To Say Nothing of the Dog — Review by Chris

O! O! O! How I enjoyed To Say Nothing of the Dog!

I'd give another screamlet, but I'm afraid it would be as baffling and off-putting to you as it was to Ned, the narrator and one of the central characters of Connie Willis' novel. Ned found himself faced with swooning, screamlets, punting on the Thames, feuding dons of Oxford, mediums, drowning cats and preg**** cats in Victorian England.

That is, once he managed to get out of Coventry, circa 1940.

Willis takes us back to Oxford in the mid-2000s, when Oxford has knowledge and use of time travel. Mr. Dunworthy is back, as is Finch (a Radar O'Reilly of the 21st century), whom we first met in The Doomsday Book. Also on the scene is the dynamic and demanding Lady Schrapnell, whose support of the program is a means to an end. She is rebuilding Coventry Cathedral, only one thing missing, the one thing important to her ancestor whose diary inspired her to take on the endeavor.

Ned Henry must find the bishop's bird stump or face the wrath of Lady Schrapnell. Going back in time to scour a smoldering cathedral, still simmering from the recent Nazi Blitz, isn't enough. Scouring jumble sales isn't enough. A dozen time leaps that frazzle his nerves and exhaust him beyond all reason is not. And when he is sent to the hospital and put on two weeks' mandatory rest, even he knows that's not enough to keep the indomitable Lady Schrapnell from conscripting him to another leap.

So he turns to the only person who can help him: Mr. Dunworthy, whom we first met in The Doomsday Book. Finch, however, rescues him from wandering about on a playing field and brings him to Mr. Dunworthy's office.

And there his life changes. Verity Kindle, another historian, storms out of Mr. Dunworthy's office, her red hair streaming behind her. In his time-lagged state (whose symptoms are absolutely hilarious, especially how they manifest themselves), Ned waxes romantic over her.

Only he hasn't the time. Mr. Dunworthy wants him to do one last "leap," to Victorian England, 1888, do one errand then sleep for the mandated two weeks.

If only it was that easy.

It seems a fellow historian has caused an incongruity, which Ned must help fix. The longer it goes un-mended, the worse the problem: slippage, locking out of the net, possibly the end of time, the universe and everything.

And that's not the worst of it.

Willis makes the story so fun and compelling to read. The description of the bishop's bird stump alone is worth the price of admission. I found excuses to steal a few minutes every day to try to get a few more pages under my belt. Let's just say my time on the stairclimber was too short because this book was too enjoyable.

Ned is surrounded by a comedy of errors. And apparently it gets worse when the time-traveling historians interference continues to influence the world of 1888. One person is supposed to meet someone whose last name begins with a "C" and there's no one of the sort in the area. Another is supposed to meet a future spouse on a train platform, only it never happens. Without these few circumstances, people aren't born, secret weapons are revealed and, well, the wrong world power wins the war.

There are a whole host of new characters who are endearing, unbelievable, quaint, charming, lovely, confusing and plain wonderful. Professor Peddick is obsessed with fate and fish. Colonel Mering doesn't bother to use subjects in his sentences. Terence is besotted by the vapid Tossie whose baby-talk makes even a cat-lover ill. Everyone is strong-armed by Mrs. Mering, who hasn't met a medium she hasn't liked and can "O!" and faint at the drop of a hat. Baine, the butler who was "stolen" from a neighbor, runs the house with a precision that would make the Marines seem slovenly. Colleen-cum-Jane, is the Irish, er, English maid. Madame Iritosky is a medium looking for opportunity. Then there's Princess Arjumand .... to say nothing of the dog.

Victorian England was complex but simple: they simply skirt language, issues and ideas that aren't "polite." The women are fragile, giving what Ned called screamlets, such as "O!" And the reader can hear just that. A reader could see and hear it all: the apparent vapidness, the focus on marrying well, the Colonel's obsession with exotic fish in his pond, Princess Arjumand's calm grooming after eating said fish, and Cyril's good-natured participation in the whole affair.

The title is a play on a famous comedy written by Jerome K. Jerome, which I started to read a couple of years ago and never finished. I think I will have to give Three Men in a Boat another try.

I am so sad that I missed the author's appearance at this year's Balticon 42, though I'm grateful that when I do see her, I'll have another book over which to gush when I have her sign them. (Rumor has it that she is returning to time travel in her next novel. I can't wait!)

You will enjoy To Say Nothing of the Dog. It stands on its own as a fun frolic. It's light and fun, with a deeper idea underneath about fate and circumstance. If you don't get that part, still, you haven't missed a thing. It's still a blast, and a book you'll be glad you read.

The Time Traveler's Wife — Review by Carole

Notes:

The movie is currently in production and will start Eric Bana and Rachel McAdams as Henry and Clare. It should be in theaters in 2008.

Chris and I both have a fondness for time travel stories, and we will talk more about this topic in 2008. What are your favorite time travel stories?

___________________________________________________

I read The Time Traveler's Wife two years ago, and I was fascinated by the premise of time travel being an involuntary action due to a genetic disorder. I found re-reading the book equally engaging--so many events take place in the book that I had not remembered. Because of Niffenegger's non-linear (very appropriate — given the nature of the story) way of presenting the narrative, I had little recollection of what happens when.

The idea of time travelling to different times in your own life — rewinding of the proverbial videotape — makes sense to me, but Henry doesn't just do that. He travels to places in time he hasn't been before — that I don't understand. How it is that he actually first comes to the Meadow and meets Clare when he hasn't ever been there before? I'm willing to believe that it is such a part of his future or destiny that he is drawn to that place, even if he doesn't know why. But he also ends up in places like Muncie, Indiana (1973) and we don't know if that is a new place for him or one he has visited. I prefer to think that all of the places he travels to are places he has visited before except for the Meadow.

The concept of destiny and Henry not being able to change anything in the past because it is has already happened is different from many time-traveling stories. People travel back in time, right some wrong, and effect a positive change in the future (unless they end up meeting themselves and then they rip a hole in the space/time continuum and there are world-ending consequences, but I digress). Niffenegger turns that more-or-less-typical premise on its ear by having Henry meet himself at different ages, in different places, in different times. The idea that there can be multiple Henrys running around is a bizarre concept, and the author illustrates that with some key scenes. I don't think I'll easily forget the scene in which Henry's father walks in on Henry and Henry engaged in a compromising situation.

The various Henrys help each other out, and I found that notion comforting. Older Henry teaches a new-to-time-travel Henry the things he needs to know to survive. An older Henry steps in to get married when the present Henry can't stay. A younger Henry makes love to Clare so she can become pregnant with Alba when the present Henry has had a vasectomy. There seems to be no jealousy or resentment of these Henrys to one another, and I guess that's because they are all the same person. It seems to make Henry feel less lonely as he goes through his solitary time travel.

Throughout the story I felt the weight that Henry carried — he knows things he can't share with people. He has to decide when he can or when he has to. By sharing anything, such as the list of dates with Clare, he alters her life, and his, forever. Which brings me to Clare.

Clare's is a lifetime spent waiting. From the time she is six years old until she is a very old woman, she is waiting for Henry. I find that to be a sad life. Despite the fact that she has known him her whole life, their time together seems very brief. When Henry tells her not to be sad, he will see her again after he dies, I feel like she spends the rest of her life waiting for that moment. And that is a lot of waiting. Should he have done that?

Clare is Henry's constant in life, and she bears it all with a fair amount of grace, I think. I could see where it might become too overwhelming, but she seems well suited to the waiting. The images of her art expressed a great deal of Clare, and I found her use of bird imagery, particularly dark, sinister birds, telling. She doesn't speak the words, but she lived with a great deal of fear of the future, which to me would make the waiting difficult to endure.

Henry and Clare's love story rang true for me — I believed their feelings for one another, and I did find Clare's waiting for Henry to be very like the story of Odysseus, just as Niffenegger quotes at the end. I found the quotes that the author uses between sections to be very provocative, and I think I want to find this story of Byatt's Possession — it seems to have inspired Niffenegger. Does anyone know it?

I also found it interesting that both Clare and Henry assert that they don't or no longer believe in God, yet they find themselves praying for things throughout the book. I think that Clare's faith actually is more important to her than even she realizes. I particularly like the prayer that Henry utters on his wedding day:

"Oh God, let today be a normal day. Let me normally befuddled, normally nervous; get me to the church on time, in time. Let me not startle anyone, especially myself. Let me get through our wedding day as best I can, with no special effects. Deliver Clare from unpleasant scenes. Amen."

I think that actually is version of what Henry generally prays for with his life for Clare.

The name of the second section of the book, "A Drop of Blood in a Bowl of Milk," intrigued me. I wondered why she chose to name the entire section this — she uses the phrase to refer to Clare's blush when they discuss their plans to make love for the first time. Many scenes in this book are bloody images from Clare's miscarriages to Henry's injuries. Why this name for this section?

I found the cast of characters in Henry's life very compelling. His parent's love story and their subsequent tragedy shapes Henry's life from an early age. You can't help but wonder how things would have been without the loss of his mother and his father's withdrawal from life. Except for his father, I was continually amazed at how the people who come to know the reason for Henry's quirky behavior are generally okay with it. They don't seem to be as freaked out as I think people might actually be if someone they knew could just appear and disappear. But I found it comforting that Henry had so many people who loved him.

Characters like Ingrid, Gomez, Ben, and Charisse all have their own issues, but they came across as real people (except of course that they ALL have extremely interesting lives and jobs — no one is the story just sells shoes or works for an insurance company).

I found the touches of humor, though subtle, throughout the book a much appreciated element; it's a nice foil to the many, many sad elements in the tale. I think the poignant scenes, such as those with Henry and his daughter, are contrasted by his light hearted moments.

I could go on and on, but I would love to hear what others have to say. Did the time-travelling premise in this book work for you? Did you find it distracting to keep track of when things were happening and how old the characters were respectively in any given scene? Does anyone have a good explanation for why it is essential to the story that Henry and Clare do not meet again for two years — a break between her childhood and her adult life? Why that break in time? Did you find their lives compelling? Was this first and foremost a time-traveling story or a love story?