I am so pleased that I found this thread! I finished reading KL a few days ago. It was so overwhelming that I had to take a few days to digest this epic. I was 18 when I first found it lying on a shelf in my uncle's house; when I told my cousin (who had read the book a few months before) about how I wanted to read it she advised me to 'wait a few years'. I was a little offended at first... but she was right. This is a book for a mature heart and mind. I started reading it at 23, finished a few weeks later when I turned 24. The book didn't leave me with the usual sadness of missing a character or a story; it was so realistic that I said goodbye to Kristin with a finality when she died and spend everyday contemplating her life and choices. There are a few moments that stand out to me now. I'm sure when I tackle it again in a few years, I will have different observations. The character development was truely one of the most incredible feats: I started off despising Erlend for his irresponsible and selfish seduction of Kristin. I was sure he would betray her as he did Eline, I was sure he would disappoint her, that she would live to regret giving herself to this man. His actions till this point had shown rashness and denial. He was essentially a little boy. Her father, who opitimized Christian manhood and responsibility, had left a near impossible example for Erlend to imitate. He would fail her. I, as a reader, knew it. Surely then, Kristin must have known it too. And so I come to one of my saddest moments in part 1: Kristin has fought in her teenage naivete to win this man. She loved passionately because she believed, perhaps rightly, that by giving her body to this man, she had given him her future. How pure and lovely an intention if humans were perfect. It was her duty and right as a lover to claim him. (One of the wisdom's in chastity come forward - to wait till marriage to wake desires that rule your mind). Anyway, she broke her father, the steadfast virtuous Lavrans... And Success! She has won him. And even in her youth she knows, she knows, the prize has lost its shine. She is trapped by her own love of him and it is too late. The unworthy prize is hers after 3 long years. I have so much to write. But I am thinking on this small part of the book now... how much did she realize at that point? If she had married Simon, would she have always felt a need to escape? Was Erlend, in some way, despite the bitterness and hardship or because of it... in the end an aid to get her to heaven? Did she miss her vocation as a nun? Did she ever suspect her mother's secret and see the generational sorrows? If we do make a mistake (in choosing a path), do we always regret it? Just a thought - when Erlend and Kristin were going to elope before Eline came, did either of them see Aashild and Bjorn's situation as a foreshadowing of what might happen.. sins of the father? I felt it and was relieved they were spared that And just a sobering thought, it seemed appropriate considering that the root of Erlend's faults came from lust, that he should be pierced in the groin and die. Somehow... it was right to me. My opinion of Erlend did change drastically as the novel progressed though, I came to pity him and love him in a way... but this kind of symbolism has always been interesting to me Thanks for all the comments. So pleased this book is being read... one of the best books I have ever read in my life.

Literature says nothing to those human beings who are satisfied with their lot, who are content with life as they now live it. Literature is the food of the rebellious spirit, the promulgator of non-conformities, the refuge for those who have too much or too little in life. One seeks sanctuary in literature so as not to be unhappy and so as not to be incomplete. To ride alongside the scrawny Rocinante and the confused Knight on the fields of La Mancha, to sail the seas on the back of a whale with Captain Ahab, to drink arsenic with Emma Bovary, to become an insect with Gregor Samsa: these are all ways that we have invented to divest ourselves of the wrongs and the impositions of this unjust life, a life that forces us always to be the same person when we wish to be many different people, so as to satisfy the many desires that possess us. Mario Vargas Llosa Even when reading is impossible, the presence of books acquired produces such an ecstasy that the buying of more books than one can read is nothing less than the soul reaching towards infinity . . . we cherish books even if unread; their mere presence exudes comfort; their ready access, reassurance. A.E. Newton

Some interesting comments here. I like the idea of the bird being Fay - crashing around here and there, making a mess of everything and not really wanting to be there at all, but not knowing how to get out of it. But she was a truly loathsome person, wasn't she? I tried to find a redeeming feature, but she was just ghastly. You didn't even get the impression that she had much in the way good looks. I agree that the judge probably wanted someone to be a father to, rather than anything else - but for heaven's sake! he could have found someone better than that, you would have thought. Still, it's been said many times that there's no fool like an old fool.... I felt for Laurel given the situation - the house should probably have been hers. But you didn't get the impression that she wanted to stay in the town, even. She had her good job in Chicago; that's why I found it odd that she'd never remarried. She was young when she was widowed, and obviously missed him - but you don't up and leave your home-town and go for a new career in a new town and still wear widow's weeds all the time. I think what I'm trying to say is that I find the all characters a bit unrealistic. That's not to say that I found them unconvincing - not a bit of it. I found the book fascinating, and the interplay between the characters very convincing. I just can't quite see how they got to where they were. I thought "the bridesmaids" were quite interesting. I just felt that they were a sort of Greek Chorus, just giving commentary behind the main story. I couldn't really tell one from another - they were just a bunch of women. I had a clear visual picture of Laurel, Fay and Major Bullock - another silly old fool - but the rest sort of faded into the background, all looking a bit the same. (I hope I don't grown up to be a SOF...!) I liked the essays - they didn't seem to be so much airy-fairy rubbish as these things so often seem to be. I must say I'd missed the fact that the blind came down twice in the Judge's room until it was pointed out. Enough for the moment...

I know I am ridiculously late on this discussion, but in case some crazy person comes and rereads it the way I did, I'll still post my thoughts. I had some comments on the original question of why Kathy is blind to Ruth's faults, but also some ideas about Kathy and Ruth's relationship (as was mentioned above), and the character of Ruth in general. Kathy and Ruth's relationship, and the way Kathy was blind to Ruth's personality flaws irritated me immensely throughout the novel. As many people have mentioned, perhaps Kathy is "blind" because she has been conditioned to accept the fact that she doesnÂt understand everything. From the time she was young, there were facts about Hailsham, her future, and about her life in general that she didnÂt know. Yet questioning was discouragedÂperhaps not explicitly (Kathy notes that the guardians never forbid it), but at least de facto. The students would punish each other for curiosity, so Kathy learned to keep her mouth shut and not to spend too much time wondering about it either. She doesnÂt question, she accepts. Perhaps that is why she doesnÂt analyze or look deeper into RuthÂs actions, doesnÂt realize how selfish motives are governing RuthÂs decisions. She just accepts that that is the way Ruth is, it is only when Ruth makes her angry that she confronts her. RuthÂacting manipulatively and selfishly throughout the novelÂirritates the hell out of the reader. Or at least me. Probably most people have known a person like Ruth, had a friend that was domineering, nice on the surface, but secretly deceptive and selfish. If I am honest with myself, I realize that, although I dislike it, I can identify with RuthÂs emotions and motives...if not her actions as well. Ruth isn't an unusual child. On virtually any playground, you could find a child who wanted to be the "boss", the one in charge. Especially among girls, it is common to find one child who establishes her importance by blatantly displaying and calling attention to some possession or quality that she has and the others donÂt. (RuthÂs horses and her knowledge about the plot to kidnap Miss Geraldine). It is also completely natural that the girl would then proceed to solidify her power and her importance by exercising control over the others. For example, which girls are "cool" enough to spend time with her, or which students are "favored" enough to play with or even look at her special toy or possession. In my opinion, it becomes clear to the reader throughout the novel that RuthÂs precious displays of her own importance are merely compensation for her insecurity and her fear that she is insignificant. (Which is completely logical when one realizes that they are seen by society as "creatures" not humans). This is subtley shown in the way she manipulates the other girls and alludes to being Miss GeraldineÂs favorite,. It becomes obvious during their years at the Cottages as she tries to impress the veterans. ...