After The Party was May's book of the month.
“Had it not been for my weakness, someone who is now dead could still be alive. That is what I believed and consequently lived with every day in prison.’
It is the summer of 1938 and Phyllis Forrester has returned to England after years abroad. Moving into her sister’s grand country house, she soon finds herself entangled in a new world of idealistic beliefs and seemingly innocent friendships. Fevered talk of another war infiltrates their small, privileged circle, giving way to a thrilling solution: a great and charismatic leader, who will restore England to its former glory.
At a party hosted by her new friends, Phyllis lets down her guard for a single moment, with devastating consequences. Years later, Phyllis, alone and embittered, recounts the dramatic events which led to her imprisonment and changed the course of her life forever.”
We were very confused initially as to which party the book was referring to. We all thought it was going to be about a death and were just waiting for the party, during which the death would take place, to happen. Except it didn't. Or it did, if you count Sarita's party. However at that point it became apparent that really the book was not about a death or a champagne fuelled gathering at all.
We discussed whether we thought this was deliberate by Connolly and if so why? All it seemed to do was confuse us which we didn't really appreciate.
We also thought there were one or two errors in the text. Not to be hypercritical but Heffalump only appeared in Milne's 1926 book. How then could a grown woman with teenage children in 1936 have been called it in her childhood?
The British Union Party was obviously discussed with quite a few of us knowing very little. This was made all the more confusing by the text constantly referring to 'the Leader' 'him' or 'Tom'. When you know next to nothing, it is very difficult to google 'political summer camp in 1930s' and come away any the wiser. We discussed whether this was to do with the perception of the party as a whole - Britain's dirty little secret - but covering up was not something that Phyllis seemed to be doing. She still after all admitted to being proud to celebrate the Leader's birthday every year.
The main sticking point for the group however was with the characters. We just didn't like any of them, particularly Phyllis. We found her too passive with the one time she actually did anything (proposition Jamie) back firing as he had found someone else! We found it very unjust that Nora didn't get her comeuppance and thought all the surrounding characters (and Sarita's party) pointless.
We commented that the book dragged despite it being quite brief, although we had all read it, and just couldn't get away with the depressing ending.
We awarded it a 5.5
“Had it not been for my weakness, someone who is now dead could still be alive. That is what I believed and consequently lived with every day in prison.’
It is the summer of 1938 and Phyllis Forrester has returned to England after years abroad. Moving into her sister’s grand country house, she soon finds herself entangled in a new world of idealistic beliefs and seemingly innocent friendships. Fevered talk of another war infiltrates their small, privileged circle, giving way to a thrilling solution: a great and charismatic leader, who will restore England to its former glory.
At a party hosted by her new friends, Phyllis lets down her guard for a single moment, with devastating consequences. Years later, Phyllis, alone and embittered, recounts the dramatic events which led to her imprisonment and changed the course of her life forever.”
We were very confused initially as to which party the book was referring to. We all thought it was going to be about a death and were just waiting for the party, during which the death would take place, to happen. Except it didn't. Or it did, if you count Sarita's party. However at that point it became apparent that really the book was not about a death or a champagne fuelled gathering at all.
We discussed whether we thought this was deliberate by Connolly and if so why? All it seemed to do was confuse us which we didn't really appreciate.
We also thought there were one or two errors in the text. Not to be hypercritical but Heffalump only appeared in Milne's 1926 book. How then could a grown woman with teenage children in 1936 have been called it in her childhood?
The British Union Party was obviously discussed with quite a few of us knowing very little. This was made all the more confusing by the text constantly referring to 'the Leader' 'him' or 'Tom'. When you know next to nothing, it is very difficult to google 'political summer camp in 1930s' and come away any the wiser. We discussed whether this was to do with the perception of the party as a whole - Britain's dirty little secret - but covering up was not something that Phyllis seemed to be doing. She still after all admitted to being proud to celebrate the Leader's birthday every year.
The main sticking point for the group however was with the characters. We just didn't like any of them, particularly Phyllis. We found her too passive with the one time she actually did anything (proposition Jamie) back firing as he had found someone else! We found it very unjust that Nora didn't get her comeuppance and thought all the surrounding characters (and Sarita's party) pointless.
We commented that the book dragged despite it being quite brief, although we had all read it, and just couldn't get away with the depressing ending.
We awarded it a 5.5
Comments
Post a Comment