Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

- Why do you think the author is taking us through the grandparents' start in America?
- Significance of history and place so far in this book?
- In what ways are tradition and identity respected or challenged?

Finished book 2 yesterday. I'm finding the historical parts of the story fascinating - the history of Detroit is not exactly common knowledge here in the UK - I knew more about the events in Turkey. If you want to explain how the genetics work history and the understanding of small beleaguered comumunities also seems an essential part of the story. I think Eugenides approaches tradition and identity the way he approaches the whole story, with respect leavened with humour and a little mockery.

The history of Detroit is not common knowledge here in America either, Hugh! Could be coincidence, but a lot of the topics in this book seem to be resurfacing now or repeating themselves (decline of Detroit, role of Islam in American cities, race relations/clashes, gender identity ala Caitlyn Jenner, refugees and Turkey, etc).

What do you think the mockery is about (not taking ourselves too seriously or something deeper than that)?

Re what the mockery is about - I'm not sure I can answer that - maybe some of it stems from rebelling against traditions or at least questioning assumptions - it also makes the book a lot more entertaining.

I didn't read anything deeper into the mockery either--I was just curious if you had. And I agree, it makes it more entertaining.

Marc wrote: "The history of Detroit is not common knowledge here in America either, Hugh! Could be coincidence, but a lot of the topics in this book seem to be resurfacing now or repeating themselves (decline o..."

Marc wrote: "The history of Detroit is not common knowledge here in America either, Hugh! Could be coincidence, but a lot of the topics in this book seem to be resurfacing now or repeating themselves (decline o..."

Yes, I was thinking the exact same thing while reading as to the resurfacing themes you have mentioned! When Zismo says, 'The Greeks can't even run their own country.' Why do they need another? even brought to mind the financial crisis in Greece (110).

What I enjoyed in Book 1 is nicely continuing in Book 2, and this second part is definitely inundated with details regarding history and the genesis of the relationships between the couples. I love the different accounts of the war(s) plaguing both the men and women in each generation; however, I don't understand the point in accessing the "very" personal details for Cal's grandparents' sexual encounters? The specifics given by Cal about his grandparents' union was difficult to read about; not only because they are brother and sister, but the consummation of their marriage in a boat, and then the scene after the "the Minotaur" play...While the parallel between the subject matter of the play and his grandparents too having a hand in creating "a monster" is significant, I found it all overtly imposing of Cal. Maybe I'm internalizing it too much because they are his "grandparents" and I'm failing to see them as human beings with flaws, as "sexual" human beings, which could be Eugenides point...I don't know? What I do know is that I'll never think of "mushrooms" the same again!

In the previous thread, I mention how I thought there is an underlying message of "hope" in this novel, and I still do, but after reading about Desdemona's mother's recollection of the strange kids in the village...Every so often these babies appeared, and they always met with tragic ends: they killed themselves, they ran off and became circus performers, they were seen years later in Bursa, begging or prostituting themselves, the past is so deeply intertwined with the circurmstance of the present, I'm now wondering if Cal too may meet some tragic end...Of sorts?

Ami, a very interesting post. It is difficult to answer your questions without spoiling, so I won't.

Very much enjoying your reactions to each section, Ami! I think you've hit on a really central thread with the "past... so deeply interwined with the circumstances of the present."

Will be interesting to hear whether readers feel this whole books falls in any one category: tragedy, comedy, drama, etc.

PS--I read that the general reading public had some issues with the incestuous relationship and vivid portrayal of it when this book first came out. Didn't bother me, personally, but always a fine line between what one reader finds is central to the story and one finds gratuitous (especially in terms of sex and violence).

Actually the sex didn't bother much..

What actually made my stomach turn was the graphic violence of the War especially the massacre of Philobosian family, description of the living conditions of the Smyrna refugee, the children floating in the sea trying to escape and the lack of assistance they got from the US and other countries.

Its always surprising what human do the other human in the name of being different.

Tragedy and Love in this section, i think.

Mekki wrote: "Its always surprising what human do the other human in the name of being different."

Sometimes, it doesn't feel like we've made much progress... [heavy sigh]

Marc wrote: "Very much enjoying your reactions to each section, Ami! I think you've hit on a really central thread with the "past... so deeply interwined with the circumstances of the present."

Will be interes..."

Mekki wrote: "Actually the sex didn't bother much..

What actually made my stomach turn was the graphic violence of the War especially the massacre of Philobosian family, description of the living conditions of ..."

Oh, interesting because I wasn't phased by the violence at all...I attribute this to having just read Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West, by Cormac McCarthy literally weeks ago. But you're right, it is a stomach turning horrific violence that we're reading about when it comes to this and all wars.

Very much enjoying your reactions to each section, Ami! I think you've hit on a really central thread with the "past... so deeply interwined with the circumstances of the present."
Glad to know I'm entertaining you, Marc! :P I think you've hit the nail on the head with your comment in message 11...The lack of progress in the present day knowing what we've endured in the past. It is a disgruntling situation, no doubt.

Also, the subject matter is becoming much darker and a whole lot more serious as we delve deeper into the novel...What was once peppered with light hearted humor is now reading very sarcastic. If this is what Hugh meant by "mockery," then I would agree with him. The sarcastic tone, to me, reflects the Stephanides' family shame...It has become hereditary, right, both literally and metaphorically?

Interesting. I found the incest uncomfortable, but it was necessary for the story. Sometimes discomfort is good, as it makes us face issues we'd perhaps rather not and, perhaps, need to.

Jan wrote: "... Sometimes discomfort is good, as it makes us face issues we'd perhaps rather not and, perhaps, need to."

I remember having that feeling about this book along several aspects (genocide, transgender, incest,...), but reading it has helped me be able to listen to, hear, and consider so much that is now being discussed much more openly. Without jolts from authors like Eugenides, I'm afraid the world has much I could choose to ignore or turn my back upon so long as possible. (Paul Auster has been perhaps harder for me to deal with.)

Some things never change either because of the inhumanity of humans or our incapability to learn from history. That is what I was thinking as I read about the refugees trying to escape Smyrna.

Linda wrote: "Some things never change either because of the inhumanity of humans or our incapability to learn from history. That is what I was thinking as I read about the refugees trying to escape Smyrna."

That part was particularly interesting for me after having read MacMillan's "Paris 1919," about the Paris Peace talks after WWI. The debacle in Turkey (among other places) grew out of it.