******** An Administrative Note************* Since this is a separate conference from Drool, you will have to change your posted name on the main Books page if you have altered it from what was registered.

The book website gives this guide...good leading questions . http://www.tchevalier.com/guides/index.html

I feel like I'm in college again reading some of those questions. I find 4,10 to 16 (and maybe 2) the most interesting of those. I'm sure there are a boatload of questions and comments of our own.

(Dorine) I feel like I'm in college again reading some of those questions. I find 4,10 to 16 (and maybe 2) the most interesting of those. I agree with your college statement! They're like the exam questions during finals week. I like 2, 8,10 and 14 (two of those are 'Vermeer' questions, but I find that I'm really curious about how he sees things...since the novel is through Griet's eyes). Thanks for the link Evelyn...

(Dorine) I feel like I'm in college again reading some of those questions. I find 4,10 to 16 (and maybe 2) the most interesting of those. I'm sure there are a boatload of questions and comments of our own. #12 looks particularly intriguing. :-D

Yeah, those reading guide questions do sound ominously like college exam ones. ;-) I like the idea of discussing the book in sections, as is usually done with books. Films are different because you can't easily divide them up and the discussant has usually seen the entire movie and knows the ending, etc. Rika's suggestion back at Drool about going by year sounds good to me, but I will go with the majority on this one. (As you can tell, I am a structure-junkie.) ;-)))) Then we might use some of the reading guide questions (simplified) at the end if the subject matter hasn't been addressed already. BTW, Al's Q has been answered via email among other things.

The questions are a bit staggering, but 2,10, and 14 made me sit up and take notice. These questions, for me, get to the heart and soul of the characters, and were some of the very things I questioned as I read. #12 is also significant and I think will be a geat source of exploration as we get underway. If we still have a vote, I'd love to see it discussed in sections with the flexibility of being able to move back and forth as need be for discussion. Thank you Evelyn, for the link. V. informative and a great source for the themes that I'm sure we'll want to cover.

I don't happen to own the book. I borrowed it from Lora, so it might be harder for me to stick to structure, but I shall try. ;-D I guess it is too soon to get a copy of the script?

(Moon) I don't happen to own the book. I borrowed it Do you have a library card? ;-) And, Linda, you may want to visit the main Books page (click on Books conference link below the ugly buttons) to get rid of your last name. Gaah, I may try to redecorate around here, as Emma made some be-yew-tiful buttons awhile back. Maybe I'll email Kaylene for instructions on how to apply them. Terry was no help at all. How is the voting going on structured vs. unstructured? Rika - structured Evelyn - unstructured Dorine - unstructured Linda - both Karen - structured Moon - wouldn't know the structure if it "struck" her in the face. ;-) What other countries haven't been heard from? This is your UN Secretary-General asking for floor discussion before the Hall Proctor raps my knuckles.

If we still have a vote, I'd love to see it discussed in sections with the flexibility of being able to move back and forth as need be for discussion. OK. I rescind my suggestion for free- for- all :-))))) Actually, I don't give a rat's ass what format we use. While this is a book discussion...really, we're going to have the film and the cast in mind ; and be part of the postings.Since this is the only reason why we're discussing the book in the first place.So it's a combination of both. HS was done in a haphazard way and no one complained:-D

I'm going to ask other non-Drool folks who read the book to join in.

(Linda) If we still have a vote, I'd love to see it discussed in sections with the flexibility of being able to move back and forth as need be for discussion I'm all for this with *flexibility* the key word.

Hello everyone... Hope you don't mind if I join in on discussion. I'm kind of new at this so please be gentle with me.. Leona

(Leona)I'm kind of new at this so please be gentle with me.. Welcome, Leona. Don't worry, in a very short while you'll be just as rough and tumble as the rest of us :-)) Stick around, please. Our discussions are fantastic

Don't you worry, Leona has a wicked sense of humor. ;-) Pssst! She's been around for years, mainly lurking but she has posted a little way back when.

Hello everyone... Hope you don't mind if I join in on discussion. I'm kind of new at this so please be gentle with me.. Leona

Welcome, Leona! We are always kind, but never gentle. ;-) (Karen)Moon - wouldn't know the structure if it "struck" her in the face. ;-) ROTF! I am not so rigid. My vote goes to unstructured because, fGs, we are not discussing Shakespeare or Dante. (Dorine), I'm all for this with *flexibility* the key word. Hell, yes. If a bar doesn't serve Martinis with Bombay gin I would still have one with Tanquerey. ;-)

Ignore second duped post--that was just my 'wicked sense of humour'!!! Evelyn, thanks for discussion questions.. I read GWAPE a while back so will now start my re-read with questions in mind. Ta!

Admin note (for infrequent posters or newbie posters, whose names I will not mention): To see if there are new messages, do not hit Reload or Refresh (depending on which browser you are using). This will cause a reposting of an existing message. What you should do is either go back to the main Books conference page: http://www.spring.net/yapp-bin/restricted/browse/books/all/new or reclick on this topic's url in the Location Bar at the top of your screen (or as you've bookmarked it). Have I lost you completely. http://www.spring.net/yapp-bin/restricted/read/books/45/new (Moon) If a bar doesn't serve Martinis with Bombay gin I would still have one with Tanquerey. ;-) Since you put it that way, I'd vote for flexibility as well. ;-)

(Moon)We are always kind, but never gentle. ;-) Well put Moon. I must remember that. fGs, we are not discussing Shakespeare or Dante. LOL... and not getting a grade. Welcome Leona..I like a good sense of humor.

I'm like Griet...I (try to) do what I am told. Whatever structure everyone else decides...be it a "free for all" or "boot camp", I'm all for it! ;-D Welcome Leona!

Is it time? Is it time? Can we start? :-)

Yes, it's time. :)

Okay, I'll jump in first. I've begun rereading GWAPE and there's an event at the very beginning that still puzzles me, even after two readings. Okay, perhaps better said that it nettles me because IMO it doesn't quite have the ring of truth to it. Why did Griet slap Cornelia on her very first day in the Vermeer household, practically within the first hour of meeting the little girl? Yes, yes, I know that Cornelia was laughing at Griet, but really, that hardly seems like proper motivation for Griet's actions. It seems to me, Griet would have felt entirely out of her element at this point in the story, what with the newness of becoming a maid, leaving her family, meeting Catholics for the first time, etc., not to mention the fact that her family was depending on her to keep this job, and therefore, would have been guarding all of her reactions, emotions, etc., until she'd found her footing. I know this action sets the stage for later tension in the novel, but it seems out of place at this stage in the n rrative. Just MHO.

I agree that it was out of place. I thought it might be a reaction she might had had with her own sister at home, had she been provoked. It just came out.

Sandy, I was uncomfortable with that scene as well. I thought she would have to answer to that, but she didn't. Maybe it was an accepted thing. However she was not hired as a governess, she was hired to clean Vermeer's studio, which IMO did not give her authority to discipline the children. One of my favorite things throughout this book was knowing when Vermeer was around or about to be around through Griets words. My favorite was early on when she first arrives. Griet is outside the studio and I looked around and saw the closed door. Behind it was a silence that I knew was him. Now, I don't know why I was so affected by that line. OK, I do know...because we know who is behind the door-literally. But, right off the bat we know that Griet is connected to him. Even before this, the day Vermeer and his wife go to Griet's house, we have the scene with the vegetables. I wanted to reach over and tease it into place. I did not, but he knew that I wanted to. He was testing me. This is from Griet's POV, but I wonder if at this early stage this is her infatuation (then it was immediate), or does she really feel all this, barely knowing him. Do we have any indication that he has done something to make her so in touch with his feelings?

(lindak) This is from Griet's POV, but I wonder if at this early stage this is her infatuation (then it was immediate), or does she really feel all this, barely knowing him. Do we have any indication that he has done something to make her so in touch with his feelings? This is an interesting question, because we do only have Griet's view. I thought about what I was like as a fifteen year old. Griet has been fairly sheltered all her life (we realize she has never been to Papist Corner, or much beyond the Meat Market prior to her going to the Vermeers). I wonder how many men she has known besides her father (and brother if we want to count him)? What kind of reaction would a sheltered teenage girl have to a handsome man? She described his voice even before she saw him...it seemed she was intrigued by him prior to his apprearing before her. I don't have the book in front of me right now, but doesn't she even 'wet her lips' and straighten her apron before her mother brings the Vermeers into the kitchen? IMO, I think her infatuation was immediate, that she was ready to connect with someone (of the opposite sex) outside her family circle and this made her pay particular attention to Vermeer...I'm not saying that if just anyone walked into the room, she would have made the connection. I think she was just open to it. Also, has anyone noticed that they never mention Vermeer by name? It is always "he", "him", "my husband"...Catharina, Maria Thins, Tanneke are all called by their names (when addressing each other or when Griet speaks of them).

I found the slap somewhat jarring, and out of proportion to Cornelia's action. Granted there is an immediate tension between the two which only escalates but as SandyM said, Griet is out of her element and I too would expect her to be more tentative and cautious as she feels her way and finds her place in the household. Granted, she was not raised to be a maid, it's only due to her father's accident that she finds herself in the role of a servant but I would still not expect such an action on her part given the circumstances.

(Tress) What kind of reaction would a sheltered teenage girl have to a handsome man? Overwhelming, especially if he were not only handsome, but powerful. Because he is the head of the guild, Griet's whole family is depending on Vermeer to save them from poverty, or worse. Their entire futures are dependent on him, until the brother finishes his apprenticeship. I think, to Griet, this would have given Vermeer an almost messianic appeal. To further mine that vein... (Linda) My favorite was early on when she first arrives. Griet is outside the studio and I looked around and saw the closed door. Behind it was a silence that I knew was him. ...there are many, many references to this charismatic "aura" that surrounds Vermeer. Griet doesn't have to actually see him to know he is there... or has been there. She can simply feel this aura that surrounds him. When she is in his presence, this "aura" is almost more than she can bear. And yet, at the same time, she is magnetically attracted to it. I once met someone who had this same type of charisma when he entered a room. It was almost electrical, and it even seemed as if the air crackled and the lights burned a little brighter when he was around. He'd had an extensive near-death experience after being struck by lightening. I've never forgotten what that felt like. It was a very attractive force... but also frightening at the same time. That type of energy would have been intoxicating to a teenager on the th eshold of her sexual awakening. (Tress) Also, has anyone noticed that they never mention Vermeer by name? It is always "he", "him", "my husband"...Catharina, Maria Thins, Tanneke are all called by their names (when addressing each other or when Griet speaks of them). Very good point. I hadn't noticed until you mentioned it.

(SandyM re: the slap) I know this action sets the stage for later tension in the novel, but it seems out of place at this stage in the narrative. Just MHO. (Kathy C) I found the slap somewhat jarring, and out of proportion to Cornelia's action. I had not thought about this until I read SandyM's post. It really is out of bounds. I cannot imagine slapping the child of your boss the first day on the job....regardless of what that child had done. And not only does she slap her, but (I am now home and have the book in front of me), she threatens to do it again! Cornelia threatens Griet with "I'll tell our mother. Maids don't slap us." and then Griet comes back with "Shall I tell your grandmother what you have done?" My goodness! Then if you read on down a bit...Griet senses "him" in the middle window on the first floor..."I stared but could see nothing except the reflected light". Does this mean Vermeer saw everything? The slap? Then Cornelia trying to sink the pot in the canal? I sense that he thinks the children are indulged by their mother (hope I'm not getting too far ahead here)...but do you think he would watch his child be slapped and do nothing?

(Sandy), there are many, many references to this charismatic "aura" that surrounds Vermeer. Griet doesn't have to actually see him to know he is there... or has been there. She can simply feel this aura that surrounds him. Griet also has the painter's eye. She feels the aura of colours like him and in the end she even suggests changes to his painting and he does abide. The colour arrangement of the vegetables on their first meeting speaks volumes. (Tress), Does this mean Vermeer saw everything? The slap? Yes. But he can't be bothered to interfere in the household routine. I cannot imagine slapping the child of your boss the first day on the job....regardless of what that child had done. But the author wanted to set up the tension between those two. I guess she had no other way to do it. Mayor flaw or mayor imposition? :-)

In the Sunday Times travel section this week , someone had asked for suggestions for what to do on a visit to Delft. Someone wrote back (one of you?;-) that the visitors should read this rather than a guide book as it gave a marvellous sense of old Delft and was very relevant for a current visit. For me the picture painted for us by TC of the city was one of the stronger themes in the novel, very visual, linking in with (Moon) ...the painter's eye . I agree that the slap felt manufactured but (Moon) I guess she had no other way to do it is probably right!

I really need to go back and review the book, but just a thought: modes of behavior and child discipline were very different in the 1600s.

I am not a big fan of Griet's character:"The maid from hell". I read the book twice. Could not abide it the first time.Although I admire TC's imagination. The second time , thanks to Sue, I saw it in a different light."A coming of age"novel...an insight into the lives of the people of Delft at the time etc. And as Lizza says: For me the picture painted for us by TC of the city was one of the stronger themes in the novel,... (Mari)..but just a thought: modes of behavior and child discipline were very different in the 1600s. Even the manner of a maid disciplining a child ? At first I thought it was to keep Cornelia from getting too close to the canal.But it was because she 'laughed'. The author's telling us that trouble is in store with Catharina. "This is how it will be with her mother I thought except I will not be able to slap her"

(Evelyn) I am not a big fan of Griet's character:"The maid from hell". LOL!! I don't know if I felt quite that strongly about it, but at times, I didn't find Griet's character sympathetic either, which is bothersome when she is your window to everything else in the novel. However, even with the prickles, I thought she was interesting. Vermeer was also a bit of a struggle at times. One minute, kind and compassionate, the next, aloof and cold, swinging from one extreme to the other with little provocation. That's probably an accurate portrayal of an artist's temperament, but it doesn't make him the easiest character for a reader to identify with. Perhaps, it was because we could only view him from Griet's POV. And though I enjoyed the tension of the attraction between these two less-than-perfect individuals, I couldn't help wishing I knew more of Vermeer's side of things, as it was hard to know if Griet's perceptions were accurate, or just the product of adolescent infatuation.

(SandyM)I couldn't help wishing I knew more of Vermeer's side of things, as it was hard to know if Griet's perceptions were accurate, or just the product of adolescent infatuation. As much as I loved this book, I always went back to reread Griets thoughts and dialogue with Vermeer. I have a hard time figuring out if she is giving us the real thing or is what she says coming from her growing infatuation. Was he cool and aloof, after Pieter comes to deliver the meat for the feast, or is she feeling overly sensitive because she is infatuated with Vermeer. Griet seems to think Vermeer is avoiding her because he saw Pieter smile at her. I agree, Sandy. I do wish we had another POV concerning Vermeer's character.

(SandyM) I couldn't help wishing I knew more of Vermeer's side of things, as it was hard to know if Griet's perceptions were accurate, or just the product of adolescent infatuation. (lindak) I agree, Sandy. I do wish we had another POV concerning Vermeer's character. I also wish we could have had a 'second opinion' on the relationship. Not even necessarily Vermeer's version (though he would have been my first choice), but I would like to get Maria Thin's account! If we believe Griet's narrative (and let's say she exaggerates her encounters with V), are we to believe what she says about Maria Thins as well? MT seems very in tune with the house (again Griet's POV). She seems to sense the attraction between her son-in-law and the maid. I often wondered, if what Griet is saying is true, why MT just observed? I would think MT would pull her daughter aside and have a little heart to heart. I am not sure I buy the fact that MT would keep the status quo just because Griet made V work faster. I also got the idea...a feeling maybe...that MT was a bit infatuated with V herself. Or at least, she appreciated his work in a way her daughter could not and it bordered on adulation...there are a couple of lines, after Griet is found looking at the painting of Van Ruijven's wife in the yellow mantle...."I gathered my broom and bucket and cloth. When I left the room, Maria Thins was still standing in front of the painting."

(Tress)....if what Griet is saying is true, why MT just observed? I am not sure I buy the fact that MT would keep the status quo just because Griet made V work faster. You have to look at what would be gained vs. what would be lost if MT said something. Gained: 1. V paints faster, therefore more money brought into the house to feed the ever growing household. Lost: 1. If MT said something, C would go ballistic (as she eventually did), and have Griet dismissed. If Griet were dismissed, they would have to take the time to find and train a new maid. 2. Also, if Griet were dismissed, any kind of "peace" or status quo that is keeping that household running would be severely disrupted which would more than likely disrupt V's productivity, therefore affecting their income. 3. With no income, they go bankrupt and lose all their possessions. And who knows where they'd all end up. They need to be sure to keep V happy and working. Plus he is still the head of the household and is to be obeyed.

(Dorine), They need to be sure to keep V happy and working. Plus he is still the head of the household and is to be obeyed. That is the material point. Without him they would not eat. I agree with all your points. (Tress),I also got the idea...a feeling maybe...that MT was a bit infatuated with V herself. She appreciated him as a painter. And, she knew Griet was a great help to him. There was always another baby on the way and he needed to paint. He did take a very long time with each painting.

(Sandy)Vermeer was also a bit of a struggle at times Agree. But I didn't want to hit-on both of them at once. (DorineThey need to be sure to keep V happy and working. (Moon)That is the material point. Without him they would not eat. IRL MT had other income from husband's estate. but it did not cover all the expenses.She is the head. But C. rules! I became frustrated with the paltry amount of V. bio in the book (can you tell I expected more ;-). so I checked out a book TC used as a source;

contd.. "Vermeer and His Milieu" It's a dull, dry book, but full of documented facts. Part of the intrigue of the book is Griet's imagination. She is intoxicated with V.. Her father had taught here to revere art. So even though she disliked the position as a maid (sleeping in a hole in the ground, FGS)she was excited about being so close to the artist that she had admired. Remember her dad pointed out The View of Delft by V.to her.

(Moon)That is the material point. Without him they would not eat. Didn't Taneke say early on to Griet that they could barely pay her wages? So, even if MT had some sort of income, they were in a bad way financially. I got the impression that MT was willing to look the other way with the infatuation, because his paintings were needed to pay the bills. I think she knew that Vermeer had to be kept happy in all areas. I also believe she knew what made him tick better than her daughter. Yes, Vermeer and Catharina had several children, but IMO, MT knew that C was not the warmest body in the house.

(Tress) IMO, I think her infatuation was immediate, that she was ready to connect with someone (of the opposite sex) outside her family circle and this made her pay particular attention to Vermeer... And she says (p.42), "No gentleman had ever taken such an interest in me before." So I think the combination of his noticing her at all, the connection they made over the arrangement of the vegetables, and (as Evelyn pointed out) her admiration of him as a respected artist would be enough to tip her over into infatuation. (Linda) Yes, Vermeer and Catharina had several children, but IMO, MT knew that C was not the warmest body in the house. As others have commented, it's frustrating that through our Griet's-eye view of Vermeer, we really don't know that much about the kind of husband and father he was. We see only small glimpses. Catharina seems extremely jealous where her husband was concerned - was this solely because she noticed something in his treatment of Griet, was she just a jealous person, or had he given her other reasons? Hard to say from the evidence we're given. (Tress) Also, has anyone noticed that they never mention Vermeer by name? Yes; that fascinates me. And at first Griet doesn't even explain who she's talking about - she just says "he" or "him". He so totally inhabits her thoughts that it's not necessary to explain. She calls him "my master" on occasion later in the book, but otherwise it's taken for granted who "he" is. And on another topic.... One thing I really enjoyed about the novel was TC's imagery. I also came away from the book with a sense that Griet's world was very quiet, and I wasn't sure why. This afternoon I had a chance to re-read the first 50 pages or so, and I paid special attention to the descriptions and analogies (as when she says she "could hear rich carpets in their voices" when describing Vermeer and Catharina). I notice now that Griet is primarily a visual observer of the world - most of the things she describes are things she sees, not things she hears or smells or touches. (Notice that even her description of their voices which I quoted above offers a visual analogy for the sound that she hears.) She doesn't describe the splashing of the water in the canal as the boats go by, the crackling of a fire, or the sizzling of the chops as they grill, as an auditory observer would. There are a few exceptions (including the jangling of Catharina's keys), but overall I think this is a fairly accurate generalization. Yet where Vermeer is concerned, she tells us about sounds and scents too. The first time she stands outside the studio, she refers to sound by its absence - behind the door, "the silence that I knew was him." Later, at times when she doesn't see him, she still reports hearing him talking to others. When she first enters the studio, she reflects on the sounds that would be muffled by the door, and she reports on the smell of linseed oil. It makes sense that Griet would be visually oriented, given that she is established from the start as someone who shares Vermeer's eye for color and composition, but it's interesting that her feelings for this equally visually-oriented man would bring out her other senses. I don't know if TC intended this, or if I'm reading too much into it, but Griet's multi-sensory experience where Vermeer is concerned shows her heightened awareness of him, vs. the others in the household who are for the most part peripheral players to her.

(Rika) Griet is primarily a visual observer of the world - most of the things she describes are things she sees, not things she hears or smells or touches. it's interesting that her feelings for this equally visually-oriented man would bring out her other senses. I don't know if TC intended this, or if I'm reading too much into it, but Griet's multi-sensory experience where Vermeer is concerned shows her heightened awareness of him, vs. the others in the household who are for the most part peripheral players to her. This is a very interesting observation and, too, wonder if this was TC's intention. The lack of Griet's sensory "awareness" may be a manifestation of a depression she may feel from being in a strange household with people who are certainly less than hospitable and, at times, hostile. She may even dull her other senses subconsciously (yet in a way deliberately) during times she is not with Vermeer to help her cope with her unhappiness. Then these other senses are "turned on" whenever she is in the studio and with or senses Vermeer nearby.

(Rika) Griet's multi-sensory experience where Vermeer is concerned shows her heightened awareness of him, vs. the others in the household who are for the most part peripheral players to her. Very good point. Griet's descriptions do become fuller when she is speaking of Vermeer. '"Catharina" the man said calmly. He spoke her name as if he held cinnamon in his mouth.' (sorry, just had to include that line...I love it). (me) I am not sure I buy the fact that MT would keep the status quo just because Griet made V work faster. (Dorine) Gained: 1. V paints faster, therefore more money brought into the house to feed the ever growing household. I just found a couple of lines that negates my 'MT wants Vermeer to work faster assumption' (because I thought she did want him to work at a quicker pace)...from Tanneke: "Mistress and young mistress disagree sometimes. Young mistress wants him to paint more, but my mistress says speed will ruin him." But now I wonder about Catharina. Does she have more children simply to make Vermeer paint faster? There are several times when it is mentioned that they have no money. More children cost more money. She could slow that process down by nursing them, but instead hires a wet nurse (more money) to feed them (and at the rate she has them, I think the wet nurse is practically a permanent employee). The house being full of children could possibly be more of a distraction to her husband than a motivator to paint faster...hmmmm... BTW has anyone else noticed Griet's hand obsession? Several times she notes Vermeer's clean hands, Pieter the son's dirty, bloody hands and her cracked and bleeding hands (I apologize for the reference...it couldn't be helped). This seems important to her.

Karen Do you have a library card? ;-) Just a short note to let you know, that I'm lurking. I do have a library card, and I've been waiting for the book from the library for 2 months, but until I get a chance to read it, I'll just enjoy your postings. Since this is the only topic, where I can submit anything, I'll introduce myself later where it is apropriate (I hope to hear from Karen).

(Dorine), She may even dull her other senses subconsciously (yet in a way deliberately) during times she is not with Vermeer to help her cope with her unhappiness. Do she ever say she is unhappy? I don't think so. Sure cleaning was a drag and hard work but she did it to help her family. (Tress), has anyone else noticed Griet's hand obsession? Several times she notes Vermeer's clean hands, Pieter the son's dirty, bloody hands and her cracked and bleeding hands (I apologize for the reference...it couldn't be helped). This seems important to her. And especially at the end, when she is summoned to Vermeer's house. She notices her dirty nails from the blood of the meat. Her aesthetic sense overall is high, even in her humble job. When she first starts working at the V house, she notices wrinkle sheets and yellow stained sheets. Young mistress wants him to paint more, but my mistress says speed will ruin him." This is another clue that tells us that MT appreciates him as a painter. Griet knows this and considers her an allied. This is also why MT lets Griet help him with the colours.

(Moon) Do she ever say she is unhappy? I don't think so. Sure cleaning was a drag and hard work but she did it to help her family. Does she have to come out and say it to make it so? And just cause she did it to help her family doesn't mean it wouldn't depress her or at least make her sad. Many people do things for their families that make them personally unhappy, esp if the course of their life and lifestyle was dramatically altered as was Griet's. If that were the case, there wouldn't be as many people in therapy. Unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to find examples of how I specifically would illustrate my point. Hopefully when I return late tonight I will.

(Dorine)Does she have to come out and say it to make it so? I agree. I don't have a specific reference to her unhappiness, but I never get the feeling that she is happy in the situation. Except of course for her infatuation with Vermeer. I think she was uneasy from the moment she arrived. We don't have verbal complaints, though, even when she describes the long days of endless laundry and cleaning. I just sense that she is not happy. Will look for specifics, if there are any, later this evening.

She wasn't exactly thrilled when her mother told her she had to take the job as a maid to help the family. "Mother: "You are to start tomorrow as the maid. If you do well, you will be paid 8 stuivers a day [ed note;how much is that?]. You will live with them" I pressed my lips together [ed note:she is v. obsessed with her lips] Mother:"Don't look at me like that, Griet....we have to, now your father has lost his trade" ...is not with Vermeer to help her cope with her unhappiness. I submit that her infatuation (read:fantacizing)with Vermeer was a coping tool to mollify her unhappiness . (Tress)Also, has anyone noticed that they never mention Vermeer by name? By doing this she de-personalizes her fantasy. Welcome Annette..hope you can join us soon. (I bought my book online second-hand for four bucks)

(Evelyn) you will be paid 8 stuivers a day [ed note;how much is that?]. Today it is a 5 cent piece...which doesn't help us out much. It appears to be our version of a penny (?). I don't see any lower denomination. (Evelyn) By doing this she de-personalizes her fantasy. But none of the women call him by his name....Maria Thins and Catharina also refer to Vermeer as "him", "he", "my husband", "my son-in-law". Maybe TC wants us to feel he is an outsider in his own home. He doesn't participate in the running of the household, leaving that to his wife (and MT who I think is really in charge). He paints and takes care of Guild business. Maybe his 'outsider' status makes us forgive him for his fascination with Griet. I think if they personalized him (called him Johannes), we may have a harder time with him grinding colors with the maid.

(Tress) I got the idea that MT was a bit infatuated with V. herself. I read that MT had a bizarre quarrelsome family and liked V because he was not. (Tress) Has anyone noticed Griet's hand obsession? I think the Dutch at that time were fastidious people in general in comparison to other cultures. Does anyone else have any comment on that? (Tress) Has anyone noticed they never mention V. by name? TC was hard pressed to put this book together because so little is known about V. I think she probably felt more comfortable telling the story of a totally fictional character. His character is in shadow. TC sets up distance between V and G. "He" was also in a predominantly female household. The Master. I think V. really liked women.

(Kathleen) "He" was also in a predominantly female household. The Master. Yes, I suppose when you're the only male in the house (except one or two babies) it's unambiguous. I think it's a little more notable the way Griet does it, though. The rest of them are talking to one another; Griet is talking to a listener who isn't part of the household, and yet still takes entirely for granted that everyone will understand who she's talking about. Did anybody else find it odd that Griet is a little politician sometimes? The way she handled Tanneke, for example - asking her if she really did all the work herself, and flattering her about her painting being at van Ruijven's house and so on. Where would she have learned that, at her age? It sounds like she's lived a fairly sheltered existence and there's no indication that getting by in her family required any excessive level of diplomacy.

Did anyone else get the feeling that Griet was also a bit of a narcissist? She comments at the beginning how the laundry had been carelessly done; then proceeds to do it in a better way (ed. note - read HER way). She thinks herself better at obtaining meat from the butcher than Tanneke had been. Later on, when Tanneke compliments herself on her cooking ability, Griet thinks to herself about how SHE has really made the pheasant better by basting and salting it when Tanneke wasn't looking. She even feels that she can prepare a better composition for a painting than V. can by changing the way the tablecloth is situated. Maybe she had an air of superiority around her that made the most of the other women in the household (Tanneke, Catharina, Cornelia) bristle. Only Maria Thins, who struck me as the "big picture" thinker of the household and thus, wouldn't allow tiny annoyances to cloud her emotions, was largely unaffected.

Does anyone think the Girl With A Pearl Earring looks like Shelly DuVal? I think of her everytime I look at it.I saw the same exhibit that Tracy Chevall probably saw in in DC many years ago. The paintings were unbelievably beautiful. Luminous. I can see why they inspired her to write. Do you buy TC's story about the headress? Seems a little dodgy to me. Anyone know anything about it? Also who do you all think GWAPE really was?

(Sandy) Did anyone else get the feeling that Griet was also a bit of a narcissist? Maybe she had an air of superiority around her that made the most of the other women in the household (Tanneke, Catharina, Cornelia) bristle. That is an excellent point! Some women (can't speak for men) can pick up a negative vibe in another with or without being able to identify it or articulate it. How each person chooses to react and interact with the person they pick up the vibe from is individual.

(kathleen) Also who do you all think GWAPE really was? Art historians differ. But most think it was one of his daughter. Do you buy TC's story about the headress? Seems a little dodgy to me. Anyone know anything about it? **The turban-like headress appears in another one of his paintings"Head of a Girl" at the Met in NY.These two "tronien (faces) were painted in a Turkish fashion" **Vermeer "social biography". You really have to hand it to TC . She is v. inventive to weave a story out of such little source material.

(Evelyn), You really have to hand it to TC . She is v. inventive to weave a story out of such little source material. (Rika), Where would she have learned that, at her age? It sounds like she's lived a fairly sheltered existence and there's no indication that getting by in her family required any excessive level of diplomacy. To weave such a story from little source material requires a few flaws. We also saw it with the slap. (Sandy), Maybe she had an air of superiority around her that made the most of the other women in the household (Tanneke, Catharina, Cornelia) bristle. True! Tanneke was jealous of her. Cath. was bothered by her and Cornelia resented her. All this made Griet appreciate V even more. To the point that even when he used her pretty much as a personal slave she still looked forward to meeting with him again.

Sandy, excellent point about the narcissism. She may have had no chance with Catharina in any case (since she may have taken umbrage at V's paying attention to Griet the first time they met), but she probably didn't help her cause. The reason it didn't seem to bother MT was probably that she was strong enough not to be threatened by it. (But, oh dear, now I'm imagining the Church Lady doing the Superior Dance. (kathleen) Also who do you all think GWAPE really was? (Evelyn) Art historians differ. But most think it was one of his daughter. At least some of them claim he didn't have any daughters old enough at the time it was painted, don't they? I think I read that somewhere though I'm not remembering the details. It's an interesting mystery, for sure. (Kathleen) Does anyone think the Girl With A Pearl Earring looks like Shelly DuVal? You know, there is a resemblance. (Moon) To weave such a story from little source material requires a few flaws. We also saw it with the slap. True. Another example for me is Cornelia. We've already discussed the role of the slap as a set-up for their antagonism, but wasn't Cornelia about eight? She seemed a bit too sophisticated in her revenge at times (as when she offers Griet the discarded doll to take to her sister right after Agnes dies of the plague). Unless, that is, Catharina was pulling the strings.

I read the slap as erratic behavior on Griet's part. I tell ya'...I see a personality disorder here.

On Evelyn's personality-disorder point, there does seem to be plenty of evidence: * Narcissistic tendencies * The slap * Obsessive fear of showing her hair What else?

(Evelyn Boake) I tell ya I see personality disorder here. I don't see the slap as part of personality disorder.In a large family there is not a lot of attention to go around and at least one of the kids may act out to get negative attention. I think Griet was very intuitive that Cornelia was one of these kids and went toe to toe with her from the first confrontation. Otherwise, Cornelia could have made her life hell in the house. Children with power can be scary little things. Slapping a child who got out of line was probably typical then.

(Kathleen), Slapping a child who got out of line was probably typical then. Exactly. As I stated before. Griet might have done the same to her sister in a similar circumstance. (Rika),What else? Her clean hands obsession. What I found strange was Griet bringing Pieter to the alley. There is a progression of how many things she allows him to do and all at a time when we know she is bothered by him. Why would she do that?

(Rika) Unless, that is, Catharina was pulling the strings. I felt that in the case of Cornelia, Catharina was involved. Maybe not overtly, but I think Cornelia sensed her mother's unease with Griet. Children, even at a young age, definitely can sense when something is going on in the household-especially between the parents. At first, I don't think she puts it all together, but as time goes on, Cornelia becomes increasingly antagonistic. However,(Kathleen) she is a scary little thing, and was probably so even before Griet enters the household. The turmoil that Griet created was all she needed.

(Moon) Her clean hands obsession. Absolutely! (Moon)What I found strange was Griet bringing Pieter to the alley. I agree, I think Pieter took her to the alley the first time and she was unwilling. After Vermeer sees her hair, she makes some explanation about loss of innocence at his hands. Then she goes and finds Pieter. Vermeer violated her and so she self-inflicts another violation? Don't quite follow that. Maybe she wanted Vermeer, couldn't have him, went to find Pieter. (Rika) Unless that is, Catharina was pulling the strings. I think so to. I'd read that MT's family was a bit wacky and Catharina is portrayed as unstable, temperamental in the book. Of all the children, Cornelia seems to identify w/Catherina and feeds off of her response. To Griet coming from a warm stable family it must have been like going to live with the Osbournes!

(Moon) Her clean hands obsession. Yup. After the hands business was mentioned here, I was re-reading the scene where Griet and Vermeer have their first real contact at his house (the scene with the camera obscura), and sure enough, she comments on how clean his hands are. (Kathleen) Vermeer violated her and so she self-inflicts another violation? Don't quite follow that. Maybe she wanted Vermeer, couldn't have him, went to find Pieter. That's how it seemed to me. It may not have been a deliberate choice on her part, but I think her frustrated desire for Vermeer drove her to Pieter. Of all the children, Cornelia seems to identify w/Catherina and feeds off of her response. Agreed, but I felt as though Catharina might also have been more actively involved in some of Cornelia's specific actions towards Griet. As I mentioned before, some of the things Cornelia does to Griet seem to be unusual choices for a child of her age. I'm laughing about the Osbournes reference, Kathleen!

(Kathleen) Vermeer violated her and so she self-inflicts another violation? Don't quite follow that. Maybe she wanted Vermeer, couldn't have him, went to find Pieter. (Rika) That's how it seemed to me. It may not have been a deliberate choice on her part, but I think her frustrated desire for Vermeer drove her to Pieter. Griet's hair and how she feels about it fascinated me. I think that once Vermeer saw her with her hair down, she felt 'used'. It was almost like her virginity. Something she wanted to keep and not just give away. Griet talked about her hair when Pieter asked her what color it was and how long it was...she lied to him. Told him it was dark and just past her shoulders, then she tells us: "I had hesitated because I did not want to lie but did not want him to know. My hair was long and could not be tamed. When it was uncovered it seemed to belong to another Griet-a Griet who would stand in an alley alone with a man, who was not so calm and quiet and clean [again with the clean reference]. A Griet like the women who dared to bare their heads. That is why I kept my hair completely hidden-so that there would be no trace of that Griet." Her hair became a symbol to her...once Vermeer saw it, she didn't have anything to hide from anyone. Hence the odd alley behaviour? I do think there was a frustrated desire as well, but I also think that she felt that now that V had seen her, nothing else mattered. V's reaction was odd as well. When he saw her hair, Griet says "At last he let me go with his eyes." Did Vermeer realize then that she was not his to have? Kathleen I also liked your Osbourne reference! Was trying to picture Vermeer yelling for Catharina the way Ozzy does "Sha-roooooon!"

closing....

(Rika)(the scene with the camera obscura), I couldn't figure out why she had Vermeer leave the room so she could look through the box alone. Another one of her disorders, I guess.

Slapping a child who got out of line was probably typical then A parent, yes...but by a maid? Did she not think she could lose her job and deprive her family of some extra stuivers? This is v. abrupt behavior.(Had I been Catharina, I would have canned her.) All these instances are contrived by the author, IMO.Griet's impetuous behavior in in direct contrast to the confrontation with Catharina at the end. (Rika),What else? (Moon)Her clean hands obsession. At the end...Pieter's father:"Now you know the world a little better you see there's no reason always to keep your hands clean. They just get dirty again" The author is constructing an arc for the coming of age finale. She wets her lips, presses her lips...

(Linda) I couldn't figure out why she had Vermeer leave the room so she could look through the box alone. Another one of her disorders, I guess. I almost forgot what topic I was on and made a remark better suited for 166. Deep breath. Center. Remember where you are. I can see her being very self-conscious at being unable to see him while she looked through the camera, and he must have understood because he readily agreed when she made the request. But more to the point, I think she was in emotional overdrive from the sensuality of putting on the robe and sensing the warmth and scent of his body. That could have been overwhelming for someone as innocent as she was, given that she was already infatuated with him.

At the end...Pieter's father:"Now you know the world a little better you see there's no reason always to keep your hands clean. They just get dirty again" We can say that Griet's saw the world as clean or dirty. V and her family even MT were clean. The other's were dirty. She lived in black and white but was always attracted to colours. When she was allowed the privilege of looking through the box she felt herself closer to the colours, closer to V. She could not have done it with him in the room because it felt dirty to her. Of course, after he sees her hair, there is stronger connection. He had seen through her "box" something no one saw. (Rika), That could have been overwhelming for someone as innocent as she was, given that she was already infatuated with him. And that goes for when he caresses her face and puts his finger in her mouth. Of course, the events that transpire following this eventually drive her to marry Pieter and thus she herself becomes dirty.

(Kathleen) I agree, I think Pieter took her to the alley the first time and she was unwilling. After Vermeer sees her hair, she makes some explanation about loss of innocence at his hands. Then she goes and finds Pieter. Vermeer violated her and so she self-inflicts another violation? Don't quite follow that. Maybe she wanted Vermeer, couldn't have him, went to find Pieter. It seems that so much of Griet's life was beyond her control, where she lived, what she had to do, when she could do it..Her going to find Pieter almost seemed an act of her taking charge of the very little she was able to control.

(Maria) It seems that so much of Griet's life was beyond her control, where she lived, what she had to do, when she could do it..Her going to find Pieter almost seemed an act of her taking charge of the very little she was able to control. And even then, one wonders ..what choice did she have? Her world was minuscule.Marrying Pieter not only rescued her from the life of a servant, but provided food for her family. I find this another facet of this novel: the struggle of women in the 17th C.to find their own values and place in a male hierarchy.

Not to change the subject, but how about that Maria Thins? She certainly knows how to work both ends against the middle. On page 152 she orchestrates events so that Griet must serve Van Ruijven at dinner knowing full well that Van R. will probably insist that Griet pose with him in V.'s next painting. She also knows that V. will object. V. has already expressed displeasure in the idea that Griet should pose at all. ... he(meaning Van R.) may ask that she (Griet I assume?) be in it. Yet, starting on page 157 she begins conspiring with Griet on how to avoid Van R., knowing all the time that the deal is already done (ed note: my interpretation). What was the point of these machinations? My guess is that it was to cool V.'s escalating interest in Griet by getting Van R. involved, and at the same time put Griet on notice that she was no more important to the household (V. included) than a puppet on a string, perhaps sensing that Griet, because of her color grinding duties, felt her elf to be something more than that. However, because she didn't want to overplay that hand, Maria T. also makes herself a (false) ally to Griet to help ensure that not only will Griet stay on in the household (after all, she was helping V. ) but also that Griet, from that point on, would have a more realistic sense of her place in the household's pecking order. Tricky, very tricky.

felt her elf oops... that should read "felt herself". Felt her "elf" gives an entirely different connotation to that sentence. Sorry.

(Sandy) My guess is that it was to cool V.'s escalating interest in Griet by getting Van R. involved But as smart as she obviously is, I would think that MT would realize that could backfire and stoke V's interest and jealousy over Van R's attentions to Griet especially knowing his reputation.

(Dorine)But as smart as she obviously is, I would think that MT would realize that could backfire and stoke V's interest and jealousy over Van R's attentions to Griet especially knowing his reputation True... My guess is she weighed the risks first, but then went ahead, knowing that something must be done to halt the progression of emotion between Griet and V. The future of the household was hanging in the balance. Catharina went about things differently. She just got herself pregnant every chance she could. ;-)

I'm drinking Bombay (but not as a martini, I bought the boxed gift that the liquor store had and got a beautiful martini glass in the process! [moon, you are wicked!]) I read GWAPE and was actually pleasantly surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. I can't exactly say that I visualize myself as Griet. I think of myself more of Vermeer's wife; very materialistic. However, I did enjoy the grandmother... (okay, too much bombay, making no sense!)

Just a short note to say, that I have finished reading the book, and agree on most of your observations. To me it was a very pictures book, and very valuable indeed to be able to put a face on most of the caracters. I found myself looking from the page, I was reading to the cover of the book to follow the painting, as it proceeded. As much as I wantet to feel sympathy for V, I found it hard. Perhaps he let himself be guided to much by Maria Thins. Tomorrow I will go through the earlier postings and that way enjoy the book once more. There's a lot more in my head about this book, but I'm afraid it will be borderline topic 166, so I'll just put a sock in it. Oh - heck, I picture V to look a little like Richard Curtois. So tonight I'll probobly be dreaming of Vermeer whispering old gypsypoems in Griets (no forget i - my) ear................... BTW, I haven't had any martini, just diet coke, and see where that got me.

I have just started reading GWAPE for the second time to refresh my memories of it. (The first time was quite a long time ago) It is interesting to read it with concrete faces in mind. As soon as I am a bit further into the book I hope to join the discusssion.

(SandyM) True... My guess is she weighed the risks first, but then went ahead, knowing that something must be done to halt the progression of emotion between Griet and V. The future of the household was hanging in the balance. Setting up a situation where the two of them were forced to spend much time together in a very intimate setting seems an odd way to halt the progression of emotion, though, doesn't it? I wonder if MT's motives were different. Getting van R. interested in a painting of Griet meant that V. got another commission, thus bringing more money in the door. Perhaps her greed temporarily overcame her common sense. Or she may have underestimated the sexual tension between V. and Griet. (Annette) There's a lot more in my head about this book, but I'm afraid it will be borderline topic 166, so I'll just put a sock in it. Yeah, I've had that problem too. Oh - heck, I picture V to look a little like Richard Curtois. If it turns out that way that wouldn't be all bad!

(Rika) Or she may have underestimated the sexual tension between V. and Griet. I think someone stated before, that everything in the book, is from Griets point of view. Reading the book, I didn't find anything in V's behaviore, that implicates any sexual attraction - except perhaps his last will; that she was to get the pearl earrings. Then again, that might just be a recognition to her eye for art? (The way, she handled the studio (the settings), and her correcting of the cloth). I was never any good at analyzing books, so just skip this post, if its to far out.

(Annette)I didn't find anything in V's behaviore, that implicates any sexual attraction - I think the interpretation of sexual tension between Griet and Vermeer is going to be one of those things that people will have opposite opinions about for a long time. If we choose to believe that this is strictly Griets POV, born out of her infatuation, then everything Vermeer does could be interpreted as exaggerated. If we choose to believe her, then I think there was a highly charged sexual tension between them-both before and during the time he painted her. We also have the will to think about. It could then be traced back to the first day with the vegetables. Was Griet's infatuation stirred because of his actions in the first place? I will be very interested in the film...I am anxious to know how this will be played out.

(Annette)I didn't find anything in V's behaviore, that implicates any sexual attraction - (linda) If we choose to believe that this is strictly Griets POV, born out of her infatuation, then everything Vermeer does could be interpreted as exaggerated. If we choose to believe her, then I think there was a highly charged sexual tension between them-both before and during the time he painted her. I read this book thinking that Griet had exaggerated many points...but when I came to the part about him putting in the earring...and putting his hand on her face and rubbing his thumb over her lower lip! Whoa! IMO, there was something there. Even if Griet exaggerated (she has no reason to 'make up' something that we are reading, so I tend to think there is truth in what she says, but that her view of things may be skewed). I try to imagine any other situation (except an infatuation) where a man would rub his thumb on a woman's lips. I don't think it could be viewed as totally innocent. I think if MT or Catharina had seen this, they would have been more than a bit upset. I think Catharina knows her husband enough to sense that what she sees in the painting, may be only what is on the surface.

(Tress)Whoa! IMO, there was something there That scene was probably the closest thing I ever read that screamed sexual intercourse, without there being any.

(Tress) and putting his hand on her face and rubbing his thumb over her lower lip! Whoa! IMO, there was something there. I agree. Unless she invented the whole thing, this sure suggests that he was attracted to her, at least in the moment. But I wonder if that came only after she became his model and he started concentrating on her for long periods of time? (Linda) That scene was probably the closest thing I ever read that screamed sexual intercourse, without there being any. Absolutely. The need for her to pierce her ears, the bleeding, and that she asked him to be the one to penetrate her ear with the earring.... that's all very overt.

He wouldn't be the first painter who fell in love with the subject of his painting. Not the person herself. Goya ...Pissaro.. Picasso...Gaugain; they all did at one time.

Don't know if this should be here or not, but I just watched 60 Minutes and they had a segment on the camera obscura. I didn't realize that this was such a controversial topic. Seems that most art historians don't believe that artists used it (it was stated that they 'traced' an image before painting it). A man named David Hockney wrote a book about it (he believes that Van Eyck, Rembrandt, Vermeer and many others used it as a painting tool). Hockney says you can tell that a camera obscura was used because the images are reversed in many paintings from the 1500-1600s. People appear to be left handed during this period. He also mentioned that the camera obscura helped the artist see reflections and light more realistically. The story was very interesting.

(Rika) Setting up a situation where the two of them were forced to spend much time together in a very intimate setting seems an odd way to halt the progression of emotion, though, doesn't it? Absolutely. I think the plan definitely backfired. When she set it up, Maria T. thought that Van R. would be in the painting, too. But V. decides to paint G. alone in one painting, and simultaneously begins a different painting with Van R. and two other women. (Odd, that. V. usually takes months just to finish one painting and all of a sudden, he's working on two at the same time). We find out later in the narrative that he is painting G. in secret. Before this, G. and V. were already spending time together up in the attic room (he painting; she grinding colors). (Tress) and putting his hand on her face and rubbing his thumb over her lower lip! Whoa! IMO, there was something there. (Rika) I agree. Unless she invented the whole thing, this sure suggests that he was attracted to her, at least in the moment. I agree with you both.

(Tress) and putting his hand on her face and rubbing his thumb over her lower lip! Whoa! IMO, there was something there. (Rika) I agree. Unless she invented the whole thing, this sure suggests that he was attracted to her, at least in the moment. (SandyM)I agree with you both. I have to correct myself. Od as it sounds, I had totally forgotten the "thumb on the lip" part. There must be something in the air. And off course V's resistance against painting Griet with Van R. should have set me straight. I think I was in a hurry, the first time I read the book, and will have to read it again more carefully.

(Tress) Don't know if this should be here or not, but I just watched 60 Minutes and they had a segment on the camera obscura... I also saw this. But I had read an article in the "Smithsonian" re: this procedure. David Hockney maintains that it's not cheating [oh yeah!] Not everyone can take an image and trace it to perfection on a canvas. Still.... (Tress) and putting his hand on her face and rubbing his thumb over her lower lip! Whoa! IMO, there was something there. Well, I certainly hope there's *something* in the film.But in the book I just saw Griet as the model for his canvas. IMO, He was in love with the "Girl with the Pearl Earring" not G. "Now that the painting was finished he no longer wanted me".... Of course, we don't know Vermeer's feelings...and that's where Colin's interpretation will come in. The first time I read the book, I took the story literally. The second time, I saw it on a different level.

(Annette), And off course V's resistance against painting Griet with Van R. should have set me straight. V knew what happened to the girl he painted with Van R and he didn't want it to happen to G. He liked having G around. She was sure a great helper too. I thought that MariaT had suggested G for the Van R painting so that G would end up disgraced by association and no longer in V's good graces. That would have taken care of the tension with Catarina. I was very surprised when he did caress her lips. I am curious to see if that scene will stay the same in the film.

(Evelyn) He wouldn't be the first painter who fell in love with the subject of his painting. Not the person herself. True, and I do think that was a big part of the attraction for him. But I thought he seemed to take somewhat of an interest in her beforehand too, probably because he recognized in her someone who shared his visual orientation. Then again, as a few people have pointed out, we're only hearing the story from Griet's perspective. (SandyM) When she set it up, Maria T. thought that Van R. would be in the painting, too. But V. decides to paint G. alone in one painting, and simultaneously begins a different painting with Van R. and two other women. I had forgotten about that. So V. outmaneuvered Maria T. Thanks, Tress, for the report on the camera obscura piece on 60 Minutes. Great timing for it to be shown (for us, anyway)!

I read the book a month ago, and my impression of V was that he used G and never stood up in her defence. I think I need to read it again. You have all brought up good points to look out for.

(Rika)I had forgotten about that. So V. outmaneuvered Maria T I agree, and then I have to ask the question...Why? Obsession with his subject, or something more? As Evelyn said, we'll just have to wait for the film interpretation.