RE: "...characters experience their own strangeness -- as if to be ordinary were an accomplishment..." Okay. Jonathan and Alice seems to be the characters most aware of their Strangeness. But I think both are a little overwrought. Once Alice gets a job and teaches baking classes, she seems to become more balanced. Living exclusively through her son, whining about her marriage, hanging out in Jonathan's room & dancing with Bobby: well, yeah. That's strange. She needed to find a more *ordinary* identity. Jonathan - he moves to NY, makes a life for himself, takes a roommate, finds a lover...I think he worried too much about what is normal.
Bobby on the other hand...jeez. He comes across as almost totally devoid of any interior life...and the least concerned and only vaguely conscious of it. Maybe he was fried from all the acid, pot, speed, & booze he consumed throughout his adolescence. He has a pattern of letting life happen to him. He'ld still be working in a bakery in Ohio if J.'s folks hadn't sold the house. Later, with Clare, he remains emotionally diconnected. The tragedies (and drugs)in his young life have rendered him unable to ever be *ordinary* - he has no concept of what that is.

RE: Cunnigham's use of language. I could go for hours on that subject. There were so many phrases that gave me pause, ie: 'the inconsquentiality of elderliness.' (shudder) The theatre metaphors were very creative. Andy points out his distraction from the repetition of "flesh" - for me it was the chronic "you knows" that peppered the dialogue.

There is much more to say...but I have to do timesheets for the field crew.

barbara | November 17, 2003 10:00 AM

A comment on the inside of the book, from the Washington Post Book World, says: "Michael Cunningham has written a novel that all but reads itself." I completely agree with this. The story seems to flow effortlessly but I can't say that ever really I felt anything for the characters.

The story (the way I read it) is about people wanting to be their true/questionless selves but don't really know what that is, or how to make it happen.

Bobby: Sweet guy, obviously had a hard life and had to deal with many losses. I liked him but he seemed so weak. In the end, he knew Clare was leaving with Rebecca and he didn't try to stop her. That's his daughter, too, you know? He's so non-confrontational that he'll let Clare just take off. I just wanted to kick him in the butt to get some kind of reaction out of him.

Jonathan: He seemed really selfish but that might just be the result of growing up as an only child with Alice for a mother. I liked to read about how he changed when Rebecca was born. He finally had something to care about and focus on.

Clare: I can't believe she left with Rebecca. I didn't really enjoy her character throughout the story as it was, but my indifference turned to hatred at the end. Is that too strong? Clare is neutrotic and, we learn in the end, powerfully attached to her daughter (as any mother should be) so you know that when she finally settles somewhere, she'll be repeating Alice's story. And you know what? She just seemed fake to me.

Alice: I was surprised to have her narration in the story at all. I thought it'd just be the three. I thought her story was particularly good. I liked her in the beginning, then saw her through new eyes when I read about Clare's impression of her and then Alice totally became a new person for me in the end.

I think Alice and Johnathan are the only ones in the story that really changed. Clare was still selfish (although, I understand the motherly-protection thing kicked in and why she had to leave) and Bobby was still blah. Actually, I'm not so sure that Alice changed so much as her lifestyle changed and she's just rolling with it. Jonathan change because of Rebecca but, whoops, Rebecca's gone now.

So what's in store for Bobby and Jonathan? Erich passes away, they continue running the Home Cafe and come home to an empty house. It seems so depressing to me.

Okay, so that's just what I thought about the characters and story. The way that the book is set-up, the 1st person narrative for each character was good. I liked getting inside each person's head, as opposed to an omnipotent narrator telling me how everything is. I think this made me feel stronger emotions about the characters because I felt I knew them better, you know? Like, I know them as well as they know themselves because I'm in their head.

This was a lyrical and easy book but reading about people that are blah or harmlessly selfish isn't really exciting enough for me. I'd rather read about people that are seriously messing up their lives or the lives of others.

amy | November 17, 2003 10:24 AM

I can't say that ever really I felt anything for the characters.

Amy, that's an interesting response, and prompted me to think about my reaction. I want to disagree with you, because first I thought I felt something for the characters. But instead, I think I had a reaction to their reactions, if that makes sense.

There were a couple places where their introspection deeply resonated with me. I think Barbara and I experienced the same thing with some phrases; for her it was "the inconsequentiality of elderliness"; for me, some phrases or internal remarks like that (I'd quote but the book isn't in front of me at the moment) just made me stop reading and think.

The sole exception to this might be Alice; in her first chapter, particularly, I felt deeply sympathetic to her loneliness and desire for friendship from someone, even if that meant intruding on her son's life. Perhaps this says more about me than it does the characters, however.

Andy | November 17, 2003 11:21 AM

Okay, I did feel something for the characters but it didn't really last. By the end of the book, I didn't care one way or the other what any of them did. Clare left and I was waiting for Bobby or Jonathan to do something about it. Go after her, find her, something. When they didn't, I felt frustrated for a couple minutes and then I felt nothing.

Am I being too harsh on this book? I like my books to take me on a roller-coaster ride or get down and dirty or whisk me off on a satisfying adventure. This book, A Home at the End of the World... I wasn't completely satisfied with the story. It was beautifully written but too middle of the road. I want tragedy (good enough to make me cry) or comedy (good enough to make milk squirt out my nose).

amy | November 17, 2003 1:29 PM

After having finished AHatEofW, I am undecided on weather I like it as a whole. There are some parts that I enjoyed a lot, mostly the first part of the novel, when Bobby and Jon were younger. But now, I'll go on to the points that Andy brought up:

I found Cunningham's use of language easily accessible. He's very descriptive, most of the times, about a lot of things, which is good. I think it's important to describe characters and such, but the only problem I had sometimes was when he went on to describe the environment too much.

The narrative structure, I feel was very successful. Like Amy said, it was like getting into four different heads which allows you to get to know each character better. And like Andy, I didn't feel a difference in character either. Like he said, the book can be opened at any page and not know who you are reading. Well, except during the first part of the book, I think the characters had more of their own identity. Nonetheless, the narrative structure was by far more appealing that an omnipotent narrator

listed from least to most favorite:
CLARE: I didn't like Clare from the beginning. And I too didn't enjoy her character. I can believe that she left with Rebecca in the end. She was her child, even though Jonathan became the most attached to her and Bobby, well, the same as always: whatever goes. I believe that if Clare would have stayed at that old house with the guys, she would have grown bitter, very bitter, and the adults would have ended up fighting over Rebecca, mainly Clare and Jon. One thing that bothered me about Clare was how cold she was at the funeral. She didn't act cold, but we all knew she was being cold, we were inside her head.

ALICE: Although she wasn't my favorite, I feel like she was the most real. During Jon's youth, the way that Alice behaves with him, you know, he was her friend, I think it is how a lot of mothers commonly are when they have no other friends and their husbands are out all day. True, she was possesive, but it was understandable, and in a way, pathetic. I think Alice deeply hated her life. Proof of that might be that she never did anything to change it, like make friends, take a job, join a club, socialize--then Bobby came along...The way she felt towards her husband, I think, is also common. Especially when she didn't have an answer for Jonathan if she loved her husband or not. She just wanted to get out of her house so she got married. What I'm trying to say is that it isn't uncommon to find a woman who has gone and done things the way that Alice has.

JONATHAN: I really liked Jonathan in the beginning, how he was astonished in finding Bobby and looking up to him, and how he fell in love with him. I liked how he tried to create comfort by telling his dumb, made-up stories. What I respected in Jon was how he grew or expanded once he went to New York City (although, if he would have gone to a difference state and city to study, how would he have turned out?). He wasn't stuck in his old tastes, with music, particularly...One thing about Jon though, he worried too much and that was very annoying. I wasn't pleased to find out that Jon had slept around, either...Towards the end, it was understandable how Jonathan felt towards Erich, especially because of his AIDS. He could've greeted him and accepted him into his home with compassion, but instead he did it out of duty...sigh, we all know how that goes. What was really annoying was how attached he became to Rebecca, he became too attached. Even though they were a family, how could Jonathan think that Clare wouldn't mind? (I think that might have been part of the reason that Clare left...)

BOBBY: seemingly, the most dumb and weak character . Bobby was so dead inside. He seemed to lack any real passion (except for his baking) and any character. Then again, all of that might have been a result from his junkie days and all the loses he suffered, especially of his brother. But here is why he was or is my favorite: To me, Bobby represented a romantic literary figure. He just was (although the contradiction lies in that he was so dead inside, emotionally disconnected). His underlying goal was to reach the life that he and his brother had planned, live the life of his dead brother. There's a part where he says that he was living his brother's life, when Clare gave him a haircut and he was waiting in the kitchen to come out. There is one moment where we see Bobby have a real reaction, and that is when Clare makes love to him. That was a real surprise, I didn't think that Bobby would react in that way. Yet, that moment was crucial because it was when we find out that Bobby isn't all dead inside. Bobby could love indiscriminately.
In truth, AHatEotW was really about Bobby. The novel begins with Bobby, even though it ends with Jon...but it was mainly Bobby's goal that was reached, unexpectedly--although he didn't get to Woodstock, he got as close as he could to it, and in some way, fulfilled his brother's wish, and his, which I think was having a family (even if unconventional, with Jon).

(whoops, I forgot there were three parts to the story, I thought there were just two...from now, the second part is really the second and third part)

Now, overall, AHatEotW...sometimes I didn't know if it was a cheesy romance novel because of the sex parts. I'm not sure what message it was trying to send, if that's what it was trying to do. Perhaps the narrative structure made it seem a little like a soap-opera...
and yes, the end was depressing, but I'm glad it ended the way it did. I really don't want to know what happens later in their life. I was mostly happy for Bobby, devoid of feelings, who unwittingly reached his goal.

ana | November 17, 2003 1:42 PM

whether*

ana | November 17, 2003 1:42 PM

Ana, I think it's fascinating that Bobby was your favorite character. To me he was the least fully formed, and the least accessible. But if I'm not misreading your comment, it seems like you felt the same way, especially since you view him as a sort of archetype.

I think you've broadly hit on a major point, which is that the novel is a mood piece or a character analysis with plot thrown in to show growth and change. Thus, as you pull the characters and plot apart, they don't seem as strong as when you're in the middle of their heads.

And for that reason, Amy, I don't think you're being too hard on the novel. I don't think tragedy or comedy was the goal, although some of us may have wanted it to be.

Andy | November 17, 2003 2:21 PM

I do feel the same way as everyone does about Bobby, Andy, more or less. Perhaps his way of being attracted me most than the other characters because the other characters were the opposite of Bobby, so he stood out the most in that sense. Am I making sense?
I will give credit to this novel, it got me reading again, really reading, finishing an entire book.
I thought it would be a really really really good one, and in the end, it wasn't, but it wasn't that bad either. Oh well

ana | November 17, 2003 3:09 PM

the next statement is quite funny...I keep laughing to myself:

the more I think about it, I'm starting to feel as if Bobby is the hero in the novel.

I don't know if the author meant to have a hero or not, but I think Bobby is the hero...

It might be hard to see this point of view through Bobby's numbness

ana | November 17, 2003 3:16 PM

urgh...i wish i would write everything down at once....anyway

interesting point Barbara stated..."Jonathan and Alice seems to be the characters most aware of their Strangeness...She needed to find a more *ordinary* identity. Jonathan - he moves to NY, makes a life for himself, takes a roommate, finds a lover...I think he worried too much about what is normal."

Clare is also strange, they are all strange as a group. Bobby is the only one who isn't. We keep labeling Bobby and a dummy, weak, numb, and everything of the like.

I think they all wanted to be normal...like Bobby? Does that make sense? To us, he isn't normal, nor are the other characters that strange...

But perhaps in the novel, they ARE strange, and Bobby IS normal--to them.

Can I still claim that he is the hero?

...and he only saved Jonathan in the end?

ana | November 17, 2003 3:22 PM

urgh...i wish i would write everything down at once....anyway

interesting point Barbara stated..."Jonathan and Alice seems to be the characters most aware of their Strangeness...She needed to find a more *ordinary* identity. Jonathan - he moves to NY, makes a life for himself, takes a roommate, finds a lover...I think he worried too much about what is normal."

Clare is also strange, they are all strange as a group. Bobby is the only one who isn't. We keep labeling Bobby and a dummy, weak, numb, and everything of the like.

I think they all wanted to be normal...like Bobby? Does that make sense? To us, he isn't normal, nor are the other characters that strange...

But in the novel, they ARE strange, and Bobby IS normal--to them.

Can I still claim that he is the hero?

...and he did save Jonathan and Clare...Clare because she left the strange family life with them to live a normal life of single motherhood, and Jonathan because he stayed there and lived the simple, normal life with a daily routine--the cafe...

ana | November 17, 2003 3:25 PM

Clare doesn't seem too popular with Ana and certainly not with Amy. I thought she was a colorful bohemian (?) relief against the morose, intense introspection of J and the (as Amy put it) Blah-ness of Bobby. At least she had a little zest for living and pushed to try new things, create change. Different jobs, relationships, totally shakes Bobby out of his feet of clay, even has the balls (or at least borrows Bobby's) to have a baby. She seems to be more IN her life. To her credit even though she didn't like Alice very well...and neither did I...she shows her compassion and tenderness.

Andy asked about the "emotional honesty" of the novel. Perhaps Clare's hasty departure falls short in this department. Would she really sever her child's relationships w/ J & B so abruptly and so finally, not to mention her own ties? I believed it when J abandoned his roommates and wanted to be on his own, but I had a hard time accepting that Clare would walk away with so much shared history, never mind taking on a solo parenting endeavor. Was it Erich's presence in the house? I liked Clare enough to think she would put her child's best interests 1st and to me that means keeping "Dad" around - particularly the responsible, employed, sober, doting type.

barbara | November 17, 2003 4:59 PM

I'm totally with you on that. Her decision is shocking not because it was necessarily surprising, but in the sense that it seems without reason or even forethought. Yet it's presented as a very deliberate choice; heck, even Bobby knew what was going on. We needed to see more of her discontentment with that situation, and more of his awareness of it, for that to work well.

Overall, the whole final section moves at the same pace as the rest of the novel, but for me it still feels comparatively underdeveloped. It's definitely my least favorite part, and I would have been content had the novel ended at the end of section two.

Andy | November 17, 2003 8:25 PM

I'm not really sure what to think of this book as a whole, but there were parts of it that were really enjoyable.

I enjoyed the first part of the novel the best. I found the characters to be the most well-rounded when they were young. It seems that they all, as they grew older, became exaggerations of that which they most disliked about themselves. They feared stasis, and yet, for some reason, fought for "normality" (whatever THAT is).

I liked Alice a lot at the beginning of the novel. She seemed very real to me, wanting desperately just to be important to her son again, the way she was when he was little. I found Clare's analysis of her to be cold and judgemental, and not at all real; there were no new eyes for me there. Where I saw Alice afresh was later when Jonathan went to Phoenix to get Ned's ashes. She has done an about-face which we have seen coming, with her job, her classes, her business, her haircut, her urges to leave Ned...but it is nevertheless surprising. She pushes Jonathan away in favor of her own life. She keeps a secret. And she pushes him away from the nest and in the direction of his own life. Here's where I get my "new eyes." From Jonathan. And suddenly I understand why he hated her when he was an adolescent. I hate her myself, for an instant, and yet I understand her, too.

I thought Ned was superb, in his own small, bit-part way. He is sweet and paternal, comfortable in his own skin and always struggling to give his family what they need. he hides in the theater, trying to be the romantic hero that he doesn't know he really is, in a lot of ways. He is beautiful, he is charming and loveable, and his life is a cascade of small tragedies outside of his control. And he is the most emotionally stable and "normal" character in the whole novel. I think all of the characters would really like to be more like him inside.

Clare. I hate Clare. And yet, I understand her, too. I find her neurotic and overly emotional, and yet, strangely logical. I think her real fear is true intimacy. I mean, honestly...she and Jonathan had a great dynamic...but it was superficial. Telling all of your secrets doesn't guarantee a lasting love. She never really let anyone into her heart but Rebecca. I think it had a lot to do with her father and her mother, but still, she recognized it herself, and didn't like it, so why didn't she DO something about it? I also thought Clare was alot like Alice. Maybe that's why they don't like each other. If circumstances had been a bit different, would Clare have become Alice, instead of her antithesis?

Burt. Ned's antethesis. He is charming and loveable gone horribly wrong after the accident.Before, he is what Bobby would have been, I think, had Calton not died. Afterwards, he is the threat of what Bobby might become, and then he, too, passes into vapor.

Bobby. I wanted to know Bobby better. In the early part of the novel, I thought him beautiful and full of promse. And then he flops. I love the glimmering moment in the kitchen, after Clare gives him a haircut, but it's Bobby's one true shining moment, the pinnacle of his life. And that was the true tragedy in the whole story, if you must have one. He just settles into blissful "normality," letting things just happen to him and living a dead man's life instead of claiming his own. He's not even particulary happy about Rebecca's birth or particularly sad about her going. It just "happened" and had nothing to do with Carlton's goal, so it didn't matter.

Jonathan. Selfish. Peevish. Whiny. You love him, and you love to hate him. He vascillates between golden moments of real affection, real humanity, and dark moments where he reverts back to being an empty, egocentric toddler. I like his adult relationship with his mother. It has a very interesting dynamic. I also think that when he left Bobby and Clare, he had done the right thing, and should have never come back. That was his chance to grow, and he blew it.

I thought that the narration style, with the alternations between the narrators, offered a lot of potential, but failed to live up to it. I think that, had the voice changed to better suit the character, we would have goten a less disconnected feel from the chapters. It still felt like an omnipotent narrator was trying to tell us what was going on by channeling himself throught the character's mouths. However, having read the Hours and knowing how Cunningham likes to merge one character with another, I think maybe that was intentional, like he was trying to make the characters mentally and emotionally inseparable, so that even when Clare leaves, they're all still a family.

As a whole, the story is like looking at Rennaisance art, in a way. It has a rather crude, obvious structure, and the subjects are distorted and inhuman. And then you look closer.... There are lines and parallels that don't occur to you at first glance, proportions that seemed ridiculous but now begin to mean something. The delicacy of the brush strokes becomes apparent. You appreciate it; the craftsmanship, the effort, the love that was poured in...even if you don't actually like it.

Alisha | November 18, 2003 11:46 AM

to alisha:

RENAISSANCE ART? are you sure you are not confusing this with Gothic? Last I recall, there was nothing crude, distorted, much less inhuman about the renaissance, au contraire, it was the beginning of the opposite.

ana | November 18, 2003 4:34 PM

I think maybe you're right about that particular point, I mean everything pre-Rennaisance...but the point stands.

Alisha | November 18, 2003 5:58 PM

No, wait, I mean some early Rennaisance art, too. I mean, did you ever really LOOk at the Mona Lisa? Not those stupid prints they sell inevery college bookstore...I mean the REAL thing? She's crudely done, her colors are all wrong, she's flat-looking...and yet, though it's a hideous painting, it's beautiful in the trouble he took. The background is more beautifully rendered than she is, and yet, she speaks volumes about her creator, about her world.
There are hundreds of paintings like that, throughout history.
But the paintings aren't the point. They're just a way of conveying my point, which, as I said before, still stands.

Alisha | November 18, 2003 6:02 PM

I agree with alisha in that i appreciate the book but I didn't particularly like it. i also appreciate that the book has ignited such a good discussion.

i haven't read 'the hours' (only saw the movie) but the more that 'a home at the end of the world' is discussed, the more it feels like characters from "the hours' repeated. forgive me for not remember the characters names in the book and using the actor's names.

doesn't julianne moore's character sound like alice? and john c reilly's character like ned? isn't this the same story/relationship over again? the mood and themes kind-of feel the same. is this, then, a case of an author writing the same book over again (just a little bit different)?

now that i think about it, there isn't anything wrong with that. plenty of authors write the same book over and over again but change a few details be/c that's what their audience likes. it's just something i noticed.

amy | November 18, 2003 7:17 PM

First, I'm glad the book resonated on some level with everyone who's posted here so far, even if you didn't walk away liking it. The best BookBlog discussions have been about books with mixed reactions, I think, and I'm really enjoying this conversation.

I haven't read The Hours, either, but I definitely see the connection. Ed Harris' character is Erich, et cetera. It seems like Michael Cunningham merged AHATEOTW and Mrs. Dalloway, and it apparently worked, since it produced an strong film and a Pulitzer.

Forgot to mention this earlier: Did anyone else notice that Bobby's sections are all written in the present tense? All of the other characters, I believe (I admittedly did not do a chapter-by-chapter study), writes/speaks their chapters in the past tense. I think this may support Ana's theories about Bobby's role, but I'm not completely sure.

Andy | November 18, 2003 8:19 PM

getting back with alisha,
I didn't mean to come off in a rude way (I hope you understand). I understand your point towards the novel (I just don't think that using your point in comparison to Renaissance art is what works), nonetheless, I understand it. You did bring up a point that I couldn't find the words for, how Jon and Clare's relationship was dynamic, but superficial. I think she might be the kind of person to hold relationships like that kind with almost everyone...which leads me to believe that it was better that she left the guys, even if that means Rebecca might not have a father figure. Weren't there parts in the novel where she wanted to leave from the beginning? So, I wasn't so surprised about it. I don't think she belonged with any of them.

I haven't read The Hours either, nor watched it. So I'm out of that part, sorry...

And Andy...I didn't notice that Bobby was the only one who spoke in the present tense, or that you think that...but I will check it out now

And, yea, the more AHatEotW is analyzed, the more I appreciated it, not necessarily like it...

ana | November 18, 2003 9:49 PM

Amy, I rented The Hours just before I read A Home At... You are absolutely right about the characters being recreated for this novel. Julianne Moore as Alice - no doubt! Ed Harris as Erich.... what about Ed Harris as Jonathan? Erich dies, Bobby leaves him, Clare (Meryl Streep) resurfaces w/her daughter to care for him now that he has AIDS. And why does Cunningham deliberately leave Jonathan's HIV status unaddressed. J seems to wonder if he might be sick but never pursues it. Is that why Clare leaves? -She says she has abandonment issues - is she pre-empting the grief of watching J die of AIDS by beating the retreat?

Andy, I can't say that I noticed Bobby's narration being written in the present tense. But in skimming over several passages a 2nd time, I did notice Bobby expresses deeper insights than his character seems capable of. Cunningham is really helping him out - as if the author wants to get Bobby's point of view across but isn't willing to sacrifice certain observations or nuances of the characters. I didn't care - but it feels a litle like cheating...giving him more powers of perception that one can reasonably attribute to him based on his dullish persona.

Did anybody feel like Clare was a substitute mother figure for Jonathan?

barbara | November 19, 2003 10:28 AM

BTW- for anyone who cares about The Hours overlap theme....Meryl Streep's character is named "Clarissa"

barbara | November 19, 2003 5:00 PM