THE PORTRAIT OF MRS. CHARBUQUE - August BOTM

[Shehzad]

I've definitely read this, and enjoyed it immensely. Let the discussion begin. I'll gather my thoughts and post later.

[Rob B]

I read this over a year ago, but one of the things I remember most about the novel was the feel and atmosphere Ford created in the novel. Obviously, I didn't live in the era in which the novel took place, but it felt extremely accurate.

[Iskaral Pust]

I got this about half a year ago and so far I've read it 3 times. I think it's a fantastic novel that only gets better with each reread. Reading it so wonderfully effortless that I'm always massively suprised by how much I've read after each session. The author's witty and fluid prose is one of the things that makes this book, for me, so great.
The premise is interesting, though perhaps it could have been explored further. Piambo himself is fairly engaging, but mostly because of his narrative rather than his depth. The supporting characters, however, are all fascinating, esspecially Mrs Charbuque. She's just so loopy, I love her. Piambo's meetings with her are some of the highlight scenes.
Great book, one of the best I've read recently. I got my sister to read it, but she got bored halfway through. Did anyone else have pacing problems?

[Luke_B]

I read A Portrait of Mrs. Charbuque by Jeffrey Ford over a year a go. I loved Ford's luminous prose and the way he manages to evoke the New York of 1893 with historic verisimilitude, while at the same time imbuing the work with a surreal, almost fairy-tale, atmosphere. I also love how the themes of perception and the nature of reality are weaved into a plot that revolves around a carefully constructed mystery, which the reader must solve by peeling away layers of reality, until they become completely immersed within the fantasy.

[FicusFan]

I thought it was a pretty average attempt at historical fiction (HF) with a slight twist of fantasy, and a bit of suspense thrown in at the end. While it wasn't bad, to me it wasn't exceptional as either HF or F.

In terms of the actual story I prefered the thread about the painter and current life (1890s). I found the thread with Mrs. Charbuque telling about her childhood to be an interruption to the story for most of the book. I found the splitting of the threads made the book jerky to read and in places boring. I did get into the book and the words did start to flow, but it took a while before I stopped looking for an excuse to put the book down. It just didn't rise above ordinary.

In many ways it seemed almost a short story - with hints about what a fleshed out book could work with (the criminals and the underclass of the time, the theatre of the time and the relationship between the painter and the actress, the police and crime of that time period, the painter's past, upbringing and art training, his work and his search for meaning and forgiveness). Ford added a little bit from each area but I didn't find it particularly satisfying as a whole. I didn't feel the book had a focus.

I thought the crime aspect, and the mysterious murders to be very thinly done, as was the explanation for the substance, her meeting with her husband, and their eventual break-up. The idea that she could marry and expect to keep her husband physically distant was ridiculous - so I can't see that it was in character for her to take the chance and marry him in the first place. I found the switch to the beach at the end to be jarring, since the city had been a part of the story, as was the painter's willingness to just pick up where he left off. It all seemed to be made up to hang together and work for the plot rather than having a feel of real life.

Really good historical fiction has more depth, this wasn't HF-lite, but it also wasn't The Crimson Petal and the White, or An Instance of the Fingerpost. I wouldn't even say this was in the same league as The Alienist, a less dense period piece than the first 2 listed, which used crime and suspense very effectively.

I did like the games the painter played with the 'blind' butler. I liked that Mrs. Charbuque had eventually seen the truth about her father. I liked that Mrs. Charbuque seemed to make a habit of having her picture painted, and that the painter found out about it. But then I thought he wasted the gift - because the author didn't do much with it in terms of the story. I thought the twist at the end was good, I didn't see it coming. If I had to rate this out of 10, I would give it maybe a 6.

[Shehzad]

Echoing what Fitz, IP and Luke are saying, the novel felt immersive. It was the first novel in a long time that drew me in, and was difficult to put down. I deferred sleep for it- and that's saying something for a sleep-deprived resident.

[Eventine]

Hmmm. Not much discussion. Maybe we had less readers because it's not run of the mill fantasy?

I enjoyed the book, and read it in two sittings I was that wrapped up in it. The whole concept of the portrait got me interested, as well as linking it to the deaths. That got me interested, and the novel just held me after that.

I had no problem with the "liteness" of it. I suspect you tend to look for a bit more in your period pieces though FicusFan - you obviously read a lot more historical ficiton than the rest of us and have some different expectations.

One of my favourite moments was when Piambo first sees the monkey hand. I must admit to being just as perplexed as he was, and was amused by his response.

Another of my favourite scenes is the one where Piambo is tricked by his girlfriend into believing she's Charbuque - you really get an idea of his obsession (and his stupidity ) thanks to that scene.

I didn't have a problem with Charbuque's relationship with her husband. At the time I thought it showed her desperation to reach out to someone for companionship (maybe as a replacement to her father?), and when put into context with the twist at the end of the novel, shows that she solved the problem of her isolation by a different means.

Another thing I liked about the novel was when Piambo found the other portraits. It was an interesting idea that each painter had painted, as Piambo speculated, the ideal woman they wanted to see. Does this mean, that by succeeding in his task, that Piambo's ideal vision was Charbuque?

[Luke_B]

Just in relation to the point Ficus raises, I think it's wrong to read this as historical fiction. It has elements of that genre, but it is a fantasy. Like Ficus, I enjoy a lot of historical fiction, but the ones I enjoy less are by writers who seem more interested in showing off their research skills than writing a good novel. Ford certainly avoids this trap. The plot is always his major concern, but the way he weaves his themes of perception and the nature of reality into the narrative are superb. It's these themes that make it vital that this book be viewed as a fantasy.

There was no lightness for me, and the brevity of the book worked in its favour. Ford kept the novel flensed, eschewing overindulgence (which is what drags a lot of fantasy books down), making the narrative even more taut and gripping. Really, every element in the book worked for me (even the absurdist humour) and it was my favourite to win the World Fantasy Award last year (for which it was nominated but was beaten by stiff competition).

[FicusFan]

Well I have to say HF is the only way I can see this. It is the only thing I can really remember about the book after reading it, and I felt that way 5 minutes after finishing it. It isn't bad, but to me it is totally unmemorable. It just didn't grab me or strike any chords.

[Eventine]

You see it as straight HF? What about the identical snowflakes/turds? And the divination?

[FicusFan]

Originally Posted by Eventine

You see it as straight HF? What about the identical snowflakes/turds? And the divination?

There are more things, Horatio ....

I don't see strange happenings that people believed in at the time, or odd practices as being incompatable with HF. Not everything is mundane or explainable. Just like there are people today who practice and believe in things that are not true (astrology, channelling the dead, major religions like christianity etc ..) but that doesn't make a story about them or those topics automatically SF or Fantasy.

People have a great capacity to fool themselves, and there are often coincidences, and who knows what at that very moment is true or untrue. When reading HF you need to accept the people in the text at their level and values, not try to impose modern day sensibilities on them. The writer himself also needs to treat the situation as real to the people involved, he can't write it as though he is going wink, wink, nudge, nudge to the more sophisticated modern audience. If he does then he isn't a good writer and the story isn't any good. I never said either thing about this book/author, it just didn't work for me.

I also wouldn't automatically assume that the snowflake thing or the turd thing was made up. There was a huge occult craze that was part of Victorian times. Not that I think they were identical, but then you have to look at the technology they had to view the snowflakes, and whether in fact they all just melted slightly into a similar form.

Anyway if you want to see it as Fantasy, that is ok too. I just didn't find enough of that element to blott out the HF aspect. As I said in my first post it is HF with a bit of fantasy, and a bit of suspense.

[Luke_B]

Ficus - sure, I agree to a certain extent (and I appreciate the sly dig at Christianity ), but what gives this book its veneer of fantasy is that the science of divination is not only believed in by the characters, but also Ford hints that they might actually work. It is a true science within the world he creates. In the end, it's left open for the reader to interpret, but I think most readers would find this uncertainty means that the novel moves away from realism into fantasy. Also, Ford's writing has a fairy-tale quality as opposed to the documentary-style prose that historicals quite often adopt, again lending to the surrealism. It's not only the characters that are asked to suspend belief, but also the reader. I guess this highlights another thing I like about the book - that readers can come to it without expectations, something you can say about too few fantasy books.

[FicusFan]

Originally Posted by Monosylabik

Ficus - sure, I agree to a certain extent (and I appreciate the sly dig at Christianity ), but what gives this book its veneer of fantasy is that the science of divination is not only believed in by the characters, but also Ford hints that they might actually work. It is a true science within the world he creates. In the end, it's left open for the reader to interpret, but I think most readers would find this uncertainty means that the novel moves away from realism into fantasy. Also, Ford's writing has a fairy-tale quality as opposed to the documentary-style prose that historicals quite often adopt, again lending to the surrealism. It's not only the characters that are asked to suspend belief, but also the reader. I guess this highlights another thing I like about the book - that readers can come to it without expectations, something you can say about too few fantasy books.

But to the characters the divination does work, and so it is part of their worldview. He couldn't possibly write the same story and say by the way, it doesn't work, or even hint it . They believe which is the whole point that faith is as much a part of science as it is a part of religion. You have to believe that what you are seeing is true, and it is important. It seems the whole book revolves around the idea of perception versus reality -- with the artists trying to paint the reality beyond their perception, a true portrait of Mrs. C without ever seeing her. An act of truth and faith. The artists who failed and shriveled up and died did so because they had to come face to face with their lack of faith in their own abilities, they froze and painted the fake perception. Then they could no longer be artists and their whole life had to change, and their past was also fake, it was like they had been kicked out of the garden of eden.

I also think the stuff that was killing people was part of it. Not sure if it was real stuff, or one of those myths that people pass on and think might be real. But did the victims die of the stuff, or was there some way that they ended up with knowledge of the stuff and died of the belief ?

Anyway for me none of that is really in the realm of fantasy. There are interesting themes in the book and stuff to wonder about, I just wish the story and writing had been better (for me).

Not all HF writers are engaged in documentary style writing. Although their styles are very different, Morgan Llywelyn writes HF, mostly about the Celts. She uses their beliefs and religion and accords it the status of reality, because the people of the time acted that way and they in it believed.

And it wasn't just a dig at christianity - it is to remind people today that in the past people held beliefs just as strong, with just as much certainty of being right, even if we look at it today and say it is untrue, or wacky.

[Eventine]

Interesting take on the HF/Fantasy boundary. Not one I'd necessarily agree with, but it does help me know where you're coming from.

It seems the whole book revolves around the idea of perception versus reality -- with the artists trying to paint the reality beyond their perception, a true portrait of Mrs. C without ever seeing her. An act of truth and faith. The artists who failed and shriveled up and died did so because they had to come face to face with their lack of faith in their own abilities, they froze and painted the fake perception.

It sort of me brings me back to something I raised before:

It was an interesting idea that each painter had painted, as Piambo speculated, the ideal woman they wanted to see. Does this mean, that by succeeding in his task, that Piambo's ideal vision was Charbuque?

As each artist failed they replaced the "true" portrait of Charbuque with their own idealised version. I still wonder if Piambo succeeded not because of his faith in himself, but beause his own vision matched that of Charbuques appearance. I'm not sure which is the greater miracle.

And to top it off, some quotes on art and truth:


The stupid believe that to be truthful is easy; only the artist, the great artist, knows how difficult it is ~ Willa Cather


We all know that Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies ~ Pablo Picasso


An artist worthy of the name should express all the truth of nature, not only the exterior truth, but also, and above all, the inner truth ~ Auguste Rodin

[Shehzad]

Originally Posted by Eventine

As each artist failed they replaced the "true" portrait of Charbuque with their own idealised version. I still wonder if Piambo succeeded not because of his faith in himself, but beause his own vision matched that of Charbuques appearance. I'm not sure which is the greater miracle.

Hmmm.... interesting. Will have to think on that.

The HF/fantasy debate seems to be about the core identity of the book: I also read it as fantasy more because of the style of the writing rather than the fantasy elements (of which there are admittedly few).