WEEK 3 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

[Fireflywishes]

as I was reading everyone's thoughts.. I had one of my own.. what if the narrator doesn't want to reveal her own name in the story because she has an academic career now (from what she said in the letter to the reader, at least it sounded like it) and she's moved on with her life.. and she probably doesn't want people she knows to think she is some crackpot. That's the best I have for why she'd go so long with no mention of her name.

Or, a measure of herself is still somewhat spooked by what happened years ago and she doesn't want her name put into the mix in case there is still any "unfinished business"..

I definitely think the bite that Helen got is worse than she's letting on.. I never before considered that maybe the gypsy stopped because she could sense that Helen had been bitten - or at least sense the vampireness around her, that's an interesting theory, that'd I'd tend to go with.

I'm glad someone remembered that she's 16 because I totally either missed that in the reading or forgot! lol I figured she had to be somewhere around there - I was thinking 14-17. Sometimes she acts more childlike, but I think that can be chalked up to her sheltered life with her father and Mrs. Clay.

I'm still fascinated by the whole "church heresy" thing... I don't know why but I think that is a big clue as to how this whole thing could possibly be ended.. and how it began in the first place.

[PFMdg]

as I was reading everyone's thoughts.. I had one of my own.. what if the narrator doesn't want to reveal her own name in the story because she has an academic career now (from what she said in the letter to the reader, at least it sounded like it) and she's moved on with her life.. and she probably doesn't want people she knows to think she is some crackpot. That's the best I have for why she'd go so long with no mention of her name.

I still think that Kostova wants us, as readers, to hold out some sort of belief/disbelief that this might be a non-fiction work of fiction? As if we are supposed to believe this happened....and to her.

I was thinking that in The Swan Thieves she definitely created her fictitious Impressionist painter, but wove her into reality...and then created a web presence for Beatrice. Almost as if the intent is to muddle her creation with what actually did happen in late 19c France. Just a thought. Or perhaps Kostova's work inspires folks enough that the characters take on a presence?

Firefly, I know you read both so does it resonate with you....or am I way overthinking it?

[Fireflywishes]

I still think that Kostova wants us, as readers, to hold out some sort of belief/disbelief that this might be a non-fiction work of fiction? As if we are supposed to believe this happened....and to her.

I was thinking that in The Swan Thieves she definitely created her fictitious Impressionist painter, but wove her into reality...and then created a web presence for Beatrice. Almost as if the intent is to muddle her creation with what actually did happen in late 19c France. Just a thought. Or perhaps Kostova's work inspires folks enough that the characters take on a presence?

Firefly, I know you read both so does it resonate with you....or am I way overthinking it?

I think that Kostova's characters do seem to take on a presence of their own - they seem to leap off the page almost. I think it has become a trend lately in the publishing industry to create web personas and such to give characters even more of a 3dimensional existence, outside of the realm of the book itself. For instance, Stephenie Meyer for her website has Seth as her webmaster and writes most of the entries in that character. I think it's a cool thing. I hadn't realized that Kostova had done this sort of thing with Beatrice - I visited The Swan Thieves website but I didn't roam around too much, I was more looking for stuff on The Historian for this book club, lol!

I agree with you that Kostova wants to give us the impression that this is a true account of events that occured. I'm not so sure if we are to believe that it happened to her though. I think it's someone in her family though and that is also another reason why she is protecting the narrator's identity so well. I still think that the main reason why she is not forthcoming with the name is she wants to protect the narrator's academic reputation and also possibly protect her from any further harm that may come to her from whatever force committed all the evil acts in the account.

That's just my thoughts though! I think everyone's opinions are just as valid as mine, not like I have any "insider" knowledge or anything lol

Anyone else have any thoughts??

[Astoria]

Also, it is starting to drive me slightly crazy to NOT know his daughter's name. I keep thinking it MUST be somewhere and I've somehow missed it.. but I don't think that's the case. Has ANYONE seen a reference to her name?? Is it driving anyone else a but nuts? I think this is probably the first book where I have gone so far through the book and NOT known one of the main characters names! It's a bit disconcerting!

That is driving me crazy too that we do not know the daughters name.

[Astoria]

as I was reading everyone's thoughts.. I had one of my own.. what if the narrator doesn't want to reveal her own name in the story because she has an academic career now (from what she said in the letter to the reader, at least it sounded like it) and she's moved on with her life.. and she probably doesn't want people she knows to think she is some crackpot. That's the best I have for why she'd go so long with no mention of her name.

Or, a measure of herself is still somewhat spooked by what happened years ago and she doesn't want her name put into the mix in case there is still any "unfinished business"..

I definitely think the bite that Helen got is worse than she's letting on.. I never before considered that maybe the gypsy stopped because she could sense that Helen had been bitten - or at least sense the vampireness around her, that's an interesting theory, that'd I'd tend to go with.

I'm glad someone remembered that she's 16 because I totally either missed that in the reading or forgot! lol I figured she had to be somewhere around there - I was thinking 14-17. Sometimes she acts more childlike, but I think that can be chalked up to her sheltered life with her father and Mrs. Clay.

I'm still fascinated by the whole "church heresy" thing... I don't know why but I think that is a big clue as to how this whole thing could possibly be ended.. and how it began in the first place.

That is an intersting point why the narrator does not want to give her name.

[goodword]

I'm terrible at remembering names, so I never even noticed that her name was not revealed. I can't quite wrap my mind around a reason for not giving her a name.

When Prof. Rossi's name was found added to the bibliography--I had chills. Is he now a vampire, is he dead, is he a convert? It seemed to me like he had been given a new position, though, as if he had worked his way to a higher level in a secret society.