The Writing Circle: Gillian

[literature]

VTcozy and Sherry,

Somewhere in one of my posts, I had figured out the time line.  Nancy's father was a doctor before Nancy was born and if Nancy is say mid to late 30's, then it couldn't be Chris's boys.  Joe has two grown boys from his previous marriage so could they be his?  Is the doctor Nancy's father?

Corinne, maybe you could answer this for us.  Is the doctor and the couple with the baby part of Nancy's novel, Gillian's (I hope not) or a fact that really happened to the young doctor or was it written to confuse us?

Literature

---

Vermontcozy wrote:

---

Sherry_Young wrote:

What to say about Gillian? I could go on and on in a rambling rage and be speechless at the same time. I wanted to believe that there was something good about her through the entire novel and she just kept proving me wrong. I don't want to analyze her too much because I am glad I am no longer reading a novel with her in it...

Here are thoughts that ran through my head while I was reading which obviously never came true:

1. Once I discovered that she had written Nancy's story, my first thought was "Oh my goodness...Gillian was the woman whose baby was dead and Nancy's father was the doctor!".
2. While Nancy & Adam are searching the archives for the piece of poetry from college, I began to wonder if Gillian had some secret in her past that caused her to change her name, thus concealing her true identity and the reason they had difficulty in their search. 

I am now curious to know - what other ideas you might have imagined while reading these treacherous acts?

---

Dear Sherry..Upon reading your post,and not wanting to "plagiarize" your post of course.It is the closet to how I feel about Gillian could go on about her character.But for me the bottom line is She Is" Guilty" and we will never know about the baby,although afterwards the couple had 2 other children both boys..Chris?We don't know enough him and so we will never know if the baby was his..I couldn't get the timeline..But overall I liked the way Corinne portrayed her Characters..I found it surprisingly a Very Good book.and one I would and have recommended..Susan Vtc...

---

[Vermontcozy]

     Sherry and literature    That would be wonderful if we could figure out this crucial detail..Joe could very much ,as you stated fit into this timeline..maybe we will know or just leave it  to us  to imagine if.. SusanVtc

---

literature wrote:

VTcozy and Sherry,

Somewhere in one of my posts, I had figured out the time line.  Nancy's father was a doctor before Nancy was born and if Nancy is say mid to late 30's, then it couldn't be Chris's boys.  Joe has two grown boys from his previous marriage so could they be his?  Is the doctor Nancy's father?

Corinne, maybe you could answer this for us.  Is the doctor and the couple with the baby part of Nancy's novel, Gillian's (I hope not) or a fact that really happened to the young doctor or was it written to confuse us?

Literature

---

Vermontcozy wrote:

---

Sherry_Young wrote:

What to say about Gillian? I could go on and on in a rambling rage and be speechless at the same time. I wanted to believe that there was something good about her through the entire novel and she just kept proving me wrong. I don't want to analyze her too much because I am glad I am no longer reading a novel with her in it...

Here are thoughts that ran through my head while I was reading which obviously never came true:

1. Once I discovered that she had written Nancy's story, my first thought was "Oh my goodness...Gillian was the woman whose baby was dead and Nancy's father was the doctor!".
2. While Nancy & Adam are searching the archives for the piece of poetry from college, I began to wonder if Gillian had some secret in her past that caused her to change her name, thus concealing her true identity and the reason they had difficulty in their search. 

I am now curious to know - what other ideas you might have imagined while reading these treacherous acts?

---

Dear Sherry..Upon reading your post,and not wanting to "plagiarize" your post of course.It is the closet to how I feel about Gillian could go on about her character.But for me the bottom line is She Is" Guilty" and we will never know about the baby,although afterwards the couple had 2 other children both boys..Chris?We don't know enough him and so we will never know if the baby was his..I couldn't get the timeline..But overall I liked the way Corinne portrayed her Characters..I found it surprisingly a Very Good book.and one I would and have recommended..Susan Vtc...

---

---

[Corinne-Demas]

You've brought up such interesting points.

Oh no, I would deliberately try to confuse my readers!

The opening section (in italics) about the young doctor is Nancy's novel about her father. (In the scene in the car with him he tells her why he decided to quit being a doctor.  On p. 107:

" . . . her father's story of the dead baby was there, growing in secret, waiting for her." on p. 108 "She started to picture the character as a young doctor, leaving the hospital that night. . .  ") 

But since we know that Gillian plagiarized Nancy's novel, this opening might also be Gillian's novel-- what Nancy confronted in the dressing room at Bloomingdale's.

You're right, the two boys the couple in "hospital" scene have aren't  Chris's two sons, but I did want my readers to be thinking about parents and children, and the strong bonds they have.  And different kinds of loss. Chris loses custody of his sons, Paul's mother loses custody of Paul.

A baby dies at the start of the novel within the novel, and two babies (Rachel's and Bernad's) are born.

Thank you all for this lively discussion!

--Corinne

---

literature wrote:

VTcozy and Sherry,

Somewhere in one of my posts, I had figured out the time line.  Nancy's father was a doctor before Nancy was born and if Nancy is say mid to late 30's, then it couldn't be Chris's boys.  Joe has two grown boys from his previous marriage so could they be his?  Is the doctor Nancy's father?

Corinne, maybe you could answer this for us.  Is the doctor and the couple with the baby part of Nancy's novel, Gillian's (I hope not) or a fact that really happened to the young doctor or was it written to confuse us?

Literature

---

Vermontcozy wrote:

---

Sherry_Young wrote:

What to say about Gillian? I could go on and on in a rambling rage and be speechless at the same time. I wanted to believe that there was something good about her through the entire novel and she just kept proving me wrong. I don't want to analyze her too much because I am glad I am no longer reading a novel with her in it...

Here are thoughts that ran through my head while I was reading which obviously never came true:

1. Once I discovered that she had written Nancy's story, my first thought was "Oh my goodness...Gillian was the woman whose baby was dead and Nancy's father was the doctor!".
2. While Nancy & Adam are searching the archives for the piece of poetry from college, I began to wonder if Gillian had some secret in her past that caused her to change her name, thus concealing her true identity and the reason they had difficulty in their search. 

I am now curious to know - what other ideas you might have imagined while reading these treacherous acts?

---

Dear Sherry..Upon reading your post,and not wanting to "plagiarize" your post of course.It is the closet to how I feel about Gillian could go on about her character.But for me the bottom line is She Is" Guilty" and we will never know about the baby,although afterwards the couple had 2 other children both boys..Chris?We don't know enough him and so we will never know if the baby was his..I couldn't get the timeline..But overall I liked the way Corinne portrayed her Characters..I found it surprisingly a Very Good book.and one I would and have recommended..Susan Vtc...

---

---

[maxcat]

Thank you, Corrine for tying up loose ends about the babies. That was one thing had all of us confused. For the boys to be Rachel's and Bernard's, then who is the character runing to save the woman in black running down the driveway? Obviously, that woman would be Virginia and the man might be Bernard. It's been confusing trying to see how the preface fits into the characters and the rest of the novel. You've given us insight on the two boys and somehow everything looks clearer now than before. It is a well-written book, but confusing for one who doesn't write and never has heard of writer's groups.

[desiree_one]

I think that Gillian did plagiarize Nancy and the Russian student's work and who knows what else. If she has subconsciously done that to them, then who is to say that the rest of her work isn't something else she heard and recalled later as her own. 

Gillian thinks that the Pulitzer is more important b/c she is always trying to prove herself without admitting it. She wants to be the best. She thinks that the accusations are silly b/c of how highly she thinks of herself so losing out on the prize means others don't think of her the same way.

I do not think she is totally amoral. I think she is closed off and miserable. She knows who she is and doesn't ask for forgiveness. She doesn't expect love or ask for it. She knows she has done nothing to deserve. So she isn't totally diluted. 

They are not completely opposite but as much so as any other characters in the book. I do not think Nancy lost her moral compass she just wanted redemption. To know she was not falsely accusing her. The story was very personal and she felt violated. She was just sticking up for herself and rightfully so.

I think the final chapter needed to be from her perspective to see that it was not intentional but at the same time expected. She seemed to think it was inevitable that she would cause such destruction. However she accepts this and requires no sympathy. 

[Adeline79]

Yes, certainly it was wrong that Gillian used Nancy's work. It made me SO MAD!

At the very least Gillian could have talked to Nancy about her desire to use the same starting chapter for her own novel. But Gillian wanted to keep her crossover to novel writer a secret.

Gillian seems very emotionally detached - like her ambition is everything to her and her relationships with people are not important to her. She just uses people to get to where she wants to be in life. The loss of the Pulitzer was very devastating because she sacrificed all her relationships in order to get the prestige & fame of the prize. By not getting the prize she is left with nothing so to speak. All those relationships that she ruined for nothing!

As far as redeeming qualities, I guess that I assume she has been very hurt in her past and that is why she has learnt to use other people for her own ends. She feels the need to protect and take care of herself only. She was obviously a very good poet regardless of her selfishness and she can't have plagiarised everything she ever wrote. But none of this outweighs her nastiness!

[cynthiaoh]

Did Gillian plagiarize Nancy's work, and that of the Russian exchange student during her undergraduate years?

Yes she did -- by not citing the orignal work/thought, by definition she plagerized.

Is the idea that she memorizes easily and almost unconsciously, something that lessens her guilt in any way, or suggests that her talent allows her greater liberties?

It does not lessen her guilt, it lessens her conscious -- that is all.  She has known for years she has a great memory and, as far as I am concerned, her reply to Nancy when confronted clearly demonstrates she knew she was taking Nancy's work.

Why does the "loss" of the Pulitzer strike her so much more forcefully than the public accusation of plagiarism?

Because the Pulitzer is all she cared about -- she did not care about Nancy or anyone else's opinion of her -- she only had her eyes on the prize, so to speak -- and she lost the prize

Is Gillian entirely amoral? Have you found any redeeming qualities in her character?

I have a hard time finding any saving grace in her morality or ethics.  She just is not a nice person, period.

Are Gillian and Nancy opposite characters? 

Gillian is Nancy's antogonist, I don't know that they are necessarily opposite.  Gillian is just a blackheart.

Nancy fears she has lost her "moral compass"--do you fear that she has? 

The fact that she even questions it, tells me no, she has not lost her moral compass.

Why is the final chapter given to us from Gilllian's perspective?

To demonstrate just how self-centered, self-serving and completely selfish she is -- she truly thinks of noone else but herself and how anything has impact on her and only her.

What are we able to learn about what happened to Paul, and how does Gillian feel and think about what happened?

Learning that Gillian hit Paul and then getting into her head to see her thoughts about it only futher serve to demonstrate how self-centered and selfish she is.  At the beginning of the book I felt sorry for her.  At the end of the book, I really could have cared less about her and could only hope she would experience the appropriate level of justice.

[Naper_Mom]

This may be off-topic, but do we ever get confirmation that Adam actually brought Gillian Nancy's novel (when he first went to the cabin) as opposed to Gillian remembering it from memory?

[HSheridan]

Did Gillian plagiarize Nancy's work, and that of the Russian exchange student during her undergraduate years? Is the idea that she memorizes easily and almost unconsciously, something that lessens her guilt in any way, or suggests that her talent allows her greater liberties?

I think that she may not have realized what she did in college but with Nancy's book I think she knew exactly what she was doing.  She even said that she had offered the plot to Nancy and when she didn't take it decided to write it herself.

Why does the "loss" of the Pulitzer strike her so much more forcefully than the public accusation of plagiarism?

I don't think Gillian really thought she was stealing Nancy's work and therefore didn't care about being accused of plagiarism.  Because she didn't believe she had stolen the work I think she was positive she would get the Pulitzer and when she didn't she seems to realize that not everything will go the way she wants it to go.

Is Gillian entirely amoral? Have you found any redeeming qualities in her character?

 I don't think there are any redeeming qualities in Gillian's character the author really made me hate Gillian.

Are Gillian and Nancy opposite characters? Nancy fears she has lost her "moral compass"--do you fear that she has?

They are opposite in most ways the one way I think they are similar is that both think no one understands them.  I do not think Nancy has lost her "moral compass" simply because she thinks she has lost it leads me to think that she hasn't.  She feels bad because she doesn't feel bad even when most people would have outright hated Gillian for what she did.

Why is the final chapter given to us from Gilllian's perspective? What are we able to learn about what happened to Paul, and how does Gillian feel and think about what happened?

I think the final chapter is from Gillian's point of view to show us what she is thinking and feeling and the fact that she isn't feeling much makes me hate her all the more!  She seems almost psychotic in that she states that she has never loved anyone.  She doesn't seem to have any feelings for anyone besides herself.

[Corinne-Demas]

Hi--

What Adam brings to Gillian is her folder "Poems, handwritten"  (see p.53.)

I had intended that the reader think Gillian's remembered Nancy's novel--

and that it's been her memory (ironically) that got her into trouble with plagiarism (the other student's poems) in the past.

Thanks for bringing up this question .

--Corinne

---

Naper_Mom wrote:

This may be off-topic, but do we ever get confirmation that Adam actually brought Gillian Nancy's novel (when he first went to the cabin) as opposed to Gillian remembering it from memory?

---

[alegremama]

Did Gillian plagiarize Nancy's work, and that of the Russian exchange student during her undergraduate years? Is the idea that she memorizes easily and almost unconsciously, something that lessens her guilt in any way, or suggests that her talent allows her greater liberties?

Yes she did. No it doesn't. She took the ideas of Nancy and the Russian student and made them her own. Also, how she acted after each time proves her guilt. For example, having sex with the professor who had suggested that she had plagiarized the Russian student's poem is an indirect admission of guilt.

[JoanieGranola]

Did Gillian plagiarize Nancy's work, and that of the Russian exchange student during her undergraduate years? Is the idea that she memorizes easily and almost unconsciously, something that lessens her guilt in any way, or suggests that her talent allows her greater liberties?

Since we are told in the "Paul" chapter that Paul was accused of (and somewhat convicted by his teachers) plagiarizing work off the Internet into a paper of his, then yes, Gillian is indeed guilty of plagiarism herself. She may not have written verbatim Nancy's first chapter, but she used enough of it in a similar fashion for every other person in the writer's group to think that she stole it. I'd say the same is true for the student, regardless of whether or not she "made it better". She took someone else's words and twisted them in such a small fashion that it was recognizable. Even in the music business that's plagiarism. I do not believe that her near photographic memory from hearing something lessens her guilt at all. It just makes her talented; but that in no way allows her any liberties.

Why does the "loss" of the Pulitzer strike her so much more forcefully than the public accusation of plagiarism?

I think the loss of the Pullitzer hurts more than the accusation because she's selfish. She doesn't believe she actually stole anyone's work, so she doesn't feel she's guilty. But she feels she was robbed of an award that she thinks she deserved.

Is Gillian entirely amoral? Have you found any redeeming qualities in her character?

I do think she's completely amoral. At least, I certainly did by the end of the book. At first I was trying to see things from her perspective and give her the benefit of the doubt, but as we saw her character develop she was revealed to be a despicable human being.

Are Gillian and Nancy opposite characters? Nancy fears she has lost her "moral compass"--do you fear that she has?

I do think that Gillian and Nancy are opposites. I think the author went a little overboard to say that Nancy felt she lost her moral compass because she wanted to exact revenge. It's human nature to want to get revenge for something that was so blatantly wrong - Gillian stole Nancy's work and had it published before Nancy.

Why is the final chapter given to us from Gilllian's perspective? What are we able to learn about what happened to Paul, and how does Gillian feel and think about what happened?

I'm not sure why the final chapter was given from Gillian's perspective. Quite honestly, I thought the main character was Nancy and I would've like to see Nancy's story get more closure than it did. We learned that Gillian did run over Paul and not Kim, but we don't know if he was still alive or dead. Gillian doesn't really feel much of anything - she didn't view his trauma as her fault (and she seems a little crazy to me by this point, since she doesn't view any of her actions as her fault). It's bizarre to me her thought process at the very end. I was sorely disappointed by the ending of this novel.

[JoanieGranola]

Did Gillian plagiarize Nancy's work, and that of the Russian exchange student during her undergraduate years? Is the idea that she memorizes easily and almost unconsciously, something that lessens her guilt in any way, or suggests that her talent allows her greater liberties?

Since we are told in the "Paul" chapter that Paul was accused of (and somewhat convicted by his teachers) plagiarizing work off the Internet into a paper of his, then yes, Gillian is indeed guilty of plagiarism herself. She may not have written verbatim Nancy's first chapter, but she used enough of it in a similar fashion for every other person in the writer's group to think that she stole it. I'd say the same is true for the student, regardless of whether or not she "made it better". She took someone else's words and twisted them in such a small fashion that it was recognizable. Even in the music business that's plagiarism. I do not believe that her near photographic memory from hearing something lessens her guilt at all. It just makes her talented; but that in no way allows her any liberties.

Why does the "loss" of the Pulitzer strike her so much more forcefully than the public accusation of plagiarism?

I think the loss of the Pullitzer hurts more than the accusation because she's selfish. She doesn't believe she actually stole anyone's work, so she doesn't feel she's guilty. But she feels she was robbed of an award that she thinks she deserved.

Is Gillian entirely amoral? Have you found any redeeming qualities in her character?

I do think she's completely amoral. At least, I certainly did by the end of the book. At first I was trying to see things from her perspective and give her the benefit of the doubt, but as we saw her character develop she was revealed to be a despicable human being.

Are Gillian and Nancy opposite characters? Nancy fears she has lost her "moral compass"--do you fear that she has?

I do think that Gillian and Nancy are opposites. I think the author went a little overboard to say that Nancy felt she lost her moral compass because she wanted to exact revenge. It's human nature to want to get revenge for something that was so blatantly wrong - Gillian stole Nancy's work and had it published before Nancy.

Why is the final chapter given to us from Gilllian's perspective? What are we able to learn about what happened to Paul, and how does Gillian feel and think about what happened?

I'm not sure why the final chapter was given from Gillian's perspective. Quite honestly, I thought the main character was Nancy and I would've like to see Nancy's story get more closure than it did. We learned that Gillian did run over Paul and not Kim, but we don't know if he was still alive or dead. Gillian doesn't really feel much of anything - she didn't view his trauma as her fault (and she seems a little crazy to me by this point, since she doesn't view any of her actions as her fault). It's bizarre to me her thought process at the very end. I was sorely disappointed by the ending of this novel.