The Luminaries - February CC Book Club Selection

[Mary13]

<p>Welcome Lipsha! So glad to have you with us!</p>

<p>Your comments sent me to the internet to learn about Wayne Booth’s concept of the Implied Author. I was unfamiliar with the term – thank you! Per Wikipedia, “Distinct from the author and the narrator, the term refers to the character a reader may attribute to an author based on the way a literary work is written, which may differ considerably from the author’s true personality.” <a href=“Implied author - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_author&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>So perhaps it’s not exactly Catton, the Real Author, who lives more in her intellect in than her heart, but the Implied Author. </p>

<p>Your observation re “cold and calculating” made me recall a goodreads review I had read that had a similar perspective. I looked it up:</p>

<p>

…The Luminaries didn’t grab me. It has all the elements of a pitch-perfect Dickensian mystery novel: long-lost siblings, forgeries, opium dens, misplaced riches, a hidden cache of letters, illegitimate offspring, assumed identities, a séance, a witty and philosophical omniscient narrator’s voice, and so on. If this was a Victorian paint-by-numbers competition, Catton would have top marks. But something is lacking here. I can’t help feeling that despite its technical perfection, The Luminaries is a book without a beating heart. <a href=“Rebecca (Newbury, The United Kingdom)’s review of The Luminaries”>Rebecca (Newbury, The United Kingdom)’s review of The Luminaries;

</p>

<p>One can only wonder whether this is the impression that Catton intended her Implied Author to relay, or whether she made a misstep. (In the interview ignatius posted, Catton herself seems warm and vibrant.)</p>

[NJTheatreMOM]

<p>I didn’t think The Luminaries was “cold,” though it certainly is calculating!</p>

<p>I’ve been having trouble figuring out how to explain why I like this book enough not only to recommend it, but to actually read it twice…so I looked over a few of the 215 five-star reviews on amazon to see if I could find somebody more articulate than I with whom I agreed.</p>

<p>Here’s an excerpt from one of the reviews that expresses my own feelings pretty well</p>

<p>

–There’s poetry in this prose; it’s everywhere evocative.
–The narrative voice is free and easy; Catton doesn’t give the sense that she’s trying too hard. To write such a complex and masterful work so confidently blows my mind. If I were to characterize her narrative style altogether in a few words I would choose: playful, with an affectionate disposition to reader and the narrative itself.
–Like other great novels…it unites macroscopic and microscopic views of its subject matter and does so in a circumscribed setting in terms of time and place. This focuses the range of detail and ultimately epic effect of the work.

</p>

[Mary13]

<p>NJTheatreMOM, I am very glad you recommended The Luminaries. I found it both challenging and enjoyable, which is an excellent combination! I would be the first to agree with many of those 5-star reviews. That said, I would be unlikely to re-read the book. I had to think about why that is. I reflected on the books that I have re-read, and realize that each time, it’s because I have become engrossed by the characters. I go back to the book to re-examine them – their motives, their relationships to each other, their flaws, their views on the world. </p>

<p>With The Luminaries, I would be going back for the puzzle and not the people. That’s where the book’s heart is—in the puzzle—and I know that I missed a great deal of detail in that regard and would benefit from a re-reading. But I’ve never been a puzzle person. I never got the hang of chess, I can’t fix or put together anything that has more than two pieces, and I have always been terrible at brain teaser games. I wonder if people who have those strengths are the types who are powerfully drawn to The Luminaries. Maybe it’s a left brain-right brain sort of thing. :)</p>

[Mary13]

<p>Going back to address a couple of earlier posts (before I head off for a long work day):</p>

<p>

Following the court scene, do you feel that each character has received their just desserts? Were any characters let off lightly or unjustly punished, and if so why?

</p>

<p>

@mathmom

I have to admit I rather liked how the court episode turned out though it seems to me Lydia got off easy.

</p>

<p>If I felt that Lydia Wells and Francis Carver were soulmates, then I would say that the gods, if not the court, punished her terribly because her husband was murdered. However…was he really the love of her life or were they just business partners? And, although I don’t want to make her out to be a worse person than she already is, could it be that Carver’s death was a relief to her? A husband in prison would not fit well with her schemes. Now she can be a (figurative) gold-digger again.</p>

<p>

@ignatius

I thought of Lydia as a charlatan (which she is, of course) so found it interesting that she divines the connection (astral soul-mates) between Emery and Anna. To me, it became a glimpse (a first clue) into figuring out the mystery. I did not expect any true interest in astrology on Lydia’s part … and I think it was there.

</p>

<p>Agreed. As for Lydia’s underlying villainy, I kept thinking I’d like to see her go head-to-head with The Uzanne (from The Stockholm Octavo). They would make interesting sparring partners. </p>

[NJTheatreMOM]

<p>Oho, Lydia and the Uzanne…that would indeed be a matchup!</p>

<p>I decided to re-read The Luminaries because of the puzzle. I just couldn’t remember enough details to make sense of some of the patterns. But upon re-reading it, I found that I appreciated some of its non-puzzle aspects much more.</p>

[mathmom]

<p>I know I need to reread at least some of it to contribute properly in this discussion! I just finished another book I was reading (very light) so I feel like I can go back to it now!</p>

[ignatius]

<p>

@NJTM

I didn’t think The Luminaries was “cold,” though it certainly is calculating!

</p>

<p>I agree. I liked it and liked the characters.</p>

<p>In some weird way, it reminds me of reading Cloud Atlas - another book I loved and could describe as calculating, puzzle pieces, “too clever by half.” (Note that The Luminaries reminds me of reading Cloud Atlas, not that it reminds me of Cloud Atlas. The connection lies in the reading experience for me somehow. Am I making any sense? :-/ )</p>

[NJTheatreMOM]

<p>Yes, Ignatius! I thought the very same thing. Two long books I understood somewhat incompletely (and read twice!) and recommended.</p>

[Caraid]

<p>I liked the characters in The Luminaries. I guess it was the puzzle I didn’t like.</p>

[Mary13]

<p>

@ignatius

In some weird way, it reminds me of reading Cloud Atlas - another book I loved and could describe as calculating, puzzle pieces, "too clever by half.”… The connection lies in the reading experience for me somehow.

</p>

<p>I get it and I agree – Like The Luminaries, Cloud Atlas is a skillfully arranged puzzle, with lives that intertwine in amazing and sometimes serendipitous ways. I loved Cloud Atlas. For me, the difference is that with Cloud Atlas, each chapter was like a separate short story, with a minimal number of characters who had greater depth than the characters in The Luminaries. As much as I liked Emery Staines and Walter Moody, they didn’t have the same resonance as Robert Frobisher or Zachry from Sloosha’s Crossing.</p>

[SouthJerseyChessMom]

<p>Enjoying this discussion even though I didn’t read the book. Serious sleep deprivation and so glad I didn’t even attempt this one! Your comments are intriguing.
Excellent discussion. Read my first book in two months- " The Rosie Project " light and breezy! </p>

<p>Carry on. </p>

[buenavista]

<p>

I enjoyed the retelling of the story of the 12. It’s like playing telephone. The end of a story can be very different from the beginning, and because so many people have shared it, it becomes truth.

</p>

<p>Lydia Wells gives another perspective on this when she talks to Mannering about fortune-telling:</p>

<p>

“One of the first lessons one learns, in this discipline, is that nothing about the future is incontrovertible,” said Mrs. Wells. “the reason is very simple: a person’s fortune always changes in the telling of it.”

</p>

<p>I usually have a problem with long books, but this one didn’t bother me. I loved the puzzle aspects, and being immersed in that particular time and place. It reminded me of a lot of things: like ignatius, I thought of *Cloud Atlas<a href=“the%20South%20Sea%20island%20parts”>/i</a>–I know exactly what you mean about the reading experience, ignatius!. Also *Possession<a href=“the%20Victorian%20and%20puzzle%20aspects”>/i</a>. And some books books by Kate Grenville set in 18th-century Australia, particularly The Secret River, and *The Lieutenant<a href=“I%20recommend%20them”>/i</a>. And yes, Mary13, The Uzanne!</p>

<p>Two things I’m still not clear about:</p>

<p>How did Emery Staines end up in the trunk in the boat?
What exactly happened to Anna’s baby?</p>

<p>SJCM: Sorry about the medical issues with your mom–hope she’s feeling better soon!</p>

[NJTheatreMOM]

<p>Buenavista, I believe ignatius answered the question about Emery in a prior post. The answer is in the prologue to the last short section of the book. He stumbled to the harbor in the night, fell into an open shipping crate, and the lid was fastened down without anyone realizing he was in there…I think!</p>

<p>Anna was slapped around by Carver when she would not tell him where Crosbie was. Right after that, it’s mentioned that Dr Gilles does a procedure upon her. After that, there’s no more baby. </p>

[Mary13]

<p>

@buenavista

What exactly happened to Anna’s baby?

</p>

<p>I think the doctor just tended to her after the fact. I was confused on that point, too, so I went to goodreads for a little help from our other reading sisters and brothers, who generally agreed that after being slapped by Carver, Anna was injured and lost the baby when Carver’s horse, startled by a gun shot, reared up and kicked or trampled her. </p>

[NJTheatreMOM]

<p>Yes, it mentioned the horse shying up. I think she was kicked by the horse but told people Carver beat her badly. I believe she miscarried and Gilles delivered the dead baby.</p>

[ignatius]

<p>^^^ Correct.
Carver slaps Anna - hard, but I think the loss of the baby was accidental - Carver’s horse as culprit–though I do think Carver just leaves her lying in the road. </p>

<p>

In desperation, she turned to run. Carver caught her by the should, jerked her back–but just then there came the clap of gunshot, nearby–</p>

<p>“Whoa,” Carver shouted, spinning away–</p>

<p>And the horse shied up–

</p>

<p>Anna blames Carver partly out of drugged confusion and partly out of guilt for mentioning Crosbie’s name. (Part Ten: “Detriment” and “The Fall”)</p>

<p>On pages 405-06, Carver and Lowenthal discuss the incident and on page 681 Carver testifies in court that he “slapped her face.” […] “That’s all.” Of course, he testifies she’s just fine when he leaves her and that’s not so true, I think.</p>

<p>For more about the shipping crate in which Emery lands, read Balfour’s testimony at trial (pages 685-87).</p>

[Caraid]

<p>ignatius, I just read the shipping crate pages you posted above and don’t see how Emery landed in the crate. What am I missing? I assumed Carter put him in the crate, but didn’t really know how or why.</p>

[ignatius]

<p>^^^ Take the open crate testimony and add the last section (Part Twelve) to it:</p>

<p>

[quote]
“The Luminaries” </p>

<p>In which […] Emery Staines wakes to an empty bed; Anna Wetherall, in need of solace, lights her pipe; Staines falls and strikes his head; Anna is concussed; in drugged confusion Staines sets out into the night; in concussed confusion Anna sets out into the night; […] ; Staines makes a misstep on Gibson Quay, and collapses; Anna makes a misstep on the Christchurch-road, and collapses; the lid of the shipping crate is nailed in place; […]</p>

[Caraid]

<p>Okay…so we are to believe the sailors closed it so quickly that they didn’t notice a body had fallen into it?</p>

[Mary13]

<p>^ Caraid, if we can believe that Emery Staines was shot, while in the crate, by the bullet that was fired in Anna’s room miles away, then we can believe anything… </p>