-
Welcome
to BookAndReader! We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
April 2013: Erin Morgenstern, The Night Circus
- Thread starter Polly Parrot
- Start date
It used to be like that, yes. It's just that I've only just taken over BOTM from Landslide so it was all a bit unexpected which meant there was very little time for me to put up a thread; but I will get suggestion and voting threads up earlier as we go along.
I'm still reading. I'm a little busy and reading two books simultaneously so it's a slow progress.
Peder
Well-Known Member
That's good news. Slow and steady wins the race.
Love your tag line re Pickwick Papers.
Anyone else?
Meadow337
Former Moderator
It used to be like that, yes. It's just that I've only just taken over BOTM from Landslide so it was all a bit unexpected which meant there was very little time for me to put up a thread; but I will get suggestion and voting threads up earlier as we go along.
Aha LOL
Me didn't know that Sheesh only TWO? Why sometimes I do at least 6 impossible things before breakfast
@Peder, sorry I didn't respond to your well laid out synopsis. It is an interesting concept that this novel is more like a play in structure however I would hate to see this performed on stage, it would be even more impossible to follow the story as characters would wander on stage, say a few lines that bear no apparent connection to anything that just happened and then disappear again
However in the interests of fairness I will attempt to give this another read. Sometimes books require a second read to 'get' them (although I am generally of the opinion that if it is impossible to 'get' anything the first read then the author has failed in their task of relating a comprehensible story - whatever the format). I will just finish the books I'm currently reading and then give this another go.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Hi Meadow,
My more detailed notes are within a sentence or two of completion and may make things clearer. I benefited greatly from rereading the book -- which I do whenever I reread a book -- and saw sub-themes which I didn't fully credit on first reading; the book has a greater coherence than I thought. As for stage presentation, I now think opera might be even more appropriate. The visuals of settings and costumes would help with sorting out characters and keeping sub-plots in mind. As to sub-themes, they are there, in the words, and can be identified with close reading (or declamation in an opera). Hope you do get to reread the book. I think it will make a lot more sense for you.
My more detailed notes are within a sentence or two of completion and may make things clearer. I benefited greatly from rereading the book -- which I do whenever I reread a book -- and saw sub-themes which I didn't fully credit on first reading; the book has a greater coherence than I thought. As for stage presentation, I now think opera might be even more appropriate. The visuals of settings and costumes would help with sorting out characters and keeping sub-plots in mind. As to sub-themes, they are there, in the words, and can be identified with close reading (or declamation in an opera). Hope you do get to reread the book. I think it will make a lot more sense for you.
Meadow337
Former Moderator
I doubt it, but I'm willing to try
Actually I'm a bit bored with the book I'm reading - so maybe I will start later today.
Meadow337
Former Moderator
Ok so I got as far as reading the chapter headings when a few of the headings struck me as possibly having meaning in terms of tarot (the author is heavily into tarot).
1. La Bateleur: London, May - June, 1884 - is 'The Magician' card
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magician_(Tarot_card)
2. Darkness and Stars could refer to a specific pattern to read Tarot cards called 'Dark Star'
4. Truth and Dare - could refer to a layout / reading 'Truth or Dare' or 'Yes or No'. There is also a book called "Tarot: Truth or Dare" by Brian David Phillips
5. The Contortionist's Tattoo: London, September, 1885 - the contortionist is found on an Italian tarot deck
http://cartomanzia.precaria.org/index-eng.html
6. Horology: Munich, 1885 and the constant clock imagery throughout is a basic tarot layout with 12 cards in a circle at the same places as the numbers on a clock.
7. Fire and Light - associated with some cards as well as being one of the 'elements' present in Tarot
8. Part II - Illumination - not only the goal of tarot readings, but the name of a deck.
9. The Hanged Man - another card
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanged_Man_(Tarot_card)
10. Oneiromancy is the divination of the future through dream interpretation. Tarot is just one system of divination amongst many.
11. Rêveurs: 1891 - 1892 - Translation "Dreamers". Tarot deck for interpreting dreams is the The Mystic Dreamer Tarot.
12. Cartomancy - divination with a pack of cards of which tarot is a specialised pack.
13. Wizard in the Tree - another reference to the 'Hanged Man' card.
14. Labyrinth is another 'famous' tarot deck
15. Ailuromancy: Concord, Massachusetts, October 1902 - Divination through studying the movement of cats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailuromancy
16. The Lovers - a well known Tarot card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lovers
17. Thirteen - the title of a book "Thirteen's Tarot Card Meanings"
18. 3 Cups of Tea with Lainie Burgess: London, Basel and Constantinople, 1900 - 3 of cups is a tarot card
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_of_Cups
Soooooooooooooo I think that this is possibly the way to understanding the themes and tropes of the novel and pretty much why I'm not going to attempt to read it again. Some things I choose to remain ignorant of. This is one of them.
1. La Bateleur: London, May - June, 1884 - is 'The Magician' card
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magician_(Tarot_card)
2. Darkness and Stars could refer to a specific pattern to read Tarot cards called 'Dark Star'
4. Truth and Dare - could refer to a layout / reading 'Truth or Dare' or 'Yes or No'. There is also a book called "Tarot: Truth or Dare" by Brian David Phillips
5. The Contortionist's Tattoo: London, September, 1885 - the contortionist is found on an Italian tarot deck
http://cartomanzia.precaria.org/index-eng.html
6. Horology: Munich, 1885 and the constant clock imagery throughout is a basic tarot layout with 12 cards in a circle at the same places as the numbers on a clock.
7. Fire and Light - associated with some cards as well as being one of the 'elements' present in Tarot
8. Part II - Illumination - not only the goal of tarot readings, but the name of a deck.
9. The Hanged Man - another card
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hanged_Man_(Tarot_card)
10. Oneiromancy is the divination of the future through dream interpretation. Tarot is just one system of divination amongst many.
11. Rêveurs: 1891 - 1892 - Translation "Dreamers". Tarot deck for interpreting dreams is the The Mystic Dreamer Tarot.
12. Cartomancy - divination with a pack of cards of which tarot is a specialised pack.
13. Wizard in the Tree - another reference to the 'Hanged Man' card.
14. Labyrinth is another 'famous' tarot deck
15. Ailuromancy: Concord, Massachusetts, October 1902 - Divination through studying the movement of cats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailuromancy
16. The Lovers - a well known Tarot card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lovers
17. Thirteen - the title of a book "Thirteen's Tarot Card Meanings"
18. 3 Cups of Tea with Lainie Burgess: London, Basel and Constantinople, 1900 - 3 of cups is a tarot card
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_of_Cups
Soooooooooooooo I think that this is possibly the way to understanding the themes and tropes of the novel and pretty much why I'm not going to attempt to read it again. Some things I choose to remain ignorant of. This is one of them.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Well, well, well! Great catch, Meadow! The thought of such connections would never have entered my mind. Sorry that that is enough to do it for you. I doubt there will be any discussion of the Tarot here -- unless of course someone might turn up with actual knowledge of the Tarot deck and be able to connect it in a detailed way to the story of the Night Circus. That might actually be interesting, even if some of us might have to avert our gaze.
pontalba
Well-Known Member
Very interesting meadow. I wouldn't have known that, although like most on the planet I knew a few names, i.e. The Lovers and The Hanged Man. hmmm Well, I did read that Morganstern has a fascination with tarot. That in itself can make me look at the book with a bit of a different eye.
As far as reading or rereading the book...it isn't as though we are playing the cards, we are simply analyzing the structure of the book. But it's nice to know the source of her titles. As far as I can see the book isn't "pushing" the tarot. But if it makes you uncomfortable, of course, you shouldn't continue.
As far as reading or rereading the book...it isn't as though we are playing the cards, we are simply analyzing the structure of the book. But it's nice to know the source of her titles. As far as I can see the book isn't "pushing" the tarot. But if it makes you uncomfortable, of course, you shouldn't continue.
Meadow337
Former Moderator
There is always a reason for things even if not immediately obvious. On the surface of it this is the kind of book I should absolutely love. Circus, fantastical constructs, complex reading. But when I read the extract on Amazon my reaction was "Yuck!" Then it was chosen for the BOTM and I really wanted to join in the discussion. I mean HELLO! how can an avid reader turn down a chance to discuss BOOKS with other readers indepth! So I bravely decided to ignore my first impression and although I zipped through the first 3/4 of the book, I just could not get into it. Not even the flights of description moved me and quite honestly I got so bored with it I skipped to the end.
FYI I didn't read any of the information I gave above LOL google is a wonderful thing - it gives you summaries on the search which are very useful when searching for 'yucky' information. It often tells you enough without you having to actually open and read stuff.
Knowing what I now 'know' about the book, I would put forward the suggestion that the entire reason there is no apparent plot, no beginning and no end, and it just merely continues is that it is meant to be a dream, one which the reader brings their own interpretation to. You are supposed to 'divine' the meaning relevant to you.
Which means that if Peder wants to see it as a play existing within the structure of a play, that is a valid interpretation for her, just as my interpretation it is a load of old hoeey with no meaning is valid for me. People who just see the love story - well that is what is valid for them.
I bet that if you just coldly tore the book to shreds and plotted each character, their motivation, their actions etc you would see that it is in fact random with no inherent meaning. You THINK there is meaning because there must be meaning, and thus you bring your own interpretation because humans are very good at seeing patterns even where none exist.
FYI I didn't read any of the information I gave above LOL google is a wonderful thing - it gives you summaries on the search which are very useful when searching for 'yucky' information. It often tells you enough without you having to actually open and read stuff.
Knowing what I now 'know' about the book, I would put forward the suggestion that the entire reason there is no apparent plot, no beginning and no end, and it just merely continues is that it is meant to be a dream, one which the reader brings their own interpretation to. You are supposed to 'divine' the meaning relevant to you.
Which means that if Peder wants to see it as a play existing within the structure of a play, that is a valid interpretation for her, just as my interpretation it is a load of old hoeey with no meaning is valid for me. People who just see the love story - well that is what is valid for them.
I bet that if you just coldly tore the book to shreds and plotted each character, their motivation, their actions etc you would see that it is in fact random with no inherent meaning. You THINK there is meaning because there must be meaning, and thus you bring your own interpretation because humans are very good at seeing patterns even where none exist.
Peder
Well-Known Member
Meadow,
I have no intention to change your mind. Your opinion is as it is, and these discussions are indeed for sharing our opinions, in addition to whatever other conversation we may choose to have about a book. You have a low estimation of my own opinion, thinking it is not informed by any objective content of the book or its reading, and I'm not sure what to do about that. I don't feel that any success will come of offering justification for why I see the book as I do. You have concluded it is plotless and without structure. I think otherwise. Let's just leave it at that.
Sincerely and most respectfully,
Peder
I have no intention to change your mind. Your opinion is as it is, and these discussions are indeed for sharing our opinions, in addition to whatever other conversation we may choose to have about a book. You have a low estimation of my own opinion, thinking it is not informed by any objective content of the book or its reading, and I'm not sure what to do about that. I don't feel that any success will come of offering justification for why I see the book as I do. You have concluded it is plotless and without structure. I think otherwise. Let's just leave it at that.
Sincerely and most respectfully,
Peder
Trudging on. Up to about 140 pages now. The prose is starting to annoy me even more. I am used to disorganised and seemingly plotless novels (studied modernism, so, err, yeah, no plots a lot of the time) but they always managed to keep me captivated through the use of language and the different allusions one may infer from the words used.
As for Morgenstern, however, the prose is rather clunky, especially when the narrative focuses on Bradley. When the narrative shifts to either Celia or Marco the prose becomes a little less clunky and more appropriate to the illusions described in those passages. Unfortunately, however, the passages dedicated to Celia or Marco are a little repetitious, the same type of events or items are described (another amazing artist who can bend over backwards, dinner plates that are filled with the most mysterious foods, etc). I can understand how Morgenstern would want to be able to sort of identify the different characters with a different type of narrative but the way she uses this just doesn't work for me.
As for Morgenstern, however, the prose is rather clunky, especially when the narrative focuses on Bradley. When the narrative shifts to either Celia or Marco the prose becomes a little less clunky and more appropriate to the illusions described in those passages. Unfortunately, however, the passages dedicated to Celia or Marco are a little repetitious, the same type of events or items are described (another amazing artist who can bend over backwards, dinner plates that are filled with the most mysterious foods, etc). I can understand how Morgenstern would want to be able to sort of identify the different characters with a different type of narrative but the way she uses this just doesn't work for me.
pontalba
Well-Known Member
I recently saw a post on another forum that mentioned Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell as being somewhat similar to Night Circus, and Morgenstern is evidently known to be a fan of JS&MN...anyone can give credence to that?
Polly, I'd agree her prose is not smoothly done, but at least she is fairly clear on her points. I did rather get tired of some of the descriptions.
Polly, I'd agree her prose is not smoothly done, but at least she is fairly clear on her points. I did rather get tired of some of the descriptions.
Ronny
Well-Known Member
I guess there are some similarities, now that you mention it. Rival magicians being the biggest one. I really liked Jonathan Strange, though
Maybe because we got more into the characters there. I had a big gap between the two so I didn't pick up on any sameness, now I may have to see.