vol 8 issue 6.5

Folks, it’s me again — perhaps you thought you were rid of me, but I received a couple of comments after all was said and done last week, which are too good not to share with everyone. So, enough from me, here are the words of a couple of fellow readers. First, from SVR:

I especially liked the first half - her growing up, her clandestine work for Stanley and later Barclay. The part of the friendship with Caleb and Jamie. Wallace’s struggle.

Then, the whole WW2 part took me a little too long. I understand that it shaped her, Jamie’s struggles etc but it just wasn’t as fascinating to me as the earlier years. The whole lesbian episode - it didn’t add much to the story for me. And then the sort accelerated when we gotten into the flight. At first I found it quite “scientific”, the description of the flight. But then Eddie’s character became more fascinating and the leaving him behind and her starting over a whole new life was beyond anything I’d ever imagined but so very much a logical decision in hindsight.

Then Hadley… at first I found her part hard to follow. I kept forgetting who was who in her story. But when it came to Adelaide and later Joey.. it all made sense and I love it that the kept it a secret from that Redwood guy and all to herself after meeting Joey.

And now, from AB:

I finished Great Circle at about 1am this morning and I have loved it, thanks for choosing this book!

I have so many THOUGHTS and I won’t bore you with them all but I did not see the twist coming, I liked Jamie the best and still sort of miss him and I really enjoyed the small details coming round despite all the time and events covered - e.g. the narwhal horn. I’m still worrying about Eddie.

How does she make us know characters so well with so little text? I have so much affection for the beards.

I would like to jump in and say, unlike some other readers, I really liked Hadley throughout. She is clearly flawed and (for - I think - quite understandable reasons) ‘making bad choices’ but also she is wry and funny and I really enjoy, although probably it’s a bit exhausting, how she is always thinking about how things will be interpreted as well as what they actually are (particularly I liked ‘the man in the swimming pool’ for the interviewer visiting). Is her saying that if it were a movie she’d get in the sea, and then actually doing it, her matching up this what it is/what it looks like for herself?

And I will bite, re the Q on if this novel is literary enough. […] [B]ecause I always get a bee in my bonnet about the idea that ‘good art’ ought to be hard work. I’m not very knowledgeable on literature/writing but I never think you should have to work or do pre-study to engage with something whether it’s a book or a play or a film or anything! So I’m delighted to be able to read a Booker nominated book, love it and not feel like its the book equivalent of eating my greens.

But more interestingly than me getting on my accessible arts high horse is, that on discussing SS’s Q with another read-a-longer I noticed something about the book, which is that a lot of it is dealing with the nature or art and the nature of truth and the interplay between the two. Jamie’s trying to paint vastness or the something not there, the process of making the film (and Hadley’s role(s)), Carol’s novel that takes liberties or fills in gaps, fans being invested in ‘real relationships’ between the actors in Archangel etc etc etc - I haven’t really a fully formed thought/detailed analysis here but, y’know, is truth a feeling? Or a fact? Or a combination of both for one person, making that their truth. Memory is fallible, but feelings stick.

I particularly love AB’s final paragraph here, which is not something I had considered at all. And it makes me feel warm and fuzzy that it came out of a discussion between Sipped Ink readers! My thanks again to these folks, and to all who contributed throughout this year’s read-along. If you need me before next summer, you can always find me at zioibi.com

✌🏻

— Adam