Thanks for that, Charlie! I'm so glad we have decided to read this together, as I am tired of seeing it in everybody else's hands and wondering what all the "fuss" is about! I hope you will all plan to join us here on September 6!

Ginny

Well, thank goodness we are going to read and discuss this book. I am almost finished reading it, and I don't think I could stand it if I didn't have someone to talk to about it, and who better than some of my favorite online book people.

I must return it by September 7th, so I will try to make notes about some of the more notable characters. Unfortunately I tend to forget the names, but never the deeds. What a bunch of people!!!

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Thanks, Ginny, for telling me about this discussion.

And Fran,nice to see you here. Any friend of a Mac is a friend of mine!

I finished this book earlier in the summer and have read several since then so I don't know how much I'll be able to contribute. But I do remember being intrigued by the author's skill with words. "Skill with words" doesn't even begin to cover it though - this lady is gifted. Many times during my reading I just paused and allowed a phrase or two to linger in my mind. Darn - I wish I still had that book in front of me (that's the trouble with libraries - they always want their books back!) so I could share some. But as I listen to the conversation here, maybe I'll have a few flashbacks.

I just noticed that Charlie has somehow posted the whole first chapter right here. Thanks! How do you do that? You typed the whole thing yourself or is there an easier way?

Anyway, I don't have time to re-read the whole thing right now but I did scan it. Love the part where Barry is described as a small man - "smaller than a comma..." Also the Southern California scene during Santa Ana winds. Been there, done that and she captures it to a "T".

Hi, I'm new at seniornet and am excited about discussing White Oleander. I'm about one-third of the way through the book.

So the discussion begins September 6? By then I will have finished the book, returned it to the library and forgotten I had ever read the book. As Diane said, it's a shame the library always wants their book back. We can renew by phone or by computer as often as we want--unless there is a hold on it. I think there are about 984 holds on White Oleander.

Are we waiting until September 6 because people are discussing another book now, or just to give everyone a chance to pick up the book? Any tips on how this works?

Rose

Rose! Welcome, welcome!! I love that name, Venice Rose, Venice is one of my favorite places on earth.

So glad to see that you are planning to join us in WHITE OLEANDER, this is shaping up to be a very good group.

This discussion is the Book Club Online, (the oldest book club on the Internet, incidentally), which has just concluded its discussion of THE COUNTRY LIFE by Rachel Cusk. Ordinarily there is no gap between discussions, and, in fact, some older concluded discussions may linger on a bit as people seem reluctant to let them go by. We try to stick to a monthly schedule in this discussion, though, and we thought it would take longer than it did for THE COUNTRY LIFE, so that's why we have a little break here.

Also in the past we'd discuss a book for three weeks and spend the fourth nominating and voting for a new selection. We now have another discussion for that (see clickable following) and so we can take the full four weeks for each book.

So we in the Book Club Online have a week off, plenty of time for everybody to get this talked about book (my goodness, 984 holds for it at the Library????)

I loved your thought that by the 6th of September you'll have forgotten you've read it! You're not the only one, we'll try to include plenty of quotes to jog everybody's memory. hahahahahaa

AND we're going to try out a new format with this one, so everybody enthusiastically gather round, and bring your impressions of the book with you on the 6th, as I think THIS one will be exciting, to say the least. Our discussions always are, if for no other reason than the people posting. We're so glad you're with us!!

While you all are waiting, you might want to look into our other 71 or so discussions and see if anything there interests you, we've got some great things coming up in the Books, and we need you all on board!

Meanwhile let me call your attention to a fabulous quote by Readerdoc in the Nominations section: http://www.seniornet.org:8080/cgi-bin/WebX?14@@.ee75988/348"> A Day Spent Reading .

Readerdoc (Betty) is new, too.

We all bring something different to the table when we discuss a book, just like a church supper. We all get up enriched by what the other has said, each contribution is valid, there are no wrong opinions.

In the meantime, if you can find anything on the author on the internet or the book or oleanders in general, please don't hesitate to post them here, they'll help a LOT!

So glad you're with us,

Ginny

Reading WO currently but may have to settle for reading all your great comments at 5AM. With you in spirit.

Well the Spirit of Maida is a LOT!! Counting on you!!

Love,

Ginny

First let me say that I really liked this book a lot. The things that Astrid endured during her young life were so different than either my or my children's childhood that I guess I was fascinated that someone could endure such hardship.

I think it is a story of someone who is strong, Astrid, someone who is weird and self centered, Ingrid, and what happens when one is the mother and let's her only child down.

I'll comment later much more. I have had to return the book to the library, but I did make notes about the names and some of the incidents.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Thanks for the beautiful welcome, Ginny (red is my favorite color.) I'm not sure "my" Venice is your favorite place on earth. My hometown is Venice, California, not Italy. My daughter just emailed me from the other Venice and said it's pretty cool "too."

What is the book about? ONE thing I think it's about is the way Astrid, in order to grow up, learns to see herself more clearly than she can in the mirror her mother has been. Ingrid is a woefully poor mirror, distorting the child into almost nothing but an extension of herself. I've always felt one of the worst things a parent can do is to not listen to a child, not ask her questions about who she is, what she wants, how she sees the world. I learned so much from our children, maybe more than they learned from us. Ingrid didn't seem to really see or hear her daughter until the end.

Back at last, what marvelous posts! I hope our East Coasters can get in here today, am playing that song Sometimes I Feel Like a Motherless Child as I write.

I can't TELL you my revulsion for this mother. I don't have the words. By page 16 I hated her and by page 30+ I wanted to kill her and by page 50 I was counting the pages left in the book.

I have no idea why the personification of this self centered horrid caricature of a human being irritated me so much, what did you all feel for this person?

Did you notice how many times the word white was mentioned in the first of the book, especially connected with the mother? I underlined each reference, the book is peppered with them. Mother Blinding Light, washed Whiter than Snow. Notice how that stopped as the child's awareness grew.

I can't decide what the book is about.

Fran, you thought strength: "I think it is a story of someone who is strong, Astrid, someone who is weird and self centered, Ingrid, and what happens when one is the mother and let's her only child down." And I see you've got the let down part where the mother failed the daughter, miserably.

I can't conceive of a mother so self absorbed that this would happen unless the mother were addicted to drugs.

Rose: I love that "other" Venice! hahahahaha Will write you all from there in the Spring!

I loved your thought that Astrid (which means "Star," doesn't it?) "learns to see herself more clearly than she can in the mirror her mother has been. Ingrid is a woefully poor mirror, distorting the child into almost nothing but an extension of herself. "

Oh boy that's really good. All children get the impression of themselves from the mirror of their early experiences, and that usually means mother or dad or both. Ingrid's mirror only reflects Ingrid.

How did you all feel about Ingrid? Does she seem human? Do you know anybody like her at all? Surely all creative people don't have this kind of psyche. Did you catch that at the end about Ingrid's "children?" What is this author SAYING about fame?

Is the book about strength, or loss, or loneliness? How about need, is it about need? Do humans need something? How about the way it ended? IS Astrid showing strength or something else?

I must say this is the first bestseller since our discussion of HANNIBAL I've read in a long time, and the first OPRAH BOOK as they now call them, that I've read too.

I found it totally depressing about Foster Care and a lot of other things, just totally depressing.

Please remember that here in the Book Club Online every opinion is vaild, your opinions are your own and they are always right, we're here to share ideas.

Since we're now talking about characterization, we welcome all newcomers to say whatever's on their mind!

Let's hear from you!

Ginny

I think that the book is about women, mothers. Astrid is forced to leave her own mother, the worst of all, so hurt that she is all tied up in herself and her poetry, her own self expression, that she sees her daughter as some sort of adjunct; she does, however, try to protect her by trying to make her impervious to hurt with a shield of indifference and superiority. The other women are also deeply flawed.

One (I don't remember the names and don't have the book.) had pulled herself out of dependency and made a good life for herself, but could not handle her lover's affair with Astrid without going back to alcohol. (Who could?) Astrid's part in this was despicable.

The courtesan showed Astrid another type of life for a woman. She also, although she seemed to care for Astrid, was self centered and devoted to her own lifestyle, which her trysts with men enabled her to live.

Then there was the one who killed herself. Astrid truly loved her and seemed happy with the life that appeared to stretch out before her. This woman also was flawed, so unsure of herself and her husband's love that she was completely dependent upon him and feared losing him to another woman.

The last time that she was placed with a foster family she had a choice. Why did she refuse the couple that would have provided normal, loving home? She said that she knew she would be happy with them, but she chose another flawed woman, perhaps better adjusted than the others, although pretty eccentric. This was a place that Astrid was helpful to other girls, especially the pregnant one. These girls were also motherless.

All of the women in this book were broken; I would have liked to see one who would have been a good model for Astrid. Is the author saying that all, most, women have been broken?

After the first 30 pages I thought it was not very interesting but didn't give up right away. It certainly wasn't one I cared to finish. Just too many good books to go through this one.

I am sure I have led a very sheltered life. Both before marriage and after. I didn't even know people like that whose parents didn't bend over backwards to be kind and generous to them. So.....why was I so interested in the book? I guess because it opened a whole new world to me that I in my little safe cocoon never really gave much thought.

I've read all the stories over the years of child abuse, of uncaring social workers, or social workers swamped with cases. Do social workers ever go back to check up on these placements? Do they ever really check about the homes. Shouldn't she have known about the lock on the refrigerator in Amelia's home? Those homes were for the most part really atrocious for any child, and especially a child like Astrid. Talk about disfunctional......It just seems that she kept going from one terrible place to another.

And then to finally meet up with her father.....another loser. It is truly amazing that this child grew up at all.

More later, I am sure. Loved reading everyone's comments.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

I asked myself that same question when I got finished with the book. I think Artemis is right in that it's about women, and specifically, mothers. Astrid is caught up in needing to separate herself from her mother, and since she has so many, this is a very complicated process for her. When she chooses Rena, her last foster mother, she not only chooses the mother she thinks she deserves, she chooses the mother she thinks she really should be like. She chooses someone tough and strong (although flawed in her own ways). In her new persona, she finally defeats her mother.

This book actually reminded me of Kaye Gibbons' Ellen Foster quite a bit. Partly due to the subject matter, but also because of the "star" symbolism. The only bright spot in Ellen Foster's life was her friend Starletta; and when Astrid (=Star) goes to the first foster home, the mother's name is Starr. Sometimes I felt I was reading a longer-winded version of Ellen Foster (which is one of my favorite books).

I despised Ingrid, too, throughout the book, although she turned out to be more complicated than I thought she was. She was trying to shape Astrid as she would a poem: what her child liked to do, who she would become...everything that happened was about Ingrid. In the poem on p. 55: "Shhh/Astrid's sleeping/pink well of her wordless mouth/One long leg trails off the bed/Like an unfinished sentence/Fine freckles hold a constellation of second chances..." Why does a child need second chances? It's really Ingrid who sees herself living again through Astrid. In the letter just after Astrid's conversion: "I raised you to have some self-respect..." (p. 66).

Ingrid was incredibly shallow until the end of the book. She was self-centered, controlling, manipulative, cold, all the rest of it, until Astrid had her talk about the past. Then she reveals that she decided to have a baby, but that raising a child by herself made her feel trapped. Eventually she says that if she could turn Astrid back to the innocent, trusting child she was at the beginning of the book, she would do anything to make that possible. And one of the ways she tries to make it happen is by not asking Astrid to testify in her new trial.

One thing I thought was puzzling was how Astrid changed from being devoted to her mother to the point that she wanted to go to prison with her to resisting all of her suggestions. I think that turning point was about Ray. From the letter after Astrid turned 14: "You must find a boy your own age, someone mild and beautiful to be your lover. Someone who will tremble for your touch....Never lie down for the father. I forbid it, do you understand?" (p. 83-84). Astrid's reponse: "You couldn't stop it, Mother. I didn't have to listen to you anymore." That's really the first time Astrid expresses resentment for her mother. I can't figure out why she begins resisting here--does it have something to do with Ingrid calling him "the father"?

I think Artemis is right that Fitch is saying that all women are broken, although the men Astrid meets growing up aren't prizes either. Her father was too weak to stay around; Ray and Sergei were the men our mothers warned us about. The husbands of the foster mothers tended to be invisible (Marvel's husband) or cruel (Claire's husband). Maybe the author is saying that everyone is flawed, and we choose how we are going to deal with our flaws. In the end, Astrid chooses her relationship with Paul over her mother, whom she has come to regard as a "fixed star" in her life.

I'm also thinking that the author is making statements about motherhood. Possibly she is saying that a mother can't be selfish? Or that a mother should put her self-hood on hold while she has a young child? Or maybe she is illustrating why this is impossible.

I didn't enjoy this book much. I also feel depressed over the state of the foster care system; is it really better than orphanages? It seems that only these incredibly flawed people want foster children.

I'm still reading, so can't say that I know what this book is about yet. Right now I have the impression that the topic is children growing up under adverse conditions. And that topic makes me think of the book, Angela's Ashes, by Frank McCourt.

Frank McCourt's book will probably always be one of my favorite books. Even though the story line of McCourt's book is VERY depressing, you are hearing the story from a child's voice. The child's voice is believable and pragmatic, young Frank is simply telling us the way it was.

However, I never feel that Astrid sounds like a child, even when she is only twelve. Her narration sounds more like an adult remembering the events from her childhood. It bothers me that Astrid's voice is not believable coming from a child. Maybe Fitch does that on purpose to make the story more tragic.

I despised her from almost her first appearance in the book. She is as chilling a villain as I've ever met beween the pages of a book. She's a narcissistic sociopath who considers others, even her own child, objects, extensions of herself. Astrid was afraid to tell her mother she had outgrown her shoes because she saw herself as a crippled foot her mother was dragging around, bricks sewn into the hem of her clothes, a steel dress.

I don't have the book anymore, so I can't look it up, but didn't Astrid's change of heart toward her mother come when she saw her contempt for Claire and her wish to destroy her? And when she asked her mother to help her instead of hurting Claire, her mother answered, "Help you, darling? I'd rather see you in the worst kind of foster hell than with a woman like that." Her daughter's happiness and well-being meant nothing, just so long as no one took her place in her daughter's life.

Wow.

wow wow wow

And here I worried that we would find nothing to say! WOW!!

I read the posts last night and went to bed thinking them over, got up, read the new ones and went out to walk to try to absorb all the IDEAS you all have put here, wow!

I feel like Dorothy in the midst of a tornado, a white tornado (what product was that which cleaned like a white tornado) with so many things floating by I don't know which one to grab onto.

Will be working late this afternoon on the heading, getting stuff up there, the names of the characters, so that those of you who have returned it can have some reference.

As we said, we're doing this one differently and I'd like to go more on what you remember or your take on it than to look back, so that's the only looking back I'm going to do, and it's already very exciting to me to see what you've all written.

Artemis, your insights astound me. You find Ingrid herself to be a hurt person? "so hurt that she is all tied up in herself and her poetry, her own self expression, that she sees her daughter as some sort of adjunct;"

My extreme dislike of Ingrid made me totally uncaring of what motivation she might have. I don't care about Ingrid or what motivates her.

As Fran said, we all come from and have had different lifetime experiences so when we sit down here at the table our discussions are very rich, indeed.

I don't know what personal bomb Mrs. Fitch has set off with me, but it's a bad one, and, like Page, I had to struggle with completing the book, because, like Marylou, Astrid didn't ring true, either.

Artemis said that Ingrid tried to " make her impervious to hurt with a shield of indifference and superiority." WAS it a shield? Or was the woman hollow? In urging her own dictates on Astrid wasn't Ingrid just mouthing off her own mantra? Stating her own beliefs? I can't find an instance where she was a true Mother to that child, can you? Always, always she had herself in mind, always. Cunning, conniving and evil.

Artemis points out something I missed: "The other women are also deeply flawed...The last time that she was placed with a foster family she had a choice. Why did she refuse the couple that would have provided normal, loving home?

This is a great question and is going up in the heading today! WHY did she do that? I wondered at the time. Tired of being hurt? Despairing of ever having a normal life?

Artemis said, (sorry to keep quoting you but you all said it so much beter than I can) "All of the women in this book were broken; I would have liked to see one who would have been a good model for Astrid. Is the author saying that all, most, women have been broken?

Another great question!! Also going up in the heading this afternoon. So we're really NOT talking about characterization yet, we're still trying to identify the theme of the book, WHAT is the Book About? This is great great stuff!

Fran: I was very disturbed and depressed like a lot of you with the depictions of Foster Care. If we don't learn anything else from the book we now know what a sewer it can be. I believe, as Ellen asked, if perhaps an orphanage might not be a better answer. You said, " Shouldn't she have known about the lock on the refrigerator in Amelia's home? Surely makes you wonder, doesn't it?

And then you mention her meeting with her father, and what a loser he was? Remember how she yearned for a father? Remember Ray? She was only 14 years old. Remember dear Ingrid's crap about not lying down for the father or whatever it was??

So is the story about the longing to be loved? Or the longing to belong? Or is it about betrayal??

Who in the story is not betrayed?

More in the next post!!

So excited here today!

Ginny

Looking back through the book again (I still have it), I wonder if the turning point occurs while Astrid is staying at Amelia's and not getting enough to eat. Her mother's roommate writes to her and tells Astrid to stop telling Ingrid the truth in her letters. This happens right after Astrid goes to the old apartment to see if she and her mother still live there. Astrid's response: "Why make it harder, Lydia? Because it was her fault I was there. I would spare her nothing." (p.174)

Astrid still loves her mother at this point, but this is when she begins to blame Ingrid for abandoning her. Then, early on when Astrid lives with Claire, she describes her art teacher. "Ms. Day was spartan in her praise, blunt in her criticism. Every class there was somebody crying. My mother would have like her. I liked her too." She still identifies with her mother but this is a hint that Ingrid isn't exactly...nice. And, on the same page, "I carefully edited what I wrote to my mother. Hello, how are you, how's the writing....I sent her a series of pencil drawings on onionskin paper. It was a self-portrait, but layered, a line here, a line there, one at a time, for her to figure out--she had to layer to get the whole thing. I didn't lay it out for her anymore. She had to work for it." This is before Astrid has discussed Claire with Ingrid, before the two women have corresponded, and before Astrid has figured out that Ingrid wants to destroy Claire. So, I think this is the beginning of Astrid's love for Claire and wanting to keep her apart from Ingrid, whom she already senses will harm her.

I thought the Claire sequence was one of the most painful to read. There was foreshadowing of Claire having to choose between Astrid and her husband when the husband first came home and she was so attentive to him. I don't really know what kept Astrid from killing herself, when Claire did. Was it the core of separateness her mother taught her? Or was it desire to eventually defeat Ingrid for Claire, who wasn't strong enough to do it herself?

Waiting for workmen, you all know that feeling, and they're late. So I may have to leave abruptly but will rejoin later this afternoon. Meanwhile, please feel free to chat with anybody else on the points they have raised, there have been some marvelous questions asked.

Remember also that a book discussion is about the ideas in a book not whether or not we personally liked it, which comes at the end of the discussion when we rate it. A successful discussion will have the points the others have raised add to our understanding and appreciation of the book.

---

PAGE!! Welcome Welcome!!! We are so glad you've joined us, even though you didn't finish the book. Can you recall what it was which caused you to stop? Was it the characters? The writing? You said you read on a bit and didn't give up at once, what one thing would you say caused you to put it down for good? Hang in here with us, hope to see you on the next one!

---

ELLEN!!! Welcome!! Welcome! We are just delighted to see you here and to read your incisive comments, just marvelous!

So you would say the book was about "Women," what it means to be a woman? And specifically, mothers. And then you made this statement, "and since she has so many, this is a very complicated process for her."I

Ah, that's the thing which struck me in the face and caused me to go looking for the song in the heading, but she didn't, you see, I don't think she ever had even ONE Mother.

What IS a Mother? Is the author asking us to decide for ourselves? Is THAT the theme of the book?

She was a "motherless child" "a long way from home" her entire life.

Then you note, that in " her new persona, she finally defeats her mother, although she turned out to be more complicated than I thought she was."

Who, the mother was more complicated? Took us by surprise, didn't she? Don't you think the ego centric are always complicated? Do we care why they are self centered? This is real damage she did this child, physical and mental. Physical by neglect and mental by obvious warping.

" Why does a child need second chances>" She doesn't if she has decent parents. Of course we all make mistakes, would you say Ingrid is exaggerated beyond understanding?

" Then she reveals that she decided to have a baby, but that raising a child by herself made her feel trapped. Eventually she says that if she could turn Astrid back to the innocent, trusting child she was at the beginning of the book, she would do anything to make that possible. And one of the ways she tries to make it happen is by not asking Astrid to testify in her new trial.

Bingo. There's always a pay off for dear Ingrid. I didn't buy that horse puckey and I don't think the author intended for us to buy it, you can't have sympathy for a character who is drawn like a cartoon.

I very much like Ellen's "turning point for Astrid" and want to get that up in the heading too, because I think when Astrid turned, the book did too, I think it was the climax of the plot. I'm not sure it was Ray tho! It will be fun to discuss, this is so fun, I've copied out everybody's posts and they look better in my hand than they do on the screen, and that's saying a lot!

We need to relook at pages 83-84 and what happened there, I missed it! That's another very good question as to why Astrid resists her mother at this point. We need to keep the age of the child in question in our minds here, too.

Ellen, you noticed that not only were the women in the book flawed or broken but " Maybe the author is saying that everyone is flawed, and we choose how we are going to deal with our flaws." Now there's a thought, if so why write a book on it? IS this a book of triumph or is it one of dispair??

Not talking about how depressed WE were when we read it, what do you think the AUTHOR is trying to say?



Next post!

Ginny

Marylou, I was a bit reminded of ANGELA'S ASHES, too. McCourt there had certainly a disfunctional mother, to be sure, but not an unloving one, I don't think? Or do you?

BUT...what a point you raise!! "Even though the story line of McCourt's book is VERY depressing, you are hearing the story from a child's voice. It bothers me that Astrid's voice is not believable coming from a child. "

One of the main problems I had in the book was that despite the horror of the child's situation for some reason I didn't care to follow along. I don't have for this character the feeling you would expect me to have. There's something missing. I don't know what it is. There's no emotion? Is there emotion? What's wrong? I thought there was something wrong with me???

But I'm off the topic talking about the characters. WHAT IS THE THEME OF THE BOOK. If we can decide that we can go on to how the author used the characters for good or ill, well or badly.

Is it that women are broken and should not be mothers? Is it that all people are broken, all is doom? Is it that you can never have a normal relationship with another person? Never trust another person? People always let you down? Man's inhumanity to man?

"Maybe Fitch does that on purpose to make the story more tragic."
IS this a tragedy?

What questions, let's look at all of them before we proceed, putting that one up in the heading, too.

Venice Rose: You said, " Astrid was afraid to tell her mother she had outgrown her shoes because she saw herself as a crippled foot her mother was dragging around, bricks sewn into the hem of her clothes, a steel dress. " Now that was a pitiful thing, wasn't it? Here the thought the child? had was pitiful and yet, not childish, was it? The mother IS portrayed as a remorseless monster.

And you raise another point about the turning of Astrid, the evil "possession" of the weak Claire. We need a glossary to tell all the players.

Of all the characters in the book, I think I liked Claire the most. Did the author intend this and how did she manage it and why was Claire in the book at the time?

Didn't it strike you all a bit odd when Ron said, at the end, to Claire that she had promised if they had a "child..." Hello? That was no child. How old WAS she, those of you who still have the book? At this point I felt like I was in Wonderland. Still do.

Which of the entire cast of characters did you empathize with and why? Do you think that was deliberate on the part of the author?

Getting all these questions up in the heading later today, do look in often, such FUN!

Ginny

Ginny

I also found that I didn't have much feeling for Astrid and didn't care too much what happened to her. I didn't like the book much and wouldn't recommend it. It might be, as you say, that she didn't come across as a child with a child's reaction to what was happening. I think that a contrast with "Angela's Ashes" is very interesting.

First: We were seeing action through a child's eyes.

Second: There was love in the family, felt and expressed by the child. Astrid loved her mother and Claire Claire saw Astrid as a cure for her problems; her mother seemed to want to make her into another self. In AA the love was for the person as a person, not for what he/she could give the other. There wasn't much else they could give except love.

Third: The people in AA were in much more dire straits that those in Oleander, but they went on with their lives as best as they could, without shooting anyone, committing suicide, or resorting to prostitution.

I felt that the people in AA were real people; I cared about them. I liked the book and am looking forward to reading the sequel. (I didn't read the one by the brother.) I didn't like the people in WO; there actions were outrageous, too extreme for the causes.

Ginny: The white tornado was Ajax

The theme may be a quest to find a life of stability & to somehow get out of the flux of the worldly winds. OR, the theme may be an indictment of the foster care system.

I'm not surprised at any of the "horrors" that the author describes since I live in an urban area and these stories are an everyday occurence, and in my professional career, I knew and met people personally who knew how to "work the system". Many of them took in foster children just for the weekly income and medical care that the State provided.

I found the prose to be "over the top" with the author attempting to manipulate the reader's feelings in a manner that does not leave too much room for thought .

As for a dysfunctional family,my favorite definition of a dysfuntional family is any family that has more than one person.

Great comment, Ed, about family dysfunction - I'll have to remember that. I didn't empathize with any of the characters - none were especially loveable but most had a sense of self - but Claire, I feel, did not and neither did Astrid when she joined that household. We may not approve of Ron's treatment of the two women (I think Claire was in her early to mid-thirties) but he had a purpose OTHER than pleasing others only for a sense of who he is. Astrid seems to mold her essential self around those with whom she resides only coming into her own when Ingrid's release is imminent. Interesting bit her creating the suitcase "sculptures" - pack all those incompetents up and send them on their way. Just a thought - it's been quite a while since I read the book and don't have a whole lot of time to critically think about it - unless I'm on my commute. Perhaps I can figure out how to type on a laptop, read a book - and drive at 75mph all at once.

Hi

Myname is Wilma Thomson. I am in Issaquah Wa and a friend of Judy Laird. Hi Ginny. I am new to senior net.

Hi, Wilma!! And welcome to SeniorNet!! We are so glad to see you here! I was just coming into this discussion one more time to see what everybody said before shutting down for the night (am on the East Coast) when I saw your brand new post!!

I like to come in here the last thing I do because it gives me lots to think on and tonight is no exception.

Good for you, now look all around and make yourself right at home, this is a great place to be!

Judy, why not take Wilma to the Cafe, she might enjoy that, too!

Love,

Ginny

PS: Guys, I'm late adjusting the heading, but keep on without me (HI and welcome back MAIDA AND ED)!! Back tomorrow.

I liked Astrid, and felt that she was acting as a child. I can't even imagine the difficulty in trying to adjust to all of these families. I certainly do forgive her for her liason with Ray. She was pretty desperate for any attention.

It's that self centered Ingrid who makes my blood boil. She just had no consideration for her own little girl. I can't remember exaxtly how old Astrid was at the time she entered the foster child system, but may be around 9.

I think that Claire was ill, but at least she cared for Astrid as best she could until her madness took over. That was really the only chance that Astrid had, and of course Ingrid tried to ruin that also.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Ginny, I'm with you--there are so many great ideas bouncing around. I loved Ed's definition of dysfunctional. I didn't really introduce myself on this discussion, so briefly: I live in Los Alamos, NM, where usually I am a teacher (most recently 8th grade humanities), but this year I'm staying home with a new baby. Theodore, 3 months old. So the whole motherhood issue is pretty resonant for me right now.

But I thought I'd be helpful for those of you who don't have the book any more, and list names/ages etc. Beginning of the story: Astrid is 12. She has just finished 7th grade when her mother starts seeing Barry. Barry is the man Ingrid killed. Michael is the neighbor Astrid stays with when Ingrid is not around.

Then Astrid is taken to the youth authority (I think). She spends an unspecified amount of time there, sleeping all the time. I think she is 13 already when she goes to the first foster home, Starr. Starr has two children of her own, Davey and Carolee, and two foster sons, Owen and Peter. Carolee runs off with her boyfriend. It's during this period that Astrid decides sin is a virus (interesting idea, that; it means you can't help doing bad things and aren't to blame...but I digress) and also when she has a sexual relationship with Starr's boyfriend Ray. Ray is a Vietnam vet; I think he must be around 50. Starr is a recovering alcoholic and eventually falls off the wagon, followed by the incident in which she shoots Astrid. Astrid is 14 when she leaves here.

Astrid's placement after the hospital is with Marvel and Ed Turlock. This is the turquoise house with the two small children she takes care of. This is also where she meets Olivia, the woman who was a prostitute. Marvel seems to want a foster child to be a servant. It is while she is at Marvel's that Astrid becomes a prostitute and is attacked by the dogs. She turns 15 while she's in this placement.

Astrid's next placement is at Amelia's, where the food is rationed. All the other girls seem to be Hispanic. Astrid gets out of this placement by using her social worker, Joan Peeler. Joan manages to get Astrid to Ron and Claire Richards. Ron is a producer of new-agey shows and Claire is an actress, although she only has one job while Astrid lives there. Astrid stays with Claire for a long time, from the end of her sophomore year (I think) to midway through her senior year of high school, making her 17. It's at Christmas time that she kills herself and Astrid goes to MacLaren.

At MacLaren, Astrid is beat up by a gang of other girls. This is also where she meets Paul Trout. During this time she is interviewed by Bill and Ann Greenway, nice normal people, but she doesn't go to them. Instead she goes to live with Rena Grushenka, the Russian immigrant who gets Astrid to help her sell things second-hand. There are two other foster children, Yvonne who is pregnant, and Nikki who Astrid buys drugs with. There is also Rena's boyfriend, Sergei, with whom Astrid has an affair (She's 17 at this point). Hannah and Julie, two college girls who have befriended Ingrid, also come to visit. Susan D. Valeris, Ingrid's lawyer, visits her also.

In the last chapter, Astrid is living with Paul. She's 22, 23, something like that (I don't think they tell us). This is also when she makes the suitcases (I loved Maida's comment about packing up the incompetents and sending them on their way).

I hope this helps everybody. I'm looking forward to all our discussing!

Ellen -- thank you. All those names, ages, events help a lot.

The theme. Well, Ginny, I remember thinking when I first read the book months ago that there would be two kinds of readers, those who already knew the held breath of being an unloved or neglected or abused or invisible child--and those who didn't. The first group would know in their bones that Astrid might not make it, would begin to breathe easier somewhere in the middle of the book, as I did. I have a hard time reading the posts of the second group. That doesn't sound very charitable but I thought I'd just put it right out there.

I do have more to think about and say, but I thought I'd see first if I could think from two voices about the theme. The distant child in me is saying (roughly), "It's not fair."

The adult thinking is basically the same theme but it comes to mind in several questions/statements: --(angrily) Can you believe what we do to children? --Some people should never have children. --Abused children are basically invisible in a system that abuses them again. And, then, surprisingly, --What a wealth of wellness is in this human form, that we can survive so much. How hopeful this is. Astrid's needs to be nurtured and parented are haphazardly filled when she can find sources. Then, when she is able, she begins to nurture herself. This is a story of wretchedness of the human condition and its companion, wellness.

An afterthought--The evidence that some children don't make it--may be found in Ingrid. This woman whose development arrested at some childhood level is incapable of seeing past her own needs, although if the ending is to be believed, she may have had her first glimpse.

Well wow again! Ed and Maida and Readerdoc, now let me tell you THIS is an assemblage!! Wow and Wow.

Ellen, thank you for that synopsis, I'm going to shrink it down and put the whole thing in the heading so people won't have to keep scrolling back to find your post.

But good grief, the AGES!!

Come ON, now, Folks!! (I'm determined just determined NOT to look back, am going to go entirely on what I remember and what those of you jog my memory with!) (Had already forgotten the suitcases, this is fun!)

I don't even know where to start.

Starting with Readerdoc and working backwards, now, don't WAIT for me, everybody talk to everybody else.

Since we are the sum and total of our life experiences we all react differently, but there are none of us who have not felt betrayed (are there?) The sadness of the human condition, is there anybody here who somebody in the past has not betrayed? We've all felt pain at some time or other in our lives.

I spent some time looking at the cover of the book, it's staring at me right now. The spine is white with spots. It looks leprous. I don't understand it, either, but in this tornado of ideas (hahahah thanks ED, AJAX... the foaming cleanser... buh buh buh ba ba ba ba, floats the dirt....right down the drain! ba baba baba ba ba ) Enough commercials for today! hhahahaah Anyway, in this tornado of ideas I want to glom on to the theme!

Readerdoc, so you say this is the story of wrechedness of the human condition and its companion, wellness. Who in this story is well?

Help me differentiate between the theme and the outstanding elements? To me a theme is" love conquers all," "might makes right," (maybe that's a little facile there). When I look at the elements of the story, I see betrayal, sadness, lonliness, hate, unhappiness, longing, etc. But I can't put those elements into a theme because.....because.....

AGG! I don't know, still thinking.

---

Awww, Ellen, hi to little Theodore (gift from God, right?) bless his sweet little heart! We are so glad you've joined us, I know Motherhood is on your mind!

Ok so according to your timeline, Astrid was....hello....at least 15 years old when she went to live with Ron and Claire. Now this is mixed up. THIS is a mess. A 15 year old girl is no child for Claire and Ron to build their marriage around. That doesn't make any sense.

As I started to say I spent some time looking at the book cover and the photograph of the author, looking at her eyes. Somebody somewhere has hurt that child. I don't know who it was, but whoever it was sure got the fire knocked out of them in this book. But it doesn't work for me.

Ingrid is too, as Ed said, exaggerated and the author's attempts to manipulate us all are off putting. I think that's why we don't relate to Astrid, or I don't, anyway. We don't relate because the author can't allow herself to admit emotion, to allow Astrid emotion so she does the very thing that Readerdoc was talking about: she says oh look how awful it is, children shouldn't have to live like this (which they shouldn't).

Readerdoc caught that, (did you know you did?)That's the voice. I think. That's why we can't tie into Astrid.

---

Ed, loved the thought, I've heard that no family is "functional," that it's an ideal which is never reached anyway so the term dysfunctional is anomalous.

I've wondered about the Foster Care system, I didn't think they did get any money, just money for clothes, etc, for the child himself? Nothing for them?

I must get all the suggestions for "theme" up in the heading, will be at it this afternoon, let me know if I miss one.

---

Artemis: that's a good point about ANGELA'S ASHES: the family did have love, tho I seem to remember some strangeness in the mother, didn't she sort of give up? The children, tho, seemed to have a different take on their situation, but that was life and this is fiction. Are we saying that Fitch failed?

We are, are we not, all enraged at the mother's action? So THAT bit of passion came thru, anyway?

Boy I'd hate to be Fitch's mother, wouldn't you?

---

Fran: I, too, saw Astrid's affair with Ray just a child longing for some love. I have read, and they do say that neglected girls, particularly by the father, take to early sexual experiences. The person in THAT whom I fault is Ray!

Artemis, you thought Astrid was despicable in that, I think Ray is. He was a grown man, she was a little girl (13?). And while we're on sorry behavior, Starr is no star herself.

Fran has gone where I can't, she has compasson for Astrid and feels for her in her position. Let's , all of us, male and female, for an hour or two, try to picture ourselves in Astrid's situation and how we think we would react? Note she stayed in Foster Care all the way up through High School. Maybe she rejected that last placement because she was 18 years old, for Pete's sake, and knew the fairy tale was over for her as far as being somebody's daughter.

So the theme of the book is???????????? hahahahaahahahahaaaaa

Maybe it doesn't have one. Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places??

Ginny

Maida, I admire your remembering the suitcases after 75 per hour rides!!

So the suitcase art represents.....each situation as a throw away? or what?? What did they represent? Is the author saying that HER art, writing, represents the same depiction?

Am not sure what you meant by Ron's purpose? You said he had a purpose other than pleasing others only for a sense of who he is? But remember the affairs?

---

Got to get those turning points up in the heading, too!

Ginny

Ginny, I'm going waaaay out on a limb of trust here, hoping it doesn't break while I'm out there. I'm counting on you and feel enough connection with you to go right to the heart of my reaction. Well, here goes.

Your coolness is maddening. When you say, well, we've all had an experience of feeling betrayed, I look at the ceiling and growl with frustration. Having an (adult? child?) experience of feeling betrayed is just not in the same ballpark with fear of reminding your mother that the worn thongs on your feet need to be replaced with real shoes---fear that if you rock the vulnerable boat one way or another, that you'll lose your mother. This child, CHILD, is afraid of losing her mother. And then she does lose her. Forget the style of writing for a minute, don't you feel for a child whose mother never looks to see what shoes are on her child's feet and who turns down food when her child is hungry? Doesn't any of Astrid's clumsy (childish), imperfect neediness in finding love inspire any compassion? When she's not gushing with emotion but forming this ever hardening defense of skin--which speaks to how fragile she must feel inside--have you been so free from seeing this most basic terror that it doesn't ring any bells at all? Haven't we seen enough pictures on television of the hard, empty stare of the child who hasn't had a childhood but who has wondered from one day to the next what she would have to eat?

I'm not actually angry at you, Ginny. Truly. Your kindness and generous heart are evident in everything you write. But you don't recognize Astrid. I don't identify closely with everything in her story but....I recognize her. This author knows her intimately, the writing is so authentic. I do still wrestle with some of my family members, their protective defenses well hardened, on "what's the big deal," their words. Discounting, dismissing, reducing. Not recognizing.

I want you to know the impact of discounting. When you wrote, hey, we've all felt betrayed at some time, my ears hear this--hey, we've all been a little raped at some time. Or, we've all lost a mother. No, I want to say, you haven't, or you would recognize her.

Now, write back to me in the same spirit---I don't know you well enough to really feel offended, so even though I have strong feelings about this, I haven't taken anything you've said personally--against me as a person. And I mean none against you. I'm challenging your perspective and thinking.

Betty

ReaderDoc--You said this so well--I can`t say that you"took the word right out of my mouth"--I am not nearly as good with words as all of you are--I read this book just after it came out. I suffered with Astrid and, at the end of the book, I thought--Good for Astrid--she came through all those foster homes, etc. etc. and ended up OK. (Or did she end up OK?)

May--I could just hug you. I've been anxious all day. Betty

Okay, I'm going to try very hard to stay on the topic, and answer the question of what I think this book is about and whether Fitch was successful.

Flipping through the book this afternoon, I came across this passage in the last chapter: "All my mothers. Like guests at a fairy-tale christening, they had bestowed their gifts on me. They were mine now. Olivia's generosity...Claire's tenderness and faith. If not for Marvel, how would I have penetrated the mysteries of the American family? If not for Niki, when might I have learned to laugh? And Yvonne, mi hermosa [does that mean pretty one?], you gave me the real mother, the blood mother, that wasn't behind wire, but somewhere inside. Rena stole my pride but gave me back something more, taught me to salvage, glean from the wreckage what could be remade and resold. I carried all of them, sculpted by every hand I'd passed through, carelessly, or lovingly, it didn't matter. Amelia Ramos, that skunk-streaked bitch, taught me to stand up for myself, beat on the bars until I got what I needed. Starr tried to kill me, but also bought me my first high heels, made me entertain the possibility of God. Who would I give up now?"

I think this is the crux of the matter: this book is about how everyone a child comes into contact with has some influence on her. It is up to the child to decide the value of the influence. Astrid decides that every experience had value. So that's my pick for the general theme of this novel: Every Experience is Valuable.

Now that I've gone out on the limb and said what this book is about: is it convincing? I've believed in the value of experience my whole life, but not to the point that I want to have bad experiences. It sounds like Astrid comes to the conclusion that any experience is better than the conventional childhood, growing up, etc. It could be that since she didn't have that experience, she is simply accepting what she did have. I don't buy that she could be over all of her foster home experiences by the time she is 22 or 23 just by building some suitcases. So: I believe in the theme that Every Experience is Valuable. I believe that because I make my experiences valuable (like the year I lived 300 miles away from my husband so I could teach high school history). I don't believe that Fitch proved the theme. Astrid seems to have accepted her childhood without any therapy, or even growing into maturity. So, it simply isn't believable.

Going further: this book is a coming-of-age novel. Coming-of-age novels are about the search for identity, the best-known being Catcher in the Rye. Astrid uses what she had to build up her identity. She decides that the "real" mother is the one inside.

Announcing the new Built-in Orderly Organized Knowledge device called B. O.O.K.

The BOOK is a revolutionary breakthrough in technology: no wires, no electric circuits, no batteries nothing to be connected or switched on. It's so easy to use even a child can operate it. Just lift its cover. Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere - even sitting in an armchair by the fire - yet it is powerful enough to hold as much information as a CD-ROM disk.

Here's how it works ...

o Each B00K is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of paper (recyclable), each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. These pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence o Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs in half o Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet. The BOOK may be taken up at any time and used by merely opening it. The BOOK never crashes and never needs rebooting. The "browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backwards as you wish. Many come with an "index" feature, which pinpoints the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval.

An optional BOOKmark accessory allows you to open the BOOK to the exact place you left it in a previous session - even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKs by various manufacturers.

The medium is ideal for a long term archival use. Several field trials have proven that the medium will still be readable in several centuries, and because of its simple user interface it will be compatible with future reading devices. Portable, durable, and affordable, the BOOK is being hailed as the entertainment wave of the futur

Thank you all for your posts, and in particular I would like to thank Ellen and Reader Doc for making me feel less like an idiot for sympathizing with Astrid, and helping me to understand just how helpful these dreadful experiences were in helping Astrid become the woman she became.

Actually I am not so sure that was good or bad. I was very disappointed to see her end up with Paul in Berlin. I was hoping for a happier ending than that. You know little ivy cottage near a beautiful lake. Did I hear someone say I was a dreamer.....yes, I am.

She was smart enough to get something out of all of those dreadful, to me, experiences. I do believe that even dreadful experiences can teach you something. But, when you are exposed to one after another....I would think it could also have the opposite effect.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Ahem....hahahahaha, well this is so neat, I think, a real discussion about a book! Great stuff.

---

NB: The following post is somehow corrupted in that it has lost many quotation marks and apostrophes, a situation which normally indicates a coming crash. If you will, please save your posts if you want to be able to have others see them in the future, I don't like how that post is displaying, at all!

---

Was off almost all yesterday with severe storms, hail, lightning, just awful and worried all day about pressing too much on WHAT IS THE THEME of the book??

The question was, what is the book about? You've all answered that well, as to your own opinion, and we certainly don't have to come to the same opinion on anything, including what the book's about or what the theme is! I apologize for that one, was off base. I did like Ellen's attempt to articulate that, and well done it was, too!!

---

So I'm taking a break, now, the second set of jars is singing in the diswasher: it's our crazy time here: pre grape harvest, and I'm canning today thru Monday, it's just crazy. But I did look in last night for stuff to think on and saw everybody's fabulous posts and more this morning.

---

Fran, thanks so much for that neat thing on the B.O.O.K. and for your insights on Astrid's character. I thought you raised two great points, your disappointment with her life at the end of the book (me, too) and your musing on what happens to people exposed to a series of dreadful experiences. So are you saying perhaps Astrid herself is not what you expected?

---

So Readerdoc!! A mental challenge, good for you! Love it. I'm sorry the storms and the craziness here kept me off and from a prompt answer, such fun. Now if we all lived here we could meet in the kitchen and discuss this while YOU all peeled the peaches, but alas....

So sure, let's dialog:

You said, "Your coolness is maddening. When you say, well, we've all had an experience of feeling betrayed,"

hahahah I was clumsily attempting to shield another poster who had admitted a very different childhood from the necessity of having to fit in by saying something on the order of "yes, I too experienced that." That's what that meant.

I meant that we all have the right to approach it any way we'd like, and to say anything we'd like without reproach.

I'm going to have to stand on that one.

"I look at the ceiling and growl with frustration. Having an (adult? child?) experience of feeling betrayed is just not in the same ballpark with fear of reminding your mother that the worn thongs on your feet need to be replaced with real shoes---fear that if you rock the vulnerable boat one way or another, that you'll lose your mother. This child, CHILD, is afraid of losing her mother. And then she does lose her. Forget the style of writing for a minute, don't you feel for a child whose mother never looks to see what shoes are on her child's feet and who turns down food when her child is hungry? Doesn't any of Astrid's clumsy (childish), imperfect neediness in finding love inspire any compassion? "

Of course.

I did feel sorry for the child, but because I saw the cause of the child's anguish AS the uncaring and self centered mother, I chose to reflect that sorrow in my anger at the mother stated in my very first post and in subsequent posts. As in disgust. As in not wanting to even finish the book.

Astrid is angry at her too.

Tell me something, Betty, if ASTRID herself were posting here, what do you think she would say? And how do you think she would say it? I'd really like to know.

"When she's not gushing with emotion but forming this ever hardening defense of skin--which speaks to how fragile she must feel inside--have you been so free from seeing this most basic terror that it doesn't ring any bells at all? "

Let me get this straight: she's got a hardening crust of skin which speaks to how fragile SHE is, but MY coolness is maddening? My crust is too much?

Whatever basic terrors I may have experienced, what bells may be ringing or what cataclysmic feelings may have been set off are all mine, and likely to remain that way.

"Haven't we seen enough pictures on television" of the hard, empty stare of the child who hasn't had a childhood but who has wondered from one day to the next what she would have to eat? "

I sure have. There's a story in the paper this morning which moved me more than this book did, a 6 year old child was killed by her aunt with the help of the aunt's two sons, 10 and 13. Stripped and beaten to death with electric cords neck broken. She had gotten off at the wrong bus stop. She and her two sisters had been sent to this monster who already had custody of their two older sisters. The only thing I know about that child was that she was afraid to go home and so got off at the wrong stop. It was a short article that made me cry. This book did not, for all its 300 pages, and I don't know why, that's what we're trying to figure out, our own feelings about the book.

"I'm not actually angry at you, Ginny."

I'm glad to hear it, why should you be? I'm not angry at you either?

"But you don't recognize Astrid. "

That's a judgment call on your part, and it may or may not be true.

I'm glad that so many of you feel that you totally sympathized with Astrid, dismayed that Fran says that she was feeling like an idiot for thinking so, and so am very grateful to you, Betty, for bringing out this angle and aspect of the book. That's very vaulable. Good for you , May!

Yet those of us who did NOT feel that Fitch did a credible believable job don't need to feel like idiots, either. We're all entitled.

I don't identify closely with everything in her story but....I recognize her."

I wonder if you do, Betty, every time you meet her. You've just seen her in her early 20's in the book. What would she be like, say, in her 60's?

"When you wrote, hey, we've all felt betrayed at some time, my ears hear this--hey, we've all been a little raped at some time. Or, we've all lost a mother. No, I want to say, you haven't, or you would recognize her. "

I was trying to say that I thought, it was my personal opinion, (and I may be wrong, I'm not the teacher here, just another poster) that the theme was betrayal. Not rape. Not losing a mother, but betrayal. Astrid "lost" Ingrid through Ingrid's own doing, her own selfishness. She didn't HAVE a mother when she "had" Ingrid, doesn't anybody but me see that (it's OK if you don't, no problem), Ingrid was not a mother to that child. I said that before, too.

I do apologize if I have appeared too cold or heartless in this sad story, but I must reiterate that my approach is just my own, but it's mine, and not only am I entitled to it, I'm entitled to say what I think without being reproached for it. We all here are equals and entitled to our own thoughts and feelings and approach to the book, whether we identify with Astrid or Ingrid or Starr or Claire, any of the other characters. We do not have to agree here, nor do we have to take on the character of every book or recognize something in every book to relate to, do we?

I just read HANNIBAL. The man is a cannibal. The author threw everything in there but the kitchen sink to no avail. He failed. Fitch does too, in my opinion.

"Now, write back to me in the same spirit---I don't know you well enough to really feel offended, so even though I have strong feelings about this, I haven't taken anything you've said personally--against me as a person."

Well Betty I sincerely trust that you could not possibly have taken any broad statement I made about people in general and applied to your own situation, and become offended by it, and if it seems that I have done that, I do apologize sincerely. I am impressed by your defense of this issue and your determination to have us understand what you see, which I think is wonderful. Why wouldn't I?

"And I mean none against you. I'm challenging your perspective and thinking. "

I appreciate that. I would like not to let you down.

---

Let me say I've really enjoyed this exciting dialogue,I hope I haven't failed in my part, I apologize for any shortcomings I may be exhibiting, but am open to chat about them, as long as every person who has an opinon can voice it, confident that it will be cordially received. Maybe not agreed with, but cordially received.

---

Something in Ellen's post just struck me, did you NOTICE in her quote that Astrid, at the end of the book, talking about her "mothers," leaves OUT Ingrid? Astrid wrote that in her 20's!! Ingrid, her birth mother was still alive and well, and garnering critical acclaim and disciples, and Astrid doesn't count her as a mother at all.

We don't know how Astrid would be as a mother, is that what you were thinking, Fran?

Is there to be a sequel, do you think?

Would you read a sequel, if there were one?

Ginny

Hi...fussy baby day today (teething? but he's only 3 months) so I don't have much time. Just wanted to add the last paragraph of that long quote from my last post: "And in a blue suitcase with a white handle the first and last room of the Astridkusthalle. Lined in white raw silk, edges stained red, scented with violet perfume."

This is the only mention of Ingrid in the passage dealing with what Astrid got from her mothers. And it doesn't call Ingrid "Mother;" it doesn't even mention her name. There's nothing IN the suitcase except the smell of perfume and a lining. I find that significant too; that Astrid doesn't think she got anything but a background from Ingrid.

Wish I had more time to develop ideas but don't have it today...

Ellen M:I enjoyed your comment about the smell of perfume in the suitcase. Both biological and psychological studies indicate that our sense of smell is the most primitive sense that human's possess,and that a particular odor or aroma can stimulate the limbic brain to recall a memory of childhood.

Personally speaking, I can recall very vivid childhood memories,when I encounter certain smells...for example,the smell of horse manure always brings back to me the childhood visions of the milk man delivering milk from a horse drawn wagon & how the horse knew which houses to stop at without being told.

Is it possible in the story,that the smell of perfume is also intended to mask and make tolerable her background & the lining is to cover it up??

Perfume, now that's an interesting point! Boy, how this week has flown by and here I worried about our reading on "Oprah book"(why do people say that and what IS an Oprah book known for, anyway?) and a best seller and I do believe we've had the best start we've ever had.

Please keep in mind I'm just trying to keep topics up, we have no leader, feel free to lead, yourself!!

Have we all said what we think the book is about and what the theme might be? I was thinking last night I may have to change my mind, due to your insights and say the book is about survival, perhaps. How one survives the slings and arrows of our outrageous fortunes in life.

Tell you one thing, it's sure got us talking!

So now that we're about to enter the second week, the perfume idea has come up and I'm reminded of Olivia Johnstone, the black prostitute? Remember her? It was always perfume associated with Olivia,too. Should we move next to characterization? A look at the characters?

I'm interested in the minor characters in this book as I related more to them than the major ones. I think they were presented with more power. What of Olivia? Were you disappointed in her? Did she let the child down? Why, do you suppose?

What of Claire? I thought Claire was well drawn and felt an empathy with her and sympathy for her longing, her fragile bird like personna. Yet Claire, too, seemed to be a reflection. Of Ron, of what she thought a wife was, she seemed to wax and wane by the expectations of others, she had such needs that she, too, became destroyed by the will (the selfish will) of others.

When you think of it....hmmm.. it depends on how you look at each character. Is there a pattern as far as which characters can stand alone and what does that mean? How about Ray?

Is there something here you all can see that I've missed?

Ed, loved that perfume covering up the harsh realities of life. Marvelous. Like Henry VIII? One of his last wives could barely stand to come near him because of the perfumes.

I'm also not sure about those suitcases, is that good adjustment? How many have you constructed and why a suitcase? Why not a coffin? Or a japanned box?

Ginny

Ed, I think you're right about covering up the past with perfumes. Certainly that makes sense; it's also one of the good things about her mother; Astrid remarks on the smell several times.

To the characters: I think Ginny's right in that the minor characters are more interesting than the main ones. We don't know anything about Olivia's past; we don't know much about her present either. Just that she gets what she wants out of these men. She's very honest with Astrid about what she does and what she hopes for. Men are her key to the "good life."

Actually something that just struck me is how honest everyone is with Astrid. The only dishonesty we see is Amelia's, and as soon as the social worker leaves it becomes clear that she wants to live off the foster daughters. Ingrid doesn't hide any aspect of her life from Astrid; no one else seems to either. Astrid even experiences the partners of her stepmothers. I wonder how much of this is due to Astrid's being "...I was blank, anyone could fill me in. I waited to see who I would be, what they would create on my delicious vacancy." p. 133. This is when Marvel and her friends do a make-over on Astrid. And it's the first time she's unhappy with her reflected image.

But, getting back to Olivia: We don't know much about her. She's strong but her livelihood is dependent on men. The difference is that Olivia is the one who draws the line on how dependent she will be. Part of her attraction is that she is beautiful. And also that Ingrid doesn't like her: "A woman like her is a parasite, she fattens on injustice like a tick on a hog..." p. 137

Personally, I found Olivia to be one of the most interesting characters in the book. Beauty was part of it, but also that she was one of the few of these people who was trying to live the good life. The rest of them were scraping by, it seemed to me. Olivia appreciated the richness of life. She had a generosity of spirit totally lacking in everyone else in the book (although of course she was also selfish).

Did she let Astrid down? Yes; by not being as dependent on Astrid as Astrid was on her. When the opportunity came to go to France (or wherever she was when Astrid got attacked by the dog) she just went. Astrid felt betrayed. Astrid is so needy that it isn't surprising.

I do feel for Astrid; I can't help identifying in some way with a lonely child. At the same time I can't help feeling manipulated by Fitch's characters. Everyone is so cardboard, from Ingrid to Rena. Everyone except Astrid, who is clay. Is it just that this book is overly sentimental, or maybe not sentimental enough? Why do I resent an author deciding how I should feel about characters? Isn't that what an author is supposed to do?

Hm. I didn't know until we started discussing it how many strong feelings I had about this book, too. I hope we can keep going; I'm really enjoying this discussion.

I'd also like to thank everyone for being so welcoming. I'm having a great time talking to/hearing from all of you and I hope I am contributing to your enjoyment too.

Just want to get two cents' worth in here.

Ginny, you asked what an "Oprah book" is. You know the Oprah Winfrey Show, right? Every so often she finds a book that she likes so much that she mentions it on her show and invites watchers to read it and send in their comments. Those who send in the most interesting comments are then invited to attend a meeting (dinner, slumber party, whatever) with the author and Oprah to discuss the book in detail. I rarely catch the show but it happened that I was watching when she first mentioned "White Oleander". Oprah's enthusiasm was so contagious that I immediately reserved the book at the library (I was fast and only had 12 or so ahead of me).

I had been on a self-imposed, non-fiction-only reading program for several years (with just a few exceptions) to explore some personal interests in spirituality and alternative healing and had forgotten the joy of a well-turned phrase.

So, with that said, "White Oleander" was enormously satisfying and pleasure-giving. As I've said earlier, my recall is not great, even with the thoughtfully-provided summaries we've been given - many thanks for that.

But what I do want to comment on is what I felt was enormous skill in capturing scenes, moods and personalities in words. I was kind of "blown away" at the power of some of the descriptions. Maybe it was from having read too much non-fiction lately but boy-oh-boy, I loved reading this book.

I do remember thinking that Ingrid was much too dense in her unawareness of her daughter's needs. Is any mother really THAT self-absorbed? Darn! Maybe so.

I also remember feeling disgust with the foster child system but realizing that it probably is that bad much of the time. I felt the same kind of despair that I often feel when reading or hearing news accounts of what goes on in our real world.

But all through, despite trials and tribulations that thank God most of us have never experienced, an incredible strength that, considering everything, had to be admired.

I'll try to read the next book closer to discussion time so that I can participate more actively. You guys are doing a terrific job.

Feels like I've been lost a few days. Yesterday morning a healthy, hefty premie girl was born, 5 lbs,10.8 ounces. Born by C-section 4 weeks early on purpose, to my sweet sister-in-law who is gravely and suddenly sick with cancer. Her first chemotherapy was 10 days ago; her oncologist specializes in pregnant women with advanced cancer. This sister-in-law and I go waaay back, before she married my brother, so for that and a hundred other reasons, all my focus has been in Houston. (For its M.D.Anderson Cancer center, I've had an instant attitude adjustment about Houston.)

So, the baby was born, my brother emailed a 2-hour old picture of the wide-eyed premie cutie. Then, I read what Ginny wrote--that we should all be in her kitchen around the table talking books while she peeled peaches. Didn't that sound wonderful? I could have held up a peach I was peeling, shaken it in the air at Ginny and demanded to know why she didn't see Astrid the same way I did. She could have told me to shut up and keep peeling.

In another book discussion (Sister Age), I was reminded of the book/movie One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest. Nurse Ratchet and all those patients in a psychiatric institution. You know how all of us were shocked, angered, even disbelieving regarding Ingrid's behavior? Over the top, some wrote. Caricature, others wrote. Nurse Rachet was that off-the-chart inhuman, untouched by human need, sterile, almost.

Here's what made me think of it. Mother Ingrid with power over child in powerless position (then entire foster system with power over child). Nurse Rachet (and institution) with power over those locked-in patients.

But we as readers took note of different things, which is really interesting to think about. Both the Oleander book and the One Flew Over the Cukoo's nest book/movie, as tragic as the tone in each, were both very hopeful stories to me. I wonder if other readers here who were so furious with Ingrid were also furious with Nurse Rachet in the same way. Even though I was, too, in both cases, my focus didn't stay there. In One Flew Over book and movie, it was soooo thrilling to see those very ill patients begin to act normal when someone (Jack Nicholson in the movie) simply believed/expected that they could. Someone handed them power over their own lives, believed in their ability to be well and they responded. Astrid had on-off-on opportunities to respond and she did, even though her situation was complicated by an ongoing teenage development.

My point, before I lose it in the muck, is---isn't it interesting what we readers respond to. I went back to read all the posts and was amazed how some readers were so furious with the mother Ingrid, a few readers were ho-hum with Fitch's unbelievable and unworkable tale and still others (me included) became Astrid believers--a poor child mistreated by mother(s) and the system but who ultimately survived.

Also, with time to reflect (couldn't turn on computer even for emails for most of 2 days waiting for the phone to ring), it was easy to think about a very familiar sore spot (read: bias, nerve, button), and that is the suggestion, even the hint of a suggestion that someone without power is not believed. A child tells that she's hurt and someone dismisses or doesn't believe her. A woman reports sexual harassment, date rape. etc., etc. and is discounted, waved off. So, to the comments by several readers (not just Ginny) that Astrid didn't come across as a child, was not even believable (part of the ho hum critique, too), well, who would have ever thought (not me) that I could have felt so furious, frustrated, angry. On the one hand, these are just characters in a BOOK, for crying in the bucket! On the other hand, as is evident in so many of these book discussions, we bring all of ourselves into the responses we have--experiences, knowledge, biases, points of view. There are not separate parts of our brain which discuss books and live a life. Imagine discussing a book on abortion or gun control. (I think I'll stay clear, thank you.)

By the way, I emailed a picture of my 2-hour old neice to Ginny and said that at the moment, I couldn't remember the significance of any other topic. She wrote back and asked if I'd cover this discussion for her until next Tuesday or thereabouts. Excuse me?? (Just read it tonight, and no, I'd be terrible with character stuff.) So, hey, I'm just warning you guys. If you give her a hard time in a post, she'll try to dump a discussion on you. Just thought you'd like to be forewarned.

Do you think that Ingrid is aware at any point just how much she has let Ingrid down?

I read an interesting article the other day in the newspaper about fathers in jail who were in arrears on their child support payments. They were made to sit down and write the "Obituary" that they thought their children would write about them. Then they had to read it aloud to the others for criticism. That was the tough part.

What do you think Ingrid would write in similar circumstances?

What do you think your children would write about you?

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

I don't have the book, yet, but read with interests your many ideas on the relationsip of Ingrid and Astrid.

In the small rural community where I live 40% of the children in our grade school are foster children. (It provides extra income for marginal income families.) Our problems with these foster families and children are very similar. Our welfare system moves slowly to remove children from bad home situations, and the decisions of a over-worked case-worker are not always the best. But the children learn early on, how to survive and it is often hard to feel compassion for a 10 year old who repeatedly skips school, disrupts the classroom with rebellious behavior, and shows little repect for other children.

In counseling these parents and children, I find that there are boths extremes in the caring and love that the child experiences. But for the most part the children in spite of the good foster home they may have, were discipline problems long before they were ever removed from their birth parent or parents.

Rather than blame Ingrid and feel sorry for Astrid... We might need to look at the lack of parenting skills and the large number of unwedded mothers in our society.

The author has presented a vivid picture of the chaos in Astrid's life, because I see you all have such different opinions.

And certainly they are opinions, which are the right of all individuals reading the book. And posting those opinions here is what makes for interesting lurking. But criticism should be limited to the book, and not to the opinions expressed here.

Great posts, and incoherence from me this morning, I apologize, running "flat out" as they say here.

On the "Oprah book" thing, I had just read a huge article in one of the "New York," I think, magazines (NEW YORKER or the NY TIMES) or somewhere (really must stop taking all these magazines and papers, never remember a reference) on the Oprah books phenomenon. I used to be a major Oprah fan, lost all that weight right along with her, she's inspring, no doubt about it. We started our Book Club Online about the same time she started hers, and have been consumed with our books folders here ever since, haven't seen her since except for the odd program. The reviewer was talking about how she favors books which show a person, usually a female, prevailing over daunting circumastances, as this may provide inspiration to other people. I'm wondering if that is what people mean by giving "Oprah books" a label as if it were a genre. She herself, I believe, is living proof that a person can overcome and triumph. I think she does a lot of good in the world.

I've had a letter from someone who caught her show about WHITE OLEANDER. Apparently there were oceans of disagreement, and the respondents were split pretty heatedly along several lines so we're right in sinc with others, and I find that interesting. Now that we've identified several possible themes and what the book is about, I'd like to look at the characterization and see where, if at all, the author succeeded or failed in making her point.

Fran, that is a magic question, I bet this is a misprint but it totally fascinates me:

"Do you think that Ingrid is aware at any point just how much she has let Ingrid down?"

Oh I love that. Ingrid letting Ingrid down? The great artiste? The great poetess? Oh Fran, that's so marvelous.

So DID she? Is she aware how she let Astrid down (probably what you meant, but I love the question you posed).

And the tombstone? The Tombstone, what a fabulous thought: what would Astrid write on Ingrid's tombstone what would Ingrid write on her own?

Ingrid had other "children," remember? Admirers among college students????

Pat, thanks for telling us about the Foster Child situation in your schools, 40% is awfully high, I would think. I had no idea the families got spending money. We have a grape customer who must have 9 foster children. She asked one one year what he'd like for his birthday and it was to come out here. I let the kids pick all they can carry free, they are beautiful children. I had no idea she got paid to have them.

I think of all the Foster parents Astrid had, I can relate the most to Claire the Hopeful, the Wistful, the Longing. But Claire wasn't strong enough in herself to hold out, and Astrid can see from her example that it's best not to depend on anyone, in fact, is that the lesson she learns from them all? Maybe I'm back to betrayal.

Maybe Ingrid would put on her tombstone:


Ars Gratia Artis
and
The Hell With Everybody Else
Including You


or maybe


This is The Way My World Ended:
Not With the Bang of Success
But With a Whimper of Doubt



Ginny

Dear friends,

I did mean Astrid of course, but it is interesting to contemplate what Ingrid would have written. I liked Ginny's possible tombstone greetings.

I was thinking of myself right now, and what my two children would write, and all I can think of is that if they were read nobody would believe that they were about the same person. I have only two children, but have a different relationship with each of them. That, I know, would influence what they would write. My daughter is pretty conventional, and hers would be appropriate for anyone to see. My son on the other hand would use his sense of humor, I think.

But, I don't have to worry about that because both George and I have agreed to be cremated.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Fran, I guess I better write my own headstone and not let the children, when you think of it! hahahaha

Here's my favorite headstone of all time, I apologize for those who have seen it before, I love it:

Here beneath this stone we lie
Back to back my wife and I
And when the angel's trump shall trill
If she gets up, then I'll lie still


That's an actual epitaph, love it.

I guess it's up to the survivor to pen an epitaph maybe that's why so many famous people did their own. EF Benson did his own and they left it on the church pew and did their own on his headstone where they misspelled his name!

Here's a challenge: when you read a book, especially a book of fiction, what do you hope to get out of it?

The books we remember best are books which touch us individually, speak to us, either offer a "yes, I've been there, too," experience or teach us something we need to know. They expand our world.

There is only one character in this book I can relate to, and that's Claire. I think Claire was presented with the most emotion and is the most real of all the characters, and I note she dies. Is the author saying that if you let yourself "go" to emotion you die one way or the other and if you stay strong you can "live," and go forth?

The Russian woman was so badly presented I was tired upon even starting her story. I think the reason Astrid decided not to go with the happy family was that she was a grown woman of 18 years and for her, the time of being a child in a happy family was over. She, herself, could be a mother at that point. Likewise, she was too old for Claire to pretend dress up dolls with her, though Claire was the only one who ever tried to be a mother. Took her to visit ol Ingrid the Great in prison.

I think the author used the emotions of the readers as her writing tool, and thought merely by presenting these horrors upon horrors of Foster Care (and they were horrors, the locked refrigerator, etc.), that the reader would, perforce, tie in to the theme, ignoring the presentation. Kinda like HANNIBAL, the sequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.

So the challenge is: do you think it's by the writing or by the tug at the emotional heartstrings that the author hopes to connect with this story? We've seen how she succeeded or failed in our comments, but how she did it is what intrigues me.

---

But some things are puzzling me. For instance, the repeated white. I never ever got a picture of Ingrid in my mind, no matter the constant white images the repeated assertions of beauty, I NEVER got a clear picture of her, did you? If you did, who living does she resemble to you?

Why WHITE Oleander? It's normally in pink or rose? There IS as you can see in the heading, a WHITE Oleander, what's the deal? I guess she was saying "mom the white" was poison? You can look but you better not touch, as in poison ivy?

What's with the cover of the book? What's with the woman and the zipper? The woman has brown hair?

What's with the spine of the book? White with brown leprous spots?

If I didn't know better, I'd say that spine looks "foxed," in the parlance of rare book dealers. What gives??

Ginny

Very often I read a specific book because someone told me it was a good read. For instance I had to make myself rush through "I Capture the Castle" because my luncheon friends and I are going to discuss it tomorrow. I had to get half way through the book before I read it for pleasure. My friend Dot suggested it, but it was a trial.

I like most a book I can relate to, and sometimes I can't figure out why it is that I can relate to a particular book. I certainly didn't have any experience that could compare to Angela's Ashes, but I did love that book, and am looking forward to reading 'Tis. It is due to come out on September 21, and as soon as it is on the best seller list, and Barnes and Noble has it for 50% off I will surely buy it.

Tis didn't get the best review in today's New York Times, but what I read of it in the magazine section on Sunday convinced me that I would enjoy it. I just like Frank McCourt.

I have no idea why the book jacket of White Oleander is so weird. When I pictured Ingrid I picture someone who looks like Jean Harlow or Marilyn Monroe, but not as wholesome. There was something cold and evil about her in my mind.

Ginny....I do hope you are spared the worst of Hurricane Floyd. It sounds really terrible and dangerous.

We are in Dover, Delaware, and if you look at a map you can see that we are protected even though we are on the coast. Actually our house is about 15 miles from the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the state. Good luck, Ginny and all.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Fran - You expressed my feelings so clearly: "I like most a book I can relate to, and sometimes I can't figure out why it is that I can relate to a particular book. I certainly didn't have any experience that could compare to Angela's Ashes, but I did love that book, and am looking forward to reading 'Tis."

My childhood had almost nothing in common with Frank McCourt's or Janet Fitch's. But I loved McCourt's book and Fitch's left me untouched. Why?

Since readerdoc really was moved by the novel, I would like to hear from her and others if they thought Fitch wrote convincingly from a child's viewpoint. Astrid always sounds to me like an adult remembering what they thought the world was like when they were young. Do children exposed to this kind of neglect and abuse sound like adults when they are children? Or is this a reflection of Fitch's writing style.

Ginny - I'm afraid when it comes to book covers I am terribly cynical. It looks to me like the publisher put a titillating picture on the jacket just to boost sales. The model's hair might be a dark blonde (look where the light hits it). But I don't think the publisher really worried about accurately portraying Ingrid. Ingrid's dress is dark with light polka dots. The spine is just the reverse, white with dark polka dots. Again, I think it is just meant to be eye-catching. I feel so guilty for being cynical about the symbolism you are seeking! How did I get so hard-hearted!

OH!! Marylou, aren't you SMART!! I didn't notice the spots on the dress on the cover? YES, it IS a spotted dress, aren't you sharp? And it IS a reverse of the spots with white on the spine! A NEGATIVE image, if you will ( you know me and symbolism!! Is Astrid a negative image if Ingrid????) now that's pretty electric, for me this morning.

And what makes you think it's INGRID on the cover? How interesting? OH boy that was a good post!!

I agree, too, Fran, with your assessment of the McCourt first book, I, too, had nothing in common with McCourt yet I tied right into his love for life and his ability to find something funny, cheerful in his surroundings. Loved the man, not here.

Here's a quote from the book HAVING OUR SAY written by the 104 and 102 year old Delaney sisters, which I'm currently reading, I thought it was germane to what we're reading:

Bessie Delaney, DDS: "Among my students in New York City (when she taught school to make enough money for dental school) there were plenty of children, white and colored, who had problems. There was one girl who comes to mind from P.S. 119. All the girls made fun of her because she had this mark, like a dark ring, around her neck. Well, is was obvious to me that it was just plain old dirt! When there were no other children around I asked her about it, and she said,'My mama says it's a birthmark.'

So I said, 'Child , I don't think it is. Would you like me to try and fix it?' So she stayed after school and I took her into the girls' room and took a towel and cleaned her neck. Soap and water didn't get it off, so I rubbed cold cream in it, and I rubbed and rubbed until I got it all off. The next day, she came in and said, 'Miss Delany, my mama said to thank you so much for cleaning up my neck.'

Now, I think that's kind of funny. Imagine not knowing that your child's neck is dirty. Well, there are a lot of people who weren't raised properly themselves, so how can they teach their children right? Sometimes it's neglect, sometimes it's just ignorance."

That story reminds me of one my mother used to tell when she also started teaching in a notorious poor mill disctict school. She said she did an entire course on hygene for the poor kids, toothbrushes, sent soap home, toothpaste, and one day was met by an angry mother who said, " I send ***** to school so you can larn her, not to smell her."

We don't ever learn about Ingrid's parents or her childhood experiences, do we? The author herself is clearly angry at Ingrid and we don't really have any idea why (tho Artemis suggested she may have been hurt, herself) she acts in such a shamefully neglectful way toward her only child up till her incarceration when the child is 12.

There was another awful story on the news last night and that one ended with something about what YOU can do.

I wonder what we can do, is there anything you and I can do besides feeling frustrated and angry?

FRAN!! You watch out now, it looks like it's making quite a bead for you unless it comes inland here in SC, which was the prediction, just like Hugo. I expect I'll be off here due to the peripheral storms till Saturday, we'll just have to wait it out. YOU take care, now, you're too close to the water, worries me, we'll all be thinking of you and hoping the thing passes out to sea, of course Gert is right behind it. You all just carry on splendidly as you've begun and we'll rejoin you asap!

Ginny

This is what I love about this book club. I learn to pay attention to detail, something I rarely do when reading, and should. Okay, I looked more carefully at the bookcover displayed on this site. The book has been back at the library since September 7th.

Here is what I first thought. I thought it was Astrid, after she had either had sex, took drugs, or had too much to drink.

The more I think about this book I think that Janet Fitch must have had a terrible childhood. Perhaps similar to Astrid's. Is it possible to write such a book just by researching the subject? I don't know.

About Floyd.....what will be will be. Over the almost 50 years that we have been here off and on we have had very few hurricanes that caused our little town much trouble. Hazel many years ago took off the roof of the armory, but that was the worst. We are actually in a protected area. We have plenty of food, water, flashlights with batteries, and great neighbors. I think we'll be all right. It has been raining for two days now, and we needed it desperately so I'm not about to complain.

Of course if it spits in this area we do lose our electricity, so that is a very good possibility. Que sera sera!!

Thank you for your concern, and I hope you all are all right.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

I, too enjoyed Frank McCourts's first book. It felt very accessible--possibly from his personal style and maybe because it is a memoir, not fiction. His gift of lacing humor with details of a childhood of poverty was very inviting and, I'm guessing, provided plenty of comic relief in the middle of an otherwise sad story. His tales of deprivation were made more tolerable by numerous references to his mother's love for her children--and his humor. He's wonderful to listen to in person, also. A light spirit.

The Fitch novel is dark. Takes place in the desert cities of southern California, with many references to the hot winds, dusty gulches, poisonous white flowers. The mental and physical abuse of Astrid (physical--no attention to her need for food, clothes, school) by mother Ingrid was complete. Then, this child lost her mother and she began her trek through surrogate mothers/families. Abused children often long to be loved/accepted by the abuser, so her initial hurt from being separated from her mother was even more painful than it might have been.

That she was able to form attachments to others, accept nurturing where she could find it and begin to see herself as separate and different from her mother---that's where my fascination with this character began. The author has her ever so painfully and slowly see that she is not her mother, that there is life and love after loss, that her past is not who she is, that she can write a fresh script for her own life.

I am always fascinated with true accounts or fictional accounts (which may hint at true accounts) of how one leaves behind a painful childhood. I may not agree that this work of finding an independent self could be so neatly wrapped up in so few years, as in Astrid's case, but that's less important to me than Fitch's conviction that it can be done. The author's use of language is exquisite, in some places flawless. Her treatment of this difficult subject is stark, bare, relentless, like some of her landscapes. As I read, I remember thinking, "How do you get over this?" How do you know where you come from and begin to dismantle it? What holds you together. It reads like a whodunit, for me. How is she going to find pieces of herself separate from the mother to build on?

The route the author gives Astrid is so hopeful, so optimistic, that it strains credibility but, in my eyes, doesn't break it. Also, by book's end, I feel as if I've been pulling for her, wanting her to make it. One measure of my enjoyment in a book is the level of my involvement. In this book, I was involved from start to finish. Not in the sense of identification with this character or others, but maybe recognizing the difficulties inherent in finding a voice/life outside of a family.

Of all the differences between this mother and daughter, the critical one is that Ingid is unable to form healthy attachments to others (daughter and others) and Astrid IS able to. Astrid is able to love; Ingrid is not able to. One gives off poison, the other does not. One is able to accept outside nourishment and needs it to live, the other does not--like the oleander.

Astrid's future is hopeful, limitless. Reading about her was uplifting, comforting.

Sorry to be out of discussion for so long...it's been a very hungry baby this week. And I hope all of you in the hurricane's path are safe and have all your emergency supplies on hand. Being in New Mexico it's been a long time since I've been in that position (I lived in Boston for 5 years before I came here).

Anyway, going back through the posts, I wanted to answer the question of why I read a book. I suppose the flippant answer would be "enjoyment." And I do have books I've read solely for enjoyment; romance novels, humor (mostly political), some science fiction. But the books I read over again are the ones that speak to me in some way. By which I mean, books that touch on some aspect of my life; books that are meaningful and more than that real.

I'm not planning to keep my copy of White Oleander. Partly because my home is so full of books I'm afraid the foundations are going to sink...but mostly because I can't imagine wanting to read it again. Astrid NEVER sounded like a child. All the characters are cartoons. Nothing about the story relates to my life in any way; I don't even think I would have responded to the situations the same way Astrid did. Sometimes I was outraged by what I read but sometimes I was just bored. "Oh, here, another bad foster mom....what's her name again?"

I do agree with readerdoc that the language was beautiful. Fitch has a wonderfully poetic sense. But sometimes I felt that the effect was overdone; again, was a way of manipulating a reader.

I also agree with all of you that Fitch seems to be writing from hurt. I don't know if she was writing about herself or someone she knows or just something that she read in the news. If she writes another book, though, I'll probably read it. Most of what I see as her mistakes are errors I would put down to inexperience.

Ginny's right, of course. All of our reactions to this book, as different as they are, are legitimate...and important. A boring world, indeed, if we all felt the same....

The discussion is often better than the book, I think, and this is one where I definitely feel that way. I can't tell you how much I get from the discussion. Much of it does relate personally to me.

Readerdoc says...."that her past is not who she is, that she can write a fresh script for her own life."

This insight struck me forcefully. I remember not being a particularly popular girl in high school, and my mom telling me before I went to off to college just about the same thing. Her words were that nobody in this college knows that I wasn't the most popular girl in my class, and that I can just start afresh and be whatever I would like to be. It made such an impression on me, because it worked, that when my own daughter was going away to college I gave her the same advice.

And I believe it today.....We do write our own scripts, and there are many things in life that we can't change, but there are also many that we can, and most of them have to do with attitude.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Fran, that's so neat, so wonderful, I love it! A new start! A new beginning, I love that. In a way we reinvent ourselves every day. And in a way, the Internet allows us to do that: to be who we really are under the appearance the rest of the world sees, and the expectations the world might have of us or idea it might have of us.

I think that's one reason I love our Book Discussions here on SeniorNet, we are truly a meeting of the minds here, as if we were a sci fi movie and our brains were bubbling into little jars talking to each other. The essence of the person, I love that.

And I also love the thoughts expressed in this discussion, they've been electric, a real turn on.

Today I did something I said I wouldn't do, I went back into the book to find where I had marked what I thought was the turning point in the plot.

Somebody was discussing the "turning point" in Astrid's feelings for her mother, I think it was Ellen, a long time ago. And it puzzled me because I thought I had marked it but everybody brought in many earlier instances of Astrid's turning points.

So I was and am confused. I'm assuming she didn't turn like a roast on a spit all the time.

Here's the turning point I thought, in Astrid's and Ingrid's lives, and in keeping with the entire book, they both reflect the other, it's on page 345. To me, all the horrendous events, the little slings and the major arrows of the poor child's life have led up to this:

"My moment's uncertainty faded. I knew exactly how far Ingrid Magnussen had changed. I had her letters. I'd read them, page by page, swimming across the red tide. I knew all about her tenderness and motherly concern. Me and the white cat. But now there was something that had changed. What had changed was that for the first time in my life, my mother needed something from me, something I had the power to give or whithold, and not the other way around....My mother needed me. It sank in, what that meant, how incredible it was. If I went on the stand and said she did it, told about our trip to Tijuana, about the pounds of oleander and jimson weed and belladonna she'd boiled down in the kitchen, she'd never get out. And if I lied.....she might win an appeal, get a new trial, she could be out walking around before I was twenty-one."

So Astrid realizes her mother needs her just as she has needed her mother all that time. The power is hers now, and not her mother's, in fact, her mother is dependent on her . It's sort of a coming of age thing?

Then there's a lot of stuff in between, the new baby is born, the metaphors about oleander sprinkle though the air and mother and daughter meet pre -hearing. Astrid demands news of who her father was. Ingrid describes how the needy child calling out "Mommy Mommy" made her want to throw Astrid against the wall. She shudders (page 374) at the memory of it. Astrid scares Ingrid. Astrid asks Ingrid "So how does it feel, knowing I don't give a damn anymore? ...That's I'll do anything to get what I want. Even lie for you, I won't blink an eye. I'm like you now, aren't I? I look at the world and ask what's in it for me."

So Ingrid says she would take it all back if she could. And Astrid says, "Then tell me you don't want me to testify...Tell me you don't want me like this. Tell me you would sacrifice the rest of your life to have me back the way I was."

....I had asked a question I couldn't afford to know the answer to. It was the thing I didn't want to know. The rock that never should be turned over. I knew what was under there. I didn't need to see it, the hideous eyeless albino creature that lived underneath."

And Ingrid says, "If you could go back, even partway, I would give anything"... And Astrid thinks, "It was all I ever really wanted, that revelation. The possibility of fixed stars."(pages 377-378).

I think that's the climax. That's when Ingrid and Astrid both changed. The balance of power shifted and the culmination of the child's longing for a mother ceased or so I thought till the last page.

But then, Astrid didn't testify at all? And Ingrid got out. And Astrid made "altars" in suitcases which she calls her museum and says "There were suitcases inside of suitcases I had not even begun to unpack," in Berlin, was it?

Is this kind of a clumsy metaphor for the baggage we all carry along with us?

I don't know, some of the writing is really quite good, but the climax leaves me flat as does the end of the book. We took almost 300 pages to get TO a point and when we did it just died away, awash in the child's eternal longing to be loved and to have a mother again... Even when she GOT what she wanted from the eyeless albino, she still wanted the concept of mother . She also mentioned that Claire was the first person who taught her (Astrid) how it felt to be loved.

So how would we describe her at the end of the book? Strong? Hard? Sad? Happy?

How did the ending of the book leave you feeling?

Ginny

Stronger and harder - I felt unsatisfied at the end because I wanted Astrid to better herself - not just survive. Guess that's throwing my middle class expectations at a situation that I can only guess at, read about. Parts of the book made me sad - my school support groups are often populated with throw away children much like Astrid - and parts made me angry. I felt nothing for Ingrid -

I thought that was the turning point also. Where Astrid finally has the power. What I didn't understand was how exactly Susan the lawyer became involved in Ingrid's case.

I was glad that Astrid did not testify after all, and that she did find out about her father. And what a disappoint he was to me, if not to Astrid.

I also wanted a more happy ending for Astrid. Being with Paul at the end in Germany, having the baby...or am I making that up.....and doing drugs....am I making that up? Not satisfactory.

This is a joke. I have not had that book since the 7th of this month, and the last thing I did was make notes on all the characters in the book.

I do think that Claire gave her the most, and if her mind had been a little more stable she could have been a wonderful influence on Astrid, and could have changed her life completely. In fact.....why didn't Ron do more for Astrid after Claire committed suicide? I know he wasn't close to her, but he could have kept in touch, and seen to it that she was provided for. After all Astrid was like a daughter to his wife, and he could have afforded to be more generous.

And so to bed.....Tomorrow I have a Women's Health Fair to attend at our local hospital. From 8 AM until 2:30 PM. I think if they really cared about our health....they would have started it at 10 AM.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Fran you are such a hoot and you're so right, or do they think early to rise makes a man healthy and wealthy and wise? Must not, look at me, how early I get up and do have my health, I think, thank God, may have to pass on the last two, but hey!!

I do have the book and looked back, I don't see any children and although I too thought she was doing drugs I don't see any now. He's rolling Drum whatever that is, but I just thought he was rolling his own cigarettes. They can't afford a phone and she has a cough, I know that.

I can't find where it explains how Susan the lawyer got interested, but I did find where she says "Astrid when young people are so cynical it makes me despair for the future of this country."

I just read a long editorial on the cynicism of young people today, but surely that remark was misplaced!

I've found some interesting reviews of this book on B&N and I think we might try to write a split one ourselves, stating how we agreed to disagree on this one, might be interesting. Here are the latest ones displaying on Barnes & Noble's Online site under WHITE OLEANDER:

"Customer Reviews: An Open Forum Number of Reviews: 54 Average Rating:

A reviewer, September 15, 1999, Three cheers for Janet Fitch This book is absolutely superb. It's descriptive language will blow you away. What a refreshing author Janet Fitch is. I hope to read more of what's to come.

Marcia L Holland (mlmh.5423.@aol.com), September 15, 1999, What's an Oleander I have read a few of Oprah's book club choices and I admit this one has been the most disappointing. The writing was wonderful but the story so very boring. The main character gave me nothing to cheer for she still seemed unhappy with the choices she made and the one choice that could have made her happy she did'nt take. If an Oleander is a flower there was'nt much blossoming about Astrid. I did'nt understand the suitcase theme but I did appreciate her intelligence and her ability to draw through her pain.

Cathy, September 15, 1999, Moving I thought this was a well written and moving novel. One of the better picks of the month from Oprah and I've read them all.

Also recommended: Fried Calamari; The Pilot's Wife

A reviewer, a 33-yr.-old educated L. A. woman, September 10, 1999, Plenty of pain and suffering in a pretentious prose, but no redeeming characters I don't usually like the type of beaten-woman story that Oprah chooses, but this looked intriguing. What a disappointment. I read half and didn't bother to finish it. Such a depressing, nothing of a story about boring, unbelieveable characters. The writer's voice sounds so forced and unnatural. With all the wonderful, meaningful literature out there, don't waste your time on this one. Read Joyce Carol Oates or Margaret Atwood instead."

It's amazing, really, the range of critical opinion about this one book of fiction, the way people really tie into or against the characters. I woke up thinking of one of those last letters from Mom to daughter from prison in which she signed it, "M----------- Rot Crow," and realized one of the reasons I was so incensed at the mother was that the author continually forced disgusting and uncharitible images of the mother on the reader to the point that the reader, at least this reader, just gave up and started skimming in disgust. Maybe it's human nature.

I need to know some stuff from you all in the next few days about our approach to this discussion, and whether we should attempt to continue it?

You will remember the request was to take the book as a whole and not have specific pages "assigned" to cover each week?

I'm not sure we have been able to keep the discussion moving? What do you think?

Would we have been able to look more closely at the elements taking it in smaller sections? Would we have seen something we didn't see this time?

What did we leave off, this time?

Ginny

Dear Ginny,

Yesterday was such a busy day at the Women's Health Fair here, and then dinner, and then of course after dinner I had to judge the annual "Miss America" contest. This is a duty I take very seriously. Miss Alabama was my first choice and Miss Kentucky was my second choice. Now that was the end to a perfect day.....and the bowl of popcorn didn't hurt either.

I thought the discussion was just fine. I think more people didn't participate in the discussion, because they didn't like the book, or from what they read here, they thought it wasn't worth their while. I, for one am glad I read it. Even though I didn't think it elevated my mind much, the discussion did.

I must explain my mistake about the baby and the drugs reference. I was so sure that "Where the Heart is" would be the book for October that I went out and bought it, and am reading that now. It seems to me it is in the same genre of the Oleander book.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Fran, you must have a lot of clout with the other judges!hahahahahaha

One of the issues that is cropping up in some of my email on this book is the believability of the characters. Several people have commented here that the author did not make the characters believable.

It's the author's job to create a character the reader can tie in to enough to want to know how the character came out: to care about the character.

I found, for my part, that I not only did not care about any character in the book save Claire but they are not "alive" enough for me to actually want to find out what happened further to them.

They are cartoons.

Perhaps it would be useful, here in the Book Club Online, to occasionally alternate books which do create characters you care about, perhaps older books. The writing was fine, why do I think 300 pages on true stories of people making it in life would be more inspiring?

Well we have just such a story coming up, brutal in its honesty A HOPE IN THE UNSEEN. I think it raises many interesting points and is an issue on a lot of people's minds. I hope you will join us in October for that discussion.

On a scale of 1-5 for this book, 5 being THE BEST, GO WITHOUT FOOD TO GET AND READ THIS BOOK, and 1 being DON'T TAKE IT IF IT'S FREE, I give WHITE OLEANDER a 2: nice writing, period.

What do you rate it?

Ginny

I wonder if voting would be easier if we had separate categories for character development, plot, and writing. As I mentioned earlier, I read this book some time ago and no longer have it - but, more significant, it was the first fiction I had read in probably several years and I absolutely drooled over the writing. What pleasure, what glee - WHAT had I been missing! Oh yeah, now that I read your comments, the characters were hard to accept. The plot? well, I dunno. But I can't get away from the enormous joy I found in page-after-page of such creative use of the language. Maybe kinda like going without chocolate for a long time and then finally having some again and someone pointing out that it was on the grainy side, or something, but Oh!, that taste of chocolate!

TWO

The way it takes all kinds of people to make up this world and this SeniorNet .... it takes all kinds of books to make this book club interesting. I definitely like the mixture of good for you books and ones I am glad I don't have to justify buying and keeping in my library. This White Oleander is definitely not a keeper, but.....I enjoyed reading most of it simply because I wanted to find out how it turned out.

I would rate it a 3 and a half.

I just finished reading "Where the Heart is", and I was unfair in my comments above. It was a very good read, and even though it wasn't chosen for the October book I enjoyed it a lot. Do you remember who it was who recommended it? I'd like to discuss the book with that person by E Mail if they are interested.

You do have me hooked on discussing books I have read.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Sorry, forgot to vote - let's make it a 3.75.

Diane Church---I, too, found the author's use of language remarkable. I like your analogy of chocolate. There are so few writers like this whose words I find poetic and disruptive, making me catch my breath and slow down to read a passage over and over just for the joy of it. (don't have the book in front of me but I can still remember--small as a comma, insignificant as a cough)

Having said that, she still doesn't add unnecessary words; her writing is right out there in your face with nothing to help you avoid it. Another part of her skill (although it feels like art) is how she avoids sentimental tricks. I've wondered these 2 weeks if this is one of the reasons "the story" leaves some people cold. There is no advertizing blurb that "this is a 2 box of kleenex story"---which often means an author took the low road, depended on sentimental clues to win over readers. No, this book takes risks, dwelling without apology on parts of life that are uncomfortable to think about, talk about. Emotional deprivation, physical deprivation, the use of children, not the love of children.

One measure of a book is the intensity of reaction. For the beauty of her expressions, the avoidance of softening a raw subject, and the obvious intensity of our reactions in this discussion, I rate the book a 5.

For many books, this one for sure, a rating system doesn't capture a book's reception. Many of the professional critics (literature journals, etc.) offer high praise for this book, but that doesn't speak to the enormous range of reactions from us--the average readers. One bias I have about such books leaves me wondering who the writer is writing to. Granted, it's a rough subject and maybe there is not a way to write truthfully without turning off some readers. It leaves me wondering, though.

An observation---our bodies (brains) are incredibly smart, always ready with defenses when needed, even when we don't realize it. My observation is that we have made it through a discussion without spending much time on the content of the book, i.e., the sexual exploitation of a teenager (the law calls it rape) and her being shot with a gun--and all the other gory details we avoided. The things we wrestled with were safer--which is what we do in everyday life. Healthy.

And there are participants missing, not so surprising when you think about it---given their disclosures made in other discussions.

So, all these reactions are interesting---disgust, disinterest, absence, anger (still pondering that one from me, so usually cool). And a small handful who loved it.

I particularly liked how our words sounded to each other. With such diverse reactions (sprung most likely from personal feelings), I like it that we were both polite and not polite. We have been real and, yet, accomodating. No small thing. Think how bland the alternative--not writing what we think, or not writing any posts at all. Let's remind each other of this accomplishment when considering similarly tough books, so as not to avoid them. Betty

I absolutely hated the mother, I thought her to be one selfish and self-centered person. The only time she recognized Astrid was as an extension of herself. I could not fathom a mother being so uncaring and putting herself and own selfish reason above the benefit of her child. Surely she realized her actions would have dire consequences. To leave this child motherless is beyond me. Astrid was also on a self destruct trip. Which is not surprising. I thought the author development of Astrid was wonderful, as a very young girl, who adored her mother to a young woman who finally realizes recognizes the short-coming that her mother and I am sure will learn to deal with them. Giovanna

I would like to join and be on your mailing list for Books & Literature. But, I am not sure where to sign up. Pat Westerdale, Sec. of Books & Literature.

Thanks for your help.

Giovanna

Never fear, Giovanna, you're signed up, Pat's got you! We don't want you to get away!! hahahahaha

I hope everybody has their copy of A HOPE IN THE UNSEEN and is planning to look in to that discussion starting October 1!~ We'll take it slow from the outset to allow more people to join in and then go for it. I understand Barnes & Noble has been flooded out in several of their distribution centers, which is slowing down delivery of some of their books, so patience is needed, but we'll all enjoy this very controversial book, I'm sure!

Be back shortly with our cumulative review so far,

Ginny

Hi! Giovanna... Glad you got my email and I'll put your name on the email list... Ginny zapped me an email as soon as she saw your post.

Dear Giovanna...

A warm welcome to SeniorNet, and to the greatest book club on the net. It is really a lot of fun to read and to discuss the wonderful books chosen by our own members for us to read.

I haven't read such a variety of books in my whole life, and just wish they would add a few more hours to each day just for reading.

Looking forward to your participation.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

Well, if everyone who would like to vote has, then our rating of WHITE OLEANDER by Janet Fitch was 3.25 on a scale of 1-5. It would have been interesting to have split up the voting as Diane suggested! Too bad we didn't think of that in time.

I thought this discussion was quite unusual for a number of reasons, and would like to direct everybody's attention to the upcoming Book Club Online's discussion of A HOPE IN THE UNSEEN .

We're going to alternate the discussion leaders in this one and we have two weeks open if you're interested, just write me by clicking on my name. The schedule for discussion is already up, we'll take the first three chapters in the first week to allow people to catch up.

Most of us by our age are famliar with the concept of "a dream deferred." Some of us are familiar with another concept: "be careful what you dream, it may come true."

This important book takes a hard look at some searing points and concepts, I hope to have the pleasure of discussing them with you.

Hope to see you there,

Ginny

This discussion is now concluded and is ready to be Archived, Larry.

Dear Ginny and all,

You did a wonderful job, and made the book White Oleander more interesting to me just because of the discussion.

Thanks to everybody who participated. It adds a lot to the experience.

You know that I will join you in discussing A Hope in the Unseen.

Speak to you soon.....Love, Fran

I haven't posted much here but have read the posts and finally got the book.... I'll give it a 3.5.... It just didn't end like I thought it should.

How did you think it should end, Pat??

Am very excited to announce today that Lorrie will take over Week III of the A HOPE IN THE UNSEEN discussion which means that in October we'll have another first here in the Books, a discusion with FOUR discussion leaders, I hope you all will be ready for this exciting challenge!

Ginny

Before this discussion is archived I must add a few words. I completed this book several weeks ago and viewed the ongoing discussion.

In a book written so well and with such vivid images, I find the subject appalling and depressing.

That both a mother and a child care system fails a youth is not that unusual as such. What is, is the total picture of a system, as depicted in California is unbelievable. As a life-long child advocate I wonder at the placements, extremism, cruelty and lack of total supervision pictured.

I found the book not worth the time or eyesight. For writing I would give it a 3, for content a -1.

Louise

hahahah, Louise, you know what, I think we are go