The Bookman’s Tale – February CC Book Club Selection

[mathmom]

That game looks very cute. There’s a whole series of novelsbooks that I remember with those orange covers on my parents’ booksshelves. (In fact my copy of C. P. Snow’s The Masters is one of them.

[CBBBlinker]

That game looks great!

Yes, I read “The Art Forger,” and liked it a lot! The storyline gets into art forgery (obviously) as well as the heist at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. The latter is of particular interest to me since we’re in the Boston area AND it’s still an unsolved mystery. (And yes, it jumped out to me that Philip’s last name in “The Bookman’s Tale” is Gardner. Coincidence, I’m sure, but …)

[Mary13]

^ Hey, I bet that’s not a coincidence because, also, “Isabel” is the name of Philip Gardner’s lover. Maybe I underestimated Charlie Lovett. Probably not much, just a little.

@ignatius, I love the game! It is going to be a birthday gift for someone…(shhh, don’t tell )

[PlantMom]

I didn’t mean to sound negative. This light book turned out to be a easy read for a busy January. I don’t think I’ll read any others by this author, but that’s okay!

The library love scenes got old and creepy in a hurry.

What a great board game, ignatius!

I haven’t read The Art Forger but it sounds like a fun read. I see White Collar on Netflix. Adding it to the queue

[bookworm]

Yep, I too noticed the Isabella Gardner names, as my Brookline condo was bought from the grandson.

[SouthJerseyChessMom]

@ignatius what a fun game -

[ignatius]

I am bored tonight and Mary did give us free reign. Forthwith is my attempt to stimulate discussion.

From an interview with Lovett:

Did you create the character of Bartholomew Harbottle—the supposed inspiration for Autolycus—after watching or reading Shakespeare’s A Winter’s Tale?

Early on in the process of making notes about what became The Bookman’s Tale, I hit upon the idea of having three booksellers in three different time periods. While Benjamin Mayhew (the Victorian bookseller) became a less central character in his story line than Bartholomew Harbottle and Peter Byerly, I kept that idea. I also thought it would be interesting if they were each dishonest in some way. Ultimately, Peter didn’t have this particular character flaw, but I loved that Bartholomew Harbottle was a bit of a rogue.

I think Peter has at least a touch of this character trait. If I remember correctly (which I may not, so please jump in if I’m wrong), Peter filches the Pandosto himself and then lies when he asked if he met Julia.

And … in my oh-so-humble opinion … better discussion questions would make for a better discussion. (Not a criticism of Mary - she didn’t write them):

Harbottle, Mayhew, and Byerly skirt honesty with regards to the Pandosto. How do the men justify their actions? Can any of the actions be justified?

Did you suspect who the villain is and when? (I did. Shortly after meeting him I sensed evil.)

What was the deal with Julia and Thomas Gardner? (I expected her to have fallen in love with Gardner and to turn against her brother. Perhaps it would be too much of a cliche but would one more have really mattered?) And was Thomas Gardner set up because of the centuries-old feud?

Did any one notice how Peter never falters in his belief that Julia and Thomas murder and then intend to murder again? (The emphasis on Julia and Thomas made me certain of their innocence - though I guess Julia wasn’t really).

Anyway …

[Mary13]

^ Oh yay, I like it when you’re bored!

@ignatius

If I remember correctly (which I may not, so please jump in if I’m wrong), Peter filches the Pandosto himself and then lies when he asked if he met Julia.

You remember correctly. Not only that, Peter also steals the painting of Isabel—which he actually could have owned more or less legitimately if he had bought the book it was hidden in, but he didn’t want to spend the money, so he put the painting in another, less expensive book. This is a guy with $14 million dollars. I guess it was hard for him to shake the habits born of his dirt poor roots.

Speaking of his roots, I didn’t like the stereotypical portrayal of his parents—kind of offensively one-dimensional “white trash.” (I hate that phrase, but I think that’s the depiction Lovett was going for.) And that’s a lead-in to this question:

7. At one point, Peter contemplates how he would feel if he were asked to change his name from Byerly to Ridgefield in order to preserve Amanda’s family name. Since he always felt estranged from his parents, why might this be difficult for him? How would you feel in his position?

I thought that question was oddly worded. Wouldn’t it be easy for him to change his name, given the estrangement? He doesn’t seem to have the slightest inkling of affection or respect for his parents. I suppose giving up their name would be the final psychological break from his history; maybe that’s why it might be difficult.

@ignatius

better discussion questions would make for a better discussion

Oh, how true! It’s hard to pick a winner for least thought-provoking question on that publisher’s list, but for me, I think it’s:

4. Peter’s first visit to the Conservation Department at Ridgefield University transforms the way he regards books, “He had thought of books before only as his shield, but now they seemed to be taking on lives of their own, not so much as works of literature or history or poetry but as objects, collections of paper and thread and cloth and glue and leather and ink” (p. 15). Have you ever experienced a similar epiphany?

Um…no.

@ignatius

Did you suspect who the villain is and when? (I did. Shortly after meeting him I sensed evil.)

I didn’t know until shortly before the big reveal—I realized it the moment that Peter and Liz tumbled through the secret doorway, exhausted and filthy, and Alderson said, “Ah, Mr. Byerly, How good of you to drop in. And I see you’ve brought a friend.”

That made me laugh out loud. Do you think Lovett is guilty of bad writing here, or is he deliberately making fun of the classic mystery genre?

[mathmom]

Yes the books as cloth and leather and ink and not as stories, seemed particularly silly as a question.

I had a hard time deciding whether Lovett was really was using tropes deliberately or not.

I agree that Peter actually does behave badly fairly often, starting with stealing a painting he can clearly afford, though we don’t realize it at the time. I know he didn’t like to use Amanda’s money, but this still strikes me as a giant plot hole now that it’s been pointed out.

[ignatius]

I forgot about Peter slipping the painting of Isabel into the less-expensive book that he then buys. Shame on him.

Lovett says “I loved that Bartholomew Harbottle was a bit of a rogue.” Honestly I did too - maybe the time period adds a perception of charm. If Peter acted as Harbottle does, then I would judge more harshly.

Mayhew acts out of loyalty for two men: Gardner and W.H. Smith. He deceives rather than steals but still. Would he have destroyed the book had he not died? I can’t make up my mind: yes, maybe and no, can’t see it.

Gardner gets the Pandosto back after Mayhew’s demise but how? The bill of sale in his name?

[Mary13]

@ignatius

Gardner gets the Pandosto back after Mayhew’s demise but how? The bill of sale in his name?

Phillip Gardner never knows that the original Pandosto is back in his possession. Once Gardner has completed the forgery, Mayhew brings him an elaborate folding box in which to place it before passing it off to Reginald Alderson. Gardner thinks that Mayhew has destroyed the original Pandosto, but in fact, unable to destroy such a treasure, Mayhew has hidden it in the flap of the box.

Gardner unknowingly passes along both the forgery and the original to Alderson, where they sit collecting dust at the Alderson home until our hero Peter comes along 100 years later.

[ignatius]

I don’t think that’s right. Alderson never has the original - Peter carts the forgery along with him. Isn’t the original buried in Gardner’s tomb?

Darn … now I need to look through the book again.

[ignatius]

You are so right! I thought Peter and Liz found it in the box with the other originals, somehow returned to Gardner.

Instead, Mayhew hid it in the flap of the box and gave it to Gardner’s enemy too? Really? I obviously need to read more carefully. (Mayhew’s action makes no sense, so maybe I discounted it without thought - another way of saying my brain wasn’t involved.)

[Mary13]

I don’t think Mayhew was trying to benefit Gardner’s enemy in any way. I think he just wanted to preserve the original and decided that hiding it with the forgery was the only option (and it did make sense from a bookseller’s perspective to keep the two versions together for future historians).

[ignatius]

Yeah, keeping the two versions together makes sense, I guess. Glad this came up in discussion or I would have had it all wrong indefinitely.

[Mary13]

Here’s the complete interview with Charlie Lovett (ignatius posted an excerpt in post #86): http://charlielovett.com/an-interview-with-charlie-lovett/ (ignatius posted an excerpt above.)

And here’s another one, partly about his other book (First Impressions) and partly about his previous career as a bookseller: https://bookpage.com/interviews/17291-charlie-lovett#.VrYChynVZMl

As a former bookseller, how do you feel about the increased digitalization of books and literature? In your opinion, what are the advantages of physical books over eBooks?

I think eBooks are great at storing text, but there is a lot more to a physical book than just a text container. The Bookman’s Tale begins when Peter Byerly finds an old watercolor pressed between the pages of a book—something that couldn’t happen with an eReader. Some of our earliest experiences with books (pop-ups, board books, etc.) are multi-sensory and go well beyond interacting with the text alone. To me a perfect reading experience is a three-way interaction of reader, text, and physical book. I do use an eReader when I am travelling and I think they can be great in many situations, but given the choice I still prefer a physical book. And it may seem counterintuitive, but a printed book will probably last a lot longer. A well-made hardcover book that I take good care of can be read by my great-great-great grandchildren more than a century from now with ease. The same probably won’t be true of my eBooks, which are really just licenses to read the text in electronic format and are unlikely to transfer through multiple generations.

If memory serves, we discussed the above question when we read The Storied Life of A.J. Fikry. Lovett makes some good points, and I find that I tend to “split the difference” on this issue: I read almost everything on the Kindle (need the portability and the font control), but also buy a physical copy of the books I really like and want to share. The Bookman’s Tale isn’t going to make the cut (Sorry, Charlie ), but The Storied Life of A.J. Fikry did. (I’ve been surprised at how often I’ve thought about that book—not for the primary story, but because of the short stories referenced at the beginning of every chapter, which we read along with the novel. I enjoyed all of those very much.)

[NJTheatreMOM]

Deleted

[mathmom]

I agree that reading those short stories and thinking about how they intersected with the main book was a real pleasure and an education.

[MommaJ]

The Bookman’s Tale begins when Peter Byerly finds an old watercolor pressed between the pages of a book—something that couldn’t happen with an eReader.

I happen to be a devotee of “real” books–the feeling I get when holding a book in my hands just can’t be duplicated by an e-reader–but I don’t think Byerley’s example is terribly convincing. The man is quite the romantic. The only thing I’ve ever found in the pages of a library book is someone’s grocery list.

[Mary13]

@MommaJ

The only thing I’ve ever found in the pages of a library book is someone’s grocery list.

…or the occasional slice of fried bacon: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/books/review/Alford-t.html?_r=0