Larry veti Dorrien lähelleen, keinutteli häntä sylissään ja taputti hänen tukkaansa. Hän hätkähti tuntiessaan taputukseen sisältyvän julman varauksellisuuden, suorastaan monumentaalisen etäisyyden. Se kertoi ihmisestä, joka oli hajamielinen, väsynyt. Se oli aviomiehen taputus. Hän oli nähnyt isänsä koskettavan äitiään täsmälleen samalla tavalla silloin kun äidillä oli alakuloinen päivänsä. Mutta taputtaminen ei ollut samaa kuin kosketus. Taputtaminen oli kuin vaihtaisi automaattiohjaukseen, sitä vain ojensi kätensä ja teki niin. No niin, kaikki järjestyy. Vaivihkainen vilkaisu kelloon. Melkein ruoka-aika. Taputus, silitys, taputus.s. 52Hän on huomannut, että joidenkin ihmisten sanavarasto kerta kaikkiaan vain on askelman tai pari ylempänä kehityksen portailla, ja hänen mieleensä on äskettäin tullut, että sanat voisivat auttaa häntä tulevaisuudessa, ehkä jopa hänen nykyisissä ongelmissaan. Sen onton, valkoisen kaiun, jonka hän joskus kuulee, voisi vaientaa sanoilla. Siinä voisi olla ratkaisu: ehkä hän tarvitsee vain uusia sanoja, suuria tai pieniä, ei arvolla ole väliä, kunhan merkitys tiivistyy jonnekin, hänen päähänsä, hänen kielelleen.s. 113Miksi sanoa Larryn tunnetta poikaansa Ryania kohtaan? Syyllisyyden ja kaipauksen sekoitusta, sitä suojelunhaluista, monihaaraista, paisuvaa voimaa, joka on liian suuri ahdettavaksi kategoriaan rakkaus.s. 128Muistellessaan tuota aikaa hänen on vaikea uskoa, että sellaista viattomuutta on voinut olla. Eikä hän käsitä, miksei hän silloin tuntenut itseään maailman onnellisimmaksi mieheksi.s. 202Hän ymmärtää viimein, miten hämmästyttävän, armottoman tylsää on olla aikuinen, ja ehkä hänestä juuri tästä syystä on tullut mies joka liiankin helposti lohduttautuu leikillisyydellä ja pinnallisuudella.s. 222Vanheneminen oli sitä, että näki miten rajattomat mahdollisuudet tasaisesti vähenivät. Muuta se ei ollut.s. 236Hän ja Dorrie eivät ole osanneet puhua. Kukaan ei ollut kertonut, millaista olisi olla naimisissa ja miten paljon mies ja vaimo tarvitsivat tilaa siihen, että matalasti hyrisevä ajatusten virta saisi sanallisen muodon.s. 244Asuessaan vielä Winnipegissä eron jälkeen Larry soitti pojalleen joka ilta, mutta mitä sen ikäiselle lapselle voi sanoa? Lapsen maailma ei ole keskustelua; se on vellovaa keinuntaa sen välillä mikä on sallittua ja mikä ei. Vain lapsen vieressä voi tuntea mitä hän tuntee ja tarkkailla mitä hän milloinkin pelkää ja mitä pystyy kestämään.s. 263Miten hän oli toipunut ensimmäisestä avioliitostaan? Ehkä hän ei ollutkaan, ehkä epäonnistumiset kasautuivat.s. 348Onnellinen avioliitto, oli se lyhyt tai pitkä, kerää ympärilleen tietyn tihentymän, suupielestä livautetun "vaimoni", "mieheni" ja sen kodikkaan sanan "me -" – täytä tyhjä kohta – "me otamme c-vitamiinia kun uhkaa tulla flunssa", "me vietämme sunnuntai-illat kotona", "me peruutamme sanomalehden tilauksen, kun olemme viikon poissa". Puhumattakaan siitä, miten monta tuntia on kertynyt yhteistä unta, sillä tavallaan nekin puhuvat rakkauden puolesta; ja vaikka rakkaus jäisi taakse, se on jo kasvattanut ihmisen ympärille kotilon. Ja siksi Larry ei ole kuluneena vuonna vielä kyennyt sopeutumaan siihen eläimelliseen suruun, jota hän tuntee liikehtiessään levottomasti unissaan ja tajutessaan olevansa yksin.s. 350
4.5 starsThis is the first novel by Carol Shields that I have read (I still need to read The Stone Diaries). It is set mainly in Canada and the protagonist is Larry Weller. We follow Larry from about 1976 when he is 26 until 1997. It is thematic and each chapter looks at a different aspect of Larry’s life, through his two marriages, being a father, work, sex and so on. Often we see events at a distance as significant events seem to take place between chapters. The last chapter rounds off the whole with a dinner party. Shields is writing a man’s life and looking at sections of that life over 20 years and doing a remarkably good job. Shields focuses a good deal on work, the way it can fulfil and its importance. Larry starts off working in a flower shop and moves on to become a maze designer (he got his passion for mazes from his first honeymoon in England, getting lost in Hampton Court Maze). Many of the minor characters are also defined by what they do and there is dignity in work. The whole novel is a little like the mazes that Larry designs with lots of paths and byways but pretty much ending up where you started. As Eliot said; “And the end of all our exploring / Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time” There is a circularity about the wholeIt’s a good story with some interesting reflections on what it is like to be a man. I think Shields is subverting traditional notions of masculinity (some of which probably only exist in men’s minds) and positing multiple masculinities which are more fluid and ambivalent. Larry’s experience is one of anxiety combined with inadequacy. He is certainly not a “master of the universe”. Shields challenges the traditional male notions of aggression, rationality and control; these are dead ends in the maze. Shields is also playing with traditional modes of biography and identity in complex ways. There is a lost and found and doubling back sense that you would find in a maze. There is some repetition and you move from chapter to chapter, but there is a sense of building rather than repeating. One critic has described this as postmodern biographical fiction. Shields plays on a feeling of ordinariness and an unexpected social mobility (it is mostly rich people who want mazes). Larry wonders how he has moved so far from being the son of a working class craftsman. The move has disoriented him and there are tensions between the masculinities he was brought up with and the more middle class ones of his middle age. Usually biography and autobiography consolidate and reinforce the notion of self which has been developed by Western thought (read Western white male thought). Phyllis Rose has argued that biography is a tool by which the dominant society reinforces its values. Shields questions those values quite consciously by providing a protagonist who is unsure, a little muddled and unstable, not a subject of public acclaim. Nina van Gessel argues this is an essentially feminist type of biography. And on top of all that; Larry is rather likeable.
What do You think about Larry's Party (1998)?
I really enjoyed reading this book. At first I thought the subject matter was going to put me off but in the end I came to like Larry. I like the idea that a person can find inspiration in a particular situation and then go on to build a life on that inspiration. Larry goes in to his first maze at Hampton Court while on his honeymoon and it is a life changing experience for him. I did find the idea of surrounding ones own house with a maze a bit weird and obviously it was more than Dorrie could bear. I found the ending of the book appealed to my romantic soul and he whole thing was a very satisfying experience.
—Pat
This author’s characters are often improbably insightful, but I love the way she gives mundane people immense internal lives. Even simple acts in simple lives have drama. Love her descriptions of work in this book too. “There’s no getting around it: the rhapsody of work hums between Larry’s ears, its variables and strategies, its implements and its tightly focused skills. Sometimes he tries to scare himself with thoughts of worklessness, the long, vacant mornings of the unemployed – how would that feel? – and the mingled boredom and sadness of being broke and without accomplishment, without any way to deal with time.” Carol Shields somehow makes plodding through life seem mystic and desirable.
—Mary
In the end, I liked this book far better than I imaginged I would. My first thoughts as I read centered around what I felt was Carol Shields' smuggness to believe that SHE could actually have any true insight into the working of a man's brain/thoughts. I had a professor once who stated, "A brain soaked in testostrone, does not function like a brain soaked in estrogen!" Having lived all these years, I have to agree. Men and women function differently and neither really understands the other, even when we think we do. Having said that, Shields does a good job of imagining what is going on in Larry's mind. It is the story of Larry's internal and external life told in chunks from the age of about 26 to about 46 - a rather interesting 20 years. Shields writing style for this novel is interesting in that for all the well written prose, with great discriptions and wonderful vocabulary - the sections seem to be written independent of each other; often as if the reader had no other knowledge of Larry's history. I found that a bit disruptive to the story, but then just got used to it. The ending came as not a surprise exactly and in retrospect I probably should have anticipated it a bit more than I did. The ending made the book for me, without it, I would have only given this book a three star review. It is worth the read, enjoy!
—Jean
