21st Century Literature discussion
This topic is about
Small Things Like These
12/22 Small Things Like These
>
Small Things Like These - Whole Book Discussion
Clearly Bill’s wife did not support his actions since she advised him to ignore the Church indiscretions. The time of year and setting heightened the effect of the narrative for me. The season gave an initial cozy feeling which Keegan gradually eroded, making the reader aware that a layer of turpitude and callousness lay below the veneer of good feeling. Bill Furlong was conflicted since he felt his position in the community could easily be lost with any missteps. This internal and inter familial conflict heightens the moral choices confronting him. For me, he emerges as a man of courage, especially since his ultimate standing in the community is unresolved at the end of the narrative.
Mod
Mod
Daniel also said in the "general" thread how well framed the ethical dilemma was without a lot of explanatory exposition. Any Irish reader would be well aware of how much power the Catholic church wielded over Irish society, and how intolerant they were (are) towards challenges to their authority. It's Bill's short interaction with Mrs. Kehoe that, in the typically quiet way of this book, reminds us what's at stake:
‘Don’t mind me,’ she said, ‘but you’ve worked hard, the same as myself, to get to where you are now. You’ve reared a fine family of girls – and you know there’s nothing only a wall separating that place from St Margaret’s.’"
The way both Whitney and Vesna have framed this dilemma resonates with me.
I do think Bill is a man of courage. But what will be the impact of his action on his family, especially his daughters? Will his business survive?
Placing the story in the winter raises the jeopardy to Sarah. Placing the story at Christmas sharpens the villainy of the Mother Superior and the moral imperative for Furlong. (A note on the etymology of his name from Wikipedia: "The furlong (meaning furrow length) was the distance a team of oxen could plough without resting." He does tend toward the straight and narrow.)P--- This prompted me to check out Dylan Thomas's A Child's Christmas in Wales. Keegan writes a far more adult tale, but her imagery in the service of that tale is reminiscent.
Two points: this story takes place in the mid-eighties. The Irish government wouldn't acknowledge the abuse until 2014, while the Catholic church still doesn't. Second, here is a report from 1955 by a Scots traveler who tried to visit such an institution: https://hallidaysutherland.com/2014/0...
Mod
I think the end of the book makes it clear that Bill knows his actions will have devastating effects on his family and his position, while also making it clear that he considers having to live with inaction would have been more intolerable to him.
"The worst was yet to come, he knew. Already he could feel a world of trouble waiting for him behind the next door, but the worst that could have happened was also already behind him; the thing not done, which could have been – which he would have had to live with for the rest of his life."
I love this aspect of Bill's act. Society always undervalues these quiet acts of courage that are politically transgressive at the moment; usually punishing them severely. Which to my mind makes them even more meaningful.
In her typically understated way, Keegan makes it clear the jeopardy that awaits Bill. Ireland in the 80's was in a bad place both economically and politically. The descriptions of the other families that are struggling to keep themselves fed and warm makes this clear - again, I'll say how much I appreciate writers who so deftly imply the wider world with more provincial details.
As an illegitimate child himself, Bill's jeopardy increases. I think an American analogy would be the one black person in a small town with a successful business. Everyone is quick to praise them as "one of the good ones" until there's some perceived trespass, at which point they are showing their true nature and are "rightfully" punished.
Great point,Whitney. The power of the book for me comes exactly because Bill engages in an action that he knows will place him in social and economic danger yet he still elects to move forward.Your analogy describing his position in the town is both vivid and very apt.
I agree that Bill knows he will face repercussions and that it took courage for him to act, and I would hope I could be as brave in similar circumstances. But I think the author wants readers to think about the consequences of Bill's actions on others as she gives us plenty of to appreciate what the impact on his family, as well as himself. This is not a situation in which Bill is alone in facing the consequences of his action -- he has a family. I think that is part of the ethical situation being presented. Mrs. Wilson took similar action when she allowed Bill's mother (and then him) to stay with her. But in contrast to Bill, she did not have family that would be impacted and she was not at risk financially, just socially.
Mark wrote: "Placing the story in the winter raises the jeopardy to Sarah. Placing the story at Christmas sharpens the villainy of the Mother Superior and the moral imperative for Furlong. (A note on the etymol..."I agree Mark. The author used the season to emphasize the situation and heighten the tension.
I'm about 1/3 of the way through the book and have noticed that Bill is already thinking about what he has and what he stands to lose. Early on it's not related to the action he ultimately takes, but to his family and business circumstances. Keegan has him ruminating about how he could lose everything after she tells of the struggles of so many people and businesses in the community. On the night of making the Christmas cake and having the children write letters to Santa, Bill thinks about how he might not experience this family warmth again. He also rightly assesses how they keep doing the same thing things over and over, year after year, without thinking . . . just to keep going. He longs for time to reflect. Keegan's setup of Furlong's inner thoughts make me think he is prepared for the consequences of the decision he makes and the action he takes at the end, even if devastating to his standing in the community and to his family. It's rare to have a character facing a moral dilemma who so palpably acts on the courage of his convictions.
Agree with Whitney's remarks, his considerations and hesitations are inevitable, particularly because, given the power of the church in this society, the consequences of his altruism not only for his girls, but for his job, will be profound. In all likelihood, his bringing this girl home will portend the ruin of his financial wherewithal and the well-being of his family. He continues to be traumatized by his childhood - his young unwed mother, and the stigma related to that, means he has a particularly strong identification with this young girl who could have been his mother in another time. Despite how far he has come in life considering his upbringing, he remains a bit unmoored and unhappy, and is at a bit of a loss as to how to occupy his free time or settle his mind. I think he was genuinely unaware of the purpose of his life until he rescued this young girl. At that point he recognized that being human means helping those less fortunate - both to make the other person whole, as well as oneself. I had no awareness of this atrocity with the Magdalene laundries and I'm interested to learn more.
This is a wonderful Christmas book (and a very timely choice). I mentioned earlier, that this was reminiscent of Dylan Thomas' A Child's Christmas in Wales. It is also far more adult; the comparison is perhaps more apt with the earlier chapters. P--- As the plot develops, like Sergeant York, Bill is a person that sees his path and the dangers along it, but takes that path anyway for love. Perhaps honor is the better word.
P--- I love how the author foreshadows Bill's choice with his offhand donations of pocket change to the needy and his willingness to "adjust" his fees for folks that are pinched.
I have been refraining from comment to avoid steering the conversation or creating debate and am pleased to see how fine a discussion is developing. But I wanted to point out that I think Keegan is suggesting a progression from empathy to compassion to charity for Bill. Neither empathy nor compassion is enough since they do not address the immediate need for remedy that Bill sees, conveyed by the bare feet in the snow. It is only through the intercession of charity that Bill is capable of applying that remedy. My enjoyment and appreciation of the novel relates more to the material surrounds that central idea hence my points of discussion. I will add some other thoughfs toward the end of discussion
I think Bill is very courageous and doing something very important, in the face of what he knows will come. But I do wish the author had made him even more courageous by having him tell his wife and his oldest children what he was going to do and why, given that they are going to suffer with him. The Booker judges said this about the novel: The book is not so much about the nature of evil as the circumstances that allow it. More than Furlong’s quiet heroism, it explores the silent, self-interested complicity of a whole community, which makes it possible for such cruelty to persist. It forces every reader to ask what they are doing about the injustices that we choose not to think about too closely. Astonishingly, Keegan achieves this without ever sounding angry or preachy.
What things in our communities do you think would qualify as "injustices that we choose not to think about too closely?"
Forgot -- The Booker created a reading guide for the novel that includes some information about the laundries, see https://thebookerprizes.com/the-booke...
Mod
I really like this insight. Now that you've pointed it out, I think it's another testament to the quality of the writing that you can feel Bill's vague discontent throughout the book, until he does find that purpose.
Mod
In this case, the act is seen as generous and ethical because Bill has so much at stake (his business, and thus his family's well-being; now being responsible for this other person... possibly his marriage... ).
Linda, what a question!
What things in our communities do you think would qualify as "injustices that we choose not to think about too closely?"
I need to think about this one. It feels like a lot of the injustices may be at a distance or hidden better in today's age (exploitation of overseas workers/communities; trash or waste polluting someone else's neighborhood or country; etc.). But what do I really even know about my local churches, prisons, human trafficking, etc. I know Texas, Florida, and Arizona governors have been bussing asylum seekers to DC (about 6 miles from my house) where local volunteers have had to step in to greet and assist these people just as they step off the bus.
Marc wrote: "It feels like a lot of the injustices may be at a distance or hidden better in today's age (exploitation of overseas workers/communities; trash or waste polluting someone else's neighborhood or country; etc.)..."I think it is a case of our position in society.
If we are victims of injustice and/or know victims of injustice because of race or class or sexual orientation or age or gender, or religion, etc. etc. we are more aware of that injustice and sensitive to the damage it causes. But just because we are aware of a particular injustice that may impact us personally, that does not necessarily make us aware of injustices which don't impact us but which are perpetrated on members of another group. For example, people who have not experienced racism may have a hard time understanding the existence of systemic racism.
This is not to suggest we can't transcend our particular position and recognize the injustices perpetrated on others even though we may not personally experience them. But it takes a lot of educating of ourselves to do so.
Bill, for example, is sensitive to the young girl because of his personal experience of growing up as a child of an unwed mother. That is not to say the only reason he helps her is because he relates to her experience. It's just that it would take a lot more for a person who hasn't been in his situation to recognize the injustice experienced by the girl and to show compassion for her.
Marc, now you have me thinking about whether an act can be courageous, ethical, and generous if it doesn't cost the giver something. First thought that came to mind is whether seeking acknowledgement of a gift makes it less generous, like giving millions to have a law school named after you, as someone just did and got the law school I went to named for himself. Will have to ponder on it for a bit.As to community injustices, I also thought about the immigrant busing, but perhaps those immigrants are better off in the cities they are being sent to than if not bussed.
Tamara, how insightful to consider the question of injustice from one's position in society. It does seem that the author gave Bill a background that made it possible for him to understand and empathize with the situation from the girl's perspective. I do think you are spot on in connection with the self-education it takes to recognize injustice if we haven't experienced it ourselves. I am currently reading Demon Copperhead and that thought occurred to me, as Kingsolver, unlike Keegan, is not subtle in making that point.
LindaJ^ wrote: "I am currently reading Demon Copperhead and that thought occurred to me, as Kingsolver, unlike Keegan, is not subtle in making that point..."I'm looking forward to reading that. But I have miles to go. I'm #144 on the wait list for it in the library. Ouch!
LindaJ^ wrote: "I think Bill is very courageous and doing something very important, in the face of what he knows will come. But I do wish the author had made him even more courageous by having him tell his wife an..."About bringing this up to his wife ahead of time, I don't think Bill had the capacity or skills to have a conversation with his wife about what he was intending to do. There are so many instances that portray the tension in their relationship and the lack of a foundation for these kinds of conversations. Their relationship seems to be mainly about money for the family to survive, their daughters and how they are doing and perpetuating established patterns and habits and adhering to community norms. Also, I think Bill does not want to be dissuaded from taking the action he believes is important once it becomes clear to him. Seems to me Eileen in "in charge" of their relationship, and he must feel if he broaches the subject with her, she will be totally against it.
LindaJ^ wrote: "Marc, now you have me thinking about whether an act can be courageous, ethical, and generous if it doesn't cost the giver something. First thought that came to mind is whether seeking acknowledgeme..."Interesting mentioning the latest Kingsolver in the context of the last line of what the Booker judges had to say about this book:
"Astonishingly, Keegan achieves this without ever sounding angry or preachy." (Thanks for sharing that.)
I appreciate how Keegan lays out her story and lets us draw our conclusions. To me Kingsolver is the epitome of an author who beats her readers about the head with her agenda! I also plan to read Demon, seeing the fabulous reviews it's getting, and I hope there is at least some subtlety at work.
To change the direction of the conversation slightly, I read an interview with Keegan where she characterized Bill as a man who might be dissatisfied with his life and wishing on some level to leave his wife. There is a moment where he goes to the neighbour's house and looks in it and there seems a vague implication that he may desire what is there.To what degree might this affect our reading of Bill's action?
I am not sure if this is the interview Emily referenced but in it Keegan also comments on Bill's self-destructive characteristics.https://thebookerprizes.com/the-booke...
Also from the interview, Keegan's original choice of having a boy making rounds with his father finding another boy in the coal shed evolved into the present story which could be criticized as being too patriarchal for today's taste. I thought it was a bold choice and was thinking about the choice long before reading Keegan's comments.
Mod
In this case, the act is seen as generous and ethic..."
Good question. I'm going to answer with a weak "no". If I give you half my sandwich because I know you're hungry, that's generous. If I was going to throw it away but offered it to you first, it's thoughtful, but not particularly generous. I say a weak "no", because there are certainly gray areas such as Linda's law school example.
On a related note, I also disagree with Sam's characterization as charity as a progression from compassion. Maybe this is my Russian Lit teacher talking, but if there's anything that comes above compassion, it's pity. Something of a dirty word in some circles, but it's pity that leads Bill to take the girl from the coal shed.
Charity requires no compassion or in many cases even concern for its recipients (though it's not precluded). The Magdalene Laundries themselves were considered charitable institutions - taking in fallen women and teaching them a trade. I have seen the term "true charity" being bandied about more recently, I believe in response to the many toxic charities which do little to benefit those they claim to help.
Semantics may be at issue here. The use of generalities and abstractions can prompt different understandings of meaning. I was following the progression of scenes in the book. Empathy= recognition of suffering= Bill sees girl ill-clothed for weather in coal shed. Compassion= identification with suffering and attempt at remedy= Bill's attempt to get remedy through contact with sisters. Charity= personal aid or intervention with sacrifice and potential risk= Bill takes girl home. Someone else might define differently but there are no universal meanings or progressions intended or suggested. Marc's example also seems dependent on how definitions are applied. From my view, an offer of a 1/2 sandwich would be generous. Since I am overweight my doctor would define it as attempted murder.
Mod
Sam, your comment about semantics definitely feels relevant (e.g., some might also consider any type of sharing what one has as "generosity" or self-harm in the case of starving one's self!). :D
Tamara, it's been a bit since I read the book, so thanks for reminding me that Bill would have been particularly sensitive to the girl's position given his own background and upbringing. His job/business also is integral to him encountering the situation in the first place. Makes one wonder how often injustice is overlooked if it often takes experience, direct exposure, and some level of empathy/compassion to recognize it (much less act on it).
Mod
I came here to say something like this. I said before that Bill isn't a white knight. If he hadn't directly encountered the girl in the coal shed, he likely would have gone on ignoring the quiet talk about what was going on the laundry like the rest of the town - or like the vast majority of humanity.
Peter Singer has the famous analogy of a child drowning in a shallow pond, and asking if people would decline to save them because it would ruin their shoes. No one but a psychopath, in most cases. He then points out that for the cost of those shoes, you could pay for mosquito netting and likely save a child's life in another country.
Far fewer of us would eat meat if we had to witness or participate in the life and slaughter of the animals. And many people would choose different clothes, electronics etc. if when we bought them, we then watched a video of a child or half-starved worker being led to a bench to produce them for us.
I know many people already make ethical choices about these things, my intent isn't to start a debate about vegetarianism or shoe factories. Just making the point that ignoring a starving person you pass on the sidewalk requires more callousness than ignoring a starving person 5,000 miles away. Bill has the level of decency not to ignore the suffering that he's directly confronted with.
It's also ironic that Bill had to defy the church and suffer its wrath in order to follow the supposed dictates of the church regarding charity and mercy.
Great discussion folks. This book is so layered. Keegan has made every word count more than once! How many times do we walk past someone begging on the street but give to world wide hunger relief? This past July while in NYC with the temperature in the nineties, an apparently homeless man was begging for a bottle of water. We bought him one because it was obvious that he needed one, but how is it possible to tell if the person begging at the intersection is hungry or looking for money to buy a bottle of alcohol? Maybe always carry MacDonalds gift certificates?
Thinking of Bill's self-destructive tendency -- what did Keegan mean by that? Do we have to have some self-destructive tendency to take action that goes against the flow? Is that part of what makes Bill act bravely? I cannot shake the thought of what his action means for his daughters and wondering how they will think of it.
Mod
Either resent him for disrupting their comfortable lives, or be better people because their father is modeling that being a decent person sometimes requires personal sacrifice or risk.
Bill's actions are not out of character, so it won't be a total surprise for his family, but his heroism is in part his willingness to deal with the consequences.
Charles Dickens seems to be an influence here, as he was for Barbara Kingsolver in Demon Copperhead. Keegan, as noted above, tells a very nuanced Dickens-like tale. Kingsolver, as noted above, uses no nuance in her book, which she acknowledges as a retelling of David Copperfield set in a similar time period as this book but in Appalachia. Keegan's book is short; Kingsolver's is over 400 pages. It seems that Dickens continues to have relevance in today's world. Can you think of other books that are Dickenesque (probably not a real word!) in revealing social injustices that get overlooked?
I'd like talk about the length of this book. There has been a lot of discussion in various forums as to whether it's a novel or a novella. I'd like rather to consider the length in connection with the story told. Do you think the story is too long, too short, or just right in length?
LindaJ^ wrote: "I think Bill is very courageous and doing something very important, in the face of what he knows will come. But I do wish the author had made him even more courageous by having him tell his wife an..."Agree with Suzy on this - I think he deliberately did not tell his wife - he knows what her answer will be. Perhaps he was willing to pay any consequence, and have his family pay any consequence, as their collective suffering would not outweigh that of the girl's, otherwise, in his estimation.
ahhh, so many injustices in plain sight in all parts of the world! Racial injustices and the concept of privilege for one. How different segments of the prison population are treated differently in the criminal justice system in the US. The US tax code favoring the wealthy, it goes on and on.
Whitney wrote: "Dianne wrote: " Despite how far he has come in life considering his upbringing, he remains a bit unmoored and unhappy, and is at a bit of a loss as to how to occupy his free time or settle his mind..."This point is so key (re: whitney's point that you can sense Bill's discomfort throughout the book). I actually found it easy to dismiss this book initially, gosh, what is all the fuss about?? Really?? Short book, plain writing, simple plot. I suspect part of the appeal is to communicate a message - not quite virtue signaling though. Also, as you point out, the subtle impact of the writing, it influences the reader without being overt.
Marc wrote: "One of the questions this thread has me thinking is whether an act can ever be considered to be generous if there is no cost to the giver/actor?In this case, the act is seen as generous and ethic..."
I may be of the minority view here, but I think you absolutely can be generous (as in, readiness to give vs. kindness to others) without impact to the giver! It's the impact to the recipient that can be so profound (do they care whether the giver was impacted? doubtful). That's why (I think) so many wealthy have elected to give away part of their fortunes, profound impact to recipient, without a true downside to them. Does that mean you are a 'better person' if you give and it costs you? You may think so, but that view is a benefit that inures to the giver, no?
LindaJ^ wrote: "I'd like talk about the length of this book. There has been a lot of discussion in various forums as to whether it's a novel or a novella. I'd like rather to consider the length in connection with ..."I think the length is appropriate. This is a bit of a parable.
Mod
I thought the length was perfect for the story Keegan chose to tell. The prose is incredibly fine-tuned---it's like she cut away absolutely everything extraneous. It's one of the things that it impressed me most about the book. I consider it a novella but that term means very little t me. My one criticism of the book, and it does relate to length, is that the Magdalene Laundries become a kind of backdrop/plot device instead of a central focus. As a reader, I was much more interested in this than in Bill so I almost found myself wishing she'd written a different book. I'm not sure I'm wording this very well, but it's the difference between the book being about something directly and that something being more like a secondary figure adding gravitas/detail to the story. Almost like cultural appropriation... (e.g., I'll make this character a Holocaust survivor because it will seem more tragic/dramatic even though my story is not really about the Holocaust or Jewish people). Anybody else feel even remotely similar?
Mod
In this case, the act is seen as gener..."
Fair points all around, Dianne. Bill does seem like a "better person" because he has so much to risk with his giving.
Marc wrote: "Dianne wrote: "Marc wrote: "One of the questions this thread has me thinking is whether an act can ever be considered to be generous if there is no cost to the giver/actor?In this case, the act i..."
Undoubtedly a better person in terms of evaluation using a moral code or value system. Bill was not only providing a home and a warm meal - he was bucking the entire all-powerful religious structure in his community.
In general though, for charity, I don't think it matters where it comes from. To me it is fascinating to see the impact of gofundme or social media appeals for charity - such an enormous potential for good! (and fraud, but I digress..). I guess I'm glad to see that 'going viral' can foment positive change in addition to driving me bananas with respect to my teen's tik tok obsession.
Interesting points Dianne. One's viewpoint does, I think, make a difference in how something is perceived and received. Giver, receiver, and observer all have different points of view that differ based on personal experience. I think Keegan shows us a bit of that -- Bill feels better when he gives. Bill's wife, an "interested" observer, looks at it from the viewpoint of the family, the lady who owns the restaurant/dinner, an observer who knows Bill's history and has a similar history, has questions Bill putting himself in harm's way. Do you think Keegan deliberately chose the wife and the lady to share their perspectives?Marc, I've seen others share the same criticism as you about Keegan not including any of the story of the laundries. She says it was not her intention to do so. Do you think including more about them would have distracted or made stronger the point she seems to be making?
I think that the Laundries were only one manifestation of the stranglehold that the Church had on society at that point. While historically the abuses of the laundries were important, focusing on that aspect would have detracted from the ethical thrust of the story for me.
Mod
I will drop my quibble about the definition of generosity and say "Here here!" For some reason, we think that charity, whether giving or acting for the benefit of a group in need, has to "hurt". It's always people who give the most who are questioned why they aren't doing more, not the people who give nothing. It's okay to be giving of time or money without sacrificing your entire life to it. It's even okay to enjoy charitable work; and it's even okay to be paid a decent wage for it.
Marc, I share your view of the use of the laundries as somewhat exploitative, especially given Keegan's disavowal that this book is about the laundries (95% of the time, seeing an author speak makes me like a book more, but I have found videos and interviews with Keegan profoundly alienating).I've been through a bit of a journey with this book. When I first read it I rated it four stars but had nothing to say about it. Recently I rated it two stars and wrote a bad-tempered review. And now I've bumped it up to three stars but left the review standing. I find this book irritating. The charity angle strikes me as very schmaltzy, in a way that does not go with the "finely hewn prose".
In my bad tempered review I do compare it with Dickens: It’s a Christmas story, and A Christmas Carol is also sentimental and over-neat, and yet wonderful. However, A Christmas Carol has ghosts. It has a man staring down at his own gravestone and listening to his housekeeper abuse him after his death. It has a protagonist who is prepared to do evil; for whom, indeed, evil is a way of life. Working around to a sentimental, neat ending after all that is nothing short of operatic.
For me, Dickens earns his schmaltz. Keegan, not so much.
Mod
I have actively avoided reading any interviews with Keegan as the bits and pieces I've heard mention here on GR make me think they would not add to my understanding or appreciation of the book. It's really a fine line when it comes to presenting any sort of moral tale without either being pedantic or schmaltzy (or, even better, both!). Maybe because of its length, we don't really have a character arc or any sort of evolution/redemption (Bill seems to be consistent in his values and slowly move towards doing what we as readers kind of expect him to do---yes? I'm asking because I don't remember it well enough to recall whether I had any doubts about his kindness or intentions at any point. I certainly remember thinking he was in a difficult spot given his business, the economy, needing to provide for his family, etc.).
I think I gave it four stars because I thought it rather evocative atmospherically as it captured that kind of melancholic Christmas joy/kindness. The bitterness of the weather/elements combined with shorter days, the ending of the year, reflecting on one's own life and fortune/misfortune, etc.
Really intriguing to compare/contrast it with Dickens, Emily.
I agree with Daniel, that focussing on the laundries would have "detracted from the ethical thrust," but it then becomes a matter of how each reader responds to such a direct appeal to ethics (i.e., you find it affirming/heart-warming, schmaltzy/manipulative, etc.).
Mod
If we're complaining that there's not enough information about the laundries, I think the problem is that we are centering ourselves as the intended audience. Keegan is under no obligation to over-explain to people unfamiliar with Irish history, that's on us. The Booker guide that Linda linked to recognized that a larger audience may not be familiar with said history, hence the information on the laundries.)
Looking at the interview, I think people are over-interpreting what Keegan meant by saying the book isn't about the laundries. The book is about Bill's journey, but that doesn't mean the political commentary isn't there. She says in the same interview:
"If it was set in another time, it might not have allowed me to question and criticise the society we ourselves created, our current misogynies and fear, the cowardices and silences and perversities and survival tactics of my own generation."
I would interpret it in the same way I would say the Grapes of Wrath isn't about the politics of the dust bowl and the depression, it's about the journey of the Joad family. That doesn't mean Steinbeck wasn't saying something about those politics as well.
Whitney wrote: "I don't think I agree that using the laundries was exploitative, anymore than setting it in a period of economic hardship was exploitative. Keegan's stock-in-trade is implying the wider world by fo..."Ditto to all that Whitney says. I loved this book and I was impressed by the way Keegan explores the ethical issue on all levels - universal, within a specific community and within one (ordinary?) individual. For me, Bill was a deep and intricate character despite both his and the narrator's taciturn nature. I marvel at the way Keegan was able to bring me so deeply into a character who is naturally averse to reveal himself to anyone, including himself. It was like watching a turtle slowly poke its head out of its shell. I think the length of the book and the very narrow slice of what could have been a much longer plot, is part of what made that possible.
I watched Keegan on the Booker video that did a reading/mini interview with each short list author. She was such a prickly grouch - but maybe that's the price of being able to write such a terse book ;)
21st Century Literature
Books mentioned in this topic
The Little Match Girl Strikes Back (other topics)A Christmas Carol (other topics)
The Little Match Girl (other topics)
Pilgrim at Tinker Creek (other topics)
Demon Copperhead (other topics)
More...
Sam asked some great questions in his spoiler in the General thread that I am posting here to get us started --
I like how Keegan while not suggesting Bill's motivations are questionable, gives the reader time to question them as Bill pauses to consider consequences of his actions before he commits. Is he altruistic and noble or acting idealistic and selfishly? Is he a saviour or wannabe knight in shining armor? And what of the result? I think Keegan does hint that Bill's actions would not be wholeheartedly supported by the family once he returns home. And even if they were, for how long would the support last realistically after a reaction from the neighbors and community?
Bill's wife and Mrs. Keheo were, I thought, pretty adamant that he should just stay out of it or else he would be creating trouble for his family. That's not to say they are completely right but I have no doubt there will be blowback. This is definitely not a feel good Christmas story. Is Bill like the owner of the inn who gave the holy family a place to stay on Christmas Eve? Is Bill like the persons who hid Jewish people from the Germans, despite the risk to themselves?
Near the end of the book, Bill asks himself whether was there any point in being alive without helping one another? What does "helping one another" entail?