|
Author |
Message |
|
ehle64 |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:14 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 7149
Location: NYC; US&A
|
Y'all are sweet. Actually, I'm just happy that the people who read the book liked/loved it as much as I did.
marj -- Cunningham almost had to place Laura Brown in the 50s. Do you think that he was writing Richard's character first or the three women and somehow created Richard to link the later two storylines?? We need to get Mr. Cunningham in here, it would be great to ask him these questions. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marj |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 2:20 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
Isn't a great feeling to suggest a book, that is personal to you, and find so many other people love it? Incidentally, I have given the book to two other friends as birthday gifts!
Wade,
Did you know that Laura Brown was the last of three women MC created? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marj |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 8:34 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
So we've spent some time discussing the Alice, MC's writing and *sigh* the movie.
We've spent little time with Bobby and Jonathan. On first look, Jonathan appears as the most conflicted while Bobby the least. As long as Bobby can find a family to "adopt" him, nothing else matters to him. He is adapable; almost a chameleon, sailing blithly through life ingratiating himself with whomever can provide a sense of, or preferably a real family.
Jonathan on the other hand, already has a family, therefore he has to deal with all the problems this implies. His conflicts appear to be more about his identity as a gay man and his position as a gay man within a family and within a professional community.
I've never been to Cleveland. I know nothing about it, so I tend to see it much like any other urban city. So I wonder why, when Jonathan came to New York, did he struggled so with his identity? Was there such a difference between 1990 and today? Or ultimately is Jonathan less conflicted in general, and only specifically with Eric?
I felt like I "got" Jonathan finally at the end of the book. Yet, until then, I felt as if I was struggling with him to understand him, perhaps in the same way he was? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Kate |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 9:53 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1397
Location: Pacific Northwest
|
Hey - hell of a day - so am glad to be here.
Marj,
I don't know that I ever "got" Jonathan, mainly because I don't think he really found himself. Yes, in the end it seemed that they were where they were supposed to be at that time - but I honestly believe that if we looked ten years from now, Jonathan would be gone.
One thing I did notice throughout the book was the undertone of sadness. For me, it teetered on the edge of oppressive, but not quite. Everyone's situation was difficult, not quite overwhelming, but so very sad. Alice turned to her son for outlet, she always had, even when he was a child, so while it was not outright depressing, it was very sad that a young, vibrant woman was reduced to enjoying life through her teenage son. Bobby and his child-like refusal to "go out there" until pushed is one another example; he is living someone else's life while at Alice's house, not being forced into the world until it must be so. "Forced" sounds harsh, but for someone like Bobby, who has an innate sense of love and joy, of all people, he should be out there enjoying it but he is not. Maybe that is the sad part, none of these characters seemed take the initiative to enjoy life until some outside force drove them to do so. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marj |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:08 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
Hi Kate,
When you say ten years from now Jonathan would be gone, do you mean dead?
I love your take on Bobby. But isn't this so typical of the insecure puppy who would do anything rather than leave the fold? He's just such a happy go lucky kid, as long as he feels a family, even if it isn't a real one, surrounding him.
You do make him sound so very dear. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Kate |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:21 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1397
Location: Pacific Northwest
|
Hi Marj!
No, not dead - not at all. Just not needing to be there anymore. One thing I found interesting was that Jonathan has the capacity to grow out of a given situation, to move foward. I don't think Bobby has that, but I don't think he needs it either. Bobby is one of those people content to be who he is, where he is, and appreciate life for all the simple things it has to offer. Much of this is born from his tragic childhood. He is almost like the village idiot, just by choice. I love Bobby for his honesty, compassion, and love - but man he would have driven me crazy. Now Jonathan is much more complex and therefore, to me, interesting. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marj |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:29 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
I understand now, Kate. And I agree.
Yup, I do see Bobby as the simple almost singleminded settler. Jonathan I think will keep growing. Maybe the spreading of Ned's ashes and his caring for Eric, was the corner he needed to turn.
It would be interesting to see the life he's leading now. One thing I think we can say with certainty. We have no way of predicting what it will be, do we? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Kate |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:40 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 1397
Location: Pacific Northwest
|
Marc wrote: wow this book forum is coming together beautifully. I've got to get off my lazy ass and start reading. I was initially dismayed by how unfocused this forum was, but marj you are doing a great job of keeping the juices flowing. And ehle, your patience has paid off, A HOME AT THE END OF THE WORLD finally seems to be getting the respect you felt it deserved. I'll get my hands on the book and dive in soon.
I want to echo this statement. Marj, you have done a great job picking up and running with it - and quite beautifully I might add. Thanks for persevering, it is worth it. I think this will be like a good wine, maturing over time. And you are a born moderator.....Ok, enough kissing up. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marj |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:44 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
Kate wrote:
Quote: Ok, enough kissing up.
No, No ... Don't Stop! |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Melody |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:47 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 2242
Location: TX
|
Been trying to weigh in all night ... one thing after the other ...
Good question about Jonathan, Marj. For someone with such intimacy issues, it's amazing how much Jonathan cares about Clare and Rebecca -- unattainable and thus perfect? Who knows. It's frustrating to read Jonathan because he's never really honest with himself, never opens himself up to the possibility of getting lost in love. Functionally unhappy, he's destined to live out his life behind the walls of whatever "home" he inhabits.
Clare at one point describes him as "elusive" and this to me is perfect. Elusive to those around him, elusive to his mother, and to himself.
I'm curious about how Cunningham can write so deeply about a character he may not even understand himself. Is this a good thing? Does it work? Should an author leave his audience scratching their collective heads over whether we "get" a certain character?
Finally, for me, it is this: Jonathan is interesting but doesn't interest me. An indictment by any other name... |
_________________ My heart told my head: This time, no. |
|
Back to top |
|
Marj |
Posted: Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:47 pm |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
Quote: I'm curious about how Cunningham can write so deeply about a character he may not even understand himself. Is this a good thing? Does it work? Should an author leave his audience scratching their collective heads over whether we "get" a certain character?
Hey Melody,
I'm curious about the same thing. I do feel it takes a very special kind of writer to even attempt such a feat!
I suppose the question could be, should we as readers always "get" a character? If a character is ambiguous is that OK? I think, Yes! Resoundingly so.
Don't we all have someone in our lives we just can't get a handle on? Do we dismiss them because we can't understand them?
To be honest, Mel I never considered this question especially as far as literature is concerned. But if literature is supposed to reflect life, than I do think giving us a character who cannot be tied up with a neat bow is perfectly appropriate. Maybe, ultimately all we need do is get used to it? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
ehle64 |
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 1:24 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 7149
Location: NYC; US&A
|
Gosh, this might be jumping the gun, but, here goes.
I think that Bobby might be one of my favorite characters of all time. There are a couple of instances where someone would refer to him as an Angel and I think there's a lot to that. All of that love. It's incredible if you think about it. I try to think of myself as a person that is full of love and is loved, but, that's the thing about Bobby. He doesn't think about it, he just is. I think this is where a lot of critics are wrong with Colin Farrell's performance. He totally, absolutely nails this aspect of Bobby. Anyone that has read the book will be able to tell that Farrell did to. Also, what grand advice his older brother gave him as a kid when he came upon him fucking his girlfriend. "Don't be scared little brother, it's all love." So, after that moment, anything sexual that he began to feel as he grew up was not hindered by any labels, any school-kid taunting, by nothing but his dead, big brother's strong and wise words. He never felt that what he and Jonathan shared was wrong. Jonathan did. Society taught him so. There's a scene in both the movie and book where Clare finally seduces Bobby and it's his first time with a woman. Bobby weeps. It's fanfuckingtastic in both mediums. In the book you get to read his feelings and on screen Farrell totally allows you to read Bobby's feelings. It struck me as totally beautiful that, although Clare is certainly an independent soul, Bobby placed all of the love that Clare and Jonathan had for each other and was able to physicalize it for them. Just beautiful. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marj |
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:35 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
Speaking of beautiful?
Wade, that's how I reacted to your entire post! Unfortunately there's no emoticon for goosebumps. There really should be.
It really is a shame we had to wait so long to discuss this book. But you brought to light, IMO the essence of Bobby!
While I saw him as kind of simple, you saw beyond that simplicity, and helped me to understand why Bobby is so at ease with either sex. It's all right there, in his brother's words. Words, I had sadly forgotten!
Just to make sure I understand you? You are saying that Bobby is really all about love. Whether it's familial love or sexual love of either sex. And that perhaps his need for family transends, what we tend to think of as family love; security, warmth, and a feeling of belonging. And that for Bobby, everything is about love. And perhaps this is why he is apparently so at ease with all forms of it. Bobby simply doesn't draw lines to separate one kind of love from another. It's all love, stupid!
So, finally, what I have been mistaking for simplicity is actually a more profound and deeper emotion. One that knows no boundaries. One that even goes to the essential core of what love is really all about.
Am I on the right track? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
ehle64 |
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:44 am |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 7149
Location: NYC; US&A
|
Absolutely. That's why in the book where Jonathan finally brings Erich to meet Bobby and Clare, Bobby is able to unconditionally like/love him. They have a connection. Through music (which is always a good thing with Bobby), but also, through Jonathan. Not everyone would take an outsider and treat them so familiar. His familiarity came through his love for Jonathan. Remember what happened that night? They (B & E) danced together on the roof. I think Jonathan realized at that moment how afraid of love he truly was. WHY DID THEY CUT ERICH OUT OF THE MOVIE??!!?? |
|
|
Back to top |
|
Marj |
Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 3:18 am |
|
|
Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 10497
Location: Manhattan
|
There are those who contend there is no such thing a unconditional love. They say, even a baby coos for milk, and an animal does so for food.
Is it possible the Cunningham was debunking this theory? And that is the real heart and soul of this novel?
Clearly the title suggests that the book is about family. All shapes and sizes; dysfunctional be damned, family is family as long as it is family to you. And if family is love, perhaps one even at the far side of the world, is the search for the purist love of all? maybe A Home is all about all of our quests for unconditional love?
Wade, your take on all of this just makes so much sense! How I wish you could have been an advisor for this movie? Had you been there, they would have had to gotten it right! |
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|