The Sisters Brothers

Patrick de Witt's The Sisters Brothers

Basically we liked this book. The Sisters Brothers is a Western, set in the 1850s during the San Francisco gold rush. It highlights the lawlessness and precariousness of travellers and prospectors in the new territories at this time. Spoken in the first person by Eli, he and his brother Charlie, both hired killers, are on a mission to find, torture and kill Hermann Warm; torture him to discover his chemical secret of extracting gold from earth.


Eli narrates with a homespun philosophy, explaining/justifying their lives. As their travels progress, their story is punctuated with bouts of extreme violence, as well as surreal sequences such as the description of San Francisco, the recurring crying man and a witch (they are surprisingly superstitious). The story does not end happily, and they end, chastened, going back to mother.

In all we thought they were psychopaths, Eli killing with uncontrollable anger and Charlie with some cold steel calculation, there was no emotional pathos here. But basically they were quite stupid and eventually get their comeuppance. But the book was really about violence and the greed for money, and the unfairness of society where there is no established justice system; everyone is out for themselves, and if you are not strong enough you fall by the wayside. Even these two feared gangsters become vulnerable.

De Witt writes fluently and with humour. This is of the dark variety, De Witt has the knack of turning a solemn sequence on it’s head in the space of a sentence, and changes the mood altogether. The English is refreshingly un-American (De Witt was born in Canada) and it makes for an easy read. It was also the only book we’ve read so far where comments were made about the design, the font, kerning and leading being finely done. We liked the cover design, as well as the unusual section dividers - smoking guns illustrated in black and white.

Great Speeches of the 20th Century

This month we embarked on something a little different as we all read a different text.

A few years ago The Guardian published 14 booklets of Great Speeches considered worthy of this title. Each booklet includes an introduction by a relevant writer, the speech (sometimes shortened) and a short article from the newspaper at the time.

The range was wide - in order of reading they were made by
General de Gaulle - on the BBC in 1940
Emmeline Pankhurst - in the US in 1913
Nikita Khrushchev - at the 20th Congess in Moscow in 1956
Aneurin Bevan - in the House of Commons in 1956
Nelson Mandela - from the lawcourts in Pretoria in 1964
FD Roosevelt - in Washington in 1933
Virginia Woolf - in Cambridge in 1926

Not only was the subject matter diverse so were the styles. From the rousing, rallying cry of de Gaulle who proclaimed that he 'now spoke for France' and urged all Frenchmen to continue to bear arms against the enemy - the foundation of the resistance - to the reasoned arguments of Nelson Mandela at his trial for treason.

The elements of oratory first (or so we believe) practised by the ancient Greeks still underpin great speeches. First get the audience's attention then hold it - by means of persuasiive argument, rhetorical questions, pregnant pauses, repitition, catch phrases and the title of the speech (The Winds of Change), emotive words and the all important inclusiiveness of talking about ' you and me'. The need for a fine understanding of the language, of idiom, figures of speech, punctuation are never more important and we see this now in a few of our modern orators from William Hague to Barrack Obama. Short, simple yet pithy sentences with little jargon and above all phrases which will resonate with the audience are most effective - Churchill, and of course Shakespeare before him, was a master of this. Never forget humour and empathy.

Nelson was on trial for his life and employed many of these techniques, remembering that he was a lawyer and used to holding the attention of the court. Virginia was talking to a select group of intellectuals and could use complex terms which would not have been as easily appreciated by a mass audience.

FDR spoke in a time of great crisis during the Great Depression as did Nye Bevan over what became known as the Suez Crisis. Both speeches resonate with us today. FDR spoke of the need for farmers to receive a fair price (in the news just this week in the UK) and for people to pull together while he criticised the banks and finance houses (need I say more). Nye Bevan's prophetic words about the finding of an excuse for intervention and bombing another country on flimsy evidence can be directly related to Tony Blair and his absolute determination to bomb Iraq.

Khrushchev's lenghthy speech against the Cult of the Individual referred to the monster that was Stalin. Considering all that had gone before it seems he took a great risk and must have had considerable support in the Party to reveal the horrors of that regime. He foresaw the end of Communism and the breakup of the Soviet Union but we do now see again with despair the rise of another individual - Vladimir Putin.

Emmeline Pankhurst gave her speech in the US to the Women's Suffrage Association. She was a small smartly dressed woman who had been imprisoned many times during the past year and a half. She urged 'Deeds not Words' and that women should take action in order to achieve freedom from what she considered servitude.

The background to each speech was particularly important as most were made long ago. In the case of Nye Bevan and Suez the events surrounding the crisis were very complex and intimately linked with the aftermath of WWII, political alliances and the establishment of Israel.

We discussed each speech - both in context and in tone - and noted particularly how relevant they were to our modern times. As it is said 'some things never change' even though great social and economic changes take place much remains - women juggling with childcare who having gained the freedom to work in a 'man's world' still feel the biological pull of motherhood - banks and large corporations controlling the producers either through lending rates or pricing of commodities - politicians lying to us.........

This is of course a select list of speeches made by The Guardian and no doubt we could all come up with others - or could we?

A Fairly Honourable Defeat by Iris Murdoch

A Fairly Honourable Defeat provided the book club with plenty to talk about. Whilst the majority of the book club members did not enjoy the book it certainly provoked strong reactions in its readers. It was generally agreed that the characters lacked depth and were used mercilessly by Ms Murdoch as vehicles to explore ideas and moral "muddles". The characters are unlikeable; it is hard to feel any degree of empathy with them, yet we feel a compelling need to follow them through a series of unlikely plot devices to their inevitable "defeat". They are brought low (if such can be said - though this was open to discussion) not so much through the machinations of Julius King as by their own moral turpitude.  The book abounds with literary devices (not least a broken telephone and a car that refuses to start!) that strain belief and leave the reader feeling that Ms Murdoch should have shown more restraint.

Thematically the book deals with what it means to be a "moral" being; the easy complacency of upper/middle-class suburban life; individuals that fail to engage with each other in an open, honest and empathetic manner. Hilda and Rupert represent the smug face of suburbia whose self-congratulatory veneer is disrupted with very little effort by Julius's manipulations. They are victims of their own failings: it is vanity that kills Rupert; all the characters are ready to believe the worst about each other. Deception figures large as a theme of the novel, the readiness with which the characters dupe each other suggests the easy corruptibility of their morals, even Tallis colludes in deceiving Leonard as to the seriousness of his illness. Leonard "owns" his life surely Tallis should respect this aspect of his embittered parent? The readers' reaction to Morgan is one of strong aversion, she is amoral, unable to respond to others in mature and responsible fashion, her self-absoption leaves no room for real feeling. The dislocation between true feeling and the verisimilitude of emotion also provides a reflection on the moral character of the protagonists. Simon and Axel, are as prone to self-deceit and dishonesty as the other characters in the novel but value their relationship and have sufficient respect for one another that in crisis respond openly and honestly to each other and are rewarded  by the "happiest" resolution in the novel.

Devices abound in the novel to further the moral dialogue between author and reader - some of these are obscure and not fully developed, for example, the appearance of the ghost of Tallis's sister left the book club confused. In fact, Ms Murdoch used some fairly heavy-handed interventions to further the plot and increase the "muddle".

There is much in A Fairly Honourable Defeat that left many of the book club readers frustrated and critical of the novel, however it is a testament to Ms Murdoch's skill that the novel promoted a heated debate and all who read it were challenged to examine the moral dilemmas presented by the characters.

Smut (two unseemly stories) by Alan Bennett

'Smut' consists of two short stories about middle-aged woman. They are women of modest, but reasonably educated, backgrounds, who lead very respectable lives. Or so we are led to suppose at first. What we discover as the stories unfold is that the two characters react to the events in their respectable lives in a rather unexpected, and, at the risk of sounding prudish, altogether indecent way. Mrs Donaldson, recently widowed, has lodgers who suggest an alternative way of paying their rent. Mrs Forbes can't understand why her very handsome son is getting married to a very plain-looking woman called Betty . . .
The first question of the evening's discussion was whether we (as middle-aged women ourselves) empathised with either of the characters. A resounding NO! Both Mrs Donaldson and Mrs Forbes dealt with their predicaments by acquiescing to some pretty deviant behaviour - which we felt we definitely would not do. Or would we? After all, most people want an easy life, and just because we are 'respectable' doesn't mean that we can't accommodate our scruples to go with the flow ... Though these tales may make you feel rather uncomfortable, they are salutary reminders that you cannot, and never should, judge people by their appearances.
Even if  the content of the stories takes you out of your comfort zone, the pure magic of Alan Bennett's prose cannot be denied. It was sheer joy to read such beautifully constructed sentences that were oozing with wit, erudition and humour. Whatever his opinion of women, his ability to tell a charming story overrides any sense of misogyny or demonization of the female sex. Bennett exposes us to everyday pretences that exist in all of our lives, and portrays them with a highly amusing, tongue-in-cheek attitude.
The final sentence reads: 'So the secrets abound, with Betty more richly endowed with them as she is with everything else. Still, for all that everybody, while not happy, is not unhappy about it. And so they go on.'
And I wouldn't be surprised if that is indeed the case for most of us.

As You Like It by William Shakespeare

Despite some initial misgivings about reading a play by Shakespeare, and feelings of being back at school, most of us enjoyed the play.

The play is mainly about love, sisterly, brotherly, parental and married love (very appropriate for a meeting on St Valentine’s day) and has some connotations with homosexual love, for men and women, especially in the relationship between Rosalind and Celia both played by men acting as women (so in effect doubly so).

The main part of the play revolves around the relationship between Rosalind and Orlando. Orlando sees Rosalind in the court of Duke Frederick, and falls madly in love with her. Rosalind has to flee to the forest of Ardene and for safety’s sake, disguises herself as a man. Rosalind as Ganymede comes across Orlando (also seeking refuge in the forest) and goads him to woo her as if she were Rosalind. Orlando smitten writes reams of very bad poetry that he nails to trees. His love is spontaneous, wild, hectic and romantic, while Rosalind on the other hand, is more measured; her response is more prosaic and realistic. When Orlando says that he will die for want of love, Rosalind responds with “Men have died from time to time, and worms have eaten them, but not for love”.

We discussed how Orlando's lovemaking follows the tradition of 'courtly' love, where love was seen as a disease and made men slaves to it. Rosalind though expunges these rather extreme emotions and makes fun of them. We realised that this theme, about the differences in the expression of love, continues in the play between the other couples (of which there are many). Touchstone the haughty court jester takes up with the uncouth goatherd Audrey, hardhearted Phoebe eventually accepts the doting Silvius, and Celia marries Oliver after meeting twice and speaking two sentences to him.   

We also realised that the play explored other social differences. These were developed in the many sub plots, for example the differences between life at court and life living in the forest, the differences in family relationships concerning jealousy and revenge. Above all the play also showed us that Rosalind, as a man, was able to express herself with some freedom, and could tell the audience what is it really like to be a woman in love. We thought this would have been quite shocking to a Tudor audience.

This brief synopsis can’t do justice to the other machinations in the play or how much we talked about them. But as usual with a Shakespearean comedy everything ends happily, the bad get their just deserts and the good get married, in this case with four marriages in the last act.

The meeting went on longer than I’d expected; the more we talked the more interest we found and the more we found the more we talked, and so it went round and round only to be ended by coffee and slices of black forest gateaux.  

The Finkler Question - Howard Jacobson

November 2010

Julian Treslove, the character through whose eyes we view all other characters and events, is a rather pathetic former BBC radio producer. A man who seems to be desperately seeking an identity while, an interesting irony, working as a lookalike. The story reveals his complicated and unhappy relationships. There is Sam Finkler, a Jewish philosopher, successful writer and television personality; Libor Sevcik, an old teacher, Julian's two estranged wives, both alike, whom Treslove has imagined dying in his arms; his two sons, equally alike, disliked by their father who named them after characters in La Boheme and La Traviata; and Hephzibah, a rather wonderful, warm and refreshingly sane woman who, it appears likely for a short time, will actually make Julian happy. As Treslove tells the reader his life had been, "one mishap after another", we realise that he is not destined for happiness. He's a man never satisfied or accepting but always questioning and wanting something else. Early on Treslove is mugged by a mystery attacker: he suspects a woman and spends much of the ensuing story pointlessly wondering on the significance of the event and trying to rationalise it. There was some discussion about whether we felt sympathy for his character but the general consensus was dislike for his increasingly selfish preoccupation with his own concerns and interests as the story developed. It is not surprising that he fails to make the official opening of the museum at the end but instead makes a complete spectacle of himself with his inappropriate response to the people holding a vigil outside. His self -indulgence makes him a master of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. There are a number of themes running through the book which enabled a lively and varied discussion: about love, loss and the process of grieving, ideas of belonging, of family and identity. Did we appreciate the humour? There was much that was funny but we wondered whether the author was perhaps trying to be a bit too clever at times, almost smug in the proliferation of in jokes and references. It did generate much discussion about attitudes to race and, inevitably,  the history and politics of the Middle East and the significance of the inclusion of the group known as the ASHamed Jews. There was mixed opinion as to its being considered a "good read". These ranged from vehement dislike to a liking in parts, from an appreciation of the humour to an overall enjoyment of the book. I must confess that such a long time had elapsed between our reading and my preparing to write this that I had to reread it recently and thought I gained more from the second go!

Our Kind of Traitor - John Le Carre

John Le Carre continues his series of post-Cold War spy novels with a cast of intelligence professionals and keen amateurs against the dangerous web of present-day Russian criminal syndicates and their limitless resources.  This is the story of a Russian mafioso called Dima, who meets by chance a young British couple, Perry and Gail, while they are holidaying in the Caribbean.  Dima will become 'lethally expendable' following a mafia reorganisation, and he decides to use Perry and Gail as go-betweens with British intelligence to trade knowledge for refuge for himself and his rag-tag extended family.  They are put in touch with Hector Meredith, a marginalised and close to retirement senior spy manager, who judges Dima's offer to be a career-redeeming, last big operation. 

Hector and his number two Luke, who is similarly marginalised, take Perry and Gail through the ensuing action, to an abrupt ending, which though written large from the beginning, comes as a shock nevertheless. 

There was some disappointment to find that the plot does not stand very close scrutiny, and is unbelievable in parts, and sometimes a bit convenient, like the original meeting in Antigua.  Nevertheless, it is a good read, though Le Carre's distinctive voice jars a little in places and we are drawn back to the Cold War, when this story is set firmly in the current financial crisis threatening us all.   There is a wonderful account of a meeting between politicians and financiers on a yacht in the Adriatic - which unashamedly refers to Peter Mandelson's visit a couple of summers ago to a yacht in Corfu owned by a Russian oligarch.  Is what Dima has to sell of any value to the British?   The betrayal at the heart of the book is part of the degradation of everything around it.  Have things been turned upside-down so completely that is necessary for those who once held 'old-fashioned' values to depend on the proceeds of crime for survival?

 Highly recommended are two earlier novels by Le Carre,  'The spy who came in from the cold' and 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy'.