PART THREE: Resurrection [ Edited ]

[KxBurns]

Ursula and Grace grow even closer in this chapter, and their conversation brings up some thought-provoking points.

Ursula comments that David is not really a main character in the story because of his early death. Do you agree with this? If not, how do you think David has influenced the trajectory of the story?

Ursula makes the following statement:
"I feel such responsibility to them, though; to their story. I wanted it to be perfect."
I thought these words could have come from Grace herself!

Also in this chat with Ursula, Grace seems to question the possibility of an objective truth. I found this interesting because she has positioned herself as the keeper of the truth -– of what really happened, as Ursula says -- about that night throughout the narrative, but here she is acknowledging that there are multiple interpretations of any situation.

Of the dinner with the Christies, I thought the comment Emmeline made about killing someone you're supposed to love (p. 332) was pretty clear foreshadowing.

At Grace's mother's funeral, I began to wonder just how long it's going to take Grace to figure out the truth about her father! It seems pretty clear to me at this point.

And I think Alfred is on the verge of proposing, don't you?

Karen

Message Edited by KxBurns on 01-12-2008 12:46 PM

[takannie]

I think to a film maker David wouldn't appear to be important because of his early death but over the years of the lives of the family he IS important for his influence with his sisters and his introduction of the poet.

Perhaps Grace feels she's the keeper of the truth because she's the only one still living who knows exactly what happened that night and no one has ever shared it. I wonder at her drive to share it with her grandson and why he left and doesn't keep in contact with the family.

Yes, I wondered too why Grace didn't realize the truth when she saw Frederick at the funeral. That was a bit slow on her part!

I thought the dinner with the Christies was an interesting tool for the author to use -- the introduction of another author's presence and perspective into the story.

[psujulie]

---

KxBurns wrote:
Ursula and Grace grow even closer in this chapter, and their conversation brings up some thought-provoking points.

Ursula comments that David is not really a main character in the story because of his early death. Do you agree with this? If not, how do you think David has influenced the trajectory of the story?


David may not be a major character in the movie because he died so young, but he definitely had a lasting impression on Hannah. A lot of Hannah's sadness and loneliness, as well as her feelings of responsibility as the eldest child, came about as a result of David's premature death. I also think David was one of the sides of the triangle, and there were lasting effects on Emmeline and Hannah (the other two sides) without David gone. In addition, Grace mentions earlier that Robbie does return to Riverton because he has a letter from David.


Ursula makes the following statement:
"I feel such responsibility to them, though; to their story. I wanted it to be perfect."
I thought these words could have come from Grace herself!

Also in this chat with Ursula, Grace seems to question the possibility of an objective truth. I found this interesting because she has positioned herself as the keeper of the truth -– of what really happened, as Ursula says -- about that night throughout the narrative, but here she is acknowledging that there are multiple interpretations of any situation.


I agree that Grace could just have easily said this statement as Ursula. In a way, it shows the similarity and understanding between the two women. I have wondered for almost the entire book about the "truthfulness" of Grace's story. She is an old woman whose memory may not be exact. In addition, we are "hearing" the story from only her point of view. Other characters involved may have different views of what happened, especially since quite a few of Grace's memories were through eavesdropping rather than being directly involved.

One other point of interest in this chapter for me was the conversation about handguns and hunting during the dinner party with the Christies. I agree that there was definitely some foreshadowing going on with Emmeline's comment! I also thought it was interesting when Emmeline says that Hannah "tried to dodge the hunt one year, told Grandmama she didn't believe it was right to kill defenceless animals." I wonder if this is another reference (Hannah's view) to hunting and predator vs. prey.

[Iulievich]

---

psujulie wrote:
Ursula makes the following statement:
"I feel such responsibility to them, though; to their story. I wanted it to be perfect."
I thought these words could have come from Grace herself

---

I think that Grace wants the story to be anything but perfect. She is at odds with Ursula in that she wants the truth to remain hidden. She does not want the characters to be forgotten, but on the other hand she wants them to be remembered without the details of what really happened.

Kind of reminds me of a quotation from (I believe) Voltaire to the effect that history is a trick that the living play upon the dead.

Which again brings up the question, "Why does she feel compelled to record this story for her grandson?" Does it have to do with confession and expiation?

To tell you the truth, the older I get (Not THAT old, yet! Thank you very much!) the heavier seems the weight of certain information that I have shared with those who are already gone. I get the idea that maybe it should not pass forever from the earth when I do.

Hmmmmm!

Message Edited by Iulievich on 01-12-2008 05:56 PM

[vivico1]

Interesting -what is truth. It seems truth changes with time and the teller. In everything in life. There are some absolutes, I can say I am a female and it would take a lot of time and warped history to say I wasnt lol. But to tell the story of people's lives and feelings and happenings, thats something else. Even Grace's truth may not be THE truth of it all. We take it as so because she is the one telling us. But what if the Native American's had written the history of America, rather than the conquerers? Ursula is writing and filming a historical fiction movie, so why should she be so worried about "getting it perfect" and "the truth". Also if David is a minor character, the the story of The Game becomes minor too. Maybe I am just still being cynical, but if David is just a minor character, then wouldnt Grace be even less? And if she is, why did Ursula seek her out, and as Grace said very early on, no one else had questioned her in all these years for their films and articles, how did this girl know about her? I still think Ursula wants something from Grace, her "truth", that is personal to her and has nothing to do with the film. She has done it all without Grace's input really. Now if Morton doesn't explain the hows and why of Ursula's involvement with Grace by the end, I will be so disappointed because what could have been a great "secret revealed", will just be another side note that like someone else said, I would have rather she followed up on that one, than the predictable ones we are following.

[vivico1]

---

KxBurns wrote:

At Grace's mother's funeral, I began to wonder just how long it's going to take Grace to figure out the truth about her father! It seems pretty clear to me at this point.



Karen

Message Edited by KxBurns on 01-12-2008 12:46 PM

---

I don't know, I am about ready to thump her in the head! LOL. We have been discussing Frederick as her father since what, chapter one? NO big secret here!

[Iulievich]

---

vivico1 wrote:
Interesting -what is truth. It seems truth changes with time and the teller. In everything in life.

---

"It is an absolute truth that all truth is relative."

Is that not a statement that, if proven true is proven false? Maybe it was just always false to start with.

[crazyasitsounds]

I don't think David fits the definition of a "main character" in either the book or in Ursula's movie, but he's important in defining the sisters' relationship with each other & with Robbie.

I always thought that Grace only sees two true version of the story: the one she knows & the one everybody else knows. One is her truth, the other is an imperfect, incomplete version of it. I don't think that view is at all compatible with the idea that there are multiple truths.

[JoyZ]

Again, another great chapter title. Resurrecting Grace, Riverton, and Alfred. Definitely turning us toward discovering all those secrets in part 4.

[isugirl]

You would think with Grace's interests in mysteries that it wouldn't have taken her this long to figure out who her daddy is! She seemed close to figuring it out when talking with Alfred. I so wish the two of them would have married!

[dhaupt]

I don't think David plays a big part in Ursula's story, because she obviously doesn't have all the facts. He does play a big role in the true story and I think that goes along with Ursula's statement about wanting their story to be perfect. It's only as perfect as the facts.
At the funeral of Grace's mom, it's really hard for me in this day and age to think that Grace doesn't know about her parentage. In the early part of last century though how informed were girls of Grace's age about those things. I mean I'm in my middle fifties and maybe I was sheltered, but I didn't find out about the birds and the bees until 6th grade. So when I think in the terms of the era of the book I guess it's easier for me to believe that she still doesn't know.
I think Alfred is about to propose.

[KxBurns]

---

Iulievich wrote:

---

psujulie wrote:
Ursula makes the following statement:
"I feel such responsibility to them, though; to their story. I wanted it to be perfect."
I thought these words could have come from Grace herself

---

I think that Grace wants the story to be anything but perfect. She is at odds with Ursula in that she wants the truth to remain hidden. She does not want the characters to be forgotten, but on the other hand she wants them to be remembered without the details of what really happened.
Message Edited by Iulievich on 01-12-2008 05:56 PM

---

You raise an interesting distinction between "perfect" as in a faithful depiction, and "perfect" as in unsullied, preserved in an ideal state.

I was thinking about Grace's feelings towards the lives of Hartfords, especially Hannah. She has expressed that she would like to be able to stop time, before their lives took a turn for the worse.

But I like your interpretation, too. Grace certainly does not want Ursula's movie to be perfectly historically accurate.

[ezraSid]

---

crazyasitsounds wrote:
I don't think David fits the definition of a "main character" in either the book or in Ursula's movie, but he's important in defining the sisters' relationship with each other & with Robbie.

I always thought that Grace only sees two true version of the story: the one she knows & the one everybody else knows. One is her truth, the other is an imperfect, incomplete version of it. I don't think that view is at all compatible with the idea that there are multiple truths.

---

There are always more than one version of truth. Each person see's something in their own particular way and it becomes their truth.

[nickco3]

One the last page of the chapter (343). I found if very odd how Mrs Townsend begins to talk. "didn't I tell you they was". "that's where they is". Never is the rest of the book did she speak like that. Just me ?? ??

[vivico1]

---

nickco3 wrote:
One the last page of the chapter (343). I found if very odd how Mrs Townsend begins to talk. "didn't I tell you they was". "that's where they is". Never is the rest of the book did she speak like that. Just me ?? ??

---

now that you mentioned it, I noticed that too Nickco. I thought I was back in The Soul Trader circa 1840's American there for a moment and thought huh??? where did that come from. Or she suddenly started talking more street cockney than she ever did before. That would be an interesting question for you to ask Kate Morton Nickco. I forgot about that. hmm.

[cocospals]

I especially enjoyed the tie in that the author laid in place at the end of the prior chapter when Hannah saw the spiritialist and she drew the death card and the very beginning of Resurrection when we have now fast forwarded to the elderly Grace who appears (but is not) on death's doorstep. Obviously the death card she drew was not for something that would happen 60+ years in the future but the link impressed me.

When Grace saw Frederick observing the funeral from afar, suddenly a scene from one of the earliest chapters came flashing back. It was where Frederick saw Grace for the first time in service and he acted like he saw a ghost. It became clear to me that Frederick could be none other than Graces biological father.

[ELee]

---

ezraSid wrote:

---

crazyasitsounds wrote:
I always thought that Grace only sees two true version of the story: the one she knows & the one everybody else knows. One is her truth, the other is an imperfect, incomplete version of it.

---

There are always more than one version of truth. Each person see's something in their own particular way and it becomes their truth.

---

For the reader, the true story is a “confessional narrative” of what Grace has chosen to tell us. With that and the comments above (re: each person has their own perception of truth) in mind, is Grace a reliable narrator?

[paula_02912]

Karen wrote: "Ursula comments that David is not really a main character in the story because of his early death. Do you agree with this? If not, how do you think David has influenced the trajectory of the story?"


Karen, I think that David was a key player in the book...I believe that his character was central to the development of the plot...if he had not introduced Robbie Hunter to the Hartfords, then Hannah wouldn't have ended up making the decisions she did through the story so far. If he hadn't died, there would have been no need to choose different players for "The Game." His role was pivotal to the development of Hannah's character.

[EbonyAngel]

My thoughts.
I felt that David, though not really a major character in what happened later was a major character in why it happened. After all, it was he who brought Robbie to the house. Who knows how things might have turned out if he'd lived or maybe never gone to war in the first place. It's one of those things in life that happens. Each person that you value and some you don't, affect you in some way, whether small or big.
I thought it interesting on page 333, when Emmeline is talking about the fact that she and Hannah knew how to shoot.
It was nice that Alfred visited Grace's mother and she talked to him. Maybe that was her way of telling Grace.

[kiakar]

---

paula_02912 wrote:
Karen wrote: "Ursula comments that David is not really a main character in the story because of his early death. Do you agree with this? If not, how do you think David has influenced the trajectory of the story?"


Karen, I think that David was a key player in the book...I believe that his character was central to the development of the plot...if he had not introduced Robbie Hunter to the Hartfords, then Hannah wouldn't have ended up making the decisions she did through the story so far. If he hadn't died, there would have been no need to choose different players for "The Game." His role was pivotal to the development of Hannah's character.

---

I also feel that the character of David was very important. In a sense, he was a major player and could have been alot more if Kate had chose to go that way with David. He wasnt quite developed but was instrumental to several plots in the book so to me that made hima very important character.