I Always Loved you by Robin Oliveira~ June Book Club Online

[JoanP]

The Book Club Online is  the oldest  book club on the Internet, begun in 1996, open to everyone.  We offer cordial discussions of one book a month,  24/7 and  enjoy the company of readers from all over the world.  Everyone is welcome.

June Book Club Online

I ALWAYS LOVED YOU: A NOVEL
by Robin Oliveira

This should be FUN!  With the Internet at our fingertips, we'll be able to examine each of the artworks described here  by  the new talent, Robin Oliveira! This is from a recent Seattle Times review: "Degas is tempestuous, sardonic and witty.  But the focus is squarely on Mary, working on unfinished paintings, washing her brushes, reeking of turpentine, collaborating with Degas on a journal of etchings, thinking about “the essential talent of seeing.” Mary Cassatt comes alive as disciplined, socially acute, outspoken and stoic in facing down her self-doubt."

Related links:
Vocabulary Help
National Gallery of Art Exhibition of Degas/Cassatt paintings
Portrait of Mary Ellison ~ Mary Cassatt
Mary Cassatt's many paintings
Links to Impressionist Art discussed in this book
Interview with Robin Oliveira concerning those letters

Discussion Schedule: June 1-2    1926                Prologue June 3-6      1877              Chapters One - Nine  June 7-13    1877 cont.     Chapters Ten - Nineteen  June 14-16  1878               Chapters Twenty - Twenty Six                June 17-22 1879                Chapters Twenty Seven - Thirty Five June 23-27 1880                Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four   June 28-30  1881-3             Chapters Forty Five - Fifty Three June 23-27~ Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four  1880 1. Didn't the production of the prose, poetry and art journal sound like a messy endeavor? Messy, expensive, and time-consuming too.  Will Mary have anything of her own to show in the 1880 exhibition?  Does she seem to be doing all of the work? 2. The whole process of printing  became addictive for Mary.  For Degas as well?  What does Mary think of his secret project?  Would you say that Degas was more obsessed with Marie's body or with the art he is trying to create? 3.  What was Mary's reaction to Degas's decision to cancel Le Nuit et La Jour? ?  Does anyone know what became of it? Was it ever published?  What was his excuse this time? Will she forgive him, as she did when he cancelled the 1877 Exhibition 4.  Do you get the impression that Oliveira is making excuses for Degas's behavior?  That he is really helpless, and cannot finish his work? 5.  Oliveira writes that neither artist believes he/she is talented or gifted.  Do you think perhaps most artists feel this way, fear the same thing?  6.   Were you surprised that Degas did not bring La Petite Danseuse to the empty vitrine at the Exhibition?   Since when does he care about what others think of his work?  Was it this decision that led to the "encounter" at last?  Do you think Oliveira took great liberty with her fiction on thiis matter? Discussion Leader:  Joan P

[JoanP]

June 23-27~ Chapters Thirty Six - Forty Four  1880


Though panned by the critics, Mary's work stood out in the emerging fields of Impressionism.  It was surprising the way her father stood up for Mary's art after reading the harsh criticism following the 1879 exhibition...

Surely 1880 will be even better...if Mary can find some time for her paint brushes, what with travelling with her father and working with Degas on the journal they getting ready for for publication...

Sometimes I'm surprised on how helpless Mary seems when confronted by her father's demands -   Is it the same with Degas?  Will she reach the point where she cannot forgive his thoughtlessness?

[BarbStAubrey]

Reading further in your link JoanP it hit me - these artists were scrambling for money and I bet that was why Mary Cassett chose to paint mothers and babies - they recently had the poor rebelling and so, showing the likes of her sister and others attending the opera in fine clothing would only appeal to a select few - not that the poor were buying art however, those who could buy would be conscious of looking upon and admiring anything that smacked of dollars to achieve the lifestyle portrayed and so, mothers and babies were a safe subject along with the many who chose to paint street scenes and the countryside.

I can see that peasants playing cards or any other view of peasant life would only be a reminder of the civil war while women, children and even men decked out in their upper class finery or attending even horse races would be subject to feelings that those who could afford art hanging on their walls would prefer to avoid. Artists needed to live by their work and that meant their work had to sell which like all sales it has to appeal to the buyer.

I am only guessing because, no where do I find Oliveira explaining why Mary chose her subject matter. Also, I am getting a queue to this novel - whenever Robin Oliveira writes/quotes thoughts or even dialogue she can only be guessing based on what she could deduce from her research - she was not there to hear what was said nor was she privileged to their thoughts and so she is building a plausible scene like a movie or stage production around the tidbits she has collected as a result of her research. However, I am getting a sense she has not placed these characters in the environment of Paris at this time in history other than the manners she read about. She seems to have missed the history of the devastation that we are now learning about.  

[JoanP]

Although she did travel to Paris to research the paintings, surely she would have taken the time to research the period during which they were painted.  Don't you think?  I don't know how long she stayed in Paris for the research though...

Here's an INTERVIEW in which Oliveira was asked that very question about what she knew about the Belle Epoque...says she read 50 books.  Maybe she read McAuliffe's?  That page from the link above sounds familiar

[BarbStAubrey]

I guess like most of us we ingest what we read into our view on life - I am sure those writing about or buying the work of the cabinet makers during thsi period, who created some glorious shapes like, Francois Linke were not spending time or emotion on the devastation of the civil war.

http://www.internetantiquegazette.com/decorative_accessories/2512_linke_francois_french_belle_epoque_furniture_maker/

We certainly do not read any reference to the wars in Proust or Gustave Flaubert although, most of Flaubert's stories take place out of Paris.  Maybe that is what makes a book a classic for the ages by not getting timely description of place. However, this story seems like a cross between a novel and a biography and the environment they live in would set a mood and a rational for some of their life experiences and choices.  

I guess I was more stunned to learn what was happening in the recent past of our story and could not help liken it to a story written about folks who were not directly connected but lived in NY 6 years after 9/11 which was not even about living with the memory and fear of a civil war where many of the people from NY would have to flee to another safe city as they did in Paris.

The many cityscapes painted at the time do not belay the fact that many of the important buildings in Paris were blown up, set on fire and gutted. There were no paintings shown in the Salon that showed crowd sourcing or street fighting with Paris in flames. Hard to believe it was all so calm so soon after 1871 however, the arts do not seem to show any evidence of upheaval.  But then the arts do not show the depression that followed in this last quarter of the nineteenth century in most of the western nations.

[BarbStAubrey]

wheee its here - she did include it - I knew there was a reason to review this book - I lost my focus and sure enough on page 46 she has Mary ruminating about how she had returned to Philadelphia after moving to Europe the first time because the Prussians were bombing Paris. Nothing about the civil war and its destruction to the city but at least there is mention of the Franco Prussian war.

Then upon her return she paints outside of Paris in the Alps and with the accompaniment of her mother she studied in Rome.  

And then referring again, to her escaping the Prussian bombings she and her art finished after her dutiful studies in Europe doing everything as should be done Mary is caught in the Chicago fire.

[bellamarie]

Again, Edgar has cancelled an exhibition without even so much as telling Mary, after she has spent a year on helping him with the prints for Le Jour et la Nuti.  He feels he owes her no explanation or apology yet again.  This just infuriated me:

"Your problem Mademoiselle Cassatt,"  said Edgar, "is that you worked on only one thing, while I had other projects.  You should have been more prolific."

"How could I have been?"  Mary said.  "I sacrificed everything for that journal.  On a promise you made.  You saw me.  I was at your studio every day.  When could I have done more?"
________

"I am not responsible for your work or your happiness,"  Edgar said, rising.  "I cannot apologize for doing what is right for me.  I see that I have hurt you, which is unfortunate."

Lydia said, "But you don't mean this?"

"I am afraid I do,"  Edgar said, and was out the door before anyone could say anything else.

Once the exhibition takes place and Degas does not bring any of his work to hang Mary goes to his studio.  He again in my opinion insults her with:

"Look around Mary.  Nearly every single one of my canvases for the exhibition is still here.  I am late for everything.  What was the journal anyway?  Just an idea that didn't work out.  Nothing else.  It means nothing.  It's not a failure."

She threw up her hands.  "I've gone backwards.  I want to pull all my work off the wall.  I'm embarrassed that anyone has seen it."

"Then do it!"  His raised voice echoed off the walls.  "What are you whining at me for?  What do I have to do with your work?  It's your work, not mine." _______

"My God," Mary said.  "We aren't good together, you and I.  You have a masterpiece but I have so little to show for the year that I am ashamed of my work.  I lost something working with you.  Something of myself.  Something essential.  Something I cannot abandon."

"You lost yourself."

"The trouble with you is that you care more about art than you do about love."

"So do you."

"But I don't abandon anyone."

"You abandoned yourself."  Degas wrenched himself around to face her.  "Besides, I have no materpiece."

"She is standing there in all her glory."

Mary then honestly critiques the statue and it happens..... she and Edgar make love.  Whether this happened in real life, I am certain many of their friends and others suspected it did, just as the readers suspected it to happen, in real life or fiction in the book.  It was suspected to happen, expected to happen and so Oliveira makes it happen.  Oliveira placed this scene in a perfect spot considering many couples who are frustrated and angry with themselves, and each other, tend to heighten their sexual feelings and end up having sex.  Again...Oliveira immediately has them separate after this spontaneous love making and pull away from each other. Mary nor Degas are the marrying type, and he insults her by finally coming to her and asking:

You don't want to marry, do you?  All that complication and commitment?  That obligation and boredom?

At this point I personally feel Mary has allowed Edgar to strip her of her virginity, pride, self respect and has allowed him to cause her to lose herself.  There can be no turning back from this point in my opinion.

So where do they go from here?  Edgar is losing his eyesight and is no longer able to see well enough to even sculpt the face, and lines for his masterpiece.  Mary needs to continue to paint to accomplish the approval of not only her father, but the critics and public, which is why Degas feels she paints at all.  Edouard is dying of syphilis, and Berthe has decided to religiously maintain her marriage, contented with her children.  Their lives and dreams are passing them by, life happens and death is inescapable.

Ciao for now~

[JoanP]

I'm a bit confused trying to understand Mary's character.  At times she appears a strong woman, brave enough to stand up to her father - to live alone in Paris and follow her own dream, travelling around Europe, wherever she pleases.  At other times, she allows her father to make her decisions for her - he insisted she come with him on that trip...not "allowing" her time to sketch or paint. She wants to please him.  She wants his approval.
 And then of course, there is Degas - able to persuade her to spend her time on that journal, not "allowing" her time to work on her own.  I hear that phrase - "not allowing her" - and have to wonder why she didn't have the backbone to tell him she needed time for the next exhibition.  I think she trusted him - that "Le Jour et La Nuit" would be finished - and perhaps be the center of the 1880 exhibition.  She must have understood that she was doing all the work on it.  She gave her all to finish it in time.  She never saw that Degas would make the decision that it wasn't good enough to enter.  Why didn't she stand up to him? (What ever became of it?  Was it ever published?)

I can only conclude, as Robin Oliveira did - that Mary forgave him, again and again - because she wanted to please him - because she loved him.  And it was this conclusion that led to that "love" scene.

Imagine her entries to the 1880 Exhibition - compared to the triumph the year before!

[BarbStAubrey]

Good grief 'angry love' --- do not want to analyze that one - if they make love and it is not rape than I am confused how that is stripping her of her virginity - ah so - better minds than me - but then, is that the overall arch of the theme of this book I wonder -

My take has been she pushed through so many huge obsticles, including the biggie, not being satisfied with herself and her ability to either live or paint as her imagination suggests is possible. I am seeing this as a story that is enlightening Mary Cassatt to the love she always had to an inner spark of who and what she believes she is, and that Degas is just one more experience in life from whom she learns more about herself that helps her uncover herself.

To me I am reading this as a novel and therefore we do not know if any of the dialogue took place in real life - however, she was a good friend to his end, even clearing out his studio after his death. That would leave us to believe there was a strong relationship - how it was expressed we do not know - however, if there were many hurts and forgiveness's I think he was part of her inner voice saying she had not met her expectations of her ability and in order to keep pushing toward that inner spark of satisfaction she needed to have a critique that was more than her thoughts and Degas satisfied that critical voice that matched her own self critique.  If anything, to me that is the love between them - at least for Mary - the 'need' to have that critical voice that complemented her inner critic.  

At least Berthe loves herself and plays the game therefore, she is clearer about her love for Manet so that all she is doing is not making social waves with first, her mother and then, she is not going to hurt the one they decided she should marry. Where as I do not get the sense that Mary is confident with herself but she does love herself enough to keep pushing to prove to herself that she is what she imagines she can be.

Golly I would hate to read this to find out that all it is a buildup to a few minutes of her life in angry love - that to me is not worth a life much less a book. ah so... if so, maybe it is to be a metaphor to the times that we dub Belle Epoque suggesting it was not very beautiful at all.  Sure was not Belle to women's spirit although their dress and manners helped to define Belle.

[bellamarie]

Hmmmm.....with all do respect Jean, I don't see my post stating the story was about "angry love," as you state.  I said:

Oliveira placed this scene in a perfect spot, considering many couples who are frustrated and angry with themselves, and each other, tend to heighten their sexual feelings and end up having sex.  Again...Oliveira immediately has them separate after this spontaneous love making and pull away from each other. Mary nor Degas are the marrying type, and he insults her by finally coming to her and asking:

You don't want to marry, do you?  All that complication and commitment?  That obligation and boredom?

I don't doubt there was some level of affection, love, admiration and possibly an obsession they had for each other.  As Mary stated before the lovemaking happened:  

"My God," Mary said.  "We aren't good together, you and I."

 

She was right, even though the two of them could help each other bring out their talents in art, Degas was selfish, uncaring for her feelings, she knew this about him.  Berthe warned her early on, he would break her heart.  She saw all the signs.  So yes, besides the story of the artist's paintings, this is about a complicated couple, who really ultimately expected things the other was unable to give to each other, Mary wanting and needing Degas's love and approval.

JoanP.,

" I hear that phrase - "not allowing her" - and have to wonder why she didn't have the backbone to tell him she needed time for the next exhibition.  Why didn't she stand up to him?

I too am confused, it seems a bit contradictory to me.  I used the phrase, "not allowing her" only because Mary argued he took up all her time.  She acts like she had no other decisions to make.  They had fought prior to her deciding to work with him on this journal.  Did he use the journal to approach her, to get her back in his life, knowing all along he would never exhibit it, but it would keep her close to him?  He was a controlling and deceptive person.  And then once the journal is done, HE decides it is not good enough, and cancels the exhibition, they argue at her dinner table, and he leaves.  She later goes to his studio and they argue yet again.  So, yes they were angry with each other, she states  she was furious with him, and it results into lovemaking.  And Oliveira realizes this would never work, so she immediately has Degas pull away and avoid Mary.

Mary is not a helpless woman here, she is naive, and Degas knows it.  She has allowed Degas to control her art, her life, her emotions, her actions and yes, allows him to take her virginity, knowing he can not be trusted:

Mary turned and sat down, the glimmer of the candle fading now, and with it all her vague dreams of a life lived beside this man, strange and indistinct as they had been.  The flame trembled in its puddle of molten wax and went out, rendering the studio a place of shadows and depth.  Edgar, at once reticent and irreverent, generous and selfish, careless and careful, was a terrible man to want, as terrible a man as Edouard Manet was for Berthe.  What was it about genius that sabotaged happiness?  What was it about desire that betrayed?

Jean,  

I am seeing this as a story that is enlightening Mary Cassatt to the love she always had to an inner spark of who and what she believes she is, and that Degas is just one more experience in life from whom she learns more about herself that helps her uncover herself.

I would like to agree with you to some degree, but I am afraid it just doesn't ring true because she and Degas both admit, she lost herself.

I think he was part of her inner voice saying she had not met her expectations of her ability and in order to keep pushing toward that inner spark of satisfaction she needed to have a critique that was more than her thoughts and Degas satisfied that critical voice that matched her own self critique.  If anything, to me that is the love between them - at least for Mary - the 'need' to have that critical voice that complemented her inner critic.  

I think Mary possibly believed this, but Degas states:

"You are to me what no other creature is.  We are the same mind, Mary.  We are the same soul, occupying two different bodies."

"We are not,"  she said.

"You are the only woman I can tolerate in the world."

"That is not praise."

"Why would I flatter you?  I respect you too much."

"This is how you show your respect?"

I sense Degas knew from the first time he ever saw one of Mary's paintings, before he met her that she was exceptional.  He chased after her from the Salon, he was driven to meet her.  Why?  I feel he stunted her painting, by seeming to be helping her.  We are talking about a man all his friends verified was incapable of love.  Mary even questioned if he had ever loved anyone.  Yet, he seduces her after she says,

"I was furious with you."

"I want to draw you."

She did not resist, though she thought she ought to because she was not a woman to let herself be seduced.

"Are you certain?" he said.


"She could not bring herself to answer, but she meant no just as much as she meant yes, and in the noisy silence he kissed her again and then there was no more no.  There was no drawing, either. There was only clumsy touch and willing surrender, timeless discovery and shocked astonishment, and when it was over, the fear that she had been enticed forever into the tangle of him.


There is no doubt Mary had this idea Edgar could love her.  "Mary felt herself yielding, or want to yield.  She wondered whether this would be the way that Edgar would finally, truly see her.  And what was virtue in a warm studio on a rainy night in Paris, when possibility seduced and intimacy beckoned?  Over the years she had believed there had been no one else for him, at least no one he had ever revealed , and certainly no one else for her.

If you remember Mary and Edgar parted and was distant in their relationship before he died.  We don't know what is real and what is fiction, so we don't know for a fact Mary did go to clean Edgar's studio after he died, or retrieved his letters.  As research stated, he destroyed his letters himself, and she destroyed the ones he had written to her.  So, just possibly Oliveira based the beginning of this novel, on a love story, with the letters as the basis.  After all, in her interview she stated, the letters is what inspired her to write the book.  I have not seen this as a beautiful love story from the beginning.  I expected a love scene to take place, yet I also expected them to part ways, and Mary would realize her true talent was with her all along.  I sense she did, with this statement:

She squeezed paint from the tubes and took up her brush and began, as if she had never known him.

Ciao for now~

[bellamarie]

JoanP.,  

What ever became of it? Was it ever published?

 

This is an interesting question.  Was there ever a Le Jour et la Nuti journal?  Is this something Oliveira added to the story?  I would like to know now that you have my curiosity raised.  Guess I will have to go on a Google search.

According to Degas: "What was the journal anyway?  Just an idea that didn't work out.  Nothing else.  It means nothing.  It's not a failure."

Was it a ploy to occupy Mary's time?  

According to this it was the worst film of all time.  Ughhh...is this why Oliveira has Degas say it was no good? 

Le Jour et la Nuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Le Jour et la Nuit (Day and Night) is a 1997 French film directed by philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy and starring Alain Delon.[1][2][3] The film follows a French author who fled to Mexico for a quiet life and an actress who is willing to seduce him to get a part in a film adapted from one of his books. It is considered by some to be one of the worst films of all time.

Reception[edit]

When the film premiered at the Berlin International Film Festival in 1997, hundreds of journalists walked out of the screening and those that stayed audibly ridiculed the film.[4] Le Jour et la Nuit was considered the worst French film since 1945 by Cahiers du cinéma, and considered as a possible "worst film in history" by the French version of Slate.[5] Variety claimed that the film was, "Laugh-out-loud awful without touching the cult realm of 'so bad it's good," Françoise Giroud stated "It's a bad movie, there's no question",[4] and L'Humanité called it an "Absolute debacle".[6] An original documentary, Anatomy of a Massacre, was released with the Le Jour et la Nuit DVD, and focused on the film's intense negative reception and failure.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Jour_et_la_Nuit

[bellamarie]

Found this:

There is no question that they were collaborators in the art of printmaking. In 1879, Degas invited Cassatt to join him and several other artists in creating a periodical that would offer original prints to customers. It would be called Le Jour et La Nuit (Day and Night). Degas was more experienced at printmaking than Cassatt, but Cassatt soon caught up with him.

 For the first issue, Degas prepared a complex etching called “Mary Cassatt at the Louvre: The Etruscan Gallery.” It showed the back of the well-dressed Cassatt, wearing a sumptuous hat and leaning on a folded umbrella for balance, as she studied a canvas.  in the Louvre. Her sister Lydia, reading a guidebook, sat nearby. (He used the same material later for a second etching and for a pastel.)

Cassatt’s contribution was an etching with a familiar subject, a woman with a fan sitting in the opera house. This print, called “In the Opera Box (No. 3),” omits the detail of her paintings on the same subject and offers a kind of fleeting, impressionist view of the woman caught in the lights of the opera house.

But Le Jour et La Nuit folded even before its first issue. It is not clear why, but some attribute the failure to Degas’ loss of interest. He evidently decided that printmaking demanded excessive labor for limited reward.

http://www.huntingtonnews.net/88243

So it seems Oliveira did take the history of the journal, and use fiction, in making Mary exclusively, the only one helping Degas, there for monopolizing her year, while he worked on many other projects of his own. 

I suspect other than the names of the artists and paintings, all else was fictitious to create a story.  The letters were Oliveira's interest, turning it into a love story of sort.  This is in no way being critical, because without it, what would the story be?  The article states Mary was par to Degas, not a student.  Oliveira, making Mary lacking in confidence, needing and wanting his approval sets the theme, along with the letters. 

 

[BarbStAubrey]

I knew the letters were not real and part of the Novel but I did not know the cleaning of the studio after his death was also a tale - thought that was true - ah so...I do find it difficult trying to comment on this book since again, we do not know what is a tale for a  novel and what is biography -

As to the possible love making I just have a difficult time believing that the climax of this story and its title (alluding to an ongoing love), is consummated because of a heated argument accompanied by wounding words - I see no other bit in the story that shows romantic love and yet, the beguiling title, I always loved you - the 'you' can be subjective and like all of us, when we read a novel it becomes our own and for me, I just cannot see a beautiful time (Belle Epoque) exemplified as frustration lashed out, expressed in sex rather than something beautiful, un bel amour -

So far, the only beautiful I am seeing is Mary's strength and belief that she is as large and capable as her imagination. That she continues, attempting to bring her vision into reality regardless, war, major city fire, gossip, no support from the public and limited support from her family, a mercurial friend in Degas who may support but also wounds, failing health and eyesight - in spite of all this she pushes to be the artist she imagines she could be capable of - that, to me is a noble love which is not for a man but for the nobility of purpose that she sees is her life.

I do not know what she, Mary Cassatt thinks only what I am taking away from this novel as the theme -  I also see her saying to herself all the things Degas says to her as if he is the living voice of her self image - she begrudgingly gives her self brownie points as well as, she considers her work trash as she rips it into pieces after hacking it with a knife. In the story, as a character she works hard to be this image she has but does not work hard for the joy of working -

Degas we know is under the stress-gun because of the huge family debt he is paying to the bank in Amsterdam and so he also attacks his work with his nose to the grindstone where as, when we read of Monet and a few others there is joy in their act of painting - oh it is hard work and there are problems to solve in their work and they also doubt their results but, they paint so engrossed to bring about beauty not to accomplish something that will sell or be accepted in a judged show.

As to a union between them that would be more than close friends during the nineteenth century I wonder - since Degas was Creole on his maternal side. In France at the time this was not a problem however, Mary is from a wealthy Philadelphia family. When she purchases her Villa she retains 7 servants - as open as the family maybe I doubt they would look favorably on a Creole sun-in-law. Yes, it could be one more of her many hurdles in life but I am not seeing the title of this book taking us to any long enduring secret or otherwise traditional love between man and woman - yes, I think she loved him as we do a few good friends who know us and can read us but I choose to see their relationship as an allegory to her/our ability to accept ourselves with all our warts and failings which is a self love. So far that is the arch I am seeing of this story.    

As usual when we read here on SeniorLearn there are different associations that we each see as a result of clarifying the various themes.

[bellamarie]

I agree, each reader sees what they choose to see in reading a novel.  We can only discuss what the author provides, whether it be history or fiction, even though we have no proof of what all is fiction.  We do know what is history, just as Oliveira did through her research.  Also through research I sense Oliveira was able to come to the same conclusion as others, there was a close friendship, but no romantic/sexual relationship was ever believed to exist between the two.  As I said in one of my first posts knowing the early fiction, I am okay with the romance in the story.  For me it's not a stretch of the imagination, and it makes for a good plot.  What more could the story be, if it were only about the art?  

For me, Mary was trapped in loving Degas, with an idea he too could love her, yet she struggles knowing he will in fact break her heart.  From the interviews I read, Oliveira was inspired to write the novel due to the letters, and saying she (Oliveira) was "in love" with her characters, and took liberty to create the romance since the letters were destroyed.  Oliveira said, (paraphrasing) She felt it was a clean canvas giving her the liberty to create the romance.  The kiss, and the caresses, earlier in the story was leading us up to the eventual love making.  

Jean,

"she considers her work trash as she rips it into pieces after hacking it with a knife."

I have not come to this part of the story......It seems pretty drastic and sad, makes me wonder if she is taking out all that anger on her work because of her weakness for Degas and believing in him.  I can see why their relationship later waned.  He thinking she sold his paintings she owned, out of personal reasons, when in fact she was getting rid of and destroying many things, so as not to leave for public knowledge or suspect to preserve her own legacy.  (This was in the link I provided earlier.)

I'm not sure I saw a growth in Mary's character.  She may have learned to paint more like Degas, but ultimately she returned to her true self.  She had this talent, skill, and ability from day one, she just relinquished it to Degas because of his influence, and her admiration, affection, and need for his company, love and approval.  In the end, she gave all, including losing herself, only to find she had only herself to rely on.  As she stated, "I've gone backwards."  Indeed she did go backwards, from the moment she allowed Degas so much control of her life.  Oliveira made the Impressionists to be a group of rebels, I'm not even sure this was in fact the case.  

I'm not sure it would have mattered according to Oliveira as to the nineteenth century rules of acceptance where these two were concerned, especially since she made them out to be rebels.  She wanted to write a love story between them and so she did, with the beauty of the history of the paintings.  Now there is where I found the beauty of this story.  We can not deny the beauty in the art.

[RLO]

Hello. I am the author, and I've enjoyed reading your comments online.I often go to book clubs to discuss my books, but I haven't been invited here.  I don't want to disturb your conversations, and if you wish me to remain not a part of the conversation, just say the word and I'll disappear. I'm only jumping in because there are some inaccuracies being asserted regarding some of the history of the artists. I'd be happy to comment on those if you like, and if not, I'll step aside. Thanks so much for choosing the book for your discussion.

[JoanP]

Oh my!  It's Ms. Oliveira...the author herself!  Indeed we would be honored to have you join us.  We tried to reach you at the start of the discussion, but were unable to find the right button on your home page.

As you can tell, we are divided here - some reading the book as fiction, some deeply interested in the real characters, some engrossed in researching the artwork...   You must have had a wonderful time researching the book, especially your trip to Paris!

Of course - please  do clear up "any inaccuracies being asserted regarding some of the history of the artists."  I might add we would be delighted if you to stay on after that!  

Welcome!

[JoanP]

Hopefully, we will hear from the author soon...

in the meantime, I'd like to share what I found on
the Fifth Impressionist Exhibition in 1800 -

"The green poster with bright red letters advertised: "5th Exhibition created by a Group of Independent Artists, 10 rue des Pyramides (at the corner of rue la Sainte-Honoré), April 1 - 30 [1880], 10 o'clock to 6 o'clock, Admission fee: 1 franc." Only the 16 male artists were listed - and none of the women: Marie Braquemond, Mary Cassatt and Berthe Morisot.

Degas wrote to Félix Braquemond that this omission (Caillebotte's idea?) was "idiotic." Degas, defending a woman's honor? Yes. So much for his alleged misogyny. Degas, incidentally, directly or indirectly invited all three women artists into the Impressionist shows.

The poster's inaccurate information seems symptomatic of the 1880 exhibition's anemic quality.  
Impressionism, despite its financial success in 1879, still had a long way to go to garner support from mainstream art critics and academicians.

The fifth Impressionist exhibition was not a total wash. Mary Cassatt exhibited one of her best-known works Five O'Clock Tea (1880) "
the Fifth Impressionist Exhibition in 1800

Mary had been heartsick about this showing...so few entries ready.  She put up some of the prints she'd prepared for Le Jour et La Nuit, although she felt they looked small and inconsequential hanging on the wall.  I'm going to hunt for the one she did of Lydia.  When some of us met at the National Gallery of Art, we saw a number of the plates worked on my Mary Cassatt and Degas.  I forget the years on those, though.  Does anyone remember?  It would be good to know that Mary and Degas went on with printmaking AFTER 1880, wouldn't it?

[bellamarie]

Ms. Oliveira, Welcome!!!!  We would truly be honored to hear any input you are willing to share with us.  I have read a few interviews, and watched the video of the interview I provided the link to early on.  I loved your enthusiasm for the characters.  Please feel free to clear up "any inaccuracies being asserted regarding some of the history of the artists."

Please, pull up a chair, fix yourself a cup of tea, and join our discussion.  Stay as long as you like! I will humbly, take note of any inaccuracies I may have posted.     

Ciao for now~

[BarbStAubrey]

OH MY - I do hope you join us Robin - we would love to hear your intent and I would love to know how you set the mood writing this novel - looking at history I am seeing another side of this glory time as we think of it - as close as we are to European History with remembered school study this time was brushed over and reading this has prompted me to look into some of the main political characters active in France at the time - fascinating.

Please anything you can share with us will be wonderful - especially is we picked up some inaccuracies.

[BarbStAubrey]

Just a quickie - have to leave here in just a bit - I got thinking last night and realized how easy it is to accept a dependency that we are saying Mary has to the exhibitions that Degas had planned and cancelled just as his cancellation of the book using prints. Regardless their professional relationship or their personal friendship can any of us imagine one of the male artists who would also not have an exhibition available getting bent out of shape because the exhibition was cancelled - oh they may growl but I do not think they would feel betrayed or wounded as if a slur on their work - I cannot imagine them complaining about all the work they did to get ready - they would realize if they wanted an exhibition than they needed to create their own or go on and find other ways of selling their work.

That realization led me to see the boulder Mary was trying to climb - in one breath she wanted to be an artist with as much public acclaim as possible which, Degas is right saying it takes courage, forthright belief in your work and the ability not to be "needy" - 'needy' for others to make it possible to show your work or to comment favorably or for the good will of those who you admire. I think that is the message Degas is trying to give to Mary but at this time in history as a women that is new behavior and new thinking - she had been more independent than most women, even most professional women at the time but not yet as independent as a male artist who may have doubts and who do seek approval but are not going to cry out to another artist friend about how they disappointed them.  

[RLO]

How lovely! Thank you for the warm reception. I would have loved to have been a part of the discussion early on, but I do love being a fly on the wall. Sometimes, at book clubs where I have been physically invited, people forget I am there and I love that.

I am writing now--my next book--but in about four hours or so I'll have time to address some of the questions.  Thank you so much. And if someone is still opposed to my being here, please don't hesitate to say so.

Robin

[maryz]

marking

[PatH]

Welcome, RLO.
Of course we're delighted to see you here--honored, too.  You must be very busy.  Anything you have the time to say will be very welcome.

[bellamarie]

Jean,  

Regardless their professional relationship or their personal friendship can any of us imagine one of the male artists who would also not have an exhibition available getting bent out of shape because the exhibition was cancelled - oh they may growl but I do not think they would feel betrayed or wounded as if a slur on their work - I cannot imagine them complaining about all the work they did to get ready - they would realize if they wanted an exhibition than they needed to create their own or go on and find other ways of selling their work.  

If you go back and read how everyone reacted to the first cancelled exhibition, I do believe the men were as upset with Degas cancelling the exhibitions, as much as Mary was.  If you recall a couple of the men/artists, left and went to the Salon, and I recall he lost friendships due to his inconsiderateness.  Mary seemed more upset about the fact she felt she had wasted a whole year helping Degas with the journal, only for him to decide it was not good enough to place in the exhibit.  She was furious he would cancel without so much as telling her his intentions.  I feel Mary had every right to be furious with him.  She had placed her trust in him yet once again, only for him to once again disregard her time and work, yet as she stated, "he had his masterpiece."

Mary was well on her way in the very beginning, I feel had she continued on without Degas, she would have accomplished as much, if not more, with or without his help.  Yes, she was planning on returning to Philadelphia, and meeting Degas, and he inviting her to be a member of the Impressionist's group gave her the incentive to stay in Paris, but the critics were still as harsh on her as before.  Woman or man I feel to break through as an artist at that time, as well as today is very difficult.  It's a rough world to be in.  

Ciao for now~

Oh dear, went to check on something and my book I borrowed from the library online has expired!  Egads I am going in circles trying to get it back into my browser.  Wish me luck.

[PatH]

Someone asked if the journal Le Jour et la Nuit was ever published.  No, it wasn't.  The current exhibit at the National Gallery has a number of the prints, with some explanations of the techniques involved.  The prints range from definitely good enough to publish to somewhat experimental.

[RLO]

" I knew the letters were not real and part of the Novel but I did not know the cleaning of the studio after his death was also a tale - thought that was true - ah so...I do find it difficult trying to comment on this book since again, we do not know what is a tale for a  novel and what is biography."

Hello All!

I thought I would respond to the above statement, since it contains some misconceptions. It is well known that Mary Cassatt burned Edgar Degas's letters to her and hers to him. The letters were real, but destroyed. The cleaning of the studio after his death did occur. It was referred to in the book "My Friend Degas." Mary Cassatt participated, and at that time, retrieved all the letters that she had ever written to him.

This book is historical fiction, not biography, but the genre of historical fiction allows for some latitude on the part of the writer. However, I hove very closely to as much biographical truth as I possibly can. I do not veer from what is known. I do, however, feel free to imagine the emotional arc of the characters, however I also hove closely to diary entries, other letters, and reported conversations, to stay, as much as possible within the bounds of who the historical personages were, as far as I can tell from what is known.

I hope this helps with those of you having difficulty with the biographical nature of the book versus the fictive nature of the book.

It's a real pleasure to have the book receive so much serious attention.

If you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

[JoanK]

RLO: WELCOME WELCOME! We love having authors in our discussion: it adds so much. Don't be surprised if we ask you questions.

I'll never forget when I asked an author "Did you mean such-and-such to be a symbol for so-and-so?" and she answered "Oh, what a good idea! Of course I did." I'm still laughing.

[pedln]

Welcome Robin Oliveira.  We're delighted that you have joined us.

JoanP, I don't remember the years on prints, but the brochure from the National Gallery states that "the participants (in the journal) worked diligently throughout the autumn of 1879 and the early months of 1880, but the proposed journal was never published."

I feel that Degas treated his colleagues (from the journal) poorly, but at the same time Mary Cassatt learned a skill that she might not have attempted without the encouragement of Degas.  Again, from the brochure, "Despite her lack of training, Cassatt proved extraordinarily adept at printmaking."

Alas, my library consortium ebook became due, and quickly returned itself, so the final chapters were only quickly scanned.

[CallieOK]

Welcome, Robin!   What a delight to have you joining our discussion. 

[bellamarie]

RLO,  I have a question regarding the lovemaking scene.  I saw this as a climax to what seemed inevitable, to me the reader. 

Why did you chose this particular spot in the story for this to happen? 

I personally found it to be the perfect place for them to give into their feelings they have been suppressing, and yes after such a heated argument, it seems Degas was determined to draw Mary, make love to her with his pencil, instead he makes love to her with his body. 

Thank you for clarifying the fact, (Mary indeed went to his studio to clean it up, and found the letters.)  The letters seem pivotal to the story.  I understand you having some latitude, especially with the emotional arc of the characters, but knowing the letters were destroyed, did you at any time feel the urge to have Mary reveal any of the contents in the letters, fictitiously of course? 

I have not completed the book, since our discussion is set up for weekly reading assignments, but from what I gather you reveal Mary destroyed the letters.  Had this not been revealed by a reader early on, I would have been turning page after page, just to find out if she at any time would reveal anything in the letters.  Call me a hopeless romantic. 

Thank you for creating the romance to the story, not only with Mary and Edgar, but also with Edouard and Berthe, without it I personally would not have been as interested, since I know so little about art or artists.  I commend you on a wonderful story.

Marie~

[RLO]

Bellamarie,

Why did I choose this particular spot in the story for the lovemaking to happen?

Good question! I knew it had to be at a fraught moment, when they were both at their most vulnerable. Let's face it, Degas was no romantic. His connection to Mary was intellectual, rather than physical. A moment when they both might give in, or at least when Mary might be tempted was when Degas asked her for help. He did not often do so. But he was in trouble. Was it selfish? I think so...

And regarding the letters: Yes, I wondered whether I ought to fabricate the letters, to write them in, but somehow that seemed like too much of an overstep. I wanted them to remain Cassatt's secret, and that choice maintains some of the mystery about what was actually in those letters. If you recall the line from the prologue: "So many letters, you would think they had been in love.", you can see that I inserted the element of doubt. You would think... Is Mary questioning it too? Look carefully for other signs in the prologue that cast doubt on whether anything in the novel is true.

Does that help?

[bellamarie]

Yes, Robin it does help.  I saw exactly as you stated, two very vulnerable people, coming off a heated argument, wondering where their friendship/relationship would go.  Is it coincidental that each time Degas asks for help it is after an argument?  Mary gives in both times, helping with the journal, drawing her, and making love.  Indeed it was selfish, but that stayed true to the character.

Okay, without sounding cheesy, in the movie, Jerry Maguire the famous statement is, "You had me at Hello."  For me, in the prologue as you stated, "So many letters, you would think they had been in love.",  was for me, "You had me at Hello."  From that point on, I had to read this story to see if anything would be revealed, and IF they were truly in love.

[RLO]

Hmmm, she does give in after arguments, doesn't she? But you can be certain that in books, rarely is anything left to coincidence.

[JoanP]

Yes, I think it does help, Robin.  And talk about being in a vulnerable fragile state - consider Degas.  His beloved doll has just received criticism from two artists he values most.  All that careful consideration, working, reworking...and now he is told that the proportions are off?! It must have been devastating for him!

He was about to enter la petite danseuse into the Impressionist Exhibition...everyone waiting to see what he will carry into that empty vitrine.

Two questions...what else had he entered into this exhibition?  Did he ever show his precieuse danseur at a future exhibition...and how was she received?  (It occurs to me that this might be discussed in the concluding chapters of the book, which I haven't read yet. If so, ignore the question.)

Thank you so much for joining us, Robin...and addressing the questions we've all been  considering since the opening chapters  in the Prologue.

[RLO]

JoanP:

I'm happy to be here. You might want to finish reading the book to see about the dancer...

[PatH]

From the prologue:

He was equally to blame, but what she still didn't understand was whether there was room for love in two lives already consumed by passion of another sort.  You would think she would know the answer by now.

And that great exit line:

So many pages, you would think they had been in love.

I took these to be fair warning that things would be complicated, and we might or might not get answers.

[JoanP]

 Posting together, PatH...good points~

We're about to discuss the final chapters in another day or so.  I hope to see more about Degas's danseuse.  Here's a question for you, Robin...

Do I detect some sympathy or empathy for Degas on your part?    I am feeling that in your portrayal of his character.

[RLO]

PatH:

Or even: "Tonight she would paint once again, though only in her mind; would indulge imagination, though only once. Would believe what she'd scarcely been able to believe then."

[RLO]

JoanP:

I think Degas has gotten a bad rap over the years. He's been labeled a misogynist unfairly, I think. I believe this label stemmed from the way he painted women in a hyper-realist vein. But he was reacting to the beatification of women in academic painting, where women were presented as glorious, marble visions of piety. He exaggerated, as artists do, to make a point. Therein lay the seed of the conviction, I believe, that Degas hated women. I don't believe it's true. Would he have championed Cassatt as he did if he truly believed women were inferior? He did once say something like "I won't believe that a woman can paint or draw so well" (I'm paraphrasing) but I bet he said it with a sly smile.

[bellamarie]

I have to say, I don't think you painted a very kind image of Degas in the book as well.  He did come over as a man who had little regard for women, and found using them as his models and sexual release, was what their purpose in life was to him.  Although, he sees something different in Mary.  He refers to her as them being (paraphrasing) one in two bodies, his equal.

When you mention, " I also hove closely to diary entries, other letters, and reported conversations, to stay, as much as possible within the bounds of who the historical personages were, as far as I can tell from what is known."

May I ask, who these diaries, letters, etc., belonged to?  My understanding from research was that Mary destroyed her personal items, as well did Degas, so I am assuming none of your research was from their personal belongings.  Through your research was there anyone or anywhere you found something that contradicted the personality of Degas?  Also, are there any websites you used for your research, that you can share with us?

It has been such a delight having you here with us, answering our questions, and giving us insight into your writing the story.