Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

This month we will be reading Possession by A.S. Byatt. It won by a very close margin, but I know it's one the group has been eager to read for a while now (getting nominations every month). Looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and discussion around it!

As usual, no spoilers in the comments unless you give a warning about where in the book you are! Or you can use the spoiler tag to hide your spoilery comments.

Happy reading!

Yay, so happy this was selected! A reviewer I follow described this book as "The Da Vinci Code" for smart people which makes me even more excited to read it.

Looking forward to everyone's comments.

Ordering my copy today! This sounds very intriguing.

I am that Da Vinci code referencing reviewer! I made the comparison because it’s a story where two people race around following clues trying to unravel a mystery before other people do. Only it’s good! And it uses proper words. I gave it 5 stars.

I only read it recently, so I probably won’t re-read it now, but it is fresh enough for me to hopefully contribute to the discussion. Probably everyone else will wonder where the Da Vinci code came from!

PS I don’t think I actually wrote “The Da Vinci code for smart people� as that would imply that I think of myself as smart. And I would never say that. Not out loud, anyway.

Yay! I've been meaning to read Possession for ages!

Excited about it too. Pulled my copy off the shelf and ready to get started. I've had it for ages!

Neil wrote: "I am that Da Vinci code referencing reviewer! I made the comparison because it’s a story where two people race around following clues trying to unravel a mystery before other people do. Only it’s g..."

Neil, behind your back, we call you "that smart guy." LOL

Let’s hope we never meet face to face. I do so hate to be a disappointment.

I read it back in 2001 and I couldn't put it down! Neil did sum it up perfectly though.

I'm not sure I will find time to re-read this, but I will certainly follow the discussion with interest. It is a contender for my favourite of all the Booker winners.

I'd like to ask you something, in the beginning there are lots of reference to mythology, are they explained later? or are we supposed to bring this knowledge? I know that later on the plot might develop in a more straightforward way, but I get a little ocd with things like that, not knowing what it means to the story... Do you know if there's like a short post somewhere explaining these myth symbols? Or can any of you explain it briefly? :) thanks

Neale wrote: "I cannot believe that I have had this sitting on my shelf for years unread. 100 pages in and it's really quite brilliant."

This is why I buy books, Neale. I love picking up a book that I've had on my shelf for years and discover a gem.

How’s everyone finding it so far?? I’m about 20% done and thought it was a bit slow to start because there is so much groundwork to be set for the reader. But now I’m starting to follow it and really curious to see where it’ll go. I do think the main characters lack a bit of personality but hopefully that’ll be rounded out in time. It’s a nice literary mystery! And very cozy and descriptive. Perfect for this time of year.

I'm certainly enjoying its form, the whole ragtag, jumbled feel of multiple voices and structures interlinking with one another, I could see someone interested in authorial voice/postmodern readings really going to town on this novel. I suppose this quality explains why it is so studied, when the rest of Byatt's fiction saving The Children's Book and her short stories are rarely studied in comparison.

I agree to an extent with the lack of personality Maxwell - I think perhaps Byatt is gunning for the romance to be found in two protagonists terribly English and polite but frantically in love (a bit like Hugh Grant in Notting Hill, or Hugh Grant in anything actually, especially Love Actually.) I enjoy the richness of Byatt's imagery but occasionally it is a tad sickening, i.e.: "dotted with crimson rosebuds, festooned with honeysuckle, splattered with huge bouquets of delphiniums and phlox."

I don't want to read about any more objects splattered, clobbered, slobbered or otherwise with any family of flora, thanks, it's starting to feel oddly indecent. Otherwise it's great so far.

Miles wrote: "I'm certainly enjoying its form, the whole ragtag, jumbled feel of multiple voices and structures interlinking with one another, I could see someone interested in authorial voice/postmodern reading..."

I always thought the overrich description were meant to be ironic, i.e. Byatt making fun of a certain type of very 'literary' writer.

Britta, I agree (how about that?!). I think a lot of the book is ironic/parody (and very funny at that).

I'be just started the re-read and indeed, the beginning is a bit slow (I am just about 50 pages in now). But what I really like is how Byatt is able to create a certain atmosphere, right from the start I can picture Roland's life, the way 'scholarly' research works etc. And I think (see also my comment on Miles' remark), Byatt is poking fun at her very British peers. At least, thats how I read it. But curious to know whether others see it the same way.

Gabriel wrote: "I'd like to ask you something, in the beginning there are lots of reference to mythology, are they explained later? or are we supposed to bring this knowledge? I know that later on the plot might d..."

Some of it is explained later, yes. But if you're referring to Prosperina: she is the Roman 'version' of the the Greek Persephone who was the daughter of Demeter (Goddess of fertility and agriculture. ), Persephone/Prosperina was abducted by the god of the underworld, and half of the year has to live with him (in winter), and half the year she can return to the 'upper' world (when she comes back in spring, Demeter lets the earth blossom again).

Neil wrote: "Britta, I agree (how about that?!). I think a lot of the book is ironic/parody (and very funny at that)."

And not only that: we both love the book! Well, well, well... :-)

Britta wrote: "Miles wrote: "I'm certainly enjoying its form, the whole ragtag, jumbled feel of multiple voices and structures interlinking with one another, I could see someone interested in authorial voice/post..."

I'm not sure about that, she uses the same thick style in The Children's Book, and has written a book about portraiture in literature - I don't think she's mocking a baroque style, I think she just has one! She reveres the Romantics, and there's a bit where she sort of subtly criticises postmodernism in the book, something about a lack of narrative certainty. Most of the time her imagery works for me, esp. the fairytale sections. But I don't see how you could look at the sections of thick ekphrasis and think them hilarious; they happen every few pages, and the book's not a farce. For me, it's a bit like eating a delicious dessert, with particles of it that cloy and are too sweet. I wouldn't explain it by thinking 'ah, it's an ironic dessert'.

Miles wrote: "Britta wrote: "Miles wrote: "I'm certainly enjoying its form, the whole ragtag, jumbled feel of multiple voices and structures interlinking with one another, I could see someone interested in autho..."

This is interesting. I'm somewhere in between seeing it as a parody (but done out of admiration of course, since, like you said, she reveres the Romantics) and seeing it as her genuine writing style (though I've never read her before this). It seems like she's trying to write something that emulates the poetic style of the authors of whom she is writing about. I can't imagine this being written without all the flowery language and lengthy descriptions, but that doesn't mean I always enjoy it either. It is a bit cloying at times. But I appreciate her narrative structure and that I can tell it's moving places! If it were any slower I'd be bored but there's just enough intrigue to keep my interested.

Years ago, when I decided to tackle the Man Bookers, this was one I read first because the library had a copy. Don't know what they did with it, because I went back to borrow it and all they have now is a download. My copy is in today at the independent book store I frequent so I'll be on my re-read soon. I enjoyed it the first time because the format for the telling was so different.

Mine just arrived today! I might not get to it until the later part of the month, but I'll look forward to following the discussion and having all your thoughts to read!

I have just been reading the last book Byatt published before Possession - Sugar and Other Stories (my review)

This means I have now read all of Byatt's published fiction (unless there are any more stories that weren't in the collections). It was reading Possession that led me to investigate her other novels, and if you enjoyed it, I would strongly recommend both the Frederica Quartet (which consists of The Virgin in the Garden, Still Life, Babel Tower and A Whistling Woman) and The Children's Book

I'm about 20% in and enamored. To Byatt's defense for the seemingly slower start, she needed to set the sceen, and introduce several main characters, along with their connection to and their different stake in the study objects. A faster pace might not fit the academic setting and the tone of the poems being constantly quoted in the book.
Should be done by weekend, and look forward to reading Neil and others' reviews and join in the discussion here.

The Children's Book is one of my very favorite books. I loved it. I'm encouraged to read that others found it got off to a slow start. I started it years ago and put it down wondering what I was missing that others found. I'm happy to be giving it a second go.
I just have to wrap up Elmet, which I will tonight or tomorrow then my focus will be Possession.

I have to confess I'm finding the poems, letters, diary entries, etc. to be a bit tedious to read. And I don't find that they really add that much to the story—or at least they could be a lot less frequent and still provide the necessary context clues to tie into the present day narrative. I like Maud & Roland's story much more, actually, even though it is dependent on the historical stuff. I find myself skimming the auxiliary materials to get back to the present timeline.

Maxwell wrote: "I have to confess I'm finding the poems, letters, diary entries, etc. to be a bit tedious to read. And I don't find that they really add that much to the story—or at least they could be a lot less ..."

I had the same on my first read! Only now, re-reading it (and knowing the story and the twists) I am more interested in reading this.

I must admit that I didn't read the poems very closely but that is partly because poetry has never come naturally to me. I find Byatt's attention to detail is one of her most endearing qualities and she loves digressions that indulge her enthusiasms. It was interesting to me to hear parts of a BBC radio serialisation several years after reading the book because they emphasised some things that seemed almost incidental when reading.

I've finished the book yesterday, and I've immensely enjoyed re-reading it. I've liked the detective part of the plot when I read the book for the first time, and now, going in knowing already how it would end, I paid more attention to the details, and the descriptions and the poems (which I mostly skipped the first time around, I have to admit). I think this is a perfect book to re-read after a while because it has so many layers on top of the main story. And the humour and the satirical elements of it made me laugh out loud more than once.

Britta - that’s good to know! I can definitely see how a re-read would reward you. But glad to know I’m not the only one skimming the poetry and other extra bits haha

Britta wrote: "I've finished the book yesterday, and I've immensely enjoyed re-reading it. I've liked the detective part of the plot when I read the book for the first time, and now, going in knowing already how ..."

Britta, that was also my experience in rereading Possession. During my first reading, shortly after it was published, I was impressed but slightly bored. During my rereading, several months ago, I was entranced all the way through, including the poetry.

Now I will pay attention to poems at chapter beginnings. I have to make myself slow down and read every word of most books and I hardly ever read chapter headings or titles. Lately I've been rereading the first page or two of a book as I head into final chapters.
I hope there's a little more about Spiritualism. My great grandfather was a Spiritualist and a regular contributor to his local small Ohio town newspaper writing his thoughts about Spiritualism and man's relationship to God and religion. I have one of his very, very old books on Spiritualism

Byatt explored spiritualism further in the second novella in Angels and Insects

Maxwell wrote: "I have to confess I'm finding the poems, letters, diary entries, etc. to be a bit tedious to read. And I don't find that they really add that much to the story—or at least they could be a lot less ..."
Second on the tedious point. They were beautifully written But I found it hard to connect the dots to form a consistent picture on the two poets' emotional evolvement. ;

Britta wrote: "I've finished the book yesterday, and I've immensely enjoyed re-reading it. I've liked the detective part of the plot when I read the book for the first time, and now, going in knowing already how ..."

Dan wrote: "Britta wrote: "I've finished the book yesterday, and I've immensely enjoyed re-reading it. I've liked the detective part of the plot when I read the book for the first time, and now, going in knowi..."
Same here. Used audiobook so wen through the poems only in passing. Still I felt the 19th century characters were more developed than the contemporary ones.

Really pushing myself to get through this one. I will say (view spoiler)[I didn't see it coming that she was pregnant, presumable with Ash's baby? though it should've been totally obvious!!! Anyway, that was a fun surprise and I like Sabine's diary. I would've actually enjoyed reading more of that. (hide spoiler)].

How's everyone else fairing with it?

I set it down and that’s usually a bad sign for me. I’ll try to pick it up again this week but I did find it tedious!

I read it a few weeks ago. I wasn’t sure for the first 100 pages or so (I thought it was going to be too clever for me), but then I settled into it and loved it more and more all the way to the end.

I've just got my copy but I probably won't get to it until a bit later in the month. I've seen quite a lot of people say they didn't enjoy this much but really loved it the second time around, and that it is slow to start, so I'm glad I can prepare myself for it!

I'm finding it sort of a slow start. if not for all the accolades and others saying it picks up I'd probably put it down again.
This raises the question how many pgs do you read before you give up on a book? It took me 3 starts to get through Love in the Time of Cholera then ended up loving it.

FINISHED. It was a struggle in the middle, but the 70 pages of so of the diary and everything around that was much better. I've said it in my review -

/review/show...

- I am convinced Byatt is better at 1st Person than 3rd, because she loves illustrating her academic genius and research so much, there is too much temptation for her to distance herself from her characters and the text altogether, and turn into this aesthete observer who just won't tell you the things you want to know - I find she has a real problem with giving character's texture and drive when not in first person - and instead blahs on about made up mythology and the surrounding vegetation. I like the plot and variety of forms a lot, but her style in prose and poetry is unreliable - the Lemotte poems are better than the Ash overall I think, something to be said for an author's varying empathy with their different characters perhaps? - altogether, I wish I could give it 5/10.

I finished! Still processing my thoughts but I really liked the ending. I'll definitely be interested to hear opinions on that epilogue.

Im on pg 119. Cropper just explained his family history. I am finding this book a real chore. I am not feeling anything about Roland or Maud, I enjoy a few of the other though. I hope it picks up soon. I have a pressing TBR!

I withdraw the previous comment. I mistook the writer of one of the letters and that changed everything!

After reading the letter on pg 119 I looked at the book of my Spritualist great-grandfather that made its way to me. It's spine is in tatters and it would fall apart if opened more than a few times, but it's fascinating to read how strongly they believed Spiritualism was grounded in science and philosophy. This book, A Steller Key to the Summer Land by Andrew Jackson Davis (illustrated with diagrams and engravings of celestial scenery) written in 1868 includes a chapter titled, "The summer land as seen by clairvoyants."
I wish I could share the book with you all.

Maxwell wrote: "I finished! Still processing my thoughts but I really liked the ending. I'll definitely be interested to hear opinions on that epilogue."

I really loved the final twist in the epilogue. It's so bittersweet. (view spoiler)[And I thought showing that the memento (the lock of hair) was misinterpreted by everyone was a great ending. (hide spoiler)]

I felt the epilogue was one of the best parts of the entire book. It let the readers decide on their own if it was a happy or sad ending, relatively speaking of course.

I agree! It made my heart swell and then break a little. Probably one of the only times in the novel I felt emotionally invested.

Wen wrote: "I felt the epilogue was one of the best parts of the entire book. It let the readers decide on their own if it was a happy or sad ending, relatively speaking of course."

That's a really good point. I also like the way it highlighted, subtly, the question of whether documenting someone's life, in biography, actually makes someone's life more important, or it just seems that way. The things we can never know and that may never be recorded by anyone, about someone's life could be the most important moments. It was the one time in the book for me, where the morality of picking apart someone's life for general consumption was questioned so that it was thought-provoking, and not thought-promoting - i.e. the author's voice butting in, saying 'and now think about this, reader!'.