Reading the Chunksters discussion
Archived 2015 Group Reads
>
Reading Schedule for The Luminaries
Looks good! See you on the 20th to discuss Section 1 of Part 1 :) Thanks!
Looking forward to it! See you all on the 20th!
Thank you, Zulfiya! This looks great!Just got this from the library (yay Overdrive!) and am looking forward to reading it with you lot!
I saw that this book would be hard to divide in parts... great job! And I hope it's as interesting as it sounds, looking forward to it:)
I'm sure the mathematical intricacies will fly right over my head, but I'm happy to finally try this novel out. Thank you, Zulfiya, for the schedule. I think fall is the perfect time for a chunkster.
Holy Cats this book is a chunkster all right. Not familiar with this 2013 book... Why did people nominate it, why/how is it supposed to be good? etc. Just wondering.
I already started and can't wait to discuss with someone who understand more of the astrological signs, because I am confused already! I'm excited, though :)The section 11/18-11/27 also includes section "Cardinal Earth" right before the "Month Without a Moon," just FYI. I only saw it because I'm having to go through page by page to break the sections down in my book (yes, I'm the weirdo who has to put bookmarks in to mark the sections from the very beginning so I know where to stop!)
Part IV is about 160 pages long...we may end up wanting to break that down in half. But depends how we feel when we get there. We might be going right along and want to fly through it!
Alana wrote: "Part IV is about 160 pages long...we may end up wanting to break that down in half. But depends how we feel when we get there. We might be going right along and want to fly through it!"I could be wrong, but isn't that why we're given 10 days for some of these sections...To accommodate the number of pages?
Thank you, Ami. That was my point. Some sections are long, and that is why the schedule features 10 and 7 days sections. Which section is 160 pages, Alana? None of this should be this big, but I might have made a mistake. Let me know, and I will try to change the schedule.
That was 2013 Man Booker prize. Bonnie, I nominated the book because I've been wanting to read it ever since it came out and to my surprise a lot of people also wanted to read it in the group, so here we are. It's historical, takes place in New Zealand in the XIXth Century during the Gold Rush (the author is from New Zealand).I believe Alana is referring to part IV in the book... which is pages 623 to 717 in my copy, so not too long at all for 10 days. Frankly, the schedule is a bit too long as it is (I don't think Christmas is a good discussion time and I hoped we'd have a break then). So maybe let's not prolong it further now? We'll see how it goes :).
Yes it was section IV, which is twice as long as the other sections. My edition probably has more pages so it may not be 160. Not a big deal, I just noticed it was significantly longer than all the other sections. Like I said, we may be flying along and more than ready for a long section by then! :-)
OK, I didn't check the other sections so I'm sure you're right and it's longer. Anyway, I can't wait to start reading :)
I went ahead and started...I got so behind on the last book that I figured I'd start a little early.
Great job of working out the sections. I'd better go and download a copy from my library. Last time I checked they had a spare copy. As the first section is so long I think I'll get started early as well.This book hasn't really been on my 'must read' radar at all which is surprising considering it's a NZ writer. Probably if I'd been living in NZ at the time I'd have heard a lot more fuss being made about it.
Omg, she believes in astrology!. No wonder I haven't heard about the book; my literary countrymen would have been too embarrassed to mentioned it!Er. Pardon to anyone here who does. Sorry.
Ami wrote: "Nicola wrote: "Omg, she believes in astrology!. No wonder I haven't heard about the book, my literary countrymen would have been too embarrassed to mentioned it!Er. Pardon to anyone here who do..."
My literary countrymen Ami. My friends and old work colleagues who actually read books and who I would have expected to be very excited about her. Not a peep out of them. I'm quite sure others were excited but not living in the country I wasn't reading the papers or listening to the news. I only keep up to date with what's current if an event is considered important enough to relate in emails, fb posts or Skype. This apparently wasn't. Which, as I said, might be explained due to her views on astrology. I'll ask.
P.S. Apparently though she doesn't 'believe' in astrology she just takes it 'very seriously'.
No spoilers but looking at the structure of the book I have picked up from Internet comments that there are 12 chapters/parts (as per the zodiac signs) but that each chapter is further divided up into parts which, when added together, make 13. So Chapter 1 has 12 parts, chapter 2 has 11 and so forth, down to chapter 12 which has just the one. The first part is the longest with 360 pages (360 degrees = a circle/full moon). The other parts decrease in size, following the waning of the moon. I'm sure most people already know that but if anyone doesn't, especially my fellow e-book readers and audio listeners as it's less obvious for us, it's something to be on the look out for as the number 12 and the 12 + 1 = 13 structure comes up in other places.
It's given me a new appreciation of the cover as well with its 12 phases of the moon.
More non spoiler comments regarding the structure of the book:At one level, Catton’s The Luminaries is an old-fashioned mystery. It is a pacey and beautifully written tale of love, lust, greed and murder, following Edinburgh-born Walter Moody trying to make his fortune during the gold rush on the west coast of New Zealand’s South Island in 1866.
At another level, however, the structure of The Luminaries is based upon astrology. Yes, astrology. But the tome is far more complex than Mystic Meg’s column. Catton used charts from Sky & Telescope and a software program called Stellarium to plot the stars and planets during the course of when the narrative takes place, with characters linked to the heavenly bodies. There are 12 “stellar” characters who correspond to the Zodiac signs and seven “planetary” characters, all grounded by the “earth” character, Crosbie Wells, the murdered man whom the mystery revolves around.
One could be forgiven for thinking this means The Luminaries has a patchouli-scented MBS airy-fairiness about it, but it does not. The structure lends the novel a beguiling complexity, yet one can still enjoy the story itself without knowing, or caring a fig, about the astrology behind it.
Catton came up with the idea when she was thinking about doing a NZ gold rush story and started reading about star signs. “I previously had a rudimentary understanding of how astrology works,” she says. “But I became really taken with the idea that what it is fundamentally about is there is no truth except for truth in relation: nothing is objectively true, something is only true compared to something else.”
She was delighted to discover a “triple conjunction in Sagittarius, three planets in the same sign” around the time she had been planning to set the novel. “As I tracked it over the year, I could see that certain planets were following each other and it set me to thinking about how I could put that into a story. Mercury, which is a planet that governs reason, was following just behind all the other players of the action. So I could build this narrative that the person who is trying to unravel the mysteries is one step behind it all.”
My mum read the book and recommended it to me, and she does not care one whit about astrology. She even commented that the book was very good but she thought the astrology part was totally unnecessary.
Teanka wrote: "My mum read the book and recommended it to me, and she does not care one whit about astrology. She even commented that the book was very good but she thought the astrology part was totally unnecess..."I tend to get shamefully excited over intricate plotting, hidden meanings in things and easter eggs hidden in places ;-) It won't mean I'll like a book if I don't find it entertaining at its core but it will certainly put a delicious icing on an already tasty cake.
I know it's not to everyones taste.
Oh you're right that it's better to uncover the hidden meanings of the book. It's only that I wanted to point out that this book might be interesting also to people who don't like astrology. I hope we find all the hidden easter eggs and discuss them in our threads.
I have my Kindle version downloaded and ready to go. I am looking forward to reading this book with the group.
Maybe we can list the Zodiac signs and their meanings/attributes, someplace? It might be useful.Right now I don't have a clue about Zodiac signs. ;)
I was just talking about this book with a friend today. I told her I may have to go get it and she offered to let me use her BN discount card for it.
Teanka wrote: "Oh you're right that it's better to uncover the hidden meanings of the book. It's only that I wanted to point out that this book might be interesting also to people who don't like astrology. I hope..."This book is a beast, Teanka...I had no clue?
Mekki wrote: "Maybe we can list the Zodiac signs and their meanings/attributes, someplace? It might be useful.Right now I don't have a clue about Zodiac signs. ;)"
I know the zodiac signs and can remember most of the their attributes but I have no idea about the significance of things like 'mercury rising'. I did pick up a few things in my searchings though which relates to the chapters of the book and the various themes. I didn't post them because I thought they might be considered spoilers ahead of the reading.
Nicola wrote: "Ami wrote: "Nicola wrote: "Omg, she believes in astrology!. No wonder I haven't heard about the book, my literary countrymen would have been too embarrassed to mentioned it!Er. Pardon to anyone..."
My literary countrymen Ami.
Yes, I caught that Nicola. I deleted my comment immediately after posting, if you noticed because I answered my own question and also realized...I really didn't care in the end. LOL! Thank you for the in depth reply, however. :)
Nicola wrote: "No spoilers but looking at the structure of the book I have picked up from Internet comments that there are 12 chapters/parts (as per the zodiac signs) but that each chapter is further divided up i..."Thank you for the explanations! That makes the structure make a bit more sense... I'll admit, when I was looking at the chapter layouts it was a bit overwhelming. As long as I don't have to mathematically track all of it, I should be ok, lol.
How interesting to construct a novel not only with the overall plot in mind, but also set it out in that specific of a structure. I'm curious to see how the astrology plays out in the story itself (and how the structure works into the plot).
Nicola wrote: "No spoilers but looking at the structure of the book I have picked up from Internet comments that there are 12 chapters/parts (as per the zodiac signs) but that ...I'm sure most people already know that but if anyone doesn't,"
I'm one who had no idea about any of that. I only know that there are 12 astrological signs because they were part of ancient Greek culture and religion. Have no idea how modern astrology works.
Is it going to be central to the book, or is it more a background landscape feature? Or is it too early to ask that question? (Or is this the wrong place to ask it??)
Ami wrote: "This book is a beast, Teanka...I had no clue? "One of the things that may be interesting to discuss as we get into the discussion is whether the length is essential to its value, or whether it could have benefited from a good editor and cutting room. Some chunksters are that because a diminished book wouldn't have had the power and value of the length; others, at least IMO, just become wearisome and at about page 500 one wonders whether it's worth keeping on. Will be interesting to see with this.
I also would love to know, though we never will, whether all the Man Booker judges who voted for it actually read (not skimmed, but read) the complete book!
Everyman wrote: "Ami wrote: "This book is a beast, Teanka...I had no clue? "One of the things that may be interesting to discuss as we get into the discussion is whether the length is essential to its value, or w..."
One of the things that may be interesting to discuss as we get into the discussion is whether the length is essential to its value, or whether it could have benefited from a good editor and cutting room.
It's funny you mention this point as I touched on the same notion in my preliminary post for Week 1 discussions. After reading the first forty-five pages, and progressing through the rest of the reading, I have a feeling; but would rather explore a little further to be conclusive and revisit it in the discussion threads when you join in...You are participating in this one? :)
I also would love to know, though we never will, whether all the Man Booker judges who voted for it actually read (not skimmed, but read) the complete book!
Oh boy! My gut tells me it "has" to be a little bit of both, don't you think? LOL!
Is it going to be central to the book, or is it more a background landscape feature? Or is it too early to ask that question? (Or is this the wrong place to ask it??)
Everyman, it hasn't even fazed my reading as to the astrological component...It can only enhance the reading experience if you want to delve further into the connection, and considering the size of the book, I would really just like to get through the content without the hassle-It's pretty good so far! Also, each section is given a brief bullet as to what we are going to encounter in the proceeding narrative; so once you figure out what aspect of the astrological chart each character embodies, it's good enough to help navigate through the uncharted waters. Another reader also mentioned ...Well, take a look at Message 25 & 27.
Ami wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Ami wrote: "This book is a beast, Teanka...I had no clue? ""Great thoughts. Yes, I'm hoping to participate on this one (have to read it on Kindle, which I don't like doing for big books, but the library copy is out until October 10, and when I do get it I'll have to return it long before the end of the read). Things are happening in my life that interfere significantly with reading time, but the pace seems slow enough that I hope to keep up, and the discussion quality so far is very encouraging -- that's key for me to keep me interested in reading a book I wouldn't normally read.
Everyman wrote: I also would love to know, though we never will, whether all the Man Booker judges who voted for it actually read (not skimmed, but read) the complete book!
Apparently they all read it 3 times and voted it unanimously as the winner. Going off of that I feel pretty sure that it was read closely.
Everyman wrote: that's key for me to keep me interested in reading a book I wouldn't normally read. True. You never read contemporary do you? Is this going to be the exception which proves the rule?
Although I suppose the setting isn't contemporary.
Just got this from the library so I will be catching up soon. Boy, the hardback addition is quite large --- no need for an arm works out if I need to carry this anywhere ;-)
Nicola wrote: "Everyman wrote: that's key for me to keep me interested in reading a book I wouldn't normally read. True. You never read contemporary do you? ."
Well, not very often for fiction. But I do sometimes wallow in modern mysteries, and this is a mystery, so I guess it isn't really breaking the rule! [g]
I got the audio version of it from the library (the actual book was out), and it's an amazing 24 disks -- 29 hours 33 minutes. But considering that the read goes from 9/20 to 1/7, I make that 11 weeks, or 77 days, I could finish it listening to an average of 12 minutes a day. Not too bad!
Nicola wrote: "Apparently they all read it 3 times and voted it unanimously as the winner. Going off of that I feel pretty sure that it was read closely."
Wow. When you consider the amount of intellectual commitment that represented on the part of the group of judges ...
Everyman wrote: "Nicola wrote: "Apparently they all read it 3 times and voted it unanimously as the winner. Going off of that I feel pretty sure that it was read closely."
Wow. When you consider the amount of in..."
Kind of makes you wonder if they reread it "3" times for the sheer love of it, or because they were looking for specific aspects missed on the first endeavor...I seriously doubt it would be the former because of time constraints, don't you think? It's about six judges, for around 151-6 books, and if they're rereading...Then that's an average of 172 book in a matter of what...five to six months? Even if you consider the fact that they arbitrate every twenty to thirty books...It's a heavy toll to reread a novel of this taking "three" times. I would want to know the specifics of why they chose to read it, not once but three times. Yes, talk about commitment. :)
Ami wrote: Kind of makes you wonder if they reread it "3" times for the sheer love of it, or because they were looking for specific aspects missed on the first endeavor...I seriously doubt it would be the former because of time constraints, don't you think? It's about six judges, for around 151-6 books, and if they're rereading...Then that's an average of 172 book in a matter of what...five to six months? Even if you consider the fact that they arbitrate every twenty to thirty books...It's a heavy toll to reread a novel of this taking "three" times. I would want to know the specifics of why they chose to read it, not once but three times. Yes, talk about commitment. :) ..."Can't they be the same thing? The Luminaries is a complex book and maybe, like myself, they like teasing out the intricacies of the work and hunting for anything they have missed.
I actually thought that it might be standard practice and that every short listed is read three times i.e. once to determine the Long List, once to determine the Short List and once to pick the winner but judging from what I've gleaned off of the internet that might possibly have some basis in truth, I'm not 100% sure though. It can't be quite that organised, there were 151 books on the Long list.
That being so, I can't imagine all of the judges reading it 3 times 'just because' and then taking two hours to unanimously declare it the winner if they didn't really like it.
The chair of judges Robert Macfarlane described the book as a “dazzling work, luminous, vast”. It is, he said, “a book you sometimes feel lost in, fearing it to be 'a big baggy monster', but it turns out to be as tightly structured as an orrery”. Each of its 12 chapters halves in length which gives the narrative a sense of acceleration. It is not, however, an extended exercise in literary form. Macfarlane and his fellow judges were impressed by Catton's technique but it was her “extraordinarily gripping” narrative that enthralled them. “We read it three times and each time we dug into it the yields were extraordinary, its dividends astronomical.” The Luminaries is, said Macfarlane, a novel with heart. “The characters are in New Zealand to make and to gain – the one thing that disrupts them is love.”
Will readers be put off by the book's bulk? “No”, was Macfarlane's emphatic response. “Length never poses a problem if it's a great novel. The Luminaries is a novel you pan, as if for gold, and the returns are huge.” Although he did also point out that “those of us who didn't read it on e-readers got a full-body workout from the experience”.
Nicola wrote: "Ami wrote: Kind of makes you wonder if they reread it "3" times for the sheer love of it, or because they were looking for specific aspects missed on the first endeavor...I seriously doubt it would..."It can't be quite that organised, there were 151 books on the Long list.
What can't be that organized... Their process?
Ami wrote: What can't be that organized... Their process? ..."That's what I thought due to some articles I read. But, the totals do add up and they did say that all short listed books have been read at least twice. So perhaps 3 reads is more standard than not.
Maybe they have a list that they all read once, then pick their top ten and re-read, then their top three, and read again? There couldn't possibly be time otherwise? And I'm sure after that initial read there's at least SOME skimming, whether they admit it or not! But, maybe they all really just enjoyed it that much!If only I could get paid to read all the time....
I am so behind on this book... I am really hoping to catch up (or at least read more) this weekend, but I am currently studying for my professional exams, so we shall see if I have time. It's too bad because I am really enjoying this book!
Well, I have to admit that I gave up on The Luminaries. It just wasn't interesting me much, and a family issue has limited my reading time greatly in the past few weeks, so it's one of the books that got laid aside, probably for good. Sorry not to be able to contribute to a book discussion here until January, one of the detriments of chunksters being that if you drop out of a book you sort of drop out of the group for quite awhile, but life is what it is.
I extend my best wishes to those sticking with the book and, I hope, enjoying it and enjoying discussing it. I may be glancing through the posts from time to time, but that's about it.
Please read carefully and bookmark the parts in advance to avoid confusion :-)
NB - I used semicolons to separate the names of the chapters; so, if you see a comma, it is a part of the name.
Part I
09/20 - 09/30 (10 days) Mercury in Sagittarius; Jupiter in Sagittarius
10/01 - 10/10 (10 days) Mars in Sagittarius; Saturn in Libra; Midnight Dawns in Scorpio
10/11 - 10/21 (10 days) Moon in Taurus, Waxing; Sun in Capricorn
10/22 - 10-31 (10 days) Medium Coeli; True Node in Virgo; Venus in Capricorn
11/01 - 11/07 (7 days) Conjunctions; Mercury in Sagittarius
Part II
11/08 - 11/17 (10 days) Ecliptic; Aries in the Third House; Jupiter in Sagittarius; Mercury in Capricorn; The Lesser Malefic; Sun in Aquarius; Saturn in Libra
11/18 - 11/27 (10 days) Mars in Capricorn; A Month Without a Moon; Venus in Aquarius
Part III
11/28 - 12/04 (7 days) Mercury in Aquarius; Sun in Pisces; Saturn in Virgo; Venus in Pisces; Jupiter in Capricorn
12/05 - 12/11 (7 days) Moon in Aries, Crescent; Mars in Aquarius; NGA Potiki A Rehua; The Greater Malefic; Equinox
Part IV
12/12 - 12/21 (10 days) Part IV
Parts V, VI
12/22 - 12/31 (10 days) Parts V, VI
Parts VII - XI
01/01 - 01/07 (7 days) - Parts VII, VIII, IX, X, XI
I hope this schedule does not look confusing. Please let me know if I can do something to change the schedule or change the date when we can start. And again - some names of chapters contain commas; as a result, I used a semicolon to separate the names of chapters