This novel explores a complicated and strained relationship between two sisters. Do you think Meredith is justified in being so angry with Nina? In what ways are the sisters different and in what ways are they alike?
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Book Club Discussion 4: Question 1
This novel explores a complicated and strained relationship between two sisters. Do you think Meredith is justified in being so angry with Nina? In what ways are the sisters different and in what ways are they alike?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Book Club Discussion 1: Question #4
Go to previous discussion question....
For Harrison, Nora is the epitome of the perfect woman. Hazel represents the same for Innes. Yet their respective encounters are relatively brief. What is it about these two women that the men find so compelling? Do you think the two men really know the objects of their desire?
My answer:
Both Nora and Hazel seemed to possess an attractive, slim and elegant physicque with quiet, subtle and intelligent demeanors. I think these were the qualities that both men found themselves attracted to. The fact that both Nora and Hazel seemed to be somewhat mysterious, and quietly defiant in terms of love seemed to intrique the two men a lot. I don't think the men in the story really knew the objects of their desire. They were just drawn to the women because of thier physical appearance and their being unavilable to them. For some reason, pepole always desire something that is beyond their reach.
If you are reading this book, please participate in this discussion by posting on your blog your answer and a link back to this post. Then put a comment below to let us know where your blog post is. If you don't have a blog, just put your answers in the comment box. Thank you for particpating in this book club discussion.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Book Club Discussion 3: #3
Go to the previous discussion question...
Since World War II, the naval power of the United States has been dominating the oceans of the world. According to the author, this gives the United States tremendous leverage in securing the position of the world's super power for the next 100 years, because control of the sea means control of the access of trade (sea is still the cheapest transport for goods). Do you think maintaining the world's largest and most powerful navy is necessary for the United States?
My Answer: In an event of another world war when there is no long-range missle, where there is no sonic speed fighter jet and bomber, I guess, yes, it is necessary for the U.S. to have the most powerful navy. I do agree that if only the U.S. decides to intimidate any country's freight vessels in the ocean, it will hurt that country's economy. I also agree that any insane country that thinks about engaging in extensive wars with the U.S. will have to worry about how to maintain supplies to their army if only the U.S. navy cuts off sea transportation.
But will the U.S. choose to give another country's ships a hard time to sail through if there is no full-blown war? Or is the U.S. free to just block any country's ship on the sea because she doesn't get what she wants from that country in trading terms or whatever cooperation? I don't think so... Yes, the U.S. navy are everywhere in the world's oceans, but so what if China disagrees with the U.S. in terms of trade deficits, or foreign policy? Can the U.S. tell China, "Sorry, China, now that you aren't cooperating with us, you aren't going to ship your products to the Americas through the Pacific... or even through the Alantic to Africa..." Of course not, the U.S. will not choose to do that, nor is the U.S. free to do that. So the super naval power really gives no advantage in terms of exerting political or economic influence at a peaceful time. But yes, a super naval power definitely discourages open attacks and sea invasions from other countries. But what stupid country is going to invade America from sea? The British tried it in 1812, but failed. Not even Germany or Japan did that...cause it was just not the most efficient way to invade America from the sea.
For how long can the U.S. afford to keep such a large naval fleet? For how much longer can the U.S. afford to patrol the seven seas? A lot of the ports in North and South America are owned by Chinese, Arabs and other foreign nationals anyway....By taking ownerships of ports and handling trillions of tons of goods imported and exported by America, other countries're just having as much influence to America's economic life line and access of internatioal trade.
In the 19th & 20th centuries, the British Empire used to have the world's largest navy but it all justified the economic ambitions of the British empire at that time because they were setting up colonies all over the world for trade access and economic gain. The British were using their powerful navy to intimidate and conquer other countries. I just don't see how the expense of keeping a large naval fleet and all these naval bases all over the world justifies the economic benefits for the U.S. (unless they use the navy like the British used theirs) It's nothing but a pure expense... It's not like the U.S. is using the navy now to threaten other countries for trade concessions, or to divert valuable resources out of an occupied colony . Since the U.S. is always playing nice and ethical instead of conquering for economic gains, I don't see the purpose of keeping such a huge navy. Most of the time, the navy really do nothing (couldn't even protect us from 9/11) but deliever free food and medicines to the third world countries. Yet these countries don't pay for the U.S. navy, we, the taxpayers do....
The motivation for war is always economically driven. Countries that have the calibre to challenge the U.S. (and as of now, no country has the calibre) are not going to start a war with the U.S. because there is no economic benefit in doing that. As long as everybody is making a decent living, there will be peace, with or without the U.S. navy. No sane developed country will dare to delcare war against the U.S. For the terrorist groups who do, they don't come from the sea anyway....and if they come from the sea, they are going to be seanky, using foreign shipping companies that own and operate ports here in the U.S... or by some other means...
Besides, the technology of warfare is not like World War I or Word War II anymore, America's enemies don't necessarily have to go through the sea to attack America. 9/11 is an example. I believe that the United States should pay more attention to her southern border cause that is where invasion by millions if illegal immigrants comes from. America's constitution is also America's weakness that enemies can very well use to attack the country. The liberal interpretation of the Constitution will be used as weapons by the enemies. What is going to stop foreigners from obtaining ingredients to manufacture deadly weapon of mass destruction right here in America? What is going to stop enemies to get jobs in the defense department, or worse yet, become the President of the Unitied States? It only takes one enemy to push one button to destroy us all here... or just a few enemies to push the buttons in serveral cities to activate the WMDs they make here.... It's not if they will do that, it's about when they will do that.. 9/11 wasn't an overnight endeavor. It's taken years in planning. Only god knows what big scheme America's enemies are planning for now, right here, right in our neighborhoods.
A strong navy isn't going to protect us in the future. The danger for America is her own constitution and ideology that the constitution applies not only to the American citizens but everybody in the world. If I have relatives who are living overseas now, who never lived one day in America, but yet, are American citizens who can vote, and who can come here to work in the government freely, or do whatever here freely, only because they were born here in the United States long time ago on these birthing tours to America....... (which advertised on our newspapers to gurantee foreign babies the U.S. passports ...)... If we have that many Chinese in Hong Kong who got American passports this way, how many of them in other countries also got their U.S. passports this way..... If the U.S. is a democracy built by votes of her citizens, the country can also be demolished by the votes of her citzens. I wonder why such privilege is given anyhow to just anyone who was born here? I just think this is totally against the interest of America's national security. Somehow, I agree with China that the voting previlage shouldn't be granted to just every citizen... cause a lot of people are just too ignorant to vote (that's China's defense for their system..). Yes China's way is a bit extreme. But personally, I think the previlege to vote should be earned...If we can't drive our cars without a license, why should we be voting without proving that we are intelligent enough to vote for America's best interest??
If you are reading this book, please participate in this discussion by posting on your blog your answer and a link back to this post. Then put a comment below to let us know where your blog post is. If you don't have a blog, just put your answers in the comment box. Thank you for particpating in this book club discussion.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Book Club Discussion 3: # 2
Go to the previous discussion question...
Go to the next discussion question...
The author feels that the popular belief in the United States's approaching the eve of its destruction because of the disastrous wars, uncontrolled deficits, dependence on foreign oil, shootings at schools and universities, corruption in business and government, etc, etc, is actually the same foreboding that was present during the presidency of Richard Nixon. The author concludes that Americans fear too much and regardless of all the problems about the country, the Unites States will remain the most powerful and prosperous for the next 100 years. How do you think the problems and worries in the 60s are similar or different compared to what America is facing nowadays?
My answer:
Nixon was way before my existence was even a remote concept. But by hearing the mention of Nixon here and there on TV, I think the difference is really the techological advantage that America was having against the rest of the world (except for Russia may be, but I personally don't think Russia was ever close to America in the race of techonology advancement....China of course was not even a likely contenter back then when they barely could make enough bicycles for everybody to ride to work...)
There was the fear but America was having a real upper hand in terms of technology. (which was the foundation that led to the invention of personal computers in the 80s, the breakthroughs in medicine, like heart transplant and hip replacements, and then there was the creation of the internet....in the 90s...) Looking at today though, the technological gap between America and the rest of the world has become much narrower...I don't know what new technologies are already brewing in other countries, but I know that the people's competitiveness and determination in China and India are providing these countries lots of brain power....Will America still be ahead? Or for how long will America still be ahead in terms of technological advancement? The automobile technology, and even the semi-conductor technology were created here in the United States, but nowadays jobs in these two areas are disappearing...
In Nixon's time, my dad told me people could only get bathtubs and toilet bowls manufactured by America, "the American Standard" were found in many homes in Hong Kong... But now, all the home remodeling stuff are made in China. My mother still has an American made blow dryer, which is much older than me, that ancient gadget just lasted forever while I had gone through several blow dryers already since I left home...My mother's blow dryer was made during the Nixon era...
Besides being ahead in technology in the 60s, America had also much stronger manufacturing industries... Americans made a lot of everything to be sold domestically and also to be exported. America was still the big time experter in the world in the 60s.
As fearful as the American people were back then, the United States did have lots of strengths and advantages over other countries to guarantee its propserous future....
But now, other countries produce more scientists, more doctors, more engineers, more computers, and just more of everything than America (except for lawyers and criminals, America is still number #1 in producing the largest number of lawyers and the the most criminals compared to other developed countries....), so much more that they actually make a lot of money by exporting them to the United States. (from the Mary Janes I'm wearing to "José" the janitor who helps keep my office clean...) I believe this wasn't the case in Nixon's time.
Lastly, there are a lot more pepole who are on the government's entitlement programs than in the 60s. The public schools (however, a lot of the major public universities that start with the "University of....", not University of Phoneix..., not the community colleges, so far are still providing very good quality higher education.... thank goodness.) in the U.S. are famous to the world as the easiest and the most relaxed... When I was a kid, I wanted to come here for highschool, cause all my friends who got kicked out of highschools from Hong Kong for being F students, all of a sudden became A students on the Deans' Lists in the U.S. I went on hunger strike against my dad hoping he would let me join my friends in the U.S.... but he said he would rather me starved to death than have me partying and doing drugs in America.... So my dad won, I ended my hunger strike, went back to struggle with my more than 10 different homework assignments that I had to turn in everyday in Hong Kong....
I think these are the differences between the Nixon era and the time we are now in. I agree that the fear are similar, but the overall competitiveness the United States is facing, as well as the domestic burden she is assuming nowadays are very different from Nixon's time.
If you are reading this book, please participate in this discussion by posting on your blog your answer and a link back to this post. Then put a comment below to let us know where your blog post is. If you don't have a blog, just put your answers in the comment box. Thank you for particpating in this book club discussion.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Book Club Discussion 3: # 1
Go to the next discussion question...
The author of the book thinks that this century is an America-centric age and that studying the twenty-first century means studying the United States. Do you agree with the author?
My Answer:
Sure, America is currently still playing a very important role in the world, and is still exerting a lot of influence in the world's culture, economy and politics. But America is definitely not the only country that is shaping the world. There is no assurance that America will forever take the lead in shaping the world. The question is for how long can America keep her world dominance, and how much does America want to remain a super power? If only America wants to continue to remain on top throughout the twenty-first century, it's about time for America to start looking at other countries and learn what's happening in other countries. America's lack of understanding of other countries will only undermine her position in the world. The ignorance of other countries' competitiveness and ambition will cost the United States the stance in the twenty-first century. Yes, of course, other countries will study the United States. As a matter of fact, other countries have been studying the United States for decades. They have been taking notes of the weaknesses, the strengths and the mentality of the Unites States so they can bring her down to her knees one day or surpass her... Either way, they keep a very close watch of the United States. Unfortunately, America only sees herself in her own mirror, and assumes no one else is worth her attention.
If you are reading this book, please participate in this discussion by posting on your blog your answer and a link back to this post. Then put a comment below to let us know where your blog post is. If you don't have a blog, just put your answers in the comment box. Thank you for particpating in this book club discussion.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Book Club Discussion 2: # 3
Go to the previous discussion...
To acheive personal success and feel happy from the inside out, the author thinks that our soul needs to be fed with all the following 10 love Vitamins:
- G1: Love and support from God.
- P1: Love and support from our parents.
- F: Love and support from family, friends, and having fun.
- P2: Love and support from peers and others like us with similar goals.
- S: Love and support from ourselves.
- R: Love and support from intimate relationships, partnerships, and romance.
- D: Loving and supporting someone who is dependent on us.
- C: Giving back to our communities.
- W: Giving back to the world.
- G2: Serving God.
Do you agree with the author that we need all the above to feel lasting happiness from the inside? What love vitamins do you think you are deficient in right now?
My answer:
I think the author makes sense and I doubt anyone who has sufficient amount of all the above "love vitamins" can feel remotely unhappy at all. Glancing at the above list, I realize I'm deficient in F (since all my family and friends are back in Hong Kong), P2, C and W. I absolutely have no R and D. I'm also deficient in G1 and G2 since I'm not really a religious person...(I'm not agnostic but going to church and listening to others' interpretation of god and Jesus bore me ... I spent all my life in Catholic school and my college years in Baptist church... never was able to be converted to become either a Catholic or Christian...... may be I should try the synagogue next....)
Now I realize my soul is having a bad case of mal-nutrition... like that' s really comforting to know... Thanks Dr. Gray!! I wonder if Dr. Phil will give my soul a more encouraging diagnosis...
If you are reading this book, please participate in this discussion by posting on your blog your answer and a link back to this post. Then put a comment below to let us know where your blog post is. If you don't have a blog, just put your answers in the comment box. Thank you for particpating in this book club discussion.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Book Club Discussion 2: Question #2
Go to next discussion question...
According to the author, getting more in life will not give us long lasting happiness if we don't learn to create personal success first. He thinks we can acheive personal success when we feel really good about ourselves and our past, present and future. Have you ever felt that you needed to have certain things to make you happy and yet once you got them, you felt like you needed to have other things to make you happy? Do you feel like you are in a never ending pursuit of happiness? So do you agree with the author that may be you need to feel really good about your past, present and future? Do you think it's possible to achieve the kind of personal success suggested by the author? If so, how can one feel really good about one's past, present and future?
My answer:
Yes, I do realize that nothing keeps me happy for long. My list of wants and needs seems to be on automatic renewals and updates... Of course, I do feel I am in a perpetual pursuit of happiness. I often said at the beginning of a New Year, "I hope I will be happy in this New Year..."... I never said, "I hope in this New Year, I can stay as happy as I've always been..." Yes, I agree with the author, may be I just haven't achieved personal success.
I'm not sure if it's possible for me to feel really good about my past or present, but I hope I can feel reallly good about my future. I can't change anything about my past, if something bad happened then that gave me unpleasant experience, I don't think I can sit here now and look back and tell myself, "hey, that was really good and I'm so glad that happened ..." As for the present, I have to admit that there were certain things I did in the past which costed me some good opportunities now, and there were certain things I did in the past that created certain setbacks that I am having now... It's just cause and effect. Everything in the past just affects the present... So no, I don't really feel good about my present either... I don't feel bad, but I don't feel "real good".
I think I shouldn't sit here and try to force myself to feel really good about my past. Whatever I felt bad about back then, I'm not going to feel any better about it now, so I don't want to waste my present time on that... Instead I should just do my best to accept, and deal with the bad consequences from whatever I had done in the past, right now, right here, so it won't carry to my future. Since I can't change the past and I can't completely control my future... my only option is really to make the best I can now with the present, and just have faith that my future is going to be great. My mother told me on Skype two days ago, "Cherish the present, regret not the past, fear not the future." I should feel so lucky to have a mother who can be my shrink and I should feel so happy to have Skpe that keeps my family so close with me despite the fact that they are thousands of miles away.
If you are reading this book, please participate in this discussion by posting on your blog your answer and a link back to this post. Then put a comment below to let us know where your blog post is. If you don't have a blog, just put your answers in the comment box. Thank you for particpating in this book club discussion.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Book Club Discussion 1: Question #3
Go to previous discussion question....
Go to the next discussion question....
As the story of the reunion weekend unfolds, another story is revealed --- the tale Agnes is writing about Innes Finch. Why do you think the author chooses to tell another story within the story? What is the significance of the Halifax tragedies to Agnes at this point of her life?
My answer:
As Anita Shreve said in her interview with the Republican on October 2, 2005. She started this novel after 9/11, I think it's the author's way to channel her feelings about catastrophes at the time. As she said, she was just trying to capture "the sense of the democracy of catastrophe", which knows no class or race.
As far as the significance of the Halifax tragedies to Agnes, well, the story was set at a time shortly after 9/11, so the character Agnes, like any American at the time, was deeply affected, was still feeling the shock, the loss and trying to make sense of why and what really happened in the world. I think Agnes wrote the story to answer questions that she was having, as a result of 9/11. She also wrote the story as a way to feel that she was in control since she obviously had none in the long-term relationship she was in. I feel that Agnes wanted to write the story to tell the same pain, agony and conflicting feelings she was going through at the time as a result of her love life.
If you are reading this book, please participate in this discussion by posting on your blog your answer and a link back to this post. Then put a comment below to let us know where your blog post is. If you don't have a blog, just put your answers in the comment box. Thank you for particpating in this book club discussion.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Book Club Discussion 2: Question #1
Go to the next discussion question...
Are you happy with your life right now? If you are not happy, what do you think you need in order to make you happy? If you are happy with your life, what makes you feel so happy about it?
My answer:
I'm not happy with my life now this is why I am reading this book, dah! I think I will be happy if I can get a better job (in terms of both $$ and future prospect).... I think I will be happy if only I have a nice husband to love and to start a family with.... I think I will be happy if only I can get rid of the several pimple sized deep skin cysts on my neck and body which all determatolgists so far advised me to leave them alone due to my keloid prone skin. My desire to squeeze them, and yet I'm not supposed to... is driving me nuts....
If you are reading this book, please participate in this discussion by posting on your blog your answer and a link back to this post. Then put a comment below to let us know where your blog post is. If you don't have a blog, just put your answers in the comment box. Thank you for particpating in this book club discussion.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Book Club Discussion 1: Question #2
Go to the previous discussion question...
Go to the next discussion question....
"One can never tell the story of a marriage," Nora says to Harrison (page 151). "At the very least, a marriage is two intersecting stories, one of which we will never know." What does Nora mean by this observation? Are there relationships depicted in the novel that support her statement?
My answer:
I think Nora means literally just what she says, marriage is the very private business between the couple who are in it, and nobody outside the marriage can really tell what's going on behind the closed door of a married couple. Very often, outsiders can only see what the married couple choose to let them see for different reasons, for pride, for the career, for the children....Outsiders usually don't see a problem until a marriage finally comes to an end. But even then there are his side of the story and her side of the story. Since marriage is between two people, it's only natural that there are going to be two different points of views in about everything. When two different lives, which are seperate stories to begin with, are brought together in a marraige, of course there is the intersection of two stories. I think not only all the relationships in the novels supported Nora's statment, but all the relationships in the real world do support it too. Our former senator, John Edward's marriage, is the latest example.
If you're reading this book, please participate in this discussion by posting on your blog your answer and a link back to this post. Then put a comment below to let us know where your blog post is. If you don't have a blog, just put your answers in the comment box. Thank you for particpating in this book club discussion.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Book Club Discussion 1: Question 1
Go to the next discussion question...
Each of the former schoolmates who are reunited in the above novel has faced a number of challenges and disappointments since graduation. In particular, the've all found themselves in quandaries when it comes to romance. Which characters would you say are the luckiest in love? How do you define a successful relationship?
I think Rob has the best luck in love because there is no mention of heartbreak or upsets regarding his love journey. Based on the limited mention of it, it seems that he is the only character who is enjoying the best moment in life with a happy and satisfying relationship with a very compatible partner whom he is very happy with. Even though Rob is gay but he seems to be the luckiest in love compared with his straight highschool friends.
I think a successful relationship is a relationship between a couple who love each other with unconditional dedication, respect, trust, care and support.
If you have read this book, please participate in this discussion by posting on your blog your answer and a link back to this post. Then put a comment below to let us know where your blog post is. If you don't have a blog, just put your answers in the comment box. Thank you for particpating in this book club discussion.