<p>Has anyone thought about his nickname on the boat - “Mynah”? It appears a few times, but doesn’t seem to be utilized much and I wondered why the author bothered inserting that? Thinking I must have missed something there…</p>
<p>BUandBC- the more I get to examine Michael the less I like him, as you point out!</p>
<p>The moment in the book when I thought he was particularly ** “bad” ** was when he wanted to tell the Baron about Aunt Prins fine jewerly. Not much loyalty.</p>
<p>As you pointed out BUandBC , after viewing Cassius’s art, he doesn’t leave a contact number, in case Cassius may want to contact him.</p>
<p>Michael, is so self centered, and completely fixated on cousin Emily,
who was like a sister, a mother,a love object,a friend, and mentor
(Ok, Mary13, have fun psychoanalyzing that relationship)</p>
<p>What do the adults in the book expose about Michael?</p>
<p>R’s parents “We haven’t seen you for eight years”.
Mr Fonseka, writes to R’s parents, and barely mentions Michael.
Miss Lasqueti listens to radio interview, hears his name, Mynah, and vaquely remembers him.
Upon seeing Emily he asks her "what he was like as a child, “you were a demon”. </p>
<p>And, finally, the moment he really seemed “unkind” and cruel-
was when Emily talked with him about her father’s death,
clearly, the reason she called him.
She was in pain, needing to connect. </p>
<p>At that moment he brings up Perea’s death, absolving her in that murder.
But, then believing she had a role in Asuntha’s death, he doesn’t hesitate-</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So very brutal, of Michael. </p>
<p>Ramadhin = empathy (saint)
Cassius = artistic talent, person of principles, art which conveys “emotions”
Michael= Mynah, just reflects back the world around him.</p>
<p>I wonder if Michael, will even bother to visit Emily in the future?</p>
<p>Mary13-Discovering those truths—and the literary greats that influenced him as he revealed them—has been a treat.
Ok, literary gurus here you go: </p>
<p>page 169
We learn Miss Lasqueti is a specialist in masks and personas…</p>
<p>There is a book she doesn’t throw overboard-
and it’s “always in her possession” ** The Magic Mountain **
by Thomas Mann </p>
<p>Mann acknowledged his debt to the skeptical insights of Friedrich Nietzsche concerning modern humanity and embodied this in the novel in the arguments between the characters ** Cassius took a girl out and he spoke about Nietzche" **</p>
<p>the immature Hans Castorp leaves his home and learns about art, culture, politics, human frailty and love. Also embedded within this vast novel are extended reflections on the experience of time, music, nationalism, sociological issues and changes in the natural world</p>
<p>he originally planned the The Magic Mountain as a novella; a humorous, ironic, satirical (and satyric) pendant to Death in Venice, which he had completed in 1912. The atmosphere was to derive from the “mixture of death and amusement” </p>
<p>Closely connected to the themes of life and death is the subjective nature of time, a leitmotif that recurs throughout the book. Thus Chapter VII, entitled “By the Ocean of Time”, opens with the narrator asking rhetorically, "Can one tell – that is to say, narrate – time, time itself, as such, for its own sake?</p>
<p>In general, the inhabitants of the Berghof spend their days in a mythical, distant atmosphere, full of references to fairy tales and sagas</p>
<p>Of course, finally Hans Castorp awakens in due time, escapes from the blizzard, and returns to the “Berghof”. But rethinking his dreams he concludes for the moment that ** "because of charity and love, man should never allow death to rule one’s thoughts.** "
Hans Castorp soon forgets this sentence, so for him the blizzard-event remains a pure interlude. But for Thomas Mann himself the sentence (which throughout the whole novel is the only one in italics) remains important, and so he states it, for personal consequences and for his readers</p>
<p>chapters entitled ** ARRIVAL ** - which is last chapter of The Cats Table
According to Mann, in the afterword that was later included in the English translation, this stay became the foundation of the opening chapter (Arrival) of the completed novel.rom Wiki :</p>
<p>SJCM: Michael narrates the events. He describes himself from the beginning as cautious, always holding something back. This comes across in his interactions and can’t be helped by the upheaval in his life. I think of Michael as a viewpoint narrator. He turns out to be a keen observer. However, as an eleven-year-old, the undercurrents 
seem to go unnoticed … hence the reader of his narration takes random observations as only that when later they turn out to be so much more. (Imagine Emily as the viewpoint narrator: you still have a coming-of-age story, but one that’s oh-so-different.) </p>
<p>From wikipedia:</p>
<p>
.</p>
<p>Michael, aptly describes himself with a “cold heart”.</p>
<p>I think Michael does a disservice to himself by saying he has a cold heart. To me, someone with a cold heart is unfeeling, whereas I think Michael feels very deeply—he just doesn’t know what to do with those feelings when it comes to connecting with the people he cares about. (I’ll blame it on his abandonment issues.) I like him.</p>
<p>As for being a “demon” at age 11, what boy of that age isn’t? I know mine was. :)</p>
<p>Re Mynah, Michael Ondaatje says in the Steve Roberts interview:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By the way, I never hoped for or imagined a romance between Michael and Emily. I mean…they’re cousins. Do we know how close or distant?</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>I never imagined a romance between Michael and Emily either. She figures into his life, but I viewed her role as that of a combination older sister/buddy (his machang).</p>
<p>What I feel towards Michael is more disappointment than dislike. I don’t think he’s a bad or cold hearted person, but he does have issues. Earlier in this thread I thought we didn’t know him well enough to decide if he was happy or not in his current life. After getting to know him better through this discussion, he seems like a sad guy, past and present.</p>
<p>I never imagined a romance between Emily and Michael. I think he cared for her and admired her maturity. She treated him with respect and didn’t dismiss him because of his age. At 11 years old he had no way of knowing that she was more messed up than him. He discovered his first lustful feelings when he saw her in her room, so I think he was confused, but I never thought it would go further. </p>
<p>Ignatius - I like your description of Michael as a viewpoint narrator. Remember how he wrote things in his school examination book? He wrote down bits of conversations that he had overheard. He didn’t interpret what he heard, he just wrote it down. He was young. This emphasizes how much he didn’t understand what was going on as an 11 year old. It is only with age and understanding that Michael is able to share his point of view and that point of view continues to evolve as more events happen in his life. His new view of what might have happened to Asuntha and her father is a good example of his evolution.</p>
<p>BUandBC, yes, it might be more disappointment.
Each time I read this review I glean more from it. (I’m reposting it)
[On</a> a Mystery Voyage with Michael Ondaatje by Claire Messud | The New York Review of Books](<a href=“On a Mystery Voyage with Michael Ondaatje | Claire Messud | The New York Review of Books”>On a Mystery Voyage with Michael Ondaatje | Claire Messud | The New York Review of Books)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To support what Ignatius said about viewpoint
</p>
<p>Also, strongly agree with Mary13’s comparison that a weakness was employing a ‘drugged’ Emily to commit a crime, ala Moonstone. It didn’t fit well in this story.
Nor did the Miss Lasqueti’s letter, which was so long and wordy, not like her character. </p>
<p>And, Ignatius, I like your summary of this book as coming of age “firmly rooted in a crime mystery”. That works for me. </p>
<p>I don’t think I’d recommend this book, unless someone had a book group to wrestle with it.
I suspect the structure and the thread from one chapter to another is significant. I,also, believe there are lots of political undertones, but we have enough to discuss as it is. </p>
<p>One more plot question-
Why would Emily have been looking at Miss Lasqueti at the climatic moment on the deck, if Miss Lasqueti had not been involved in the conspiracy. All eyes were on Mr Giggs, except Emily’s, and , of course, Michael’s. So Emily expected help from Miss Lasqueti?</p>
<p>This has been challenging, for sure !</p>
<p>^Maybe way off base, but I felt like Miss Lasqueti’s sexuality was not all that clear (despite her affair with the art collector). Perhaps the chemistry between her and Emily was more complicated than mere friendship, even if that was the extent of the actual relationship?</p>
<p>An interesting point that she goes to the art party dressed as Marcel Proust, a closet homosexual.</p>
<p>^ I thought the Marcel Proust costume was intended to subtly draw the reader back to the comment made by Michael 100 pages earlier: “Proust has ths line: ‘We think we no longer love our dead, but…suddenly we catch sight again of an old glove and burst into tears’” (p. 141).</p>
<p>That is the motive I saw behind Miss Lasqueti’s sending the letter after so many years. Hearing Michael on the BBC programme triggered a memory of Emily and the ordeal on the Oronsay. Metaphorically speaking, Miss Lasqueti saw “an old glove and burst into tears.”</p>
<p>FYI, I’m leaving this morning for an extended road trip. It’s a civilized vacation with the likelihood of internet access, so I will still be reading posts and checking in, but maybe not as often as usual. Carry on!</p>
<p>Mary, have a wonderful time! Do you have a good book for your vacation? (Winky face!)</p>
<p>checking in–I have read the book but I am unable to post anything coherent at the present time! I’ve been following the thread and am enjoying your wonderful insights.</p>
<p>(Mary, I was able to “get” your Wilkie Collins’ reference–I am getting quite the education here.:))</p>
<p>Hi psychmom … I thought you might join in … and PATheaterMom usually joins in too.</p>
<p>Since Mary said to continue, I thought I’d comment on question # 7:
</p>
<p>Some random thoughts: </p>
<p>Misters Mazappa, Fonseka, Nevil enrich the novel with added depth/detail.</p>
<p>Their introduction keeps readers unfocused on any one character. We meet a seemingly random cast of characters- major character, minor character - we just don’t know. Meanwhile the author slips in clues that lead to the climax with the convict.</p>
<p>And perhaps, maybe ;)</p>
<p>Mr. Fonseka represents home/comfort to Michael (as mentioned earlier).</p>
<p>Mr. Nevil takes the time to reassure Michael that the ship can handle the vagaries facing it - though unspoken I think Michael feels reassured he can too. </p>
<p>Mr. Mazappa offers up a bawdy look at sexuality - cynical - but still with an openness about men/women that disconcerts 11-year-old boys.</p>
<p>Me - I like Mr. Mazappa least of the three characters. Mr. Fonseka and Mr. Nevil seem kind and take more care with Michael. And I wanted to know why Mr. Mazappa leaves the ship so abruptly. </p>
<p>Insights, anyone?</p>
<p>Musing in my motel room…</p>
<p>I think that the minor characters reinforce some of the images and ideas that are threaded throughout the novel. For example, even Mr. Mazappa has a dog story: “Then Mazappa told me about the dog. ‘It used to come on stage with Bash and growl when his master was playing…And this is why Bechet broke up with Duke Ellington. The Duke wouldn’t allow Goola up there, in the lights, upstaging his white suit’” (p. 32).</p>
<p>And Michael describes Mr. Mazappa in a way that echoes a theme we’ve discussed at length–in fact, the description sounds a lot like Michael’s adult self: “He had so many songs and lives under his belt that truth and fiction merged too closely for us to distinguish one from the other” (p. 29).</p>
<p>I don’t know why Mr. Mazappa left suddenly, but one of the reasons proposed once again brings Michael to mind: “It was also suggested that he was possibly the kind of man who was joyous only when he was free, between this and that point of land” (p. 168). Michael’s time on the Oronsay–between this and that point of land–seems to be the only time in his life he felt truly unencumbered, a feral, contented child.</p>
<p>Mary hope you are enjoying your well earned get away.</p>
<p>Ignatius- so glad you brought up Mazappa’s strange departure.</p>
<p>Lasqueti says “some thought he was a predator, but he was a delicate man”
(remember she exclaimed she was the expert of masks and personas)</p>
<p>Two pages after this- michaels overheard conversations
Day 12- day 18
“he’s one of the sexual predators on the ship. We call him ’ The turnstile’”</p>
<p>I
Perhaps Mr Mazappa’s!</p>
<p>Wow, SJCM! I couldn’t figure out why Mazappa left so quickly. What you found is a very possible reason. I wonder if there were any more clues?</p>
<p>Thumbs up to that find, SJCM! I’m sure you’re right that the “turnstile” is Mazappa, who was either quietly booted or departed on his own before he got into trouble.</p>
<p>On a related note, those Overheard Conversations (p. 42 and p. 172) are fun to figure out. I’ll bet every one relates back to a character we know or is significant thematically. Some quotes are obvious (e.g., Ramadhin commenting on his sister Massoumeh’s strange name); others are more obscure. I’d love to hear theories on the more peculiar ones.</p>
<p>Overheard Conversations:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Jasper</a> Maskelyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasper_Maskelyne]Jasper”>Jasper Maskelyne - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Sets up a post-war time and place. Note in particular: </p>
<p>
</p>