I still have a few pages left to read, but I'm popping in regarding some thoughts I had at the beginning of On Beauty. Other than what was described on the back cover, I had no idea what it would it be about. The title, though, reminded me of a quote from Donna Tartt's The Secret History:

"Beauty is terror. Whatever we call beautiful, we quiver before it."

With the above in mind, I started On Beauty and had a hard time getting into it because it reminded me too much of White Teeth, which I found unpleasant due to loathing the characters. It took me weeks to get through the first hundred pages, and I thought I'd never be able to finish it. However, it all turned around by page 115 when Smith describes Howard's love for Kiki as:

"He never really got over her face. It gave him so much pleasure."

A small detail, yes, but it reeled me in.

marydell | July 23, 2007 8:53 AM

I had a hard time getting into the book at first too. The characters seemed so dry and not very likeable. But I started to enjoy it when the party got underway at Howard and Kiki's house. The clash between Monty and Howard started to take form and Howard's continued destruction of his marriage comes into the present. And the characters' stereotypical behaviors become comical. Because I already did not like Howard, I didn't mind watching his self-destructive manuevers performed with an air of certainty and pride in his intellectualism. But I felt really sorry for Kiki. She can see how boring and foolish her husband has become but she still loves him and is still trying to give their relationship a chance.

amy jay | July 23, 2007 11:43 AM

Argh! Too many distractions yesterday (like a water leak) kept me from the book. The plumber is coming out today, so I should have plenty of time to read while I wait in between exchanging wet towels for dry ones.

The anniversary party is also where I started to enjoy it. I felt bad for Kiki, too, but I also empathized with Howard because he still seems to be in love with her despite his wandering eye.

Howard's separation of love & sex later reminded me of something Zora said to Claire at the Bus Stop. When Claire wanted to know if the two of them were okay regarding the affair, Zora said they were because it was all about compartmentalization.

Although I'm still not finished, I already see compartmentalization as being a running theme in this book. It seems to be a coping mechanism for all of the Belseys.

marydell | July 24, 2007 9:29 AM

Hello

I had a sort of hard time getting the book and so I got it late. I'm in the middle of reading it and hopefully I'll be able to finish it by the end of the week. Although I must admit, it's been difficult getting into it.

ana | July 24, 2007 4:51 PM

One theme that really struck me is that everyone seemed to be wearing a mask. It was as if each of the characters had roles to play and, whether they were aware of it or not, they resolutely set out to play them.

enygma | July 24, 2007 7:16 PM

I thought the author may have intentionally written the characters that way--with masks. I thought each one was stereotyped to the point that it was comical. Howard and Monty as the stereotypical liberal and conservative professors, Zora as the overachieving college student struggling to develop a romantic life, Claire as the neo-hippie sex-pot, Levi as the suburban teenager trying to adopt a more meaningful, authentic, non-suburban existence, etc.

At first I was bored with these stereotypes, but gradually I found them funny because of the goofy, stupid, or crazy things they did. I could empathize with some of the difficult experiences they had which made them more acceptable, more appealing even. Then one of them would do something off-putting. For example, Zora who first appears as a smart-aleck college student on her way to becoming a fearsome intellectual, stammers her way through inviting the Kipps family into the anniversary party, then she's trying to hang with some older graduate students she's thinks are cool, and later she riffs on her mom and defends her dad for having an affair. I went from not liking her to feeling sorry for her to not liking her again. I thought I saw this pattern with other characters too. It went from comical to almost compassionate and back again, but I was not sure through most of the book why the author was doing this.

amy jay | July 25, 2007 9:59 AM

Ana, same problem here. Everyone told me to stick with it and it would pay off in the end. It sort of did, but I'm still not sure how much of a fan of Zadie Smith I am.

Enygma, like Amy Jay said in her comment, I also think Smith wrote her characters with masks on purpose. The characters in White Teeth were similar—and I really didn't like that book—so it must be her style.

Amy Jay, those are great summaries of each character. When Smith sat down to write On Beauty, I bet she came up with similar profiles for each of them.

When I taught reading & writing in elementary school, one of the things I used to explain to the kids is the difference between flat and round characters. Round characters are supposed to be most like real people by developing and changing over the course of a novel. I agree that Smith's characters are stereotypical on the surface but are not what they seem to be on the inside. It seems to be her way of giving them depth, but I'm not sure any of them are really round characters. Do you think any of them really managed to develop over the course of the book?

I also want to go back to one of the questions you brought up in your original post:

On p. 153 Claire shows Dean French a poem called On Beauty that she wrote, and although the Dean doesn't like poetry, he tells her the poem is beautiful. Why did he say that if he didn't believe it and what is the author saying about beauty with this?

I'm not exactly sure what Smith's intention was with the poem and beauty, but I think the scene is related to conventions. Although I agree with Dean French's assessment of Claire's poem (It's pretty bad.), I probably would have said something similar if put in his situation. It's hard to criticize someone to their face. As a result, we often hand out compliments even when we don't mean it.

marydell | July 27, 2007 8:22 AM

Sigh, I've failed to get into the novel. I discussed it with a coworker, and he said it would pay off in the end as well. I figured I should take his advice since he's the the Chief Curator.

But, I don't find the language engaging. So far, it seems as if it's a "plot" book.

ana | July 29, 2007 7:59 PM

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you, Mary, on your questions. Work got crazy the last several days. I've been thinking about your questions, and, although I can't say that I have any answers, here are my thoughts. Sorry to be so long-winded.

I'm not sure I could label this a "plot" book or say that the characters are flat or undeveloped. I think Smith is doing something entirely different here. It seemed to me that she developed the characters quite fully given the short snapshot of time we see in the book. The character development seems to be tied in with the characters figuring out who they were themselves. For example, at the beginning of the book, Howard appears to be quite confident of who he is and what he is about. But as the book progresses, we see that Howard is in the process of faltering--his big book on Rembrandt is fizzling, he's had an affair and goes on to other dalliances, he's lost touch with his kids and he's alienated from his father. He is discovering his own short comings as he is going through these experiences. He's realizing that he is not the hot-shot, nationally renowned art history author that he hoped to be; that he's really a small-fry professor who cheats on his wife and dreams of humiliating his arch-enemey. I think his gradual realization of who he is and his concurrent bizarre behavior in reaction to that realization are an insightful and comical way to develop his character. We step into his life at a point where some of the changes in his life have already occurred, but I think Smith saves the funniest and most significant changes for the "real time" story in the book. By doing this, I think she tackles weighty issues but does it with a comical flair that made me think that she wants us to consider the deeper issues that drive us to be who we are but, at the same time, to not take ourselves too seriously.

As for the the poem On Beauty, I assumed that this poem was tied to the name of the book, which is why I included it in my initial questions. Although I agree with your assessment, Mary, that Dean French's compliment was a convention, I think there's more to it. Why include a whole poem in the middle of a novel where the poem has the same name as the novel? I think Smith is highlighting a point she is trying to make about beauty.

As I said in my original post, I think On Beauty may be about the fragility of and changing nature of beauty. Beauty inspires people--to love (Howard, Victoria), to seek truth (Zora), to find justice (Levi), to gain immortality (Jerome). Howard fell in love with Kiki when she was young and pretty but now is not attracted to her so much. He is attracted to Claire and Victoria despite their unstable behavior. Everyone in this book is seeking something that they think is beautiful. But perceptions of beauty change and shift over time and we are constantly compelled to seek out new beautiful things. Does this mean that the old things are no longer meaningful. Maybe. Things or people or events that one thinks beautiful at one point later seem unappealing or empty or maybe just used up. Much like Claire's poem. She and others must have thought it beautiful when she wrote it because it was included in her published book of poetry. But neither she nor Dean French seemed to think it beautiful at that time. Their opinions on beauty changed. So the poem no longer had any significance except to show students an unusual cultural format for poetry. What was once beautiful was now nearly meaningless. Why does that matter? I think because beauty is such an incredible inspiration--its what makes life worth living. And our desire for beauty will outlast the object we find beautiful. So, if you change your mind about what you think is beautiful, as Howard did about Kiki, what does that say about you? In the end Howard realized that he still loved Kiki--I think this shows us Howard's shortcomings as a person, his failure to see Kiki's beauty despite her changing form. Beauty shows us something about ourselves and we may not always like what we see.

Sorry again for the long post.

amy jay | July 31, 2007 1:03 PM

Thanks, everyone! I had fun hosting.

amy jay | August 3, 2007 2:02 PM