Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

1. We are immediately plunged into the world of two (or even three, including Pete's) dysfunctional families. Are they believable in their dysfunctionality? Do they fit the definition given by Leo Tolstoy, who said, 'All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way'?

2. What are your thoughts about the main character Pete Snow? Why is he a social worker, working for the Department of Family Services when his own family is torn apart?

3. How does the setting express the spirit of American rural landscape - physical, emotional, cultural, or spiritual landscapes?

4. The book is divided into chapters but also interrogation-like Q&As. Does this narrative structure help or make it difficult to follow the story?

I just finished the first 8 chapters and at the start I thought Pete had his shit together, but that image of the relatively considerate and even-handed social worker quickly flies out the door as the initial chapters proceed. It's not uncommon for people to be drawn to work that would have (or did) benefit them growing up (troubled upbringings drawing people to the fields of counseling, social work, etc.). Hard to say if Tolstoy's definition holds since we readers haven't yet seen enough of any "families" to compare them, much less see if they'll stay together. The dysfunctional it's seems believable to me. The writing style feels a little awkward/forced in places... Almost like it loses its own rhythm. Might just have been the part where Pete gets trashed in which case that was probably pretty intentional.

Marc wrote: "The writing style feels a little awkward/forced in places... Almost like it loses its own rhythm. Might just have been the part where Pete gets trashed in which case that was probably pretty intentional. "

it is a very unusual style. Occasionally, in descriptions, Henderson uses the words not for a casual user, but he also relies on the dialogue that is very very simple.

I mentioned elsewhere that it is similar to Hemingway's ... well, up to a point, but I also read the review in NYT that compares Henderson to Cormac McCarthy. If it had not been mentioned in the first chapter that the events take place in Montana, I would have easily assumed this is another example of Southern Gothic.

The dialogue is working for me (meaning it's believable and fits the story)... it's more the occasional description written in a passive voice with a string of prepositional phrases (I'll try to actually quote the next such passage I come across).

Hemingway I'm familiar with, but I haven't read Cormac McCarthy (yet).

Maybe Southern Gothic meets Postmodern Hillbilly... ?

The book is divided into chapters but also interrogation-like Q&As. Does this narrative structure help or make it difficult to follow the story?

Initially I found the interrogation at the end of the chapters disconcerting, but when it became clear that it concerned Pete's daughter, it made sense and stopped being so annoying. It was a rather unique way to tell what was going on with the daughter without disrupting the flow of Pete's story.

Marc wrote: "Maybe Southern Gothic meets Postmodern Hillbilly... ? "

That is quite ECLECTIC!

Linda wrote: "The book is divided into chapters but also interrogation-like Q&As. Does this narrative structure help or make it difficult to follow the story?

Initially I found the interrogation at the end of t..."

I agree with you, Linda. The interrogation eventually makes sense, even if it is hard to figure out who is asking questions and who is answering them.

Zulfiya wrote: "Linda wrote: "The book is divided into chapters but also interrogation-like Q&As. Does this narrative structure help or make it difficult to follow the story?

Initially I found the interrogation a..."

I'm still not sure who is asking them. At first, I thought it was a cop but later it sounded more like a therapist.

Are you sure who is answering them? I feel like it's already foreshadowing something horrible.

From the way the interviews are done, with the interviewee referring to herself in the third person, I got the idea it might be Rachael / Rose sort of interviewing herself. As a journal, or an internal way of processing her story.

It is obviously and deliberately ambiguous.

Zulfiya wrote: "it is a very unusual style. Occasionally, in descriptions, Henderson uses the words not for a casual user, but he also relies on the dialogue that is very very simple."

Yes, I've noticed that too. And I like this contrast very much. I visited Yellowstone NP last Summer and spent a couple of nights in Montana. The images of the landscapes are still very vivid on my mind, but of course I didn't even get a glimpse of the other part of Henderson's story.

I've finally caught up and finished the first 8 chapters. I'm liking it, though not sure I'm loving it, so far.

1. I'm not sure if I feel I've read enough of all the families to be able to tell if they're unhappy in their own ways yet. We get a sense, at least at the very beginning, that Pete finds himself superior to the initial family (Debbie and Cecil, right?) but once we see how he responds to his wife moving to Texas with his daughter, he doesn't really seem all that different (okay, he doesn't try to kill anyone but his behavior isn't great).

2. I'm not sure how to feel about Pete - I definitely don't find him likeable, but will probably root for him anyway. My perception of him changed considerably over the course of the first eight chapters. At first, I pictured him as being kind of scrawny and weak, especially in contrast to the police officer and Pearl. But then he punches Cecil, fends off dogs, and we see him getting wasted with his buddies, which leads to a totally different image of him. I'm not sure why he's a social worker but there must be something that compels him towards doing it - instead of quitting right away, like he plans to do, he runs back to Tenmile as soon as he hears Cecil isn't welcome with the one family anymore. Maybe he has some sense of obligation to help others, or maybe it gives him a feeling of control, especially since he seems to have no control over his own family or his ability to help them (he keeps going on about how he needs to stop them from leaving and needs to "get them back," but instead gets drunk and completely loses control).

3. I think the setting adds to the mystery of the story. Whether he's surrounded by tall buildings in Missoula or way out in Tenmile, it seems like Pete is looking for an escape that he won't easily find. Then there's the Pearl storyline - deep in the woods where it's dark, confusing, and dangerous.

4. I didn't like the Q&A portion that much until after Pete talks to Rachel/Rose on the phone because it was difficult to figure out what was going on or why this girl was talking. Now I find it more interesting because it gives us a better glimpse into who Pete is and what on earth happened that pushed him to Tenmile.

I've found it very interesting to follow a social worker who obviously has problems of his own while he's trying to help others. I think this is probably much more realistic than thinking that all those who work in the social services just skate through their own lives.

Caroline wrote: "Then there's the Pearl storyline - deep in the woods where it's dark, confusing, and dangerous."

Pearl undoubtedly encapsulates the spirit of the early American Protestants - self-reliable, loathing any help, very literal in his spiritual convictions, a survivalist who is alienated and separated from the bigger, mundane world.

Linda wrote: "I think this is probably much more realistic than thinking that all those who work in the social services just skate through their own lives. "

As they say, compensation is one of the biggest coping psychological mechanisms in our human history, or to put simply, the shoemaker's children go barefoot.

I'm completely behind on this since I've been working on my own novel pretty heavily this month, but I've finally finished the first 8 chapters. I'm enjoying it so far, though it's quite different than anything I've read lately.

At first, the shifting storylines confused me a little bit, but I liked getting small glimpses of these families. I guess I never questioned why he was a social worker, even though his family has some major struggles. It seemed realistic to me that way. We all have our struggles, and he may have had past issues during his childhood that led to him feeling the need to make a difference in the lives of people going through problems as well. Being able to relate to a family might make him more compassionate or driven to do the right thing.

At first Pete seemed sweet, especially when he was comforting the little girl. Now... he seems like a jackass, but more human to me. He's obviously battling some pretty tough things right now, and he's trying to discover his own way of dealing with things.

The questions at the end of the chapter were so strange at first, but now I'm enjoying them. Sometimes it's still a bit hard to keep track of it all, but as the story progresses and we get to know the characters and setting more in depth, it becomes easier to keep it all straight.

Cassandra wrote: "At first Pete seemed sweet, especially when he was comforting the little girl. Now... he seems like a jackass, but more human to me. He's obviously battling some pretty tough things right now, and he's trying to discover his own way of dealing with things. "

It is a very drastic turn. When did the shift happen?

Questions are indeed confusing. Luckily, we are given some context why they are asked; without this story of Pete's failed marriage, it would have been impossible to figure out their relevance.

I have completed chapter 8 and was easily drawn into the story in part because I attended the University of Montana in Missoula in the late seventies. However I remember a less bleak more majestic Montana that still had a bit of an old west spirit. The character of Pete seems somewhat extreme but believable. Most of the other characters have yet to be well developed. Having recently read Empire Falls I noted some parallels in the cast (troubled daughter and brother, pending divorce, difficult father) but it seems to be headed in a much different direction. The Q&A with daughter is intriguing and I am curious where it is going. I assume there will be some convergence with the Pearl story. It is still too early in the book to form a strong opinion.

Montana does not have the reputation of the miserable and conservative South and Midwest, but somehow the descriptions of this Montana are very bleak and dreary and very similar to the ones of Capote, Caldwell, or McCarthy.

I am really behind on this one. However, I plan to read this one while I am on vacation. So, far I am really loving this. The author reminds me slightly of Cormac McCarthy. I also am curious to see what this author brings to a social worker as the main character. I am a social worker and work with rehabilitation and two wings of the facility as a nursing home. I will post as I get further into the book.

Kristina wrote: "The author reminds me slightly of Cormac McCarthy".

My thoughts exactly.

Kristina wrote: "I am really behind on this one. However, I plan to read this one while I am on vacation. So, far I am really loving this. The author reminds me slightly of Cormac McCarthy. I also am curious to se..."

Great, I'd love to hear what a social worker's perspective is on this book. Looking forward to your comments!

Zulfiya wrote: "Montana does not have the reputation of the miserable and conservative South and Midwest, but somehow the descriptions of this Montana are very bleak and dreary and very similar to the ones of Capo..."

Not that we're stereotyping conservatives or anything.

Of course we are:-) It does not mean that these descriptions of depravity and misery do not break my heart. 'nuff said; otherwise, I will get political, and the group is not about politics.

On the other hand, Arcadia (another book that we read and I moderated) was also full of political messages.

Zulfiya wrote: "Of course we are:-) It does not mean that these descriptions of depravity and misery do not break my heart. 'nuff said; otherwise, I will get political, and the group is not about politics.

On th..."

Yes, and the authors are not apolitical, which makes it difficult to avoid discussing politics!

Agree, Linda. Fiction is always political, even in its nuances. I do not think it is possible to find a totally apolitical book. There are some small, hidden messages in all books, even not intentional ones, but the ones that reflect authors' mindsets and values.

Absolutely agree, Linda. Almost every choice an author makes is a political one, whether they see it that way or not.

I think people in this group do a great job of discussing politics within the context of the books, rather than engaging in rancourous debates about whether a particular view is "correct" or not.

I also agree. To me, a book is as good as its verisimilitude, so that it will always comment on social problems (in addition to metaphysical, moral, etc) and, hence, public policy. I'm just commenting on the egregious generalization, stereotyping people from the south and midwest. I would challenge the stereotype.
I also vehemently disagree with the reactions to the end of this novel. I think it is absolutely brilliant. Not having it in front of me since I'm at my sister's taking care of her after she suffered a stroke, I'll have to paraphrase. Something along the lines of "You've just gotta believe. There just aren't simple answers to every--"
I believe the point is that the social (and personal) problems depicted don't have simple solutions. It's a simple (read: simplistic) answer to say, "Oh, well, what we need is a better social safety net," i.e. we need to transfer more wealth, ("from each according to his ability to each according to his need") and then (as Robert Reich says in his book "Reason") everyone will be happy.
And let me say that I would very much like to believe in these simple solutions--i.e. that money will solve everything. I would like to believe with the Keynesians that we can spend our way to wealth, that we can take care of everyone without creating problems of dependency, vitiating their sense of individual initiative and robbing them of a true sense of self-esteem based on personal accomplishment. It works so well in everyone's theory. It would make life so easy, so convenient.
To that end, please read Reich's book. Then, read Charles Murray's "Losing Ground." And please, with a modicum of objectivity. Then choose.
And I know I'll be excoriated for this. I'm used to it. But I am open to all arguments based on fact, and I truly mean it when I say I would like to believe that more government programs would keep people from using drugs, abusing their children; or that we can provide competent substitutes for inadequate parents, that by doing so we don't enable them. Believe me, I hope you all are right and I'm wrong; that these policies don't have unintended consequences--i.e. that the cure is worse than the disease. All I'm asking is that people take the author's advice: There aren't simple answers to every--

I'm not sure, Jan, what you are referring to when you say "I hope you are right and I'm wrong; that these policies don't have unintended consequences," as I did not read anyone's comments as suggesting that governmental programs were a panacea. They are not. Some people will be helped, some people will take advantage of the programs, some people will want no part of them, and some people will need services the programs do not provide. As this book did, you identify issues that we should be discussing, as you are quite right -- there are no simple answers!

I'm enjoying reading this in concert with Woodrell.

The book per se is very conducive to the political discussion, and so far we have been able to keep the discussion as Whitney said, 'within the context of the book', and I would like to keep it so.
I am stating the obvious saying that books can change political and social views if a reader's mind is ready to accept the change or if the book is convincing.

I'd rather we discussed the politics of this book in the frame of the question whether the author's views are easy to read in this novel and whether you find his arguments convincing or whether he is trying to persuade us or is just telling us the story about the hapless social worker.

I am with Linda when she says that the complexity of the situation is obvious and there are no easy solutions. MASSIVE SPOILER (view spoiler)[ I also think Henderson is also playing the literary game of the defeated expectancy. We all are led to believe that Pearl was the one who killed his family and is a ruthless parent (not everyone ate that bait, but it was his intention) Later, we also learn that Pearl is a complex man whose world is not as black and white as the mass media usually portrays such people, and it is in fact his wife who is the main culprit. I think Henderson encourages us to be more open-minded and not to seek easy solutions. (view spoiler)[ This is the message I got from the novel. (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

I am way way way behind as I just started reading this the other day. My initial thoughts are
1. Perhaps Pete made a poor career choice as he doesn't seem to be rational enough to handle some of these complex social problems. He can't even handle his own personal family problems without wigging out and resorting to alcohol.

2. Very few of us have the perfect family, the perfect life, but I daresay most of us here have it fairly good. We have enough money to have computers, enough education to put together readable sentences, enough free time to read and discuss books. It really makes me sad and scared when I realize how terrible life is for some people, how broken they are. Is there any hope???

3. I'm very interested to see where this goes with the whole Pearl fringe character. Pete seems like he is very ill equipped to deal with someone like that.

Sandra wrote: "I am way way way behind as I just started reading this the other day. My initial thoughts are
1. Perhaps Pete made a poor career choice as he doesn't seem to be rational enough to handle some of th..."

Good point, Sandra. It is truly pitiable how some people lives are virtually destroyed, and it scares me as well--to my bones; I don't think it is far from reality. And I'm sure that many are dealing with issues that are an inherent part of their makeup or circumstances that are forced upon them. There are certainly those whose lives are a wreck through no fault of their own. Those are truly pitiable.
There are also those who are in a horrible situation as a result of their own poor choices.
The question is what can we do about it as a community. (I think Pete does much more good than harm.)
Do we help in the long run by shielding people from the bad choices they make? Will they learn to make better choices? Are we as a community well able to distinguish between the two?
I was rather shocked that Pete deceived the boy (whose name I can't remember) about taking him to the institution. That struck me as egregious, but Pete is, after all, human. I think he (the boy) would have been much better off with the couple of runaways. But, this would have involved Pete breaking the law. Interesting, do we sometimes have to break the law in order to do what's best?
Pearl is a fascinating character and I'd like to read the book again in a few years to consider that whole scenario and how it fits into the larger structure of the whole story.

Linda wrote: "I'm not sure, Jan, what you are referring to when you say "I hope you are right and I'm wrong; that these policies don't have unintended consequences," as I did not read anyone's comments as sugges..."

Well, you might be right. It struck me that there were some rather broad generalizations made, which is the right of every member, in my opinion. I was just expressing my own that I disagree with them. And expressing my opinion that the end of the novel was not at all a failure or a cop-out as was implied by some.

A reminder that this thread is for the first part of the book. Discussion about the book as a whole or the ending of the book belong in those threads, respectively. Thanks.

You are reading my thoughts, Whitney.
Jan, your comments are very interesting and insightful, but I believe message 34 contains spoilers. Would you mind editing your message using spoiler html?

Zulfiya wrote: "1. We are immediately plunged into the world of two (or even three, including Pete's) dysfunctional families. Are they believable in their dysfunctionality? Do they fit the definition given by Leo..."

I am very behind on reading this book, but I finally finished Chapters 1-8.

1. Part of why I have been reading so sporadically is that it has been tough to read about these people, realistic though they most definitely are. We see many unhappy famikies since the main character is a social worker - it obviously comes with the territory. As winter is upon us, and it can be hard to be cheerful during the holiday season, at times this book was almost too much for me. But the writing is good, as are the reviews, so the lover of literature in me keeps returning to it. I shall persevere!

2. At first I liked Pete with his mixture of compassion and realism. I am not sure how much I like him now that I have seen more of his personal life. I saw the comment @2 by Marc, "It's not uncommon for people to be drawn to work that would have (or did) benefit them growing up (troubled upbringings drawing people to the fields of counseling, social work, etc.)." This makes sense to me. I think Marc has captured a truth about Pete which makes me more sympathetic to Pete.

3 and 4 - I do not feel I have read enough to comment upon the American landscape or on the effect of the Q & A at the end of the chapters.

Thanks to all for your comments - I have kept up with all of them even though this is the first I have contributed.

Back to chapter 9. Hope all have a good day!

Pete's big mess. He's a train wreck. He needs an AA meeting and a slap to the head. But I don't dislike him for it. I wouldn't date him, but I don't mind the time I spend with him via the book.

And I'm curious about why I find Pete palatable, when I've really hated books because there was no one to like.

Oh! I think I know why. I think it's because the author doesn't seem to dislike him.

I finished chapter 1-8. So, Pete's life is out of control and he is in a field that he can control to some degree. I think sometimes it is so much easier to tell others what they should do, but difficult taking your own advice. I don't see Pete as an unlikable character. I see him more as a realistic character. Hey the main character has skeleton's in his closet and is not perfect. I think that is why he can kind of meet his clients where they are. He has experience in being a hot mess. A few of the social workers I went to school with went into the field to fix others in a certain field where their own life needed fixing. That is not every social worker. I find the interview interesting. It comes out of nowhere which kind of provides an interesting spin among the storyline.

Kristina wrote: "I think sometimes it is so much easier to tell others what they should do, but difficult taking your own advice."

Totally true.