Our June selection is The Dig by John Preston, a fictional re-telling of the Sutton Hoo excavation that took place near the small Suffolk town of Woodbridge in 1939. The site contained an undisturbed ship-burial, considered “one of the most magnificent archaeological finds in England for its size and completeness, far-reaching connections, the quality and beauty of its contents, and the profound interest of the burial ritual itself" (Wikipedia).
Preston’s novel was first published in England in 2007 to stellar reviews, and will be released in the U.S. next week.
And from Kirkus: As homey at times as chamomile tea but spiked with pointed undercurrents, this is a real treat for a reader who can appreciate its quiet pleasures.
I’m in. (I like that the book is less than 300 pages. The next couple months look to be busy here.)
I’m on page 88, and I’m liking the book and how it’s written. The story is picking up after a rather languid beginning. I expect this to be a three- or four-day read.
I’ve already looked up a bunch of info on Sutton Hoo!
Mrs. Pretty
Basil Brown
Peggy Piggott
Sutton Hoo House
I would accuse the author of tweeness but for the fact that the “characters” and setting are factual.
For anyone thinking of joining the discussion, this is a quick read. I started the book Saturday and will finish today … and I’ve been busy with other stuff. No worries about finishing by June 1 if you haven’t picked it up yet.
@ignatius I was thrown by those names, too, and very surprised to read they are factual! The author gained more cred when I realized they were real names!
It’s June! Welcome to our discussion of The Dig by John Preston. I enjoyed the book. It was a quick read and I learned about an event that was completely unfamiliar to me.
I thought the writing style was rather clipped and…”restrained,” I guess is the word I’d use. On the one hand, this gave the book a very British feel (maybe I’m guilty of stereotyping there). On the other hand, it also made me feel like the story only skimmed the surface of its characters. I wanted to know more, to dig deeper (pun intended ). I think that’s one of the dangers of writing historical fiction: If the author wants to stay as close to the truth as possible, it becomes difficult to describe conversations, feelings and motives with abandon.
In the case of The Dig, I think John Preston may have stifled his imagination a bit, out of respect for Peggy Piggott, who was his cousin in real life. Here Preston tells the story of how the book came into being—and tells it with almost more animation than the book itself: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3664803/My-buried-history.html
I found a review that does a good job of explaining what I mean:
[Note: Since this is not a common book club selection, I could not find any discussion questions online. Feel free to provide some!]
I enjoyed reading your link, Mary. I agree Preston was much more animated in the article than he was telling the Sutton Hoo story in his book.
I read the book in a couple days. Easy read. I enjoyed the book as I was reading. I got a little nervous when I started getting near the end. I knew there wasn’t enough room left to satisfy all I wanted to know. I definitely was left wanting more when I finished. There were a few story lines started, that I felt were never taken anywhere. Although, I am listening to the story now and picking up on some things that I missed the first time through.
When I finished reading, I started googling and reading about the characters and about the Sutton Hoo Dig. Only then did the complete story come to life for me. The characters and the place became real as I learned more about them. I think I would have enjoyed the book more if I had investigated the background story first.
I enjoyed the book, but agree that it felt unsatisfying in many ways.
I think it was an intentional stylistic choice by the author to use a rather minimalistic storytelling technique rather than something that grew out of a desire to hew closely to the facts, or to show respect for his cousin. I think his intent was to use the minimalist technique to create richness and suggestion through ambiguity. There was a lot intentionally unsaid in the book.
When it worked, this technique worked beautifully. The scenes between Peggy (a new bride) and the photographer were so evocative and full of longing and told us so much about the disappointments of her marriage with just a few broad strokes. I loved those passages.
I also thought there were a lot a wonderfully evocative details that hinted at much broader implications, like how the servants were all quitting. Through these details, the author seemed to be suggesting that this particular time would have been the end of an era, even without the war.
As a archaelogical procedural, however, the book was disappointing. Even though the majority of the book was immersed in the dig, I didn’t feel I learned a lot about the actual archaelogical process. I missed that. Even the finds weren’t described with sufficient detail to evoke a clear mental picture.
In a way, the book made archaeology seem infinitely easier than it actually is. Just look for a mound and start digging!
I did love the fact that it spurred me to Google all about the Sutton Hoo treasures, a topic I knew nothing about. Fascinating!
I also enjoyed the book, which I actually finished on time for a change!! As many have mentioned, I too had not previously heard of the discovery at Sutton Hoo. Fascinating stuff, IMO, especially since I have a real interest in archaeology. Several years ago I took a number of courses at the community college in the next town. They offer a certificate program in archaeology. I didn’t quite finish all the courses required before we moved, but I really enjoyed it. I did some “digging” at several sites in CT – much different than, say, the Middle East where things are buried in sand that is easily cleared away. In New England digs are hampered by roots, rocks and packed soil.
I would agree with @nottelling that the book is not a “how to” manual for archaeology. I’m not sure how much that would have added to this fictionalized account, though. The characters were only sketched out – many historical fiction books I’ve read seem to have more emphasis on the fictional part. In this case, Preston doesn’t seem to want to go down that path, leaving me with a sense of “something’s missing.”
Did anyone else think Charles Phillips was going to “hit on” Peggy while Stuart was gone? Maybe I’ve been reading too much fiction!
PS Off topic for this thread, I know, but I did finally finish “Reading Lolita in Tehran.” Interesting, and I learned much I didn’t know – but not my favorite book.
I too enjoyed the selection. I found it frustratingly incomplete, but did feel that was a deliberate choice. I too thought Charles Phillops was going to hit on Peggy, it was kind of sweet that they didn’t.
I was interested that everyone knew the war was inevitable. I always thought most people were like Neville “peace in our time” Chamberlain - in denial.
I knew vaguely about the Sutton Hoo find, probably through art history classes that I’ve since forgotten.
I just loved the way the archeology was described in the book. It was very exciting to me, even with the understated writing.
I do know from previous reading that there is much more to a “dig done right.” The Dig made me want to read more good fiction or nonfiction about archeological digs!
From looking up a bit about Sutton Hoo before I started the book, I already knew that the finds there were of stupendous historical significance.
Here are a couple of questions:
Do you think the importance of the discoveries at Sutton Hoo were too played down in the book?
Do you think the characters really did have only a vague understanding of what they had found?
(I was a bit shocked by the artifacts being referred to as “treasure” and the fact that Mrs Pretty’s keeping them was even considered.)
I expect this to be a three- or four-day read.
). I think that’s one of the dangers of writing historical fiction: If the author wants to stay as close to the truth as possible, it becomes difficult to describe conversations, feelings and motives with abandon.