I think we were talking about this somewhere - one of the monthly threads? I had no trouble getting into it. However, everyone is different, and timing is everything with reading - your mood, the time of day, what you read before that one, what you have to do tomorrow. Put it down and try again later. Or see if you can find that thread discussion and see what others are saying.

I can't remember which thread it was either, Cindy. I loved the book and didn't find it hard to get into at all. I think it's true, though, that there are many external things that can diminish the impact a book has on an individual reader. Maybe the time is just not right for you to enjoy it, Woodnymph.

Another book of hers is being translated into English!

Here is a link that might be useful: Chaleur du Sang

Thanks for posting the above link. I really wanted to like this book. I find the author's life inspiring. Maybe I will give the 2nd part, "Dolce" of the book a try....

That might help, they really are two separate books - both with the theme of how human nature functions in crisis. I found the second half so much slower and had trouble getting in to it, but the first half caught me from the first line. I suspect it might be the opposite for you.

For me, this could be cross posted on the book club thread. I bought it to read for my book club. I tried to read it but I could never get more than a few pages into it.

I guess this is one of those books that I will regard from a respectful distance.

Rosefolly

pulling this up because my bookclub is reading it and will be discussing it on the 23rd. Has anyone else read it since these posts? I'm just beginning it today.

I might have been the person who wrote on this, on one of the reading-in-progress threads. I read it a couple of months ago and thought it was one of the most marvellous things I had ever come across. I couldn't put it down. I had a bit of difficulty with, perhaps, the first 4 pages, but that was all.

The amazing thing about it is how she managed to distance herself to write it as most convincing 'fiction', (by which I mean a story/novel which is not necessarily factual, of course) when she was living through the present reality and instant shock of it all.

Dido

My group had one of its best discussions I've ever participated in, on this book last month. Really interesting how everyone had very different ideas based on their backgrounds (that usually is the case but for a few of us it was more so). Probably the biggest debate was when we each rated the book, 1 being lowest, 5 being highest. Many people gave it a 2 or 3, because they just didn't think it was that good, even tho it was a draft. Many loved it on its own merits, even more so because it was only a draft. Many of us fought for the idea that the fact that it was a draft, writen when it was, deserves a much higher rating. I did have to fight with myself whether I was giving my rating based on the read or on the authors background, and I also fought with myself because I knew that the label antisemitic could probably be attached to her. But I found myself unable to separate her situation from the book*, and given that background, I said 4.5. The average was 4, with some changing their minds as we talked (btw for me, 3 is an ok read, 1 is a book I couldn't finish, 5 is a book that will be on my years best list)

*I usually do not let the background of an author sway me from reading or enjoying a book; if we read books only by saints we'd have very small libraries indeed. But somethings do bug me. I know there are movies I will not see, by directors like Elia Kazan and or Roman Polansky. But its still silly. I don't think I do this with books as much. But I do think some backgrounds influence how I read a book. Does anyone else have this problem.

BTW our discussion leader brough a very interesting bio article that might interest you all

Here is a link that might be useful: L'Affaire Némirovsky

Just finished SF and, unfortunately, don't see the reason for the big hoo ha about it. Yes, the author's background is interesting, but to me, it seemed like both the books were pretty pointless in terms of that they had a beginning and a middle, but no end. They were well written (or well translated at least), and had occasional flashes of really good writing, but overall, I'd rate it a C+. Nothing to write home about.

It's our book club book for this month, so will be interested to hear what others think.

Cindy - perhaps I read it too fast, but why do you think there's an argument for the author to be an anti-semite?
Like I said, I read it fast so perhaps I missed something...

I think that Suite Francaise may seem incomplete to some because it is. Nemirovsky's intent was to write a total of five novels to be included in one book but was only able to finish two of them before her arrest. Appendix I in the back of the book, which contains her notes about the direction she intended to take in the overall scope of the five-part novel, helped me understand and appreciate her writing even more.

Like Cindy, I would give Suite Francaise a solid 4.5 on a scale of one to five. Even though it's obviously unpolished in places, it still amazes me that this was a first, handwritten draft. I don't doubt that there were things she would have changed and possibly refined had she lived, but even so, the resulting work is admirable.

lemon, take a look at the Appendices. she was born Jewish, from a very wealthy family. She hated the upperclass world that her mother belonged to, and distanced her self from it. She and her husband converted to Catholicism and after that totally turned their backs on their former background. In her previous writing (she was already a well known writer in Europe by the time she started SF) she made many comments against Jews, and even wrote for some Nazi literature. Also in the Appendices, you see in the letters pleading that 'they aren't the ones who should be taken', implying that since they converted, there was no reason to. Finally the above article are many other examples. Its also interesting that she makes no mention of the round up and deportation of the Jews in her stories, tho it was happening about the same time. In our group we weren't sure if she just didn't think it germain at the time, or if she didn't think about it at all. Anyway - a very complex women.

> it seemed like both the books were pretty pointless in terms of that they had a beginning and a middle, but no end

I agree with color - you can't look at this book in a normal way. You have to consider the times, as well as the idea that it would not have been published in this form, nor without the other three volumes. So given what we have, its an amazing story of how human nature shows its stripes in time of crisis. The fact that there isn't an end is besides the point, at least for me. But then there are many in my bookgroup that would be nodding their heads reading your post, in agreement. And thats ok. :)

BTW, just because there are examples of antisemitism, doesn't mean she was any different from many of her countrymen. She was a woman of her times.

Thanks for the info, Cindy. I appreciate it and am learning a lot from this thread -- all of it will help with the book club discussion. I went back and read through the appendices and now understand what you mean when you say that you can't read it like a normal book.

I didn't realize it was a first draft - it was amazing for a first draft. Certainly my first drafts are nowhere near so complete!

Looks like more of her books are being translated and published-

Here is a link that might be useful: 'Suite' success generates more publications

Started and finished the first book this evening-have to take a break now, stiff neck!
I found it riveting-it was not entertaining, but I found it very easy to read.
It reminds me of Thread of Grace.

SF was chosen as the most recent book for my reading group; I only managed to finish the first half for the meeting, and am now halfway through Dolcis (book 2). I really enjoy her sharp and acute observations, and also find most of the novel beautifully written. The end of book 1 felt rushed and unpolished, with some very clunky dialogue, but I like to think that she would have improved on it, had she had a chance.

One of the other reading group members disliked the book intensely, because she had to flee from the Russians as a child in WWII, and disagreed with Nemirovsky's portrayal of refugees. However, I felt that it was less about the common experience of refugees and more an observation of the moneyed middle classes, who remain untouched, separate, even in extreme crisis.

Here is a line from the second book which I found typical of Nemirovsky's ability to sum up characters and national traits - like a Picasso sketch that consists of only a couple of lines, but captures the essence of the object/animal - from the description of a German lieutenant:

Like many young men subjected to strict discipline from childhood, he had acquired the habit of bolstering his ego with outward arrogance and stiffness.

That, to me, is the German male of that generation, in a nutshell.

> because she had to flee from the Russians as a child in WWII, and disagreed with Nemirovsky's portrayal of refugees.

That is funny, we had someone with the same background and with the same attitude. I dunno, based on my reading, I'd say her view of refugees was on target, esp of the Upper Middle Class folk she was writing about. Poorer refugees might not have been as greedy or selfish; but they probably had the same survivial instinct.

We had a very good bookclub discussion about this book. It went on for ages with lots of disparate opinions so it was really enjoyable.

Final consensus was good book, well written and interesting.

Our book group usually lasts for less than an hour, and we peter out. This one was the first time I've seen us go two, and we stopped because it was closing time. Pretty amazing.

well, we met today-very mixed reaction to the book. I happened to mention that I participated in an international book discussion site on line-when the rumpus from that comment died down, I told them some of the comments and info I had learned here. Not everyone had read the appendices, but I had sent the biography article to the leader and so we discussed her life as well as the issue of Anti-semitism, and one of the members of my group also noted her ability to describe characters, as noted by anyanka:
>Nemirovsky's ability to sum up characters and national traits - like a Picasso sketch that consists of only a couple of lines, but captures the essence of the object/animal.We also were struck by the mother-child relationships in the two books-Madame Pericand, who left her father-in-law behind in her drive to protect her children for France, Madame Michaud, who saw her soldier son everywhere, yet when they did pass close by each other, missed him, and Madame Angellier, who playacted scenes from her son's childhood and what she imagined his homecoming would be.
We also thought the death of the priest at the hands of the orphans was bizarre.

>when the rumpus from that comment died down

Why a rumpus?

> who playacted scenes from her son's childhood and what she imagined his homecoming would be.

This was one of the most touching, and pitiful, scenes.

One of the other members of my bookclub remarked yesterday that she loves this group because, even though we all met in the Junior League, we are all so different. Two of us are constant NPR listeners, one is devoted to Rush Limbaugh (our politics are all over the map,) one is our "aging rocker chick"-our leader this time, while she reads very "deep" challenging books, is also addicted to People magazine, and I am the history and internet wonk. Whatever book we read, whether I'm leading or not, I seem to end up bringing up the historical context. They know that I read the British papers on line, so when I added "internationl online book discussion group" to that, they just roared- "if anyone in this group would be in an international book group, it would be you...". We had a little detour while I tried to explain us, then we went back to the book.

Interesting group, tho I still don't understand the big deal of an international reading group. In fact, I'd love to know more about it. Care to link?

you're in it. I was talking about RP!

Ha! We are pretty international here, when you think about it.

We ARE international-England, New Zealand, Australia, US, Iceland, Wales, Italy, Denmark, Canada, Germany, Israel...and that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more countries represented, especially in the Potter threads, which I haven't gone near because I haven't read it yet.

You're right of course, I just never thought of it that way!

I've just finished the first book and am beginning Dolce. I have to say - I am blown away by this work. Her ability to write this novel even as these events were happening, and to create characters and take us inside their heads is amazing. The rawest of the draft only adds to the power of the story, IMHO. The translation is superb. I wonder what it would be like to read it in the original French? I now want to read her other works.

CeCe, I like that you list England and Wales as two separate countries in your count of nationalities. Very unusual for an American; heck, even many English people would fail to make the distinction.

I expect Dido appreciates it too.

Not sure if there was another dedicated Nemirovsky thread, but this is the one that came up. I'm in the middle of Suite Francaise right now and am awed by it. What a remarkable piece, even though we only have two out of the five volumes. There's no doubt in my mind that she would have been a considerable force in today's literary world had she survived. Even in unpolished form, this is the writing of someone who clearly knows the craft.

georgia, I agree. Do read her "A Fire in the Blood", which, in my estimation is even more brilliant, in terms of fine writing.

Going back to Siobhan's comment about the translation, I must agree. This really is a class act production all around. The cover fascinates me, too. I see Roger Viollet is credited with the cover photo. Is this a famous journalism photo? It fits seamlessly in with Nemirovsky's ideas about seeing her composition as a film piece, and I was interested in the author's comments about expansion (how this applies not only to music, but to the narrative of novels and film as well). In fact, I often found myself thinking that her artistic approach had much in common with the artistic vision and tone you find in so many European films. A product both of and ahead of its time in many ways.

I might have to buy her other books sooner rather than later. I'm completely obsessed with this one.

After reading the Appendices, did anyone else feel a burning, maternal anger toward her mother who rejected her own granddaughters?

Oh yes. I also wondered about their lives, and would love to know more about them as adults (I know one survives)

Anyanka-no one who has read Penman's Wales trilogy would EVER make that mistake!

I also felt rage towards the grandmother - that is one of those instances when I honestly can't understand how a human being could act that way, let alone a grandmother towards her own now-orphaned granddaughters. And when you consider that the girls survived through the kindness and courage of strangers...if such an incident was inserted into a fictional story, I would probably throw the book across the room and stop reading it because it was much too unbelievable!

Perhaps her mother's coldness helped shape Nemirovsky into such a fine writer? I hate to think of that, though!