The line about liking him better with a crown, stuck out to me too, and reminded me of king Lear. Who is he when he is no longer King? I would love it if you guys could talk more about all of the Shakespeare. allusions buried. I do not know Shakespeare well enough to catch all of them and would love assistance from this group and our hosts!!
I am disappointed Sean was so troubled by the statement that August always carried his violin with him. I agree that it takes the reader out of the story but I as a reader did not come out of the story trying to predict where the author is going (as Sean seems to have done so). Instead, I felt the moment of separation from other characters was a really good time to ask "What is each character are always carrying with them (Kirsten with the graphic novels and magazine clippings)?", "What I would I always carry with me?", and "What should I always carry with me?"
Sean, I cannot recall you sharing any novels with non-traditional structures (various chronological threads, rapidly changing between styles like narrative to interview to epistolatory, etc). Are there any?
Marquez’s Chronicle of a Death Foretold (is a near-perfect time-jumper), Baudolino, Beowulf, Piers Plowman, and Laurus would be some favorites. Even Canticle For Leibowitz I’d consider somewhat non-conventional, and I find that is more and more the book I’m measuring Station 11 by.
Thanks. I will add Chronicle of a Death Foretold to my reading list.
I am guessing you mean Morris West's Lazarus. Is that correct? If so, is the whole Vatican series worth reading?
I don't think I would consider Canticle for Liebowitz non-conventional because there really is not jumping between timelines - I read it as a number of linked short stories / novellas. In my opinion, it is a good comparison book but I don't think that comparison can be complete without reading "Glass Hotel" and "Sea of Tranquility" -- Like the stories in Canticle, the carrying and evolution of themes over the timeframes is really important.
Loved reading all these thoughts! While I love Heidi’s response in seeing the beauty of this story, I found myself standing with Sean this time. It was hard to read this one coming off of Viper’s Tangle where I was SO invested in the character and his struggle. In station 11 there’s so many characters with less known about any of them and I’m over halfway through. For me, what attaches me to a story are the characters. Make me love the people or be invested in their plight and I’m hooked. Yet, I’m up way past my bedtime reading on… what happened to the orchestra?!
My takeaway from the podcast this week: what criteria do we each use to appreciate a book? And here is a confession directed towards Sean. When CR does draft picks and we get to vote on David, Heidi, Sean’s lists, I never choose Team Sean. I’m always like, ‘This guy and I are not the same person. Who would choose these books?!’ So do we not read books with the same criteria? What qualifies a ‘good story’?
However… thanks to the discussion, I’ll be thinking about ‘stakes’ in a novel from now on. Good job, guys. Once again, I’ve learned more about how to thoughtfully read a book.
I agree that the novel is not perfect, but I was surprised by the lengthy conversation about the stakes of the novel. I think that weaving music and Shakespeare (and media - the tabloids v. the New Petosky newspaper) through the past and present of the novel clearly reveals Mandel's concerns: What will last from the previous civilization? What will join these disparate communities together? So much of that previous civilization is useless (cell phones, credit cards, airplanes), but there are some things that continue to bring life and connect (very imperfect) people. While their individual morality is certainly questionable, I think the novel is also asking about morality in relation to how community is built again after catastrophic loss. That seems pretty important and compelling to me.
Molly, yes! I was coming over here to say that I think the stakes of the novel are how people without a moral center find ways to live morally. How do they define morality and how do they refine it, to fit this post-apocalyptic world.
I, too, was surprised that the stakes did not seem more obvious and powerful to Sean (and somewhat) Heidi. They even said that they expect stakes like "we're racing to save the world" (11:28) I agree with you Molly that the stakes are about what will last from the previous civilization (and as Miriam reminds us "Survival is Insufficient" is the crux of this book). I take them even further -- What should last from the previous civilization? Or even further -- "What needs to be saved?" (which is just a slight variation of "we're racing to save the world")
Because dystopia is usually an objective correlative for our own personal experiences of loss and change, these questions make me as "What do I want to keep from earlier in my life (as symbolized by the paperweight and the graphic novels)? What can I not get rid of (symbolized by the tattoos and scars)? "
St John Mandel makes that theme even more clear by creating before-after situations for every character even if they have little to do with the pandemic (Arthur on Delano Island / Arthur in Toronto / Arthur as the famous actor; Miranda with Arthur / Miranda post-divorce).
As a person who is regularly surrounded by scientific materialists and do not see transcendence as I do, I think these are critical questions our society asks and should be taken seriously as an entree into understanding ourselves and (for those with a bent toward evangelization) how people who do not believe in God experience God's working in their lives.
Yes Molly, you have reminded me of the quote “Because survival is insufficient” written on one of the caravans. It seems like the novel is asking if survival is not enough, then what is? What makes life worth living?
How can people preserve and rebuild those things after they survive the end of civilisation?
After reading to the end I must admit I don’t find Mandel’s exploration of those questions fully satisfying but the questions themselves are good ones to ask.
I think this is really well said, Molly! I agree that the stakes have to do with how a civilization survives and adapts after tragedy and destruction, and how humanity continues to be bound tightly together by our shared past. The shared past survives.
I also think that Station Eleven itself is part of the stakes. I love what one of them said about it being representative of isolation. I think the act of creating art (in terms of what Miranda is doing in developing the books) is a great theme- the isolation of it, the way it is armour for us, the inherent resilience of it, the comfort it provides, the meaning it offers. I want something for Station Eleven (the graphic novel)- I want it to survive, to help heal or provide hope, to prove somehow we're not alone.
I see the Station Eleven graphic novels as art providing an understanding of the world. The characters in Station Eleven have the same longings for a previous society that the book's characters have for the pre-pandemic world.
Time for a true confession. I have sometimes rolled my eyes at David's insisting on calling attention to "the craft." Now I have to admit I wish he were here to do so, and I appreciate Sean's remark about more rigorous editing. I think the flashing backwards and forwards in time leaves me a bit disoriented, and I feel embarrassed that my only reason for continuing to read is for the sinister, creepy elements. "The prophet had a dog named Luli."
Listening to this conversation, I realized yet again that one of the things I liked best about the novel is the winding way it reveals itself. I like stories that unspool slowly and then suddenly start to come together in that way. I think one of the things that kept me going, for example, was wondering if we were ever going to hear about Jeevan again. I liked wondering why Arthur's life is relevant. I can't quite put my finger on why I felt certain it would all come together, but this was not a novel I was ever tempted to give up on. Maybe it is because of the Shakespeare.
I'm currently reading A Tale of Two Cities and that's another novel that takes a long time to show how everything is connected.
Also I totally didn't notice the thing about August's violin. I guess I'm not that close a reader.
One thing I hope you eventually talk about is why so many of the characters in the Symphony don't get names other than tuba, sixth guitar, flute, viola, seventh guitar, etc. Or whether there is any significance of Miranda being named after the character in the Tempest.
Great comment about Miranda, I didn't make that connection.
I thought the non names of the musicians was a great device. I took it that when there is no name, everyone is that person. So we are part of the group. I also liked the suggestion that people are not unique and are replaceable...so weird to think of this during a time when so many people had died. But maybe I was off track and there is a very obvious reason I missed! Reading is always better when there is a community to see different views.
I think there is something to that idea of people being replaceable. And of allowing the reader to step inside the group.
And it sets up an interesting contrast between the musicians and actors-- all the actors have names. Are the actors less replaceable than the musicians, though? I'm not sure.
I suppose another thing it does is it keeps the story from feeling to cluttered by too many names of all the secondary characters in the Symphony? (Do we even know how many people are in the Symphony?) It also creates a kind of fluidity, and impressionism. And maybe a sense that Kirstin doesn't actually know all the musicians as well as she knows the actors. And that there's a large enough group that there is a kind of anonymity?
I asked the same questions about the names. In my mind, one of the secondary questions about this novel is "What does it mean to be known?" because there is so much energy put into discussing it The Traveling Symphony seems to be a mid-point between Delano Island (where everyone "knows" everyone) and the anonymity of Toronto. Membership in the Symphony seems to mean that some are known, others are barely known, and (in the case of the conductor) some are unknowable
Great thoughts...it is helping me to appreciate the book. Since the first character to die was an actor, it seems to encourage that actors are more important than musicians and that there is a line connecting all the actors.
Mmk guys, it’s KIRsten 🤪 Otherwise, Sean, I’m with you 100 percent - I also needed this therapy session in the double-whammy of WSIKR? that is this book and Mansfield Park. At least with MP I already trust Austen (though she’s got me wondering a bit)! I enjoyed the comparison in regard to Plot, Stakes, and Characters. It doesn’t help that I’m halfway through a reread of The Great Divorce and keep hoping every chapter that one dang ghost will listen to the spirit attending them! My reading is amplifying the liminality in parts of my life right now and it’s killin me 😂
I was coming here about the mispronunciation too 😂 The “i” clearly comes before the “r” every time in the book! I have a good friend named Kirsten (“KEER-sten”) so I think it was especially making me crazy! 🤪
Thank you for this podcast! I loved hearing a more critical review of the book and Sean’s perspective helped me have some words to what I felt while reading the book. Personally, I didn’t enjoy the book which is exceedingly rare from a close reads list! But hearing the conversation I’m learning so much on how to “close read”. As Heidi says, this is why we read in community! Thanks so much!
I agree, it was not my favorite book. I am glad I read it, since I have always heard so much about it. Also, reading with the podcast helped me to see it in a different way.
I am so interested in these conversations! I recently finished Station 11 and was captivated by the storytelling but also felt like it was missing something. I felt similarly after reading Sea of Tranquility last year. But, like Heidi, these books haunt me which makes me think there is something deeper there.
Also, are you guys going to chat about the TV show? It is so different. We aren't finished yet, but I would love to hear you guys talk about it!
Kelsie, I hope they do talk about the tv show. I just finished watching it, after I finished the book. I don't think I have ever read a "successful book" and a "successful tv show" that are so different. (I am using successful as defined by popularity and awards...I know a weak judgment but I had to use something.) I would be curious if people liked the tv show?
I really enjoyed the book and REALLY disliked the tv series. I didn’t finish it. I don’t mind changes to a booked to adapt to the medium of film or TV, but I felt like the series missed the point of the book altogether.
About the moral center. This might sound harsh, but I have read all six of her novels, and I really like them all, but I am not sure that Mandel has a moral center.
The line about liking him better with a crown, stuck out to me too, and reminded me of king Lear. Who is he when he is no longer King? I would love it if you guys could talk more about all of the Shakespeare. allusions buried. I do not know Shakespeare well enough to catch all of them and would love assistance from this group and our hosts!!
Yes, I’d love to hear more on this, too!
I am disappointed Sean was so troubled by the statement that August always carried his violin with him. I agree that it takes the reader out of the story but I as a reader did not come out of the story trying to predict where the author is going (as Sean seems to have done so). Instead, I felt the moment of separation from other characters was a really good time to ask "What is each character are always carrying with them (Kirsten with the graphic novels and magazine clippings)?", "What I would I always carry with me?", and "What should I always carry with me?"
Ah, like "The Things They Carried," by Tim O'Brien!
Sean, I cannot recall you sharing any novels with non-traditional structures (various chronological threads, rapidly changing between styles like narrative to interview to epistolatory, etc). Are there any?
Are there other novels that have unconventional structures or styles? Yes, loads. Some are even good.
Sorry, I did not complete my question.
Any you like or recommend?
Marquez’s Chronicle of a Death Foretold (is a near-perfect time-jumper), Baudolino, Beowulf, Piers Plowman, and Laurus would be some favorites. Even Canticle For Leibowitz I’d consider somewhat non-conventional, and I find that is more and more the book I’m measuring Station 11 by.
I’d love to hear more about your comparison between Station 11 and Canticle for Lebowitz!
Thanks. I will add Chronicle of a Death Foretold to my reading list.
I am guessing you mean Morris West's Lazarus. Is that correct? If so, is the whole Vatican series worth reading?
I don't think I would consider Canticle for Liebowitz non-conventional because there really is not jumping between timelines - I read it as a number of linked short stories / novellas. In my opinion, it is a good comparison book but I don't think that comparison can be complete without reading "Glass Hotel" and "Sea of Tranquility" -- Like the stories in Canticle, the carrying and evolution of themes over the timeframes is really important.
https://bookshop.org/p/books/laurus-the-international-bestseller-eugene-vodolazkin/16580088?ean=9781780748719
Thanks
Loved reading all these thoughts! While I love Heidi’s response in seeing the beauty of this story, I found myself standing with Sean this time. It was hard to read this one coming off of Viper’s Tangle where I was SO invested in the character and his struggle. In station 11 there’s so many characters with less known about any of them and I’m over halfway through. For me, what attaches me to a story are the characters. Make me love the people or be invested in their plight and I’m hooked. Yet, I’m up way past my bedtime reading on… what happened to the orchestra?!
My takeaway from the podcast this week: what criteria do we each use to appreciate a book? And here is a confession directed towards Sean. When CR does draft picks and we get to vote on David, Heidi, Sean’s lists, I never choose Team Sean. I’m always like, ‘This guy and I are not the same person. Who would choose these books?!’ So do we not read books with the same criteria? What qualifies a ‘good story’?
However… thanks to the discussion, I’ll be thinking about ‘stakes’ in a novel from now on. Good job, guys. Once again, I’ve learned more about how to thoughtfully read a book.
I agree that the novel is not perfect, but I was surprised by the lengthy conversation about the stakes of the novel. I think that weaving music and Shakespeare (and media - the tabloids v. the New Petosky newspaper) through the past and present of the novel clearly reveals Mandel's concerns: What will last from the previous civilization? What will join these disparate communities together? So much of that previous civilization is useless (cell phones, credit cards, airplanes), but there are some things that continue to bring life and connect (very imperfect) people. While their individual morality is certainly questionable, I think the novel is also asking about morality in relation to how community is built again after catastrophic loss. That seems pretty important and compelling to me.
Molly, yes! I was coming over here to say that I think the stakes of the novel are how people without a moral center find ways to live morally. How do they define morality and how do they refine it, to fit this post-apocalyptic world.
I, too, was surprised that the stakes did not seem more obvious and powerful to Sean (and somewhat) Heidi. They even said that they expect stakes like "we're racing to save the world" (11:28) I agree with you Molly that the stakes are about what will last from the previous civilization (and as Miriam reminds us "Survival is Insufficient" is the crux of this book). I take them even further -- What should last from the previous civilization? Or even further -- "What needs to be saved?" (which is just a slight variation of "we're racing to save the world")
Because dystopia is usually an objective correlative for our own personal experiences of loss and change, these questions make me as "What do I want to keep from earlier in my life (as symbolized by the paperweight and the graphic novels)? What can I not get rid of (symbolized by the tattoos and scars)? "
St John Mandel makes that theme even more clear by creating before-after situations for every character even if they have little to do with the pandemic (Arthur on Delano Island / Arthur in Toronto / Arthur as the famous actor; Miranda with Arthur / Miranda post-divorce).
As a person who is regularly surrounded by scientific materialists and do not see transcendence as I do, I think these are critical questions our society asks and should be taken seriously as an entree into understanding ourselves and (for those with a bent toward evangelization) how people who do not believe in God experience God's working in their lives.
Yes Molly, you have reminded me of the quote “Because survival is insufficient” written on one of the caravans. It seems like the novel is asking if survival is not enough, then what is? What makes life worth living?
How can people preserve and rebuild those things after they survive the end of civilisation?
After reading to the end I must admit I don’t find Mandel’s exploration of those questions fully satisfying but the questions themselves are good ones to ask.
I think this is really well said, Molly! I agree that the stakes have to do with how a civilization survives and adapts after tragedy and destruction, and how humanity continues to be bound tightly together by our shared past. The shared past survives.
I also think that Station Eleven itself is part of the stakes. I love what one of them said about it being representative of isolation. I think the act of creating art (in terms of what Miranda is doing in developing the books) is a great theme- the isolation of it, the way it is armour for us, the inherent resilience of it, the comfort it provides, the meaning it offers. I want something for Station Eleven (the graphic novel)- I want it to survive, to help heal or provide hope, to prove somehow we're not alone.
I see the Station Eleven graphic novels as art providing an understanding of the world. The characters in Station Eleven have the same longings for a previous society that the book's characters have for the pre-pandemic world.
Time for a true confession. I have sometimes rolled my eyes at David's insisting on calling attention to "the craft." Now I have to admit I wish he were here to do so, and I appreciate Sean's remark about more rigorous editing. I think the flashing backwards and forwards in time leaves me a bit disoriented, and I feel embarrassed that my only reason for continuing to read is for the sinister, creepy elements. "The prophet had a dog named Luli."
SO funny about the dog! 😂 me too tho
Listening to this conversation, I realized yet again that one of the things I liked best about the novel is the winding way it reveals itself. I like stories that unspool slowly and then suddenly start to come together in that way. I think one of the things that kept me going, for example, was wondering if we were ever going to hear about Jeevan again. I liked wondering why Arthur's life is relevant. I can't quite put my finger on why I felt certain it would all come together, but this was not a novel I was ever tempted to give up on. Maybe it is because of the Shakespeare.
I'm currently reading A Tale of Two Cities and that's another novel that takes a long time to show how everything is connected.
Also I totally didn't notice the thing about August's violin. I guess I'm not that close a reader.
One thing I hope you eventually talk about is why so many of the characters in the Symphony don't get names other than tuba, sixth guitar, flute, viola, seventh guitar, etc. Or whether there is any significance of Miranda being named after the character in the Tempest.
Great comment about Miranda, I didn't make that connection.
I thought the non names of the musicians was a great device. I took it that when there is no name, everyone is that person. So we are part of the group. I also liked the suggestion that people are not unique and are replaceable...so weird to think of this during a time when so many people had died. But maybe I was off track and there is a very obvious reason I missed! Reading is always better when there is a community to see different views.
I think there is something to that idea of people being replaceable. And of allowing the reader to step inside the group.
And it sets up an interesting contrast between the musicians and actors-- all the actors have names. Are the actors less replaceable than the musicians, though? I'm not sure.
I suppose another thing it does is it keeps the story from feeling to cluttered by too many names of all the secondary characters in the Symphony? (Do we even know how many people are in the Symphony?) It also creates a kind of fluidity, and impressionism. And maybe a sense that Kirstin doesn't actually know all the musicians as well as she knows the actors. And that there's a large enough group that there is a kind of anonymity?
I do love to hear everyone else's thoughts.
I asked the same questions about the names. In my mind, one of the secondary questions about this novel is "What does it mean to be known?" because there is so much energy put into discussing it The Traveling Symphony seems to be a mid-point between Delano Island (where everyone "knows" everyone) and the anonymity of Toronto. Membership in the Symphony seems to mean that some are known, others are barely known, and (in the case of the conductor) some are unknowable
Oh I like that!
Great thoughts...it is helping me to appreciate the book. Since the first character to die was an actor, it seems to encourage that actors are more important than musicians and that there is a line connecting all the actors.
Mmk guys, it’s KIRsten 🤪 Otherwise, Sean, I’m with you 100 percent - I also needed this therapy session in the double-whammy of WSIKR? that is this book and Mansfield Park. At least with MP I already trust Austen (though she’s got me wondering a bit)! I enjoyed the comparison in regard to Plot, Stakes, and Characters. It doesn’t help that I’m halfway through a reread of The Great Divorce and keep hoping every chapter that one dang ghost will listen to the spirit attending them! My reading is amplifying the liminality in parts of my life right now and it’s killin me 😂
I was coming here about the mispronunciation too 😂 The “i” clearly comes before the “r” every time in the book! I have a good friend named Kirsten (“KEER-sten”) so I think it was especially making me crazy! 🤪
Thank you! Mispronouncing Kirsten's name was driving me crazy!
lol me too!
Thank you for this podcast! I loved hearing a more critical review of the book and Sean’s perspective helped me have some words to what I felt while reading the book. Personally, I didn’t enjoy the book which is exceedingly rare from a close reads list! But hearing the conversation I’m learning so much on how to “close read”. As Heidi says, this is why we read in community! Thanks so much!
I agree, it was not my favorite book. I am glad I read it, since I have always heard so much about it. Also, reading with the podcast helped me to see it in a different way.
I am so interested in these conversations! I recently finished Station 11 and was captivated by the storytelling but also felt like it was missing something. I felt similarly after reading Sea of Tranquility last year. But, like Heidi, these books haunt me which makes me think there is something deeper there.
Also, are you guys going to chat about the TV show? It is so different. We aren't finished yet, but I would love to hear you guys talk about it!
Kelsie, I hope they do talk about the tv show. I just finished watching it, after I finished the book. I don't think I have ever read a "successful book" and a "successful tv show" that are so different. (I am using successful as defined by popularity and awards...I know a weak judgment but I had to use something.) I would be curious if people liked the tv show?
I really enjoyed the book and REALLY disliked the tv series. I didn’t finish it. I don’t mind changes to a booked to adapt to the medium of film or TV, but I felt like the series missed the point of the book altogether.
Perfectly put! I think it’s one of the more fascinating adaptations I’ve seen. Quite different, but in ways that makes sense for each medium.
About the moral center. This might sound harsh, but I have read all six of her novels, and I really like them all, but I am not sure that Mandel has a moral center.