Feather Man Discussion, Part 1 (Lionel) -- pages 13-107

[thewanderingjew]

---

i think you are right and it certainly worked!

twj 

---

ande wrote:

I've been thinking a lot about some of your comments having to do with feeling distant or disconnected from Sooky. And that you find the time shifts disconcerting. Perhaps these are the author's device -- having you experience the remove that Sooky feels and the blurring of reality and timeframes.

Ande

---

[dcw888]

I must confess, I haven’t read all of the posts and I’m posting this one in a hurry since my lunch is almost over.  I have so much to say, I don’t even know where to begin. Before I go any further, however, I want to say up front that I do not have any personal knowledge of what is like to be a victim of abuse – sexual or otherwise.  I’m a little intimidated here because I don’t want to say anything borne out of ignorance that may offend any of you who actually had to suffer this horrible act.  So, up front, if I say anything that needs correcting – please correct me!  I’m working on assumptions of what a victim would actually feel.

 

First, I have to say, when I started this book, I hated it.  Not just the terrible scene, but the author’s style.  I felt like I was constantly missing things, and I wasn’t sure what I thought was happening was actually happening.  Like others, I wasn’t sure if the abuse was a one-time event, or was continual.  Sometimes, I wasn’t sure if Sooky was referring to Lionel or her father in some of the passages.  I found myself dissecting paragraphs to make sure I understood where the author was going.  I didn’t feel a natural flow to the story.  My husband told me to just stop reading it if I couldn’t stand it, but I told him I had made a commitment and I was going to stick with it.  I’m glad I did!

 

I can’t stand reading poetry – I find it too much work.  I like the simple things, and I like things spelled out to me.  I guess I’m simple.  It didn’t occur to me that I would find a novel written by a poet to be difficult, but that is how I found it.  It took me until after the first section, “Lionel”, to really get used to the style and adapt my reading to her writing.  Once I did that, it got easier.

 

Now, the first section, “Lionel”.  That just disgusted me.  I counted the pages to get out of that section.  I had so many frustrations – with the author’s writing style, then with Lionel and his disgusting nature, with Sooky’s parents, and with Sooky herself.  I was frustrated because I didn’t know how old Sooky was – is she too young to understand what’s happening to her?  Is she old enough to say something?  Why won’t she say something?  Finally, after giving that section more of a chance, it all clicked.  Her mom was just a self-involved woman of the ‘50s that didn’t want to take care of her child.  There was no way she’d listen to a word her daughter said, and Sooky knew that. Her mom never would have acknowledged the abuse next door because that would have meant Sooky would be in her hair all of the time.  It’s easier to deny what’s possible and continue with what is convenient.  Why did Sooky keep going over to Lionel’s house?  She told her mom no, but I also felt as if she wanted to go there – sometimes Sooky expressed a positive attitude toward Lionel.  She sought his approval, and wanted his friendship.  This, I didn’t understand.  I also think that Sooky’s mom, although not knowing the truth, just wanted Sooky out of the way.  Her verbal attacks on Sooky probably just made Sooky want to be anywhere but there.  Is it possible that she preferred the abuse she found next door to the abuse she found at home? (here is one of those “I may be very ignorant” statements.  I just don’t know.)  I can’t imagine ever “preferring” that abuse over verbal abuse, but if Sooky was confused and starved for human companionship, is it a possible explanation?

 

Oh, and as for Dolly.  I had assumed her distaste for Sooky was out of jealousy.  I think she knew all along what was going on, and refused to do anything about it.  I think she blamed Sooky for the abuse and hated her. 

Denise

[vivico1]

Denise,

I don't think you will offend anyone here, its different for everyone anyway, so dont worry about it. I agree with a lot of things you said, some very good thoughts. As for your question, would she choose his abuse over what she had at home? You never know how someone abused will act, so all things are possible, there is no right or wrong answer. My feeling is that quite frankly, this little girl is abused by everyone, emotionally by her mother and father, sexually by Lionel and maybe some physically from many. When no one around you will help, or when no one around you shows you anything different, you can tend to just keep making the circle of going back to each one, hoping for some kind of love to be shown this time. She made the circle a lot with all of them, sometimes she even got a hint of kindness at least so she kept trying everyone. People, especially kids, don't always run from abusers who are people they know. They may think its their fault or they may simply have loved that person and keep going back trying to please them to get that person they once knew back. Some just give up and disconnect from everyone.

When I was in my midteens and could get very melodramatic lol, I wrote a lot of prose and poetry for myself. I remember in one, I was thinking about the fact that I loved to lay out on top of the car hood at night, leaning back on the windshield and looking at the stars. They were very soothing to me and I often thought there were others out there that could see me too and they knew my plight and were always there for me. I felt loved just watching the stars at night. After something had happened to me, I don't recall now what, I wrote about feeling like a rat caught in a maze who couldn't find their way out... ok, here I found my book I put together, if you all will indulge me here once, I will share with you something I wrote at 15. I won't make a habit of it lol.

EMPTINESS

The time is forgotten when solutions to the

problems were easily found.

The feelings that once comforted me have crept silently

into my subconscience and will not venture forth.

Once I could look up on a starlit night and the multitude

of stars seem to sing out to me in a soft whisper

that touched my soul and calmed the very

essance of my life.

Now all I see is the vast distance between the stars

like that between others and myself.

The emptiness grows and tears at my insides until

finally it consumes all of me.

It hurts.

I am caught by this thing that gnaws at my heart

and rages through my consciousness like

a rat in a maze.

I can't find my way out because I don't know

how I stumbled in,

nor can I go back.

But fear not, for I shall not give up.

There is no need to, it all ends the same.

We do not give up on life, it gives up on us,

Then it goes away.

Now I have no idea why I even thought of this poem or any of mine actually, right now, reading your post, but it is interesting to read again. I know it sounds almost suicidal but I wasn't. I just felt like everything in life had given up on me. Maybe that's it, why I thought of it now. Maybe at times Sooky feels invisible and like everyone has given up on her, like life has and you just see things go on, almost without you. I think maybe that was what I was saying back then, that life was giving up on me and going on, going away and then I would no longer exist. Anyway, I don't feel that way now but writing things out helped me a lot back then, and I kept most of what I wrote. Writing is very cathartic .

Anyway, welcome to the club and very good post!

[Melissa_W Moderator]

I'm only up to about page 80, but I really like how McMaster laid out the chapters.  The disjointedness helps to make the abuse more graphic and lurid because it's not hidden in a linear narrative.  I think also that the poetic quality of the writing shows us that Sooky often finds beauty in her world (like when she runs out into the backyard in the morning) when the adults look at the same world and see only ugliness.

[vivico1]

LOL, I agree that yeah, it blurred reality and time for me lol, but do I think that was intentional? Or even that it worked well as a device to connect us with that Sooky was feeling? No. Distancing us from her by confusion, does not connect us to her as a character and her feelings. I just think we are having a hard time with the writing style of this first part because its not as tight, smooth in shifting as it could be, so that our attention is spent connecting with her on some level rather than trying to figure out what is real and what isn't or when. Even in showing us her torn up world, the reader needs some continuity to understand it in a more meaningful way. Hey, I think she is a good writer and a really good poet. I just think this first part needed some work is all.

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

---

i think you are right and it certainly worked!

twj

---

ande wrote:

I've been thinking a lot about some of your comments having to do with feeling distant or disconnected from Sooky. And that you find the time shifts disconcerting. Perhaps these are the author's device -- having you experience the remove that Sooky feels and the blurring of reality and timeframes.

Ande

---

---

[vivico1]

Hey guys, can someone help me out? I have a few one or two word notes with pages by them of things I wanted to ask about and one was the words or phrase " take the blame". I had page 96 written by it but I don't see it there or around that page, tho I could me missing it today. I noted it because I had a question about it, because it was not used in the sense of, you need to take the blame for what you did, or I will take the blame, it seems as I recall, it was a turn of a phrase that I wanted to know what it meant in the context it was used. I think it was between kids. Whatever it was, it stood out enough to me to make a note of it. If any of you find that part, could you let me know what page please?? Now I am really curious as to what it was exactly that I would note it for. Thanksss

[IBIS]

Vivian, you mean the section Chapter 19, page 86?

It's when the bullies force the younger kids to "take the blame"... it's a kind of scapegoating, or to condemn the younger kids with silent abuse...

a bit of what Lionel forces Sooky to undergo... she is forced to take the blame for HIS viciousness and abuse.

Reminds me of how vicious children can be to each other... lessons learned from their elders, I guess.

IBIS

[debbook]

I think it may have been intentional, Viv. It certainly made alot of us feel uncomfortable and question things. That may very well be what Rhyll had in mind.

Its a good thing Ande hasn't put up a thread yet for questions for the author. By the time Rhyll got here at the end of the month there would be 10 pages on that thread, lol

[vivico1]

I don't know deb, you really think its a good idea to intentionally write something so that people are confused about the timeline or if its even real or just in her imagination without saying so, thus making it very hard to follow? It is one thing to make us uncomfortable, the whole scene with Lionel should do that to everyone, and its one thing to make us think...like how isolated she is and do we do that with our kids, those are great things for an author to do. But to disconnect us from the story or the characters by confusing us as to what is going on and when, doesn't seem like the best laid plan to me. hmm

OH, for example, did you read The Vanishing of Esme Lennox?? One of her characters has dementia and slips in and out of time periods and talks about this and that, things you don't know what she is talking about, BUT it is done so well, you know what is real and what is her slips in time and what she is saying and what is really happening. Even the simple act of putting her disjointed thoughts in italics helps you know she is not really talking to someone at that point, she is just talking to herself. You get the unique vision into what it must be like for her but you don't get confused as to the real time line or activity. That is probably the best example of using someone's own disconnected life as a venue to see things real and things as she sees them as i can think of.

---

debbook wrote:

I think it may have been intentional, Viv. It certainly made alot of us feel uncomfortable and question things. That may very well be what Rhyll had in mind.

Its a good thing Ande hasn't put up a thread yet for questions for the author. By the time Rhyll got here at the end of the month there would be 10 pages on that thread, lol

---

[vivico1]

Yes, thank you IBIS, that is the part.

I thought about it as just that, you take the blame for this and it may be, but my question is, what are the bullies demanding, when they hold the boy and say "take the blame"? They say that to him until he runs away crying. It sounds like a phrase for something else like just "take this!" or "take your medicine". Sooky doesn't say it is a kind of scapegoating, she says "Having someone to blame is important. Girls do it to each other to a certain degree, with less violence. They use the weapon of scapegoating or condemn with silent abuse... given the civil war that rages on the playground." So I was wondering if this is maybe like an Aussie phrase the boys use when they beat up on someone, like "take your medicine" when all that bullying goes on, on the playground as she said, rather than telling someone to take the blame for doing something in the usual sense. She says the girls use scapegoating as a form of "take the blame", not that the other way around. I may be making too much of this but I was looking for it to mean, you take the blame you did it, but you don't see this in what the boys are doing to the littlier one. May need to ask her what those couple of lines meant. Another cultural thing??

---

IBIS wrote:
Vivian, you mean the section Chapter 19, page 86?

It's when the bullies force the younger kids to "take the blame"... it's a kind of scapegoating, or to condemn the younger kids with silent abuse...

a bit of what Lionel forces Sooky to undergo... she is forced to take the blame for HIS viciousness and abuse.

Reminds me of how vicious children can be to each other... lessons learned from their elders, I guess.

IBIS

---

[debbook]

I think I didn't notice the blurred timeline at first. I had forgotten that when I read the book, by the time I was at chapter 18, I was ready to put the book down b/c I was so disgusted. I then skipped ahead to chapter 26 and finished the book. Then later I went back and read what I had missed. So I guess I thought some of the timeline issues, had to due with the way I read the book.

---

vivico1 wrote:

I don't know deb, you really think its a good idea to intentionally write something so that people are confused about the timeline or if its even real or just in her imagination without saying so, thus making it very hard to follow? It is one thing to make us uncomfortable, the whole scene with Lionel should do that to everyone, and its one thing to make us think...like how isolated she is and do we do that with our kids, those are great things for an author to do. But to disconnect us from the story or the characters by confusing us as to what is going on and when, doesn't seem like the best laid plan to me. hmm

OH, for example, did you read The Vanishing of Esme Lennox?? One of her characters has dementia and slips in and out of time periods and talks about this and that, things you don't know what she is talking about, BUT it is done so well, you know what is real and what is her slips in time and what she is saying and what is really happening. Even the simple act of putting her disjointed thoughts in italics helps you know she is not really talking to someone at that point, she is just talking to herself. You get the unique vision into what it must be like for her but you don't get confused as to the real time line or activity. That is probably the best example of using someone's own disconnected life as a venue to see things real and things as she sees them as i can think of.

And yes i did read The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox-loved it. Your right, it was easier to tell b/c you knew when each character was flashing back.

I think this is one of those things we'll have to ask the author.

[debbook]

One of the passages that i marked off was at the bottom of page 81

" Right now, my one tool is the tin spoon of anger.... It is the one genuine emotion to which I can lay claim. It's not as if I don't remember when things were different, before my banishment from ease and happiness".

This is definitely an adult Sooky looking back. It stuck with me b/c I didn't feel that I had seen anger from her, not until she's older. I wanted young Sooky to be angrier, to act angrier because I felt such anger at her life.

[thewanderingjew]

---

vivico1 wrote:
OH, for example, did you read The Vanishing of Esme Lennox?? ...

i thought that was a great book and i got it as a remainder at a bargain price!
btw, thank you for sharing your poem "emptiness". it is amazing how much writing helps us to work through our problems. i used to keep a journal when i was young but i no longer have it.
twj

[vivico1]

That's when I got Esme too lol, but then when i read it, I wished I hadn't missed the club that was in here with the author about 3 months before. But since you read it, you know what I mean then about time shifts and one person's perception of reality and dream, how to show it and keep the reader right on track right? It was beautifully done there.

---

thewanderingjew wrote:

---

vivico1 wrote:
OH, for example, did you read The Vanishing of Esme Lennox?? ...

i thought that was a great book and i got it as a remainder at a bargain price!
btw, thank you for sharing your poem "emptiness". it is amazing how much writing helps us to work through our problems. i used to keep a journal when i was young but i no longer have it.
twj

---

[vivico1]

Deb, that's the thing, when she speaks as the adult Sooky, later, there is not the problem trying to figure all that out, so it got better after the first part and continues too. You noticed it when you skipped on to further in the book. I would suggest to anyone still reading it, stick with it, its worth it and you will get out of that blurriness after this first part. This is another reason I do not think it is a writer's device, or if it is, it needs fine tuned, its just confusing and as you, makes people tempted to run on. If this is her first book? She will probably get better at it I think. She has beautiful words and sometimes its hard to shift from very vividly descriptive poetry to writing a novel that is well plotted. I think once we get out of this first part too, we will have more to say about the story than the style. I think she did a great job of creeping us out in the beginning but then we started to lose interest in the characters when none of them seemed to have any qualities of interesting. You can only have so many nasty, unsympathetic characters in a story before the mind is so satiated it drifts. It's why we needed a better way to connect with Sooky and feel more with her or about her.

---

debbook wrote:
I think I didn't notice the blurred timeline at first. I had forgotten that when I read the book, by the time I was at chapter 18, I was ready to put the book down b/c I was so disgusted. I then skipped ahead to chapter 26 and finished the book. Then later I went back and read what I had missed. So I guess I thought some of the timeline issues, had to due with the way I read the book.

---

vivico1 wrote:

I don't know deb, you really think its a good idea to intentionally write something so that people are confused about the timeline or if its even real or just in her imagination without saying so, thus making it very hard to follow? It is one thing to make us uncomfortable, the whole scene with Lionel should do that to everyone, and its one thing to make us think...like how isolated she is and do we do that with our kids, those are great things for an author to do. But to disconnect us from the story or the characters by confusing us as to what is going on and when, doesn't seem like the best laid plan to me. hmm

OH, for example, did you read The Vanishing of Esme Lennox?? One of her characters has dementia and slips in and out of time periods and talks about this and that, things you don't know what she is talking about, BUT it is done so well, you know what is real and what is her slips in time and what she is saying and what is really happening. Even the simple act of putting her disjointed thoughts in italics helps you know she is not really talking to someone at that point, she is just talking to herself. You get the unique vision into what it must be like for her but you don't get confused as to the real time line or activity. That is probably the best example of using someone's own disconnected life as a venue to see things real and things as she sees them as i can think of.

And yes i did read The Vanishing Act of Esme Lennox-loved it. Your right, it was easier to tell b/c you knew when each character was flashing back.

I think this is one of those things we'll have to ask the author.

---

[debbook]

---

vivico1 wrote:

Deb, that's the thing, when she speaks as the adult Sooky, later, there is not the problem trying to figure all that out, so it got better after the first part and continues too. You noticed it when you skipped on to further in the book. I would suggest to anyone still reading it, stick with it, its worth it and you will get out of that blurriness after this first part. This is another reason I do not think it is a writer's device, or if it is, it needs fine tuned, its just confusing and as you, makes people tempted to run on. If this is her first book? She will probably get better at it I think. She has beautiful words and sometimes its hard to shift from very vividly descriptive poetry to writing a novel that is well plotted. I think once we get out of this first part too, we will have more to say about the story than the style. I think she did a great job of creeping us out in the beginning but then we started to lose interest in the characters when none of them seemed to have any qualities of interesting. You can only have so many nasty, unsympathetic characters in a story before the mind is so satiated it drifts. It's why we needed a better way to connect with Sooky and feel more with her or about her.

---

That's why I had to skip ahead. And I'm glad I did or I may not have stayed with the book. I think this is her first novel, before she wrote poetry. If the author did write the first part this way on purpose, it was risky as so many of us had trouble with it. How many of us would have kept with the book if it hadn't been part of this club? But I'm glad I kept with it, it was worth it.

[wbarker]

---

kiakar wrote:

---

IBIS wrote:

The worms are actual worms, otherwise known as "pinworms". They are white and breed inside the large intestine. One obvious symptom is itchiness. On p. 19, Sooky describes them as the "glassy white of rice noodles with a pointy tail that whipped round, frenzied, as if it didn't like the light".

Very bad personal hygiene is a common source of infection ... which makes Lionel doubly damnable.

IBIS 

Message Edited by IBIS on 09-02-2008 01:42 PM

---

You are right, IBIS. Vivian didn't think we had ever had worms in the US. I have heard of them all my life. If a child plays in dirt, fifth and so forth and doesn't wash before the hands go back in the mouth, they can get worms today. Sookie did not bath or wash when she came in from the dirt, she simply went to bed and to sleep. Her mom then took the covers off the bed, not concerning with Sookie at all. So she still didnt bath, that I remember. Especially around animal feces, so I understand.

---

I too grew up hearing about the possiblity of worms, and  needing to wash my hands.  I always thought it was just my Mom trying a scare tactic to get me to wash my hands, but I do know there is more than one type of worm you can pick up from playing outside as a child.  (I grew up in the 80's/90's, as I'm in my early 30's now)

[wbarker]

Let me start my posts by saying thanks to Andy - you had a very good recap that made me really think hard about the beginning of the book.

I haven't read all of the posts yet, but thought I would add that I struggled a bit with the bluntness of the book so far.  (I'll admit - I'm desperately trying to finish the section on Lionel so I can fully participate, and I'm almost there!)

I was shocked by a few things - the sexual abuse right off the bat, the neglectful treatment from the parents (who seem like they are absorbed by their own problems), the talk about the worms, some of the descriptions like the dog urine rinsing off the grass during a storm (I've never really considered that much detail about a storm before). I could go on and on. 

Dolly - what can I say here?  Lionel is a horrible man for what he is doing to Sooky, but Dolly has got to have some idea of what is going on.  I seem to recall a passage in the book when Lionel and Sooky take her breakfast, and he makes a comment to Sooky, and the way Dolly looked at him led me to believe that SHE KNEW what he was up to.  I can only wonder at this point if she knowingly looked the other way so that she would escape some other form of abuse, which certainly does not excuse her lack of action.

[wbarker]

About the style of writing - I really like how the chapters are written.  Some are longer than others, but most tend to nicely package what the author is trying to portray for that segment.  When the chapter ends, you know you are moving on to a slightly different train of thought - be it easier to read (going to Grandma's house) or harder (more abuse/neglect).

[wbarker]

One more thing before I go to read some more of the book, and hopefully finish the Lionel section!

One thing that bothers me a lot is Sooky's conflicting feelings about Lionel - she sees him as a friend, someone she wants to impress and stay in good standing with (probably one of the reasons she doesn't blow the whistle on him) because he pays attention to her, and yet she is disgusted by the way he touches her.