The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga.
A chaffeur named Balram rises to the top of Indian society after murdering his employer. The story is told in a series of letters from Balram to the Premiere of China.

Girl in a Blue Dress by Gaynor Arnold.
A historical romance about Victorian novelist Alfred Gibson.

The Secret Scripture by Sebastian Barry.
An old woman reminisces about her life from her residence at a mental hospital, but her past may not be as it seems.

From A To X by John Berger.
A’ida writes letters to her husband Xavier while he is imprisoned for insurgency.

The Lost Dog by Michelle de Kretser.
A Henry James scholar searches for his lost dog in the Australian bush while flashbacks detail his affair with an artist.

Sea of Poppies by Amitav Ghosh.
A historical adventure set during the Opium Wars.

The Clothes on Their Backs by Linda Grant.
A young Jewish girl growing up in London learns of her family’s mysterious past.

A Case of Exploding Mangoes by Mohammed Hanif.
A fictional take on the death of Pakistani dictator General Zia ul-Haq, who died in a plane crash in 1988.

The Northern Clemency by Philip Hensher.
The tale of two middle-class families in Sheffield, England during the Thatcher era.

Netherland by Joseph O’Neill.
A family struggles to stay together after 9/11.

The Enchantress of Florence by Salman Rushdie.
The worlds of Mughal India and Renaissance Florence collide in this historical epic.

Child 44 by Tom Rob Smith.
Set in 1950’s Soviet Russia, a former war hero must track down a serial-killer who targets children.

A Fraction of the Whole by Steve Toltz.
Narratives intertwine in this story about the bizarre Dean family.

Related posts:

1. Writers in conversation
2. One Week to Book Club …

• author
• genre and content
• research, sources and credibility
• structure
• writing style
• marketing

Author

Bill Bryson is, to date, the author of 18 published books. He started his writing career as a journalist for the Times and the Independent but is best known for his travel writing – including Notes from a Small Island and Notes from a Big Country about his experiences in Britain and the US, respectively. Although American by birth, he now (again) lives in the UK and is a renowned anglophile. He has also written about Europe, Africa and Australia. His witty travelogues have made him a household name. Less well known are his books on language and linguistics, such as Mother Tongue: the English Language. In recent years he has achieved critical acclaim for his A Short History of Nearly Everything (2005), which won the Aventis Prize for the best general science book and a Descartes Award for communication in science. Shakespeare: the World as a Stage (2007) is his latest offering.

In 2005 he became Chancellor of Durham University, succeeding the inimitable Sir Peter Ustinov. Ten years ago, one of Shakespeare’s First Folios was stolen from Durham University in a not-so-daring heist along with other valuable manuscripts including original fragments of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. In July 2007 a man walked into the Folger Library in Washington DC and asked them to authenticate a book he claimed to have bought in Cuba. It turned out to be the original Durham Folio. The FBI was contacted, then the Durham Constabulary, who tracked the man down to – of all places – Washington, Durham, UK. Bryson is said to be delighted at the imminent return of the Folio to the university (who have promised to beef up security), but I bet he would have been even more delighted if it had turned up two years ago, so he could have included a whole chapter of it in his book.

For discussion:
How do you think Bryson’s background as a journalist and travel writer helped him in writing this book?

Genre and content

At the risk of being too obvious, this is a non-fiction historical biography. It is a general introduction aimed at a populist rather than academic readership. So any suggestions that it is not furthering academia nor adds little to the scholarly canon on Shakespeare are misplaced – it is not meant to. Like any good historical biography, Bryson is concerned not simply with telling the story of an individual, but rather telling that story within a historical context. A Shakespeare born 200 years earlier or later would not have been the same Shakespeare; he is a product of and a contributor to his times. Which is just as well for Bryson who limits himself in journalistic fashion to only reporting the known facts, and, in his own words, there are so few known facts about Shakespeare that the result is a very slender volume.

This book was written not so much because the world needs another book on Shakespeare, as because this series does. The idea is a simple one: to see how much of Shakespeare we can know, really know, from the record. (Bryson, pp20-21)

Without the extra ‘padding’ of the historical background, there wouldn’t have been much of a book at all. Recreating the world in which Shakespeare lived is Bryson’s real gift – and he does it admirably, in good travel writing style. It is also a history of Shakespearean scholarship, and, I would argue, the latter chapters on the imposter theory and the First Folios are among his best.

For Discussion:
Suggest alternative ways Bryson could have fleshed out the actual biographical content of the book.

Research, sources and credibility

As I’ve already mentioned, this is a populist introduction to Shakespeare rather than an academic treatise. As such, the annotation of sources is not so rigorously observed – there is only a select bibliography given at the end of the book (albeit a respectable canon of 30 or so volumes), with no specific page references. But as I note in my non-fiction course, this is perfectly normal in populist non-fiction writing. And although every single fact is not footnoted and cross-referenced, the writer still needs a sense that the author has done his research and that they are not being fed a bucket of hogwash.

Bryson’s use of sources is journalistic – he piggy-backs on others’ expertise, acting as an interpreter between the academic specialists and the non-academic reader. As a non-fiction writer you don’t necessarily have to be a specialist in a field, just to have the ability to communicate information from one camp to another. However, Bryson does more than merely transpose knowledge, but more of that under structure and style.

Bryson quotes experts in direct speech, giving credence to his version of events. This is a classic journalistic technique. Experts or witnesses are interviewed, but only a fraction of what they say is actually quoted at the point where the writer needs to back up or further illustrate their interpretation of the ’story’. He also liberally scatters references (although not annotated) to previous works throughout the text, giving the reader the impression that he has done his research. But unless we are experts in Shakespeare ourselves, we cannot know whether or not he is reporting them accurately. That is the pact that is set up between a non-fiction writer and reader. In fiction we have the notion of the ‘unreliable narrator’ or the suspicion of an unreliable narrator (see for example next month’s Book Club The Reluctant Fundamentalist) which can add a delicious twist to a novel, but in non-fiction there is no room for this concept.

For discussion:
Do you think Bryson manages to communicate credibility? If so, how does he do it?

Structure

In non-fiction writing one normally has a concept for an article or book and then does some preliminary research to see whether there is enough information to fill the pages. At this point one would then begin to get an idea of structure. The structure of a book or article is what makes one piece of writing on a subject different from another. How is the research going to be communicated? One may already have a thesis and the research will back it up, or, alternatively, another thesis will suggest itself from the research and the original one will be adapted (or even abandoned) and the information structured accordingly.

For discussion:
What is Bryson’s thesis in this book? Do you think he had it before conducting his research or did it emerge from it?

In every body of research there are potentially dozens of books or articles that could be written; your structure will determine what you will include and what you will leave out in order to support or illustrate your thesis.

In Bryson’s Shakespeare, his thesis is that there is not much factual information on Shakespeare, but he will guide us through what there is, separating fact from fiction – this is stated up front in the first chapter ‘In Search of William Shakespeare’. On the way he will introduce us to the world in which Shakespeare lived (chapters 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7) and the literary and academic world that emerged after his death (chapters 8 & 9). Chapter 5, in which evidence for the plays themselves are discussed, is a fulcrum for the whole book. However, I think this is his weakest chapter, as the structure is too loose. One almost has the sense of bullet points rather than a flowing narrative. Overall, Bryson uses a chronological structure with a subject grouping running parallel to the timeline.

For discussion:
‘Chapter five: the plays’ could have been placed elsewhere in the table of contents. Alternatively, the information within it could have been scattered through the other chapters. Why do you think Bryson chose this particular structure? Can you suggest a different structure for the available material? Would you have done it differently?

Style

We’ve already discussed Bryson’s journalistic style, but we haven’t touched on his gift as a travel writer. In this book I see Bryson approaching his subject in the same way he approaches a culture or country in his travelogues. He takes us, the reader, on a journey through a little-known or unknown world. Collectively we are on a tour bus, which at times speeds through the boring areas and stops at those of greater interest. Bryson is a quirky guide (which is the charm of his travelogues) and he highlights the awe-inspiring and the ridiculous, the grand and the petty, in equal measure. Bryson believes that the minutae of life are sometimes of more interest than the sweeping politics of the day; I couldn’t agree more.

In my non-fiction course, I mention how contemporary non-fiction style is far less formal than it was in the past. Gone is the author referring to him or herself as ‘the author’. Bryson himself is ever present – just like a friendly tour guide. And although the facts and only the facts are reported in good journalistic style, he is not averse to commenting on them. In my opinion, that’s what makes this book the gem that it is. His wry asides and witty observations at times made me laugh out loud and turned what could have been simply an informative introduction to the life and times of Shakespeare and a turgid overview of Shakespearean scholarship, into one of the most entertaining books of the year.

For discussion:
In your opinion, what other elements of non-fiction writing style may help to endear this text to the reader?

Marketing

Bryson has become a brand. This was illustrated superbly in 2002 when Penguin re-released their ‘Penguin Dictionary of Troublesome Words’ (first written by Bryson in 1983) and renamed it Bryson’s Dictionary of Troublesome Words. Bryson has become synonymous with good writing, good entertainment and a good read. I doubt someone else without Shakespearean credentials could have got away with writing this book. Good branding equals credibility. We trust Bryson. Whether we should or not, is another matter.

For discussion:
Bryson took a risk in moving from his successful travel niche into the general non-fiction market. His first two books seem to show that it’s paid off. Do you think readers will now ‘trust’ Bryson enough with any topic?

Now it’s your turn. Please join in the discussion by leaving your comments below, and don’t forget to vote in our poll:
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Our next Book Club tile is The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid. If you haven’t got a copy of the book yet you can buy it through the The Crafty Writer Bookshop and help keep the Club and all the information on this website free.

Related posts:

1. Book Club Reminder
2. Book Club: The Interpretation of Murder
3. Man, it’s the Booker Prize

• author
• genre
• structure
• sources and credibility
• research and content
• writing style
• marketing

I’ll make some initial observations and pose suggested questions for discussion. Some of our regular book club participants are published authors themselves, so it’s a great opportunity to share their knowledge and insight. You don’t have to do anything to join other than pitch up and participate. If you haven’t got a copy of the book yet you can buy it through the The Crafty Writer Bookshop and we will get a small commission that keeps the Club and all the information on this website free.

Related posts:

1. One Week to Book Club …
2. Book Club reminder
3. Book Club: The Interpretation of Murder

• author
• genre
• plot and structure
• writing style
• characterisation
• marketing

I’ll make some initial observations and pose suggested questions for discussion. Some of our regular book club participants are published authors themselves, so it’s a great opportunity to share their knowledge and insight. You don’t have to do anything to join other than pitch up and leave your comments and observations below. If you haven’t got a copy of the book yet you can buy it through The Crafty Writer Bookshop (in the book club category) and we will get a small commission that keeps the Book Club and all the information on this website free.

Author

The Interpretation of Murder is Jed Rubenfeld’s debut novel. His ‘day job’ is as a law professor at Yale University. He has had two non-fiction books published, both on constitutional law. But he chose a criminal rather than civil investigation as the subject of his novel, indicating a natural sense of the dramatic. This isn’t surprising, as in his varied academic life he studied Shakespeare at the Juliard School of Drama. He also has an interest in psychology, and wrote an undergraduate thesis on Freud. It is these three strands that come together in The Interpretation of Murder as a Hamlet-obsessed Freudian psychoanalyst joins forces with a police detective to solve a series of murders in 1909 New York. He is also, it seems, deeply interested in architecture, as this both physically and metaphorically provides the structure of the novel.

For Discussion:
It’s always said that a writer’s first novel is a reflection of self. This certainly appears to be the case in this book. It will be interesting to see what his next offering will entail. What are the pros and cons of writing from self? Is there a difference between this and writing your self into a book? What do you think about the age-old mantra ‘write what you know’?

Genre

Although this is essentially a psychological thriller, it is also a historical and police procedural, with the pivotal question of ‘who dunnit?’ keeping us reading to the end. Rubenfeld draws on all the classic mystery genre conventions: a mystery to be solved; a hero or heroine; a side-kick or partner; a rival; a villain; conflict; obstacles and setbacks; clues; red herrings; motives; twists; resolution.

The one convention that Rubenfeld majors on is the red herring – but not, in my opinion, always successfully, particularly with regards to Carl Jung (maybe it’s because I was obsessed with Jung at university that I take Rubenfeld’s insinuations as a personal affront – now analyse that ). However, the ultimate red herring turned out to be the murder itself, which, I thought was fiendishly clever.

In terms of the historical, this is history of forensic science, psychology, architecture and the social strata of the city of New York. It makes for fascinating reading. However, I found the dissertation on New York society rather irritating at times, and caught myself skipping over some of those sections. That’s the danger of a historical mystery / thriller: the setting can weigh down the plot. But the twists and turns of Rubenfeld’s intricate story kept me reading to the end. I also found the Hamlet discourse rather boring (despite being a Shakespeare fan) as it seemed incongruous to the rest of the plot. By the end though, I saw the author’s intentions in creating a thematic through line between the murder and Freudian psychology, but I still think we could have done without it.

For Discussion:
I’m sure many of you disagree with me about there being too many cross-threads in the book; please feel free to argue the other side.

Plot and structure

I’ve already said that The Interpretation of Murder is very cleverly plotted, and, while I found some of the tangential elements distracting, Rubenfeld did not fail to wrap up every loose thread at the end. Bravo! It’s one of those stories that you want to read again to see how many clues you picked up on. That said, I did think that dropping the Coroner Hugel storyline so early in the book odd and did not think the reveal at the end justified it. I thought that Rubenfeld managed his release of information on a need-to-know basis very well, and maintained the tension and pace masterfully. By the middle of the book he had ‘trained’ me to pay attention during the esoteric architectural, social, literary or psychological discourses, because I realised that everything had meaning or at least would have, by the end.

The two main plot lines are that of the Freud / Jung rivalry and Freud’s attempt to break in to America, and then the investigation of the murder apparently perpetrated by a politically well-connected fiend. The two main plotlines are held together by the bridging plot of Stratham and Nora’s relationship. These inter-connected stories held my attention to the end, but, while I was satisfied with the resolution of the murder plot and the romance, the Freud / Jung story was resolved rather lamely – the cop simply putting a bit of pressure on the baddy and Jung finally having the courage to visit a high-class brothel. Admittedly, the Freud / Jung plotline was constrained by the pre-existing facts, although, like all good authors, Rubenfeld felt free to deviate from the historical party line when it suited him – to which he freely admitted in the afterward.

For discussion:
In a historical novel, how may the reported facts of history impinge upon an author’s plotting choices? How may this be overcome?

Writing style

A distinctive style element of the book (which of course affected structure) was the alternation between first person narration with Stratham Younger and third person in the other sections. The strength of this is that the author can have the benefit of the intimacy of the first person, allowing us to be privy to the narrating character’s thoughts (which, because of the Hamlet sub-plot, became necessary) and the freedom to allow us to see developments that the main character could not see. However, the two sections blended together in my opinion as the ‘voice’ of Stratham was far too close to that of the third person narrator. This switch between third and first person only works well when the first person has a distinct voice – a classic example is The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner.

For discussion:
In terms of Rubenfeld’s actual writing style – ie his choice of words, syntax, imagery, etc – I would suggest that unlike Markus Zusak (the author of our last Book Club novel) there is nothing particularly distinctive. Within this genre, however, that may not be a bad thing. Why is this? Do you agree or disagree?

Characterisation

All of Rubenfeld’s characters, whether historical or fictional, are well-rounded and believable. This is because he provides all of them, even the minor ones, with motivation. All of the characters want something and are prepared to act to get it (which is ironic in a plot that revolves around solving the mystery of why Hamlet couldn’t ‘act’). This provides them and the plot with forward momentum. The historical characters of Freud and Jung are of course fictionalised – this is Rubenfeld’s view of who these men were. The problem is, it clashes with mine. My view of Jung and Freud has been shaped by Jung’s own writings in which the Austrian ‘father’ of psychoanalysis is portrayed as petty and hysterical. Because of this, I struggled to recognise Rubenfeld’s warm, wise patriarch as being the ‘real’ Freud and the deluded pervert as Jung. That is a risk you take with using well-known historical characters. Of course my version of these two men is just as much a ‘fiction’ as Rubenfeld’s as it is my interpretation of the facts that has formed it – you see, I did get the point of the title too:).

For discussion:
Have you read any novels where you did not agree with the characterisation of historical characters? Do you share my view, despite me disagreeing with his interpretation of Freud and Jung, that all of Rubenfeld’s characters were well-rounded, motivated and believable (as fictional constructs, not historical personages)?

Marketing

Although written by an American and set in America, this book has been phenomenally successful in the UK. It was the winner of the Galaxy British Book Awards Best Read of 2007 and the Richard and Judy Book Club. The Richard and Judy win has catapulted this novel to the top of UK charts where it still remains in the Top 10 in mid 2008. It does not appear to have done as well in America. Not being American, I can’t really say why this is the case.

For discussion:
Is the Interpretation of Murder’s success in the UK simply a matter of it getting noticed by the ‘right people’ (ie Richard and Judy), or is it something else? If you’re American, could you speculate as to why the book has not done as well in the States?

Now it’s your turn. Please join in the discussion by leaving your comments below, and don’t forget to vote in our poll:
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

The next Book Club book will be Shakespeare: the World as a Stage by Bill Bryson. It’s a short read so we’ll aim to discuss it at the end of August. And now that you’ve stopped laughing at my apparent about-turn, I can assure you I have very good reasons for choosing this book above and beyond penance for sniping at the Bard this month!

Related posts:

1. One Week to Book Club …
2. Book Club: The Book Thief
3. Book Club Reminder

• author
• genre
• plot and structure
• characterisation
• writing style
• marketing

I’ll make some initial observations and pose suggested questions for discussion. Some of our regular book club participants are published authors themselves, so it’s a great opportunity to share their knowledge and insight. You don’t have to do anything to join other than pitch up and participate. If you haven’t got a copy of the book yet you can buy it through the The Crafty Writer Bookshop and we will get a small commission that keeps the Club and all the information on this website free.

Related posts:

1. Book Club Reminder
2. Book Club: The Interpretation of Murder
3. Book Club reminder

I think we can learn a lot from ‘eavesdropping’ on other writers – we learn more about Wordsworth as a writer in his letters to Coleridge than anywhere else. What writer’s correspondence have you read that brought their work into perspective? What do you think of the Zusak / Bartoletti series?

Related posts:

1. Book Club: The Book Thief
2. Book Club: The Interpretation of Murder
3. Beginner Blogging for Writers: part 1

The winner will be announced on 17 July at the Theakston’s Old Peculier Crime Writing Festival in Harrogate. I went to the festival a few years ago and had a fab time. The Swan Hotel in Harrogate was where Agatha Christie holed up during her infamous disappearance in 1926. After a country-wide search involving over a thousand police officers, Christie was spotted having tea on the terrace of the spa hotel. She claimed she had lost her memory after a car accident, but speculation was rife that it was just a publicity stunt or, as the more sympathetic would have it, a desperate act of a desperately sad woman.

Related posts:

1. Book Club reminder
2. Crafty Writer’s Book Club Launch
3. Book Club back on track

For those of you new to the Book Club, we discuss best-selling novels from a writer’s perspective to see what makes them tick. As in the last Book Club discussion, I’ll pose some questions under the following headings:

• Author
• Genre
• Characterisation
• Plot and structure
• Style
• Market success

The Author

Australian Markus Zusak was born in 1976, the child of German parents. He authored four other novels before The Book Thief – all of them classified as ‘young adult’ – The Underdog, Fighting Ruben Wolfe, Getting the Girl, and I Am the Messenger, recipient of a 2006 Printz Honor for excellence in young adult literature.

Zusak wrote The Book Thief in response to a series of stories his mother told him of growing up in Munich during the Second World War, including that of a teenage boy giving a piece of bread to a marching Jew. In an interview with the Sydney Morning Herald he said: “We have these images of the straight-marching lines of boys and the ‘Heil Hitlers’ and this idea that everyone in Germany was in it together. But there still were rebellious children and people who didn’t follow the rules and people who hid Jews and other people in their houses. So there’s another side to Nazi Germany.”

As I grew up as a white teenager in South Africa during the Apartheid years, I understand why he might need to ’set the record straight’. Of course, the book is about so much more than that; you can read more in Zusak’s own words:

For discussion:
When an author is motivated by a need to ’set the record straight’ what might the dangers be? Do you see any of this in The Book Thief?

Genre

The Book Thief is classified as a Young Adult novel but its phenomenal international success is due to it ‘crossing over’ into the adult market – more of that later in ‘market success’. For now, let’s limit ourselves to discussing the book as a young adult historical. Like most books in this genre the historical landscape is the backdrop of a coming-of-age story. The trials and tribulations of being a young person in a hostile world are the primary concern of YAs. Despite the extra-ordinary circumstances that the young protagonists endure, the ordinary spheres of home, neighbourhood and school are the source of most of the conflict in this book.

For discussion:
How might this primary function of a YA novel affect the plotting and character choices of an author? What pros and cons do you see in The Book Thief? How does the historical landscape affect the ‘coming of age’ plotline? Consider the age of Liesel (10 – 14); what impact might this have on plot choices?

Characterisation

Zusak provides us with a colourful cast of characters, carefully chosen to present a cross-section of Germany during the period. We see Jews, Nazis, rich, poor, soldiers, civilians, young and old. Liesel, of course, is the lynch-pin of the story and all of the characters impact upon her in some way. By choosing to have her introduced to Himmel Street as an outsider, we get to know the people in her life as she meets them. I don’t think the same thing could have been achieved as easily if we had her born and growing up there. Also, of course, by setting her up as a wounded outsider, welcomed by the people of Himmel Street, Zusak allows her to be a kindred spirit to the desperate Max. It also allows us to see her foster parents as people who will ‘do the right thing’ despite the requisite sacrifice.

Although the female characters are memorable (Rosa, Mrs Holtzapfel, the mayor’s wife) it is the male characters we are most drawn to – Hans, Max and Rudy. A trite explanation would be that Zusak is a man and so has more sympathy with them; but I’d like to think it’s more than that. Zusak is a father and if the warmth with which he sketches Liesel’s relationship with Max and Hans is anything to go by, he’s a good one. Speaking of Max, I found that relationship at times uncomfortable to read. At 24, he was a young man spending sometimes whole nights alone with a young teenage girl. Perhaps it’s a sad indictment of the world we’re in, where every man is viewed as a potential paedophile, but I couldn’t help wondering about the appropriateness of it. However, I applaud Zusak for not backing away from it.

Let us not forget our charming narrator: Death. Just like everyone else in The Book Thief at times, he is presented against type. When I first picked up the book I feared it would be like Terry Pratchett’s ‘Mort’, with Death’s apprentice as the narrator, but I knew that I was with a complex and benevolent being when I read: ‘It’s the leftover humans. The survivors. They’re the ones I can’t stand to look at, although on many occasions, I still fail.’ (The Book Thief, p15).

For discussion:
Which characters in The Book Thief represent ‘type’? Consider which of them Zusak has chosen to subvert. In other words, how are our preconceptions challenged through his characterisation? And yet others are simple cardboard cut-outs. Which ones? Why?

Plot and structure

Towards the end of the book Death tells us that he has a ‘circular heartbeat’ and is cursed to be beyond time. That explains his character’s need to tell us the end before we’ve reached it. But why does Zusak do it? This book starts with a series of visions of what’s going to happen to Liesel. We know the end before the book’s barely begun – we know who’s going to die and who’s going to live. Each chapter and section is also prefaced with a summary of the main points, like the cue cards in a silent movie. The tension in most books is achieved when the reader wonders what’s going to happen. Apart from a few instances (Zusak keeps us hanging on about Max’s fate until almost the very end) this does not happen in The Book Thief. And yet it is still a tension-ridden book.

For discussion:
How does Zusak establish the rise and fall of tension despite his narrator having a compulsive need to tell us what happens in the end? What are the strengths of this approach? What are the dangers? What does the choice of Death as narrator contribute to the book?

Style

In a book narrated by Death I was surprised at all the colour. Zusak uses the pages of this book to paint a picture in every possible colour. Similes and metaphors are communicated in colour and emotions too. I wonder if he is synaesthetic. It is the poetic language of The Book Thief that lifts it from the populist to the literary (sorry for sounding like a snob!). Quite frankly, it is beautifully written.

This is a post-modern book – not in telling, but in style. The story is conventional, but the author’s recurring references to books, the nature of books and the power that words have to enslave or set us free, repeatedly brings attention to the nature of reading and writing and that the story we are involved in is a literary construct. The delightful hand-written books and sketches, the references to the dictionary definition of words, the stolen books from the library, the development of Liesel from illiteracy to literacy which parallels her emotional, social and moral growth, all reflect a post-modern sensibility. And of course, the story that is being told to us came to Death through a hand-written book in fading pencil – even as we read the story is disappearing and will only live on to the extent that we allow it to in our hearts.

For discussion:
The use of overly poetic language in a novel may at times undermine the forward momentum of the plot. Is this the case in The Book Thief? How does Zusak balance the poetic with the prosaic elements of style? While the post-modern compulsion to draw attention to itself is clearly present in The Book Thief, do you feel it becomes a distraction from the story? Why or why not?

Market success

As we’ve already mentioned, The Book Thief is an international best-seller. I believe this is largely because it has managed to capture that elusive ‘crossover’ market that the likes of Pullman, Rowling and Almond have claimed as their own. Or have they? I’ve met David Almond and he would be the last person in the world to consciously write with an eye on the crossover market. Almond says he just writes stories – Skellig, his first children’s novel, just came out that way. He did not intend to write a children’s book. Simon Morden, another author I know, was rather surprised when his The Lost Art was bought by children’s publisher, David Fickling. It’s quite a violent book without a teen protagonist and I would have pitched it for an older readership.

So why do publishers try to push books into this market? Frankly, because thanks to the likes of Pullman and Rowling it’s the fastest growing readership demographic. That being said, I think that The Book Thief fits well into this market. It has a young protagonist with a coming-of-age plot. The question is, what has pushed it into the ‘crossover’ market. What is in this book that gives it universal appeal and attracts adults too? I’ll leave that to you to answer.

For discussion:
How has The Book Thief achieved crossover appeal?

Please take part in our poll and rate The Book Thief:
Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Please feel free to enter into this discussion by leaving comments below (which is after all the main purpose of a book club).

The next Book Club title, which we will look at in two month’s time, is The Interpretation of Murder by American author, Jed Rubenfeld. Remember, if you buy it through The Crafty Writer Bookshop we will receive a small commission that will help to keep the Book Club and all the information on this site free to users. If you can’t afford to buy it, support your local library, we won’t hold it against you!

Related posts:

1. Book Club back on track
2. The Crafty Writer Book Club is Open!
3. One Week to Book Club …

Related posts:

1. Book Club reminder
2. Crafty Writer’s Book Club Launch
3. The Crafty Writer Book Club is Open!

• Author
• Genre
• Plot and structure
• Characterisation
• Style
• Market success

The Author

Val McDermid has published 25 crime novels since her debut, Report for Murder in 1987. She’s a multiple award-winning author, including the Portico Prize for The Grave Tattoo in 2006. Her The Wire in the Blood series has been made into a sucessful television series in the UK and USA. She also writes short stories with, most recently, a literary collection published by Flambard Press. I heard Val speak at a reading of her short story collection Stranded and she announced then that she was busy writing a crime novel that reflected her love for classical literature – this would become The Grave Tattoo. She wondered then how the ‘market’ would receive this breakaway from from her usual taut psychological thrillers and police procedurals.

For discussion:
Have you read any other Val McDermid books? If so, how does this one compare?

Genre

In any mystery thriller, there are certain genre expectations, including: a mystery to be solved; a hero or heroine; a side-kick or partner; a rival; a villain; conflict; obstacles and setbacks; clues; red herrings; motives; twists; resolution.

For a more detailed discussion see my post on mystery and thriller conventions. Although it’s angled towards writing for children and young people, the same principles apply to all writing in this genre.

For discussion:

• Can you identify these genre conventions in ‘The Grave Tattoo’?
• Did it meet your expectations of what a mystery thriller should be?
• In what ways did it differ or present a twist on the standard form?
• What did you think of the cross-genre element of history/literature/thriller?
• Can you think of other recent books that fit into this mix?

Plot

I identified three major plot strands in The Grave Tattoo that all, in good mystery fashion, culminated in the climax:

• Jane’s quest for the missing Wordsworth manuscript.
• Fletcher Christian’s narrative of the ‘true story’ of the Bounty mutineers.
• Tenille’s efforts to escape an abusive situation and flee from the police with Jane’s help.

In addition, there were a number of sub-plots:

• River Wilde’s quest to identify the Bog Body.
• Ewan Rigston’s investigation into the old people’s deaths.
• River and Ewan’s love story.
• Jane and Jake’s anti-love story.
• Dan’s philanderings.
• The repeated attempts on Jane’s life.
• Jake and Caroline’s plot to steal the Wordsworth manuscript.
• Jane’s fraught relationship with her brother and his genealogy project.

For discussion:

• Considering the three main plot strands, how did McDermid structure the novel around them?
• Other books in the literary/history/mystery genre tend to jump between two time periods with the result of splitting the narrative into almost two different books. How did McDermid manage to dip into the past without losing the forward momentum of the contemporary narrative? Do you think she succeeded?
• Considering all the plot lines, do you think any of the sub-plots threatened to take over the main plot line?
• Were there any plot lines that you considered were not developed to their potential?
• Were there any plot lines that you felt should have been omitted from the book?

Characterisation

Jane Gresham is of course the heroine. However, there are a number of other important characters including: Tenille, Tenille’s dad, Donna Blair (the inspector), Dan, Matthew, Jane’s Mum and Dad, Jake, Caroline, River, Ewan, the curator of the Wordsworth museum, the elderly victims, members of the family under investigation, Wordsworth, and Fletcher Christian.

For discussion:

• What function do these various characters play in the narrative?
• In your opinion, which of these characters (including Jane) were well-drawn and which not?
• Did you feel that any characters had the potential to supercede Jane as the primary character?
• How did McDermid deal with this threat?
• In your opinion, was it successful?
• What did you think of the revelation, choice and motivation of the ‘villain’?

Style

In my opinion, McDermid writes in an engaging, energised, popularly commercial style, appropriate for the mystery genre. It’s gratifying that she didn’t succumb to pretentions of literary grandeur in a book dealing with William Wordsworth. I thought her voicing of Christian and Wordsworth particularly strong (perhaps, because at this point, she shifted into first person), as well as her voicing (and characterisation) of Tenille. Her intimate third person POV in the Tenille scenes were the strongest in the book. The voicing of the academics was less convincing – particularly Jane’s discussions with her supervisor. I thought she did particularly well by taking the killer / stalker’s POV without giving away his identity too early. Yet I thought her intimate third person POV of Jane, not as engaging as it could have been. I wonder why? Personally, I found River a much more compelling guide.

For discussion:

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of McDermid’s writing style?
• How did this contribute to the plot?

Market Success

The Grave Tattoo has not been as successful as some of the other McDermid books. Consider these reviews:

• Times Online
• The Mystery Reader
• The New York Times
• Pop Matters

For discussion:

• Which of these reviews do you agree or disagree with? Why?
• In one paragrah describe the book’s primary strengths and weaknesses.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

This was the first in the Crafty Writer’s Book Club. Please feel free to leave comments and contribute to the discussion in the comments section below.

Next month we will be looking at Australian writer Markus Zusak’s The Book Thief, set in Nazi Germany in 1939, with a nine-year-old heroine. While of course you are free to buy or borrow it from wherever you choose, if you buy it from the Crafty Writer Bookshop (an Amazon affiliate) by clicking on the book cover, we will earn a small commission and help to keep the Crafty Writer Book Club online.

Happy reading and writing!

Related posts:

1. Crafty Writer’s Book Club Launch
2. Book Club reminder
3. Book Club back on track