, a single woman with a sense of purpose. Or is she the goat. Did Eric manipulate the young girl - take advantage of her "virginity" - or at least her inexperience with men? Bimde, that's an interesting observation. Did Eric keep the letter in his pocket until he knew Ann was dying? Eric had married once - why not again? He doesn't even marry Juliet when she has his child. This isn't anything new to Eric - he has another son in another town, but Juliet? We need to get to know this Juliet all over again.

Jan E. - I agree with you - the painting is an important clue to Juliet's mindset, into her perception of reality. She's selected the painting for a present for her parents. (Andy, your calendar quoting Chagall today - "Art must be an expression of love or it is nothing." Amazing!) Juliet tells Christa that her parents will love the picture she has chosen for them. Do any of you think it's odd that the Juliet who has spent so much of her life immersed in the Classics has developed a taste for Chagall? For modern art? Is this the new Juliet? Or is it just this painting that she likes - that she believes her parents will like?

Andy, I think you nailed it when you sensed: "The village or small berg pictured is the center of focus, surounded by homes and churches..." Horselover - this story is all about home, isn't it?" - and in a way - churches?

The Jewels - Remember in Chance - Juliet referred to the things pushed into the back of her closet - as things she had once considered her "bright treasure" ...do you sense the connection here to the jewels in the painting?

Joan Pearson

February 9, 2005 - 06:32 pm

Gossett - Thank you - I'd forgotten the italicized word soon in Chance. Soon she would get back to those things once considered her treasure - but did you get the feeling that she probably would not? I've reached the point where I don't believe that anything Alice Munro does is accidental.

Horselover, I found this episode extremely sad - did you? I admit I teared up reading Sara's words because I didn't believe that Juliet would ever come back to her, any more than she would remember the "treasures' in her closet. Not soon, not ever. This story is such a simple one and yet so complicated. You ask a good question - "What does this tell us about the relationship of mother and daughter?" I'd like to broaden the question to "mother and child" for personal reasons.

Andy, I find Juliet ...conflicted to say the least. I think she came to town to show off and is gradually realizing that she is not being admired as she had imagined. This story seems to me to be one of gradual self-realization...but maybe you see it differently?

DeeW

January 21, 2005 - 07:22 pm

Juliet's feelings for her father are undergoing a change also. The confidante of late night kitchen talks is no longer the respected teacher, but a seller of vegetables. But what seems to disturb Juliet most is the growing knowledge that her father is still a sexual being, as evidenced by his attention to Irene and the strange dream she has that leaves her feeling shameful, as though somehow it was her fault.As she puts it, "a dirty indulgence of her own." I too, think it's a story about self-realization and the fact that you can't go home again.

Malryn (Mal)

February 10, 2005 - 06:34 am

I have learned that Marc Chagall regarded Jesus as a Jewish martyr. This might explain the use of the cross symbol in "I and the Village."

In his painting, The White Crucifixion, Chagall painted Jesus covered by a tallith, a Jewish prayer cloth, There is Jewish symbolism throughout this painting -- the burning synagogue, the army chasing Jews, what looks like a Hanukiyah (the candle holder used in Jewish homes during Chanukah, which is mistakenly called a Menorah), Jews fleeing in a boat, Jewish exiles, one of whom is carrying the Torah..

November 10th of this year will mark the 67th anniversary of Kristallnacht, the night when Nazis ransacked the homes of German Jews, burned synagogues, desecrated Jewish graves, and destroyed Jewish businesses. Chagall painted "The White Crucifixion" in 1938, the year this happened.

Mal

ALF

February 10, 2005 - 07:47 am

You know what? the more that I read about Juliet the less I like her. She is so self-indulgent and sanctimonious. A good writer will influence your likes/dislikes of a character and if I knew someone as overbearing as Juliet I would ignore and shun her like a bad case of typhus.
Yes, Mal I believe that there is something "religious" in this painting that Munro is linking us up to. Juliet is crucifying everyone she knows (except baby Penelope). She has been resurrected from what? Her mundane existence with Eric? I don't know, it's an enigma to me.

Joan Pearson

February 10, 2005 - 09:10 am

Gossett, Mal, Andy - I think some of the answers to the puzzle are in the enigmatic Chagall painting...
When Jan E said that yesterday I went back to the opening paragraphs of "Soon" -

"Two profiles face each other. One the profile of a pure white heifer, with a particularly mild and tender expression, the other that of a green-faced man who is neither young or old. He seems to be a minor official...A hand that is probably his offers up, from the lower margin of the painting, a little tree or an exuberant branch, fruited with jewels"

At the upper margin...small tottery houses and a toy church with its toy cross..."

Juliet tried to explain to Christa that it made her think of her parents - of their life together. She goes on to say in the next paragraphs - "They lived in a curious not unhappy isolation."

This is how Juliet sees her parents, her town...in fact when she reads Chagall's title, "I the Village" - she has to buy it... because "It made exquisite sense."

What do these "clues" mean...looking back at them? (Don't forget the poor woman left hanging upside down.)

Andy, if Juliet is in the process of reawakening when she returns to her "village" - maybe we can forgive her for her self-delusion. This is a rough visit for her - Gossett brings up the changing relationship with her father. I had hoped for more of an understanding with her mother before she died. Something happened there, but what?

Let's stert with the painting - the two figures, the toy churches and crosses and the woman upside down...I love your different views on what Juliet saw in that painting BEFORE she went home to face the reality of the situation...

Deems

February 10, 2005 - 10:26 am

I'm not really here, just reading along. But I can't miss the opportunity to comment on Chagall. I love his paintings--I always see joy in them (perhaps that's the fond memories he had of his childhood village shining through?).

And the COLORS! That man has a way with primary colors that adds even more joy for me. Chagall has lots of upside down people in his paintings as I think Mal pointed out.

I think the crosses are there because the village would have been primarily Catholic (always go for the obvious).

Anyway, applause for Chagall.

Did anyone else notice that the title of the Painting is "I" and the Village? I guess this is probably just a translation, but in English we always put ourselves last---The Village and I unless there's some good reason to reverse the order. From what I've been reading, I think Juliet likes the title as it is (in English) because the emphasis falls on her.

Back to what I should be doing.

Maryal

Malryn (Mal)

February 10, 2005 - 10:38 am

I ordered this book with overnight delivery yesterday, and it will be here sometime today.

The real title of this painting is "Moi et le Village." I think MARYAL is right about self centered Juliet. I love Chagall, too, Maryal, and see a great deal of good humor in many of his works.

Okay, in an interview with James Johnson Sweeney in 1944, Chagall talks about this painting and mentions the little cow and the milkmaid inside the head of the bigger cow. (It's not a goat. Marilyn; it's a cow. Talking to myself here.) I began wondering if the larger cow is Juliet and the small one with the milkmaid is how she sees her mother?

As an artist, I see perspective in the "small tottery houses and a toy church with its toy cross" in the background of the painting. From Juliet's perspective, has she acquired such superiority that everything in her youthful past is so diminished and looked down on by her?

There is a Pawlonia tree growing by the deck outside this addition to my daughter's house where I live. It is covered with clusters of round seed pods, like nuts, that look just like the " little tree or an exuberant branch, fruited with jewels." When I first saw them in the painting I thought they were very sensual, fecund. I also thought the talk about "treasures" was sensual and that they didn't have anything to do with literature or Juliet's brain.

Continuing along the same line, the upside down woman looks to me like a female who hasn't heard the Steinem mantra about "Off our backs."

Mal

Malryn (Mal)

February 10, 2005 - 10:47 am

The book just came! Now I can really get down to business!

Mal

Scrawler

February 10, 2005 - 11:48 am

"Soon" reminds me of Robert Frost's "The Road Not Taken." Sometimes when we make choices in our twenties it leads to heart-break and frustration later on in our lives. When Juliet got on the train in "Chance", she thought she had a plan, but now she has doubts and she is also "blaming" those around her for the choices she herself made.

When Juliet sees her painting in the attic it is as if her parents had put her away as well. Once again we see reference to Russia. Chagall not only shows us a village which Juliet sees a reference to her own home town in the painting but it also has religious significance.

Although the scene between Juliet and the priest is a short scene I think that it is the most powerful one in the story. All the other scenes pale in its emotional upheaval. Even the scenes between Juliet and her parents show less emotion. What does it all mean? I think Munro is foreshadowing something to come.

Juliet has put everyone except little Penelope in the part of vilians with her playing victim almost like a classical heroine. I have to agree with those who feel they don't like Juliet. I don't know that I would shun her because I feel that if someone is mean-spirited, it is their problem not mine. If they want to expel their energy doing negative things, that's up to them.

bimde

February 10, 2005 - 01:30 pm

The Painting--I see it as a figure of Juliet's life--all mixed up. It may be that she sees it as a picture of her parents who don't "fit in" as they wanted her to do. The upside-down woman is a sign of Juliet's life--upside down. She left her "Golden Treasure" for a life with Eric, and it has changed her in many ways. Will she ever go back to that "Treasure"? Her thoughts of the thesis that she has in mind shows that she dreams of taking it out again, but she senses that her father isn't interested, so she puts it away--again.

ALF

February 10, 2005 - 02:43 pm

Welcome! Welcome! I hope that you are on the mend and we are happy to have you visit us here. "I" and the village pretty much sums it up for me when it comes to Juliet. She is the type to come first, play the bereaved heroine (as Scrawler so aptly put it) and find fault with anyone and everyone.

I'll be back with further consideration on bimde's thoughts.

Malryn (Mal)

February 10, 2005 - 03:52 pm

JOAN said in Post #174, "Andy, if Juliet is in the process of reawakening when she returns to her 'village' - maybe we can forgive her for her self-delusion." Yes, we can.

I've just finished reading this story for the first time. My reaction to it is different from my reaction to reading your posts without having read the story.

Sure, kids are self-centered. Weren't you when you were growing up? When they leave home; go far away and start a life of their own, they often think their parents will just hang there suspended in time, and everything will be the same as when they left when they go back "home."

The self-centeredness of youth keeps them from knowing that their parents won't stay suspended. They'll go on living and will find things to fill the gap of the empty room. The town of memory won't stay the same, either, as Juliet is finding out.

It's too soon for me to talk about Sara and Sam and Irene. I haven't digested them yet.

It isn't too soon for me to say that at this point Juliet seems as pompous in her New Age beliefs as Don, the minister, does about his traditional ones.

And it isn't too soon for me to say that I think the biggest importance of the Chagall painting is that Juliet's father stuck it up in the attic. Essentially what he did was throw " I " Juliet in the trash. Whatever her motives for buying the print, her father's action must have hurt Juliet terribly.

I think this story is beautifully and honestly written.

Mal

DeeW

February 10, 2005 - 05:27 pm

Yes, Deem is it? I noticed the title too, and had the same idea...that the placement of the pronoun first is for emphasis and in Juliet's mind, she is apart from the village...more important somehow than the rest. But I also keep thinking that she was in a state of euphoria when buying the painting, and perhaps that had an effect on her viewing of the painting, and her memories too. She seems intent on recapturing something of an earlier, happier time when on her home visit and is disappointed when it's no longer there.

Jan.E.

February 10, 2005 - 06:26 pm

I'm not sure anyone has mentioned the social class distinctions that Munro makes in many of her stories. Each of the three stories that we've read so far include lots of references and allusions to class differences. Much of the conflict in Munro's stories stems from the clash of social "unequals".

In Runaway Sylvia is obviously of a higher class than Carla and Clark. In Chance Juliet probably spurns her seat-mate (the one who committed suicide) as he appeared to be "beneath" her.

In this story we have Juliet whose parents "never fit in"; her father is selling veggies, a job Juliet doesn't think is a very worthy one; her father is said to "disagree with people who are over him but not with those under him"; when we first meet Irene (who we find out is Latino) she is "keeping her distance" behind Sam and Sara, and later on there are at least two references to the black hair on her arms and face; Christa told Juliet at the beginning that the Chagall painting is "for shop girls"; when Sam tells Juliet all about Irene's family problems, Juliet thinks, "I hope you don't mean to get us mixed up with people like that".

It's just interesting that Munro does this in her stories. I'm not sure if there's a message there, but probably..... the message being that class distinctions are very real to most people, that striving for what society perceives as success and position makes for unhappiness, and that being "up there" on the social ladder doesn't necessarily make one a worthy or likeable person (dare we include Juliet in the latter???).

BTW, on another note, isn't it interesting that we had Carla and Clark in the first story and Sam and Sara in this one, both married couples whose first names are alliterative but whose relationships are dissonant.

Jan

bimde

February 10, 2005 - 08:11 pm

Juliet's visit home was not what she expected.In the first place, her parents met her at a station some distance away.They knew of her "situation" with Eric, and thought it wrong. They didn't want the town talking.Her mother was not like Juliet remembered, either-- frail, and not too together mentally. Things were not the same. The things in the attic that distracted her so much were things from her former life--and the picture! Here it was-put away. To Juliet, it must have seemed that her father(who put it there) was putting her away, too, as Mal mentioned. Out of sight, out of mind. Juliet was finding that the old saying of "You can't go home again" is very true.

Scamper

February 10, 2005 - 08:55 pm

I agree with Mal - in fact I was going to write my version of what Mal wrote - about our being too hard on Julie. Julie IS different, perhaps made more different because her parents were also different. She's just trying to get through life the best she can. I disagree with (I think it was) Mal in that I think Julie's passion for the classics is very real. It's the one thing she found she could hang her hat on. But ultimately it wasn't enough - she got on a train seeking her one chance at love.

The only thing Julie has done that I found distasteful was turn away from her mother when she was dying. Why did she do that? Could she not handle being important to her mother? Did she not like her mother? As you will see in later stories, what goes around comes around on this subject.

Julie came home with her baby, and she wanted the town to take notice of her - perhaps take notice that she was a sexual being. I think her being different growing up took its toll, and she wanted some kind of acceptance. Not exactly tradtional - she went out of her way to let everyone know she wasn't married to Eric - but something.

I feel for her, especially when she finds her painting in the attic. I experienced many things like that in my relationship with my mother, and I can tell you it hurts. A mother of unconditional love will leave the painting out, will lie through her teeth that she loves it, if she knows it is important to you.

Pamela

horselover

February 10, 2005 - 09:15 pm

Joan, I think this is a sad story. I hope the relationship between you and the "child" you mentioned is better than the one described in this story.

Why do Juliet's parents want her to get off at a different station when they are so unconventional themselves? What are they afraid the town will talk about?

Scrawler, I agree that the scene with the minister and Juliet, though short, is important since it foreshadows what will happen between Juliet and Penelope in the third story. Here in this story, Juliet takes care to inform the minister that she is an atheist, that she is not actually married to Eric, that they do not go to church, and that she thinks many people believe God is a lie but go to church anyway. She becomes more and more furious, and while the baby does not understand the words, she understands the tone. "She shivered, as if their words struck her." Finally, Sara and Don call Juliet's attention to the baby, and she hurries from the room. It takes her quite a while to calm down. Why is she so furious? Does she resent her parents for bringing her up without faith? Will this cycle of atheism come back to haunt her when Penelope grows up?

Do people develop "foxhole faith" as Sara does near the end?

Malryn (Mal)

February 10, 2005 - 09:24 pm

Oh, PAMELA, I think Juliet has very strong feelings about the classics. When she said to Eric on the train, "“And because I love it. I love all this stuff. I really do,” I thought, "She doth protest too much, methinks." In other words, Juliet loved the classics, but they weren't enough.. That's what made me say she was lying -- to herself.

In a similar way, when I saw how Juliet reacted to Irene I thought, "Somebody else is taking my place." Remember that old song?

Mal

bmcinnis

February 11, 2005 - 02:38 am

I always enjoy the freshness of view that comes from reading these posts: Jan, your note about the alliteration caught my eye immediately since language and figures of speech are significant to me also.

Scamper, your mention of Juliet's turning away seemed to highlight just one of those many times, she seems to overlook the small and insignificant details that matter to others.

Bimde, I wonder if the picture Juliet chose was as unexpected to her parents as was her experience of the visit.

What interested me about Juliet’s choice of Chagall’s painting was how she noted those familiar images; the farmer, the girl milking a cow, the rural surroundings, figures that would seem to be attractive to a rural couple. With the exception of the woman hanging upside down, all these images are familiar and what her parents would likely see and enjoy. What is startling to me was the context in which these images are presented in the painting. Juliet seems not at all disturbed about the fact that the totality of this scene might seem strange, dreamlike, and even, perhaps even shocking to country folk.

But this seems to be Munro’s creative gift: to place the ordinary and expected in a context that, to my mind, can be seen only as in a dream

Bern

Joan Pearson

February 11, 2005 - 05:50 am

Good morning, Bern...you get us started today with some wonderful overall observations...

"Munro’s creative gift: to place the ordinary and expected in a context that can be seen only as in a dream"

"Juliet seems to overlook the small and insignificant details that matter to others."

The story does have a dreamlike quality, doesn't it? Like the Chagall painting. And Juliet not only overlooks details that matter to others, but so often misinterprets them. She jumps to so many conclusions that you start to anticipate the opposite when she does that. When she was talking to Charlie in the store, you knew that he was not as impressed with the "new Juliet" as she thought she was being perceived. Now that you mention it, her parents probably didn't appreciate the painting at all, Bern - maybe hung it up only because it was from her - and then retired it to the attic when they tired of it.

Bimde - in that painting there is a man in the bottom margin holding up a tree of jewels - (the tree of learning?) - can that man be her father offering her knowledge, encouraging her on that path of learning? He must have been greatly disappointed in her choice - and "terribly hurt" as Mal points out. You all don't believe that her father put it in the attic for fear of intimidating Irene as her mother has explained to her then? Pamela, you think it was her mother who put it away? That's something to think about.

I like your description of the "road not taken" - the whole village had expected Juliet to follow the path she had chosen when she left. I can't quite articulate to myself exactly why she changed direction. Was she unhappy with her chosen path, or was it her attraction to Eric? Remember Carla in Runaway - realizing that it was just sex that made her follow Clark and forgo the college education her parents had offered?

Joan Pearson

February 11, 2005 - 05:58 am

Juliet isn't the only one who has changed paths - so has her father. As Bimde points out - when her father seems no longer interested in her pursuing her thesis, she loses interest too. Her father has had great influence on her, hasn't he? When my father died, I felt I was left on a stage with no audience. It was devastating.

Juliet's stage was this village - Maryal, thanks for pointing out the obvious (which I missed) - the position of "I" and the Village. This is Juliet's story...and this is not turning out to be the glorious homecoming she thought it would be. Gossett, I got the feeling that Juliet was coming home to show the town that she was a "modern" woman now, returning with her love child, no longer the bookish girl that everyone more or less ignored. Maybe she was looking forward to spending time with those "broadminded" parents of hers - imagine when she realizes that her father picked her up at a station outside of town to avoid being seen.

Pamela, she did go out of her way to flaunt her new attitudes on morality ...her "love child", the fact that she and Eric are living together, unmarried. It seems the village already knows all about it though, doesn't it? Did her father lose his job because of an argument about HER - or did he freely choose "another path"? I couldn't quite believe that, but Juliet did.

I agree, the scene with Juliet and her priest the most powerful,Pamela. - Powerful because of its effect on Juliet? That was a heated argument...As Mal describes it - "Juliet seems as pompous in her New Age beliefs as Don, the minister, does about his traditional ones." If I were Sara, it would have been hard to be sympathetic with either side" - poor Sara on her deathbed. Can we talk more about why it would have been so hard for her to say what Sara needed to hear?

Horselover asks why Juliet is so furious?" Is it because her parents brought her up without faith? Do people who have been brought up without faith develop "foxhole" faith as Sara did? Do you think Sara has? Why else would she be spending so much time with Don?

We have so much to talk about today...I'm particularly interested in Irene and her place in this story. I see her as sort of a catalyst. Would the story have played out the same without her presence? What effect did she have on Juliet? Jan E. introduces her to our discussion - as well as the bigger concept in Alice Munro's stories - the social class distinctions. I'll be interested to hear what you have to say about Irene. Was she really the menace to her parents, or was this all in Juliet's imagination - part of the "dream"?

Malryn (Mal)

February 11, 2005 - 06:31 am

Well, I'll tell you. I think Juliet's attitude and treatment of the suicidal man on the train in "Chance" is the same as the way she treated her mother in "Soon." I think it's impossible for her to "be there" for needy people, especially people she thinks are not on the level that she is -- even her mother. I think she simply can't do it.

---

An aside here. I was given away at the age of 7, to my aunt and uncle, by my parents who were very poor during the Depression and could not afford my serious illness.

My father was rarely home, so I didn't miss him much after I went to my aunt and uncle's house, but I missed my mother terribly.

I saw her rarely. At first I was too sick and couldn't walk, then after I was better it seemed as if it always was "inconvenient" for my aunt to take me to see her. She also didn't like Mama coming up to see me. My aunt and uncle were childless, and I think there was some jealousy involved.. My aunt also pumped into me the fact that my mother was "poor" and somehow inferior because of that.

My uncle had a job as an electrician, and my aunt was a bookkeeper-clerk in a jewelry store downtown. I didn't realize how much I was becoming used to not living in poverty and the comforts that those jobs brought into the house where I now lived --- until I went to see Mama a few months before she died.

It was winter; I was 12, and my aunt dressed me up in a plaid taffeta dress and a coat with a small fur collar, as I recall. It took me a long, long time to forgive myself for the superior way I felt when I walked into my mother's two room cold water tenement and saw again how she and my younger brother and two sisters had to live.

The same thing happened when I went off to Smith College on a four year full scholarship and mingled with young women who came from much richer backgrounds than I had. My environment rubbed off on me, and when I went back to my aunt and uncle's house on vacations all I could see were the grammatical errors they made and their blue collar behavior and attitude. They laughed at the "new" ideas I had and my pontificating about the fancy education I was receiving. I was extremely uncomfortable. I can understand very well what Juliet was going through when she went back to her "village."

Mal

Malryn (Mal)

February 11, 2005 - 07:32 am

I don't see this story as much dreamlike as being somewhat surreal. But then, I don't see Chagall's paintings as dreamlike, either.

By his own words, Chagall paid great attention to composition and detail. His paintings were not at all random; they were always well planned out. The triangle holding the hand and the fruited jewels bouquet lead directly to the focal point in the upper background -- the tiny church and the tottery houses. It is no coincidence that the church and the houses are done in the same colors and values as what's in the foreground triangle.

I think Alice Munro writes the same way. There's nothing random about the way she writes. Everything is planned, the composition itself is important, and so are details and the effect what she says will have on her readers.

Last night I thought that Alice Munro, yes, writes about ordinary people just as John Irving does, but that their characters have very unordinary quirks.

Irene: ~ In the letter to Eric that Juliet finds she says, ". . . . made by a sort of junior Ilse Koch person who has invaded our kitchen."

Who was Ilse Koch?

"During World War 2 the infamous Ilse Koch was known as the Bitch of Buchenwald for her bestial cruelty and sadistic behavior. She was the wife of Karl Koch, the Kommandant of Buchenwald, and struck fear into the inmates daily. She was especially fond of riding her horse through the camp, whipping any prisoner who attracted her attention."

Of course, Juliet is exaggerating for effect here. Nevertheless, I believe she thought Irene had qualities similar to Ilse Koch. She was domineering; she pushed people around without caring if she hurt them, she didn't seem to care about anything except herself, her way, and the job she was doing.

It must have been a shock to Juliet to go home and find her father attracted to this woman. "She restored my faith in women." he said. Had he always been attracted to this type of woman, the complete opposite of his frail wife, who put on airs with the clothes she made from Vogue patterns and was too weak ever to finish a household task?

Juliet also had to face that fact that her father was no longer the intellectual she remembered. Sara said to Juliet, "He has to suck up to them", to people who are not as educated and probably not as intelligent as he is. Now it must appear to Juliet that her father has become one of them, with Irene the prime and perhaps worst example.

I really do believe, too, that Juliet felt as if someone else was taking her place. And what a someone it is!

Mal

Traude S

February 11, 2005 - 09:29 am

With respect, I'm here to say that translating is an art (not well known here), something that is studied in depth and requires a great deal of broad knowledge in different fields.

As in any other occupation and profession, the skills of the practicioners vary. Regretfully, we dismiss foreign languages and undervalue their importance.

I have said th is before and will do so again: there is a distinction between

a translator who meticulously, faithfully renders, in writing, a written document in a different language;

and an interpreter who stands or sits between people who speak a different language and goes back and forth between them to let each one know what the other said.

The work of a translator, important as it is, can be tracked and checked on the basis of the written document.

But the role of an interpreter is potentially more important and more sensitive. In fact, could there be a bias on the part of the interpreter> Could the interpreter add slants or nuances of his own, or even be "on the other side"?

Getting back to "Moi et le village". I strongly believe that "The Village and I" would have been a better translation.

Let me add that the best translations are those that stay with the original text and still manage to convey articulately and accurately what the text says- no mean feat, I know from my own experience. The slavish adherence to the precise order/sequence of words (as was done in this case) is not always the best way to go.

Obviously, Chagall, raised in the Jewish ghetto, was aware of the community around him. How indeed could the cu mulatigve impressions fail to find expression in his paintings?

It is another matter entirely what the painting meant to Munro and her fictional characters, and why she chose to include them.

My book is not here yet, and the foregoing represents the two points I wanted to make.

Traude S

February 11, 2005 - 10:10 am

MAL, just saw your post as I checked mine for typos.

Did any of the web pages you depend on mention that Ilse Koch committed unspeakable cruelties way beyond whipping prisoners in the concentration camp?

Malryn (Mal)

February 11, 2005 - 10:29 am

TRAUDE, only about lamp shades made of human Jewish skin. I read about those in Life Magazine when I was a kid.

Mal

Scrawler

February 11, 2005 - 11:12 am

I thought the following conversation very interesting:

"Sara and Juliet, making fudge and threading ribbons through the eyelet trim on their petticoats, the two of them intertwined. And then abruptly, Juliet hadn't wanted any more of it, she had wanted instead to talk to Sam late at night in the kitchen, to ask him about black holes, the Ice Age, God. She hated the way Sara undermined their talk with wide-eyed ingenuous questions, the way Sara always tried somehow to bring the subject back to herself. That was why the talks had to be late at night and there had to be the understanding neither she nor Sam ever spoke about. WAIT TILL WE'RE RID OF SARA. Just for the time being, of course.

There was a reminder going along with that. BE NICE TO SARA. SHE RISKED HER LIFE TO HAVE YOU, THAT'S WORTH REMEMBERING.

"Daddy doesn't mind disagreeing with people that are OVER him," Sara said, taking a deep breath. "But you know how he is with people that are UNDER him. He'll do anything to make sure they don't feel he's any different from them, he just has to put himself down on their level -"

Juliet did know, of course. She knew the way Sam talked to the boy at the gas pumps, the way he joked in the hardware store. But she said nothing.

"HE HAS TO SUCK UP TO THEM," said Sara with a sudden change of tone, a wavering edge of viciousness, a weak chuckle."

Boy, I guess this says it all. To me these characters are not very nice at all - talk about a dysfunctional family! Juliet and Sam wanting to get rid of Sara so they could talk. Juliet thinking that Sara undermined their talk with her "wide-eyed ingenuous questions." And now Sara in a vicious tone telling Juliet that in her opinion Sam had to suck up to people who were UNDER him.

Perhaps they saw Irene as someone who was UNDER Sam and therefore his relationship with her was what Juliet and her mother felt as a relationship where Sam was just sucking up to Irene rather than realizing that a relationship with Irene might be to Sam one in which he felt nurtured.

bimde

February 11, 2005 - 12:59 pm

I have been thinking about the encounter between Juliet and the Minister. She said that she was an Atheist, and he tried to convince her that she was wrong. Then,in the kitchen, when he had the diabetic episode, as he recovered, he gave her a look as of an "astonished animal, hanging onto whatever it could find". Did this conversation awaken doubts in his own mind about his beliefs??

bimde

February 11, 2005 - 01:28 pm

In her dream of being a child again, her father appears. But so does Irene--shadowy, but there. I think that Juliet saw Irene as a threat to her standing with her father, and almost hated her for that.She also saw Irene as being "inferior" to both her and her father. She couldn't understand her father's attraction to one of "that kind." She is showing her feelings of superiority again as she did in "Chance". Remember how she reacted to the guy who wanted to chum around with her? Superiority--deja vu all over again.

DeeW

February 11, 2005 - 02:58 pm

bimde, I totally agree with you, that there's something missing in the man's faith. He seems to be hanging on to his beliefs with his fingernails.About his conversation with Juliet, I wanted to interrupt and ask him, "who are you trying to convince, her or yourself?" Of course, on reflection, I realize I could ask the same question of Juliet!

Malryn (Mal)

February 11, 2005 - 04:05 pm

Don, the minister, didn't seem at all shaky in his faith to me. He was proselytizing, and the argument he and Juliet had is very similar to battles going on in the Religion folder here in SeniorNet. Each side is strong in his or her conviction. An argument like that can never be won because neither person will ever become converted to the other's faith or ideas.

I see Juliet as being very angry because this is just another example of the stupid, unbending, old-fashioned ways of the Village and the people in it. At this point, she's about had it up to here.

Munro wants the reader to think that Juliet is upset about what Don said about her godless child. This is an obvious device and lead-in to the next part of this trilogy.

The guy had an astonished look on his face because he almost went into insulin shock, which could kill him. He was lucky that Juliet recognized this and gave him something with sugar in it. Why didn't he have a piece of hard candy in his pocket as a just-in-case immediate remedy?

Munro is right. She's not a novelist. I don't think she should even have tried a trilogy. The story, "Runaway", is much stronger and better than these three stories put together. It can stand alone.

Mal

Malryn (Mal)

February 11, 2005 - 04:23 pm

I'm so excited that I can't contain it. Two finished copies of my book, Precarious Global Incandescence have just arrived. SCRAWLER, Anne Ogle, now I understand how you felt when your A Century to Remember was published.

And isn't it great!

Mal

DeeW

February 11, 2005 - 05:37 pm

Mal congratulations on your book. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the ministers faith. Why did Monro put the near death scene in at all, if not to show that his faith nearly failed him when he seemed to need it most? At least that's the way I see it. Monro doesn't include scenes unless they have some meaning to the whole.

Malryn (Mal)

February 11, 2005 - 05:56 pm

GOSSETT, maybe the minister's astounded look was because the Act of God that "saved" him was done by a non-believing atheist. "God works in mysterious ways."

Mal

Traude S

February 11, 2005 - 08:36 pm

MAL, warmest congratulations !

My book came; I read the story and think I know where everyone is. But I need to reread the story beefore commenting.

But something jumped out at me, "... Sara always tried somehow to bring the subject back to herself." emphasis mine.

What a wonderfully astute observation!

One person in my life was an unsurpassed master at that "art"; in fact I am still wondering about the reason or possibly the underlying cause. Was it simply a manifestation of boundless egocentrism, or the expression of a desperate, perpetual feeling of insecurity?

With respect, I'd also like to say that I am not comfortable with seeing the three Juliet stories in this collection described as a "trilogy".

Joan Pearson

February 11, 2005 - 09:16 pm

Goodness, I can't count the number of times that song title has come up in the last two weeks! Isn't it funny the way that happens sometimes? I came across it this past week twice - once in Marilynne Robinson's Housekeeping which I read on the beach last week. In January some of us were reading/discussing her latest book, Gilead here - wasn't the song mentioned in that book too? I have to tell you, if you liked Gilead, this book is like no other. The writing! Not the spiritual theme you find in Gilead, but the same otherworldly qualities. All of the characters are women in this one - generations of them, isolated in a small forgotten mining town. I know we just read Gilead - but if anyone is interested in this one, it would make a fantastic discussion. You might want to give that one some thought. M. Robinson wrote this book over twenty years ago, so it's in your libraries for sure. Meanwhile, back to our story, our "Irene"...

*********************************************
Mal I believe, too, that Juliet felt as if someone else were taking her place - Did you notice when she goes to the attic, she finds the high chair, the playpen her parents had been saving for a second child. Is Irene the second daughter her parents never had? This one more down to earth, a more normal girl - the kind of girl they wished Juliet had been? Is Juliet jealous? OR - does she feel that Irene is a threat to her parents' marriage? When she had selected that painting, she commented that her parents had lived in "curious not unhappy isolation" - has Irene interfered with the balance in this relationship?

Thanks for revealing Ilse Koch's identity - That explains a lot about Irene - "She was domineering; she pushed people around without caring if she hurt them, she didn't seem to care about anything except herself, her way, and the job she was doing" - you know, you could ALMOST be describing Juliet too in a way.

Scrawler - you've described the old friendly relationship between Juliet and Sara - before Juliet turned to her father. "And then abruptly, Juliet hadn't wanted any more of it" - Don't you wonder what made her change the way she felt about her mother? Are we given any sort of explanation for it? Does it sound as if someone - (her father?) - turned her against her mother, rolling his eyes when she asked those ingenuous questions...always bringing the subject back to herself?" This was going on within the family circle of three before Irene came on the scene then. Perhaps Juliet did not see Irene as a threat to the marriage , but she DID turn away from her father and his foolish behavior to stand up for her mother.

Bimde - I'd forgotten Irene's role in that dream. Were you surprised when you learned she was getting married and had no designs on Juliet's father, no plans to stay and take Juliet's place either for that matter. Alice Munro took us right to the edge of that possibility - in Juliet's mind - and just as quickly backed away from it.

"She also saw Irene as being inferior' to both her and her father. She couldn't understand her father's attraction to one of 'that kind.'" Bimde, what do you see as Juliet's father's attraction to this girl? Do you see it as a sexual attraction, as Juliet did? I'm wondering if he just liked the way he felt around her. And heseems to be using Irene - as he once used Juliet - to put Sara down. Why does he need to do this?

Joan Pearson

February 11, 2005 - 09:29 pm

Let's spend more time on the conversation Minister Don and Juliet. Gossett points out that each of them seemed to be on weak ground. Remember that Sara was a witness to this discussion - and wasn't she strangely silent, Traudee? - Not the same person we've heard described as always turning the conversation to herself with innocuous questions. For once, Sara was not heard from. Traudee, folks I've known who bring every subject back to themselves suffer from serious insecurity. (I believe insecurity is the basis for egocentrism too.) Do you sympathize with Sara? Does Juliet? We need to talk about Juliet's inability to connect with her mother, with her dying mother. At least Sara has Don with her at the end. Perhaps Juliet cannot relate to her mother's apparent newfound "foxhole" religion? Even in her silence, she seems to be siding with Don? Just an idea...

Juliet seemed to get to the boiling point when accused of depriving her child. What mother wouldn't? And Don, mentioning Henry Ford II on his knees in prayer each night seemed to be grasping for convincing points that just weren't forthcoming. I think we need to talk about the look on his face when he came out of that diabetic episode - he's described as "fleeing" from the house. As Gossett says, Munro doesn't include scenes unless they have some meaning to the whole. What frightens him? Does he "flee" from his failure to convince her? Will he come back to Sara?

Folks, I really hope you will all put off any and all discussion of the next story (note I didn't say "trilogy", Traudee) until next week - let's stay away evaluating that story too. We'll all do that next week AFTER we've all read it, okay?

ps. Mal, what a wonderful feeling it must be - almost as good as giving birth! Even if it is your 17th child!

bmcinnis

February 12, 2005 - 03:55 am

Just as Juliet was haunted by the early classics, I have always been a fan of Renaissance and medieval literature: this to explain why an essay entitled "Heloise & Abelard: Love Hurts" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/books/review/13NEHRING.html) caught my eye.

To my mind, Munro’s stories (episodes) are all about love. And here are two quotes the essayist above believes captures the theme of these two medieval and unrelenting lovers.

"The notion that love might comprise not only joy but pain, not only self-realization but self-abandonment,

Love stories that touch us most deeply are punctuated by human frailty."

Do these two descriptions ring a bell (or not) with Juliet and Eric?Does Juliet’s expressions of her relationship with Eric both connect and repel the notions above???

Bern

Malryn (Mal)

February 12, 2005 - 05:43 am

Okay, TRAUDE, Trio then. I said "trilogy" because in an article I read about Munro and these stories it said she wouldn't let the publisher go ahead with just one of them; that she had more to say about Juliet. She apparently knew from the start of "Chance" that there'd be more than one story, and she didn't want one published without the rest.

---

Michiko Kakutani of the Times agrees with you, BERN, that "the progress of love" and passion are important factors in Alice Munro's stories He also mentions that she says certainty is uncertain, always in flux. I agree with him.

---

I think Sara is a silly woman and childlike. Or course, she turns conversations back to herself; that's what children do. She probably could be a lot of fun, but she was a lightweight.

Yes, she's siding with Minister Don. For me one of the strongest things that stood out in this episode was the fact that Sara had a great big crush on him. She doesn't have Foxhole Faith, in my opinion, or any faith except that "Soon I'll see Juliet." Like "Soon I'll see Santa Claus."

I've already said that I think Juliet was incapable of "being there" for really needy people. As example I gave the scene with the first man on the train who wanted her as a chum. He needed something that she couldn't give. I feel the same way about Juliet and her mother. Juliet couldn't comfort either one because she had no comfort or anything else to give. I see this as a great weakness in her.

Mal

Malryn (Mal)

February 12, 2005 - 06:28 am

As a musician I've performed in many different churches from "high" religions up north to an evangelical Southern Baptist church in Florida where I played the piano at two services a week. When I read Minister Don's statement about Henry Ford II, I smiled because I was reminded of one preacher who used the faith of Louis L'Amour in all seriousness to try and convert me and thus legitimize the reason for this outsider's doing the music in his church.

We have to remember that the reader doesn't have any idea what religion Minister Don represents. To me he sounds more like a rural evangelist type who might have had two courses in theology before his "ordination" than he does an Anglican minister who has had years of study and has years of theological arguments under his belt before he's ordained.

Alice Munro says, "Both of them cast around for arguments that would be more insulting than useful." ( Page 121 ). This is what happens in this kind of no-win argument when neither person has sense enough to walk away.

I think Minister Don is "fleeing" from a very unpleasant experience. Docile little Sara, with the stars in her eyes, has an atheist daughter who plans to raise her child without religion or God.  Shocking!  He has suffered an attack and been rescued ("saved") by an infidel. Who in his shoes wouldn't want to escape that scene?

I don't think either Juliet or Don is shaky in their beliefs. I think they became emotional and lost control. I've seen it so many times, most recently in the Religion folders in SeniorNet.

Mal

bmcinnis

February 12, 2005 - 09:19 am

This term has ".Foxhole Faith" has popped up so often I decided to look for how others have defined it and then see how it matches the applications in our entries about Juliet.

Here is a web page that describes this kind of faith in the context of many other types, imaged colorfully and simply... Not theological but some good stuff.

http://www.pacifier.com/~cretah/faith.htm

Bern

Traude S

February 12, 2005 - 09:21 am

MAL, I see your point about Sara, of course. But throughout her life Sara has craved attention, quite successfully too. Elsewhere on the net I receently said that, in my experience and humble opinion, our basic nature does not change; what we are we become more so. (A person who is careful with money may turn into a miser, for examaple.)

I tend to believe that questions of faith were never on Sara's mind -- after all they had lived contentedly without church affiliation for years. Don gave her attention, which bolstered her ego. I see that as selfless human kindness on the part of a minister - "selfless" because he must have realized that Sara in her diminished condition would never become one of his flock.

But why would we, the readers, begrudge this gravely ill, spoiled, still flirtatious woman for trying to hang on to life a bit longer --in such a harmless way? And why wouldn't/couldn't Juliet, the pampered, well educated daughter, see that this was a time for kindness to ease the inevitable end ? From all appearances I think Juliet too was self-centered in the extreme.

I believe that Juliet's withholding words of consolation or an embrace under such circumstances was a cruelty. It is difficult to understand (much less to like) her, as ALF has mentioned. Don the minister is infinitely more charitable than Sara's own daughter.

It was rude, indeed tactless of Juliet to get into a heated, totally futile discussion with Don about religion. She offended the visitor and embarrassed her mother. How could she? How sad. Perhaps we'll eventually learn what Don's "animal look" may have meant.

One last thing: it seems that Sara and Sam were ashamed that their prodigal daughter of whom they were so proud had left academe, chosen to live with a man without benefit of marriage and had a child by him.

From my first reading of the story it appears that the community knew of Juliet's unmarried status - and these were the sixties, after all. Someone somewhere said something unpleasant about Juliet; her father intervened (and I don't think we are told how) and as a result he resigned from his teaching position.

Yes, Sara and Sam were open-minded to an extent, but they were ashamed -- which is why they picked Juliet and the baby up at a train stop farther away from their own community. Knowing how conservative people were, it was insensitive to proudly proclaim and flaunt what everybody already knew. A significant portion of "heart" seems to have been missing in Juliet.

DeeW

February 12, 2005 - 11:13 am

I don't think it can be said that she isn't a novelist, but that she has no need to be. Why use pages and pounds of words when you can say so much, so memorably as she does, in far fewer. As for the "animal" look on the preacher's face I repeat, it seems to me that he has feared death in the same way and animal would, that is to say, without any existance beyond that moment. A man of deeper faith would have possibly seen his closeness to the God he claims to believe in. The fact that an atheist saved him is an interesting point, but in my humble opinion, does not explain the use of the word "animal". We have already seen and acknowledged that Alice Monro does not use words carelessly.

Traude S

February 12, 2005 - 11:42 am

I did not grow up in this country and never heard the term before, but I have a good idea of what it means.

I'm mentioning this now merely because I just read Nicholas Kristof's op-ed in today's NYT, "God and Evolution". May I share the concluding sentence with you.

"A propensity to faith in some form appears to be embedded within us as a profound part of human existence, as inextricable and perhaps inexplicable as the way we love and laugh."

This brought me much comfort.

I have never thought of looking in on religious or political folders, never thought of converting anyone to my way of thinking - about anything. Faith is intensely personal to me. And I do not feel compelled to explain to the wide cyber world out there what it means (or doesn't) to me.

Faith, or the absence of it, probably colors our "take" on a given book, and that may be inevitable. But let me say with due respect that - and correct me if I'm wrong - the discussion of the book is our first priority, not what any of us individually believe, or not.

bimde

February 12, 2005 - 12:50 pm

Traude, I totally agree with what you said. The discussion of the story is our priority. Our impression of it, and not our personal beliefs. The scene with Juliet and her mother was sad. Juliet could not bring herself to say a comforting word to Sara. Her mother was reaching out to her, and Juliet turned away--still selfish. Instead, she went to the kitchen to wash, dry and put away the cups. Put them away with everything else about home, her "golden treasure"-all put away.

Jan.E.

February 12, 2005 - 01:30 pm

We've been quick to castigate Juliet for her selfishness and lack of empathy with others......but maybe I should suggest that many, many things that happened to Juliet in this story served to stomp on her self-image and seemed to be occurring in a way that undermined everything about herself that she was proud of. And, as in our lives, she needed to either not take things so personally and seriously, or else to say, "OK - but now I'm moving on". Instead, she allowed the events to influence her far too much and the "seemingly" uncaring and egotistical individual emerged.

Her homecoming in general was a "downer" in that it was certainly less welcoming than she'd envisioned. In addition, Christa criticized her choice of Chagall's picture, her parents were embarrassed to meet her at the station in their town, her friend from school that she met downtown was less than enthusiastic about her baby, her father and mother were "diminished" and less than she'd remembered (and much as we might dislike the idea, we do see ourselves mirrored in our parents), her father whom she admired had put the Chagall picture up in the attic, Irene was a real cause for jealousy as she seemed to have replaced Juliet in her parents' affections, the minister criticized her child-rearing techniques....and I'll stop there...you get the idea.

The overall tone of the story suggests that either her attitude was formed or changed by the events that unfolded when she returned home, or perhaps the events simply brought out her true nature, which we caught glimpses of in the earlier story. Maybe she had reasons to be as detached as she appears to be - reasons but not excuses.

Jan

horselover

February 12, 2005 - 01:33 pm

There is a lot in this story about the concept of "home." Juliet cannot decide, in her mind, which place she thinks of as home--her childhood home or the place where she lives with Eric and Penelope. While she is visiting Sara and Sam, she writes to Eric, "I should never have come here. I can't wait to go home."

Munro's description of Juliet's dream makes you wonder what went on beneath the surface in her childhood home. On the one hand, you could interpret it as Juliet's recognition that her father may have sexual feelings for Irene. But dreams are always full of misdirection, and it could be that Irene, in the dream, is a substitute for Juliet herself as a child. The fact that she "saw" what her father was doing even though his back was toward her may mean that something similar did happen when she was younger. Is Munro suggesting an inappropriate relationship between father and daughter? Did something happen in this conservative town, other than Juliet's becoming pregnant with Eric's child, that caused her father to quit his job? Does Juliet's atheism go deeper than simply her parents' lack of belief? You might even wonder whose child Penelope really is.

So much is moving beneath the surface of this story. Munro says that "it's what happens at home that you try to protect, as best you can, for as long as you can." Does Juliet feel guilty that she did not succeed in protecting Sara from the secret of her relationship with her father? Does she resent Sara for not having protected her as a child? Is this why Juliet turns away from Sara at the end? She needs to finally "put everything away."

Malryn (Mal)

February 12, 2005 - 03:10 pm

JAN, I accidentally clicked on your name and saw your picture. What an attractive, friendly-looking woman you are! Somehow "seeing" the people I'm talking with makes a difference.

I agree with what JAN said about Juliet. It seems to me that Juliet has been put down since her early childhood. Her parents tell her she doesn't fit in. Her peers think she's a bookish snob and ugly, not like the other girls in town. The people in the town don't understand her because she always has her head in a book and doesn't get married right out of high school. Her professors tell her she's just a girl.

She goes home to Villageville, and the treatment of her is worse. Her father appears to discard her for a coarse country-type woman who probably never opened the cover of a book. Her mother, through the minister, tells her that what she believes is wrong and bad. Everybody thinks she's living in sin and her baby represents that sin. In other words, everything about her is wrong. It is no wonder to me that she's upset, that she can't pretend to offer to her mother what she doesn't have.

HORSELOVER suggests that there might have been something incestuous in Juliet's and her father's relationship.I don't think so at all.

Juliet has always put her father on a pedestal. Isn't he the Village Intellectual, superior to everyone else? On this trip back to the Village Juliet sees her father in a very different way.

Instead of the superior, almost godlike figure of her childhood and growing up years, Sam seems ordinary. He raises vegetables. He is attracted to a woman who is very much his inferior in every possible way.

The fact that her father could be attracted to anyone, that he might possibly be a sexual being shocks Juliet.

Perhaps this didn't happen to you, but it happened to me and a lot of people I know. We were shocked at the idea that our parents could do the one thing that brought us into being. What my parents do that? NEVER!

Juliet is facing that reality for the first time with her father, and her only acknowledgment of it is a dream "suffused with horror." It can't be true, this sexuality of her father; it has to be a "dirty indulgence of her own."

Perfection gone awry. Juliet's thoughts about perfection smashed to smithereens.

Mal

Joan Pearson

February 12, 2005 - 03:35 pm

Bern, I just read "Love Hurts" - have been taken with the unfulfilled love story of Héloise and Abelard for a long time. I'm thinking of the notion that "love might comprise not only joy, but pain, not only self-realization, but self-abandonment" When I think of Clark and Carla, of Juliet and Eric, I get the feeling that the word "Lust" can easily be substituted for "Love". I'm not sure I see Abelard and Héloise's kind of love in Munro's stories. Do any of you see what you consider "Love" between any of her characters? On the other hand, the line between love and lust is so fine...and I'll agree with you - "stories that touch us most deeply are punctuated by human frailty."

Joan Pearson

February 12, 2005 - 03:38 pm

Traudee, why do you think Minister Don spent so much time with Sara then? She is not one of his flock and she isn't really interested in religion at all. Gossett, when I think of an "animal look" the image of a deer-in-the-headlights comes to mind. A frightened look. A deer caught in a place he shouldn't have been. From what you've said, I am seeing Don's visits not so much in a ministerial role, but more of a flirtation. He senses Juliet sees through his excuses for the visits.

Juliet just might be disgusted or at least disillusioned with both of her parents at this point...and in a pique, does not respond to her mother's embrace. I don't think there has been a sadder scene in any of Alice Munro's stories. It will be interesting to see if Juliet lives to regret that moment - Her mother died shortly after that visit home. Not another chance to restablish what they once had.

Joan Pearson

February 12, 2005 - 03:43 pm

Why do you think Alice Munro gave the title of "Soon" to this story? I leave with the story with the sense that "soon" will never come...for any of them. You've given us quite a choice, Jan -

"Either her attitude was formed or changed by the events that unfolded when she returned home, or perhaps the events simply brought out her true nature, which we caught glimpses of in the earlier story."

I'd say the events brought out Juliet's true nature - the letter she wrote home to "Dreaded (Dearest) Eric" indicates that her old habit of downplaying, glossing over the rough spots is in play and that she hasn't been affected by the visit or at least she doesn't realize it at the time. She's put it all behind her - Bimde, Juliet is good at putting things away, as you've pointed out. Years later when she read the letter she ""wondered at the sprightly cover-up, contrasting with the pain of her memories."

Some "shift" took place in her mind that day - "concerning where home was." Horselover, where do you think Juliet regards as home? Where do YOU think of as your home? I think of it, and I'm thinking that Juliet may be saying this too - home is somewhere that you carry with you always no matter where you go. It is those memories of home you try to hold onto as long as you can...because home is somewhere you can't ever return. It isn't there where you left it.

Horselover, those are powerful suppositions you are making about a relationship between Juliet and her father. If I were Juliet, I wouldn't be cherishing such memories. I wouldn't even go home. Mal has given the reasons I would cite that such did not happen. Does anyone else see any evidence of that? (Other than Juliet's dream?) Does Alice Munro seem to be intimating any other secrets?

I'm going to repeat an earlier question...because I really want to hear from you - you come up with such amazing insights. Why do you think Alice Munro gave the title of "Soon" to this story?

Malryn (Mal)

February 12, 2005 - 04:42 pm

The word "soon" to me is an indefinite. "I'll see you soon" means "Maybe I will, and maybe I won't." The title of this story could mean there's indeterminacy in what Munro is telling the reader.

As Michiko Katukani so astutely said, "Alice Munro shows the realization that certainty is uncertain."

When she went back to the Village, Juliet's certainty about "home" was certainly shaken.

Mal

ALF

February 12, 2005 - 05:58 pm

Joan: that's a good question. How about any minute now? Or better yet, knowing Juliet I think perhaps it could mean "in agreement with her own preference"-- i.e. she would just as SOON not be kind; nor just as soon return home again.

Traude- Oh my gosh, I never thought of that. Juliet's parents picked her up OUT OF TOWN for that very reason- they were ashamed of her.

bmcinnis- thank you for that URL on faith. I copied/pasted it for my grandson who is trying to convince me that he is an agnostic.

jayfay

February 12, 2005 - 07:26 pm

After rereading “Soon” and trying to no avail to figure out why Munro titled this story “SOON” I discovered this idiom in The Houghton Mifflin dictionary.

IDIOM: sooner or later At some time; eventually: Sooner or later you will have to face the facts.

This sentence struck me as applicable to this story. Sooner or later Juliet will have to face facts - parent’s expectations and other events that influenced her life.

Jan.E., agree with your comment: Instead of moving on she allowed the events to influence her far too much and the "seemingly" uncaring and egotistical individual emerged. Maybe she had reasons to be as detached as she appears to be - reasons but not excuses.

Will she move on? The story ends with: She had put everything away.

Malryn (Mal)

February 12, 2005 - 08:54 pm

ANDY and whoever else might be interested.: In the Story of Civilization discussion we are discussing Volume IV, Will and Ariel Durant's book, "The Age of Faith." We are currently discussing Faith in Islam. You might be surprised at what you'll find over there. I'm certain that Muslims wouldn't agree with the definitions of faith that BERN posted here.

ANDY, don't be concerned about your grandson. It's his decision to make. I have one atheist grandchild, two agnostic grandchildren, a Jewish grandson and two that are being raised Catholic. That's okay with me as long as they don't try to convince me that my faith that the sun will come up tomorrow morning is wrong.

Of course, Sara and Sam are ashamed of Juliet. She disgraced them, didn't she?

Mal

Traude S

February 12, 2005 - 08:55 pm

"...she had put everything away."

But, had she put it merely out of sight, was it still in/on her mind ? I wonder.

JOAN, "soon" is vague, indeterminate, "no strings attached"; the hint of a promise that leaves room for hope without certainty of its fulfillment.

DeeW

February 12, 2005 - 09:17 pm

Traude, you said it best I think. It's a vague word, leaving room for hope without promise of fullfillment. But it's a comforting word and that's what Sara used it for...to comfort herself that soon Juliet would come and somehow it would be allright. Juliet comforts herself with the thought that soon she'll be back with Eric and all will be well. But will it? We will soon see!

Scamper

February 12, 2005 - 10:27 pm

Rev. Don's animal look: going into diabetic shock is a unique and very disturbing experience. You find out quickly that you are not in control of yourself, you're not able to reason or help yourself. So here Rev. Don was being quite dominant and sure of himself and his beliefs, and now he is reduced to lesser instincts than an animal. He is humiliated, and more important, he is shaken to the core.

Scamper

February 12, 2005 - 10:31 pm

I can't seem to get over Juliet's turning away from Sara. What would it have cost her? She is either a very cold person or a very insecure person - or both. When your mother tells you when all looks the darkest that she cheers herself by saying that soon she'll see you, what kind of a person can't respond to that?

The only thing I can relate to this, being estranged from my own mother, is a fear of being hurt. I can't see my mother because I can't take her deliberate hurting of me any more. But would I see her in a death bed scene if I knew she couldn't hurt me? Probably. And there is no evidence that Sara has inflicted this kind of hurt on Juliet. I just can't figure it. Is Juliet evil?

Malryn (Mal)

February 12, 2005 - 11:12 pm

I've been trying to figure out why Juliet's not going to her mother doesn't bother me in the way it does the rest of you. Because I relate this so much with the way Juliet acted with the man on the train, I've concluded that it was absolutely consistent with her past behavior.

But, you might say, the man on the train was a stranger; she didn't care anything about him. How could she do this to the mother she loved?

My response would be, "Did Juliet love her mother? Was she capable of loving anyone except perhaps her father at one time and her baby? She can't love her father any more. And how much does she love her baby?

Are there people who are incapable of loving anyone? If there are, why?

Mal

Joan Pearson

February 13, 2005 - 06:56 am

Scamper - sort of like a wild animal - I'm thinking of a bird (not a baby) I once nursed back. So wild and frightened he was. I fed him and kept him still and watched him get his wings back. He fled from me as soon as he could. But when I saw him fly away, I wondered how he would do back with the flock? Had the time he spent with me had an impact on him? Would he be able to resume his old activities and relationships? Will Minister Don change? Will Juliet take to heart what he has said to her? Traudee asks "had she put it merely out of sight, was it still in/on her mind ? "

Joan Pearson

February 13, 2005 - 07:04 am

I hope you are all enjoying a good sunny Sunday morning wherever you are!

Thank you all for your comments on "Soon" - they have certainly added depth to our understanding of Juliet. We still have today for more thoughts on this. Hope to hear from all of you. Every nuance helps.

From you, on "SOON" -

Mal - The word "soon" to me is an indefinite. "I'll see you soon" means "Maybe I will, and maybe I won't."

Andy, - "How about any minute now? Or better yet, knowing Juliet I think perhaps it could mean "in agreement with her own preference"

Jayfay - The Houghton Mifflin dictionary definition: "IDIOM: sooner or later At some time; eventually: Sooner or later you will have to face the facts."

Traude - "soon" is vague, indeterminate, "no strings attached"; the hint of a promise that leaves room for hope without certainty of its fulfillment.

Gossett - " "But it's a comforting word and that's what Sara used it for...to comfort herself that soon Juliet would come and somehow it would be allright."

Jayfay, the example of the word soon from Houghton Mifflin - "sooner or later you will have to face the facts." was so revelant to this story As you say, '" Juliet's parents' expectations and other events influenced her life so the "seemingly" uncaring and egotistical individual emerged. Maybe she had reasons to be as detached as she appears to be - reasons but not excuses."

To me, Juliet is not "evil" - I'm not sure if she's capable of love, Mal. If you were to ask her, she might say..."Ask me later" or, "I'll get back to you 'soon' on that." - I think "soon" means "later" to Juliet...and really don't think it means "maybe not", Mal.

I'm wondering if "soon" doesn't really mean that Juliet puts things out of her mind because she can't deal with them at the moment. But she does intend to address the situation - "soon". Good intentions, I can relate to that.

An afterthought - Do you see irony in Sara finding faith, hope or comfort in the idea that Juliet will arrive "soon"? Did she find any of those when she did come home? Was it worth the wait? I wonder what got her through her last days after Juliet returned home. Did the promise of "soon" ever come for Sara?

Traude S

February 13, 2005 - 07:58 am

JOAN, we had two unexpected snow showers early this morning and are waiting for the "abundant sunshine" that was promised.

---

Another thought came to me about the "animal look" (the look of a wounded animal?) when I read PAMELA's post.

The minister was aware of his condition, doubtless had similar crises before, knew that time was of the essence. Humiliated by his helplessness (and loss of control) and horrified that his rescuer was a heathen, the uncivil woman who had pulled him into a protracted argument, he fled the house as if pursued by the Erinyes.

I went back to the first Juliet story. Isn't it ironic to find (pg. 53) that the anonymous professors' initial reservations (about hiring a girl who might get married and waste all her hard work and theirs) had been justified?

Malryn (Mal)

February 13, 2005 - 10:00 am

Neither the minister nor Juliet will change because of the argument incident. If they think of it, all it will do is make them angry. Why should either of them change? Each is convinced that he or she is right.

Juliet should change because of her baby? I don't see why. When Penelope is old enough, she'll make up her own mind like, for example, one of the two daughters of atheist-agnostic friends of mine. After the girl grew up, she became a Born Again Christian. I had moved out of their area and was surprised when I heard this on the phone from her mother, who said it was fine.

The only talk about God and religion Penelope will hear will be from her parents' point-of-view. She'll be exposed to other points-of-view in school, presumably consider them and make a choice just as my friends' daughter did.

TRAUDE, I'm sure those professors were basing their reservations, as you call them, on experience. They had seen what happened to Juliet before.

Mal

Traude S

February 13, 2005 - 12:01 pm

MAL - exactly. THAT was my point, quod erat demonstrandum ! Juliet left the field apparently without hesitation or compunction, proving the professors correct. That is the irony.

True, the characters in "Soon" live in he sixties and seventies; the era of "Father Knows Best" et al. Mothers stayed at home. Remember Ann Tyler's "The Amateur Marriage"?

The question is, has that perception/expectation fundamentally changed in all this time? What about the ill-advised recent comments by Harvard U. President Summers about women and science? Do educators still believe (in their hearts) that women ARE unable to grasp, and should (therefore) be dissuaded from any involvement in all but the basics of science and math?

Sorry JOAN and ALF, I am not trying to digress. But I did want to point out that Juliet herself, by her willing abandonment of all she had worked for, proved her skeptical academic mentors right. At least in "Soon" there is no sign of regret.

Scrawler

February 13, 2005 - 12:17 pm

Congratulations, Mal! Yes, it feels great and it is almost like delivering a child until you look at your dinningroom table piled high with unread research books that you need to read for your next project. Not to mention the already bursting binders that you tend to trip over. {Sigh!} Nothing else gives me pleasure like researching and writing though! Keep writing!I look forward to reading your book - let me know where I can get it.

Home: "Light from the last street light in town now fell across Juliet's bed. The big soft maple tree had been cut down, replaced by a patch of Sam's rhubarb. Last night she had left the curtains closed to shade the bed, but tonight she felt that she needed the outside air. So she had to switch the pillow down to the foot of the bed, along with Penelope, who had slept like an angel with the full light in her face.

She wished she had drunk a little of the whisky. She lay stiff with frustration and anger, composing in her head a letter to Eric. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M DOING HERE, I SHOULD NEVER HAVE COME HERE, I CAN'T WAIT TO GO HOME.

Home.

I think this paragraph says it all. Juliet is bathed in artificial light from the street light. She now sees her life differently from the way she did when she had the "curtains closed." It is interesting that Penelope is not affected by this artificial light the same way Juliet is. (Another foreshadowing.) The fact that "the big soft maple tree" from her childhood has been cut down and replaced by Sam's vegetable garden tells her that she really doesn't belong here. She feels trapped and can't breathe and literally has to have the "outside air" so she physically "changes" - switching the pillow down to the foot of the bed. Why the foot? Does it represent her life with Eric? Yet, whatever that life is - it is what Juliet calls "home"!

There are various definitions of "home". A home is the place where a person lives; one's dwelling place. The place where one was born or reared. A place where one likes to be; restful or congenial place. And according to Webster it also means - a grave!

Malryn (Mal)

February 13, 2005 - 02:42 pm

SCRAWLER, I loved your Post #235. The description from the book is perfect.

I am sending you a postcard about my book. Can't sell anything but opinions and ideas on SeniorNet.

TRAUDE, I've been thinking about that Anne Tyler book, since I see some similarities with this and the next story. Thanks for mentioning it. Now I won't have to go and look up the name.

Mal

horselover

February 13, 2005 - 03:07 pm

I think we neglected to mention that "Soon" can also refer to the fact that soon Juliet's mother will die, and that part of her life will truly be ended, but not over. As many people have said, when a loved one dies, their life ends but the issues between her and you continue.

These stories are extremely sad, and will become even sadder in the final story. What can make the relationship between a mother and child so bad? Juliet and Sara were once so close and did so much together, and then suddenly they became estranged. And of course, we are going to see this cycle repeated in the next generation. But more about that tomorrow.

Scamper

February 13, 2005 - 09:44 pm

Well, Mal can't sell her book. But I can tell you if you go to books on Amazon and type in Marilyn Freeman you will find her new book!

Scamper

February 13, 2005 - 09:51 pm

When I left home for a move across the country for the first time, I cried when I left my parents' driveway. I was 23, they were in their 40s. There had been problems at home, but I still thought of being home as sort of like Christmas. I wasn't sure about Santa Claus. How sad when I moved back home later. They were older and less inclined the hide their true feelings. There was no Santa Claus, and there was no home. (Fortunately I had a new home with a very loving husband, but it still hurt.) In their later years I dreaded going to their home, a place of recriminations, of remenberance of things past. When the house was sold, I was not a party, but I went back for one last look. I felt nothing, nothing at all - which has to be the saddest thing of all.

Maybe, just maybe, Juliet felt some of this. Her parents were flawed, and perhaps was she. Things were not as they had seemed. There was no home for Juliet, and time was running out for her parents. I couldn't have turned away like she did from her mother, but perhaps this emptiness she felt explains some of it.

Soon - that has haunted me since we've been discussing this. Soon you will die. Soon is an empty promise. Soon you better be all you can be because time is running out. We had better make our soon NOW.

horselover

February 14, 2005 - 01:03 am

The third part of this trilogy is the saddest of all, and full of the most heartbreaking truths. Munro's insights are so marvelous here, especially in the way she describes the stages of grief that Juliet goes through after Eric's death. It is so accurate, it made me cry. First the shock, the numbness, the just getting through the days. Then thinking about him as if he was not dead--talking to him in her mind about the things that happen to her "as if he was still the person to whom her existence mattered more than it could to anyone else." This is exactly how I think of my husband.

One day, she finally accepts that he is dead. And her memory of him in "the daily and ordinary world was in retreat." Eric begins to fade from her life, and the full force of her grief hits her. With this comes depression. "She can barely move." All the little things she has to do every day become insurmountable "like climbing a cliff." She tries to hide it from Penelope, but her body betrays her one day and she begins to shake uncontrollably. Penelope is there and offers her understanding in a few words that Juliet later remembers as "the most utterly absolving, themost tender words, that anybody had ever said to her."

The most terrible part of this is that this relationship deteriorates until mother and daughter become completely estranged, and although Juliet goes on with her life and even becomes a minor celebrity for a while, she ends up retreating into solitude and a desperate loneliness in which she keeps on hoping to hear from Penelope though she knows this hope is probably in vain.

There is some really powerful writing in this story, and it is sprinkled throughout with truths that take you by surprise and reverberate in your mind.

Joan Pearson

February 14, 2005 - 04:59 am

A Valentine, a message of love and appreciation to each of you! You give of your hearts and minds and precious time. Let's celebrate the day together!

This morning we begin the third story of Juliet. On the opening pages of "Silence" we find her a contemporary woman now - a TV personality, no less - one who doesn't seem to mind people stopping her on the street and bothering her "all the time." I've got to ask, right out of the gate, do you find Juliet's metamorphoses into completely different personalities entirely believable?

I fully realize that we all change over time. At a high school reunion several years ago, my former classmates and I realized after an hour or two of chat, that we were the same people as we were way back then, only more so. Is Juliet the same girl we met on the train back in Chance? Has her life experience changed her so much or do you recognize the young Juliet beneath it all - only "more so"? Traudee has noted that she had willingly abandoned all she had worked for in pursuing the classics...

Joan Pearson

February 14, 2005 - 05:39 am

Horselover! I see you beat me in here this morning! Quite the early, early, early bird! You posted twice yesterday about the mother/daugher relationships...

"Juliet and Sara were once so close and did so much together, and then suddenly they became estranged."

"The most terrible part of this is that this relationship deteriorates until mother (Juliet) and daughter (Penelope) become completely estranged" -

Alice Munro does not dwell on the reasons for both sets of estrangements - in fact, both mothers, Sara and Juliet appear to be unaware of the reasons they have lost their daughters. Yet both hold on to the hope that they will be reunited "soon."

Pamela, sobering thoughts - "Soon is an empty promise. Soon you better be all you can be because time is running out. We had better make our soon NOW." Though Alice Munro hasn't come out and said so, perhaps both Sara and Juliet did not do enough, did not put in enough of themselves into their relationships with their daughters...did not make their "soon" NOW? And Scrawler, Somehow I see a connection between the three definitions of "home" you have provided - present abode, place one was reared and grave - a connection with Pamela's admonition on making "soon" into "now". Time is running out...

Mal, you may be right - Juliet might not change because of the argument incident, but remember when she read that letter she had written to Eric (in which she dismissed the chat with Don about the "big stupid row about the existence of God") "she thought that some shift must have taken place, at that time..." Do you remember what he said to her? "But to reject it (God's grace) for your child, it's like denying her nourishment"Does Juliet hear that sentiment echoing in Mother Shipton's words? - "She has come to us in great hunger."

Malryn (Mal)

February 14, 2005 - 07:04 am

I have two words for parts of this story (chapter). One is surreal, and the other is weird. When I read about Eric's funeral and the funeral pyre, I felt as if I were watching an hallucination. . . . or a big production scene in an opera.

There's never just one reason for kids' turning away from their parents. Munro's writing is such that we are not permitted to see them all. Holes. There are so many holes here that the reader feels taxed when he or she tries to fill them all.

---

TRAUDE mentioned Anne Tyler's book, Amateur Marriage, written in the same time frame. The girl in it leaves home just as Penelope did. The parents try to locate her. When they discover that she's part of a cult, they go there only to find that she's disappeared again, just as Panelope did. There is in that book a reunion of sorts years later, but neither the parents nor the daughter recognize each other. They simply are not the same people each one had in his or her minds. Do we ever really know people? Or are they creations of our minds? People offer different facets of themselves to different people. Seldom do they offer the whole.

Juliet stops just this side of action. Inertia is what I see. When she comes to the line that says:

A. You do something; you move.

And B. You don't do anything. You don't cross the line,

Juliet always chooses B.

That's why it's hard for me to believe that Juliet would become a smalltime TV celebrity. That's why I'm not surprised that she doesn't go to her mother, and she doesn't try to find her daughter.

Juliet's so cotton-pickin' childish sometimes that it exasperates me. Why does she choose to disrupt her marriage and her family by getting her knickers in a twist about something that happened years earlier between Eric and Christa? All I can think is that she's bored and wants out, so grabs at the first excuse she can find. I don't trust her grief after his death. I mean, she was ready to kick him out. Who's she grieving for anyway? I think she's grieving for herself. "What's going to happen to poor little me now?"

Now, I've liked Juliet in this 3 part story, as screwed up as she might be, but what Alice Munro does with her in "Silence" is hard for me to accept.

Silence. Is Juliet's Silence in action and words perhaps responsible for many of the things that happen to her?

Mal

Malryn (Mal)

February 14, 2005 - 08:14 am

I don't think the argument between Don the Minister and Juliet had anything to do with anything. I think it's a device Alice Munro used to show the differences between what had been traditional for a long time and what is new. The same conflicts between tradition and change took place long, long before in history.

As readers, our attitudes toward this argument between Juliet and Don are dependent on whether we have maintained the old traditions, or whether we have examined and perhaps adopted part or all of what is new.

Alice Munro doesn't just write about people, she writes about the time in which they live and how it affects them. This three part story begins in 1965. The 60's and 70's were volatile times. The conflict between old and new was very obvious and real.

Juliet emancipates herself from her parents and the Village by doing something that is totally unacceptable to the traditionalists in her old hometown, including her "liberal" parents. Despite their protestations, I think Sara and Sam were very much concerned about what people think -- "You have to fit in," her father said. She drops the pose of intellectual that she's carried all of her life up until now and goes off to live an unmarried life ( in sin! ) with a fisherman, the father of her child.

Penelope is growing up in the New Age of purple toenails and fake tattoos on midriffs. This New Age alternative culture is full of enticements and seductions for young people, including drugs. Cults spring up with promises that if one joins them he or she will rid themselves of the stifling and antiquated ways of their parents and society. Live your life spiritually and organically. Grow what you eat. Down with pesticides and modern technology. Things will be 100% better if you simplify, just as Henry David Thoreau preached. Jesus Christ Superstar.

I believe it is this idealistic dream of life with no problems that has seduced Penelope away from her mother. I believe her departure and the estragement with Juliet have little to do with anything Juliet did personally.

What Mother Shipton and all the other leaders of these alternative groups do not tell the young people that join them is that it just doesn't work, and that most of them, (like Penelope) will go back to the detested "System" and society's status quo, get married and have children and face the same problems about feeding and clothing them and keeping a roof over their heads that their parents did.

Mal

ALF

February 14, 2005 - 08:21 am

Well, I've never liked Juliet, Mal. I may have had compassion for her cool disregard for everyone else, but this story takes the cake!
First off- Inertia is the key word here as many of the reviews have mentioned. Terminal inertia is what Juliet projects, IMO. She is detached, a regular wilted lily. What strange family dynamics are presented throughout this entire stroy. Juliet is faced with a major crisis here- her child has disappeared and she has chosen not to pursue this fact. We could take a week just hashing around that one thought. The question that keeps puzzeling me is: why in the world would she not have jumped up and down, called the police, demanded to see her child and raised hell until she had some answers to Penelope's vanishing act? She is a mother! Hello-Juliet this is your child. Why did she not wonder, was she abducted and held against her will? Did she succumb to a religious cult like the "moonies"? Is she sipping tainted Kool-aid with the equivalent of the Jim Jones followers? Where is she? Is she dead? I'd be running and screaming like a Banshee Indian in pursuit of an answer.. Is this the question that Munro wants us to ask one another?

Deems

February 14, 2005 - 08:36 am

(Andy--Not fair for me to comment since I haven't read the story, but I have to say that I completely agree with you. Just reading what others have posted, I get enough of the outline to understand that Juliet's daughter disappears and that Juliet doesn't act. The only point I want to make is that in mother-child, father-child relationships where there is estrangement that results from something the parent has done, I think it is always the parent's job to do something about it, to reach out, to make amends. The parent is the "adult" in the relationship even if the child is also an adult. )

Maryal

Malryn (Mal)

February 14, 2005 - 08:56 am

The trouble with that, MARYAL, is that Alice Munro doesn't give a clue about what Juliet has done. It's true that she didn't tell Penelope immediately about her father's gruesome death and whacky funeral. What we don't know is whether Juliet also objected to Penelope's wearing midriff tops that exposed her belly button and an open coat in the middle of winter; whether Juliet objected to some of Penelope's friends, or even whether Juliet leaned too hard on her daughter, that is, played child and expected Penelope to play mother.

We don't know any of these things. The character of Penelope is talked about, but never introduced. We can only speculate. Since I've seen it and experienced it, my speculation is that Juliet didn't do anything very serious; and that the influences of the age in which Penelope was growing up had a major effect on this break between her and her mother. She probably was aware of her mother's inabiity to act. There was no dominant father figure to stop her, so the kid just went ahead and did whatever she wanted to.

Anne Tyler spells it out in Amateur Marriage. As far as I could see those parents didn't do anything "bad", either.

Mal

ALF

February 14, 2005 - 09:29 am

I don't think that I'm being unreasonable but Juliet did do something wrong and I, too, would probably have retreated (like Penelope.)

Firstly, why in the world would she have allowed Penelope, barely thirteen years old to go on a camping trip to the mountains in B.C. with a friend that she had never even met? It was alright with Juliet because:

"Penelope had been at Torrance House for only one year (accepted on favorable financial terms because of her mother's once having taught there), and it pleased Juliet that she had already made so firm a friend and been accepted readily by the friend's family."

WHY was this kid sent away to boarding school anyway if she was such a beloved daughter?
I'm sorry, that's right, she was sent away so that Juliet (it's always about Juliet) could resolve some unresolved issues with Eric. OK, good you wish to have some "fighting" time but you would allow your child, at thirteen to go away with strangers just for your convenience? NOT! Next is the issue that when Eric's body is found located on the third day after a shipwreck she never, never attempted to reach this man's child. How far into the mountains could this family have treked that someone could not have located them? She didn't even try. She allowed the immoral, illegal cremation of Eric's body on the beach. She agreed to his body being thrown onto a pyre and engulfed in flames for the entire neighborhood to witness but she didn't see fit to include her own child in this weird burial rite. What's wrong with this picture? Is that significant that Eric's body rose from the sea on the third day? (I missed that on my first reading.) There are plenty of other reasons, no doubt, but the fact that she did not contact Penelope is wrong. I would never have forgiven my mother for that.

Malryn (Mal)

February 14, 2005 - 09:57 am

Penelope had been at Torrance House for a year before Juliet allowed her to go on the camping trip so she could have it out with Eric.

"Eric's body was recovered on the third day. Something had got at him, it was said (meaning some animal), after the body was washed ashore." Munro doesn't tell us when the body came ashore.

Juliet didn't tell Penelope about her father for the same reason she didn't go to her dying mother and rejected the first man on the train. If we could figure that one out, we'd be able to have a real insight into this woman. I'm not sure we can.

Mal

Traude S

February 14, 2005 - 10:36 am

ALF, I agree. Detachment. Selfishness. Why indeed is the girl sent to boarding school? We learn that father and daughter had a good relationship, went fishing together, Penelope carrying some equipment, expressed a wish to become a fisher(woman) herself. Eric did not discourage her, we learn, but voiced reservations to Juliet.

Then the fighting over Eric's past "transgressions" that had occurred while Juliet was at her parents' home, utterly miserable. But why harp on this to such an extent after all that time? Was it really worth not having the child come home right after the completion of the term?

The burning of Eric's body on the beach is macabre, surrealistic, an anachronism reminiscent of a pagan rite, with whole families attending a kind of picnic --- until somebody had the good sense to take the children away. And there Juliet sat, emotionally removed.

Did she do any grieving ? If so, we aren't told. The belated realization comes months later as a deep shock. And that is when she blurts out all the details to a 14-year old, just to unburden herself, without ever considering the emotional impact on the daughter.

When the card arrives, unsigned and without clue a year later, she could have gone to the Post Office to make inquiries, but she did not - for fear someone would recognize her. Again, selfishness.

JOAN, I don't believe Juliet # 3 can stand on its own. Even taken in conjunction with the two previous parts it raises more questions than it answers. Nor are there satisfying answers, in my opinion.

More later this afternoon after PT.

Scrawler

February 14, 2005 - 11:44 am

I'd like to talk about Eric's letter that Juliet wrote at the end of "Soon" because I think it foreshadows "Silence":

DREADED (Dearest) Eric:

"Where to begin? I am FINE and Penelope is fine. CONSIDERING. She walks confidently now around Sara's bed but IS STILL LEERY OF STRIKING OUT WITH NO SUPPORT. The summer heat is amazing, compared with the west coast. Even when it rains. It's a good thing it does rain because Sam is going full-tilt at the market garden business. The other day I rode around with him in the ancient vehicle delivering fresh raspberries and raspberry jam (made by a sort of junior ILSE KOCH person who inhabits our kitchen) and newly dug first potatoes of the season. He is quite gungho. Sara stays in bed and dozes or looks at outdated fashion magazines. A minister came to visit her and he and I got into a big STUPID row about the existence of God or some such HOT TOPIC. The visit is going OKAY though...

This was a letter that Juliet found years later. Eric must have saved it by ACCIDENT - it had no particular importance in their lives."

First off what does "dreaded" mean? Was it an unusual endearment between Eric and Juliet?

She says she "fine" "considering". Considering what? Her mother is dying, her father has a new business which he seems to like and than there is "a junior Ilse Koch person" who inhabits the kitchen. Does anyone know what "Ilse Koch" mean? None of these things should have bothered Juliet except of course her mother's illness. She did turn from her mother, but there are alot of people that can't handle "death or dying" very well.

"A minister came to visit her and he and I got into a big "stupid" row about the existence of God or some such "hot topic." Did Juliet realize that it was "stupid" for her to have a fight with the minister or was it the "hot topic" of the existence of God? As Mal, has pointed out this indeed can be a "hot topic" but it is far from "Stupid" to discuss it. So it must have been the way it was discussed that was considered "stupid."

"She walks confidently now around Sara's bed but is still leery of striking out with no support." I realize that it refers to Penelope "beginning to walk," but could it also refer to Penelope striking out on her own when she goes camping in "Silence." Was it than that Penelope felt she had to strike out with no support? Why? Was her relationship with her own mother mirroring Juliet's relationship with Sara?

When is it we look in the mirror and realize that we are our "mother"? I swore I'd never do the things my mother did to me to my own daughter, but guess what. That's exactly what I did, only thankfully we both realized it and talked about it. Communication is very much apart of a relationship. I don't think there is much communication between any of these characters.

What makes Juliet think that Eric saved the "letter" by "accident"? It reminds me of the letter my mother showed me that my father saved when he was overseas telling him that he had a "daughter" - ME! Of all the letters he got he saved this one. It means alot to me.

Malryn (Mal)

February 14, 2005 - 02:48 pm

SCRAWLER, click here to read about Ilse Koch in my Post #192.

Mal

bmcinnis

February 14, 2005 - 03:37 pm

I’m noticing the number of times Juliet utters expressions of regret, the latest one being “She had been lacking in motherly inhibitions…....” One of the definitions of regret is experiencing distress over desires that are unfulfilled. Isn’t that Juliet’s story? One regret after another, one unfulfilled desire after another. She seems to have literally spent her life looking back over these kinds of events with not a wit of acknowledgement, of joy or of appreciation, or gratitude—like the “hope’” defined in the last words of her story. What a way to spend a life!!

Bern

jayfay

February 14, 2005 - 05:08 pm

Mal - Re: your post 243 - They simply are not the same people each one had in his or her minds. Do we ever really know people? Or are they creations of our minds? People offer different facets of themselves to different people. Seldom do they offer the whole. How true that is.

This quote from “Gilead” comes to mind: "You can know a thing to death and be for all purposes completely ignorant of it." "A man can know his father, or his son, and there might still be nothing between them but loyalty and love and mutual incomprehension" (MUTUAL INCOMPREHENSION). Juliet was definitely not the norm. She lacked loyalty and had little if any love.

Scrawler – I, too would like to know what Juliet meant by “DREADED (Dearest) Eric in the letter ACCIDENTLY found.

DeeW

February 14, 2005 - 07:18 pm

I've been wondering a lot about Juliet's intrigue with the Greek culture, especially their love of the irrational. She seems not to have been aware that her own actions are irrational as well. It doesn't make sense to think that she could study the classics so intensely then return to her home town and fit in, as her parents advised her to do. No one values the life she has been living, not even her father who, being a teacher himself, you would expect to be more appreciative. Juliet lets Fate decide her life more or less like the women in Greek myths. She exerts very little control over her life, or at least gives her decisions little thought. When she bears a child, she insists on calling her Penelope, not shortened to Penny, but Penelope. This is the name of the faithful wife of Odysseus, but this Penelope does not remain faithful to her mother and father. It is evident that she has already begun to distance herself from them by age fourteen when she chooses to go on a camping trip with a strange family, rather than return to her own. Not without reason, however, as she has been sent away to boarding school and may feel that she is the one who has been abandoned.

Strangely tho when her father dies, instead of grief and anguish at the loss, she is overheard telling a friend that she barely knew him. How odd, since she had been a close fishing companion of her father and even considered following him into the fishing business. I see her becoming more like her mother, with impulsive decisions that will affect both their lives. When she joined the religious cult, there had never been any sign to her mother that she felt a need for a spiritual life. Then, after inviting her mother to visit, she suddenly leaves without explanation. So what goes around comes around to Juliet and she is alone at the end. All her life she has been isolating herself from others without seeming to realize it. Just as she turned coldly from her own mother, now her own daughter has done the same to her. The worst of it is that she can only guess at the reasons why,but doesn't really know...and probably never will.

Scamper

February 14, 2005 - 08:03 pm

Perhaps we should be careful in judging whether or not certain acts of Juliet were acceptable. While I don't come from a family that would send children away to school, many families do, for example. However, it would NOT be strange for a child of mine to go on a camping trip at age 13 with another family - though I would want to know the family.

I got a little different take on Juliet and Penelope, and I'm wondering if I read it wrong. I had the feeling they were a team, enclosed in their own world, and that Penelope was Juliet's main reason for living. Then of course Penelope broke out, and I never understood why. And as others have mentioned, I couldn't understand why Juliet didn't raise heaven and earth to find her and why Penelope - who after all turned out traditional with a husband and children - never wanted to contact her mother again. It just seemed weird and inexplicable to me.

Joan Pearson

February 14, 2005 - 08:28 pm

Oh my, it's a good thing we have four more days to spend on this story! There are so many things to talk about and you seem to be reacting more strongly to this story than to the other two. I'm going to attempt to organize your comments into topics, because I think they deserve our attention and further comment. The most passionate response seems to be to Juliet's "inertia". It seems to be a cumulative eruption - based on past behavior as well.

One question I've been asking myself as we talk about "Silence" - can this story stand alone as a short story, without any knowledge of the first? Traudee thinks not. What do the rest of you think? In a New Yorker Interview with Alice Munro the author speaks specifically of "Soon" and "Silence" - also mentions the girl in "Chance". You might find it interesting. I hope you can hear it - she speaks quite softly.

Another thing you might note in the interview...the character of Juliet is largely autobiographical in that Alice Munro was considered "a little bit freakish" growing up too. She seems to be more sympathetic towards our Juliet than you are. Scamper, I see your post just now. You are showing the girl some mercy.

In the interview Alice Munro says you don't get through life without making mistakes - quite costly mistakes. You look back and say, why did I do that? But given the circumstances at the time, you realize that you couldn't have done things any differently...

bimde

February 14, 2005 - 08:39 pm

Alf, I think we all agree that Juliet is a very selfish woman. Not interested in anything but what she wants. She has been a person who feels superior to almost anyone else that she meets. Her own child, she lets go to, as far as she knows, an unknown fate. Does she make every effort to find Penelope? Not a chance. She's Juliet. As to the funeral, if you will go back and read page 141, you will find that Ailo had gotten permission for this ceremony. It was legal. Immoral? That's a question for each one to decide forhim/herself. Again, though, Juliet could not face doing this herself. She deferedto Ailo. Grief? she showed none. Was she capable of real love, or grief for love lost? She is a shallow woman, who ends up all alone. As someone said earlier, "What goes around, comes around".She turned away from her mother at a time when her mother was reaching out. Now, Penelope is returning the favor.

Joan Pearson

February 14, 2005 - 09:24 pm

Bimde gets us started with the list of adjectives to explain Juliet's actions - some of these were cited also by Traude and Andy - selfish, superior, not interested in anything but what she wants. Do we really all agree, Bimde?

Scrawler mentions the lack of communication in Juliet's family. Mal wonders if it isn't her "silence" that is responsible for many of her actions. Traude mentions "detachment". Jayfay, "mutual incomprehension" a term from Gilead. Gossett sees a girl immersed in Greek mythology who "lets Fate decide her life." Do we all see a kind of "inertia" that prevents her from responding in a way we consider appropriate?

Bern, I'm wondering why one of these stories isn't titled, "Regrets" - "One of the definitions of regret is experiencing distress over desires that are unfulfilled." Juliet seems to spend her life looking backwards and second guessing her actions. Isn't she like Alice Munro in the New Yorker interview who looks back and asks "why did I do that?" But then concludes that given the circumstances at the time, there wasn't much else she could have done.

Scrawler the letter Juliet wrote to "Dear (Dreaded) Eric"* after the visit home...a visit Juliet described as "PAINFUL"...had an impact on Juliet when she read it years later...WITH REGRETS:

She had not protected Sara, she had found no reply. Why so difficutl. To Sara it would have meant so much - but she had put everything away."

Am thinking hard on "Dear (Dreaded) Eric" - any ideas? There's a prize, (a dreadful prize) for the best explanation of Juliet's salutation to Eric...

Malryn (Mal)

February 14, 2005 - 09:36 pm

"The next escape was to the University of Western Ontario; there, wishing to disguise her intent to write fic tion, she enrolled in journalism (rather blowing her cover by publishing her first short story, 'Dimensions of a Shadow', in the university magazine). A scholarship student, she eked out the money as best she could, selling her blood, picking suckers from tobacco, working as a librarian, but after two years there was no more and she was faced with a stark choice: marry - the candidate was a fellow student - or do the expected: go home and care for her mother. Self-preservation prevailed, but at the price of an abiding guilt.

" 'My mother's life was very sad, and if I had been a different person I could have made it quite a bit better. I mean, I have to realise that always. If I had been a different kind of woman, with more immediate warmth, instead of this inner fire, I could have been very helpful to her - not in physical terms, but in day to day communication, instead of leaving her all alone.' "

Source:

Riches of a Double life

Malryn (Mal)

February 14, 2005 - 09:45 pm

"She is the gold standard by which everything else is measured, to whom everyone else is compared. And I can understand why. I do not disagree. It's just that it makes her into an icon and I don't suppose anyone wants their mother, or their father for that matter, to become an icon. What is there to do with an icon besides worshipping it, or ignoring it, or smashing it to pieces?"

Source:

LIVES OF MOTHERS AND DAUGHTERS. Growing up with Alice Munro

Malryn (Mal)

February 14, 2005 - 09:52 pm

"Should I have talked to her about a noble life? Sacrifice? Opening your life to the needs of strangers? I never thought of it. I must have acted as if it would have been good enough if she turned out like me. Would that sicken her?"

Joan Pearson

February 14, 2005 - 10:02 pm

Andy, before we get into Juliet's failings as a mother, maybe we need to clear the matter of Penelope's decision to join the Spiritual Balance Centre. You seem to think that Juliet should have done more to make her come home. What exactly? Use her contacts from her television program? Hire some of those deprogrammers that you read about? Do you really think the police would have given priority to search for a girl several months short of twenty- one who was in no apparent danger? I think the age of majority is eighteen...

Scrambler, I will agree with you - "it would NOT be strange for a child of mine to go on a camping trip at age 13 with another family." True, Juliet didn't know the family, but boarding school is a bit different. These kids knew one another for a year, and there may have been letters or phone calls exchanged. Just because the families hadn't met in person doesn't mean too terribly much. In my opinion.

Of course we know what happened - Eric wanted her to come home, Juliet wanted time to have it out with him about Christa...Penelope went on the camping trip and her father drowned. She never saw him again. How devastating for her. Then her mother confides in her - breaks down and tells her everything.Not a good idea. How can a kid handle this? I guess she didn't.

Mal, I agree - Juliet must have been aware of her mother's inability to act. Or her decision NOT to act, not to interfere with anything she wanted to do. Does Juliet want Penelope to experiment, to know herself in a way that Juliet never did?

Why was Penelope in boarding school in the first place? To get a better education? I don't think so. Gossett, I think you got it - the father and daughter had a good relationship, Penelope even wanted to be a fisherman when she grew up. Doesn't this sound familiar? Look what happened to the relationship with Sara when Juliet abruptly turned exclusively to her father - at this same age. Don't you get the feeling that to avoid this from happening again, Juliet consciously or unconsciously made sure that Penelope "barely knew him?"

Pamela, I bet Juliet thought she and Penelope grew up close too...but apparently not. ABRUPTLY Penelope had enough and left. We don't know the reason, any more than we know why Juliet turned abruptly from Sara to her father. I'll bet if we could ask Juliet why she did that, she'd give the answer to the first question of why Penelope left.

I'd like to hear more from you about what you thought of the characterization of Joan Shipton..."Pope Joan". Please someone, tell me about Pope Joan?

I'd also like to hear more of your thoughts on the Funeral Pyre on the beach. Alice Munro spent quite a bit of her short story on this. It must have been important. I thought it strange that Juliet repeated that his fisherman friends were going to "burn Eric" on the beach. Not "burn Eric's body" - but "burn Eric"...

Good night, Irene...

ps, Mal, I just now see your post. Goodness, there goes Juliet again, looking backwards to how things must have seemed. More regrets...

Malryn (Mal)

February 14, 2005 - 11:14 pm

I'm not sure Juliet's asking Larry those questions above show regret. I think they are self-probing. I think it's very telling when she says, "I never thought of it."

---

My daughter flew to France with a supervised group at the age of 13 and spent the summer there. Her father and I were legally separated and stayed in the U.S.

Mal

horselover

February 15, 2005 - 02:22 am

There seems to be a general consensus that Juliet was cold, selfish and self-centered. Some posters even suggested that she did not really grieve for Eric. I don't agree with this. I think Munro sums it up herself when she says that we make decisions we may later regret, but often there was little else we could have done.I look back on many decisions I've made with regret, but I don't think I'd do anything differently if I could do it over given all the same facts of the situation.

Joan asked about Juliet's conversation with "Pope Joan" at the Spiritual Balance Centre. Unfortunately, it's difficult to have a conversation with someone whose opinions are rock solid and whose replies to anything you say are stock answers. "Wherever she has gone...it will be the right thing for her spirituality and her growth." Pope Joan insists that Penelope is not concerned about her possesions because, of course, cults seek to enrich themselves at the expense of their converts. Juliet rightfully senses a kind of hostility beneath the woman's platitudes. She accuses Juliet of bringing up Penelope in a home that lacked faith, which is true and something that the cult has taken advantage of as well as Penelope's loneliness and unhappiness.

Why does Penelope send the anonymous cards on her own birthday? Is she testing to see how hard her mother will try to find her?

I think we need to cut Juliet some slack. She's lost almost everyone close to her--her mother, her husband, and now her daughter. Before her husband died, she found out he'd been sleeping with her best friend. Still after Eric's death, she takes care of all the practical matters and finds a job and a place to live. She picks up the pieces of her life and tries to make a success of it. And she almost does. Then she loses her job and is devastated to find out the Penelope is living a suburban middle-class life and has known where Juliet was all along. "My daughter went away without telling me good-bye...gradually, I believe, it dawned on her how much she wanted to stay away...maybe she can't stand me." How terribly sad, but Juliet manages to hold onto hope at the end. I feel sorry for this woman who has drifted through her life coping as best she can with the blows that life inflicts on us all.

Malryn (Mal)

February 15, 2005 - 03:18 am

" ' If I had been a different kind of woman, with more immediate warmth, instead of this inner fire, I could have been very helpful to her - not in physical terms, but in day to day communication, instead of leaving her all alone.' "

And MAL, not necessarily all of them were Jewish skin. Thousands of non Jews were transported and killed there too - for disagreeing, doubting about the progress of the war, and being overheard for saying so. That is exactly what happened to a good friend of mine in Heidelberg, who was never seen again.

Hitler's insanity targeted thousands of non Jews as well. Check the web and look up Dietrich Bonhöffer, Pastor Niemöller (of the Confessional Church), the White Rose, the student rebellion which resulted in the execution of Sophie Scholl and her brother, and any related links.

1. Regarding Penelope's finally making contact with the birthday card:

The card is not for Juliet; it comes on Penelope's own birthday, the 19th of June. Could that possibly have been a veiled cry for help? If it was, it remained unanswered.

Another card arrives later. Juliet discarded it immediately. We are not told anything more about it.

2. Juliet is the omniscient narrator of the three stories. We learn about Eric, Penelope, Christa, Juliet's parents, Irene and everyone else only from her , and only as much as she cares to tell us.

That is story-telling at its best.

More thoughts tomorrow.

How important are such considerations when one's child is involved - one presumably under the influence of a cult?

They have cradled you in custom, they have primed you with their preaching,
They have soaked you in convention through and through;
They have put you in a showcase; you're a credit to their teaching --
But can't you hear the Wild? -- it's calling you.
Let us probe the silent places, let us seek what luck betide us;
Let us journey to a lonely land I know.
There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us,
And the Wild is calling, calling . . . . let us go.


From The Call of the Wild
by Robert W. Service

"... caught, SHE MISTAKENLY THINKS, in the grip of a cult.."

Why "mistakenly?" CAN this claim on the jacket cover, which was readily picked up by BN, be supported ? What exactly led the person who composed the blurb on the jacket to say that Juliet was "mistaken"? If not a cult, what ? Or does it really matter in the end?

Alienation between parents and teenagers or young adults is common enough. But not all end in permanent separation and dead silence. In this day and age cults are no longer the danger they were then; today we have drugs.

Munro's narrative style is different: she does not tell her stories in a linear fashion, i.e. in logical chronological progression. The reader has to rely on what Juliet/Munro chooses to tell him/her, after the fact, about the past, in flashbacks, and always in her own way. There is introspection, some soul-searching, endless waiting (= a large part of life), incertitude, blind faith- often unrewarded, and more INACTION than action.

ALF was quite right with her question about runaways, as I said in the wee hours of this morning: both Juliet and Penelope are runaways in my humble opinion. They ran away, escaped, fled into a different phase of their lives. They left.

JOAN, re "diminished". As the years passed without word from Penelope, expectations diminished and, in a figurative sense, so did Juliet's life, including her clearly reduced circumstances (working part-time at the cafe where she had been a patron before). But is it really necessary for Juliet/Munro to spell out the heavy burden Juliet carried for the rest of her life? Her suffering was done in silence. That is what I meant with "diminished".

"she could not explain or quite understand it wasn't altogether jealousy she felt, it was rage. And not because she couldn't shop like that or dress like that. It was because that was what girs were supposed to be like. That was what men-people, everybody- thought they should be like. Beautiful, treasured, spoiled, selfish,pea-brained."

"...now she saw that she'd been trying to impress him wiht these answers, trying to show herself as worldly as he was, and in the middle of that she had some on this rock bottom truth. This lack of hope- genuine, reasonable, and everlasting."

That surprises me because of what you had said in an earlier post about your reading difficulties and your need for bolding. Mind you, I have no problem with reading the post, merely wondered.

In our discussions - those in which I have participated and those I led - we have never tried to reach a consensus. As JOAN said, the enjoyment lies in pondering others' impressions, interpretations and perspectives and getting a richer view.

That is what we are about here: voicing our opinions and listening , LISTENING to each other - not necessarily critiquing the author's style or objecting to lack of information or anything else.

Not everything is clear-cut; in life or literature. Some secrets remain sealed forever, and that may be just as well. Whether we are dissatisfied, disappointed or find any given book wanting, or (heaven help) consider it a "downer" (what a cop-out!), we still should try to read and discuss it with an open mind, as objctively as we can.

PAMELA, for what it is worth, I am with you.

But onward to the new story.

"Her isolation at school was based on knowledge and experience, which, as she half knew, could look like innocence and priggishness. The things that were wicked mysteries to others were not so to her and she did not know how to pretend about them."

Did Eileen's accident and the baby's death have anything to do with their decision to move?

More to reread and ponder.

"She had drunk half a bottle of beer when she was five and puffed on a joint when she was six, though she had not like eitherone. She sometimes had a little wine at dinner, and she liked that all right. She knew about oral sex and all methods of birth control and what homosexuals did. She had reularly seen Harry and Eileen naked, also a party of their friend naked around a campfire in the woods. On that same holiday (?) she had sneaked out with other children to watch fathers slipping by sly agreement into the tents of mothers who were not their wives. "

"She never tried to pretent she was anything but an unlucky person, stunted halfway between childhood and female maturity. Stunted, crippled in a way, by severe and persisting asthma from childhood on."

That fulfillment did NOT, I believe, include Joanne. See page 256, where the key phrase is repeated, and where we also read

She looked at Joanne and Willard, playing rummy at the table. She had seen them in this pose so often, and now it was possible she might never see them again. .." emphasis mine.

"The eyelids pressed down heavily, like punishment, over her faded eyes. In fact her whole self seems to be weighted down by the clothes and the hair and the makeup."

"What on earth," Munro has asked, "is this feeling that somehow things have to connect or they have to be part of a larger whole?"

"When crisis comes to Munro's characters, it is often experienced as a collision between past and present, between two sets of experiences that cannot be resolved and that collude as sharp reminders of the pain of powerlessness."

"Ashes to ashes
dust to dust-
show me anyone left to trust."

On April Fool's Day Nancy "took the bull by the horns". The sentence "First thing when I waked (waked!)up ..." speaks volumes; so does the sentence on pg. 272, "If ever I am seriously ill I hope I am able to destroy this diary or go through and stroke (sic) out any mean things in it, in case I die."

After the "induced" proposal,"we got back in the car and were stumped for conversation".
Enter, or re-enter Ollie, the designated Best Man.
The next diary entries are about the upcoming wedding, the dress-making, the wedding cake, and Ollie, who stays on - until the wedding day, one presumes.

There's something odd about Sunday nights when Nancy, her father and Ollie sit on the terrace after dinner and Wilk plays piano (classical pieces not appreciated). Poor stolid, ordinary Wilk.

Girl in a Middy is told in Ollie's voice and describes Nancy as " not outstanding in any way, except perhaps in being spoiled, saucy, and egotistical," whose energy is not always appreciated.

Of course Ollie found pleasure in the teasing, in listening to Nancy's derisive corrections. But the narrator also says,

"She was something of a show-off, of course. But she was truly, naturally reckless and full of some pure conviction that she led a charmed life.

He wouldn't have said that of himself. Yet he had sn idea--- he couldn't have mentioned this without making a joke of it --- that he was meant for something unusual, that his life would have some meaning to it. Maybe that was what drew them together.... emphasis mine.

" The sense of being reprieved lights all the air. So clear, so powerful, that Nancy feels the known future wither under its attack, skitter away like dirty old leaves."

Why sense of being reprieved ? Reprieved from what?
What is this, the FUTURE withers under its attack, skitters away ?
And WHOSE attack, exactly ?

"But what she believes she is doing, what she wants to do if she can get the time to do it, is not so much to live in the past as to open it up and get one good look at it." (Could those be the years when she had no contact with Ollie and Tessa?)

"She doesn't believe she is sleeping when she finds herself entering another room. The sunroom, the bright room behind her, has shrunk into a dark hall. The hotel key is in the door of the room ..."
"It is a poor kind of place. A worn-out room for worn-out travellers." etc.etc.

The scene, the shabby hotel room, and what happens in it are figments of Nancy's imagination. She makes them up to fill in the gap, the void, when she had no contact with Tessa and Ollie.

During Nancy's brief visit in the institution, Tessa said, "That man is dead." (page 308). Nancy is shocked.

A few years later she happens on Ollie in Vancouver. He recognizes her first.
"Ollie. Alive. Ollie."
Shock, incredulity, the realization that it was Ollie she had wanted all along. "No," he said. Too late.

Most unbearable may have been the weight of Ollie's lie since Nancy had seen Tessa alive at the institution.

So, for the sake of her own peace of mind (perhaps her sanity?), Nancy wove out of Ollie's tale a scenario that would somehow explain the loss of Tessa's powers and therefore the inevitability of what came after - financial ruin, Tessa's commitment.

And then the last paragraph, "But deep in that moment some instability is waiting that Nancy is determined to ignore. No use. She is aware already of being removed, drawn out of those two people and back into herself . It seems as if some calm and decisive person - could it be Wilf? - has taken on the task of leading her out of that room with its wire hangers and its flowered curtain. Gently, inexorably leading her away from what begins to crumble behind her, to crumble and darken tenderly into something like soot and ash."

However, if it is the PAST that crumbles behind her, can the words "soot and ash" really be taken as hopeful signs for Nancy's FUTURE? A future without the three people with whom she had shared part of her life? The known future she feels "wither and skitter away"?

"But what she believes she is doing, what she wants to do if she can get the time to do it, is not so much to live in the past as to open it up and get one good look at it."

"She doesn't believe she is sleeping when she finds herself entering another room. The sunroom, the bright room behind her, has shrunk into a dark hall. The hotel key is in the door of the room ..." "It is a poor kind of place. A worn-out room for worn-out travellers."