<p>^ I tend to agree. I believe–or I want to believe–that Simon Mawer is making a conscious decision to keep the reader in the dark about the fates of Kata and Oskar, as a reminder of the unknown fates of the many Jews who simply disappeared. The alternative would be that Mawer was merely careless about detailing the fates of his Jewish characters, and I hope that’s not the case.</p>
<p>Even if Mawer withheld the information about Oskar and Kata on purpose to make a point, it raises the question of whether or not that was a wise or compassionate approach. As EmmyBet put it in her post #132, “perhaps Mawer is making the point that Jews who disappeared really did disappear. However, I believe that if you are telling a story, omnipotently, you have a responsibility to treat your characters with care, and to tell their stories deliberately. I felt he toyed with these people, and ultimately just toyed with us.”</p>
<p>Yes, these are very interesting questions for readers, and writers, of fiction. It can be very tantalizing not to tell or hear the “end” of someone’s story. I’m sure we all would be discussing to this day if Tolstoy had ended Anna Karenina with her standing on that platform, with the train rushing toward her - did she or didn’t she jump? </p>
<p>I can’t think of an actual example of a story with a vague ending that is satisfying (anyone?), but I know they exist. I think, though, that if you aren’t going to tell what happens, then stop writing, or else it doesn’t work. If I have a problem with it in this book, it’s that we continue on with characters who supposedly cared about these people. Yet we’re not shown that they discuss or even think about the missing people’s fate all that much. If Mawer’s point was that there was no information, then I would have liked him to have portrayed the haunting absence of it more deliberately. Instead it felt very cold to me.</p>
<p>Yes, a Jewish man couldn’t hide it - if they looked in the right place. I definitely thought that was what Kata meant. </p>
<p>I agree about “ugly Russian women.” There’s a very touching scene in the movie “Stage Door Canteen,” which had some actors but many real servicemen. At one point a lovely young female Russian officer is introduced - remember, they were our allies at that point! - and she is cheered by the American soldiers. I always think of her, instead of the stocky mulish stereotypes, when I think of Russian women who served in WWII.</p>
<p>^ I didn’t mind the open ending to The Giver. I just filled it in myself with all kinds of happy stuff. :)</p>
<p>I remember being frustrated with a A Passage to India by E.M. Forster. I wanted to know really happened in the Marabar Caves. However, there was never any doubt in my mind that Forster had a compelling reason to leave us in the dark. Simon Mawer’s writng isn’t of the same calibre.</p>
<p>Greetings all, I finally finished this awful book, and have read everyone’s comments.
First, how did this make the short list for the Booker prize?
It diminishes that award in my opinion.</p>
<p>I enjoyed reading this discussion.</p>
<p>I agree with the consensus that this was terrible writing, terrible plot, and terrible characters. How could a writer write a “soulless book” about the “holocaust” and WW2 ?</p>
<p>It had great promise, interesting setting Czechoslavakia, important era WW2, and architecture as sub theme. </p>
<p>Mawer struck out on all three! If I read the words “Glass Room” or “onyx wall” one more time I might have thrown this book against the wall. </p>
<p>Many years ago a feminist friend of mine declared she wasn’t reading any male authors.
Well, let me tell you Mawer’s book made me remember her statement, because of his toxic view of women. Good discussion about the “madonna/ whore” theme throughout the book and relationships.</p>
<p>I’m so glad to read everyone’s comments, most were in the one star category for this book, which made me wonder about all those Amazon and Goodreads reviews! I don’t get it.</p>
<p>Something fun for the future: A “dystopian duet.” We could pair The Giver with something else, either another YA book like The Hunger Games or an adult dystopian novel like The Handmaid’s Tale or a classic work like The Time Machine or Brave New World. </p>
<p>I know, I know – we always have more ideas than months in the year. So many books, so little time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I sometimes wonder if female authors are as bad at writing men as male authors are at writing women. Any men out there want to weigh in? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, that about sums up 170 posts. The Glass Room did have some redeeming qualities, but it’s safe to say that it ranks as the least favorite of the books we’ve read to date. But hey, that’s okay. It made for a discussion that was a change-of pace from the usual, and there was something cathartic about the experience. :)</p>
<p>We don’t usual wrap up quite this early, but we seem to have covered most of the pertinent aspects of The Glass House. Should we peek into February? Possession by A.S. Byatt was at the top of our short list. Anybody still interested in going that route?</p>
<p>Possession interests me. I know you said you have read it, Mary, and that you would be happy to read it again and discuss it. A selection like that is a lot safer than a book like The Glass Room that none of us had read. (What a turkey Mawer’s book turned out to be, despite the good reviews!)</p>
<p>I also like the idea of pairing The Giver with something like The Handmaid’s Tale.</p>
<p>All three of the above books are by woman. I could do with a break from fiction by males for a while.</p>
<p>Purely for the sake of convention, we should throw around some other February options. In that spirit, another one on my shelf is Jane Hamilton’s A Map of the World. It was an Oprah’s Book Club selection in 1999. Reviews on Amazon seem to be mixed.</p>
<p>^ Agreed. Not talking about other possible titles would be like…arriving at the theatre on time for your movie, but too late to watch all the trailers. It diminishes the experience. </p>
<p>I read The Book of Ruth by Jane Hamilton –- uber-depressing. Still, I have a soft spot in my heart for her because we grew up in the same hometown and went to the same college. (I didn’t know her though—she’s just sort of a local hero.)</p>
<p>Mary13, laughing about your comparison of the main movie and trailers. In the last selection, clearly the trailers might
Have been more enjoyable!</p>
<p>I read Beautiful Ruins before The Glass Room, after Cloud Atlas wanted something less taxing.</p>
<p>I Do Not recommend Beautiful Ruins-like reading “The National Enquirer”</p>
<p>I also read one of the books that was suggested last time, Louise Erdrich’s National Book Award-winning The Round House.</p>
<p>Some of our members objected to the idea of reading The Round House because it has an act of violence against a woman in it. However, when I read the book I learned that this act is not explicitly described…it occurs off-stage…and, although the repercussions of the crime are a major theme of the book, the story is actually full of remarkable warmth and family love. And it is so, so beautifully written – just breathtaking.</p>
<p>The Round House is described in reviews as the second book in a trilogy. I read the first book, The Plague of Doves, but I don’t think it would be at all necessary to read that book to enjoy the second one. One minor character is more thoroughly explored in the first book; that’s about the only thing you’d miss. </p>
<p>In addition, The Round House is easier to read than Plague of Doves, because it is written from one character’s point of view, and the other book is more like an interrelated collection of stories about different people.</p>
<p>If I could ever convince this book club to try it, I’d love to reread The Round House and discuss it. Even if that never happens, I strongly urge people to give it a try. Or if you still have doubts about the book and have never read any Louise Erdrich, consider picking up her first novel from 1984, the sublime Love Medicine. I wouldn’t mind revisiting that book either!</p>
<p>I read Possession years ago and am happy to (probably need to!) read it again. I’m way behind with Louise Erdrich and would be happy to read a book of hers.</p>
<p>I like Jane Hamilton and have read her - some are better than others. Fortunately she got away from the “all awful all the time” theme in Book of Ruth in her subsequent books. A Map of the World is interesting and nicely done. I’ve intersected with her, too - she lives in WI and sometimes has attended events that I’m involved in. If you haven’t read her books, I do recommend them (a couple are below par - Disobedience I think was quite sloppy, and come to think of it I haven’t read the two latest), but selfishly I’d rather read someone else in this group. For what it’s worth, I like A Short History of a Prince the best of all of her books - it relies the least on a sensational plot point to drive the action (A Map of the World is about the aftermath of a child’s accidental drowning).</p>