I thought for the book club, we could start out with several questions just to start the ball rolling.
Feel free to ask your own questions of your fellow readers. We might actually wind up with one of those discussion things.
Answer which ever of these Q's you like. Here goes:
1) The protagonist, William Henry Devereaux Jr was a difficult child by his own admission. What tone did the prolugue set for the rest of the novel?
2) Occam's razor is a philisophical theory that says one should make no more assumptions than needed or when multiple explanations are possible, choose the simplest. William's dog is named Occam and he refers to it alot. What role does the theory play in the story?
3) There are several references to Catholic characters and none appear to be flattereing. What is Russo trying to say there? Is a lack of spirituality part of Devereaux's mid life "crisis"?
4) Deveraux's character seems to use humor as a way to keep people at a distance. Yet he worries about being taken seriously by those who know him and aggravating those who dont. Your thoughts?
5) Does his relationship with his colleagues seem realistic?
I think the prologue is him admitting that he's still that difficult child. He still goes jogging after having a cold and doesn't listen to his wife that it'll make him sicker. He doesn't know when to keep his mouth shut and I think ultimately is really all that surprised when he gets a spiral bound notebook upside the face.
Oh, I thought of another question: What, if anything, have you learned from the book so far? I've read many books from a male's perspective, but I feel like with this book, I actually understand why my husband does some of the things that drive me nuts. And, I'm beginning to understand what my parents might think of me now that I've grown up and am out on my own. I'm still trying to figure out if I'm Karen or Julie, or maybe a little of both.
ok, i don't want to be a bummer, but here's a couple of answers:
#5--I don't think his relationships with his colleagues seem realistic. Like how Rourke could kill him at any moment, and how Gracie socked him in the face and impaled her notebook in his nose???? if that happened in real life, she'd be in jail. i just don't get it. Are people really that psycho and i just don't know?
#7--I'm not enjoying it at this point as much as I'd like--- but i will say, MZ: your positive additue will keep me reading. I think it will get better.....
Plus, i really didn't think he deserved to be smacked in the face by Gracie. He wasn't being that mean. and i would NEVER hit one of my coworkers. maybe i'm a whimp. but i never even have confrontations with them. But maybe it is that he is in a school setting and that isn't as professional? I don't know
4) I see what you are saying about humor. But as the straight shooting man that he is it is only in his character to use his humor on people that don't know him well as well as those who do. I think it is only after he says/does something along these lines w/ someone he doesn't know that well that he worries that he might have upset them. But he really isn't comfortable dealing w/ people any other way.
As far as using humor on people he knows - he is serious at times when he needs to be. But I think he uses his humor to lighten the mood. Or to get himself out of an akward situation.
fav character- of course, the main character is very likeable and I was about to like Rachel until Russo describes her throwing up problem - my theory is that most of the women are unlikeable.
So I'm just cracking up at Billy the drunk -"you peckerhead" plus he was described as a good working type person. So I'm going w/ him for my fav.
And I am definitely enjoying the book. I don't usually read funny books so it's a good switch for me.
It is interesting that the book illustrates that all the seeds for todays problems were planted in the past. They take time to grow. The sad thing is we dont know we're planting them a good deal of the time. By the time we are dealing with those problems, we dont understand where they came from.
Hartz- good ? That same ch. touched home for me a lot. When I was first married, we bought a house we couldn't afford. People didn't really say anything after we bought it. But before we bought it my parents were urging me just to get an apt. So I've got a view into what my parents thought - kind of.
I think Russo's style of writing is to be overdramatic (I know there's a word for this, but I just can't think of it at the moment) about the characters. The main character simplifies everything down, mostly for comic effect. You have to learn not to take anything he says seriously, which really does describe the main character.
Yeah, I think I'm really leaning toward Julie at the moment. I haven't bought a house, but I know my parents haven't been happy with some of my decisions. I'm still wondering if they like my husband or not. I know they didn't like him when we were dating because he didn't have a job. And, I did need their help to buy my car because I didn't have any credit.
1) I think the author’s reference to him being a difficult child was more tongue in cheek to the fact that he really didn’t have a childhood to be a child for. I can’t recall now – did he say he was a difficult child or did he recall his parents saying he was difficult? It would be more appropriate to say that he had difficult parents. I mean, reading the encyclopedia at his father’s feet? I was disappointed at his mother’s choices after a marriage of indiscretions followed by abandonment, from doing the age math, when the main character was ten. I can’t tell whether in general the author sees women as strong, weak or if in fact he’s pointing out that every character has the penchant for both.
2) With Occam, it goes back to what I was saying in the other post. He does a good job of replying to people only after stripping the original comment/question of any manipulation or secondary agenda – he doesn’t get hoodwinked. If he was desperate for a dog in his youth, he was probably desperate for simplicity – and probably still is, only now in a work environment, where it’s nearly impossible.
3) I must’ve missed the spirituality parts of the book…
4) I have to say ACK, at this point, because my mind is still in partial weekend mode. ..
JennyCat – I’d have to say people really are that psycho, and if you goad someone enough on a personal level, they’re going to wig out. I did it once in the middle of a 9th grade class – getting up and decking a kid in the back of the class who wouldn’t stop tormenting me. And I’m the most non-confrontational person I know… If she’s threatened about losing her position, being ousted by a poet (does anyone recall, do they have a poet now?), I think the stress plus goading might have caused her to aim at smacking him in the face with the notebook and accidentally snagging the wire.
as far as the spiruality issue, its just that his comments tend to be negative when he talks about it, so I just took it as an inference that he has little use for it.
Hi guys. I am sorry I missed class yesterday. I was deathly ill all weekend and I didn't make it to the office yesterday. I see what I missed. Very enlightening. Now, would someone please tell me what the next assignment is, ie through chapter 10 or were we not finished here yet?
__________________
Stop trying to be what you see. Be what you ought to be.
AAAAAAHHHHHH mZ, your on 666 posts! hurry up and make a new one!
we have the best book store in Portland. it is a full city block and 3 levels. i got our book there. I went yesterday and got another book. but i can read them both at the same time...
Just a reminder. We will be discussing the book club's selection, Straght Man by Richard Russo, on Monday June 12th.
Discussion will cover chapter's 6-12 (p 69-129). One thing that might help get the ball rolling is if everyone came up with a couple of questions or insights. Things that you noticed or things that could have improved the story. Maybe just a question about the story. Half the fun of sharing a good book is talking about it.
