I love that you called it “the Scottish play,” mathmom. Do you have theatre connections?
No, not really. It just cracks me up to call it that!
That’s a good point. From what I know about microbiology (I dimly remember taking a course back in antediluvian times), a germ that causes disease does not “want” to kill all of its hosts. If all the hosts die, the virus has no way to survive and multiply.
I guess mutations are possible, but presumably this would be discovered and strict quarantine measures would control the spread.
^http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2267/whats-the-story-on-the-curse-of-em-macbeth-em
Explanation of " the Scottish play"
Jenna Blum. The author wrote a very positive review here
http://jennablum.com/2015/01/fridayreads-station-eleven-emily-st-john-mandel/
SJCM, I don’t know what Jenna Blum usually reads. The writing in Station Eleven is okay, and surely better than a lot of popular fiction, I guess, but it’s nothing to write home about, in my humble opinion.
I really like the last part of the Blum quote. I felt the same way when I was going about my daily activities and thinking about the book… Didn’t we all?!!
In my opinion, Blum confuses the way the book made her feel (the way the concept stimulated her imagination) with great writing. Mandel only sketches the characters. If Blum thinks they are “fully occupied and imagined,” I believe that she is projecting qualities upon them out of her own imagination.
NJTheatermom- jenna Blum author of THOSE WHO SAVE US- ( I haven’t read it)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenna_Blum
I don’t find Arthur Leander an underdeveloped character so much as an underdeveloped person. I find it interesting that both Clark and Miranda notice in their visits with him that he seems to be acting rather than having a genuine conversation. Arthur only knows who he is through his script of the moment (even his imagined ones). He gives away the comic books and paperweight with such little thought. It almost seems nothing more than comic books are here … son’s birthday almost here … done. He passes the other set off to Kirsten whom he barely knows and barely glances at the paperweight before handing it to Tanya. I think his decision to give up his career etc as much of the same, though I believe he believes for the moment. Anyway, it’d make great press.
SJCM: Your link actually makes me feel better (“The characters’ inner lives are so fully occupied and imagined that I instantly, intimately believed they were real and inhabited their skins.”). I don’t find the characters’ underdeveloped though I concede that the Prophet has little depth. However, I just concluded that between his early life with Elizabeth as mother and Arthur as absentee father and then the flu, he becomes who he is - survival of the unhinged, if you will.
Jenna Blum, may be an authority, but that doesn’t necessarily mean I agree with her. I thought the characters by and large were developed enough, but no, I didn’t feel I was intimately acquainted with their inner lives. Though most characters are given at least one aha moment where you see what makes them tick. Miranda, for example, never really felt real to me. I never quite believed that the same person who obsessively drew the comic book also became some competent corporate person, much less that she’s flying around the world being competent. I found the whole Malaysia section weird. It seemed very surreal (which I think it was supposed to), but felt to me there more for some kind of symbolic reason. Look the flu is across the globe! Look it got Miranda too!
I did like her writing style. I thought it was very spare, but in a good way. Right now I’m reading Patrick Rothfuss novella, which is just about exactly the opposite.
I agree Arthur is a an underdeveloped person, but not underdeveloped character. I believed in him 100%. What a sad life to realize that he repents “almost everything”. Clark has that moment of repentence with the outbreak of the flu, and uses his survival to change his life. He becomes the person who preserves pieces of the old world and sends Kirsten on towards the light. He doesn’t have the ability to make that light itself, but he looks for it.
Question: Could he in any way be blamed in part for the Prophet? Is that something he should regret?
I agree 100%. It could have been an emotional moment for one or the other of them. But no. It’s just a plot device.
I wasn’t bothered by someone jingling change in their pocket. I think different characters hang on to different things from the old world. That was what he hung onto.
Exactly where I fall on that continuum.
I don’t think so. Clark realizes that Tyler veers markedly away from normal - even for that time and place. He alerts Tyler’s mother Elizabeth, only to find that she’s not playing with a full deck. Elizabeth and Tyler leave shortly thereafter following someone who can only exacerbate the problem. I don’t think Clark could do more than approach Elizabeth. Maybe if he had had more time. It’s telling that Tyler was so chilling at that young age. He grew more so with age.
I think that even with the greatest books, we project qualities upon characters out of our own imagination. Can I be the only one who did that with Mr. Darcy? 
Planting the seed and then letting the imagination take hold is a wonderful give-and-take between author and reader.
There are many extraordinarily good reviews of Station Eleven. And there are mixed ones as well. Some reviewers hit upon what I liked about the book, some seemed off-base, and some brought up points I hadn’t thought about.
I think that “great writing” comes in many forms. Did the book tell a good story? Did you find the characters interesting? Did it make you think about the “human condition”? If it is a mystery, were you stumped? If it is a comedy, did you laugh? If it is a tragedy, did you cry?
I didn’t want to read Station Eleven as written by D.H. Lawrence. That would not have engaged me at all, although I would never argue that Emily St. John Mandel is a better writer than D.H. Lawrence. I had a sense going into Station Eleven what it would be like, and I was not disappointed.
Reading a book is such a subjective experience – just stroll over to the “Best Book I’ve Read…” thread and you’ll find, as my mother would say, everything from the sublime to the ridiculous. My 17-year old daughter just finished Othello. She recognized its worth, was properly dismayed by the tragic events, asked a lot of questions and made insightful comments. Last night, I stumbled into her bedroom at 2:00 am to see why the light was still on. She was awake, reading Twilight as if it were Shakespeare.
I think this is why book clubs persist. It’s not just the books we learn about, but each other. What did you like? Why? What resonated with you? What felt real and what felt false? The answers can be as different as each individual—and, of course, as valid, too.
I read this book when it first came out a few months ago…with much hype…I was all, “eh, fine.” But then I re-read it over the past few days and I now see it as a much better book than I thought. Very well-written…very moving…the chapters set in the airport with Arthur are among the best I’ve read. I approached the book as written by a couple of different authors…there were chapters that felt weak…and other moments that truly sang…
Whoops …meant to say “Clark” at the airport…I actually didn’t care for the character of Arthur…
I rarely judge writing in the strict literary sense. I typically separate my English major self from my reading pleasure. I judge it by the author’s ability to draw me in and allow me to live in the world of the characters. Blum’s comments are interesting to me because, while I enjoyed Those Who Save Us, her characters were also not developed fully enough for my tastes.
I too read this book a while back. Thought it was good, not great. And I do read a lot of SF&F. That said, some things have stuck with me like the plane out on the tarmac and the guy leaving his AZEX card to “pay” for the food they took. Personally, I am not sure I like that everything/all the subplots are tied together around Arthur. It feels too pat. But the author may be a fan of the “six degrees of separation” theory. I found the prophet stuff terrifying and all too likely to be real.
I have lots of thoughts on Station Eleven. Mary 13’s comment above (‘good writing comes in many forms’) sums up my view of the book. While I wanted to know more about some key characters and how the pandemic actually spread (more details), the author told a great story that kept me reading way beyond my normal bedtime. I was terrified at times thinking about the world she portrayed in the book.
Having a kid who is a struggling actor, I really identified with the idea of theater surviving and helping survivors get through their daily lives. When you think about discussions on cutting funding for the arts in schools (which always seem to be the first place administrators want to make cuts), you hear people arguing for the importance of art in daily life, but it seems abstract. This novel made the case for art/theater/music in a way that wasn’t abstract.
Clark was an important character–possibly the main character–because he brings lots of pieces together. Someone asked a question about the museum–seems to me that it’s one of those “one person’s junk is another person’s treasure”. That’s how I view the museum–anything from the past becomes an object for study/interest/viewing.
Bunch of random thoughts–The prophet was a strange and disturbing character to me. It’s not surprising that prophets would appear in the new order. How he got to be that way–Elizabeth seemed like an unstable airhead who keeps talking about how things “were meant to be” and Arthur, an absent father. Like Mathmom–I didn’t totally buy into MIranda’s career change/success in business. Coins in the pocket didn’t bother me–some survivor might have held on to his/her coins.
As usual, our peerless guru Mary has said exactly the right thing. Mary13, your post 71 should be printed and bound in gold and cherished as the credo of our book club. (Forgive me, I’m on a medication for shingles that is making me slightly euphoric and also a bit wifty, lol).
I’m afraid I did want to read Station Eleven as written by D H Lawrence. I have been reading Dostoevsky. I have been reading Hesse. Station Eleven was a reasonably pleasant break for me, but it was not at all a book that I would have chosen if I’d realized how unfulfilling it would be. If the characters had been better developed, the plot would not have moved as fast as it did, but I do think the the characters were cardboard characters compared to what they could have been with a little more embellishment.
I must admit that i will always remember this book. I will always remember Jeevan wandering around Toronto, and the amazing, horrifying image of that plane parked out at the edge of the airport. The rest of it I will probably forget. I finished the book in about four days a couple of weeks ago, and I have already forgotten a lot.
I’d be overjoyed if we chose a classic or a more literary book next time, but I certainly can tolerate a Station Eleven. I think you all are terrific, and it’s fun to talk about any book. I hope I don’t come across as excessively negative.
I wholeheartedly agree. Dare I say it just struck me as cheap, and pandering to woman who like to fantasize.
Great posts Mary 13 and TheaterMom- I sent you, NjTM a message re: shingles.
Bromfield said:
This is a good thought and I would argue (as I did with my DH only yesterday) that much of our sprawly ugliness–whether it be in buildings and landscape, monotonous pieces of contemporary music, fast food, or junk novels, etc.-- exists because we have eliminated study and appreciation of the arts. Don’t get me wrong; I do like functionality! I just wish that our collective senses would demand a bit more beauty in our creations. Long live “the symphony”!