<p>Oops, I should have paid closer attention. I thought the minister was Leah’s father-in-law! Re-reading the story, I see that the relationship with the minister was foreshadowed in the post office scene. </p>
<p>The fact that the lover wasn’t the father-in-law makes Leah seem less like a “bad news” girl, in a way.</p>
<p>Ignatius, I noticed Munro’s attitude toward religion too. It’s never a central factor in a story, but it seems never to be represented in a positive light.</p>
<p>Psychmom, I agree with this comment of yours:</p>
<p>On a more serious note, I looked up your reference to Ray’s reaction to the gossip about Leah. I had forgotten about that. I think it’s significant that it says right afterwards that he wishes he could have talked it over with Isabel, who tended to be more easy going than he.</p>
<p>^^^ I’ve had to watch out for that. My other book club read Rebecca in October. I’ve nearly typed Manderly a handful of times myself. I didn’t even notice when you did - it seems to read more naturally than Maverly.</p>
<p>I don’t see Leah as secretive or shy but rather unformed. I easily picture her going off with the seductive minister’s son and later falling into an affair with someone else. She looks for love in all the wrong places and loses her children in the process. She has some growing up to do and it seems she chooses the hard way to go about it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have friends who are long time nurses and say the same thing. My sister passed away in May after a long time in hospice. She died at a moment when her daughter (also a nurse) happened not to be with her.</p>
<p>I like the thought that perhaps - in some way - Isabel senses that she can let go and Ray can be okay. Isabel never seems the jealous type; I think she’d be pleased that Leah is there.</p>
<p>I attributed that to two things: 1) the strength of Ray and Isabel’s love for each other; and 2) the fact that Isabel thinks of Leah as a child for them to take in, not a woman who holds any temptation for Ray.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As for Isabel thinking Leah’s elopement was “a great story,” I think she is simply a hopeless romantic. Isabel’s own “scandal” had a happy ending, so I imagine she figures everyone else’s will too.</p>
<p>Great discussion! I still don’t love the book, but I am enjoying this discussion. I love the different feelings and interpretations that come from different readers. Do you think Munro knew this about her book? That different readers would end up interpreting scenes differently? I guess we do that to some degree in every book we read. It’s impossible not to let personal life experiences influence interpretation. I still wonder if Munro did this intentionally. Her short story format, that only offers the reader a small peak of someone’s life, makes it easy to leave interpretation open ended. Our inference of a character’s life before and after the story is going to be personal.</p>
<p>BUandBC82, I think what you say about different people interpreting things differently is correct…and it’s something that is true of art in general. Short stories leave a lot of space for interpretation. Everything is not spelled out.</p>
<p>Not quite on the same topic, but here is a nice piece I found about learning to love Alice Munro. (I am sure I am going to read more of her work, sooner or later.)</p>
<p>Yes, I’m beginning our discussion of “Gravel” with ignatius’ observation about “To Reach Japan.” Why? Because I just read “Gravel” again and was startled by this line describing the narrator’s action at the moment that Caro is drowning:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why does this appear again? What point is Munro trying to emphasize? Perhaps she is making an observation about human nature – that in the end, we have no control over our lives and must passively accept what is to happen and not attempt to shape the outcome. Or maybe she is commenting on the nature of females in particular, as products of a culture that teaches women to be passive (at least during the era in which the stories are set).</p>
<p>Another possibility: I read the final sentences in “To Reach Japan” as referring to Katy. Given ignatius’ comment, I don’t know anymore if that’s true , but if it is, Munro might be remarking on the utter helplessness of childhood. In both stories, little girls of similar age are at the mercy of the adults in their lives, and all they can do is wait for whatever happens next.</p>
<p>So interesting, Mary, I thought of the narrator in “Gravel” as being a little boy. For no reason, I guess, because the story does say that Josie “took me on an expedition. We visited some swings and a sort of dollhouse that was large enough for me to go inside”…and later mentions the partner, Ruthann. “Partner” in Australia is used interchangeably with husband or wife so that wasn’t a clue to me.</p>
<p>Anyway, this story has one of my favorite lines in it, after the mom went to live with Neal in the trailer. </p>
<p>I thought of the narrator as a little boy, too! That is, right up to the end when he/she wrote, “I have a partner, Ruthann,” and then I said to myself, whoa, it’s a woman. That’s one of the reasons I decided to re-read the story, to picture the character “correctly.” But now I’m very curious to know what the rest of you thought.</p>
<p>Alice Munro is a very careful writer. If the gender of a character seems ambiguous, it’s likely on purpose.</p>
<p>Wow, I always thought the narrator of “Gravel” was a girl. However, I now see that there is absolutely nothing in the text to indicate this except the Ruthann thing.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what the age of the narrator in “Gravel” was. It was never mentioned that the child ever interacted with boys (of course, few may have been available) and there are no anecdotes about any interactions of the child with either the father or Neal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I always thought the final sentences of “To Reach Japan” referred to Katy. I agree that Munro is pointing out the helplessness of childhood.</p>
<p>I don’t know why some of us thought “boy” and others “girl,” but it’s another example of what BUandBC82 pointed out earlier about the different feelings and interpretations that come from different readers. It’s like each story is a Rorschach test or one of those pictures in kids’ puzzle books – do you see two faces or a vase?</p>
<p>I thought little girl - little sister tagging along.</p>
<p>I like “Gravel” perhaps because the child narrates. After all, the mother again (fourth story in a row though the Doctor and Vivien aren’t the parents per se) moves into a affair with little thought toward her children. Maybe I like Neal more than Doctor Fox or know him better Greta’s or Leah’s men. I find Neal useless more than anything, like Greg with some age on him and drugs in him. Neal has no false advertising associated with him. </p>
<p>Without rereading my thoughts:</p>
<p>Caro acts out while the narrator accepts the changes in her life probably because of age.</p>
<p>Caro does not commit suicide. She’s young enough that she doesn’t reason out death as the end result of her actions. While not a tragic accident, it plays out as a tragic consequence.</p>
<p>I knew that death by gravel pit loomed in the story. By the fourth story, I had accepted the inevitable. No happy ending with the gravel pit turned into a vegetable/flower garden around which family life rotates.</p>
<p>I feel sorry for the poor dog. Did he make it out of the pit?</p>
<p>I like how the narrator searches out Neal later in life and their talk.</p>
<p>No good thing comes of Caro’s actions but, at least, I understand these people and feel empathy.</p>
<p>I read the last lines in “To Reach Japan” as belonging to Katy. I thought it interesting to see a different interpretation - the mother not willing to “escape” the fallout of her actions or her child’s censure. What happens next is in a way up to Katy. The little girl sets the tone when she pulls away from her mother. I don’t expect a close mother/daughter bond or even simple compliance.</p>
<p>I thought the narrator was a boy, but on re-reading, I see the character seems to be gender neutral. Interesting!</p>
<p>Lots of things bothered me about the story (obviously, the death of Caro is a biggie). In thinking about why the little boy/girl did not do anything, I interpreted that to highlight the ways in which some of the characters acted in a responsible, adult way vs. being irresponsible. Neal represents an immature force…afraid to stand up and take action when Caro was in trouble, leaving fatherhood behind, and letting go of the whole event altogether in later years. The narrator seems to have grown up…especially after being prompted by his/her partner…and does not adopt Neal’s attitude. I guess I see this story as examining the roles of childhood vs adulthood…again, there are no evil characters, just flawed ordinary people.
Children acting as adults, adults acting as children…it’s all in there. Even the animals face different roles: the family dog is manipulated (like the narrator), while the wolf is seen as perhaps protecting her cubs. Caro’s mother seems to experience a return to responsibility…interesting that she changed the baby’s name from Brandy to Brent. Regarding Caro’s action of jumping into the gravel pit, I didn’t see that as a suicide: I thought that she was “acting out” a protective role (creating a scenario where she could save the dog), demonstrating her inner feeling of wanting more adult-like supervision. She did the same thing when she placed the dog at her former home, back in her father’s care.</p>
<p>(Will be out of town but following the discussion…thanks again for all your thoughts!)</p>
<p>Interesting that practically the first thing Caro says is “I’m not going to disappear” and of course she does physically, but the narrator can’t let her go. Not even after her talk with Neal. </p>
<p>I always assumed the narrator was a woman, but interesting that when you read closely the only clue is that she got taken to play in a giant dollhouse during her brother’s funeral.</p>
<p>I laughed out loud at ignatius’ vegetable/flower garden ending. Munro certainly doesn’t write Chicken Soup for the Soul stories, does she? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think about five: “I didn’t go to kindergarten, because my mother didn’t have a car. But I didn’t mind doing without other children” (p. 95). Caro is nine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, and poor Blitzee is a pawn in Caro’s games more than once – she also tucked him inside her coat on two occasions and delivered him back to her father’s house. The father, by the way, seems like a nice enough man, but not particularly passionate about his children: “In the beginning, we hadn’t seen our father at all…” (p. 100) – and then shortly after they set up a Saturday visit schedule, those visits are canceled due to a “lingering sort of flu.” Sounds like a suspiciously made up illness to me.</p>
<p>Hi all! I did, in fact, finish this book before 12/1, but was then out of town with no computer. (At my age, doing CC on an iPhone usually doesn’t work that well…) I’ve just read through everyone’s comments. As usual, I feel somewhat left in the dust by all the “deep” interpretations. :)</p>
<p>This is the first Alice Munro I’ve read. I have read a few other short story collections, but it’s not the genre at the top of my reading list. Although I really liked the actual writing, the stories left me vaguely depressed. But, I wouldn’t describe them as forgettable - I found/find myself thinking about characters and their stories on and off. </p>
<p>A few quick comments on the first few stories: (1) I didn’t like Greta as a person. I couldn’t come to grips with her going off and leaving her daughter in the train compartment. I read the last sentence of the story as referring to Greta, not Katy. (2) IMO, the doctor in “Amundsen” was a first-class jerk and Vivien was somewhat of a wimp. (Yes, I realize I’m looking at both of them through the lenses of 2013.) Mary was annoying, but I liked her spirit and energy. (3) I sort of figured Leah was going to “do” something like run off with the minister’s son since she was living such a tightly controlled life. What is the significance (I’m sure there is some!) of Leah first going with the original mister’s son, and then getting together with the replacement minister? I’m not sure I see Ray getting together with Leah …</p>
<p>OK, re: “Gravel” - in my mind’s eye I see the narrator as female. I’m not really sure why. And why, oh why did she/he just sit down on the step instead of calling for the mother? Again, I realize I’m interpreting things through my mindset, knowing exactly what was going to happen to Caro. And, yes, I wondered what happened to the dog, too.</p>
Convenience. Churches were probably pretty important in small towns like that, and ministers might have come and gone more than other people. It was a way to make social connections.
my thoughts:</p>