I think Patchett does manage to write effectively about music: I don't think she actually writes about the music per se. I can't recall her trying to describe the music in itself. What she writes about is the feelings that music - in particular opera - can create.

I don't listen to opera music myself, but I do play the violin in an orchestra, and in this capacity I can relate to some of the strong feelings the characters in Bel Canto experience when they hear Roxane sing. I know how entrancing it can be when I watch and listen to a brilliant solo violinist perform, and I can relate to the almost ethereal and superhuman qualities that Roxane and her voice seems to take on -some soloists seem to defy the laws of physics and musical possibility - they seem to be able to go beyond the bounds of what their instrument is capable of. I guess that's the 'magic' of music and that's what Patchett's trying to convey.

The 'dancing about architecture' quote suggests that music shouldn't be written about and I disagree with that. Maybe there isn't much point trying to translate music into words, but talking about how it affects people is fascinating, particularly because people's responses to music, their likes and dislikes, seem to vary so much. Anyway, if Tchaikovsky can put the story of Romeo and Juliet into music, why not the other way around?

I'd be interested to hear a perspective on this book from an opera lover. Tell us what we're missing!

Danny | April 25, 2006 5:38 PM

I think opera is different from other musical genres because it encompasses the entire range of human emotions. I don't claim to be knowledgeable about opera, but I've listened to several recordings (being too poor to actually attend any performances) and caught a musical performance of Bizet's "Carmen" when I was still in school. In my opinion, the characters in the novel weren't responding to Roxane's voice, per se. Instead, they were captured by the feelings and passions they heard in the words of the songs. Most of the characters, if I recall, were living unsatisfying lives. When Roxane sings, they forget the bitterness, loneliness, and hardships of their present lives and are transported to another world, a fictional world full of its own stories and emotions. This is probably the reason why some of the characters are content to remain where they are, i.e. Carmen, Gen,the priest, and the Japanese CEO (forgot his name). They get to live fuller and better lives in this world of dreams and passion than in the real world.

enygma | April 25, 2006 11:38 PM

I've never been to the opera - but I feel like there must be some special magic there. Certainly Patchett thinks so. Movies always seem to present opera as having extraordinary force (Moonstruck & Pretty Woman jump to mind - even Shawshank Redemption)

I would also suggest that the immediacy and intensity of a live performance creates an energy unlike anything else - which Danny has described so adeptly. There is something very naked and risky about singing publicly: voice cracking or hitting a sour note... Yet, imagine being there, in the room filled with her magnificent sound.

Is she a lifeline for the guests? Are the arts a lifeline for the human condition?

barbara | April 26, 2006 10:28 AM

I think she is a lifeline. A trivial way of seeing it would be as a distraction. She gives them something to focus on during a point in their lives when they really need it. There is also something of the cult of celebrity about her. People put 'celebrities' on a pedestal and deify them as something important and wonderful to look up to, even though they are ordinary people. I think Roxane is deified and worshipped in this way, so yes, she is their lifeline - something they believe is greater than them and that they cling on to.

Are the arts a lifeline to the human condition? I'd be interested to hear what other people think about this one. My instinct is no. If anything they make us more aware of the human condition by helping us to reflect on it - I'd say the arts were a blessing and a curse.

What do you make of Gen and Roxane's marriage?

danny | April 26, 2006 11:07 AM

Gen & Roxane's marriage....a curious and surprising twist. Certainly Hosokawa and Roxane would NEVER have made it. Their communication barrier was too much to conquer for a successful long term relationship. True, Hosokawa was infatuated with R. He worshipped and deified her - as you say. But what Roxane and Gen share feels, somehow, more substantial. Maybe it's the survivor thing...the shared nightmare that makes them necessary to each other.

barbara | April 26, 2006 2:10 PM

Thank you for choosing this book--I've wanted to hear a discussion about it for a long time, but my "real life" book group had read it before I joined. And thank you, Barbara, for bringing up the marriage. I was quite startled by this ending at first. But then I began to think about it as some kind of symbolic thing--during the months of the captivity, out of all those people involved, Gen and Roxane were the only ones able to communicate with everyone else there; he with his fluent knowledge of so many foreign languages, she with her music.

And what did you think about the "solution" to the hostage situation? While reading this book, as the positive relationships between the terrorists and hostages developed, I wanted them to find some way that they could all walk out of there and live happily ever after, but I anticipated Patchett's ending as the only possible, credible ending.

Beth | April 26, 2006 2:47 PM

Beth, I agree about the ending. Even though I wanted the fairy tale story to continue, the only way this novel could have ended was in a tragedy. In a way, I guess life, in the novel, imitates art (opera). After all, the greatest of operas are tragedies.

enygma | April 26, 2006 9:15 PM

Enygma - you are so right. A happy ending would have KILLED the story. The author would have ruined the authenticity of everything that came before.

barbara | April 27, 2006 3:48 PM

Thinking about real-life hostage situations, (ie. Munich Olympics, Americans held in Tehran) how possible are the scenarios that develop in this story? Is Patchett writing fantasy?

Here is what she says:

..."I read a lot about Stockholm Syndrome. Patty Hearst was a huge childhood fascination of mine. I've always followed her story. I think that the differences, with the Stockholm Syndrome people are somehow fooled into thinking that they identify with their captors. In this book, they actually do. I don't think that it is a syndrome. I think that they have so much compassion for these people, who are mostly children who take them hostage, and they spend so much time together, they play chess together, they play soccer together. They enjoy the music together. They really do find their common humanity. "

BTW - Did you know that in 1996, terrorists took 400 people hostage at the Japanese ambassador's residence in Lima, Peru. The stand-off lasted for months.

barbara | April 27, 2006 4:23 PM

While I think that it is possible for hostages to develop some sort of rapport with their captors, I doubt that it will reach the level that it did in the novel. At the same time, I don't want to call this Patchett's text a fantasy; rather, I would call it a fairy tale.

enygma | April 28, 2006 10:23 AM