Figured I'd start this off... First of all, I liked the book. I thought it was good, not great. Plot was generally better than I expected. The prose was nice and clean... but not brilliant. Two things of interest: 136 "I had not thought I would learn something from a maid." This is attributed to Vermeer. Does the author have the right to do this? Vermeer, after all, is a historical character. Griet is not. And this isn't in reference to making a bed... but rather the final touch on a painting. The implication is clearly important for the author: Griet, in the novel, undeniably has certain artistic skills that cannot be expressed because she's A. a woman and B. in a low social class as a result of her father's disability. She "corrects" Vermeer's paintings at two points in the novel. In attempting to make a sociological comment, I think that Chevalier might be crossing the line over what is acceptable. After all, this never happened. I don't think it's acceptable to distort history to make a sociological point. Were their many women who were never able to express their creativity because of oppression? Yep! But did this involve Vermeer, necessarily? Probably not. Throughout the novel, different "types" of people emerge. Griet and Vermeer are the Artists, and seem to reside in a different, somewhat more noble world. Maria Thins and Pieter are decent but "normal." Vermeer's Patron and Catharina are hedonists. The author makes judgements on all these people, even if she is subtle in doing so. I appreciate it, but wonder how much an author has a right to violate history. 176 the narrator states "Because of it they were willing to take the gifts of meat and have him stand in an alley with me on Sundays." It doesn't say it, but her parents are essentially willing to let their daugher be a w**** for meat from the butcher. They even hint that she doesn't have much of a choice. I particularly like the "on Sundays" part. They're supposedly devout Protestants... but they don't mind their daughter breaking religious traditions if it means they can eat better. So, what did the rest of you guys think?
Haven, I’m sorry, but I didn’t read it. You guys made it sound like I would only have a week to read the book, I guess that scared me off. I just finished Treasure Island, and now I’m reading Net Force by Tom Clancy, ( pretty cool ), I will try to read the next one so I can get in on the discussion. p.s. Treasure Island is the first book I've read in ten years. p.s.s. Attention all grammer & spelling police, please have pity on me in the future.
haven...havnt finished...got about 40 pages to go. exactly. was trying to think of a good adjective to describe his prose and clean would be a good fit. i read that line today and by far that line seems to me to be the line he intended to stick witht he reader. if that makes sense. but i also like the line about tweaking her nipples...
I thought it was a decent read. Not sure if it deserved those rave reviews, though. What I found most interesting was how completely undeveloped the character of Vermeer was. He seemed as two-dimensional as one of his paintings. Unlike Maria Thins or even the butcher's son, I got no sense of his personality. Griet had obvious romantic feelings for him and yet I could find no reason why other than their shared artistic tendencies. He was often willing to throw her directly in Catharina's path rather than stand up to his own wife. He let Griet bear the brunt of Catharina's rage when she wore the pearl earrings even though it had been his idea. And he was willing to allow his wife to toss Griet into the street because of it. I feel like the author may have been hampered in developing Vermeer's character because he was a real person. Perhaps she didn't feel as free to create his personality fearing that it would be judged by people familiar with the artist and his work. I think it may have been a more interesting book if she had made the artist a fictional character loosely based on a real artist. Haven, as far as your point about the parents pimping their daughter for meat, I think that is probably a pretty accurate reflection of the time. In many countries today marriages are still arranged based on dowries and payments. They were willing to farm her out as a maid without her knowledge, so I don't think this is too shocking either.
MJB: Oh, I know it was common. Still thought it was... sad that religiosity couldn't at least cause them to allow her to wait until she was married. Marriage of convenience = common... but near-prostitution? Ugh. Although I suppose it amounts to the same thing. I think that perhaps you're right about Vermeer, but only to a point. He was artistic... and that's it. But, obviously, the author wanted to create a solidarity between Griet and Vermeer on those grounds. In other ways, they couldn't even comprohend each other. He was male, she was female. He was Catholic (though he had been Protestant), she was Protestant. He was middle class, she was (now) poor. He was old, she was young. He was master, she was servant. They didn't exactly have much in common. And sadly, most of us don't tend to think of those we share little with as quite as human. On the other hand, the "nice" rich guy did warn her about Vermeer. Made it sound like he was completely wrapped up in art, and didn't care for people at the individual level. I don't know if that's historical, or not? What did you personally find interesting?
