State of Wonder – October CC Book Club Selection

[ignatius]

<p>I’m grateful that 50 pages of dreams got dumped. </p>

<p>LasMa: I appreciated your thoughts on the meaning of Marina’s dreams, so I just spent time rereading only the dream sequences. I barely remembered Marina’s dream in which her father died … and had an impossible time locating it. Finally did … though it wasn’t the final dream. She had two more. I liked the final dream and thought it fit into your comments about her father letting her go, moving on “unencumbered by her weight.”</p>

<p>page 176:

[…]Marina latched onto the back of her father’s belt before he had the chance to slip away. She was trying to outsmart the dream. She knew it well enough by now. Her father was so fast! She was looking at the little bit of gray in the back of his hair, which was still very thick and mostly black, when suddenly a man with a cart full of bicycle tires rushed at them. How could he get so much speed in this crush? The dream was intent on its own historical set of rules – it is written that the two of them must be divided – and so he rammed his cart between them as if he meant to go through her arm. The blow hit her with such velocity that she went flying up into the air. It was like a dream, and for the instant she was above the crowd she saw everything, all the people and the animals, the terrible shacks that lined the road to the grand houses, the beggars and their bowls, the gates to the university, her father’s slim shoulders as he dashed ahead unencumbered by her weight. She saw everything, the impossibility of everything, before she crashed down on the pavement, the entire weight of her body coming down on her elbow.

</p>

<p>

@Mary13

I should have added one more reason in my earlier post as to why Marina has an affair with Mr. Fox: She is searching for a father figure. This could also be why she always thinks of him with the formal title “Mr.”—like a dad or a friend of your dad. It’s a little twisted, but those Oedipal/Electra complexes run deep.

</p>

<p>Notice that none of these intelligent, capable women – Marina, Annick Swenson, Nancy Saturn – choose particularly healthy relationships. The balance of power skews to the men, older and in positions of power: boss, professor/mentor. Sex with Anders Eckman only adds to the list of poor choices. Reflecting further, all three women dallied with a married man. (Nancy Saturn alludes to her and Alan’s affair.) Dr. Budi has no personal life at all. Is a point being made here? If so, I’m not sure I like the point. Can a woman not be intelligent, capable, and have a successful personal life?</p>

[Mary13]

<p>

@ignatius

Can a woman not be intelligent, capable, and have a successful personal life?

</p>

<p>We don’t get to know her well, but Karen Eckman seems to have those attributes. (”Such is your bravery, such is my good fortune.”)</p>

<p>The question is, will she be able to maintain the “successful personal life” part in the wake of what she’s been through—and what she has yet to learn about Anders and Marina?</p>

<p>Early in the book, we learn that because of Marina and Anders close working relationship, “Karen did not want Marina to forget her. And Marina did not forget her, but what was important between them was so deeply unspoken that there was never the chance to defend herself from that of which she had never been accused and was not guilty.” (p. 9)</p>

<p>In the end, Marina does forget Karen in a crucial moment, and now she is indeed guilty. It’s as if she, as well as Anders, breaks a vow made to Karen.</p>

[Tiredofsnow]

<p>Great discussion so far!</p>

<p>Did Marina ever explain why she didn’t take another anti-malarial? After all, she was a pharmacological researcher, right?</p>

<p>I am still absorbing all of the comments above but one thing has been haunting me since I read it, and I haven’t seen anyone mention it yet.</p>

<p>Is there any significance to the deformity that Dr. Swenson’s baby had? I figure that it’s a “leave nature alone” type message, but the fact that it was a “mermaid” baby has been haunting me. It was such a specific description that it seems it must have significance.</p>

<p>I have been waiting for October 1st so I could ask this question!!</p>

[BUandBC82]

<p>^^ Good question. Would it be somehow related to the symbolism of Marina’s name and the fact she delivered the baby? In her death the child was delivered to a place of “rest, refuge and safety” (to use LasMa’s words).</p>

[Mary13]

<p>

@TiredofSnow

Did Marina ever explain why she didn’t take another anti-malarial? After all, she was a pharmacological researcher, right?

</p>

<p>She gives the flimsy excuse to her mother that “the new ones don’t make you so crazy, but they also don’t protect from all the different strains of malaria.” (p. 38).</p>

<p>Why a flimsy excuse? Because Marina doesn’t really care about fighting all the different strains of malaria. If she did, she wouldn’t have thrown away the Lariam in the airport. Or if she felt she had to throw it away, she would have quickly arranged for another drug to combat at least some strains of malaria. But she throws it away with determination…and then immediately starts to take it again when the replacement packet arrives from Mr. Fox. I think she had a love/hate relationship with the drug and was a bit addicted to those dreams. They brought her father back, and their intensity—and the screaming—may have been a release for a woman who wasn’t used to expressing her feelings in waking life.</p>

[LasMa]

<p>Tiredofsnow, I was struck by that too, and I don’t think the type of deformity is coincidental. A sea creature… hmmm… The baby is also without gender, in a book that’s ripe with complicated gender-related problems/relationships/issues. Does that have any significance?</p>

<p>BTW, I can’t remember – do we know who the father is?</p>

<p>ETA – And in the most fertile community on earth, that baby, even if it had lived, would have been childless. Maybe it is a “don’t mess with mother nature” message, Tiredofsnow.</p>

[ignatius]

<p>From an interview with Ann Patchett:</p>

<p>

My husband’s daughter, Josephine, is a labor and delivery nurse. I remember calling Josephine and saying, “What’s a birth defect you’re never going to see?” And she immediately said, “Sirenomelia.”

</p>

<p>And the interview itself:</p>

<p>[Meds</a>, Minnesota and the Amazon: Ann Patchett?s ?State of Wonder? | Kirkus Book Reviews](<a href=“News & Features | Kirkus Reviews”>News & Features | Kirkus Reviews)</p>

[Mary13]

<p>

@LasMa

BTW, I can’t remember – do we know who the father is?

</p>

<p>We don’t know who the father is:</p>

<p>

”Who is the father?”</p>

<p>Dr. Swenson looked at her with the gravest disappointment, the disappointment she reserved for first year medical students. “Really, Dr, Singh, you are not serious.” (p. 247)

</p>

<p>

@BUandBC82

In her death the child was delivered to a place of “rest, refuge and safety”

</p>

<p>I believe that spiritually this was true (and in many ways, the death was a blessing), but physically, there was no dignified place of rest, refuge and safety: The baby was stored in the freezer for later study. Very sad, but somehow fitting for the offspring of Dr. Swenson.</p>

[Mary13]

<p>

My husband’s daughter, Josephine, is a labor and delivery nurse. I remember calling Josephine and saying, “What’s a birth defect you’re never going to see?” And she immediately said, “Sirenomelia.”

</p>

<p>Interesting! How coincidental that that particular defect–Mermaid Syndrome–fits so well with the water symbolism of Marina’s name and the strange and mysterious waters of the Amazon. It’s hard to believe it wasn’t a carefully thought-out choice.</p>

[SouthJerseyChessMom]

<p>Mary13

 . It’s hard to believe it wasn’t a carefully thought-out choice

</p>

<p>After reading many interviews, I think Ann Patchett gives some quick and shallow answers to probing questions. Her step daughter gave her the idea for that disorder, but deciding to utilize that within the story took some consideration. </p>

<p>I’ve only read two of Patchett’s books, but seems to me she has a decidedly feminist outlook. She’s taken Heart of Darkness/ or the Ambassadors (by Henry James) and turned them inside out, with female protagonists.</p>

<p>Her characters are very strong women. Big Pharma is up against obsessed female scientist, who fiercely protects the world from this the discovery of the drug.</p>

<p>What reactions did you have regarding the idea of “prolonged fertility”? </p>

<p>“Baby- we’ve- come -a- long-way” from the 60s when the development of birth control pill revolutionized the world. or have we ?</p>

[ignatius]

<p>

@Mary13

It’s hard to believe it wasn’t a carefully thought-out choice.

</p>

<p>Perhaps the carefully thought-out choice wasn’t so much Sirenomelia in itself but rather in Patchett’s need for a birth defect seldom encountered, one that makes the reader take note. Patchett uses an obscure birth defect to reinforce underlying ethical questions. She makes you wonder just how much a part tweaking nature played in this pregnancy and birth gone awry.</p>

[LasMa]

<p>

The baby was stored in the freezer for later study. Very sad, but somehow fitting for the offspring of Dr. Swenson.

</p>

<p>Wow, yes! But I wonder – if the baby had been normal and lived, would Dr. S have had what we think of as a normal mother-child bond with it? We know she’s capable of forming an attachment to a child. Or would she have seen it as merely an interesting scientific result, perhaps turning it over to the Lakashi to raise?</p>

[Tiredofsnow]

<p>ignatius, thanks for the interview catch! I figured with all the symbolism in the book that nothing was placed coincidentally, and I’m not sure I buy that it was, not with the research that Patchett does for her books. In other words, if whatever was suggested didn’t fit with her themes, I think she would have kept looking.</p>

<p>So would the Lakashi have a higher incidence of birth defects, too, or were their bodies somehow more adapted to the tree bark? Was it that Dr. S was so old, or was it that she hadn’t been eating the bark all along? </p>

<p>I figured artificial insemination from the other doctor, too, but then my analytical side starts arguing the impossibility - how long ago did that guy die if she went in to the Amazon with him when she was so young? How did she know to save his semen? How DID she in such rustic conditions? </p>

<p>The communal nature of the way the Lakashi babies were raised (whether they were born to old or young mothers) seems to provide a bit more continuity than having a baby born to a 72(?) year old woman who has a fairly solitary existence. </p>

<p>I was also surprised by how many other doctors were down there working, since Mr. Fox either didn’t know about them or never mentioned them (that I can remember, that is).</p>

<p>Interesting, too, how Marina’s life was so constricted back in Minnesota - the lab, Anders, Mr. Fox - and her experiences in the Amazon forced her to look away from the microscope into the bigger world.</p>

<p>I have to say I liked this one better than Bel Canto, but now I’m thinking I should go back and reread that one, too.</p>

<p>It’s great to have the forum for discussion! Thanks, Mary!</p>

[SouthJerseyChessMom]

<p>The idea that a 70 year old woman could endure pregnancy, the “brutality” of delivery, and have to raise that child who would be 10 when she is 80, seemed like a ridiculous development for humanity and especially “womankind”!
The description where the bark grew, the grove of trees, made me think of Avatar, the movie. It was difficult to take the “science” in the book seriously.</p>

<p>I was so ** relieved** when Dr Swenson became pregnant, suffered during pregnancy, and delivered an “ill” baby. I agree with others above that the horrendous, and rare deformity made the case to “leave nature alone”. Whew!</p>

<p>**I would not have liked the book, had Dr Swenson proved the drug worked well. **</p>

<p>Re: the Lariam and continued dreams. I read in an interview that Patchett, personally experienced these side effects, and NEEDED Marina’s nightly terrors to emphasize the need for a new antimalarial drug. Of course, the nightmares gave insight into Marina’s hidden personal issues.</p>

[SouthJerseyChessMom]

<p>Tiredofsnow-

I figured with all the symbolism in the book that nothing was placed coincidentally 

I suspect your are correct about this, but sometimes Patchett says things in interviews and makes me wonder ???

Patchett on naming Easter:

**Ann Patchett: He is not, he's named after the holiday on which he is discovered, and that has to do with the fact that I had just finished reading Dave Eggers' book What is the What, which was my favourite book probably in the last ten years. And the hero of that novel is named Valentine, and I thought I want to write a character named Valentine, and because I couldn't do that I decided to write a character named Easter.**

Patchett on having a deaf character:

Kate Pearcy: There is the character of Easter, the boy who is part of one of the Amazonian tribes, and he's deaf and mute. What does he offer you as a novelist? Because he's the one character...although he can't speak, he offers solace to all of the characters that he comes into contact with.

**Ann Patchett**: He's a screen on which every character projects their dream of the perfect child. And because he can't speak and he can't hear, he meets all of their expectations. He is what everyone wants him to be because they don't have any idea who he is or what he's really thinking. And it's strange to me because I think a lot of people don't see him that way, and people keep saying me, **'Oh, Easter, he was the perfect child, I loved him so much.' And I'm like, 'Well, of course he's the perfect child, he can't say anything, he doesn't make any noise, that's why everybody is so in love with him.'**

But that was a very interesting origin, that character.

I was giving a reading one night in Washington from my last book when I was on tour, and a woman came up to me afterwards and she said, 'I'm an interpreter for the deaf, and I would like to see a character in a novel who is deaf but not have it be in any way about them being deaf. There's no discussion about their deafness, it's not seen as a handicap, he's just deaf and it's in the story and it's a given.' And I said, 'Oh, that's a great idea, I can do that for you.' And so I put this character in my next book.

</p>

<p>click on “show transcript”- <a href=“ABC Radio National”>ABC Radio National;

[Mary13]

<p>

@TiredofSnow

Was it that Dr. S was so old, or was it that she hadn’t been eating the bark all along?

</p>

<p>A combination of both. Dr. Swenson has old eggs, and although eating the bark causes her to begin menstruating again, it does not alter the quality of the eggs. If she had been eating the bark since puberty, it would be a different story: “We know that if they eat the bark consistently from the onset of first menses their ova appear not to deteriorate.” (p. 247)</p>

<p>

I was also surprised by how many other doctors were down there working, since Mr. Fox either didn’t know about them or never mentioned them (that I can remember, that is).

</p>

<p>I don’t think those doctors worked for Vogel, so Mr. Fox wouldn’t know much, if anything, about them. They were working on a different project that just happened to overlap with Dr. Swenson’s research.</p>

<p>

he’s named after the holiday on which he is discovered, and that has to do with the fact that I had just finished reading Dave Eggers’ book What is the What, which was my favourite book probably in the last ten years. And the hero of that novel is named Valentine, and I thought I want to write a character named Valentine, and because I couldn’t do that I decided to write a character named Easter.

</p>

<p>Given Ann Patchett’s intelligence and skill, she had to have realized that the name “Easter” has certain connotations that would shape the reader’s view of both the boy and his role in the story. Of course, it’s also possible that once she selected the name Easter, she began to (perhaps subconsciously) create plot with that name and all its meanings simmering in the back of her mind.</p>

<p>

’I would like to see a character in a novel who is deaf but not have it be in any way about them being deaf. There’s no discussion about their deafness, it’s not seen as a handicap, he’s just deaf and it’s in the story and it’s a given.’ And I said, ‘Oh, that’s a great idea, I can do that for you.’ And so I put this character in my next book.

</p>

<p>It may have started out that simply, but again, I think what was at first simply a “courtesy” to a reader evolved into something else. I put a certain amount of meaning into the fact that Marina made one child blind, and then on her path to redemption, she is temporarily given another who is deaf and mute.</p>

<p>I’ve said this before on our previous book threads: Readers analyze novels and find themes, symbols and motifs that the authors might claim they never deliberately intended to include. That does not mean that what we readers find is “wrong” – rather, it means that we are delving into the psyche of the author as well as the basic workings of the plot. A writer is a human being with the same deep subconscious and mysterious complexities as all the rest of us. They aren’t always aware themselves of the layers of meaning that can be found in the amazing stories they create.</p>

[SouthJerseyChessMom]

<p>^^^^How right you are Mary13 ** They aren’t always aware themselves of the layers of meaning that can be found in the amazing stories they create.**
And, we have so much fun doing this :)</p>

<p>Indeed, Patchett recognizes this when she states-
[Ann</a> Patchett - An interview with author](<a href=“http://www.bookbrowse.com/author_interviews/full/index.cfm/author_number/645/ann-patchett]Ann”>Ann Patchett author interview)</p>

<p>How do you think this relates to writers and readers?
I believe literature takes place between the writer and the reader. You bring your imagination, they bring theirs, and together you make a book. It’s a kind of literary chemistry, and what’s great about this is that the book is going to be different for everyone who reads it.</p>

<p>And , in this interview, she doesn’t like the probing “personal” questions, doesn’t want to discuss her distant father, or being married to an older man.</p>

<p>Patchett: May I just say these questions are getting kind of hard and I’m glad you’re not a cop and I’m glad I didn’t steal something.</p>

<p>The story of Marina’s relationship with her father (as opposed to my relationship with my father), and her affair with Mr. Fox (which is hardly a compelling plot point) were means of fleshing out her character, giving her some back story, but they don’t define the plot.</p>

<p>On the other hand, her relationship with doctor Swenson and that unfortunate C-section seem completely primary to me, the engine that drives the story. I don’t think this is a book about big pharma, but then again I don’t even think that The Constant Gardener is a book about big pharma. Do you know how much I love John LeCarre?
And even as I say all this, I have to say that none of it matters. The themes of the book are the ones the reader assigns to them.</p>

<p>(I actually started to read The Ambassadors- because Patchett claims Henry James book was her motivation for State of Wonder, and I found this interview-written in 2008)
[A</a> Salute To James’ Dense, Intense ‘Ambassadors’ : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97252695]A”>A Salute To James' Dense, Intense 'Ambassadors' : NPR)</p>

<p>But that’s what’s so beautiful about the book — and about Henry James. Once you get in, it becomes your entire consciousness, the air you breathe. I had never read anything so all-encompassing, nothing that could knock out every bit of ancillary chatter in my brain. What seemed impenetrable at first slowly bloomed open with layer upon layer of meaning. The rewards of the effort were limitless, the literary equivalent of a religious text. As soon as I finished, I wanted to start again.</p>

<p>(I would think she models herself after the masters she adores, appreciating the complex layers.
Guess she just balks when it touches on her pesonal life.
Tidbit : Pattchett did copy the Opera scene, when Annik mysteriously appears, directly from The Ambassadors.)</p>

[Mary13]

<p>

“I believe literature takes place between the writer and the reader. You bring your imagination, they bring theirs, and together you make a book. It’s a kind of literary chemistry, and what’s great about this is that the book is going to be different for everyone who reads it.”

</p>

<p>SJCM, thank you for finding this quote. That’s what I was trying to express above, but she said it more succinctly and more poetically.</p>

[Mary13]

<p>Forgive me for going upthread a bit, but this amazing group is so hard to keep up with that I haven’t had a chance to comment on some earlier posts! Random thoughts:</p>

<p>

@PATheaterMom

I also wanted to know more back story on Dr. Swenson and what motivated her.

</p>

<p>I think her motivation as a younger woman was her obsession/love for Dr. Rapp. Considering the photo she still keeps by her bed, this might be part of why she stays, continuing to do his work even after his death. As for back story, yes, wouldn’t you love to know what Annick’s parents were like? I’m guessing they could have used a nurturing class, but we’ll never know. </p>

<p>

@ignatius

I think the Hummocca suffer from “bad press.”…Dr. Swenson’s assumptions (shame on her) about the Hummocca obviously fall on the side of wrong

</p>

<p>I completely agree about the bad press, but I don’t think Dr. Swenson made incorrect assumptions–I think she told another lie. The other doctors have had no interaction with the Hummocca. Dr. Saturn tells Marina, “They are the closest tribe to the Lakashi and yet in all the times I’ve been here I’ve never seen them.” The conversation continues:</p>

<p>

“Dr. Swenson has seen them,” Marina said. “She told me so when we were coming in.”</p>

<p>“And that’s all she’s told you,” Alan said. “The story doesn’t go any farther than that one piece of information: she’s seen them and they frightened her. Just the idea of Annick being frightened of something is enough to keep me away.”

</p>

<p>I don’t believe Dr. Swenson was frightened at all. Not her style. Knowing her propensity to lie, I believe that she perpetuated a sort of “urban legend” (non-urban legend?) about the Hummocca to reduce the possibility that anyone would ever seek them out and discover the truth about Easter.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, I still like Dr. Swenson, while recognizing that she can be a horrible person at times. Sort of in the same way I like Dr. House on TV. :)</p>

<p>

@LasMa

There’s the treeless landscape of Minnesota, so barren and empty – where Marina is barren and empty.

</p>

<p>Compare that with Marina’s description when she returns home, no longer barren: “Minnesota! It smelled like raspberries and sunlight and tender grass.” (p. 352)</p>

<p>

@SouthJerseyChessMom

Las Ma I agree I’d love to read more reader’s opinions about the title!

</p>

<p>I agree with ignatius that “wonder” is primarily the sense of awe at the Amazon and the wider world, and also at the unexpected twists and turns that the characters’ lives take. But I think “wonder” also refers to the many mysteries in the novel that gradually unfold…I wonder what happened to Anders, I wonder if Easter will survive, I wonder why Dr. Swenson lied, I wonder if Marina is pregnant, and so on. We spend a lot of time wondering, until eventually, most, if not all, is revealed.</p>

[ignatius]

<p>Going back even further than Mary:</p>

<p>I’m curious about some comments made before the October 1 discussion date. I admit to being nosy, but I’ve never read a book by Ann Patchett before … and I did like this one. It seems that all who’ve posted in the discussion so far liked it, yet I know others didn’t. </p>

<p>I don’t know if these posters have bothered to lurk, but if so …</p>

<p>

@bookworm

Would you believe my bookclub just cancelled State of wonder? So many people disliked the book.

</p>

<p>Bookworm: Did you read the book? Did your book club members say what they disliked?</p>

<p>itslfs and garland: I’ve wondered if I’d have thought it slow or stilted if I hadn’t listened to the audio book about a month before reading my hard copy. I can still “hear” Dr. Swenson’s voice when I read the passages quoted here, so obviously the reader made an impression. Did either of you go on to finish the book? </p>

<p>

@itslfs

I’m only slightly into it, but it hasn’t grabbed me yet. Seems stilted and slow at the beginning. Anyone who read it and loved it feel the same at the start?

</p>

<p>

@garland

I should try it again. Am a fan of Patchett, but the beginning seemed so stiff, and the characters and situation unlikeable/unbelievable, that I stopped on the strength of the life’s-too-short rule.

</p>

<p>and Bromfield: Disturbing, how? (And, yes, a bit disturbing for me, also)</p>

<p>

@Bromfield

I just finished reading this and found the ending disturbing. I like Ann Patchett’s books and have read all of them. My favorites: Bel Canto, Magician’s Assistant, and Anatomy of a Face. Look forward to the discussion.

</p>

<p>Anybody out there?</p>

<p>and CBBBlinker: “(BTW, did anyone else look up that Opera House? It’s magnificent – so seemingly out of place in the jungle.)”</p>

<p>No, I hadn’t, but I have now. Truly magnificent and so out of place!</p>