Bailey's/Orange Women's Fiction Group discussion

This one is our archive read for October - another one that some love and others not quite so much apparently!!
Let's see what we think!

I liked this one, although I'm not sure I want to read it again.

I have started this on audio. I think Jane Harris is quite an unusual author - she writes slightly oddly but not necessarily in a bad way!
Val - have you read The Observations?

I have Penny. I liked that one too.

I've got this book, but need to finish one or two others before starting it soon.

Judy wrote: "I've got this book, but need to finish one or two others before starting it soon."

Judy - I too am a bit behind. I have this one on audio in the car so I'll get through it but it depends how often I'm driving how quickly it will be - but hey! there's no worries!!

This is the first group read I have participated in for this group. Without revealing anything about the plot, I will say that I found it very well written and very readable - lengthy but not wordy. Character development, especially of Harriet, was very clever. This novel is a bit different from what I normally read, but I found it hard to put down. I look forward to discussion once more group members have read this.

Penny, I considered getting this one on audio with my latest audible credit, but decided against in the end and went for 'The Strangler Vine' instead... anyway, will be interested to hear what you think of 'Gillespie and I' as a book to listen to!

I've now started reading this and, though I'm only a few pages in, think I'm going to love it - Harris has a quirky style of writing which has hooked me in right away. It's a long book but hoping it will turn out to be relatively quick to read.

I really enjoyed this book. It's so very hard to discuss it though, without spoiling it. It's probably the most easily spoiled book I've read in a long time, perhaps ever!

I was hooked from page one. I got all the books from my groups as kindle samples, then read the samples and bought the most engaging, and this was it.

Judy, I think I know what you mean about "quirky". I actually found the style to be more like the writing style of the time than many other historical fiction books I read, but without trying too hard, which a lot of books do to their detriment.

*also my first post in this group!*

Welcome to the group, Kelsey! Great to hear that you enjoyed this book so much - I've seen a couple of warnings that it's one where spoilers need to be avoided, so I'm avoiding running into any.

I think you are spot on about the writing style - it does seem like the style of the time, with a dry humour that keeps reminding me of my favourite Victorian writers. But it feels natural and flows well rather than being too highly-wrought.

PS, I'm on page 85 now, so not that far in, but I've got a theory about what I think is going to happen from a couple of hints that the author has dropped. I do hope I'm wrong, though...!

It's great that people are enjoying this one. It is difficult to discuss it without spoilers. I agree with Kelsey and Judy about the writing style, it feels just right for the character.

Judy - we are back-to-back - I'm reading The Strangler Vine but listening to Gillespie and I. This one is good on audio - I am intrigued by Harris' writing as she is quite adept at the slow build and the careful reveal!! As lots of us have already read this feel free to discuss anything after the 15th but just put 'spoiler' on the top or use the html link if you prefer!

I am finding Harriet slightly insipid but I expect that will change. She's hanging around the Gillespies and its not clear why - although the sub-text is there. The women are not that friendly to her and you wonder why she would return again and again. Annie and Mabel are especially recalcitrant.
If it is Gillespie himself that is pulling her back then where is that going to go!!?? I guess I will find out....

Penny, interesting that we are reading the same two books but the other way round as regards audio. I agree Harriet is insipid on the surface, but I'm increasingly wondering just what motivation is there for her behaviour and I'm also wondering about her attraction to Gillespie! Looking forward to finding out just what is going on. I see we are both enjoying this one for a change! :)

I've finished this now (after a while it gets impossible to put down) and am dying to discuss it in spoiler-packed detail - will hold on until after the 15th, though!

For now, I'll just say I was curious to see what paintings by the 'Glasgow Boys' were like, and have found a blog which features a lot of them - gives an idea of what Gillespie's paintings would have been like:

http://gerryco23.wordpress.com/2010/1...

Thanks for that Judy.

They were an interesting group of artists, outside the mainstream of the staid, conventional art establishment, but not really innovative enough to be regarded as part of a radical new movement with hindsight.
This does make Ned Gillespie seem like the kind of artist someone like Harriet would patronise. She would like to break away from stifling convention, but is still quite bound up in it.

(view spoiler)[That does beg the question of whether Harriet is obsessed with the artist (as she claims) or the man (as she is accused). (hide spoiler)]

Judy wrote: "I've finished this now (after a while it gets impossible to put down) and am dying to discuss it in spoiler-packed detail - will hold on until after the 15th, though!

For now, I'll just say I was..."

Thanks for the link. I am a little behind, but will be starting this book next week :)

Val, that's an interesting point about the artists and how they reflect on Harriet's character. Jayme, hope you enjoy it!

Thanks for the link Judy, really good to see the kind of art featured in the novel.

Great link! The paintings are a lot more realistic and less idealistic than I would have imagined from the descriptions in the book. Nothing earth shaking, but the first one is a bit disturbing with the girl glaring at the author, seeming to be unhappy with being painted and yet powerless to stop him...

OK - so what was your opinion ? I am up to (view spoiler)[ Harriet's arrest (hide spoiler)] I have been bothered all the way through with Harriet's relationship with the Gillespies - she doesnt really feel an afinity to them to start with and yet repeatedly returns. Annie warms to her only when she has proved her worth over the caracature and Elspeth is no one 's confidant. Harriet is not that sympathetic as a heroine - if I remember rightly the author's previous book also had a convoluted protagonist. Talking about double worded extravagance (convoluted protagonist!!) anyone else pick up on some of the delightful prose? I find when listening to stuff I notice it more - I wish I had written them down but there are several. Elspeth describes the exchange of Christmas presents in one of these phrases - I cant remember exactly - those of you still reading maybe you could look out for them?
I havent finished yet - I have about 4 discs to go...

It is difficult to warm to Harriet, but I loved the writing. I don't think we are intended to find her sympathetic, it would make us take sides if we did.

Kelsey and Ruthie, glad you liked the paintings. Penny, I agree that the prose style in this book is really enjoyable - the sarcastic, roundabout wording often reminds me of some of the great Victorian authors. I will try to pick out a couple of examples later!

Val, I agree that we aren't intended to find Harriet sympathetic. I felt she becomes increasingly unsympathetic after the opening, as we start to notice that her actions don't really tie up with her words as narrator. For instance, she is blatantly muscling in on the Gillespie family herself, while at the same time complaining that other friends and visitors won't leave 'us' alone!

I'm only on about page 60 but it seems to me that Harriet has quite the crush on Ned. She wants to see his studio with the intent of buying a painting and is more than a little annoyed when others are there. She is even irritated when he doesn't seem to dislike having his daughter Sibyl present. I thought it a nice come down for "Lady Bountiful" Harriet, who was graciously going to buy some of Ned's paintings and give him a portrait commission to help the family financially, when he showed no interest in either.
Why did she then ask Annie to paint the portrait? Was it to stay involved with the family and thus near Ned?

Diane wrote: "I'm only on about page 60 but it seems to me that Harriet has quite the crush on Ned. She wants to see his studio with the intent of buying a painting and is more than a little annoyed when others ..."

yes Harriet is obviously very needy whilst trying to appear otherwise. I am reminded a little of the case of Lindy Chamberlain - the mother of the baby that was taken by a dingo in Australia and who was subsequently wrongly jailed. I saw that film with Meryl Streep and have always remembered how the press judged and maligned Lindy Chamberlain for not fitting their image of a grieving mother - Harriet's character is unsympathetic and yet you want to believe her. I havent finished yet so dont know the ending - I may feel differently when I get done!

I finished it and didn't see the trial coming. I was totally stunned and loved it. I thought this a very good book.

I'm about a third in and also can't figure out Harriet's relationship to the family. She seems to be lurking on the edges and wants to be more than she is... I do not see this ending well.

Since finishing the book, I've come across this very interesting spoiler-packed discussion of it at the Readitswapit forums:

http://forums.readitswapit.co.uk/foru...

The second poster in this discussion, Cescalina, makes some great points - I hadn't noticed all the things she points out, but it makes a lot of sense to me.

What did anyone else think of the sections set in the 1930s, with Harriet as an elderly woman suspicious of her housekeeper/carer, Sarah?

At first I was impatient of these sections and couldn't wait to get back to Victorian Scotland, but then I realised that these sections work well to cast increasing doubt on Harriet as a narrator - we can't believe a lot of what she tells us here, so how can we believe what she tells us about her younger self and the Gillespie family?

(view spoiler)[ At first I believed all the suggestions that Sarah was really the older Sybil, but then it becomes increasingly clear that this is all in Harriet's mind. So then you start to wonder whether all her claims about Sybil's evil doings in the past are really true or in her mind too - or whether she has even invented them.

I did also notice in the 1930s sections that Harriet has all the symptoms of a perforated stomach ulcer (by sheer coincidence I recently read an article which mentioned what these were!), yet she fails to notice all this evidence or misinterprets it, while at the same time inventing mad plots about Sarah/Sybil. (hide spoiler)]

I thought that by the 1930s she had become a drunk, the Whiskey Lady", and more than a bit senile.

This is such a difficult book to talk about without spoiling it for others, but I quite agree that Harriet is not who "she" perceives herself to be. I think in her mind/reality everything is normal and she is only reacting to the strange behavior of others as she sees it. This was a fascinating look into one person’s reality. Very good read.

I agree, the 1930s section shows just how unreliable a narrator she is. Her perception of reality is way off base. I think she may genuinely think she is doing the right thing but objectively that's not the case.

I just read Judy's link. Interesting discussion and I also believe the book was deliberately written with some ambiguity that allows for varying interpretation. With that said I personally think she was guilty. Not that she meant for the tragic outcome but she was certainly guilty of the plan to mess things up for Annie.

I read the links etc - I too cant quite decide over Harriet. I dont believe she harmed Rosie. It is possible she manipulated Sybil somewhat. The Sarah situation in the 1930's seemed so oddly placed against the earlier narrative until Harriet becomes more and more obscure.
What did you all make of the last scene between Harriet and Ned? They exchange a look as she leaves the court I think - but it is described as cold. Do you think Ned blamed Harriet or was he so downcast that he no longer cared enough to acknowledge her?

I really wanted to like Harriet. I wanted the 1930's story to vindicate her and have some great reveal as to why and how it all happened but it didnt. I agree with someone else's point that she didnt seem to make good solid relationships - her step-father, her lack of friends etc But then I wondered, if I was accused of something who would character reference me and who would shun me? Interesting thought! We like to feel there are those who value us but in the light of awful accusations I wonder who would not doubt?

Harriet is not a reliable narrator, but I don't think we are supposed to see her as a deliberate liar. The way she tells the story is the way she sees it, but she does not see things the way someone outside the situation would.
She is desperate to get close to people and does not realise when her behaviour has become inappropriate or intrusive. She is not part of the Gillespie family, however much she wants to be. Her step-father will fulfil his legal responsibilities, but does not want a close personal relationship. Perhaps her desperation and the way she clings to anyone prepared to be a bit friendly actually drives them away.
She is shocked by the trial and the things people say about her. I did not get any sense of her feeling she had got away with a crime, so I don't think she was guilty. I did get a sense of her feeling persecuted and this is backed up by the later interludes. In old age she is distrustful and paranoid, partly as a result of the trial, partly from alcohol and senility, so she is even less reliable as a narrator.

Penny wrote: "What did you all make of the last scene between Harriet and Ned? They exchange a look as she leaves the court I think - but it is described as cold. Do you think Ned blamed Harriet or was he so downcast that he no longer cared enough to acknowledge her?"
He is devastated. He may not blame her directly, but he could feel that it would not have happened if she had not become involved with the family.

I have added a priority flag to this thread, so that it should appear near the top of the discussions.

I finally got around to reading this one. gosh, i am sorry about my delays and quietness around here. life, you know? :/

anyhow -- i mostly enjoyed this book, but i found the trial bit bogged things down too much for me, and i noticed some repetition going on. i do love unreliable narrators, and i felt harris did a great job in that regard.

Sheri wrote: "just finished this book last night- it was so unexpectedly dark and twisted! I am so impressed with the way the author told you something by saying something else... still mulling over this haunted..."

yes these types of books with 'unusual protagonists' can be slightly uncomfortable reading but are refreshing and get you thinking.