Book Nook Cafe discussion

What's this? A Buddy Read ! All are welcome to join in. It is also the NY Times/ PBS NewsHour selection for November

What book? A Separation

Author: Katie Kitamura
Katie Kitamura is based in New York and London. She has written for numerous publications, including The New York Times, Wired and the Guardian. She was a finalist in the 2010 New York Public Library Young Lions Fiction Award for her debut novel, The Longshot. Her second novel Gone to the Forest was published to widespread critical acclaim, and was a book of the year in both the Financial Times and the New Yorker.
• Birth—1979
• Where—California, USA
• Education—B.A., Princeton University; Ph.D. London Consortium
• Currently—lives in New York, New York


When: We will be discussing this book all November.

Where: The entire discussion will take place in this thread.

Spoiler Etiquette:
Please put page # or Chapter # at the top of your post and the words SPOILER.

Book Details:
- The book is available in all formats: hardcover, paperback, eBook & audio.

Paperback: 240 pages
Publisher: Riverhead Books

Synopsis:A young woman has agreed with her faithless husband: it's time for them to separate. For the moment it's a private matter, a secret between the two of them. As she begins her new life, alone, she gets word that her ex-husband has gone missing in a remote region in the rugged southern Peloponnese. Reluctantly she agrees to go and search for him, still keeping their split to herself. In her heart, she's not even sure if she wants to find him. Adrift in the wild and barren landscape, she traces the failure of their relationship, and finds that she understands less than she thought about the man she used to love.A story of intimacy, infidelity and compassion, A Separation is about the gulf that divides us from the lives of others

Discussion questions from www.litlovers.com

-- QUESTIONS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS !


1. What kind of woman is the narrator of the book—how would you describe her? Why do you think the author decided not to give her a name? At one point the narrator tells us about her work as a literary translator: "translation's potential for passivity appealed to me." What does that statement say about her?

2. When Christopher's mother calls wondering where he is, why doesn't the narrator tell her mother-in-law that the two have gone their separate ways? What holds her back from sharing this information? And why does she decide to head to Greece in search of him, even though she is reluctant to do so?

3. What atmosphere does the Greek village of Gerolimenas convey? Consider the blackened hills and empty hotels, the faceless saints and stray dogs. How does this setting help create the novel's mood? And what is that mood?

4. What was your reaction when you learned where Christopher was? Were you shocked?

5. What do we learn about the narrator and Christopher's relationship: it's beginning, middle, and it's ultimate end? What kind of emotional harm have they inflicted on one another? In what ways do you discern the narrator's hidden (repressed?) anger despite her outwardly detached personae?

6. What do you make of Christopher? Katie Kitamura never gives him the opportunity to speak for himself. Mostly, what we get of him comes through an unflattering portrait presented to us by the narrator. Is she a reliable, or fair, judge of her husband?

7. As she finds herself on the shore of the Mediterranean, the narrator muses about men's proclivity for infidelity:

Now, they no longer went away—there was not, at least for most of them, a sea to roam or a desert to cross, there was nothing but the floors of an office tower, the morning commute, a familiar and monotonous landscape…it was only on the shores of infidelity that they achieved a little privacy, a little inner life.

Does that mean she forgives Christopher his incessant straying?

8. Follow-up to Question 7: What other ruminations on marriage does the narrator engage in? In her view, for instance, what does marriage mean to wives that it does not, or cannot, mean to husbands? Do you have any thoughts about...well, the narrator's thoughts? What are your thoughts surrounding marriage?

9. Discuss the narrator's final encounter with her in-laws and what she comes to realize about their marriage? How did she see them at first, and how does she see the two in light of her own failed relationship?

10. What does the novel's title, "Separation," refer to? How many kinds of separation are there in this story?

11. What does the narrator come away having learned? Has she changed by the novel's end? What do you predict for the new relationship she is returning home to?

I didn't get far in reading today but will tonight!

I am still waiting for my library branch to get my copy. I am hoping I will get it by Monday.

I'm not tearing through it the way i thought i would. It's easy to read, though, a tad confusing because the character is thinking through conversations. There have been two times in the first 50 pages wherein i have to go back a page or two to see who was actually talking. Other times, i just didn't care enough.

From what I have heard the author writes with comma splices. Perhaps to indicate stream of conscious or to indicate speed ?

I hope my library has it for me on Monday.

End of Chapter 4.

The nameless narrator went into her reaction to the opera Billy Budd (based on Herman Melville's novel Billy Budd, Sailor) and ended sounding like an apologist for philandering men! Her premise is that they no longer have wide, unexplored seas and lands to conquer. Then she concludes those thoughts with this--"It was only on the shores of infidelity that they achieved a little privacy, a little inner life, it was only in the domain of their faithlessness that they became, once again, strangers to their wives, capable of anything.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? How do you get privacy within an affair? Throughout these chapters i begin to feel that she is in denial of how much of her husband's charisma she is still hooked onto.

The way she sums up people she has barely met bugs me, too. There is too much intellectual exploration of them without much basis. She seems to presume that she can tell which women he bedded, including the hotel employee Maria. She has done it with other people as well and in each case i see nothing other than her thoughts to indicate she is anywhere near correct. I suspect that any attractive woman she meets is deemed bedmates for her husband. Frankly, it's quite bothersome. I'm hoping that this will somehow play into the overall theme or title.

Finally, while describing her husband’s fascination with mourning professionals in Mani she tells us that he’d never lost anyone to death in his life. Then, she mused, “But at the same time, I thought I could perceive the shadow of a man who had lost something or someone very dear to him, even a man who had at one point lost everything, in his voice—ironic and cool with distance--there was the intimation of some unseen depth.”

To me, this sounds like part of the charm/charisma that he held for women, allowing them to think there was more depth to him than there was and that they alone can see it. Something akin to a person who has learned that crying draws future lovers into their web, so it becomes part of the seductive role they play. Maybe.

I'll be interesting in reading your thoughts on this.

I was able to pick it up at my library today. I hope to get in a bit of reading tomorrow. However, as you know I am a slow reader !

For me, it was fairly easy to read, although not compelling. As noted originally, the fact that at times it's hard to tell who is being quoted is the hardest part.

madrano wrote: "I suspect that any attractive woman she meets is deemed bedmates for her husband. ..."

The mom says this about her son, too.

I finished the book. I didn't like the writing style. The nameless narrator was beyond annoying. She over analysed everything.
Without the quotation marks, sometimes I didn't know if this was just her thinking what might be or it was a real conversation.

I am giving it a 2/5 rating.

I will post more in the coming days. I had to get up at 3:30 to work the elections so I am pooped.

I wanted to add that the narrator seemed to way over analyze every single thing. What were people thinking? What were their motives?What did they do or not do and why? It drove me nuts. Then she would posit all different scenarios. Often I just wanted to yell at her and say, Just ask the person what they thinking or doing. It was beyond annoying to me.

Did you finish the book, yet, Deb ?

You are a trooper to get up that early to work the polls! We took a late shift but after early voting the last 2 weeks, this was a breeze.


ENTIRE BOOK--ALL CHAPTERS

I'm relieved to learn i'm not alone in feeling the way i did about the writing. For some reason i couldn't come up with the very term you did, which is perfect--she over analyzed EVERYTHING! I kept wondering if there was some message there but unless it's that she drove her husband crazy with her analytic ways, i don't know what the message could be.

It's sad that i didn't even notice/miss the fact that the narrator had not been given a name. I just didn't care. The NYTimes/PBS selection was a gift to her, i must say. That the book was relatively short was her gift to the readers. :-)

I was probably 40 pages from the end when i began to care a bit about the story, which is why i managed to finish it yesterday. Not solving the murder didn't bother me at all. I think that was mentioned in some of the GR reviews, which surprised me more than the lack of criticism about the rest of the book.

I was intrigued by bits and wonder, as question 3 suggests, about them. Why was the black of the burned landscape included? Why the faceless chapel? Why the swim in the sea? I was seeking a connection or understanding on why the author included them but have trouble. Is it that the landscape most people would come to see was now burnt and black? Symbolism? The faceless saints in the chapel was fascinating but did it have something to do with the narrator perhaps not having a personality, if her writing is any indication? Was the intention of the swim to illustrate she was stronger than other people tended to think? I'm lost on finding significance which works with the text. Must i fill in those blanks?

One thing the questions above do not cover, which i found disturbing, was her meeting with the professional mourner. What did you think about that? It was bad enough that she created her husband's pretense for her own. I and even understand why she felt she had to agree to interview Stefano's aunt. But somehow i felt it was an intrusion to ask the Aunt to sing a mourning song. Of course i understand the curiosity but i would have felt it was inappropriate to ask. Would you? At least she left some money for her!

I wish I could find a thread for the author's choices.

Speaking of the professional mourners, a few years ago at Greenwood cemetery in Brooklyn, I believe you visited there on your New York trip, one day they had international dancers that were stationed various gravestones and memorials that were related to their performance. For example at the Korean memorial they did a dance that was related to that culture.

One of the performances was for Italy. They had a women dress in black doing the professional mourning draped over a casket like monument. It actually was quite moving.

Here is the author discussing her book.

Katie Kitamura, "A Separation"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2i0m...

Even the author's reading is flat almost monotone.

madrano wrote: I was seeking a connection or understanding on why the author included them but have trouble. Is it that the landscape most people would come to see was now burnt and black? Symbolism?..."

I thought the burnt landscape, empty hotel, faceless saints and stray dogs was symbolic of the general economic brake down in Greece. It's also noted that people are moving away as there are no jobs. So in the end when the police don't really seemed surprised that a tourist has been murdered in a robbery, it is just part of the general decay of society.

Anyway, with the mourning book he was writing etc. it all gives the air of desperation and decay.

Perhaps like their marriage?

I am not sure if I missed something. The wife goes to Christoper's room and finds it in total disarray, which is out of character for him. I thought this was a clue in the crime but unless I missed something it is never explained why he would leave the room like that.

Regarding the meal she has with Christopher's mistress. Who does this? I found the whole idea and the conversation very bizarre. It was almost like she was a reporter interviewing someone for a story. It was like it was about someone else and not her husband. She was so distant.

And then you have the mistress ordering the most expensive items off the menu and the narrator saying she deserves this type of behavior from the mistress. What?? The mistress also shows no shame. Again, it didn't make sense to me. The wife should be the aggrieved party.

And even though they were separated she barely can summon up any emotion when he goes missing. I just don't get it.

I just got an idea about her being a translator. It's almost how she does everything. She runs everything though her internal translation analysis. Much like a translator has to do to find the correct word or meaning. Much of what we see of this character is all internal dialog as she tries to make sense of what people are doing and saying.

Maybe that is also why she isn't given a name. She is a blank slate that other's words find meaning. She has no voice of her own. Maybe that is why the author has her constantly trying to figure out the facial expressions, actions and words of others.

I think I am reaching to find meaning where I am not sure there is any or any that I can discern.

What a great offering at Greenwood cemetery. I'm sorry i didn't see that but am glad you shared about it.

The author talk at the book store was instructive for me. I see what you mean about the way she read from it--almost disengaged, which is how i read the narrator's words. I appreciate that you shared it.

I suppose you are thinking along the right lines of the missing faces, charred hills, etc. We were there last year and, while the prices were more affordable for us, we didn't feel that sense of reflection about the economy that she may be expressing. I'll think about that some more. I must admit, however, that there is a sense there (not that particular area but other outlaying towns) that things have been decaying for awhile. My interpretation of that was that they were comfortable with "less"--less pristine homes, less concern with appearances, and less commercialism that we have.

You ask a good question about his room. The narrator never reflects back on that after we learn of his death. What the?! For me, it's still a sort of mystery of why this discovery and dismissal is included. Perhaps he was expressing a freedom--are we learning more about how tense things were in their marriage, that he would be messy once out of her control. Just guessing.

Yes! Who would invite a woman she decides made love to another woman's husband to dinner? And, in return, why would this "mistress" feel she can order the most expensive dishes? It was all rather bizarre but allows us to see more about the narrator as she works up a vision of what she believes the woman & Christopher shared.

Alias Reader wrote: "I just got an idea about her being a translator. It's almost how she does everything. She runs everything though her internal translation analysis. Much like a translator has to do to find the corr..."

I suspect that you are onto something there. I took notes on what she wrote about translating books/articles in chapter 10, “being faithful to the original, an impossible task because there are multiple and often contradictory ways of being faithful, there is literal fidelity and there is in the spirit of, a phrase without concrete meaning."

Does this echo the way she's been processing for readers all she's shared? Is she exploring the multiple meanings? Is she faithful to the spirit of her husband or is she being brutal, a result of her sense of betrayal? I don't know but i don't think the character knew either.

I really like what you wrote, Alias, about a reason the author may not have given her narrator a name. I agree with that statement.

In Chapter 11 the narrator states, “It was easier to mourn a known quantity than an unknown one…we even protected that illusion...At a certain point, if we were to encounter a diary with the record of the dead ones".

Do you agree? I'm wondering if i am just a nosy person or what because i would read the diary of a dead person i knew. (Heck, i'd probably read the diary of someone i didn't know--that IS nosy!) My reading would be to try to see if what i think they were or what they were thinking/writing were, in fact, close or not. I've only had a couple of opportunities to do so and each time i remain haunted by what i read. (Full disclosure, in both cases the "diary" was not even a full page long. Indeed, these were the only morsels of writing either person left behind.)

This and other points have me wondering whether or not i might have liked the novel better if i were a similar personality to the narrator. Would i be singing praises because she alit on thoughts i'd had and expressed them well? I suppose i'll never know.

madrano wrote: "Do you agree? I'm wondering if i am just a nosy person or what because i would read the diary of a dead person i knew.."

I would read it. Though depending how close the relationship is, I can see how it could be quite painful. Somethings are better off not known.

I guess the point of this book, as best as I can ascertain, is that we never really know another person. We all have this internal dialogue that we don't really share 100%. I would suspect that many, if not most people, don't explore their own internal dialogue. Perhaps people who have to be busy or with others and actually hate being alone fall into this group more. Many need the TV, radio or something to distract them from their internal dialogue. I do this on occasion, too.

Maybe it's why many find meditation so difficult. Many who try to meditate are astonished to find they have what is called a "monkey mind" that jumps from one topic to the next every minute. It's very difficult to maintain a meditative state. That is why people are instructed to first try to mediate for a minute then build their practice time from that.

When I do meditate, I find it easier to follow a guided meditation. It helps to keep my focus. I use the app Insight Timer. It's free and has about 10,000 styles of meditation and music that you can choose from.

Until i heard the author talk on the link you shared, i honestly didn't think that a theme was about how well we really know another person. I can see it, of course, but to me the book was more about how this woman believed she knew about her husband but also other people (Maria, in-laws, etc.)

In my opinion if that is what Kitamura wanted readers to walk away from, this reader would have benefited from the introduction of Real Thoughts from her husband's mind/mouth. Do we know for sure that she was off target in her thinking? The only thing which truly baffled her was his messy hotel room--everything else she seemed to find understandable.

It's quite possible (again) that i missed things leading to my bafflement.

Re. meditation. I am with you on guided meditation. Alone, with silence or even solely music, i am either jumping topics or falling asleep. But with guided meditation i am more on target, if not often surprised where i end up! To be fair i haven't tried in a number of years, though.

Here is another Q& A at a bookstore.

I thought the questions are better in this interview.

Katie Kitamura on A Separation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw7n_...

I do find that when I listen to authors discuss their books, even books I didn't care for, I find I get a lot more from the book than I did before.

This still isn't a book I would recommend. However, I now can see the appeal to others. I also understand what the author was trying to accomplish.

There is one thing I did want to comment on from the last interview I posted. They mention the humor in the novel.

I didn't find anything humorous. I found it morose and dark.

I suspect that if a reader were in a certain mood there is humor there. As i read it, i could almost imagine that something might seem amusing but that she hadn't set it up right. I'm not sure that makes sense, worse because i cannot recall where i am thinking this was true. I think some of her unspoken suppositions could be considered humorous, however.

I listened to part of the YouTube talk you shared but don't have the patience for more. However, she read the opening passage & it reminds me of one of my first thoughts about her mother-in-law. Given the opening phone conversation, if you were Isabella would you wonder if the narrator was involved in Christopher's death? I mean, the woman was told the couple would be together in Greece (& why did he tell her that?) and that Narrator claimed not to know where he was would stick in my craw once i found out he was murdered. Of course we don't know that Isabelle didn't.

While i didn't listen to the entire book store conversation, i must say i like the way this was presented. The interview sort of exchange adds much for me. One of the most important is that in some ways an interviewer can help other readers figure out some things, imo.

While i am not a fan of the book, there were a couple of thoughtful comments or observations which called to me. For instance, in Chapter 5, Stefano lets slip, after observing him & Maria in the hotel lobby with their odd discussion, that he knew she was married. Then the narrator suggests, “he knew that he had broken a code, the tacit understanding that underscores our social interactions, whereby we pretend we do not know what we in fact do know.” I was intrigued by this because it's not a notion i remember running across in fiction previously. (Maybe i'm not reading the right books?) I'm wondering what you think of this idea? Frankly, i've done something similar but usually because i want to hear the other person's side of a story.

Another moment i found curious is in Chapter 8. We live in an age, she believed, where “people took photographs of themselves all day long…The effect…:the artifice of photography had infiltrated our daily lives. We pose all the time, even when we are not being photographed at all.” This may be an example of something some readers found amusing, now that i think about it. For me, i thought it was something true but which i hadn't verbalized previously.

In the opening of chapter she imagines what her father-in-law is thinking, when he sees Stefano, “This is the kind of man who killed my son”. I wonder if the vast majority of her thoughts shared are her own rejected ideas, either inappropriate or already considered & discarded. Did you feel that way at all? Some of her "observations" were so opposite anything i'd have, that i began to consider this more & more by that point in the novel.

I see i have a couple of other observations but will save them for a later time.

madrano wrote Given the opening phone conversation, if you were Isabella would you wonder if the narrator was involved in Christopher's death? I mean, the woman was told the couple would be together in Greece (& why did he tell her that?) and that Narrator claimed not to know where he was would stick in my craw once i found out he was murdered. Of course we don't know that Isabelle didn't...."

Do you mean was Isabella involved with his death ? The hotel said he was already missing upon her arrival.

madrano wrote: Then the narrator suggests, “he knew that he had broken a code, the tacit understanding that underscores our social interactions, whereby we pretend we do not know what we in fact do know.” Frankly, i've done something similar but usually because i want to hear the other person's side of a story.
."

I can see this being done if someone (A) told you a secret about person ( B ). You find yourself talking to B and they tell you the secret. You wouldn't want to let on that you already knew and that A had betrayed B's confidence.

I think I have the A-B correct... LOL

madrano wrote: “people took photographs of themselves all day long…The effect…:the artifice of photography had infiltrated our daily lives. We pose all the time, even when we are not being photographed at all.” This may be an example of something some readers found amusing, now that i think about it. For me, i thought it was something true but which i hadn't verbalized previously. ."

I guess she was making a comment on our Selfie picture taking society.

That comment made me think of the faceless saints.

Also some cultures don't allow photographs believing they steal the soul. This can maybe play into all the internal dialogue technique the author uses and how one can never really know another person 100%. I'm not sure.

madrano wrote: In the opening of chapter she imagines what her father-in-law is thinking, when he sees Stefano, “This is the kind of man who killed my son”. I wonder if the vast majority of her thoughts shared are her own rejected ideas, either inappropriate or already considered & discarded. Did you feel that way at all? Some of her "observations" were so opposite anything i'd have, that i began to consider this more & more by that point in the novel...."

The lack of quotation marks that at times confused me. I didn't know if these were fantasy dialogues she was having in her head or at times actual conversations.

I felt the mystery of who killed her husband never really was made clear. Was it Stefano? A robbery/mugging? The conversations were opaque and amorphous.

Did Maria actually say she had an affair with Christopher or only say he was attractive? I didn't think Stefano did anything overt to suspect him. The argument he had with maria that she saw could have been about anything. The narrator seem to project her thoughts and feelings on others. So much to the point that I never knew what a person actually did or felt.

I guess that made the author's whole point. We never really know another person 100%

"madrano wrote: In the opening of chapter she imagines what her father-in-law is thinking, when he sees Stefano, “This is the kind of man who killed my son”. I wonder if the vast majority of her tho..."

As I was writing my last post I wondered if the messy room was supposed to be a clue that Sefano / Maria was involved. He or both of them ransacked the room.

Alias Reader wrote: "Do you mean was Isabella involved with his death ? The hotel said he was already missing upon her arrival...."

No, the narrator. I was clumsy in expressing my question. I mean did Isabella think the Narrator was involved in his death. Afterall, Isa thought Narr was in Greece with Christopher. Then she calls and Narr is home, which would be confusing. So then, once it's learned Christopher is dead, i might wonder if Narr had any connection to his death--either arranged for it or was the cause (i.e., Narr took a lover & he did it). I was trying to see things from the Mother-in-law's eyes, since it didn't appear she was very fond of Narr. If i never learned they were separated, i would have all sorts of confusion & questions--many more than Isa seemed to express...or at least more than the Narrator cared to share. I guess this all goes back to how confusing it is to explain what we read when all we have is from the Narrator's viewpoint.

Neat connection between the faceless saints and what i quoted about the photos. I like that.

Overall, my impression is that we never learned truthfully whether Christopher & Maria slept together; we never learned if Stefano harbored resentment about Christopher. Indeed, almost every question we might have about ANYTHING is as a result of the Narrator's suspicions. Maybe the point of the story is that we cannot judge what we do not know what happened, nor can we trust another person's interpretations of what occurred.

Btw, i wondered about someone ransacking the room, too. Ultimately the Narr. seemed to come to believe that this is how Christopher lived when he was on the road. I remain suspicious myself. Again, it was her conclusion that Chris. left it that way, not necessarily the truth.

And on it goes!

madrano wrote: "Alias Reader wrote: "Do you mean was Isabella involved with his death ? The hotel said he was already missing upon her arrival...."

No, the narrator. I was clumsy in expressing my question. I mean..."

No, I don't get a sense that the mother thought the wife was involved as she wasn't in Greece when he went missing. Though you bring up a lot of good points. I am not sure if we ever learned what the father or mother asked the police.

Maybe the author just isn't a good mystery/thriller writer. Too many lose ends and things that just don't make sense.

I'll let you know if anyone on the facebook page for the NY Times/PBS book club comes up with anything. So far the comments are mostly negative.

Re. the last sentence--i'm not a bit surprised. Again, i wonder what led them to make this selection.

My final questions/points follow:

I know we've discussed this, from Chapter 10, again but i am revisiting it again. She delves into the idea that translators worry about “being faithful to the original, an impossible task because there are multiple and often contradictory ways of being faithful, there is literal fidelity and there is in the spirit of, a phrase without concrete meaning.” Do you think she uses this reason to explain the way she presents people/ideas the way she sees them? That is, could this be her own presentation about what the Narrator is saying/thinking? If so, is she the original or is it her husband? I'm probably overthinking this, to be honest. It's just that i'm befuddled that "the professionals" who seem to like this book so much.

From the same chapter, "But although we operate under the illusion that there was a single law that regulated human behavior—a universal ethical standard, a unified legal system—in fact there were multiple laws...Captain Vere [in Billy Budd] is caught between two laws, martial law and the law of God.” To be honest with you, i found this more interesting due to things outside the novel, i.e., today's US (& other nation's) politics. We all presume we are working within one law but have recently learned that the "law" for some in power is to win, regardless of methods--lie, cheat or steal--as long as you are the victor.

Finally, the ending. What did you think about the fact she decided to never tell anyone they were separated? I had no problem with that. Actually, i've known a family to whom this happened. I was best friends with the sister of the wife, so i knew. However, when the husband died, she was only the widow, no mention ever again about the separation.

In connection with that, what about the last sentence? Last sentence, after Yvan said he didn’t want to wait much longer to get married. "I could only say that I was sorry, and that i agreed—although what we were waiting for, what exactly it was, neither of us could say.”

I didn't get the sense that Yvan was really waiting for anything other than her waiting to end. I found it odd that she didn't expand that ending, as she had so many other points in the book, by supposing what it was she was waiting for.

madrano wrote: What did you think about the fact she decided to never tell anyone they were separated? I had no problem with that. Actually, i've known a family to whom this happened. I was best friends with the sister of the wife, so i knew. However, when the husband died, she was only the widow, no mention ever again about the separation. ..."

I can see doing this if there is a possibility of getting back together. Though in their case, that didn't seem an option.

She had moved on to another relationship, too. So why not tell people?

If I recall correctly, it was Christopher who didn't want people to know. It never is explained why. She just acquiesced to it. Much like she did with her mother in law who told her to get on an airplane and go look for Christopher.

madrano wrote: She delves into the idea that translators worry about “being faithful to the original, an impossible task because there are multiple and often contradictory ways of being faithful, there is literal fidelity and there is in the spirit of, a phrase without concrete meaning.”

Do you think she uses this reason to explain the way she presents people/ideas the way she sees them? That is, could this be her own presentation about what the Narrator is saying/thinking? If so, is she the original or is it her husband? ..."

I returned the book, so can't look up that quote. But isn't that the narrator speaking? So I don't understand this part of your question. Who is "her" that you are referring to?
"could this be her own presentation about what the Narrator is saying/thinking?"

As to who would be the original the Narrator or husband. In regards to this are you asking if the narrator (wife) is a reliable narrator?

Good question. She does lie in two instances that I can think of off the top of my head.
Not being honest about her separation from her husband. Also lying about writing a book about mourning. Do you think the lack of quotations signals that the wife/narrator won't take ownership of her own words when she is telling this story ? If not why? What is she hiding?

She would drive me insane the way she over analyses every single thing. She is also too passive. Christopher tells her not to say anything about their separation. She just goes along with this even though she is at the stage of marrying another man. She goes to Greece because her MIL tells her to. She eats dinner with a women she suspects of having an affair with her husband. Does she say anything to her about this? Nope. It's nuts. She never speaks up.

She even has to question the money she is getting upon Christopher's death even though she is his widow.

Her constant navel gazing and worrying never ends. I wish she had to translate or read John Steinbecks' Journal of a novel. In it she would have found this.

"Take things in stride and particularly don't anticipate trouble before it happens. One of my very worst habits is the anticipation of difficulties and vicariously to go through them in advance. The n if they happen I have to do it twice, and if they don't happen, I have done them unnecessarily."

Lastly, there is this quote, that I took from the FB board as I don't have the book.
"Page 156 "It was an act of speculation that contaminated everything, once seeded, doubt is almost impossible to dispel, I knew that already from my relationship with Christopher , the marriage had died at the hand of my imagination."

Did the marriage end because he was unfaithful (that does seem true as Christopher's mother confirms his infidelities) However, is the narrator/wife's constant over analyzing every single thing and never letting anything do that caused the marriage to die"?

First, yes, it was the Narrator speaking in the quote i shared and by "her" i meant the Narrator. It just had me musing, mainly due to her analytical nature.

Alias Reader wrote: "She would drive me insane the way she over analyses every single thing. ..."

My sister, who is bipolar, does this. I'm not suggesting that the Narrator is bipolar, only that the over-analyses can be one of anguish. Even the smallest detail can be elaborated upon and made to be something that was never intended. This is part of the reason i doubted the reliability of the Narrator.

I smiled at your Steinbeck quote. How true! It's something we should all be reminding ourselves. Good advice for everyone.

The favorite thing you mentioned above which calls to me was about the lack of quotes. YOU WROTE: "Do you think the lack of quotations signals that the wife/narrator won't take ownership of her own words when she is telling this story ? If not why? What is she hiding?"

As you may recall, i like to try to figure out why an author selects this type of style when apparently quoting people. In this case, you may well have landed on the answer. By not using quotation marks, all can be subjective, both by her and, i think, for the reader, too.

The quote you shared from the FB board is one i overlooked, too. It is an interesting one and may be the key to the end of their marriage. She almost seemed willing to accept his infidelities, as when she stated that this is what men do now that there are no new worlds to conquer. So, it would seem that wasn't the problem with the marriage. I vote for her imagination being the culprit in the marriage.

I would have liked to learn more about the narrator's boyfriend/husband to be. I think he name was Yvan.

How does he feel about his fiance taking off to another country to find her soon to be ex husband? What does he think about his fiance keeping their relationship secret?

Personally, if I was in his shoes this would be sending up big red flags.

In this book, if I am recalling correctly, everything we learn is through the narrator's interpretation. And as we both agree, she is not a reliable narrator.

I appreciate you hashing this novel out with me, deb.

You ask very good questions about the boyfriend. He should be very alarmed.

As usual, Alias, i've enjoyed exploring the book with you, too. We ended up on the same page with this one, i believe.

On FB they brought up the fact that she wanted to see the dead body of her husband not the photos as was customary.

Then there are the porno photos on his computer.

This may play in to your comments (post #37) about who is the "original".

I find this novel so amorphous that I think a reader can find symbolism or connections anywhere they choose. Sort of like a Rorschach test. The narrator certainly kept a lot to herself. We only know about her because of her very active internal dialogue.

Wiki:
The Rorschach test is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation, complex algorithms, or both. Some psychologists use this test to examine a person's personality characteristics and emotional functioning. It has been employed to detect underlying thought disorder, especially in cases where patients are reluctant to describe their thinking processes openly

Alias Reader wrote: "The narrator certainly kept a lot to herself. We only know about her because of her very active internal dialogue. ..."

Very true. What she tells us about herself goes mostly unexplained. Why the swim in the sea? Why visit the local chapel not even in travel books? Not only do we not know her name, we have no physical attributes upon which to base a sense of her. As you note, readers can read into her whatever they want, like a Rorschach test. Well noted!