I think the book is more about him, and how she watches him. I think claire is someone to be pitied...she has to watch her husband come and go from the early years of her life. She keeps losing children because of the condition. Her life has revolved around him, popping in and out all the time. It is a very intresting book, I was so sad about the ending though...

Fellow Eskimo | October 20, 2005 11:27 PM

i really didn't want to start the discussion right now, since it's only friday the 21st...
but i didn't want to forget what i really wanted to say:

after reflecting a little on TTTW, i felt like claire and henry were the same person in two bodies. i want to say that the book was really about claire--and then i want to say that it was about henry--although i feel it's more about claire than henry.
but in the end, i really really really feel like it's about one person--the person that makes up both claire and henry.
is this clear? they are one person inside two bodies?

ana | October 21, 2005 02:22 PM

I thought Clare was great and never considered her as a pathetic figure or even a dutiful wife; I thought she was her own person, a talented artist and a struggling mom-to-be and a beautiful rich girl from Wisconsin. She does spend a lot of her life helping Henry, and I guess you could look at it as sad that she never really had the chance to date anyone else because she knew about her eventual fate...but it's hard to address that without getting into the whole nature-of-time-travel/predestination thing.

I read the book about a year ago and listened to the audio CD more recently. I did ask myself at the time whether the book was more Clare's story or Henry's. Couldn't decide. They both narrate in about equal quantities, and they're both victims of a situation they can't control.

Loved the scenes at the Newberry and in Chicago, since I'm from there; loved the punk rock element and the papermaking. Loved, loved, loved the book. The audiobook is great too; two different readers do Henry's and Clare's voices and they both do outstanding jobs.

daisy | October 24, 2005 12:37 PM

I was expecting the book to be about Clare (given the title) and was surprised to find she was really a foil with which the author could give dimension to Henry's character. At least that's how it seemed to me.

I could really relate to the fact that they were mid-western Gen X'ers. I live in MN and the Violent Femmes have a special place in my history. The desription of their concert was right on.

The bird/wing thing was interesting. At first I just assumed it was an analogy to Henry flying through time and in and out of her life. After I finished reading TTTW if occured to me that maybe making art "about birds and lonliness" (or whatever) was an aspect of Clare's predestiny; something not even Henry could see in advance. Maybe she was unwittingly preparing and practicing for her ultimate piece for Henry? Then again, maybe not.

thrasha | October 24, 2005 01:13 PM

I liked Claire much more than I liked Henry. However, I did, at times, find myself very, very angry with her. For example, is she an artist? She calls herself an artist, and she makes art, but we aren't shown that she is successful. She doesn't want to get a "real" job because she wants to have time to devote to her art. We watch her friend(Gomez's wife) moonlight and then become successful. She had a very priveleged life as a child, and then as an adult who had a husband who could win the lottery.

manda | October 25, 2005 09:31 AM

Foreshadowing:

One of the things I liked so much about this book was the use of imagery and foreshadowing. At one time, Henry tells the read that without his feet, you may as well shoot him. Wow! I knew from that point what was going to happen.

Question:

How many Henry's?

How many Henry's where there at his death scene? There was the Henry sitting on the rock, there was the Henry in the clearing that waves to Claire, and then there was the Henry that got shot? I had a hard time with there being SO many Henry's.

Going to Hollywood:

I hear that Jen Anniston and Brad Pitt have bought the movie rights. I also hear that Pitt is to play Henry, and Kate Winslett is to play Claire. Appropriate casting? Who would you cast?

manda | October 25, 2005 09:41 AM

Manda, I didn't know about the movie. Thank god Jennifer Aniston doesn't want to play Clare. Mmmm...Janeane Garafolo as Charisse? (Was that her name? I don't have a copy of the book.)

Manda, I liked your point about Clare as the little rich girl. It makes me wonder whether Henry needed to have a wife used to the luck factor and not someone in control of her life.

daisy | October 25, 2005 10:50 PM

Oh dear. I think Kate Winslet will make a lovely Claire, Brad Pitt, on the other hand....
I don't have anything interesting or useful to contribute since I read this awhile ago, but one reason I enjoyed this book so much was the setting. I live near Chicago and go to school at Northwestern which is in Evanston. Immediately after finishing the book, I HAD to stop by Bookman's Alley and browse.

enygma | October 25, 2005 10:51 PM

I read this book about a year ago and loved it.

I think that Claire Danes would make an excellent Claire. She has an air of richness and artisticness about her that would the suit the character.

I think that Brad Pitt would make a horrible Henry. I picture someone more like Keanue Reeves. I don't really like him but he fits my skinny and disheveled image of Henry. Not sure if he could create any chemistry with Claire Daines though.

Lucy | October 28, 2005 04:37 PM

sorry i never came back this week.

due to hurricane wilma, i'm still without power at home. right now i'm on someone's computer and their internet connection. i can't really do much. but as soon as i get power (hopefully next week!) i'll get on track with this discussion. i'm bummed that i missed it during the week. i was REALLY looking forward to it--i loved TTTW!

ana | October 28, 2005 09:17 PM

p.s.--on the casting issue--i can picture adrien brody as henry. and ... as claire...kate winslet would be my choice, or maybe maybe uma thurman with dyed hair?

ehhh....

ana | October 28, 2005 09:22 PM

I loved this book - the lovestory, the sci-fi, the punk rock dissertations, the pathos. Even though the book refers to Claire, I think the fact that she is named "The Time-Traveler's Wife" is telling in that that is her role. It's not called "Claire Waits" or "How I Learned to Cope with a Time-Traveler." In that regard, it seems to me the story is about Henry first and foremost and told by him (by Henry) and about him (through Claire's eyes).

baji | October 29, 2005 09:55 AM

Unlike some others, this was my first time reading this novel. I'm a fan of Diana Gabaldon, who uses historic fiction as a backdrop to the underlying romantic story. This novel was quite enjoyable, because I needed to understand both Claire & Henry, in order to journey with them.

I think there are valid points to support both Claire & Henry as the "main" characters, but I agree with Ana's earlier posting about the main character being 1 person with these 2 personalities.

As for casting, even if Pitt & Aniston have the rights, I think I like the Claire Danes/Adrien Brody casting better. As much as I adored Pitt in "Legends of the Fall", I can't see him as Henry.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if the pairing were Dunst/Pitt - eek!

Paula | October 31, 2005 11:48 PM

well, i finally got my power back, although i am a week late for the discussion on TTTW...

this was my first time reading TTTW and i absolutely loved the story. the reason that is given for henry's time traveling is plausible to me, even though the whole concept of it is creepy in that it's just a never ending cycle: the henrys and claires will never end and so on and so on!

what i did have trouble with was the actual voice. i couldn't tell henry apart from claire. i had to keep going back to see whose narration i was reading. but perhaps that's just more substance to back up my opinion that claire and henry are like one person split up into two different bodies.

okay, i finished reading the book two weeks before this discussion started so i need someone to refresh me on the bird/wing imagery. i remember claire making those dark wings...but that's all.

claire, i did feel sympathy for her. she anticipates for her life with henry in the present and just when it seems that her life is complete (henry and their daughter) he's gone...that was so so so sad.
i do agree with daisy in that she was very much her own person. i don't think that henry's visits to her as a child shaped the person that she is.

as daisy mentions, the foreshadowing was great. the feet thing, gosh, you just knew something had to happen, but i never expected frostbyte. and i never expected his feet to be amputated. and i never expected henry to slowly and helplessly decline.

something that puzzled me was how when claire first met henry in the present, he just accepted that she knew who he was and the whole story about time-traveling so easily. and howcome henry hadn't time-traveled yet, or didn't remember, if he had been time-traveling since he was a child???

oh, before i forget. the one person that i did think was pathetic was charisse. she knew that gomez was in love with claire and she still married him. and gomez was CREEPY. it really bothered me that claire never really did anything about him, and it bothered me more how after henry died, claire was tempted to get it on with gomez one more time.

ana | November 1, 2005 07:14 PM

Ana, I think that when Henry met Clare in the Newberry for the "first" time, he knew he was a time-traveler; it's just that he hadn't yet met Clare in his timeline. Remember when he said to her something like, "You know why I don't know who you are, right?" and Clare agreed.

Basically, Henry didn't start time-traveling back to Clare's childhood until he met her as an adult. He wouldn't have any reason to go to the meadow until he fell in love with Clare and went back to her childhood. Does this make any sense at all?

daisy | November 1, 2005 08:36 PM

ah, that does make sense.
somehow i missed that detail.
thanks, daisy!

ana | November 2, 2005 09:06 PM

I borrowed from a friend a copy of the book and I am still thinking of devoting my time reading it. Not that I don't like it, but reading for me is not just an ordinary leisure. My friend told me that the characters were movin. Also the plot animates a different story within the story. With all the raves, reading it may still be a reality.

Wong PoKér Hu Online | November 14, 2005 06:58 PM

Hi guys, sorry I missed this discussion - I got the book for my birthday on November 3 so I've only just finished it.

I have to say, I totally missed the whole bird thing, but that's really interesting - thanks for pointing it out, that's why I need book discussions - because different people pick up on different things.

I thought Claire was a priveleged but good person. It was a real shame that she missed out on all that self-discovery, meeting guys etc because she knew her own destiny. She never even had the chance to choose Henry - he came to her and told her she'd already chosen him. He takes away from Claire the right to choose her life partner and the right to explore her own identity - he even tells her how she should like her coffee.

When I read the book I liked Henry. Thinking about him now he's a horrible person. We never find out the specifics of what he does to and with other women because we only really know as much as Claire does, but the hints are that he's pretty awful.

He does a lot of terrible things - steals, beats people up etc and he says this is to survive but often when we see him beating people up he is being far more violent than he needs to be.
I'm starting to think that just maybe he deserves what he gets. I'd love to hear what you guys think about this, but I guess I kind of missed the boat! Oh well.

Loved the book though.

Danny

danny | November 18, 2005 11:35 AM

Danny, I totally missed the hints you saw about Henry and other women. And I was able to accept Henry's violence as necessary.

I suspect I'm older than most of you. (I never heard of a single one of the music groups mentioned!) I was moved by the deep and mature love Clare and Henry had for one another. Long married love is different from "in love"--deeper and stronger, and includes mutual dependence. Having been married for 35 years myself, I really identified with their relationship.

However, it was hard to accept Claire's singular attachment to Henry before she meets him in real time, regardless of what she "knows" is her future. It would seem to me that only being with Henry for an hour or two every couple of weeks would be a totally unacceptable love life for an adolescent.

Henry tells Claire not to wait for him, to go on with her life after he's gone. He doesn't want her pining away as his father did after the death of his mother. Yet he tells her that she will see him again someday. Knowing that, how can she not remain loyal and wait for him?

Beth | November 19, 2005 07:59 AM

i too noticed the stuff about henry and the women and the violence (mostly revealed to us by his ex and her friend [sorry--forgot their names]), but i just kept pushing it out of my head because i really believed that he was a good guy and he was stressed from time-travel.

about claire's singular attachment to henry after meeting with him for two hours once every few weeks, it seems believeable to me. teenage girls start making ideas and fantasies in their heads about guys they've only met for 5 minutes! i remember it!

but i do think that henry was selfish at the end, now that beth brings that part up.
if he really wanted her to live her life, he shouldn't have told her.
i'm sure he was just afraid of losing her...

ana | November 22, 2005 09:42 PM

Sorry to jump in so late. I really liked the book but as with all time travel books I read, I had to go over sections several times.

I saw the hints of violence but like ana, I tried to forget about it. I just wanted Henry to be a good guy but I suspect that that was not the case.

steph | November 23, 2005 10:14 PM