Tuesday and Today

[Everyman]

I'm assuming they must have institutionalized her in lieu of trying and imprisoning her -- this doesn't sould like a parison she's in. But if they didn't think she murdered Vivian, they woud have no right to remove her from her home. Unless they got an order for protective services, which would take a lot more than one day (the police couldn't take her the next day) and would be primarily social services people, not a policeman.

It doesn't make sense, from a legal point of view.

---

LizzieAnn wrote:

I too wonder why she isn't tried for murder. But then again, I'm wondering if they realize that Ginny did in fact murder Vivi - intentionally.

In chapter 22, Ginny says that she knew they would come for her - that they would learn the truth by that "intuition" that she herself doesn't have. But, I have to wonder what truth Ginny is talking of as I don't know how much reliance can be placed on her narration. Is it the truth of Ginny coldly & deliberately murdering Vivi? Or is it the truth that Ginny shouldn't be & is incapable living alone by herself?

After all, wouldn't she be in a prision ward/hospital if it was believed she had committed murder?

Everyman wrote:

I'm unclear why Ginny was apparently put into a mental ward and not tried for murder. Based on what we've seen, she certainly doesn't seem to me to meet the legal standard of not guilty by reason of insanity.

The McNaughton standard used in England states that the accused 'must be laboring under such a defective reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.'

Ginny knew perfectly well what she was doing. She carefully plotted it out, putting the poison in the milk and, when that was insufficient, in the water. I think it's perfectly clear that she knew that she was committing murder, knowing the nature and quality of act. And I think she knew that it was a wrong thing to do, but did it anyhow for her own reasons.

As do others, I find the conclusion far from satisfying.

---

[CylonReader]

In a previous posting, someone indicated that we were "in Ginny's head" - we knew she was going to murder Vivien...I'm curious as to whether anyone agrees with the geniune sense of foreboding that I had...something sinister was afoot, even in the earlier chapters of the book. So for me, Ginny's decision to kill her sister did not seem a great leap, just a gradual decension toward a greater madness.

I did find it strange that Ginny and her sister had this bonding moment when Vivien tosses the woman from Social Services out on her ear, but things change drastically when Vivien finally shares her theory of Maud's "accident".

I agree with some of my fellow readers that the details regarding moths was often tedious, but I found the book pretty riveting from Chapter 20 through the end of the book.

[Everyman]

---

bookhunter wrote:

---

Everyman wrote:
I'm unclear why Ginny was apparently put into a mental ward and not tried for murder. Based on what we've seen, she certainly doesn't seem to me to meet the legal standard of not guilty by reason of insanity.

---

Everyman (or someone else), what are prisons like in England? The description at the beginning of the chapter says there are bars on the window. She doesn't have a bathroom. I thought she probably WAS in a prison (we don't know how much time has passed from Monday until "Today"), but one that has special care for her.

Ann, bookhunter

---

I'm not an expert on prisons in England, but this sounds a lot more like the locked mental ward in a hospital than a prison. She has a call button, she has shades and somebody to come and open them for her, she has a pleasant room to herself, they bring her tea and even make it precisely to her direction -- if this is prison in England, as long as I'm allowed my books, sign me up! [g]

[Oldesq]

Everyman wrote (snipped)

I'm not an expert on prisons in England, but this sounds a lot more like the locked mental ward in a hospital than a prison. She has a call button, she has shades and somebody to come and open them for her, she has a pleasant room to herself, they bring her tea and even make it precisely to her direction -- if this is prison in England, as long as I'm allowed my books, sign me up! [g]

I'm in the room next door as long as Ginny is on another ward!

Oldesq

[bentley]

---

bentley wrote:

---

Oldesq wrote:

I think that Ginny is the cannibal caterpillar - the bulbous interloper who not satisfied with a vegetarian diet, helped herself to the ants' own neglected larvae and after gorging herself to immobility needed to move to the next victim's nest and simply directed the ants, like little robots to pick [her] up and carry [her]. (p. 191).  And now they wait, according to her methodology and answer her little bell.

As an aside, I do think it is most unfair for Ms. Adams to make Michael the character who supposedly reveals all- like a mystery story that in the final reveal turns on a detail not included in the text.  I also include Eileen in that complaint.

---

Interesting take Oldesq..what is your take on the mental ailment or prognosis; I went back and forth between autism and being schizophrenic (multiple personalities). We can certainly agree that she is not all there.

I also have to agree that the last chapter seems like an afterthought to neatly explain away the unexplainable. Add a detail here and there and the package is tied with a bow. Eileen did nothing for me and I have to agree with Ginny on that one. Michael was another non-communicative sort as well. At one point, I wondered how his mother died.

---

Thanks Oldesq

[Bonnie824]

---

Everyman wrote:
I'm unclear why Ginny was apparently put into a mental ward and not tried for murder. Based on what we've seen, she certainly doesn't seem to me to meet the legal standard of not guilty by reason of insanity.

The McNaughton standard used in England states that the accused 'must be laboring under such a defective reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.'

Ginny knew perfectly well what she was doing. She carefully plotted it out, putting the poison in the milk and, when that was insufficient, in the water. I think it's perfectly clear that she knew that she was committing murder, knowing the nature and quality of act. And I think she knew that it was a wrong thing to do, but did it anyhow for her own reasons.

As do others, I find the conclusion far from satisfying.

---

---

To me, although Ginny was probably of at least average intelligence, if she was also somewhat autistic, she was not emotionally functioning as an adult. I did not see her as a person who understood right from wrong as a sane adult- whether she was insane or delusional or autistic.

[LizzieAnn]

I don't know the legalities, but I do understand what you're saying.  But when they took her away, it may have just been to question her.  Then they may have been see how she was living, realized that she wasn't truly able to care for herself properly, and then put her is a safe environment.   After all, we don't really know what happened or where she went on that Tuesday - we don't know how long before she was able to enter her new residence.  Perhaps even her home & land was used for payment?  Is that possible?

Everyman wrote:

I'm assuming they must have institutionalized her in lieu of trying and imprisoning her -- this doesn't sould like a parison she's in. But if they didn't think she murdered Vivian, they woud have no right to remove her from her home. Unless they got an order for protective services, which would take a lot more than one day (the police couldn't take her the next day) and would be primarily social services people, not a policeman.

It doesn't make sense, from a legal point of view.

[readerbynight]

Apparently I misunderstood what I was supposed to be doing with this book, and have not been in this discussion at all. Instead I read the whole book and wrote a review. Now I'm unsure what I should do about it. The few comments I just read are deeper than my review comes across, especially since I was writing it from the point of view of not giving anything away as spoilers. At this point should I just put in my review? or should I try to pick out the points throughout now that I've already finished the book? It would be far easier to do that if I was commenting as I went along and would prefer to just put in the review and try to be more on the ball next time.

[runnybabbit620]

Chapter 23--

I think that Michael was a naturally shy individual and Ginny, with her reclusive nature understood him.  This seems why they would be good friends.  For him to nod his head in a manner of saying goodbye is probably the best he can do as he is probably not good with words.  Plus, the simple gesture alone speaks volumes to like-minded Ginny.

I just wonder, was Michael looking out the window and happened to see the police vehicle coming to pick up Ginny or did he maybe have a police scanner so that he knew, briefly, what was going on?

As Ginny's true friend for years and someone as intimately familiar with the house, Ginny knows that Bulburrow Court will be well taken care of in the time to come.

Chapter 24--

It seems to me that the place Ginny is now is some sort of retirement home or mental institution.  (Maybe more the latter?)

The fact that there is order and structure, and her timepiece seem to make life comfortable for Ginny.  Maybe more comfortable than Bulburrow Court because she doesn't have to do any maintenance (however small) ie, dishes, laundry, etc.  And the fact that Helen, the nurse, caters to her tea preparation "rules" seems to make life a lot more "liveable" for Ginny.

When I first read the final chapter, I had the thought that it was some sort of elderly jail cell, but upon re-reading the chapter, I think that it is more of a mental institiution.  While the thought of her NOT being jailed for her crime(s) upset me at first, upon second thought, I find that her being in this situation suits the story best and is the best remedy for Ginny and her many problems.

[Everyman]

---

Bonnie824 wrote:

---

Everyman wrote:
I'm unclear why Ginny was apparently put into a mental ward and not tried for murder. Based on what we've seen, she certainly doesn't seem to me to meet the legal standard of not guilty by reason of insanity.

The McNaughton standard used in England states that the accused 'must be laboring under such a defective reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.'

Ginny knew perfectly well what she was doing. She carefully plotted it out, putting the poison in the milk and, when that was insufficient, in the water. I think it's perfectly clear that she knew that she was committing murder, knowing the nature and quality of act. And I think she knew that it was a wrong thing to do, but did it anyhow for her own reasons.

As do others, I find the conclusion far from satisfying.

---

---

To me, although Ginny was probably of at least average intelligence, if she was also somewhat autistic, she was not emotionally functioning as an adult. I did not see her as a person who understood right from wrong as a sane adult- whether she was insane or delusional or autistic.

---

Do you think, then, that she didn't think that killing Vivien was a wrong thing to do? She says, 242-243, "I don't feel like a murderer. After all, I didn't pour it down her throat." Isn't this an acknowledgment that murder is wrong? And when she goes back for the second dose, isn't she deliberately choosing murder?

[Everyman]

LizzieAnn wrote: But when they took her away, it may have just been to question her. Then they may have been see how she was living, realized that she wasn't truly able to care for herself properly, and then put her is a safe environment.

---

But though it wasn't an environment you or I would have wanted to live in, she was taking care of herself for the past thirty years. What changed just because Vivi came and went?

[detailmuse]

I wondered if Michael showed up because someone had to take custody of the house. To me, their mind-meld and Ginny's interpretation of his nearly imperceptible nod seemed like musings in her unstable mind.

---

runnybabbit620 wrote:

Chapter 23--

For [Michael] to nod his head in a manner of saying goodbye is probably the best he can do as he is probably not good with words.  Plus, the simple gesture alone speaks volumes to like-minded Ginny.

---

[Everyman]

something just occurred to me. Why is she suddenly happy with just one timepiece? I know she can check it against somebody coming in any time she wants to (we should all be so lucky if we have to go into convalescent care), but suddenly one timepiece is all she needs, and no watches at all.

Another minor point, I like the way she sees the peep hole in the door as having the purpose of letting her see out instead of letting the nurses see in!

[bookhunter]

---

Everyman wrote:
I'm unclear why Ginny was apparently put into a mental ward and not tried for murder. Based on what we've seen, she certainly doesn't seem to me to meet the legal standard of not guilty by reason of insanity.

The McNaughton standard used in England states that the accused 'must be laboring under such a defective reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.'

Ginny knew perfectly well what she was doing. She carefully plotted it out, putting the poison in the milk and, when that was insufficient, in the water. I think it's perfectly clear that she knew that she was committing murder, knowing the nature and quality of act. And I think she knew that it was a wrong thing to do, but did it anyhow for her own reasons.

As do others, I find the conclusion far from satisfying.

---

Bonnie824 wrote:

To me, although Ginny was probably of at least average intelligence, if she was also somewhat autistic, she was not emotionally functioning as an adult. I did not see her as a person who understood right from wrong as a sane adult- whether she was insane or delusional or autistic.

---

Everyman wrote:
Do you think, then, that she didn't think that killing Vivien was a wrong thing to do? She says, 242-243, "I don't feel like a murderer. After all, I didn't pour it down her throat." Isn't this an acknowledgment that murder is wrong? And when she goes back for the second dose, isn't she deliberately choosing murder?

---

I have been thinking about this issue of whether Ginny would be considered mentally impaired in a court and meet the definition Everyman quotes above.  As the reader, we were privy to her thoughts and see her as somewhat intelligent, reasonable (in a weird way) able to express her thoughts and actions.  For example, what Everyman points out on p 242-243 tells us, the reader, that she definitely knew what she was doing.

BUT when you look at her interactions with others, she is barely beyond monosyllabic responses.  The whole exchange with Michael about how special their bond is and how well they understand each other is all in her head.  To the outsider (even to Michael), all that happened was Michael slightly nodded to her as she is put into the car.

In court, she may not have come across as competent of understanding.

It makes you think about people who have whatever physical or mental disabilities that impair their ability to express themselves.  What is really going on inside their head?

That is one of the elements of the book I enjoyed--it gives us insight into the mind of someone  that NO ONE understands!

Ann, bookhunter (disclaimer:  not an attorney nor have ever played one on TV so really have no idea what I am talking about)

[bookhunter]

---

readerbynight wrote:
Apparently I misunderstood what I was supposed to be doing with this book, and have not been in this discussion at all. Instead I read the whole book and wrote a review. Now I'm unsure what I should do about it. The few comments I just read are deeper than my review comes across, especially since I was writing it from the point of view of not giving anything away as spoilers. At this point should I just put in my review? or should I try to pick out the points throughout now that I've already finished the book? It would be far easier to do that if I was commenting as I went along and would prefer to just put in the review and try to be more on the ball next time.

---

Readerbynight!  Jump in--the water is fine!  You are not too late at all to chime in.  I think you are right that a review needs to not give away "spoilers."  What is nice about participating at this point is that in this thread we have all finished the book and there is nothing to spoil.

So what do you think of Ginny?  Did she kill Maud?  Did she push Vivi off the bell tower?  Why do you think Vivi came back?  Did you like all the "moth talk?"  These are the burning questions!

Karen will probably start a folder soon for us to post our reviews, so hang on to yours until then. 

Ann, bookhunter

[kmensing]

Ch 23

Ok. Now the police have come to take her away. Short chapter, not much to say.

Today (by the way, is today a day later, a week later, a year later, a decade later???)

Another short chapter--Ginny’s been committed. The End.

I really don’t know how to give this book a review. The beginning was loaded with way too much moth information. The middle was drawn out. Near the end I was riveted and was starting to really get into the book. And the end of the book did nothing for me.

Questions--What was Vivi looking for/why did she come home? If anything? We’re told throughout the book that Ginny was this famous Moth Woman, yet we weren’t actually told what she did with her career between the death of her son and the return of Vivi. We’ve been left wondering--Did Ginny push Vivi off the bell tower? Did Ginny push Maud down the stairs? Why did Maud constantly tell Ginny she ruined her life? Where did all that mother to daughter rage come from? Did Clive push Maude down the steps, or did Maud simply fall accidentally? Was Ginny born with these symptoms (the ocd tendencies, the autism theory….) or were they environmental was there a childhood accident/illness? Was Vivi ever pregnant? Pg. 176-177 the Dr. quotes “even your mother would have wanted it”---What???? What would Maud have wanted??? Why did Vivi blame Ginny when she thought Clive pushed caused Maud’s death? Why were the church members praying for Ginny? Why did Ginny kill Vivi? What happened to the clocks? I would have loved it if the author gave us more insight as to what was real and what was just in Ginny’s head. Too many loose ends….

[krb2g]

Everyman,

I think you've hit on why I'm ultimately frustrated with the experience of reading this book. I found Ms. Adams's writing style to be unobjectionable, and I think she made some very neat and smart choices about the way she chose to tell the story (filling in family background with flashbacks, the moth correspondences, the clocks and obsession with time), but when I got to the end of the story, I found it very difficult to care about Ginny and her family. I think this concern is also related to something that some of my previous posts have hinted at but never stated. Ginny's occasional direct addresses to the reader, in addition to the fact that she takes her story up to "Today" gives it the feel to me that she's writing in the genre of confessional. I'm still trying to figure out why Ginny would want to tell this story. To the extent that this story is a mystery story (and it's not, entirely, because although there seem to be several ambiguities (was Vivi pushed? was Maud pushed?), Vivi doesn't die till the very end of the book, and we know the circumstances before they play out even) it reminds me of Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, in which the murderer gets to narrate the story.

---

Everyman wrote:
I cited Shakespeare before. This time I'm picking on T.S. Eliot, slightly paraphrased from The Hollow Men:

She is the hollow woman
She is the stuffed woman
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

This is the way the book ends
This is the way the book ends
This is the way the book ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

---

Message Edited by krb2g on 03-15-2008 09:22 AM

[Bonnie824]

---

readerbynight wrote:
Apparently I misunderstood what I was supposed to be doing with this book, and have not been in this discussion at all. Instead I read the whole book and wrote a review. Now I'm unsure what I should do about it. The few comments I just read are deeper than my review comes across, especially since I was writing it from the point of view of not giving anything away as spoilers. At this point should I just put in my review? or should I try to pick out the points throughout now that I've already finished the book? It would be far easier to do that if I was commenting as I went along and would prefer to just put in the review and try to be more on the ball next time.

---

There are so many ways to discuss a book Readerbynight. I also prefer to read a book at least in sections and discuss it more wholistically. I don't have the time or dersire to go through a hundred posts on one chapter and discuss it really deeply. I think these ARC discussions are set up for all kinds of readers. Some will post and read a lot every day, some like you will read the book then review it as a whole, and some like me will post once in awhile when whole sections are done and then review it.

I was a little concerned with the "spoiler" ending too since this board is open to the public, but then decided that people who don't want to read spoilers on a book they hadn't read would not read the discussion of the end of the book.

[Bonnie824]

---

Everyman wrote:

 

Do you think, then, that she didn't think that killing Vivien was a wrong thing to do? She says, 242-243, "I don't feel like a murderer. After all, I didn't pour it down her throat." Isn't this an acknowledgment that murder is wrong? And when she goes back for the second dose, isn't she deliberately choosing murder?

---

I think the very fact that we can't understand her motivation- she didn't seem angry, filled with hate, understanding of ills from her past- speaks to the fact that she was not mentally sound. She does not feel guilty at all although she loved Vivi as much as she was capable of loving anyone.

I think they do have hospitals for the "criminally insane", which to me would be fair for someone like her. Not that being confined and cared for is even punishing to Ginny. But what would be? I don't see how a trial with a defendent who could not understand what was going on would have helped anyone.

[SleightGirl]

---

Bonnie824 wrote:

I thought the ending was fascinating. No Ginny did not get punished- but she really was not mentally responsible for what she did IMO. It makes you wonder if all those years the family tried to keep from facing her oddness and maybe having her live in a clinical setting were wasted. She did seem happier with the structure and routine of an institutional setting.

I felt bad for Vivi, but I really wasn't that invested in her as a character. I did wonder what made her come home- and if she had some kind of plans to move Ginny somewhere and keep the house.

I don't think Michael thought of Ginny as a true friend, but I do think they had a relationship and he was a base for her for many years.

---

Yes I agree...Ginny didn't get punnished, but she got what she needed. 

As for Vivi, I seemed to have gotten so much into Ginny's head, that I really didn't feel bad for her.  Instead, I felt worried for Ginny, almost protective of her.

I don't think Michael thought of Ginny as a friend, but I think that Ginny thought of him as one.  He was her only contact for so many years, I think through that, she developed a one sided relationship with him.