Fans of British Writers discussion

This will be the thread for posting any and all discussion, comments, questions, etc. about Till we Have Faces by C. S. Lewis. This book will be our group's common read this month; but as always, this thread will stay open indefinitely for later posts.

Published in 1956, this novel is a re-telling of the Greek myth of Cupid and Psyche, based on the version set forth by Apuleius in The Golden Ass. (A classically-trained literature scholar, Lewis was very familiar with ancient writings, and had long been fascinated by this particular myth.)

Although Lewis is a favorite writer of mine, I'd never read this before, though of course I'd heard of it. Personally, classical mythology doesn't really interest me all that much; so even though I'd put this book on my to-read shelf, I didn't know exactly what to expect from it, and reading it wasn't a high priority until we picked it as a common read. But having started it yesterday, I have to say it's nothing like I expected --and I mean that entirely in a good way! I'm already thoroughly engaged with it.

I just read The Golden Ass in May, so it will be interesting to see how Lewis treats the myth. The sisters reminded me of the family in Beauty and the Beast.

Werner wrote: "This will be the thread for posting any and all discussion, comments, questions, etc. about Till we Have Faces by C. S. Lewis. This book will be our group's common read this month; but as always, t..."

I agree. This isn't what I expected at all. I'm delighted by this read so far.

I was expecting it to read something like the children's adaptation (in prose) of The Odyssey that I read as a kid, with a lot of overtly magical or fantastical events and creatures, and explicit appearances of pagan gods and mythological figures. Instead, so far (I'm into Chapter 9) it reads like historical fiction, albeit with a vague setting. (Internal clues point to a time after the Trojan War, and before Rome is a world power --a window that spans several centuries-- and probably the northern Near East or the steppes and mountains just north of it.) More open fantasy elements may appear later in the book, of course!

I have read this book multiple times. I would like to point out the unusual style of the narration. It is a first person narration, a story told by Orual more than 2200 years ago. She is not writing in her native language but in Greek, which is a second language for her. This language was used mostly for business and legal matters, so it was more formal and less flowing for the main character. I think it gives the reader the feeling that she/he is reading an original artifact.

Why do you think Orual starts her narration with her mother's death? Or with the ritual of cutting the sisters' hair?

Oksana wrote: "Why do you think Orual starts her narration with her mother's death? Or with the ritual of cutting the sisters' hair?"

That's a good question. I'm not really sure if I could think of a reason besides her mother's death being a transitioning point in her life. I think when we are children, we cling more to our mother since she is the one who is the nurturer. Orual sort of takes on the role of nurturer when Psyche's mother dies. Maybe he wanted us to see her more as a mature figure early on, instead of being purely childlike.

It is strange we don't hear more about her in the following chapters. I'm almost halfway through so maybe there will be more mention of her later.

I think as the entire book is about Orual's discovery of herself, the beginning of the story is significant because it was the first time Orual becomes aware of people's attitude towards herself and her sister. Maybe it was the beginning of the rivalry between them. As Orual excuses the gods of being unjust in taking Psyche from her, she also goes to the beginning of her feelings of divine injustice that made Redival beautiful, and Orual - so unattractive.

A recurring subject in this book is love (or feelings that we often think of and describe as "love") in various manifestations. Lewis wrote a nonfiction book on that subject, The Four Loves. Though it was published in 1960, four years after Till We Have Faces, his written thoughts about love form a good interpretive background to aspects of this novel.

Speaking of links to Lewis's other works, I've just finished chapter 7 where Orual says goodbye to Psyche before she's taken to the mountain. Psyche is pretty much a spokeswoman for Lewis's views of God and the afterlife -- which I find thrilling, but I'm wondering if everyone agrees, or finds such Christian allegorizing to their taste. Psyche, by being "the best in the land" (according to her father in the previous chapter), is clearly a Christ figure, and voices what is probably Lewis's primary "proof" of God's existence in the last pages of the chapter in her explanation of yearning for death -- "It was when I was happiest that I longed most . . . [s]omewhere else there must be more of it . . . to find the place where all the beauty came from . . . [d]o you think it all meant nothing, all the longing?"

Some critics came to the same conclusion, Bruce. They point out that the facts that she heals the sick, calls herself a "ransom for all Glome" and dies at "a single leafless tree" on the top of the hill suggest that she is a symbol of Christ. However, Lewis was always reluctant to identify his Psyche with Christ. He rather calls her "the ideal pattern for the Christian soul," which should be an example for every person to follow.

Werner, I read The Four Loves after reading Till We Have Faces. Lewis talks about Storge, or affection; philia, or friendship, eros, or love between sexes; and agape, or divine love. He calls storge, philia and eros the "natural loves," that can only remain loves only if they are infused with agape, the divine love. I think in the first seven chapters Lewis shows how Storge is corrupted and turned into possessive ego-centric love.

Oksana wrote: "Lewis was always reluctant to identify his Psyche with Christ. He rather calls her 'the ideal pattern for the Christian soul,' which should be an example for every person to follow."
Psyche, of course, means "soul" in Greek. But Christians are also supposed to emulate Christ's example.

Oksana wrote: "I think in the first seven chapters Lewis shows how Storge is corrupted and turned into possessive ego-centric love."
Yes, I think that's exactly what Lewis is showing! That's what brought his discussion in The Four Loves to my mind.

Oksana wrote: "I think as the entire book is about Orual's discovery of herself, the beginning of the story is significant because it was the first time Orual becomes aware of people's attitude towards herself an..."

I remembered something when I read your comment. Orual hates the mirror in the Pillar Room. I think you are right about the story being about self discovery. Orual even has memories of herself and Redival being content just playing together before there was the Fox or Psyche.

This becomes a big problem later on when she is confronting herself in her visions. I think, since she believes that they descend from Gods, and have divine blood, they are subjected to more torture than the average man. She furthers this by saying she is Ungit herself, but, the Gods have told her that she is like Psyche.

It seems like she cannot handle the self at all, and pours all of her affection onto others like Psyche and Bardia in an attempt to escape her own mortality. Like the book said, to love is to devour, and she devoured them both. The Gods offer an alternative to her destructive love. It almost seems like man is almost incapable of that agape, that divine love, or, it is extremely hard to attain.

E.L. wrote: "It almost seems like man is almost incapable of that agape, that divine love, or, it is extremely hard to attain."

Lewis (and traditional Christian thinkers in general) would say it's impossible for humans to attain by themselves, due to the spiritual and moral fallenness of our condition. We grow into it only by opening ourselves to the freely-given grace of God, which imparts to us moral strength, insight, and possibilities we didn't natively possess before. (I totally agree about the theme of self-knowledge!)

I have read 10 chapters so far and find that Orual is a complex character who is discovering herself, but very slowly so far. Her love for Psyche is so strong that I fear she will become bitter and hard-hearted now that Psyche is gone.

I find this an engrossing read, with much to think about as I am reading it.

I finished the book yesterday, and hope to review it tomorrow. But I can say that my rating will be five stars!

Just finished chapter 11 where, as you note Rosemarie, Orual becomes bitter and hard-hearted. She becomes, in fact, an adversary like the sisters in the Apuleius version, though from love, not jealousy and envy. I'm pretty sure I've read another version where the sisters do genuinely love Psyche, but are concerned about her having a lover she can't see. Who wouldn't be?! Orual's alarm is even more reasonable when, after not seeing the palace or Psyche's robes, it starts raining and Psyche becomes drenched--in spite of her insistence that they are under a roof. Orual is simply being rational, facing the reality she experiences -- very Greek, like Fox.

I assume the journey of self-knowledge you have all referred to will involve a maturer understanding of the gods' reality.
If that is so, I then wonder how this tale oriented around Greek religion fits in with Lewis's Christian world-view.

End of Chapter 15

Orual seems to have real control issues, especially since she still treats Psyche as a child. Her reactions are really extreme and really doesn't listen to what Psyche has to say.
I can see that one of the issues raised in this book is trust.
Knowing the legend, it will be interesting to see how this book treats it.

Bruce wrote: "Just finished chapter 11 where, as you note Rosemarie, Orual becomes bitter and hard-hearted. She becomes, in fact, an adversary like the sisters in the Apuleius version, though from love, not jeal..."
In his book "Reason and Imagination in C.S. Lewis," Peter J. Schakel talks about the theme of reason and imagination in Till We Have Faces. According to him, Fox represents Reason, Stoic philosophy, and, in general, the Western rationalistic naturalism grounded in the scientific writings of Darwin and Huxley. Meanwhile, Psyche represents Imagination. She has a non-rationalistic, intuitive response to the Divine and utter belief in God. Thus, what Lewis tried to achieve in his book was to show these two approaches to understanding the Universe from the points of view of Reason and Belief.

Oksana, thanks for making us aware of the book by Schakel (Reason and Imagination in C. S. Lewis: A Study of Till We Have Faces). I'm thinking that it would make a good addition to the Bluefield College library! And thanks for sharing Schakel's insight on this point.

Bruce wrote: "...I then wonder how this tale oriented around Greek religion fits in with Lewis's Christian world-view."

That's a good question! I've thought about the same question. Till We have Faces is set in pre-Christian times. But of course God was always there, even before Christ was born, governing the universe and seeking a relationship with human beings, and the same central spiritual truths that are true now were true then too. Humans then, especially apart from Jewish influence, just didn't understand those truths as well, without the special revelation we have today in the Bible, and particularly in the New Testament.

Like some of the ancient and medieval/early modern Christian thinkers, Lewis understood the pre-Christian pagan religions as pre-figurations of Divine truth, imperfect and partial articulations of spiritual realities that serve as shadowy reflections of and pointers towards the real thing --as Plato might have said (and Lewis was a Neo-Platonist in philosophy) earthly images of the heavenly Ideal. An online article by Michael Ward (the author of Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis), here: http://www.sacredarchitecture.org/art... , helpfully expands on this idea.

Werner wrote: "Oksana, thanks for making us aware of the book by Schakel (Reason and Imagination in C. S. Lewis: A Study of Till We Have Faces). I'm thinking that it would make a good addition to the..."

I agree that the pagan religions can reflect the souls of those who worshipped them at the time. It is sad to see the tragedies befall them, and for them to suffer with no real hope for such a long time. I wanted so desperately for Orual to find love, any kind of love, before she grew old.

The ending left me wondering, though. I won't spoil it for those of you who haven't read it, but, I wasn't sad or depressed. I was more intrigued than anything. I agree with you in that the spiritual truths have always been the same. It feels like it is a part of our physical being that carries itself from generation to generation, no matter what our beliefs are.

Your last point, Oksana, about pagan religions as pre-figurations of Divine truth became more obvious to me when later Orual self-consciously began to pray privately (as Psyche did also when shackled to the tree).

As to Schakel's (somewhat of a pun there!) point about the world views Fox and Psyche express, I would opt for Aristotle's more explicit rationalism rather than the Stoics for Fox, though I suppose they fit, too (though, come to think of it, they weren't Greek were they?).

But surely the Priest of Ungit is most directly opposite to Fox. His dark, elemental mysticism is the source of whatever religious views Psyche and Orual have, which Fox continually argues against. And then, of course, when Psyche meets Eros, no imagination is needed at all! Orual's own view of the conflict near the end of chapter 13 makes Bardia's explanation of Psyche's lover the counter to Fox's, the former being rooted in "the doctrines of Glome"--which I assume are Glome's religion.

And, yes, the ultimate dichotomy is reason and belief, which it seems Orual is beginning to realize are not dichotomous at all, but two halves to be fitted together.

For anyone who's interested, my review of this book is now posted, here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... .

Thanks for the insightful review, Werner.

The events in Part Two were essential for Orual to achieve self awareness.

As I was reading Part One, the foremost emotions of Orual were rage, possessiveness (although she wouldn't think of it that way), and lack of awareness of others' feelings.
She also was obsessed by her ugliness, which was aggravated by her father's attitude.
As you said in your review, Werner, they really were a dysfunctional family.

Thank you. Rosemarie!

Yes, Orual was obsessed with her supposed ugliness, which her father took every opportunity to rub in her face. (Personally, I was inclined to suspect that maybe she wasn't really all that ugly in an absolute sense, and to wonder whether her facial features might just have not conformed to her culture's conception of beauty --perhaps been perceived as too "masculine," for instance. Cultural stereotypes of "beauty," taken for granted by males as a standard of judgment and foisted on girls as supremely important, can do a lot of permanent harm to a woman's self-image. :-(

Werner wrote: "Thank you. Rosemarie!

Yes, Orual was obsessed with her supposed ugliness, which her father took every opportunity to rub in her face. (Personally, I was inclined to suspect that maybe she wasn't r..."

I often wondered that too. By the way she is described, she almost sounds disfigured. She doesn't mention any disabilities though, and she was healthy enough to fight in duels.

At one point someone said that she looked like her father, so she could not have been deformed. And negative emotions can make a person look ugly, even with normal features.

Bruce wrote: "Your last point, Oksana, about pagan religions as pre-figurations of Divine truth became more obvious to me when later Orual self-consciously began to pray privately (as Psyche did also when shack..."
Bruce, stoicism was initially a Greek philosophy. It was founded at Athens by Zeno of Citium.

Today I finished the book and went through all the discussion here on this book and I must say it feels like the book I read is the very same book which people here are discussing and at the same time a complete different one.

The things which (are there or at least I felt that they were there) make me believe that I read the same book as others in the thread are, the theme of self-pity, sense of unjust done to oneself, perceived or real, selfishness and skewed view of love and other vices and then with self-reflection and some guidance, one's journey to overcome all these things. There were a lot of other aspects and thoughts which came to mind while I was reading this book although I perceived the previously mentioned theme to be the front of the book. But as I read through some of these comments here, I felt as if I had read a completely different book. Now it may be because I am not that much familiar with Christianity (may be some major figures and two or three main stories, certainly not more than that) and Lewis's views on it (indeed Till We Have Faces is the very first work of Lewis which I have read) and I barged into this book without having a clue of the myth of Psyche and Cupid either. Add the fact that I do not have very solid grasp on English, it is very likely that I missed quite a few subtleties. So all in all, in my naivety and ignorance, I did not see that the book had an actual religious theme or any symbolic commentary and thought that it rather leaned toward a person's battle with oneself to become a better being.

After reading the thread I have got some food for thought and some things to learn. I very much enjoyed going through the discussion and yes I loved the book, so thank you for suggesting this book.

Thanks, Oksana, for that clarification about Stoicism -- and I see that, indeed, Zeno was a champion of reason, so would fit as an influence on Fox.

I have just finished the novel, and have one overriding impression which is far from being thought out, but since this is a discussion, I'd like to broach it for thoughts any of you may have. We all seem to be in agreement that the religion of Gome is a prefiguration of Christianity. But it's also the case that, in the context of the novel, Aphrodite, Eros, and presumably the rest of the Greek gods, do exist. Given that reality, I find it hard to avoid Orual's judgment that the god's sequestration of Psyche is unjust, whether he's Eros or the shadowbrute. Why doesn't he want her to see him? Is that ever explained? If it's just to keep Psyche a secret from his mother (a reason Orual finds improbable), then we're in the midst of another dysfunctional family matter typical of much Greek mythology. And even though Psyche seems unspeakably happy, there's no evidence as to why she is -- couldn't it be that she has a fabulous lover and is waited on hand and foot? There's no evidence of any spiritual edification.

Orual's visions at the end of the book definitely cast all the above in a different light wherein negative interpretations like Orual's (and mine) are misapprehensions of the actual plan of, not the gods, but God. But, as noted in Werner's review, these visions are "outside the world as we know it," and therefore create a disjunction with the realistic presentation of most of the novel. They put forth a Christian world view without adequately assimilating the details of previous events. Doesn't Orual's charge to the gods that "There's no room for you and us in the same worlds" (near the end of Part II, chapter 3) hold up?

The whole issue would be solved if Eros, Aphrodite, et al. were only believed to be real by the characters, like the belief that Unjit's statue is a representative of the real Unjit. But, in the context of the novel, they are real -- aren't they?

Shreenath, I agree with this statement of yours, which I believe is one of the important themes of this book:

"It rather leaned toward a person's battle with oneself to become a better being."

For most of the book, Orual was self-centred and oblivious to the feelings of others, so she needed to suffer as she did in part two in order to achieve self-awareness.

And Shreenath, to piggyback on Rosemarie's comment, "a person's battle with oneself to become a better being" is a major religious theme coupled with the idea that God helps us in this endeavor.

Here is my review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Perhaps you can tell me, Werner, whether you consider my statement about Christian orthodoxy to be correct.

Bruce wrote: "Here is my review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Perhaps you can tell me, Werner, whether you consider my statement about Christian orthodoxy to be correct."

The statement Bruce referred to in the review is: "I am, however, incredibly moved by an idea that emerges at the end of the novel in a vision of the protagonist Orual: the possibility of helping a deceased loved one accomplish necessary spiritual tasks, as well as vice-versa, thereby enabling God to, in effect, change that person's past.... As far as I know, this is not part of Christian orthodoxy, but I find it plausible, building on the assumption that prayers for the dead can be efficacious. Say a loved one was an addict; then working on one's own addiction might make up for what one's loved one could not accomplish while alive. The exposition of this possibility was, for me, the crowning achievement of the novel."

If I understand the "Christian orthodoxy" reference correctly, you're saying that this isn't a generally-agreed-on belief that all Christians hold in common, and yes, I'd agree that that's correct. But neither is it necessarily un-orthodox or heretical; it's just a speculative idea that some Christians hold, or entertain as a possibility, that helps them in their own understanding of how God works with people. Personally, I don't pray for the dead myself; but I do agree that God exists outside of time and isn't limited by it. To my mind, that doesn't play out in such a way as that God "changes the past," but that from the Divine perspective every action that's ever been done or will be done exists in one eternal present. (That's an idea that's very difficult for time-limited beings, who experience time sequentially, to grasp!)

Bruce wrote: "But it's also the case that, in the context of the novel, Aphrodite, Eros, and presumably the rest of the Greek gods, do exist.... The whole issue would be solved if Eros, Aphrodite, et al. were only believed to be real by the characters, like the belief that Unjit's statue is a representative of the real Unjit. But, in the context of the novel, they are real -- aren't they?"

At times, I've run across the idea, expressed by some ancient and medieval Christian thinkers, that at least some pagan gods may actually have existed, not necessarily as demons as they're usually interpreted, but rather as subordinate supernatural powers who, under God's suzerainty, exercised dominion over pagan humans until the coming of Christ. (I don't have any references in front of me, though, and since I'm at work on my lunch break, I don't have time to hunt for any.) Lewis might (and in my opinion, definitely seems to) adopt that idea here, at least as a literary conceit.

I don't know if any of these thoughts are helpful, but I hope they are! :-)

Werner, Rosemarie, Oksana, E.L., and Shreenath,
On the issue of "one eternal present," I've always thought the most common-sense definition of time is that it's a measurement of motion, e.g., a minute is analogous to an inch. Unfortunately, that seems to make timelessness even more of a conundrum -- unless (it now occurs to me) it means we shed the illusion that we are somehow different in past, present and future. It seems to me that Orual experiences some such realization, and realizes that genuine change is a rare, difficult achievement. I, too, am sometimes brought up short with a realization that in many ways (more than I'm comfortable with!) I'm really not much different from when I was a young boy.

As to the coexistence of the gods and God, the concept of a suzerainty seems to fit well. I'm also reminded of the Oyéresu in This Hideous Strength.

I also wanted to respond on an earlier comment Werner made in response to Rosemarie about Orual's ugliness: I was inclined to suspect that maybe she wasn't really all that ugly in an absolute sense. Of course, it solves a lot of issues if one supposes that beauty and ugliness are culturally determined, but isn't it an important premise of the novel that Psyche is objectively beautiful--an aspect of her being "the best"? And if there's objective beauty, wouldn't that logically entail objective ugliness?

Bruce wrote: "I also wanted to respond on an earlier comment Werner made in response to Rosemarie about Orual's ugliness: I was inclined to suspect that maybe she wasn't really all that ugly in an absolute sense. Of course, it solves a lot of issues if one supposes that beauty and ugliness are culturally determined, but isn't it an important premise of the novel that Psyche is objectively beautiful--an aspect of her being "the best"? And if there's objective beauty, wouldn't that logically entail objective ugliness?"

Bruce, good question, and I don't know that I have a definitive answer! My background in philosophy consists of having read (sort of), in my youth, a Barnes and Noble College Outlines series volume for Survey of Philosophy, and understanding some of it. :-)

Lewis was a Neo-Platonist; and for Plato, as I understand it, true Beauty was an objective archetype that existed in the realm of spiritual reality, a realm only imperfectly reflected in the physical world. Psyche's beauty, as we perceive it, reflects her moral and spiritual worth. (view spoiler)[In Orual's vision near the end of the book, after she's significantly grown and changed in the moral and spiritual areas, she and Psyche are both beautiful. (hide spoiler)] I'm not sure if that necessarily translates into an objective physical beauty that can be clinically described and that every person would recognize on a purely physical level. Of course, I'm not a Platonist myself! :-)

To my mind, I suppose objective beauty would have to be what God, as the Creator, sees as beautiful. But as He told Isaiah, His perceptions are far above ours, and I suspect they're much more eclectic. Ours are biased by our culture and our species-specific perspective --for instance, we see insects' faces (if they're magnified ) as ugly, but I'm not sure that God views them that way. And moral beauty in a human may coexist with what we see as physical ugliness, and vice versa.

From a human perspective (and I'm just thinking off the top of my head here!) physical injury or deformity to the human face or form --something that mars or diminishes its created design, so that it doesn't appear the way it was intended to-- detracts from beauty, at least as I perceive it. Apart from that, though, much of our perception of "beauty" is culturally determined, and not as absolute as the media and peer comments pound into our heads that it is. To be gut honest, I've seldom seen any woman (I'm speaking from a male perspective, because I am male --our female members could probably parallel the perception from their perspective!) who, if you really looked at her, didn't have some physical beauty that made it pleasant to see and appreciate her, including those who are older, wear 'plus" sizes, etc.; but I've known quite a few women who didn't think they had any beauty, because they'd been told they didn't until (sadly) they believed it.

Psyche's beauty, as we perceive it, reflects her moral and spiritual worth. I think this is a key insight: beauty is "as we perceive it," but that perceiving includes what physical features signifiy about character. As Abraham Lincoln put it (I'm paraphrasing), after the age of 40 a person is responsible for their face, i.e., the tell-tale signs of moral character. Of course, Psyche was deemed beautiful almost from birth, so we can conjecture her features only signified a moral and spiritual worth she had to develop as she matured. Redival was also beautiful, but didn't mature similarly.

Bruce wrote: "I find it hard to avoid Orual's judgment that the god's sequestration of Psyche is unjust, whether he's Eros or the shadowbrute. Why doesn't he want her to see him? Is that ever explained? If it's just to keep Psyche a secret from his mother (a reason Orual finds improbable), then we're in the midst of another dysfunctional family matter typical of much Greek mythology."

The concealment is never explained explicitly. But I took it as being a protective measure for Psyche herself, based on Orual's own reaction to the brief physical look the god gave her at himself. For a normal human, seeing these kind of beings right away in the full measure of their awesome (in the true sense) state, without first sort of maturing and growing into the ability to see it without freaking out, would be too psychologically and spiritually unsettling. Of course, that's just my interpretation; but it made (and makes) sense to me.

Has anyone read the book Circe? When I went to Goodwill the other day and found it, I was immediately intrigued. It sounds similar to our book.

I haven't read Circe myself, but it got four or five-star ratings/reviews from no less than 11 of my Goodreadss friends. Like Till We Have Faces, it's a re-telling/re-imagining of a part of classical Greek mythology; but unlike Lewis, my impression is that Miller doesn't have any explicitly theological messages or concerns.

I was looking at this book as well. But as Werner said, it was just a retelling of the myth.

Since it had such high ratings I may just have to check it out for myself.

E.L. wrote: "Since it had such high ratings I may just have to check it out for myself."

If you do, E.L., I hope you like it!

Ah! The last day for our July book club! I've richly enjoyed rereading Till We Have Faces with all of you. That to me is the best part of a book club: reading with the awareness that other colleagues are reading the same thing.

Werner, I'm going to exercise supreme self-restraint and allow you to have the last word on the issue of why Eros insisted on keeping Psyche ignorant of his nature. Your theory is definitely plausible. However, if anyone else would like . . . ?

Have a great August!
Bruce

Nah, Bruce, you don't have to give me the last word! :-) I always enjoy hearing your thoughts.

This discussion has been rewarding for me, too, as our common reads always are! (And of course this thread will always stay open for future comments.) With a multi-person "buddy read" of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The White Company coming up in January, those who especially enjoy reading in company with others won't have to wait a whole year to do so again.

I enjoyed the discussion too. I gain insight into books that I would otherwise may have missed.
I am looking forward to our buddy read in January.

This discussion was great! Looking forward to January.