March '08 discussion thread: The Thirteenth Tale

[Caryl]

Here is our discussion thread for The Thirteenth Tale, our March group read. As always, be cautious of reading the posts below if you haven't finished, as they may contain spoilers.

[Melanie]

There are definitely spoilers here.

I enjoyed this one, but it wasn't my perfect book.

The big surprise: You spend the whole story trying to reconcile Vida Winter's character with the wild Adeline of her tales. You keep waiting for the story of her great transformation only to discover that there is none. Winter is a completely different person and you were unaware of her until the moment of the reveal. That always feels like a cop-out. How is it that we haven't had one hint of a third child in everything we're read up to that point? (Or did I just miss it?) Eh. I just don't like it as a literary tool, though it's used often enough.

The tidy ending: Aurelius ends up being Karen's brother, Margaret and the doctor and the cat end up "together", and everyone lives happily ever after, The End. I thought Aurelius was a more interesting character without tying up his loose ends. I also preferred for the Thirteenth Tale to remain a mystery, never found or revealed.

Overall, though, it was a good read that held my interest. I really enjoyed the thread throughout the story about twins/sisters and how Margaret and her mother had each dealt with her loss. Jane Eyre is also one of my all-time favorite stories (I think I was 10 or 11 the first time I read it!) so I could appreciate her use of it in the book.

[Maribeth]

Lots of spoilers . . .

I just finished this last night so my thoughts aren't quite together yet. Since I have a surviving twin and have worked with twin loss groups for a lot of years, the book had an interest for me that is probably a little different. I almost put it down when I read that Margaret was a twin because I wasn't sure I wanted to go there. We've always wondered if some of my Chad's weird health problems are from being a surviving identical twin. Plus the whole incest thing (which explains why the twins were so screwed up). Sounded like my ex-SIL's family

Overall, the author does a good job with the bereaved twin aspects of the story, and that's where several hints that Miss Winter is not Adeline are. Setterfield's depiction of Margaret's sense of loss was so right on and it bothered me that it wasn't right on with Emmeline/Adeline/Vida. But it actually was because part of the time, she was talking about twins and part of the time, she was not - I just didn't realize it soon enough. It's a story I could go back and read (and probably will some time) and will go AHA! I never believed that it was Adeline that stepped to the plate when the missus died. That's when I knew Miss Winter wasn't being honest with Margaret - I just didn't quite know what she was lying about. There were lots of hints that Charlie could have fathered other children while Isabelle was away having the twins . . .

Did Charlie even realize there was another child in the house?

Isabelle - her character seemed the least plausible to me. She has the presence of mind to run off with whatever his name was, have the babies and then bring them home (could she have killed him?) - but then to just be insane to the point of being locked away forever (and supposedly dies of the same thing the husband does). I get that she had to be out of the picture but having her run off with some other guy would make more sense. Minor quibble though. They were truly a dysfunctional family so why not make her insane? Maybe going through all of that and coming back to Charlie drove her over the edge.

I agree that she didn't have to tie up all the loose ends at the end of the book. It made sense to me that Margaret would tell Aurelius about the sisters so he'd have closure over the family he was constantly looking for. The whole Karen thing was over the top but there was some reason the author kept bringing those kids into the story. I don't think Margaret necessarily needed to have the vision of her twin though, and the doctor and cat thing felt too convenient. Would Margaret really leave her world at the bookshop? Didn't need to know that Hester and the doc move to America and get together because, conveniently, the doc's wife died. I don't know about Miss Winter's home turned into a tourist spot either . . . Such an eerie tale doesn't need those mundane type of loose ends tied up. Perhaps it's because Margaret was there to tell the story and Margaret, herself, would have reported those loose ends. She wasn't one to leave an detail alone. Those last details would have been the info she wrote in the columns of her pages as she wrote Miss Winter's story. Remember how she talks about setting up the page with her columns for notes and questions, etc? Her pencils and being sharpened, etc - like a reporter.

Which reminds me - the time of the book is so vague. No cell phones, no laptops, using almanacs for research, writing letters instead of email . . . and yet, I wouldn't put the time as too long ago either. Margaret used cabs. I think the author must have done that on purpose - a little detail that makes it a tad more eerie, and it did for me. Bothered me not to really know - LOL.

Overall, though, my quibbles are minor. I enjoyed the book very much. For a first novel, I think the author did an incredible job and I'll probably pick up her next book if she does a next one. I had a hard time putting the book down for the last 100 pages or so and I haven't read a book that was that mesmerizing for awhile.

I want Hester to come over and clean/organize my house!

Good choice Susan and Caryl! I probably wouldn't have picked this book up without it being a group read.

[Melanie]

Originally Posted by Maribeth

Did Charlie even realize there was another child in the house?

I was as oblivious as Charlie, apparently. I don't think he had a clue.

Which reminds me - the time of the book is so vague. No cell phones, no laptops, using almanacs for research, writing letters instead of email . . . and yet, I wouldn't put the time as too long ago either. Margaret used cabs. I think the author must have done that on purpose - a little detail that makes it a tad more eerie, and it did for me. Bothered me not to really know - LOL.

True. I was thinking it could have been any time from about 1950 forward, but she did leave it intentionally (I think) vague.

[Morrighanne]

I enjoyed this book but the ending was a dissapointment. I would have liked to know more about Margaret's dynamics and her mother. It just seemed to be glossed over as 'grief'. I thought the timing of the book was late 50's, 60's. Enough for Margaret to be slightly emanicpated but still an odd ball for living alone.

[carissanboys]

Originally Posted by Morrighanne

I enjoyed this book but the ending was a dissapointment. I would have liked to know more about Margaret's dynamics and her mother. It just seemed to be glossed over as 'grief'. I thought the timing of the book was late 50's, 60's. Enough for Margaret to be slightly emanicpated but still an odd ball for living alone.

I know this thread is old, but since I just finally got around to reading it, I figured I'd post my thoughts.

The book definitely wasn't what I was expecting. It was such a dark story, on so many levels. It was well written and it mostly kept my interest, but I can't say that I "enjoyed" it. I felt very confused when we first learned about the third girl and wondered if I hadn't been paying attention.

I don't believe that all of the loose ends were tied up at the end, though. I really wanted there to be some confrontation with Margaret's mother.