Main
Search This Site

« back to A Few Holiday Suggestions
» forward to Merry Christmas

Discussion Archives
Bel Canto
blindness
A Box of Matches
Bridge of Birds

a canticle for leibowitz
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Chronicle of a Death Foretold
A Confederacy of Dunces
confessions of an ugly stepsister
Coraline
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

descent into hell
The Dew Breaker
The Diamond Age
Doctor Zhivago
don quixote

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Fight Club
The Five People You Meet in Heaven
Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe

The Ghost Writer
good in bed

harry potter and the sorcerer's stone
A Home at the End of the World
House of Leaves

If on a Winter's Night a Traveler
invisible monsters

The Kite Runner

Life of Pi

memoirs of a geisha
Middlesex
Motherless Brooklyn
mysterious skin

Neverwhere
noir
Norwegian Wood

One for the Money

the poisonwood bible

revenge
Running with Scissors

The Secret Life of Bees
shopgirl
The Solitaire Mystery
The Stupidest Angel

Things Fall Apart
Thumbsucker
The Time Traveler's Wife
Troll

Veronika Decides to Die

The Wasp Factory
Watch Your Mouth
What is the What
A Wrinkle in Time
Wuthering Heights

 

December 15, 2003

Watch Your Mouth

Welcome to the discussion of Daniel Handler's second novel, Watch Your Mouth. It is kind of hard to believe that before he became Lemony Snicket, Handler wrote this book about incest, opera, 12 stepping and the golem.

To start off the discussion I wanted to know what your overall impressions of the story were. Did you enjoy it? Do you think it make much sense? Did you like the way the story was presented: starting out as an opera and ending in a 12 step program?

I was going to choose Handler's first novel, The Basic Eight, but I liked the controversial nature of this book better. Personally, I tend to think this is the weaker of his two novels. I feel as though he tries to cram too much into the book at one time. The story is rather disturbing and horrific. But I do find myself fascinated with the golem. The idea of a man-made man to reap retribution for you.

Believe it or not, this book is supposed to be an operatic comedy. We have our narrator, Joseph, getting ready to spend a lazy summer, working at camp and being shacked up in the house of his girlfriend, Cynthia Glass, who will no doubt provide a summer full of shagging. But it becomes apparent right away, that the Glasses are unlikemost families and are caught up in some weird incestuous circle, while Mrs. Glass spends more and more time in the basement working on an "art project."

I feel one of the main obstacles to reading this book are the characters. I found most of them so unlikeable that I wanted to throw the book across the room several times. It is hard to garner sympathy for Joseph when he seems to be stilted in passivity at the events that are going on all around him. It seems fitting that he ends up a 12 stepper, it almost provides a structure in which he can function.

I am eager to hear everyone's thoughts on this story. I hated this book when I first read it, but it kind of grew on me the second time around.



comments

hi mary carmen!
just give me one more day please!
i'll be done with it by tomorrow
(i didn't get the book in the mail till last week thursday and then stuff happens on weekends...u know?)
but i'll comment tomorrow

thanx

I'm in the same boat as Ana. This week just snuck up on me; I didn't think we'd be reading until next week, but forgot that Christmas is next week (holy crap!). I'm about a third of the way in and really enjoying the book, particularly its structure and voice. So, thanks for the selection, Mary Carmen. I'll be back shortly when I've finished.

It's all good guys! I am just glad to hear that people are reading it!

Okay MC, finally done.

Now to follow the discussion:

The story: I thought the story was so wacko and I mean that in a good humorous way. I did enjoy the story, overall. I think I enjoyed the story more as it got to the end of the opera. Did the story make much sense? Well, I'm not sure. I think it did. Even though it had a Golem in the story, it was presented in a believable way, no? You know, in a magical realism way. The way the story was presented was, indeed, very creative. It was definitely something different to start out as an opera and then a twelve step program. Even though, I have to admit I was annoyed with the way it was presented. I found the opera part very distracting because I didn't envision the opera part. I just wanted to read it without the directorial (is that the right word?) comments, i.e., the oboe and the strings, all the techincality in an opera. The twelve step program part wasn't so much as annoying. I was better to read for me, it flowed without interruption.

I've not read any other of Handler's novels so I wouldn't be able to compare it. Personally, I don't know that the subject matter was that controversial. Perhaps I don't see the controversy in it. Well, I suppose the controversial part would be that of the incestous family, which I found unbelievable and hilarious. I didn't find the story that disturbing nor horrific, but rather taking the incest amusing and just too ridiculously funny. At the beginning, the Golem annoyed me so much. I thought the story to be misleading when it got into the Jewish mysticism and all that. I didn't know what it would turn out with at the end. And I'm so glad that the Golem was real. lol It turned the story into something completely unexpected and in the end, I think the novel wasn't really about the incest, but about how one guy took what he saw or what he thought he saw and dealt with it.

Unlike Mary Carmen, I feel the main obstacles to reading the novel was the whole opera technicalities. Like I mentioned earlier, I found it distracting. Aside from that, it confused me so much. I think the way that Joseph narrated during the opera was also confusing. Sometimes I didn't know if it was the present or the past or hypothetical situations. I don't know that the characters were so unlikeable. I mean, of course, if it were real life, they would be dispiseable? not sure. I didn't really feel anything for the characters at all except for Joseph. Well, I don't know...They all seemed like one character to me (Joseph excluded), so I guess I felt like I wanted to know them more in depth. They all seemed to have the same personality, the same obsession? or goal?, the incest. I only knew they were different persons when Joseph described what they did, like Mimi worked at that Arts Center and Stephen was in school, and so on. I think I mostly saw them in a comical light.

do think MC is right about Joseph's passivity. I don't understand why he never dumped Cynthia's ass, left the house for good, and went on with his life. And what boggles me even more is that he ended up sooo TRAUMATIZED over the whole situation. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't feel that there was much to be traumatized from. The incest? I don't know that one would be traumatized from that...Cynthia's death? He never really seemed to show REAL affection or love towards her. So, I don't see why he is so traumatized that he ends up picking that self-help book. The events after that, yes, that I understand. All those events afterwards were so....unrealistic in the way that I couldn't believe that was happening to him, and so ridiculous. I can understand why he be traumatized from all that.

So, overall, I didn't hate the story. Oh, but I did at first. It was annoying. I was tired of Joseph's description of sex. I hated all the parts that dealt with Camp Shalom. I don't see the point of it. Perhaps it works for an opera structure? But what do I know about operas? Oh, and I found Joseph very, very, very repetitive...

But, as I got further into it, I enjoyed the story waay more. I'm SO glad that Joseph decided to skip all those parts in the second part. I'm also satisfied with the way the story turned out. I'd definitely like to see this in a movie, perhaps I'd understand it more?

Ana, I think you brought up spme very good points. I think I may have mispoke or at least sounded too severe when I said I hated the characters and viewed that as an obstacle. I think I should have said that Joseph really pissed me off, because like what you said above, I just don't understand why he didn't do anything. I don't mean that he had to call the cops or anything like that, I mean just walk away and cut these wacks out of his life.

You are dead on when you say that the Glasses are like all the same person. I think, in a way, it is textbook dysfunctional, traumatized individuals. I mean they all know what is going on, but no one acknowledges it and they act "normal," yet they all are the same. Does that make any sense?

I don't know if I find the incest funny. I think it is just me, but I find the notion horrific and disgusting. I think it might just be one of those things that really repulses me in any presentation, but I can totally see how in this story, it is funny.

I am glad that someone else didn't like the opera structure. I found it annoying too because I couldn't really picture them as opera performers. I could see them on stage, but could not visualize the music or the singing.

Joseph being as traumatized as he was...that is another instance where I think there should have been some more character development because I also don't get it. I mean, he never really professed to love Cyn deeply or anything so why he should be that upset I don't know. But, perhaps he found the incest and everyone's attitudes about it so incredibly messed up that is warped his mind. I don't know. There were some moments where I thought he was jealous because of the relationship her and her father were having. But still I don't know why this lead him to an addiction and ruined his life. It just kind of seems unfinished or unexplained. Perhaps someone else can shed some light on this?

Oh and Ana, you will be pleased to know that the movie rights have been purchased, but it keeps getting halted when the incest thing comes up. So maybe some day there will be a movie. Nickelodeon has pruchased the rights to the Lemony Snicket series and I think the Basic Eight has also been secured. So wait and see.

A QUICKIE
I saw a news title a while ago that said: Bush to Have Knees Examined with MRI Scan

I just finished the novel and, once again, thanks to Mary Carmen for selecting this. It was truly fantastic.

I'm not sure where to begin, because I think I need time to digest everything. But here are a few immediate thoughts:

1) I think the golem was not real, but rather still Joseph, even at the end. Even though he's going through the 12 step program, he cannot come to terms with who he is or what he is doing or has done, and the golem remains his alter ego at the very end.

2) Joseph is everyone in the family, or maybe just sleeping with everyone in the family. I think one of those two is true because of a number of contextual clues, but mostly it's the "spidery hands" that he insists everyone has, and later reveals that he also has the exact same hands.

3) The opera and 12-step program structure really made the book even better for me, because the structure of each illuminated so much about Joseph as he was working his way through the action in each part. Plus they were just fun in a quirky sort of way.

4) I wasn't ever mad at any of the characters, as Mary Carmen was, because I saw them as caricatures, and I saw Joseph as a sort of tragic, screwed up figure. Although that doesn't make sense, because either one is true or the other is true. I'm not sure which one I believe. Joseph isn't a reliable narrator, so we can't believe anything he says, so I'm not sure what's real here and what isn't.

I have to think about it some more.

I was just reading some reviews of the novel, and one of them mentions that Mimi's name is "me me" and Cynthia's shortened name is, of course, "Cyn," or "sin." I'm embarrassed I noticed neither on the first read (I need to reread the whole novel now), but I think each supports my developing thesis that they're allegorical constructions in Joseph's head.

Hi all,

I can't decided if I liked this novel or not. I finished it this morning (two days late, sorry) and have been thinking about it throughout the day, but, like Andy, I have no real conclusions yet. However...

1. The opera/12 step structure was really enjoyable for me. I found that the direction in the opera half allowed me to view Joseph as a sympathetic character because I could watch him trying to sort everything out and put every piece in place in a context in which it made sense. And, of course, once you've sorted out the events, you have to sort out your reactions to them, hence, the 12 step.

2. Joseph didn't just walk away because he wasn't being harmed directly until the end. I felt this was allegorical in the sense that we've all done it. Haven't there been situations in your life where every ounce of logic you posses is telling you to leave and yet you stay because it's too fascinating to leave? (Relationships, jobs, social networks, etc.) Physical pain is easy to walk away from, emotional pain is much more difficult to get away from, in my ever so humble opinion. Perhaps it's masochistic but I think it's a very human trait.

3. Mimi as Me, Me was revealed towards the end of the book when Mimi accuses Joseph of being supremely selfish and of not being able to consider anyone else's feelings. I think.

4. I'm not quite sure where Cyn was revealed to be allegory (or a pun?) unless we count Ben (or Stephen, or Joseph) is doing, i.e. commiting Cyn.

5. Having said all that, I think the book was very muddied (no pun intended) and while I suspect that this was on purpose, I'm not quite sure what that purpose was. Was it to clue us in as to how confused Joseph was? Or to illustrate how perception is everything? Or something else entirely?

As Andy said, I need to think more...

Wow, Andy! I think I need to re-read and keep what you just posted in mind. I never even considered that all of these characters were either fragments of his mind, or if he was sleeping with all of them.

Thank you for pointing that out! I can totally see that make sense.

I have read many interviews with Handler about this book and I have never seen this brought up. I almost tempted to write a letter!

(i meant to post this up last night but the site wasn't working)

I think I agree with Andy.
I'm not sure what was true (but that's what I like about it, the haziness).

I'd rather go with the literal story. It's easier to understand.
But unlike Andy, I don't think that they are all (the characters) constructions in Joseph's head...

I think I might agree that he was sleeping with everyone in the family though
or I might agree with Mary Carmen that he was jealous of Cyn's relationship with her father, and I'm adding her brother too.

But, man, (laughing) this is some thing to figure out.
I don't know what to think anymore, much less to believe.

I did have my doubts at first that joseph created the golem in his head.
But I want to believe it was real.
I think it adds to the ridicule of the story.
Whoa, I think I'll stop for now...everything seems blury now

One more thing...one of the things that I quickly jumped to conclusions about the story was that I thought it would turn out about ... how can I say this ... the holocaust, anti-semitism,...I dunno...but I'm glad the way the story turned out.

Joel, I don't think Mimi as "me me" or Cyn as "sin" is necessarily revealed; their names just reveal more about their characters' purpose. Cyn clearly was sin, in the sense that she sleeps with everyone in her house, except for her mother, and Joseph was literally living in sin by participating in this and continuing to sleep with her despite his knowledge of the incest. Notice how he never flinches over the idea that he's being intimate with her either immediately before or after she's intimate with her dad or brother. I think that's either because those affairs aren't happening, or because Joseph is content with what's going on, which makes him complicit.

Ana, I wanted to believe the golem (at the end) was real, too. Actually, I first wanted to believe that Mimi's story was true, so we finally knew that Joseph wasn't making all this up. But then the golem shows up, never mind the fact that he just happened to end up where Mimi was after he just happened to end up where Steven was.

More evidence for this being allegorical, or allegory wrapped in truth wrapped in allegory: Joseph is an English major, and all of the streets in the neighborhood are named after famous authors. Joseph's story (not the novel itself, if those two can be separated) is just begging to be treated as a fictional text.

Andy,

My latest conclusion is that you have a much better grasp on this book than I do. :)

I like your statement here: "this being allegory, or allegory wrapped in truth wrapped in allegory" as it correspondes to the oft-repeated phrase in the novel "a lie, but a lie is sort of a myth, but a myth is sort of a truth".

I'm not real sure what to make of any of the rest of it though.

I do have to say that while I'm not very tempted to re-read this and probably won't be , I am curious to read Hadler's other books.

Joel,

I don't know how alike the Basic Eight is to this book. But I can tell you that the whole concept of "muddy-ing the waters" and "truth wrapped up in fiction" is at the core of that book. I actually like the Basic Eight better than Watch Your Mouth, but I have to be honest, B8 is aimed at the YA set, which I find hilarious.

But I think you will probably like it.

Joel, don't let me fool you. I'm still very confused, which is why I definitely need to read it again.

I'm going to give Basic Eight a read when I get a chance, probably after the holidays. Thanks again for selecting this book, Mary Carmen.

if I may add something...

we're all discussing what might have been, what was real, what was his alter ego, and such.

i was thinking about all of this and then i remembered:

he mentiones more than once, during the opera, that he was writing a paper, (research paper?) for school. perhaps this gives a little more clue to what was real and what wasn't?

i started to belive that everything we were reading was his paper exactly how he wrote it. and it doesn't necessarily have to be real...well, unless it's a research paper.

now that i think of it, it isn't structured like a research paper...or a traditional one.

but then again, i don't remember joseph mentioning his paper during the 12-step program. i think i remember saying something about how if all of this didn't happen, he could've finished his paper and gotten his degree...? something like that?

well, yea...

thanks mary carmen, for the selection

Well, I think we could go on like this forever...you know "he wrote this, but then he contradicts that, and I'm not sure if this was real or if that was real..." but I think the important part was that we enjoyed reading it.

I'm not sure yet if I learned anything from it, or if it inspired any particularly brilliant thoughts of my own, but I definately enjoyed the read and will try out Basic Eight one of these days.

As with everyone else, thanks for the selection Mary Carmen!

I am glad to hear that you all enjoyed the book. I don't think this is one of those books that was really written to make you think lofty thoughts. I think it makes conversation. I mean, you can say to someone, "I just read this really fucked up book about...."

I must admit, that I am rereading right now. All of this talk about what could be happening has motivated me to actively reread.

I liken the Basic Eight to sort of like a Chuck Palahniuk book. It has that twisty sort of ending, that if you are like me, never expect, but upon rereading want to slap yourself for not seeing.

 

Advertisements
 
 
Author:
Title:

Keyword:
Additional Features:
 First Edition
 Signed
 Dust Jacket
 Any Binding
 Hard Cover
 Soft Cover