I finished the book today then listened to the first 3 episodes. You ended by asking what haven't we covered and i want to answer that.
I liked part 3 most for many reasons you covered. The one that you didn't was the part where Bevel said "i did all of this on my own" and Ida confronts him. She reminds him that he said that Mildred saved him and he got things and $ from his family.
I was proud of her for confronting him. No one does anything alone. No one is a true island.
But do we believe this actually happened ? Ida seems to revel in herself when she's contradictory. Do we believe this?
Did anyone notice a physical resemblance between Ida and Mildred? I don't recall what Mildred looked like, but Ida does mention how she noticed she looked similar to the other finalists for the position of biographer. Do you think her physical appearance and similarities were helping Andrew recreate Mildred in the image he desired? (I am only halfway finished listening to the episode, so my apologies if you discussed this and I haven't gotten there yet.)
Marinading on the book after this recent episode and one thing I have not heard mentioned is the similarities or seeming overlayment of Ida and Mildred (Helen Rask). Both were heavily influenced by their fathers who were outcasts of society; both are socially awkward / socially aloof to those around them; both find their power through their writing; and in some ways both achieve things their fathers only hoped to realize. I am suspicious of all the characters, as I believe is the point, but particularly Mildred and Ida. Does this similarity cause us to read between the lines into our interpretation of Mildred through what is revealed about Ida?
I also wonder at how part 1 hardly enters the discussion anymore? I think there is much more of the store revealed there than we initially think.
The importance of and possible clues that lie in the characters names was touched upon in this episode as it relates to Bevel. I find it not accidental the author of the novel ‘ Bonds’ is named Harold (a herald?). Ida’s name aptly means work - clearly the family virtue her father held in high esteem, but Partenza means ‘departure’. Ida’s narratives (attributing part 2 to her as well) is a departure from the novel but is it also a departure from the truth? Mildred means gentle strength which would not be more fitting for her characters.
!(Contains spoiler)!
Last thought; but if Bevel could pay to have Vanner’s book eradicated from the library, how would he overlook the important detail of allowing Mildreds journals to survive just because her writing was hard to read? Surely he would have gotten rid not them if they held the evidence they did? I do not think their surviving is a mistake and wonder if they survived because Harold Vanners conclusion about Helen was accurate. Who cares what a crazy women writes in her journals.
I don’t have any answers but these are the thoughts still swirling around my head after listening to this episode.
c) Ida’s ‘fake autobiography’ she wrote to throw off the thug hired by Jack.
I don’t have a paper copy of the book (as of yet) and I’m not going to have time to re-listen to Parts 2&3 to draw an educated conclusion. #lazy and reaching out to closer readers than me!
Can someone be both a fool and a villain? Is a fool somehow protected from all sense of motive, whereas a villain has a clear motive? Can someone’s foolishness have villainous effects on the world?
I found Heidi's antipathy to Ida quite startling as my own reaction was rather warm. I've been thinking about that and I think in general my propensity is to like a narrator and to trust them and they have to really push hard to get me to dislike them.
Andrew Bevel's voice was off putting. He's so pompous and so clearly self justifying. Ida's voice felt like a relief after Part 2. I can see why she's not reliable in many ways, but I still like her.
Oh yes, Andrew Bevel is clearly the easy target of the book. It’s just that I think it’s more complicated than that. I certainly think it’s a false dichotomy to say I “like” Bevel and “dislike” Ida. I don’t “like” (or trust) either of them necessarily, but I sure love the book & enjoy the wonderful complexity of the competing narrative voices and interpretations.
I wasn't trying to imply a dichotomy on your part. The bit about Bevel was more my trying to elucidate my own first impressions of the two narrative voices.
But I did think it was pretty clear that your reaction to Ida was strongly negative and that felt in strong contrast to my reaction to her. And that was interesting to me as a reader. I just didn't have such a negative reaction to Ida or her worldview or her actions.
And it's not even really Andrew's voice. When she tried to write in the way he presented himself, he was unsatisfied with that perception, so she had to create a version of him that his distorted perception of himself would support.
True. But you don't know that when you are first reading Part 2. I was mostly meaning my first impressions as I read. My first impression of the narrator of Part 2 was dislike. My first impression of the narrator of Part 3 was warm and friendly. I very much wanted to like her.
So did Ida make him pompous and self-justifying purposely? If she's the author of Part 2, was she just and fair? Or is the point that we can't really know someone through another?
Oh I think Ida definitely makes him pompous and self justifying on purpose. She's trying to make him sound like the Great Man he wants to be. I think it's impossible for us to really know if she's being just to him. Anymore than we can know if the narrator of Part 1 is being just or unjust. I think that's the point. We don't know how far we can trust the narrator to paint a true portrait. Especially when Ida herself tells us she's creating a voice and a persona for Bevel-- not just one but at least two different ones.
After Part 4, my question is did we get from anyone a fair characterization of Bevel? Everyone seems to have made him look bad, but it seems more like pomposity and self-justification by the (questionable) writers.
I don't think we do because, at least according to Ida, he never cared to write his own account of himself. Of course the novel also makes me ask: can we ever be certain we are getting a fair characterization of anyone? Because even autobiography has a strong incentive for the author to paint themselves in a favorable light.
I loved loved loved this conversation! I read the book a while back and clearly didn’t pay enough attention. The back-and-forth between all of you has cracked the book wide open for me! Not only that, but hearing you all work out ideas in “real time”, with each other, is much more interesting (maybe “rewarding” is a better word?) than listening to a discussion where you all play off the same ideas. This episode might be on my Mount Rushmore of Close Reads Episodes.
Does anyone have some examples from the text of Ida’s emotions clouding the narrative, and where she’s being heavy-handed? I’m wondering if one’s response to Ida (trusting/distrusting her; liking/disliking her) says something about the reader’s own perspective in a way that, say, one’s response to Andrew Bevel doesn’t.
I think I thought of her as audience representation in some way (which doesn’t make her trustworthy), but there’s a sense in which she’s inserting herself into a story that’s not her own and seeing herself in the characters. Is that not what readers tend to do? And in another sense, of course she’s also a layer and a part of that story in ways she doesn’t understand.
If my response to both is “I hate that guy”, then why does “hatred” of feminism, for example, say something about me but my “hatred” of unbridled capitalism doesn’t? That seems to be the implication of what the original question asked.
My question was coming from a place of noticing a mixed reaction to Ida when everyone seems pretty set on Bevel (including the author). Maybe I should have worded my question as, is there a reason from the text to have a variety of responses to Ida’s narration? That’s why I asked for examples from people who see her as heavy handed or clouding the narrative — I want to see it too. It’s just something I want to think about in light of this helpful conversation!
I think the distinction is that Andrew Bevel is the object and Isa is the agent—she’s the author of her story & his. I don’t think it’s because Isa represents feminism and Andrew Bevell represents capitalism. The point is that she’s the writer, and all interpretations in those two sections are filtered through her.
Which I think is a valid point, although I think that we can’t separate the ideologies they represent from the personal interpretations/perspectives in the story. Which makes it more complex.
To David’s point, I think the narrative voice is the story just as much as the content.
Ah! Now I see. I abstracted the question too much…and I forgot that it’s not actually Bevel writing part 2. I think I misunderstood that when I read the book - I think I thought that part 2 was Bevel’s “original draft” and that Ida came in to fix that. So when I read the book initially I thought it was 4 different narrators - I remember thinking that he stole Ida’s story, not that she had put her own story into the book she was writing. I guess I didn’t read closely enough! (side note: can Bevel be a fool AND a villain? Does it have to be either/or?)
Having one narrator for two parts - but in two different “voices” - absolutely adds to the complexity.
Personally, I think the whole project of the book is to identify that we all have our own responses to each of them. I think the point is the interpretation. Isa herself is all interpretation in the guise of memoir.
And I missed that the first time I read it. I was just so grateful for a new perspective that I trusted her too much. Thanks so much for your spirited discussion/debate, which now has me reading book 2 in a whole new light, seeing Ida's hand therein.
I finished the book today then listened to the first 3 episodes. You ended by asking what haven't we covered and i want to answer that.
I liked part 3 most for many reasons you covered. The one that you didn't was the part where Bevel said "i did all of this on my own" and Ida confronts him. She reminds him that he said that Mildred saved him and he got things and $ from his family.
I was proud of her for confronting him. No one does anything alone. No one is a true island.
But do we believe this actually happened ? Ida seems to revel in herself when she's contradictory. Do we believe this?
Did anyone notice a physical resemblance between Ida and Mildred? I don't recall what Mildred looked like, but Ida does mention how she noticed she looked similar to the other finalists for the position of biographer. Do you think her physical appearance and similarities were helping Andrew recreate Mildred in the image he desired? (I am only halfway finished listening to the episode, so my apologies if you discussed this and I haven't gotten there yet.)
I came to this same conclusion.
Listening this morning and cracking up at the disagreements! Makes it fun. :)
I was NOT liking this conversation.
Ida was the only character I felt I could trust!
In discussing this book with a friend, she reminded me of Mozart's sister, who was possibly more talented than he was, and no one knows about her.
Some thoughts:
Marinading on the book after this recent episode and one thing I have not heard mentioned is the similarities or seeming overlayment of Ida and Mildred (Helen Rask). Both were heavily influenced by their fathers who were outcasts of society; both are socially awkward / socially aloof to those around them; both find their power through their writing; and in some ways both achieve things their fathers only hoped to realize. I am suspicious of all the characters, as I believe is the point, but particularly Mildred and Ida. Does this similarity cause us to read between the lines into our interpretation of Mildred through what is revealed about Ida?
I also wonder at how part 1 hardly enters the discussion anymore? I think there is much more of the store revealed there than we initially think.
The importance of and possible clues that lie in the characters names was touched upon in this episode as it relates to Bevel. I find it not accidental the author of the novel ‘ Bonds’ is named Harold (a herald?). Ida’s name aptly means work - clearly the family virtue her father held in high esteem, but Partenza means ‘departure’. Ida’s narratives (attributing part 2 to her as well) is a departure from the novel but is it also a departure from the truth? Mildred means gentle strength which would not be more fitting for her characters.
!(Contains spoiler)!
Last thought; but if Bevel could pay to have Vanner’s book eradicated from the library, how would he overlook the important detail of allowing Mildreds journals to survive just because her writing was hard to read? Surely he would have gotten rid not them if they held the evidence they did? I do not think their surviving is a mistake and wonder if they survived because Harold Vanners conclusion about Helen was accurate. Who cares what a crazy women writes in her journals.
I don’t have any answers but these are the thoughts still swirling around my head after listening to this episode.
Question: Is Part 2:
a)Andrew Bevel’s own autobiography
b)Ida’s ‘autobiography’ she wrote to please him
c) Ida’s ‘fake autobiography’ she wrote to throw off the thug hired by Jack.
I don’t have a paper copy of the book (as of yet) and I’m not going to have time to re-listen to Parts 2&3 to draw an educated conclusion. #lazy and reaching out to closer readers than me!
I say b!
B or c, but definitely not a. Wait 'til you get to Part 4!
Can someone be both a fool and a villain? Is a fool somehow protected from all sense of motive, whereas a villain has a clear motive? Can someone’s foolishness have villainous effects on the world?
I found Heidi's antipathy to Ida quite startling as my own reaction was rather warm. I've been thinking about that and I think in general my propensity is to like a narrator and to trust them and they have to really push hard to get me to dislike them.
Andrew Bevel's voice was off putting. He's so pompous and so clearly self justifying. Ida's voice felt like a relief after Part 2. I can see why she's not reliable in many ways, but I still like her.
Oh yes, Andrew Bevel is clearly the easy target of the book. It’s just that I think it’s more complicated than that. I certainly think it’s a false dichotomy to say I “like” Bevel and “dislike” Ida. I don’t “like” (or trust) either of them necessarily, but I sure love the book & enjoy the wonderful complexity of the competing narrative voices and interpretations.
I wasn't trying to imply a dichotomy on your part. The bit about Bevel was more my trying to elucidate my own first impressions of the two narrative voices.
But I did think it was pretty clear that your reaction to Ida was strongly negative and that felt in strong contrast to my reaction to her. And that was interesting to me as a reader. I just didn't have such a negative reaction to Ida or her worldview or her actions.
But it’s not actually Andrew Bevel’s voice - it’s Ida-as-Bevel who writes part 2.
And it's not even really Andrew's voice. When she tried to write in the way he presented himself, he was unsatisfied with that perception, so she had to create a version of him that his distorted perception of himself would support.
Melanie covered this well above, but I missed it.
True. But you don't know that when you are first reading Part 2. I was mostly meaning my first impressions as I read. My first impression of the narrator of Part 2 was dislike. My first impression of the narrator of Part 3 was warm and friendly. I very much wanted to like her.
So did Ida make him pompous and self-justifying purposely? If she's the author of Part 2, was she just and fair? Or is the point that we can't really know someone through another?
Oh I think Ida definitely makes him pompous and self justifying on purpose. She's trying to make him sound like the Great Man he wants to be. I think it's impossible for us to really know if she's being just to him. Anymore than we can know if the narrator of Part 1 is being just or unjust. I think that's the point. We don't know how far we can trust the narrator to paint a true portrait. Especially when Ida herself tells us she's creating a voice and a persona for Bevel-- not just one but at least two different ones.
After Part 4, my question is did we get from anyone a fair characterization of Bevel? Everyone seems to have made him look bad, but it seems more like pomposity and self-justification by the (questionable) writers.
I don't think we do because, at least according to Ida, he never cared to write his own account of himself. Of course the novel also makes me ask: can we ever be certain we are getting a fair characterization of anyone? Because even autobiography has a strong incentive for the author to paint themselves in a favorable light.
I loved loved loved this conversation! I read the book a while back and clearly didn’t pay enough attention. The back-and-forth between all of you has cracked the book wide open for me! Not only that, but hearing you all work out ideas in “real time”, with each other, is much more interesting (maybe “rewarding” is a better word?) than listening to a discussion where you all play off the same ideas. This episode might be on my Mount Rushmore of Close Reads Episodes.
Riveting conversation, thanks!
Does anyone have some examples from the text of Ida’s emotions clouding the narrative, and where she’s being heavy-handed? I’m wondering if one’s response to Ida (trusting/distrusting her; liking/disliking her) says something about the reader’s own perspective in a way that, say, one’s response to Andrew Bevel doesn’t.
I think I thought of her as audience representation in some way (which doesn’t make her trustworthy), but there’s a sense in which she’s inserting herself into a story that’s not her own and seeing herself in the characters. Is that not what readers tend to do? And in another sense, of course she’s also a layer and a part of that story in ways she doesn’t understand.
Why would one’s response to Ida say something about one’s own perceptions, but one’s response to Bevel wouldn’t?
They would. That’s the point!
But why? Maybe I am misunderstanding the question.
If my response to both is “I hate that guy”, then why does “hatred” of feminism, for example, say something about me but my “hatred” of unbridled capitalism doesn’t? That seems to be the implication of what the original question asked.
My question was coming from a place of noticing a mixed reaction to Ida when everyone seems pretty set on Bevel (including the author). Maybe I should have worded my question as, is there a reason from the text to have a variety of responses to Ida’s narration? That’s why I asked for examples from people who see her as heavy handed or clouding the narrative — I want to see it too. It’s just something I want to think about in light of this helpful conversation!
I think the distinction is that Andrew Bevel is the object and Isa is the agent—she’s the author of her story & his. I don’t think it’s because Isa represents feminism and Andrew Bevell represents capitalism. The point is that she’s the writer, and all interpretations in those two sections are filtered through her.
Which I think is a valid point, although I think that we can’t separate the ideologies they represent from the personal interpretations/perspectives in the story. Which makes it more complex.
To David’s point, I think the narrative voice is the story just as much as the content.
Ah! Now I see. I abstracted the question too much…and I forgot that it’s not actually Bevel writing part 2. I think I misunderstood that when I read the book - I think I thought that part 2 was Bevel’s “original draft” and that Ida came in to fix that. So when I read the book initially I thought it was 4 different narrators - I remember thinking that he stole Ida’s story, not that she had put her own story into the book she was writing. I guess I didn’t read closely enough! (side note: can Bevel be a fool AND a villain? Does it have to be either/or?)
Having one narrator for two parts - but in two different “voices” - absolutely adds to the complexity.
Thanks for replying!
Personally, I think the whole project of the book is to identify that we all have our own responses to each of them. I think the point is the interpretation. Isa herself is all interpretation in the guise of memoir.
And I missed that the first time I read it. I was just so grateful for a new perspective that I trusted her too much. Thanks so much for your spirited discussion/debate, which now has me reading book 2 in a whole new light, seeing Ida's hand therein.