The 10 friends of Joel Nash met at the Delwood railroad station at 7:14 pm to look into Higgin's trunk and select a few facts. We noted that Higgins had been married twice; wrote for the Wall Street Journal, and had worked as anti-organized crime proscecutor. In 1973 he entered the Law. When he died in 1999, he had written more than 30 books. He was known as a stylist for his dialogue. He was a "17 year overnight success" (wrote many novels which he destroyed). Higgins said, "If you do not seek to publish what you have written, then you are not a writer and never will be." He destroyed 14 "books" before publishing Eddie Coyle.

Charlie: I enjoyed this book - it was a fun read - written for entertainment, so it makes it difficult as to how to judge this book. I enjoyed his economy of words - there was no big middle section, the book was the right length. The author inferred a great deal using dialog without narration. I enjoyed his descriptions of the middle subclass. Real conversations would be much longer. Well written in context. A-

Ken: About six months ago, I get a strange e-mail from Joel, just to me. He says, "the news/FBI - just like The End of Day." What the heck? Turns out in the last book exchange, Joel must have given me The End of Day. So I read it - Higgins' last book, 388 pages, c. 1999, 190 pages extraneous, very similar story.  Bad guys hooking up with the FBI, giving them information. I gave End a B, loaded with excessive description, I liked Eddie Coyle better: B+

Ron: I agree with Charlie's comments. I enjoyed the book but it was not an A level book. It was a good B level book, hard to recommend to a Women's Book Club. I'll give it a B+. Good for what it was.

Keith (by proxy): Didn't care for it much. B-

Mike: Well written as a page-turner, kept me interested throughout. This is the kind of book that Ben Smith would have taken on his airplane ride to London with his grandson. 180 pages was just right for this story. No added padding in middle like so many books written today. As a 1972 product, I found that the book was indeed a forerunner of The Sopranos series - hard hitting, tough language, tough life, not much respect for women [Higgins makes note of this through Wanda: "My kid brother talks about his goddamned Mustang the same way you talk about me."], and characters that are anti-heroes - was this ahead of its time? (compare Clint Eastwood in spaghetti westerns). Two fatal flaws: 1) Jackie Brown would never have told Eddie Coyle the detail that allowed Jackie to be captured, and 2) because of the heat after the shooting, one would think that the bank robbers would split up, call it a day, never band together for another attempted bank robbery. In summary, Good yarn, not great writing, Grade: B- but I give it a B for being so far ahead of its time vs. other products of the 1970s.

Don: I'm always intrigued with what books we get to read. I've read more different kinds of books since I've joined this group and I've really enjoyed the glimpse into different styles. This was the perfect airliner book - read it in 2 hours, 20 minutes. We don't have a criterion for the type font. I can't give it a low grade as it was so enjoyable. Can't give it a high grade as it didn't move me. Like it's font size: it was in the middle. Dilemma: b (small type) - but no negative feelings.

Dave: This is like grading term papers. My opinion largely reflects what's been said. Enjoyed it once I got into it. Greatly enjoyed the read - the book moved along briskly. Described a slice of society I know nothing about. Not great literature but it broke new ground. I liked that the cops didn't come off as heroes with great glory. They are involved in the same grimy world as the criminals. I give it a B+

Tom: Nobody had used the phrase "a little gem." On the way over I made the observation that I can't remember another book without a "disjointed" third person narrator. I found myself not rooting for someone. Eddie Coyle got killed, yet I never felt he couldn't make it. I was totally removed, as a dispassionate third person. A-

Jack: I thoroughly enjoyed it. The most entertaining book I've read this year. I admired Higgens' ability to create a page-turner. I give it an A-

Joel: (quote from Wikipedia by Norman Mailer). I never felt it was great literature. I wanted something not long and complex, entertaining to read. I think a lot of it was the phrases, e.g., "It's an ill wind that doesn't blow." and "he shows up as often as Santa Claus." Reasonable contract. It was his use of dialog that I liked the most. A-

Jack: I found it very entertaining and to a certain extent educational.  It brought back memories of my bike ride across Nebraska -- stopping at cafes, talking to cowboys, meeting characters as unique as those from Woolybucket.  The plot was loose but the collection of stories saved it:  B+

Ken: This was the coming of age of a 25 year old, not knowing what he wanted to do with his career and his life.  I found the characters enjoyable. I found the book disjointed at times but it kept my interest. Some of the descriptions were excellent: "clouds with bulging gray udders" (page 227).  First rate descriptive writing. The far-fetched ending bothered me. The book had pluses and minus:  B+

Joel:  I knew a lot of people in this book or have treated them as patients. I've stayed in places like Guymon, OK. Driven along those roads and seen tornadoes off to the East.  It is rough trying to live out there. A lot of the book came across as authentic, perhaps amplified over what one would see. I give it a B+, not great literature but a lot of fun.

Keith: This opus was a loosely knit ensemble of short stories. Reminds me of the 20 foot woman - looks great from 20 feet away, but as you get closer, not so great. A tepid tale, a 350 page tome that could have been enemaized down to 200 pages. B--

Charlie:  I really liked it - for its strengths, makes me forget about its weaknesses.  Random stories woven loosely.  Reminded me of Larry McMurtry and his stories of Texas; also reminded me of a Robert Altman movie with all these things going on in every direction. I give it an A.

Ron: My reaction to the book was one of pleasure. I thought it was going to be tales of the Good Ol' Boys in the Panhandle. I enjoyed the prose. (My wife Grace is a nurse. One day the doctor she was accompanying asked this good ol' boy from New Mexico: "Does your penus burn when your urinate?" "What?" "Does your penus burn?" "Well, I don't know - I never tried to light it." [Doctor to nurse:] "I'm going to have to find another way to ask this question!" Story #2: Nurse: "I want to tell the doctor that you drank all of your Go-Litely." Good Ol' Boy: "Well, then, you're goin to hell, 'cause I ain't drinking no more!")   If not charming, then fascinating collection of stories.  All fiction distorts in some way - this book documents a way of life.  I'll give it a B+

Mike: I have the feeling Annie Proulx began a project (much like Bob Dollar) which proved too big and too difficult for her. A promising start, some interesting characters, and then - whamo! Stuff in all the Panhandle stories you can come up with! Annie Proulx demonstrated the attributes of a lazy writer in this book - she may have done a great deal of research, but she didn't spend enough time pulling the story together. Instead, she filled the book with side stories. She was also lazy with her dialect of the panhandle Texans: using "awl" for oil, but not for "oilman" - and used the "a" for "of" - but not much more.  At times, it appeared PETA was giving advice on what to write about the treatment of animals raised for slaughter. The author did try to pull some of it together at the end (the handsome cowpoke Ruby Loving showed up later as a lounge singer) but I felt like I was reading "Florence of Arabia" at the end - but without the exploding camel and the well-written wrapup. The end of this book, with Tazzy shooting all the "bad" characters, was just too much. This sadly turned out to be a B book.

Don: This book hooked me into a fantasy trip. (Like a road trip on the back roads to my Wisconsin cabin). I wanted to give it an A, but the ending pushed it to A-

Rob: I started off expecting to like this - I liked Shipping News I liked Chapter 1. I like small town life, stopping in cafes with photographs of the local cheerleaders and football players on the walls. Both my parents came from just across the border from the Texas panhandle - there is a heroic story out there. These are the people who stuck it out during the Dust Bowl - perhaps they were not industrious enough to leave, but for whatever reason, they stuck it out. I expected this book to treat these people with respect. But from the bedwetting sheriff to Francis Scott Keister, Proulx had an outsider's view: overdone, stretching: The book is a put-down of panhandle people, but moreover it's a heavy-handed, mostly unfunny putdown. From what we heard about Proulx's personality, I think her editor(s) must have been afraid to question such weird stuff as "lips the color of genitals." I give it a C-

Tom: It's all been said. I fall into the B- camp. I thought the plot was beyond anemic - it was distracting. I thought there was the potential, the seed of a good story: Bob Dollar's family history, his uncle, his friends - but it turned into a collection of short stories. B-

Dave: I read this first when it was first published. My opinion went down on my second reading. It really isn't a novel. The Bob Dollar "plot" was very weak. The last 50 pages (with the rodeo description) weren't necessary, and did not bring it together in a meaningful sense. On the other hand, it provided many truths. When I was growing up, we would go out in the country to visit family. I worked on a farm during the summer and experienced life in rural America. Later I worked on projects about hog farm. I thought she did a good job of describing the threats people feel from the outside. - like the abortion stories, I could see people exchanging those stories, as far fetched as they were. The high point of the book was capturing the rural thinking - a good read. A-

Eleven devils seeking to take away Ahmad's god made a pilgrimage to the 14th Street mosque, perhaps for the final time. They knew that the covenants of their gathering were the Right Path for does not the Qur'an state in the second sura, Separate yourselves from women and approach them not until they be cleansed. Yet the women had prepared thereunto a feast meant for great multitudes. Though it lacked lentils and fava beans, hummus and halvah, falafel and couscous and tabouli, did it not provide broccoli and young carrots, even unto brownies and powdered sugar almonds?  Indeed, the devils learned that the Master was himself a critic who attended the holy Harvard and ventured even unto Oxford. The devils spoke:

Dave: I enjoyed this book - I had some problems with plot contrivance, but I liked the emphasis on a problem that is with us in today's world.  I learned how a terrorist might develop and function. A-

Rob: I really admire Updike's writing - from the first chapter I heard the ticking of a bomb in the background.  I liked the character development.  I liked the description of New Jersey, with a lake of rubble near the high school.  I can empathize with the view that our culture appears disgusting with baggy pants, etc. we infidels don't deserve what we have.  As for the last chapter, I couldn't believe it when the bomb didn't go off - I went back and read it again.  I can only conclude that Ahmad was convinced to choose life over destruction.  Perhaps Ahmad's next career is to bring this message to other would-be terrorists. The book was well-written (up until the last chapter). B+

Ron B: I thought it was a well written book. The end was not satisfying. The Motivation for Ahmad to become a terrorist was a little weak. (He was a U.S. citizen who didn't adopt the outside world as his home country.)  Not clear - either an A- or B+. The writing puts it at an A-.

Don T:  I'd give it an A-   I have a slightly different view from the other reviewers - the one similarity I have was with the ending.  I admire his phrases.  How do people do this? They see the world differently.  I really enjoyed the writing (an A).  His cynicism was controlled.  It is so much easier to be clever when cynical rather than uplifting.  Updike's description of Ted Williams last baseball game was all uplifting and it moved me to tears. A lot of this was downtaking. A-

Ken:  I actually agree with many of the comments already made. The book was well-written, the dialogue was great, the characters well developed. Some of the detailed parts of the story were contrived, but some truth throughout. B+

Mike: Some of the details were a little silly, as in Ahmad's mother listing for Jack Levy that Ahmad had to check the engine oil, the transmission oil, the brake fluid, etc., etc. No kidding!  Plot contrivance was distracting to me several times, perhaps no more so than when the prostitute that Charlie lined up for Ahmad to meet upstairs at the furniture warehouse was none other than Joryleen, his interest from high school.  I enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it to others - I learned a lot about the study of the Qur'an and I appreciated seeing the American culture from a Muslim view. B+

Joel:  I had never read any Updike before.  It was certainly enjoyable - a master writer.  I was bothered by the plot and by the ending.  I am in basic agreement with the other reviewers. B+

Tom:  I also wept when I read the Ted Williams description.  Updike is beyond worrying about writing.  He could put together a 200 page book that is next to perfect, but he doesn't worry about it.  His treatment of sex is so unromantic, so clinical it is almost like viewing it in a doctor's office.  Very uniform treatment of sex throughout all his writing. Rabbit, Run is the best of his novels.  This is a B+

Ed:  I liked this book, probably a B+   I see as a moral a kind of "How to become a terrorist."  The Right Path was chosen - why?  Maybe because of the influence of people in Ahmad's life like Jack Levy.  He has a pessimistic view of all bad guys that do bad things.  Ahmad was guided down that path but detoured at the end. B+   Small criticism of our host: my friend's book club back east invited John Updike to attend their meeting - and he did!

Keith:  I will offer a totally different insight.  I believe this book was a monologue by Updike.   Jack Levy was Updike, and Ahmad is who Updike would like to be. The book shows Updike's prejudice against black people and fat people.  The Updike Alter-Ego and Ego appear together in the truck at the end of the book and discuss their/his views of life and death.  I believe any good terrorist would blow up the tunnel given this scenario.  We learned absolutely nothing about terrorism.  I give it a C+   Slightly north of palaver.

Charlie:  I don't have much to add. I give it an A-  A page turner at the end.  I can forgive a lot for the great writing.

Jack:  I am a big fan of John Updike, so needless to say I thoroughly enjoyed your selection of his most recent novel, Terrorist. I have been reading Updike's work since the 60's and have been fascinated by his interest in the terrors of faith, sex and marriage -- all of which appear again in Terrorist. Even though Updike is about 8 years older than I am, I see him as a contemporary whom I have aged with over the past 40 plus years. I feel an affinity to him and the issues he struggles with. The subject matter of this novel is timely, the prose is first rate, and the issues complex and thought provoking. I give it an "A".

Rob: The image that this book brought to my mind was when the Book Club was in Pagosa Springs at the Hogsbreath Saloon, and sitting nearby were two women who carried on a conversation about relationships, and talked and talked and talked. I got bored early reading this book. In contrast, I was reading a Flashman novel, which I found much more fun! It seems like a story of a charming Irish drunk has been done many times before, not the least of which was Frank McCourt’s Angela’s Ashes.  I didn’t get wrapped up in this family.  Most Irish drunks are more self-destructive than Billy.   I didn’t care for her style, the way she jumped back and forth, disconnected. I couldn’t talk myself into liking it. C

Dave: My opinion of the book changed as I read it. I started out not liking it. As I persevered, my opinion changed. I ended up thinking parts of the book were very insightful as to relationships with families. Most of us have seen unsavory human behavior. In the end I found it quite favorable. B+

Don: Thanks for changing from the Brother of Darkness (Cormac McCarthy). I borrowed the book from Jack and read it fast – I was able to get by the 2 ½ pages of description of driveways in Long Island and I got the story quite compact. So I really did enjoy it and I give it a B. I enjoyed reading it, it was a good book to read, but I wouldn’t say to someone, "you gotta read this."

Charlie: What he (Rob) said. She went on and on about inconsequential things. She didn’t deal with the dark side of alcoholism, just went on forever and ever. Slow going. C

Ed: This was real to me. It fits with my experience base. My family has stayed in that same area. The concept of the close nuclear family came across as very real. Thus it was good. B+

Ken: Overall, I enjoyed this book. I thought parts were beautifully written. Dennis seemed to be the main character. B+

Jack: Coming from an Irish family with a predispositon to alcohol, I empathized with this book.  When I went back over it again, I got a better appreciation of the structure.  I would now kick it up to a B+

Joel: Although I recognize some of the characters in the book, they were not in my family - they were in Jack's!  I liked the description of the grandmother "cooking the toughness into a roast" and also of her belief that vegetables and Brussels sprouts had no intrinsic taste but only received flavor from the salt and butter you put on. Perhaps the most poignant line in the book was the message from the young lady awaiting word from her former suitor: Tell him "I am still here." B

Tom: Like Dave, I started out struggling with this book and not sure I would like it. Harold Bloom reminds us, "Worthwhile reading should be a difficult pleasure." I never start a Book Club book until the Sunday before the meeting. My family would have big Sunday dinners every week. I was touched by the strong feelings of love implied by the narrator for her father Dennis. Looking back, I'm much more aware of the relationships now then I was as a small child. I'm 1/4 Irish. A-

Ron B: This is not a Flashman kind of a book. I've just read a Penelope Lively book that traces a family through three generations in England. I like McDermott's style of writing. I was carried along by the prose. It is diffuclt to follow, and changed the narrator from personal "I" to "we" to "they." The book is a Solid B from my point of view. Like memory, fragments make sense once you have lived the story.

Keith: I offer the ultimate discursive comment:

• National Book Award?  who was sleeping with whom?
• Title: I suggest, "Many Funerals and a Wedding"

Proscotic view, not enough to carry the book. The reader is left afloat in a sea of ennui and minutiae. Instead of the reader being put in a coma, I was put in a comma - paragraphs that read on and on.  I did finish the book.  Many books have an ebb and flow. This book was ebbing endlessly.  Reminded me of "One Hundred Years of Solitude" - no plot.   C

Mike: I heard about this book from a lady calling in to NPR's Friday Book List and saying this was the best book she had ever read. Then she said, "It's about an alcoholic and how he affects his family." I couldn't imagine how one could write such a book and not dwell on alcoholism, however Alice McDermott did that here. She captured all that was needed about alcoholism when she stated that Billy would cough up flesh and blood. Billy was the pivotal character that represented some of the glue that bound together the other family members. I loved the way she told the story, from back to front. I loved the way she shows us how life works out, with early choices driving many outcomes. Some beautiful writing.  A-

Our host confessed that the source of his selection was a recommendation by his daughter’s ex-boyfriend who teaches German.   Frisch was born in Zurich in 1911. His father was an architect and young Frisch studied architecture at (don’t go Ugly American on me) ZIT (Zurich Institute of Technology).  When he visited the USA, he loved New York City and soon gave up his professional life for writing. He wrote for over 50 years: plays, essays, and four novels.

[see the link to Frisch’s obit in the NY Times (1991): by Stade: "each novel has someone who strives to escape a luminous parable of indeterminate purport."   "I believe it is much more negative to say how wonderful everything is - praising things as they are is giving in."

Geological Time: "The Recent" = Wholly Recent = Holocene (from the Greek) is measured from the retreat of the last galacial period (11,000 years ago). Now a new name is being proposed: Antropocene in the Quaternary or Pleistocene = Ice Age. Note1: Jack Horner, the paleontologist, is giving a lecture in May at Albuquerque's National History Museum – tickets now on sale here. Note2:  Charlie lauds Jay Gould's well written book "Wonderful Life."

We noted that erosion was a theme; Geiser’s mind was eroding.

Don: This was a confusing book; I was utterly intrigued. The author had an idea and carried it out: he painted a picture and left. Recalls to me the context of two similar theme books I have recently read: Coetzee’s "Slow Man" has the protagonist break his leg and survive, well told with tricks of a really good writer. He hated what he has done with his writing skills, thus the story of a bitter old man writing. Also: "The Sea" by John Danville showed some initiative but was long and windy. Our book, however, was to me really clean, meaty, had a puzzle to it. I saw a really beautiful depiction and didn’t get the feeling of a depressed old man. A.

B

Keith:

Ron: A couple of errors relating to speed of lightning vice the speed of light, and 25 amperes should have been 175 amperes. He set the mood.  I would recommend this book if I could explain what it is about.   I give it a B.  Mercifully short – which is why it worked.

Ken: I actually thought it was a wonderful description of someone noticeably losing their mind. I thought it was a haunting book – my identical twin brother didn’t like it, I give it an A-

Charlie: I thought it was well done – short, limited in scope, it was to go into memory loss, other things slip. Didn’t lean on the dementia for its impact.  B

Dave: can’t say I enjoyed the book but I was moved by it. You know you’re losing it, but oh, god, can I still derive the Pythagorean Theorem. Slippery slope of losing it by degree but then getting assurances that he still had it. I see myself going through this. I unhesitatingly give it an A.

Joel: I do everything he does except tape/tack the info to the wall. I keep it in folders. Not just dementia gets to you but also the isolation. Also nutrition problems – Geiser was holding up well as shown by his hike. Via his note-tacking, he’s trying to preserve rationality – like collecting stamps or keeping track of all the railroad engines in Britain – keep rational through organization. I did enjoy it. B+

Tom: I give it an A. I enjoyed it more on re-reading, I knew some of the nuances. The word ‘haunting’ keeps coming up – Amazon reviews used that word. It pulled me in and kept me there. Two stories: one of an individual and an author making observations without providing answers to questions. Man’s place and how this erosion process is occurring. Other word is "oddly comforting" – third interpretation is realizing the individuals small place. Very short, can read it in two hours.

Cover: Frisch is great in showing that an act of analysis is a passionate act.

Closeout: [Ron B.] Two other words describe this book: courageous, and kindness (author never took potshots at Geiser – and Geiser himself was kind.)

Entertaining little book, sad but oftentimes amusing to watch an aging man losing his mental capabilities – interesting to see how he tried to hang on to what seemed important, for a while, but in the end, not worth keeping.  Key sentence to me: p. 58:  “When Geiser sees in the mirror that he'’s still wearing his hat, he remembers where his passport is.”  Been there, done that.  It's scary – especially since my mother is afflicted with Alzheimer’s.  At the same time, Geiser remembers every minute on the Matterhorn.  My Mom remembers church hymns, not much else.  I think Frisch captured Geiser'’s aging process (from a glimpse of a very few days) perfectly -- hauntingly.  Then the end: Geiser had at least one stroke and his daughter came to get him.  And life went on in the valley, no more noticing his departure than that of an ant.

I must admit that I didn'’t read many of the clippings -- didn't try to puzzle out their why and why now inclusion.  I did work out the golden section equation. – I’'ve still got it!

I’'ll give it a solid B-plus. – It is a novella being ranked against larger, broader works.  Glad Tom picked this one for us.

Cheers,

Rob Easterling

On the first day of May, Anno Domini 2008, nine of Girolamo's Angels came from the four points of the compass to the twisted and cobbled streets of the Southeast Heights.

Three others had already fled the city to take in the healing airs of the countryside. Friars Michelangelo and Robelangelo sought relief from its putrid and stomach-turning ways, while Fra Tubesino in his journey saw visions of wonderous machinations and contradictions.

This saintly group of Literati said a prayer wishing Godspeed to Dave Southwick who had already flown to the state of the Twin Cities and they welcomed to their gathering the newly recruited angel, Dick Jensen.

 What follows here are the true testimonies of the Angels in the same order as given to me, and I pass them on to you for recantation, correction or addition. (It should be noted that this book may have set a LTBC record in that it received every grade from A through F.)

Given by my hand,
The Painter

The Testimonies

This book began with a promise and a premise.  The prologue on the death of Sister Lucrezia appeared to foretell of an interesting story well told.  Once into the book  I found as the Acknowledgements at the end proclaimed that this book is built on a scaffold of history.  I learned of the loyalty of the body slave that apparently remained in some financially well off homes a thousand years after the fall of Rome.  I learned of Charles VIII's invasion of Italy in 1494 and of Italy's existence as a collection of city states two thousand years after the rise of the Greek city states.  I learned of Friar Savonarola's attack against the house of Medici and his ultimate excommunication and hanging and burning in 1498.  Throughout 300 pages I was reminded again of man's limited span of life, of the facility of man's inhumane treatment of his fellow man, and that torture brings whatever one wishes to hear from the victim and whatever one desires to perceive as truth.

Yet upon that scaffold of history Sarah Dunant constructed a Hollywood B-movie, a sick chick flick.  The Birth of Venus is a defiled placenta.  Almost halfway into the book, our heroine coolly describes in detail her middle-aged spouse's attempts to arouse himself on his wedding night and we are horrified to suddenly learn that the sixteen year old's hubby is a homosexual having an affair with her handsome brother.  Say what?  Days of Our Lives goes medieval on our ass.

But wait, there's more:  every 30 pages or so we must be told of yet another brutal murder on the streets and the mutilation details to convince us that it was not just a straightforward killing.  The author lives in London and Florence - was she attempting to transfer the crimes of the 19th century Jack the Ripper to the 15th century Dominican monks?  The book devolves into an attempt to infuse the writing of Dante and the glorious art of Florence with the prurient interest of the human species and the degradation of the human spirit.  Our heroine ends her book by telling us that "my chapel is sadly mediocre."  Sarah Dunant's book is sadly mediocre.  I find nothing built on this scaffold to encourage me to recommend this effort to others.  I am most curious as to Ron's desire to have us read this book.  The writing may flow but the stream is putrid.  Florence deserves better; Dunant deserves a D.

   -  Mike

Eight sixty-seven year olds of Norwegian descent gathered at a summer cabin among the trees of Sandia Heights to learn of Quisling, Sweden's neutrality, and why you don't want to have two Norwegians, two Swedes, two Finns, and two Icelanders on an island. We learned that Per Petterson likes symmetry in his books - two sets of twins and one of each is killed. We found unusual harmony among the Scandinavians present:

Mike: The author as Trond Sander creates a refreshing, non-edited voice. By non-edited, I liked the way he corrected himself in the narrative, and allowed us to see those changes of thinking. Thus it had a refreshing way of narration similar to story-telling. "All my life I have longed to be alone in a place like this." Sometimes his descriptions are short and choppy, sometimes poetic and drawn out. Overall very refreshing writing, well-told story of the somewhat coming of age of a young boy who discovers that his father is having an affair, yet learns to accept it and understand it if not to condone it. A very subtle sense of humor. He paints his mother as 'weighty,' uninteresting, and he describes his own teen crush on Jon's mother very well. I liked his embarrassment at being aroused by the milkmaid - actually, I liked the milkmaid. I'm not sure if this is one of the top 10 books we have read, but it must be up there in the top 10%: A

Don: I was surprised by the book. I liked Trond. I liked for myself seeming some reflections - what do I let hurt, who do I leave - growing strong but scarred. The book/author tackles more than one depth. I liked it. A

Joel: Scandinavians don't know they are quiet. When the book started, I thought it was a lot like Lake Woebegon without the jokes. The book has several levels, intertwined - patterns (1942-44, 1948, and the present). I thought it was an entertaining read - how to spend our aged years. A-

Tom: Having seen the Estonia film, I am reminded of how significant WW II experiences are to Europeans - even this Per Petterson, a Norwegian born in 1952 must have been affected by the experiences of his countrymen or his family. Per talked about how WWII made it into the book. I thought of the Man in the Holocene but this was very different - more of a rite of passage into manhood. Not so much of Trond's later life. Thus more ambitious than Man in the Holocene. I am torn between an A- and an A. The ending left me hanging, as I wanted more about Trond - and I wanted him to ask Lars about the life that was rightfully his. A

Dick J: One of the things I have done since I retired is read a lot of murder mysteries - I thought this would be similar and in some sense it was. Rite of passage occurred twice for Trond (at age 15, and at retirement). I liked the book, I've read it twice, although I didn't care for the ending, I would give it an A. Great book.

Charlie: Not much to add, looks like this book is headed for our top 10. I give it an A. It was about transition/old age, but not about fear, death. Retirement is a period of enormous change. The book addressed this. A

Ron: I give it an A. I thought it \would be an A after the first couple of chapters as I liked the writing style. If a movie, this would be in black and white, with a lot of snow. I liked the fact it was non-linear, unfolded as it went. Horse, chain saw, river - what more do you need? Strangely comforting about the farmer with the snowplough.

Ken: Joel gets the small piece of dessert with his A- grade. I read the book twice, really enjoyed it. A.

I thoroughly enjoyed Out Stealing Horses.  Not as tragic as Frisch's Man in the Holocene, but it too reflected some of that melancholia many of us 67-year-old men experience occasionally.  I found it succinct and well written--I never got lost when he moved from present to past or from one subplot to another.  I would give it an A.

Jack

According to the teachings of the Prophet, peace be unto him, each month of the lunar calendar shall have within it a last Thursday.  And on this last Thursday, the mullahs of the village shall gather under one tent to discuss the laws of the true religion and the books of the true faith.

Yet within the hadith, there is related the apocryphal story of how the Archangel Gilbert took the Prophet, peace be unto him, for a ride upon the great white steed Hosseini into the dark sky through the monsoons of Mecca and the southeast heights, and related unto him how within the seventh month, there will be no last Thursday.  Rather it shall be seen that the last Thursday of the seventh month shall be transformed into the first Thursday of the eighth month, and then will the mullahs gather.

And thus it came to be that the mullahs gathered, and much was the discussion, and they spake unto the multitudes, and it was perceived as goodness and light. 

Two dreamy elitists were captured by seven agrarian terrorists and taken for interrogation in Pebble Beach in the South American country of Tanoan. The elitists appeared to be quite sensitive. The following emanations were heard from the interrogation closet:

Charlie: I really enjoyed reading it - some parts I especially enjoyed such as the Russian Fyador's story, and the interpreter. What bothered me was the improbability of so many things - she ignored the adverse situation - would be better to have a counterpoint. I understand this is fiction but it would be better if more realistic. B

Tom: I started reading it like a novel, then I let my sensitive side take over. Half way through I "got" it - the book has a lot more humor than we've talked about. I didn't care for the first half. I didn't like the ending. A-

Rob; I was captivated from the beginning. I avoided the blurbs - Chapter 1: I liked the description of music and Roxane. The middle was slow for me - yet every page was funny. Example: The French Ambassador got sent to this "Heart of Darkness" - and funny when in this midst of all this chaos, the VP says, "Well, I guess we're not getting a new factory." Some lines made me smile, some made me laugh out loud. The end was jarring - I got to where I wanted them to live happily ever after - It really hurt that Mr. Hosokawa was killed - I was under her spell, I didn't even think of the Peru kidnapping situation. A-

Mike: As you know, I have no soul. I didn't feel I learned anything from this book. It indicates to start Chapter 6 that "Years later, when this period of internment was remembered by the people who were actually there, they saw it in two distinct periods: before the box and after the box." I agree the world changed when the box of opera scores was brought in - the story went from silly to ridiculous. Grade went from B to C. Here we have 17 troops from off the farm in a South American Country, and would you believe it - 3 of them turn out to be geniuses! Wow! The genius of the proletariat! Marx would be so proud!

Joel: When I started to read the book, I thought "This will be gruesome." About half way through, I said, "Hey, I know this story" - the Peru hostage situation. The juxtaposition of people was interesting but not great literature. I thought it was well crafted. A-

Dick: I started out liking it, felt it was going to be good. Then I made a note: "There is no tension." Only note I made for quite a while. Got to the point where I was just reading it. I give it a B-. On the back, now I note it says: "a dream-like fable." It was not realistic.

Ken: I agree with everybody - a range of opinions. The love affair between Mr. Hosokawa and Roxane seemed ridiculous. Gen and Carmen did seem plausible: here was a girl he could relate to. Same opinions others have stated: far-fetched, didn't like the ending, yet the story took you in. B+

Keith: I liked the priest describing the diva  - like Soleri describing Mozart: "God put him here to ruin my career!" This book had a problem with the beginning and the end - they were too far apart.  I think her editor told her, "Now finish up in 2 pages!"  And she did her best! Gen was strumming Carmen, and then ended up playing second fiddle with the diva. B-

Ed: My wife recommended the book. I read it and I enjoyed it. I enjoy the description of the opera soprano as a truly talented person, other folks fell in love with her and respected her. I read it twice (almost), and a lot of things came clear on the second reading. Sometimes I fell asleep while listening to it. The focus was on the community and the environment she created, then letting the characters interact. I enjoyed it. A

Rob redux:  The book seemed like a dream, then in the last two pages the alarm goes off and you wake up. 

Keith: My perspective is that this was a young author trying to find his way (his earlier novel Cup of Gold did not pay back the $250 advance he had received). It was full of symbolism – vast deserts of pulp with an occasional oasis. If he had written only three novels, we wouldn’t be here discussing him. When Joseph’s brother Barton killed the tree, Joseph Wayne’s house of cards failed. B

Dick: I would echo Ron’s analysis of the uneven writing. I found I had to re-read paragraphs, go back and see what he had said. I felt like I was in a traffic jam, then eventually pulled out of it. I kept thinking of Pearl, there were elements of that story in here. I’d give it B-

Joel: I’d echo the earlier discussion comments – there were enough good parts in the novel to see that this Steinbeck is an up and comer. In general the novel is dismissed; I’d give it a B

Ron: I would recommend it as the good parts outweighed the bad. The first part [discussions of Joseph with father] deserved an A, I’d give it a B+ as literature in general. Perhaps we should look back at authors in their earlier days.

Jack: I enjoyed it, found it fascinating. Steinbeck developed these characters with human frailties, jump start his writing career, give it an A-

Mike:  This book continued to surprise me:  from the embracing of the earth with passion to the passion of Rama (one time only).  Joseph Wayne appeared slightly deranged.  I understand his tree was his father to him, but why be so defensive?  Why not just be proud of your tree?  I think Burton girlded the tree because he was angry at his father for not giving him the blessing.  And was the blessing that much?  Wasn't in words - so where was the hand placed?  B for Blessing.

Charlie: Not much to add. B- as of historical interest; characterizations were rather weak; humanism was not enough.

Rob: Similar comments to those previously expressed: why did I choose this book? Steinbeck was learning how to write about people struggling with drought – according to my guru Robert Yardley (formerly book critic of the New York Times): he re-read Steinbeck and on his second reading was not so blown away. I could feel the growing sense of tragedy - he had a stilted language, style. Steinbeck really feels connected with the earth and with Salinas County. I could see the young writer at work. I’d encourage him to keep writing: B

Six wannabe yids gathered in the newly refurbished Park Ave Synagogue to discuss chess puzzles, noir films and Philip Marlowe vs Sam Spade. Unorthodox comments were documented as follows:

Joel: I thought it was a pretty weird book. I had trouble with the suspension of disbelief. I learned more ethnic detail than I needed – everyone calling each other "Yid" was distracting – I think of yid as a derogatory term. All those metaphors – I felt we were in "The Kingdom of Metaphors."  Not that funny but an interesting read: B

Ken: Tom mentioned [during discussion] that he got into it right away – I thought the first 100 pages had way too many characters, too many Yiddish words. After awhile, the creative humorous writing, fumbling main character got me.  By the end I really enjoyed it: A-

Tom: I liked it a lot – brought together several of my favorite things – I loved the Film Noir feeling aspect; I liked all the immersion in the Jewish culture. I grasped the idea of the main character, I think I know how he feels. [I can't’extract my Catholic background; still a part of me). Then he took it over the top with the Nabokov extraction from Speak, Memory. Nabokov competed this chess puzzle in a Paris hotel in 1940 the night before he departed for the United States. A

Ron