Check out the Program Ladies
http://bwf.org.au/
Which Ever One to Read......
Jul 8, 2013
Postscript, The Paris Wife
If I hadn't said enough already, however the interesting irony of it all is that i didn't comment at all on the fabulous Pauline. It dawned on me that even though we took time to discuss our views on the dynamic of Pauline, Hadley and Ernest and of course the ethical and seemingly absent moral sensibility of Pauline's actions... How could i have forgotten to comment.
The real question is, was Pauline fiendly calculating to get her man, or was she acting within the norms of the social set she was participating in. I think it is too easy a justification to allow the polyamorous values of the times give her a moral free pass. The link i posted at the end of the last blog, is her grandson's attempt to re-caste Pauline's role in the love triangle a little differently. However all being said and done, Pauline's pursuit of her own attraction and interest of Hemingway was pure betrayal of her friendship to Hadley. Is there anything worse than the betrayal, it was hard for each of us in the end to have a sense of empathy for all that was Pauline. Of some solace is, that which she chased and captured and for some length of time had the opportunity to adore, that which she thought she had tamed, was untameable, and her own undoing was not being able to realise, she would never be enough for a man like Ernest Hemingway. Even from our small window of observation, he was a man who needed his freedom, in an effort to escape his own loneliness.
So no more for now - but i do think others may have something to say in the comments section of this postscript note.
V
The real question is, was Pauline fiendly calculating to get her man, or was she acting within the norms of the social set she was participating in. I think it is too easy a justification to allow the polyamorous values of the times give her a moral free pass. The link i posted at the end of the last blog, is her grandson's attempt to re-caste Pauline's role in the love triangle a little differently. However all being said and done, Pauline's pursuit of her own attraction and interest of Hemingway was pure betrayal of her friendship to Hadley. Is there anything worse than the betrayal, it was hard for each of us in the end to have a sense of empathy for all that was Pauline. Of some solace is, that which she chased and captured and for some length of time had the opportunity to adore, that which she thought she had tamed, was untameable, and her own undoing was not being able to realise, she would never be enough for a man like Ernest Hemingway. Even from our small window of observation, he was a man who needed his freedom, in an effort to escape his own loneliness.
So no more for now - but i do think others may have something to say in the comments section of this postscript note.
V
Jul 7, 2013
July Book - Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood
A cut and paste review from Booktopia,
"In "Alias Grace, " bestselling author Margaret Atwood has written her most captivating, disturbing, and ultimately satisfying work since "The Handmaid's Tale." She takes us back in time and into the life of one of the most enigmatic and notorious women of the nineteenth century.
Grace Marks has been convicted for her involvement in the vicious murders of her employer, Thomas Kinnear, and Nancy Montgomery, his housekeeper and mistress. Some believe Grace is innocent; others think her evil or insane. Now serving a life sentence, Grace claims to have no memory of the murders.
Dr. Simon Jordan, an up-and-coming expert in the burgeoning field of mental illness, is engaged by a group of reformers and spiritualists who seek a pardon for Grace. He listens to her story while bringing her closer and closer to the day she cannot remember. What will he find in attempting to unlock her memories? Is Grace a female fiend? A bloodthirsty femme fatale? Or is she the victim of circumstances?"
Ref: http://www.booktopia.com.au/alias-grace-margaret-atwood/prod9780385490443.htmlEnjoy!
The Paris Wife - June Book Review
Does selfishness rather than selflessness need to be present for true brilliance to thrive?
This was one of the questions posed in our discussion as we shared our reflections on Paula McCain's, The Paris Wife. While this story was written to bring the voice of Hadley Rischardson to life - Ernest Hemingway's first wife and seemingly enduring true love - It was hard to not be engaged in the orbit of Hemingway as the story of their life together unfolded. With each layer of the story unfolding, Ernest bringing upon each of us in his own way, a visceral response to their story. Regardless of our opinions of his choices, which at this point i might say Jen, Bec, Ruthie and I all expressed a similar view of complete antipathy toward the man in terms of the principles he chose to guide his moral compass as it related to his relationship Hadley. Ernest's self-serving justifications were all flawed with defensive strategies of deflection in the spirit of self-preservation of his own interests it seemed. The pivotal point of no turning back, which Hemingway seemed unable to reconcile and also was the start of what seemed to be the shifting sands was the loss of a cache of Ernest's works, which would have been under any circumstance a significant loss to any person to have lost all that you had worked on, his writing was him and with the loss, I think he took it personally to a point of convincing himself that maybe Hadley really didn't understand him or value his work enough at all. Maybe this wasn't what McLain intended to imply and it is just one, my interpretation. At any rate, a crack was formed that no amount of super-glue was going to fix.
So, back to the opening statement, i am not certain we really thrashed this very philosophical question around sufficiently, and i do hope we have time in future conversations to hash this one through. Maybe there is no simple answer. While Bec with deep thought replied, "yes i think it seems so".and then went on to say more...."their is a real difference with being successful and brilliant, and it seems when one thinks about those who are truly brilliant, those who produce something original and unique....they all have a backstory of being driven and self-focussed, at the cost of some significant impact on relationships".
When I think about this question, i think there needs to be dark and light to allow for true brilliance to thrive. And so when i think of selfishness and selflessness they are the dark and light of the same substance and shadow - two aspects of the same, yet different. In there substance the actions invoke different responses from those around us and the actions of selfishness and selflessness, usually have a purpose of expectant outcome which involves both receiving, needing and giving of something whether that be of thyself or of a subjective other. So when it comes full circle, back to the Question and the Story, I think about Hadley and Ernest, "were the same guy" as Paula suggests to us; Is it not both selfishness and selflessness that sustained them and helped them thrive and in spite of everything continue to hold each connected across time. I am left to think without the selflessness of Hadley, and where Ernest is concerned also his other 4 wives, I wonder truly how would his brilliance of been able to flourish. There is no doubt, self-indulgence, selfishness of focus is an aspect of Ernest's character which the author shone a spotlight on as she gave rise to Hadley's voice. And yet is seems essential and clear that the commitment and selfless support of Hadley to Ernest's success is something which resonated strongly through the story and gave him a weight to help him stay connected to the world around him, so his brilliance could thrive. So again, coming back to the question - maybe it is not, either or, perhaps it is, both and. Did not Gertrude Stein have Alice, Scott Fitzgerald have Zelda, Salvador Dali had Gala, Picasso had Marie-Therese. To achieve greatness there needs to be an orbit of both existing.
So now back to the book - the majority of us, were taken with the openness of the character Hadley's and Ernest's voice. The author did a great job of inviting us into the world of Hadley. Ruthie was with you Rachelle, and at first felt a little indignant about the author supposing to take on the voice of Hadley and comment upon the facts of her (their) life. However due to and i think it is far to say, the skill of McLain, Ruth's sense of indignation fell away, as she became immersed in the place, time and people of the story. Stephanie Deutsch of the Washington Times (2011) in her review writes, "it is a tribute to the writer's ability that the reader's sympathies shift back and forth between the two parties".
McLain's story composition and combination of fact with literary license was so compelling and sincere we were left wondering what part was fiction vs fact. Yet we all are realistic to appreciate the author could not of know the detail of threads of conversation or reflections Hadley and Ernest had all the while throughout the period of their time in Paris. And in reviews by the author herself she says as much. However our conversation at bookclub today still led us to ask the question of each other and so we find ourselves agreeing, unless these of course are captured in letters and journals - the intimacy of conversations and reflections upon conversations, were probably faction.
Maybe it is time to read, A Moveable Feast (E. Hemingway), Hadley a Life of Hardly Richardson Hemingway (G. Diliberto), Te Letters of Ernest Hemingway (E. Hemingway). Not sure how keen everyone is, but here are some starting references if you feel moved.
Our conversation and review then moved to an appreciation of Hadley as a strong and brave woman, especially given a view that although Hadley participated in the social set of the artistic upper middle and bourgeois class, while the allure of being with Hemingway offered her an opportunity to reinvent herself and live differently to that which was bestowed upon her by her family of origin, she still retained a moral and ethical sensibility closer akin to her family of origin. She wanted to explore life to its fullest, yet was more contained and looking for something steady and stable to offer herself a sense of solidness in relationship. While in the beginning she received this and offered this to Hemingway, it wasn't to be for the long term. The environment of the time, the peers they related to were caught up in chasing the edge of experience, playing to excess with a view to stretching conventional ideas to expand new ways of thinking and living. Or from a cynical view point, one could suggest, due to privilege being able to challenge conventional ways of living, to meet self-gratifying indulgences. There is no doubt, the couple mixed with some of the most influential thinkers and artists of the early to mid 1900's. I think we all at some point were disappointed that Hadley's intellectual contribution in those circles seemed relegated to being wife. McLain, left an impression of a much stronger thinker, courageous of heart and spirited woman, yet balanced with a quiet demeanour and delicate self-confidence.
What a time to live Paris in the 1920s-'30s.... It was the only way it could end, the story being factual and all, however it was refreshing and we relished that Hadley, found strength in the need to restore her ownself and dignity and walked away. She could become more of herself because of that decision, than if she had stayed with the belief she couldn't be without him.
Great Book!! Great Writing!! Worth Recommending to Others!!
Ps Here is an interesting link about a re-write of 'Moveable Feast'. And 1 last comment, a narrative and an ending will always be influenced by the perspective and bias of whose voice is describing it, i am sure you will agree....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/28hemingway.html
This was one of the questions posed in our discussion as we shared our reflections on Paula McCain's, The Paris Wife. While this story was written to bring the voice of Hadley Rischardson to life - Ernest Hemingway's first wife and seemingly enduring true love - It was hard to not be engaged in the orbit of Hemingway as the story of their life together unfolded. With each layer of the story unfolding, Ernest bringing upon each of us in his own way, a visceral response to their story. Regardless of our opinions of his choices, which at this point i might say Jen, Bec, Ruthie and I all expressed a similar view of complete antipathy toward the man in terms of the principles he chose to guide his moral compass as it related to his relationship Hadley. Ernest's self-serving justifications were all flawed with defensive strategies of deflection in the spirit of self-preservation of his own interests it seemed. The pivotal point of no turning back, which Hemingway seemed unable to reconcile and also was the start of what seemed to be the shifting sands was the loss of a cache of Ernest's works, which would have been under any circumstance a significant loss to any person to have lost all that you had worked on, his writing was him and with the loss, I think he took it personally to a point of convincing himself that maybe Hadley really didn't understand him or value his work enough at all. Maybe this wasn't what McLain intended to imply and it is just one, my interpretation. At any rate, a crack was formed that no amount of super-glue was going to fix.
So, back to the opening statement, i am not certain we really thrashed this very philosophical question around sufficiently, and i do hope we have time in future conversations to hash this one through. Maybe there is no simple answer. While Bec with deep thought replied, "yes i think it seems so".and then went on to say more...."their is a real difference with being successful and brilliant, and it seems when one thinks about those who are truly brilliant, those who produce something original and unique....they all have a backstory of being driven and self-focussed, at the cost of some significant impact on relationships".
When I think about this question, i think there needs to be dark and light to allow for true brilliance to thrive. And so when i think of selfishness and selflessness they are the dark and light of the same substance and shadow - two aspects of the same, yet different. In there substance the actions invoke different responses from those around us and the actions of selfishness and selflessness, usually have a purpose of expectant outcome which involves both receiving, needing and giving of something whether that be of thyself or of a subjective other. So when it comes full circle, back to the Question and the Story, I think about Hadley and Ernest, "were the same guy" as Paula suggests to us; Is it not both selfishness and selflessness that sustained them and helped them thrive and in spite of everything continue to hold each connected across time. I am left to think without the selflessness of Hadley, and where Ernest is concerned also his other 4 wives, I wonder truly how would his brilliance of been able to flourish. There is no doubt, self-indulgence, selfishness of focus is an aspect of Ernest's character which the author shone a spotlight on as she gave rise to Hadley's voice. And yet is seems essential and clear that the commitment and selfless support of Hadley to Ernest's success is something which resonated strongly through the story and gave him a weight to help him stay connected to the world around him, so his brilliance could thrive. So again, coming back to the question - maybe it is not, either or, perhaps it is, both and. Did not Gertrude Stein have Alice, Scott Fitzgerald have Zelda, Salvador Dali had Gala, Picasso had Marie-Therese. To achieve greatness there needs to be an orbit of both existing.
So now back to the book - the majority of us, were taken with the openness of the character Hadley's and Ernest's voice. The author did a great job of inviting us into the world of Hadley. Ruthie was with you Rachelle, and at first felt a little indignant about the author supposing to take on the voice of Hadley and comment upon the facts of her (their) life. However due to and i think it is far to say, the skill of McLain, Ruth's sense of indignation fell away, as she became immersed in the place, time and people of the story. Stephanie Deutsch of the Washington Times (2011) in her review writes, "it is a tribute to the writer's ability that the reader's sympathies shift back and forth between the two parties".
McLain's story composition and combination of fact with literary license was so compelling and sincere we were left wondering what part was fiction vs fact. Yet we all are realistic to appreciate the author could not of know the detail of threads of conversation or reflections Hadley and Ernest had all the while throughout the period of their time in Paris. And in reviews by the author herself she says as much. However our conversation at bookclub today still led us to ask the question of each other and so we find ourselves agreeing, unless these of course are captured in letters and journals - the intimacy of conversations and reflections upon conversations, were probably faction.
Maybe it is time to read, A Moveable Feast (E. Hemingway), Hadley a Life of Hardly Richardson Hemingway (G. Diliberto), Te Letters of Ernest Hemingway (E. Hemingway). Not sure how keen everyone is, but here are some starting references if you feel moved.
Our conversation and review then moved to an appreciation of Hadley as a strong and brave woman, especially given a view that although Hadley participated in the social set of the artistic upper middle and bourgeois class, while the allure of being with Hemingway offered her an opportunity to reinvent herself and live differently to that which was bestowed upon her by her family of origin, she still retained a moral and ethical sensibility closer akin to her family of origin. She wanted to explore life to its fullest, yet was more contained and looking for something steady and stable to offer herself a sense of solidness in relationship. While in the beginning she received this and offered this to Hemingway, it wasn't to be for the long term. The environment of the time, the peers they related to were caught up in chasing the edge of experience, playing to excess with a view to stretching conventional ideas to expand new ways of thinking and living. Or from a cynical view point, one could suggest, due to privilege being able to challenge conventional ways of living, to meet self-gratifying indulgences. There is no doubt, the couple mixed with some of the most influential thinkers and artists of the early to mid 1900's. I think we all at some point were disappointed that Hadley's intellectual contribution in those circles seemed relegated to being wife. McLain, left an impression of a much stronger thinker, courageous of heart and spirited woman, yet balanced with a quiet demeanour and delicate self-confidence.
What a time to live Paris in the 1920s-'30s.... It was the only way it could end, the story being factual and all, however it was refreshing and we relished that Hadley, found strength in the need to restore her ownself and dignity and walked away. She could become more of herself because of that decision, than if she had stayed with the belief she couldn't be without him.
Great Book!! Great Writing!! Worth Recommending to Others!!
Ps Here is an interesting link about a re-write of 'Moveable Feast'. And 1 last comment, a narrative and an ending will always be influenced by the perspective and bias of whose voice is describing it, i am sure you will agree....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/books/28hemingway.html
Jul 6, 2013
Rachelle's : Book club Comments
No Worries Rachelle you are welcome anytime. Next Bookclub 25th August - Book, Alias Grace by Margaret Atwood.
Begin forwarded message:
Hi Venice, I'm bummed that book club is this Sunday! I was hoping to make this month's meeting seeing as I've read the book and all, but we're actually away down the coast for the night. I would love to hear what everyone has to say about the book, Hadley and Ernest...heady times hey. I had mixed reactions about the novel, at first I really enjoyed it, but then it seemed to just go on without actually much happening, but this just may have been a result of how long it was taking me to read it. I did persevere, and towards the end started enjoying it again. ( I couldn't believe some of what Hadley tolerated!)
Anyway I'm disappointed not to be able to join you all, but will try next month's book and see how I go. All is well at this end. Give my love to all.
Rachelle x
Jul 3, 2013
Bookclub Reminder this Sunday
Bookclub - Sun 8 am at crosstown eatery woolloongabba!
Hope you have enjoyed the Paris Wife!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)