August read: This is Graceanne's Book

OK, I've finished the book. I got it on an ILL so it must go back this week. I wish I could hang onto it, because I'm afraid that I'll forget the questions I've got and many of the details that are puzzling me.

I'll wait as patiently as I can, but I'm hoping that everyone will be ready for discussion sooner rather than later!

Take some good notes, Sandy, and have patience! Still waiting for my copy. I'll make it a No. 1 priority when I get the notification that it's in. Mine is also an ILL, but I think I get to keep it for the usual 3-week checkout period if no one else is waiting for it.

I have it. I'll just start reading it tonight. Maybe we can put up a disclaimer that says "Don't read this thread until you've finished the book!"

Okay, I finished it too. Once I started, I could hardly stop. And I found a reading group guide, so when we're ready to get started, we'll have some discussion questions.

Count me in on this one. My copy came a couple of days ago. It looks great!

My copy showed up yesterday. I should get to it in the next couple days.

I'm so disappointed mine hasn't arrived yet. I guess that's what happens when you pay a penny for a book. Hopefully it will be here soon.

I've found my copy and will probably start it early next week.

When does the "official" discussion start again? August 2nd?

Oh my Lord, I'm about 100 pages into this book and I'm finding it simply amazing and like Terri (#4), impossible to put down. I'm recongnizing my little childhood self in this book 'way too much. Ooof.

I picked up my copy from the library earlier this week. I'm eager to get to Graceanne's Book, but she will have to wait until I finish A Fatal Grace by Louise Penny. Looks like I'm in store for some good reading.

Yes, Linda, I think we finally decided on 8/2.

I finished it in one go, too. It's wonderful!

I received mine today. Will try to finish by the 2nd. Wish me luck.

I re-read it in one sitting today, with just a break for dinner.

I originally recommended This Is Graceanne's Book to this group because I'd read it before and thought it was terrific and it certainly is about Missouri. The other reason: the author is an old friend of mine.

Elsewhere, someone, I think it was Donna, thought it'd be nice for me to share some insights.

I met Polly Whitney, the author, on the DorothyL mystery listserv in 1995. We chatted "officially" but soon started emailing each other at least daily to chat. Over the years, we've met at mystery conferences a few times, going out to dinner and hanging out at the hotel bars. When she came to Chicago to promote Graceanne, we got together for a long visit. (Somewhere, I've got a picture from that visit.) During the last few years, mostly we just exchange an occasional email.

I believe that Polly was born in St Louis and I know that she grew up in small town Missouri. Since I've known her, she has lived in several other states, currently, in Austin, TX.

Besides Graceanne, she also wrote three Ike & Abby mysteries. The first one, Until Death was nominated for the Agatha Award for Best First Mystery. She has also written a pair of mysteries under the name Hialeah Jackson. I've never read either of these, though they've been sitting on my shelf, or at least The Alligator's Farewell is.

Besides being extremely well read (I think she has a Master's in Literature), Polly has a smart and biting wit.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a huge sports fan. So is Polly. She loves baseball at least as much as I do and is quite a Yankees fan. One of her biggest thrills was playing in a softball game (I think it was a media game) at Yankee Stadium awhile back. Much of our conversation is about baseball and other sports developments.

Her husband was a producer for CBS News in New York, as well as for 60 Minutes and so you might well see blurbs from "the media" such as Dan Rather.

I know Polly had been at work on another book but I don't believe it's ever been published.

Finished -- Can't wait for Monday.

Linda -- are you a Cardinal's fan?

Finished! I'm eager to read comments from the group.

#16 I'm a Cubs fan/season ticket holder. Oddly enough, my second favorite team is the Cardinals. I root for them, unless they're playing the Cubs.

I'm glad this book is a quick read. It is so good, isn't it? I hope I can stay awake to read some more tonight. I should be able to finish it sometime tomorrow. I've been gone all week end and have all the usual stuff to do after having a few days of R&R.

That is a pretty unusual favorite/second favorite combo, Linda! When I lived in St. Louis, during Cubs/Cards series I (the lab's Cubs fan) and my labmate (rabid Cardinals fan) would get into raging fights about baseball. The only more-hated team in my book is the White Sox. Cards fans were always really nice to me when I wore my Cubs gear, though. Insulted me, of course, but nicely.

Not much happening here on the discussion front. Terri, did you mention that you had some discussion questions for us?

I went to the publisher's website. They have a list of nine questions. The first one is ...

The river has a prominent place all through the book. Children play in its flooded spaces at the very beginning, and it is the setting of the book's final scene. Charlie finds his secret there, his Ugly Blue Man. Tucka saves a boy from the river, ice for the baby Jesus comes from the river.
What is the river a metaphor for?

PS: #18, glad you are a Cardinals fan too, #20 I guess I'll have to take over where your labmate left off.

>22 chriskeil:: Okay, I'll bite! I just hope the questions get easier as we go along.

I haven't posted my review yet, but this is from my rough draft:

"A river runs through this book providing play, adventure, peace, danger, and beauty. It is referred to as Big Muddy Cruddy, a catchy name, but it is so much more than that. It is a place that honors secrets and where Graceanne goes to find refuge from the inconceivable part of her life."

Those are my thoughts...I'll let someone else come up with the metaphor because mine (hint) verges on the spiritual side.

That's the same as my first question! We must have gotten them from the same place. Sorry I'm late--busy day yesterday.

This doesn't quite answer the metaphor question, but as a person who has grown up close to rivers, I have to say that there is just something about a river. I notice the absence when I travel someplace where there is no river; I relax as I walk down the hill to my office when I can see the river; I love being around the river. As I read this, I got that same kind of impression from the characters in the book. The river is just a large part of their lives, whether they're interacting with it or not. It just makes everything else seem so much smaller.

Oh, and a big thank you to Linda for suggesting this great book! And for the tidbits above. That kind of information really adds to a book discussion!

I was on the Mississippi River over the weekend, on a 2-hour cruise on the Spirit of Dubuque paddlewheeler. Very picturesque.

To a rivertown like Dubuque, or any other for that matter, the river seems central to the town. Rivers seem to have character.

I thought Polly's name for it, the Big Muddy Cruddy, was appropriate. It doesn't look like a river you'd want to swim in, if you could help it. Kind of muddy and cruddy but important nonetheless.

Regarding the metaphor question, I looked at it as using the river and it's powers to understand the changes of life (and possibly as a way to understand death).

Just as the river is continuously adjusting, so to are the characters as they become older and wiser. The river can be strong, cold, fun, entertaining, frightening, warm etc. similiar to life's ups and downs.

On another vein, I sometimes still see men fishing off the pier in downtown St. Louis, which I believe they take home to cook. I can't imagine eating a fish TODAY out of that river -- probably wouldn't have wanted to in the 60s either.

Terri, I agree I think the river becomes a part of your life and the community. Eventhough the Mississippi isn't pretty, Missouri wouldn't be the same without it.

In some ways, I suppose the river can be a metaphor for freedom/independence - the kids play there without parents around, crossing the river leads away from home, Graceanne's book ends up in there where her mother can't get ahold of it, etc. Certainly it is a place where grownups (except the priest) do not seem to go, and that is important for a kid, especially these kids.

To expand on your comment, Chris, about the "river constantly adjusting"--what I think is great about the river is that, every minute it is different, yet it is always the same. You will see the same thing now as you will see an hour from now, and yet it is completely different water. And I think that's a great way to anchor yourself. It's comforting to know that things can change completely, and still not vary the basic landscape. A review of the book on the publisher website says: "It is the unbreakable spirit of both Charlie & Graceanne that keeps this story afloat." And isn't that kind of what a river is? An "unbreakable spirit?"

The next publisher question is: "Charlie makes lists & catalogues information and events. Is this tendency fueled by a desire to bring order and predictability into an existence that is a minefield for a small boy who never knows when a member of his family will turn on him?" Uh, yes.

I also say "yes" to question No. 2. Charlie is my favorite character. He is both precocious and trusting, despite all the "whaling" he gets, even from his beloved Graceanne. I also like how he is devoted to Mike the dog -- another sad case.

My book is due back at the library so I went ahead and wrote my review. I hope I didn't make it sound too dreary because I thought there was a lot of love and hope in the book if you look deep enough for it. My review is over here.

I'm finally back home from travelling, and had almost forgotten that I had this discussion to come back to! Playing catch-up a little, as far as a metaphor goes, unless there is a flashing arrow pointing at it saying "metaphor here", I'm usually too thick-headed to catch it. But I agree with the comments already made that the river was central to the lives of the community and especially of the children. But I hadn't noticed what Jennifer pointed out, that the grown-ups did not go there, only the kids. So, maybe it is a metaphor for change. However, even though the river is constantly moving and changing, it is still a constant and its presence does not change. The lives of these individual children are changing as they are growing and developing, but the greater circle of life remains the same.

As far as the second question goes, I'm trying to think of a way to answer "no", since the "yes" answer is so obvious (I distrust such quick and easy answers to this kind of question). I think I could argue that he makes his lists for another reason. Perhaps, he makes lists of events and information in an attempt to understand the world - not to bring order to it but to understand its seeming randomness. (However, I'm not going to stand my ground on this point if someone challenges me - it's a dumb question, what's the next one?) I agree with Donna, he was definitely my favorite character, too.

So I went to the Reading Group Guide, looking at the questions, just to see if there was one that I could answer, since "river--what metaphor?" and the second one didn't interest me a whole lot.

Here's one that caught my eye, number 4, which begins, "How much is Graceanne the cause of her own troubles?" Are you kidding me? I'm absolutely gob-smacked that they would write such a question. Would they write that about a rape victim? I mean, imagine it. "Susie-que is serially raped by her father. How much is Susie-que the cause of her own troubles?"

Children of abuse, like Graceanne, are children and they are abused--by adults--period. Graceanne is a survivor. Think Stockholm syndrome. At times Graceanne appears to bond with her mother or try to get along--which is a survival strategy of abuse victims.

I love the character of Graceanne. Yes, she's smart--book smart with a high IQ. But that doesn't mean she's overall smart. Sometimes (maybe most of the time) extremely smart people have "gaps" in their emotional intelligence. She copes with her crazy, abusive mother the best she can, but she doesn't always get it right. She sees herself as a "bad kid"--although she realizes, as she says, her mother is no prize. As Graceanne says to Charlie: "It serves her right to be poor and work all the time and have a bad kid like me" (151). Scratch the surface, and I bet you'd find that Graceanne believes, in the middle-middle of her heart, that if she were a "good kid," then she wouldn't get the beatings from her mother that she "deserves." That's the mindset of someone being abused. Edie (was that her name) steals everything from Graceanne. Above all, she steals Graceanne's childhood and her innocence. Yet Graceanne manages to survive.

Now I'm wondering what Question No. 3 is. I like the element of surprise here so I'll stay away from the guide.

I'll adopt Sandy's role a bit and play Devil's Advocate here. Becky, I am in agreement with you about Graceanne having her childhood and innocence stolen by that "wolf" of a mother. I think that's what the dad called her...although maybe not the best analogy. Aren't wolves good parents in general?

Back to my point. And I'm going out on a limb here when I say that Graceanne knew how to push her mother's buttons and continued to do so for whatever reason. I don't have enough psychology classes to understand why certain children (and adults) do this. Kentucky chose to "befriend" her mother and Charlie was the only boy and so darn cute that he escaped her wrath. That left Graceanne... I think she willingly accepted the role as scapegoat so as to protect her siblings. Also, she was like her mother in many ways with her intelligence and capricious temper. Okay, getting ready to duck those rotten tomatoes...

Donna, I think you've got a good point. After all, we've all known kids, and their parents, who intentionally misbehave because even angry attention is better than no attention at all. Probably, Graceanne would have been victim to her mother's abuse even if she'd behaved perfectly and of course that is totally not her fault, as Becky pointed out. But, since the only attention she could count on from her mother was when she intentionally riled her up, it seems reasonable to me that she might occasionally choose to do just that. Plus, as you said, it helped to protect her brother and sister from Mom's outbursts to have them focused onto herself.

I agree completely with Becky on this point, and she says it much better than I could. Especially that Graceanne feels that she deserves the abuse she gets from her mother. While she may push her mom's buttons, I think that implying that she is the cause of her own troubles (like the question did) is wrong. Doesn't matter how bratty she was - like Becky said, she is a child. The only "cause" of her troubles, to me, is the abusive parent.

I'm in agreement with a lot of you. I think Graceanne chose to push those buttons, in part, to protect her siblings.

Kids don't ever deserve to be treated like this but, as Sandy said, for some kids, even negative attention is better than no attention at all.

Didn't we read a book last year that also involved abuse?

One thing that got me is that bucket o' slop or whatever they called it. I certainly don't want to waste food but it sounded like this was just all packed together.

Linda, that epicurean delight was called Gallon of Goodies, although I think "bucket o' slop" describes it perfectly. I'm a believer of using our food resources wisely and that includes eating leftovers, but to scrape off the remains from the dinner plates and throw it all together sounds a lot like pig slop to me. Talk about abuse!

The frozen "leftovers" was disgusting! I'd forgotten about that. I wonder if the family was genuinely that desperate, or if that was just another way for the mother to inflict herself upon the children. I would think that anyone who was that conscious of the cost of things would not have been so quick to destroy Graceanne's books.

Linda, I'm trying to remember what book you might be thinking of involving abuse - maybe Death of Sweet Mister?

Sandy, I think that was it. Death of Sweet Mister was the first book I read with Missouri Readers.

To me at the time, the abuse seemed worse there in that other book than it did here. Perhaps, since Graceanne was a re-read, it didn't hit home as much for me this time.

Linda, I agree that the abuse in Sweet Mister seems worse than Graceanne. I hope I can say this so that it comes out right. The abuse Graceanne suffered at the hands of her mother - the beatings and verbal and emotional abuse - are only a step or two removed from the socially acceptable swats and ordinary parental temper tantrums. We all deal with people whose vebal communication borders on abuse at times and the same with emotional sabotage. What Graceanne's mother did was wrong, no question, but not so heinous that it would have been considered shocking at the time this story takes place. What Sweet Mister endured, though, is on a different level. Incest has always been taboo. Period. The smoking, drinking, and stealing might have been tolerated in another time and place, but I recall that that book was set generally in the present when encouraging a child in those activities is not permitted. Either socially or legally.

Terri and Becky - are there any other interesting discussion questions? I'd like to see one that focused on the mother's behavior.

Question #7 focuses on Edie.

Are Edie's desperate efforts to keep up a façade of gentility for herself and her family simply vanity, or is this an attempt to construct a semblance of a better life? Does her refusal to supply Charlie with bus fare for Wanda after the church festival and her occasional outbursts about blacks
reveal her real racism?

I'm sitting here arguing with myself about whether or not I should reply to comment #41. I guess what I would say is that I can understand how it would be difficult for people who were brought up by loving parents, particularly mothers, to understand the destruction and also the betrayal caused by emotional abuse by a parent--maybe even difficult for those people to understand that it "really" exists. I was abused by my mother just about every day I was around her. For the most part it was "just" emotional abuse, not physical, although the few times it got physical I remember the shock I felt while it was happening. What I understand now as an adult is that my mother is a toxic narcissist. What I "understood" as a child was that she had the power and that I had better watch it, because she could make my life a living hell.

I beg to differ with the comment. What Graceanne suffered was not a step or two removed from the socially acceptable or "ordinary" parental temper tantrums, whatever those are. My mother's temper often was out of control, as is Edie's. I honestly didn't know what my mother was capable of, and the way I read it, Graceanne was wondering what her mother might be capable of as well. Reread the exchange between them that starts with, "Mama, is that colored man dead?" (221).

Take another look at Edie's rules. Number four is, "This house is not a democracy. I make the rules and you follow the rules" (148). My mother's version of that was to say in an imperious tone (and we would sometimes laugh if she couldn't see our faces), "I AM THE MOTHER." One of her favorite things to say to me was, "You're not as smart as you think you are." Edie hit too close to home. Had I known what the book was about, I doubt that I would have read it.

I kept waiting for Graceanne to throw herself in the river at the end of the book. Did anyone else?

Oh, Becky, I was afraid that was going to happen too! I was glad it didn't though--I really liked the ending.

And just to put in my 2 cents worth on the intentional misbehaving: I had a discussion a few months ago with my 28 year-old son about his relationship with his father (no contact in over 4 years). Kevin told me that he truly believes the reason he started acting out in 5th grade and failing in school was an attention-getting device. He was never his fathers favored son (that crown belonged to my middle son--still does), and I believe he was the child who longed the most for his fathers love. When he couldn't get it, he went for the second best thing, which was attention. The wrong kind of attention, but he says, to him it was worth it. That just made me cry when he said it, because I know it's true. So I can see where Graceanne would misbehave intentionally. Sometimes being good isn't enough.
We all agree that if his father & I hadn't divorced, Kevin would be at the bottom of the river by now. Sounds awful, but it's true.

I can't imagine going through an abusive situation or being that desperate for parental attention.

If anything, maybe a bit less attention would've been better. My sister, the LT lurker, and I are very different but we both always knew that we were loved. I also never felt like I had to outdo her or belittle her to get more attention.

I certainly knew plenty of people, classmates etc, for whom any kind of attention would've been better than their current (at the time) situation.

As for Question #7, I think it was "an attempt to construct a semblance of a better life." Maybe some vanity, but I have known many people who put on airs just to show better in public. I think Edie was one of them.

Here's Question #3, Donna: There are contests throughout the story. The children are involved in all of them. What is the contrast between the contests and their troubled home lives? Are they drawn by the knowledge that outside the family, they have as fair a chance as everyone else to win?

I hate it when questions answer themselves.

Again, I'm just going to go with "what Becky said" in message 42, especially that first paragraph. Suffice to say, I know exactly what you mean. And I'm sorry that you had to go through that.

As far as answering question 7 goes, I think Edie talked a big game when it came to equal rights, etc, to make herself look/feel "better" than the other people in the town, but like a lot of people her public facade didn't match her inner feelings. In other words, yep, Edie was a big ol' racist.

I was always one who was looking for less attention--trying to stay under the radar. I was the only girl of four, so in some ways that made me more of a target for attention I didn't want. I learned that by being very, very good I could escape a lot of my mother's nonsense. So I took on the role of the "good child." That dynamic has its own problems, especially later on. And it's just another way that abusive parents steal their own child's childhood--to force them to be something they're not.

>43 tloeffler:. Terri, I'm so glad Graceanne didn't throw herself in that river too. I thought it was a great, life-affirming ending.

I actually enjoyed the book a whole lot, mostly because the character of Graceanne serves as kind of a "corrective" to the powerless child. She had so much spunk. I remember watching "The Little Rascals" on TV when I was a kid and wishing I could be them. Kids are tough; they find ways to survive. I'm a writer I think because I spent a lot of time inside my head when I was a kid, using my imagination to put myself in another place. Reading did the same thing for me.

>43 tloeffler:: I can see why we're skipping over Question No. 3, Terri. Sometimes these publisher's questions are just too weird. Like the unfortunate phrasing in No. 4. I'm sorry I opened the can of worms about Graceanne's provoking behavior. I'm sure we all agree that child abuse in any form is simply unacceptable behavior.

I think the range of our reactions to what happened in the book speaks to the effect that our past experiences have on our reading. This was clearly a very emotional topic and book. I'm glad we've been able to talk about it rationally and civilly. I'm also glad I read the book and very happy that Graceanne didn't jump off that bridge. Don't you know that Charlie would be right behind her!

Now, to comment on Question 7. Big ol' racist sums up Part 2 very nicely, Jennifer. I think the first part had to do with keeping up appearances. Speaking as an army brat (here comes the "past experiences" theory into play), I was always told that my behavior directly affected my father's chance for promotion. I don't know if that was true or not (I'd like to think not), but the army is kind of like Big Brother and everything goes in the personnel file!

#42 I was afraid that I'd get it wrong. Becky, you're right, I'm one of the lucky ones who never had to wonder whether I was loved, and it breaks my heart when I hear of someone whose childhood wasn't as secure as mine was.

The point that I hoped to make was that - again, speaking as a person who's never suffered any parental abuse - the abuse we read about in the Woodrell book was worse than that in this one. I still don't think a situation like Graceanne's would have raised eyebrows all around in 1960. Some would have objected, I hope, but many more than today would simply have looked away. I certainly never meant to imply that the abuse portrayed in this book was trivial or acceptable - just less severe than the other book.

I'm very sorry if this book has caused you distress. And I hope you realize that I certainly did not intend to cause anyone any pain with my poorly worded comments. Please accept my apology.

I never like it when a book does what I think of as "jarring the timeline." I think there was at least a bit of that present in Graceanne. At one point, after Kentucky ran away to sing (and later got married in California), there was a comment about how "we never saw her again." I don't like when a book takes me out of the present like that.

#50 I understand what you're saying, but by putting that comment in there, it ties up the loose end and, more importantly, lets us know that Kentucky got away. If she managed to escape, then there is hope for the others. At least that is how it seemed to me - I kept looking for a way that Graceanne would be able to escape, too. I was worried that she would do it by jumping off the bridge.

#51 Actually, I like hearing how the characters turn out. My problem, here, is that this comment wasn't at the end.

Even so, when I first read this comment, I took this to mean that both Graceanne and Charlie were going to make it. I suppose "we" could've meant Charlie and his mother but it didn't feel like it to me.

Yes, of course. Charlie, too. I just couldn't remember his name!

>49 sjmccreary:. Oh my goodness, please don't apologize. Your comments opened a good discussion. I'm sorry if my comment hurt you in any way. My reluctance to post the comment in the first place was because I didn't want to make this personal--to make it about me--yet the book obviously touched a nerve, which good books will do, and I guess I felt compelled to share my point of view. I'm always too sensitive about this kind of stuff. If I'm in the grocery story and a mother even speaks harshly to her child, I have to walk away.

#54 I'm happy that there are no hard feelings. Like Donna mentioned, we all bring our pasts with us when we read, and so books about such emotional topics like this one are sure to elicit different responses in each one of us. I'm glad you felt comfortable enough to mention yours - it provided me with an entirely new POV to consider.

The character of Edie was the one who upset me the most in this book. This author has done an amazing job of getting behaviors just right. Edie reminded me so much of a friend of mine. I don't think Susan actually strikes her children, but the rest of it I was hearing her voice and seeing her face. I was really hoping for some insight into Edie that I could use to understand her a little. I'm actually in the process of terminating all contact with her - in large part because of this kind of behavior, which shows up in all parts of her life, not just her parenting. She's no better a friend than mother.

I'm not here to provide a diagnosis of anyone. Terms like "narcissist" get thrown around too easily, and probably everyone has a touch of narcissism somewhere in their personality or behavior. However, if someone is interested in gaining insight into the phenomenon of "toxic narcissism," then one of the best websites I've found is here: "Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD): How to Recognize a Narcissist."

This person is careful to say she's not a therapist or counselor; instead, she's written entirely from her own experience. I've read books about narcissism, but I would have to say that I've never seen the material so cogently presented as it is here. She calls it a "first-aid station." :)

It's interesting, Sandy, that you say you are in the process of terminating contact with this problem "friend" in your life who reminds you of the character Edie. The woman who posted the narcissism site, Joanna Ashmun, says that the only way you can have a relatively smooth relationship with a narcissist is "distance." Given distance, Ashmun writes, you can get along with narcissists by treating them as infants: you give them whatever they want or need whenever they ask and do not expect any reciprocation. She says that while it's possible to get along with narcissists (totally on their terms, of course), it's probably not worth it. One of her best lines, and one I completely agree with: "It's very hard to have a simple, uncomplicated good time with a narcissist. Except for odd spells of heady euphoria unrelated to anything you can see, their affective range is mediocre-fake-normal to hell-on-Earth."

Becky, that is a chilling last sentence in your post. I may check out the link if I get brave enough. I'm afraid I will recognize somebody I know over there!

Sandy, I think the unpredictable nature of Edie and your friend would make it difficult to be around them. Edie didn't seem to have any friends in the book. Now we know why.

I find myself wishing there was a sequel to Graceanne's Book. I would love to know how she and Charlie turned out. Of course, we know Charlie is a writer because he was our very capable narrator. Isn't it interesting how real fictional characters can become in the reader's mind? At least that happens in this reader's mind!

#57 Becky, I DID check out the link you gave and read a good portion of the material there, but not everything. I would never have thought to describe Susan as "narcissist", but much of that material does describe her pretty well. We've known each other since 7th grade and were friends all through high school, where she seemed fine. During college things began to change, but that was such an overwhelming stage of life, I didn't pay much attention to her. After college, though, is when I noticed that she was increasingly hard to be around and difficult to relate to. That continued to get gradually worse over the next 25 years or so. She recently divorced her husband and, in January, moved with her children to Idaho to take a new job. It was during the move process that things came to a head (for me, at least - she was oblivious to it, I'm sure) and I decided that this was a perfect time to let her go completely. I've deleted her number from my phone and her e-mail from my contacts list. She called on my birthday, but I got off the phone as quckly as I could. I've had no other contact with her since. "It's very hard to have a simple, uncomplicated good time with a narcissist. " I can't say about narcissists, but this statement is certainly true for my (former) friend, Susan.

Well, I certainly didn't mean to go on for so long. I guess I'm still more affected by ending that friendship than I realized. Donna, you're right - I can understand why Edie didn't have any friends. The sad thing is (both in the book, and in Susan's case) that the children are isolated by their mother's lack of personal relationships. There are no other adults around to care about them and provide support and guidance and love. Graceanne can't even turn to her grandparents - we saw what they were like in the first chapter.

I don't wish for a sequel as much as an epilogue - I just want to know that Graceanne turned out alright. I think it is a testimonial to the author that she managed to create characters and a situation that are so authentic that we speak of them and think of them as though they were real. It certainly doesn't happen with every book.

>58 sjmccreary:. Interesting story about your friend. These are simply impossible people.

And what a great idea--an epilogue would have been perfect for this book.

You know what? I think she DID turn out all right. She survived so much, and still came out at the end of the book with such hopefulness (is that a word?): "Charlie, let's go to Illinois." There's spirit in that little statement.

And I agree about the toxic people. I just don't have the energy that I used to have to be able to deal with it.

Terri, I'm glad you quoted that last line. Since my book was returned so long ago, I've forgotten many of the details. Do you think that Graceanne and Charlie ran away, not to return, the way Kentucky did? Or did they just walk across the bridge, set foot in Illinois, and then return home? They're both pretty young, but I want them to leave and not come back.

Ladies, sorry it has been a long time since I posted. I'm a college professor and the summer term just ended (ugh, can you say grading!). Anyway, I teach business classes so all of your comments are way beyond anything I would have gotten from the reading.

But what I did get was, when Edie beat Graceanne the first time I almost put down the book. that was really hard to swallow. Unfortunately, after that first time I kind of expected it, I wonder if Graceanne did too (the 8-0 reference).

Edie in my mind is totally worried about appearance and not her children. Kind of like "what would the neighbors think" to the extreme. Today they would throw her in jail and lock the key away, I hope.

I haven't heard anyone mention the middle child syndrome -- but do any of you think she acted the way she did because she was the middle? -- between the beautiful Kentucky and the only boy Charlie?

Another point I noticed while reading was that both Kentucky and Charlie had nicknames (Tucka and Thumper) and Graceanne did not. Perhaps another indication that she was the mistaken/forgotten about child?

I agree with everyone regarding the ending. An epilogue would have been nice but I personally think the story ends this way -- Graceanne as an extremely smart, brave, brassy individual who will go far, Charlie, also bright, on the other hand will have some ups and downs but will turn out ok.

Edie, I hope, will die an old woman without any friends and when she dies no one goes to her funeral!

That was a great last line in the book, wasn't it? I'll give my idea of what will happen. As a reading teacher, we always tell students to make predictions. So here goes...

I think they do walk across the bridge as they did once before, then return home, but since Dear Mom has nothing else to take away from Graceanne, not much happens. Edie is going to run out of steam, find a boyfriend, or take up knitting and let Graceanne live her life as she has been -- tough on the outside, tender on the inside. Okay, maybe not very realistic, but this is my projection. ;-)

Chris, I hadn't thought about the fact that Graceanne was the only one without a nickname. I did think that she had a lovely name that would have been better suited to a young pianist or ballerina.

I love reading everyone's comments on the books we read. I get so much more out of a book when I listen to other viewpoints.

I'm late finishing this one, but I have so enjoyed reading your comments now that I've finished the book.

I grew up near the Mississippi River too and was fascinated by the role that it played in the book. Water is so often a metaphor for cleansing or, in a religious context, grace. The Mississippi, or the Big Muddy Cruddy, doesn't seem consistent with the view of water as cleansing. But given the difficult life that the Farrand children faced, perhaps the Big Muddy Cruddy was a very appropriate metaphor for the challenges that they face. There were no easy answers or resolutions (although I kept hoping that Mike the Dog might attack Edie), but there was still a current of hope beneath the muddiness that life brought them.

I also thought it was an interesting decision to write primarily from the viewpoint of Charlie. Sometimes throughout the story, it seemed that excuses were being made for Edie's horrible behavior. But, as I reflected on it, this seems a logical perspective for Charlie, especially in the beginning. It must be hard for a boy to come to terms with having a mother like Edie. I felt as though I was inside Charlie's head, coming to terms with the conditions of his life, as the story progressed.

I was also amazed by how nervous I got during the book, waiting for the other shoe to drop. This must be how the Farrand children felt as well, and Whitney did a good job of putting me in their shoes.

I so enjoy the discussion in this group. This book, especially, was one that I felt the need to "discuss" with others.

What a wonderful discussion we've had about this book! Linda, I hope you share some of our comments with your friend.

I just have one more thing to say about the river discussion. I went to the Muny Opera Friday night to see "Show Boat." Nothing gives me chills like a really well-done rendition of "Ol' Man River," and Michel Bell had me on my feet. As he sang, I kept thinking of the things we said here about the river, and the role it played in the book, and it sounded like the perfect theme song for This is Graceanne's Book. "He just keeps rollin' along."

I saw Showboat on Broadway about 10 years ago or so and I think Michel Bell did Old Man River at that point. He has an amazing voice and yes, that would be a good theme song for Graceanne.

UPDATE: Thanks to the Internet, it's easy to find these things out. I saw Showboat on Broadway in November of 1994 and yes, Michel Bell was in the cast. (This was the same business trip when I saw Glenn Close in Sunset Boulevard in previews.)

Did we ever pick our next book?

Funnily enough, I also saw Show Boat with Michel Bell singing the part of Joe (at the Auditorium Theater in Chicago in 1996 - my 18th birthday present). He has the most amazing and powerful voice. It gave me goosebumps!

I miss the Muny, though.