(Leah)I read the book a month ago, and my impression of V was that he used G and never stood up in her defence. Depends what you mean by the word used (;-) . I felt the same as you the first time I read it..that he used his position as her employer to gain advantage by securing her affections as a model. He knew she was smitten with him; he was a man of the world. "No gentleman had ever taken such an interest in me before" (p.42) But I saw it in a different light the second time. His world was art and G. was part of that world while he was painting her. He didn't feel he had to come to her defense because his allegiance was to the Girl in the picture. I was disappointed with Maria Thins whose world was not art...she was the greedy one who set up the whole thing, gave her the earrings and then let Griet take the hit alone.

(Leah)I read the book a month ago, and my impression of V was that he used G and never stood up in her defence. (Evelyn) His world was art and G. was part of that world while he was painting her. He didn't feel he had to come to her defense because his allegiance was to the Girl in the picture My impression is that V was very aloof. He couldn't be bothered by anything having to do with the running of the house. Like Evelyn says, his world was art (and the Guild). He let the women of the house sort things out themselves, without bothering to step in and come to anyone's defense. Remember he didn't even come to his child's defense when Griet slapped Cornelia (assuming that he did see G do it). V doesn't seem to care about the consequences of his requests or actions. The fact that he tells Griet to pierce her ear (does he care that she may not want it pierced?) or that by asking G to wear the earring she could lose her job (and it is very important to her family that she stay employed). The only time I recall V coming to anyone's defense is when he refuses to paint G with Van R, and I'm not even sure his refusal is because he is 'defending' Griet. He may just be jealous because he does not want Van R to have what he feels he cannot (remember that Griet is warned by L to not get between these two men. That V has a special gift and G is just an object to him...I don't have the book in front of me, so excuse me if that is poorly paraphrased). Does he realize that the girl in the red dress is now ruined and feels responsible? Or does he truly care what happens to G? If he does, then his choice to have her grind colors, wear his wife's earrings and sit for him (all behind Catharina's back) seems odd. Unless he is just so absorbed in his needs, that he cannot be bothered with what will happen to G (that she is just an object to be painted). I do think that there was an attraction, but am interested to see how it is played out for us to see (is the attraction to Griet or The Girl with a Pearl Earring)?

He let the women of the house sort things out themselves, without bothering to step in and come to anyone's defense. Women , esp. servants had a v. low standing in 17th C. Delft. Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Vermeer's friends warns G. whe he sees her posing for "Girl".. "His eyes are worth a room full of gold...But sometimes he sees the world only as he wants it to be, not as it is. He does not understand the consequences for others of his point of view. He thinks only of himself and his work, not of you....the women in his paintings...he traps them in his world. You can get lost there." The triumph of the novel is that she refuses to get lost..she escapes.

(Evelyn), The triumph of the novel is that she refuses to get lost..she escapes. Actually, she has no other choice but to leave. Why would you say she escapes?

(Evelyn), The triumph of the novel is that she refuses to get lost..she escapes. (Moon) Actually, she has no other choice but to leave. Why would you say she escapes? I think she is trapped. She has dreadful choices: (1) Be ruined by Van R;(2) be ruined by Vermeer (she says so when he asks her to lick her lips and leave her mouth open for the painting...she also realizes that as soon as C sees the painting, she will lose her job, possibly ruining her family) or (3) marry a man (boy) who she does not love to make her family happy. Not many options for a maid in the 1600s...I think she knew she would be marrying Pieter (she alludes to that early in the book, saying something about "I know what that look meant for me." Again, don't have the book in front of me, so sorry for the poor paraphrasing). I think she put off the marriage (knowing it was inevitable) so that she could stay longer with V.

Evelyn), The triumph of the novel is that she refuses to get lost..she escapes. (Moon)Actually, she has no other choice but to leave. Why would you say she escapes? She escapes from this other world that she was infatuated with and grows up... to reality in her own milieu. She could have protested the accusations and told Catharina the real truth. Confronting both V. and MT...but instead she bore the consequences with head held high. She is triumphantly the real hero...the other characters wither beside her. I found the ending exhilarating.

(Tress) I think she knew she would be marrying Pieter (she alludes to that early in the book, saying something about "I know what that look meant for me." Her early knowledge that she'd wind up with Pieter really struck me too. Griet seems to see herself as powerless in most situations, which I suppose was pretty much the case.

(Rika) Griet seems to see herself as powerless in most situations, which I suppose was pretty much the case. Maybe the reason she keeps her hair hidden? She sees that she cannot control her environment, so she controls the one thing she has possession of...as long as no one sees her hair, she is safe and has some control. Once V sees her with it down, she realizes she has lost that last bit of control (she is ruined), so she may as well give Pieter what he wants (it now makes no difference)? I'm still trying to work out the hair issue (as you can tell)...

(Evelyn)Confronting both V. and MT...but instead she bore the consequences with head held high. She is triumphantly the real hero...the other characters wither beside her I agree, MT and V were pathetic when Catharina confronts G about the earrings. They each maneuvered Griet for their own purposes and, in the end, neither claimed any responsibility for their actions. I think V's actions are in keeping with the recent comments-he was aloof, she may have been just an object to paint, women were not important, etc. therefore his actions did not surprise me. MT, on the other hand not only pulled the strings where G was concerned, she also deceived her own daughter. (Moon)Actually, she has no other choice but to leave. I agree, and if she didn't she would have no chance at her only salvation, marriage to Pieter.

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. I think this may have to do with the fact that her father always had blue hands from paibting the tiles and still had after months of not working(p.7). She must have wondered how he could keep his hands so clean.

Excellent comments and observations about the book, which I've just enjoyed catching up on. I wanted to reread the book first - an activity that hasn't exactly been a picnic for me - but it is done. I'll just try to pick up on a couple of earlier comments that I feel the need to stick in my two cents and then join in the current topics under the miscroscope. (Tress) 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). That description stood out for me as well but for another reason. What did it mean? From a purely culinary standpoint, I wouldn't want a cinnamon stick in my mouth; it would taste bitter. A cinnamon-flavored candy might not be appropriate for the times. Cinnamon, being a spice, was a very expensive item at that time, just like the exotic materials V used to make his paints or the dyes used on fabrics that only rich people could afford (the yellow mantle vs Griet's brown clothing). Is Griet picking up on other senses here? The smell of cinnamon being so sweet? The richness of it? This is an interesting observation, but one that was not completely thought out IMO. (Tress) But now I wonder about Catharina. Does she have more children simply to make Vermeer paint faster? I get the impression that she loves having children, that it's not only her "only" contribution, but that she can be the center of attraction. Moreover, it is her only way to show the world how much V must love her, despite the fact that she has no role whatsoever in his world. (SandyM) 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 "air of superiority" was noticed by everyone from Pieter the father to vanR to Cornelia. But there's a source for it. Griet came from a family who had only recently lost its livelihood. Her father was a "master" tile painter; he was nearly an equal to Vermeer, the only difference being V was the headman of their guild. They were a respected family. The father's master status not only entitled them to benefits from the "disability fund" but his son was given more latitude than others at the tile factory; another boy would've been chucked out immediately. (Kathleen) 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. (Tress) I'm still trying to work out the hair issue (as you can tell)... Try thinking of hair as a woman's crowning pride and joy, one of her treasures, kept hidden, never cut, brushed nightly to a luxuriant sheen, not to be seen by other men unless she was a common tramp whose heads were not covered. Her hair defined the real her. V had seen the "real G" that only a husband would've on their wedding night. It was logical in G's mind to consummate the act. She was aroused by what V had done and , you know the rest. ;-) (Annette) Reading the book, I didn't find anything in V's behaviore, that implicates any sexual attraction (Tress) the part about him putting in the earring...and putting his hand on her face and rubbing his thumb over her lower lip! Whoa! Could there be a more erotic moment, but we still don't know if V was touching Griet or the girl in his painting. V is in another world when he paints, and it almost seems like his entrance into the backroom, where he observes her hair down, is like an out of body experience for him. That he never goes back tells me that it isn't a matter of the man knowing he's acted inappropriately, but that artist has what he wants: that glimpse of her hair to use in the painting. That's all. When he's feeling the face, it is erotic to Griet (and us and possibly him), but I'm drawn to the theory that it's the girl in the painting he's feeling. As Evelyn quoted van Leeuwenhoek (on p. 186): His eyes are worth a room full of gold...But sometimes he sees the world only as he wants it to be, not as it is. He does not understand the consequences for others of his point of view. He thinks only of himself and his work, not of you....the women in his paintings...he traps them in his world. You can get lost there." He also says, just before this: "You see, competition makes men possessive. He is interested in you in part because van Ruijven is." (Rika) They each maneuvered Griet for their own purposes and, in the end, neither claimed any responsibility for their actions....MT, on the other hand not only pulled the strings where G was concerned, she also deceived her own daughter. Did she deceive her own daughter? Her daughter seemed to know what had really transpired, and surely knew her mother's involvement in the sale/negotiation (aiding and abetting) of V's works. Instead, Catherina chose to make an issue out of a superficial issue, which could be easily disproved, so that they had "cause" to dismiss G out. I believe this was for public consumption and all knew it.

(Rika) They each maneuvered Griet for their own purposes and, in the end, neither claimed any responsibility for their actions....MT, on the other hand not only pulled the strings where G was concerned, she also deceived her own daughter. (Karen)Did she deceive her own daughter? Her daughter seemed to know what had really transpired, and surely knew her mother's involvement in the sale/negotiation (aiding and abetting) of V's works. You think Catharina knew that MT had given G. the earring? I don't. IMO they were all afraid to take on this pregnant woman who was obviously in a jalous rage. I did feel sorry for C. when she said to her husband:"Why didn't you ever paint me"?

(Evelyn) You think Catharina knew that MT had given G. the earring? Certainly, even if only at a subconscious level. He didn't get things himself. ;-) Of course, the conspirators didn't want to make matters worse with Catharina in this state, but I think everyone knew what was going on and it was a convenient excuse.

Here we go (p. 213) "Did you steal the key to my jewelry box and take my earrings?" Catharina spoke as if she were trying to convince herself of what she said. Her voice was shaky. Catharina knew from the minute that V took her side in the comb incident that G had a special relationship with her husband, and she would also know that he trusted her and she wasn't about to steal. That "all maids steal and listen at doorways" was common knowledge. Catharina (and MT) chose to take that accepted route vs one that would publicly humiliate them if known.

(Karen)(Rika) They each maneuvered Griet for their own purposes and, in the end, neither claimed any responsibility for their actions....MT, on the other hand not only pulled the strings where G was concerned, she also deceived her own daughter. No big deal, but just to clarify, I don't believe I was the one who said this.

OK, right. This belonged to Linda. Sorry. (Linda) They each maneuvered Griet for their own purposes and, in the end, neither claimed any responsibility for their actions....MT, on the other hand not only pulled the strings where G was concerned, she also deceived her own daughter.

(Karen)Did she deceive her own daughter? Her daughter seemed to know what had really transpired, and surely knew her mother's involvement in the sale/negotiation (aiding and abetting) of V's works. I still think she deceived her own daughter on a variety of levels. I do believe that C was aware of somethings, but I beleve MT deceived her more on an emotional level. (Evelyn)You think Catharina knew that MT had given G. the earring? I really don't think she did. If she did, then why the explosion? Surely if MT was not trying to deceive C, then wouldn't she have told her that Vermeer need G to wear the earrings? She didn't have a problem with other women borrowing her things for his paintings. Maybe deceive is not the word I'm looking for. Perhaps MT was trying to hide her dealings with V and G so that C would not suffer. Especially since MT obviously thought her actions were for the good of the household. She probably figured her son-in-law's infatuation and involvement would end once the painting was finished.

(Linda) I really don't think she did. If she did, then why the explosion? I don't think it was the earrings; it was the fact that he had painted G in that fashion, alone, just looking at him, something he hadn't done before. When it came to supplying V's models, G would fetch C's mantle, powder brush, etc. But the jewelcase was off limits to her. MT handled that alone. Remember how C was going nuts when the jewelcase and its contents were part of another painting and how she didn't trust it in the same room with G? On any logical level, C would know that G wouldn't just take the earring to wear in his painting. Either V or MT would've had to have given it to her. On another level, yes, that "maid from hell," who her husband sided with, was wearing her earring. It was not to be borne. Everyone would know. Public shame was involved, and surely she heard all the gossip too.

(Karen) Of course, the conspirators didn't want to make matters worse with Catharina in this state, but I think everyone knew what was going on and it was a convenient excuse. Convenient excuse for what? To can Griet? I can see where C. would be humiliated when everyone saw the painting with the maid wearing C's earring.So you think MT and C. conspired to blame G. for stealing the earring in order to appear blameless to the public ? That's a stretch, IMO.You're giving those women more credit than I would.

(Evelyn) So you think MT and C. conspired to blame G. for stealing the earring in order to appear blameless to the public ? Not explicitly. They didn't get together to cook up this scheme. This is how I see it happening. Catharina sees the pic and goes nuts. Everyone goes to see what is happening. She is sobbing her eyes out, screaming and pointing to picture, blubbering, "Y-y-you painted her and she's wearing my earrings." V goes to look out of the window. MT sends Cornelia the troublemaker out of the room and tries to console her daughter, saying, "It won't be so bad. Only VR will see the picture." Catharina blubbers through her tears, "but my earrings, they will know....ah, she must have stolen them." MT: "yes, that is what must have happened." MT looks at V who has turned back from the window; their eyes meet and he shrugs. Well, something like that. As you can see, I'm no screenwriter. ;-)

(Karen)This is how I see it happening....... ....Well, something like that. As you can see, I'm no screenwriter. ;-) OK, boss...I get it. Just keep your day job;-)

(Karen) V goes to look out of the window. I had a serious Mr. Darcy flashback when I read this. Karen mentioned something a few posts back about re-reading the book, and finding that quite a chore. The comment reminded me of a question I wanted to ask. We've talked about our liking or dislike for some of the characters (Griet in particular), but I don't think we've really talked about whether or not we enjoyed the book, have we?

(Rika) about re-reading the book, and finding that quite a chore Not because of the book, for other reasons. However, I did want to bring up another character/plot line that I thought were truly superfluous: Frans. I felt he served no purpose whatsoever and actually turned into a red herring at one point. Griet becomes very concerned because her brother is asking questions about the valuables within the V household and she fears trouble. Later, she mentions it again. As a reader, I expected something to come of this foreshadowing, but nothing did, much like Fran's role.

"It won't be so bad. Only VR will see the picture." But the painting never leaves their house. V does not sell it. He has it where he can look at it everyday. He is one annoying prick. Not only does G lose her job becase of him, but the painting remains where C has to see it everyday. Is there any likable character in the book?

(Moon) But the painting never leaves their house. V does not sell it. He has it where he can look at it everyday. The painting was sold to vanR as promised. It only came back into the house so he could see it while on his deathbed. Now what do we make of that?

'"Catharina" the man said calmly. He spoke her name as if he held cinnamon in his mouth.' (Karen) Is Griet picking up on other senses here? The smell of cinnamon being so sweet? The richness of it? This is an interesting observation, but one that was not completely thought out IMO. I think that when Griet describes Vermeer, she has a tendency to incorporate all her senses..she always describes textures, colors and smells more intensely when she is around V. I thought about it, and I don't think that G would have ever tasted cinnamon. She would have known about it, but I don't think her family could afford such a thing. Vermeer and his wife come from money. Griet's first encounter with them she says "I could hear rich carpets in their voices, books and pearls and fur." These first few sentences that are spoken about V set the tone for the infatuation IMO. He is different, exotic....so her senses perk up a bit when she does describe him... (Evelyn) I did feel sorry for C. when she said to her husband:"Why didn't you ever paint me"? I actually felt badly for her as well...even though I didn't like her through most of the book. She does want to be part of his world and he shuts her out of it. I don't know if it is because V is trying to protect C (he knows how men look at women in paintings) or because he feels C does not belong to the 'painting world' (she can't appreciate it, has no real interest in it). I do think that V loves C...he mentions converting to Catholicisim for her (a very big deal today, but I imagine in the 1600s it was even a bigger deal), and even G mentions how his eyes follow C at the birthing feast, and how "I had often seen him look at her, touch her shoulder, speak to her in a low voice laced with honey" The paragraph after that last sentence is interesing, because it shows the depth of Griet's infatution IMO: "I did not like to think of him in that way, with his wife and children. I preferred to think of him alone in his studio. Or not alone, but with only me." Yikes! (Karen) However, I did want to bring up another character/plot line that I thought were truly superfluous: Frans. I agree. I expect not to see him in the film...the only reason I could see to have him in the book was to contrast their (Frans/Griet) situations. A man can leave, start fresh again somewhere else, while a women is stuck, dependant upon others....I am probably reading waaaay too much into it, but that is the only reason I can see Frans being in the book.

(Karen) The painting was sold to vanR as promised. It only came back into the house so he could see it while on his deathbed. Now what do we make of that? What's more he left the earrings to her in the will. Of course he must have known that C. never wore them again. So it could have been in compensation for the trouble he caused. I am sure these scenes will be in the film.They just have to build -up the romance angle.mixing paints in the studio just isn't gonna do it.

(Evelyn)I am sure these scenes will be in the film.They just have to build -up the romance angle.mixing paints in the studio just isn't gonna do it I was just thinking this same thing. If all we have are Griet's thoughts and infatuations then we have nothing. (Karen)Now what do we make of that? I think that at the end of the book, I realzed that this wasn't just infatuation on Griet's part, what she felt was true. He desired her as well. I think the picture coming back to the house, more so than leaving her the earrings speaks volumes about what he felt.

(Linda)I think the picture coming back to the house, more so than leaving her the earrings speaks volumes about what he felt. I'm not trying to be adverserial here...but art and painting was his whole world. It could be that GWAPE was his favorite painting and he wished to see it one last time. Not necessarily because of the model. The other characters don't expand on why he wanted it back...only that "Papa asked to have the painting on a short loan". Of course this only adds to the ambiguity . Obviously TC likes to tease the reader this way.She does it constantly which is part of the mystique of the book.

(Evelyn)I'm not trying to be adverserial here... I brought my swords and dueling pistols;-) I know that art was his whole world, he could have borrowed the painting at anytime, but probably knew C would throw a fit. But she could not deny him on his deathbed. I think the timing of wanting to see it (knowing he was going to die makes me think he had a deeper reason to see it.)

(Linda)I think the timing of wanting to see it (knowing he was going to die makes me think he had a deeper reason to see it.) Put away the swords and pistols.....I'm into this romantic stuff...and desperately want to agree with you.;-)

(Evelyn)Put away the swords and pistols.....I'm into this romantic stuff...and desperately want to agree with you.;-) LOL. I desperately want to agree with me. I guess I am very wishfully thinking about the film and CF's interpretation being romantic.

(Evelyn) Obviously TC likes to tease the reader this way.She does it constantly which is part of the mystique of the book. I think this is the key. She's left the door open to multiple interpretations. It'll be interesting to see what interpretation they adopt for the film, because I don't think they'll get away with the same degree of ambiguity.

"I could hear rich carpets in their voices, books and pearls and fur." These descriptions I can understand, but still the cinnamon doesn't cut it for me. G's trying to get across a spicy sweetness when V says C's name. Uh uh. She could have just said "his voice had the spicy sweetness of cinnamon...." Poor editing to say he was holding cinnamon in his mouth. (Linda) I think the picture coming back to the house, more so than leaving her the earrings speaks volumes about what he felt. I too enjoy the ambiguity that surrounds their relationship. Did he or didn't he? Actually, I am looking forward to the "looks," the "touches" and grinding the paint in the attic. Plenty of opportunities for erotic romanticism there. Don't you doubt it.

Rika asked if we liked the book. I probably wouldn't have read it if not for the CF connection. Never found the GWAPE painting particularly engaging although I love many of Vermeer's other works. Even so, any picture can speak volumes. TC's story doesn't ring true to me for this painting. But still enjoyed reading about life in Delft at the time. Also liked learning more about Vermeer. Would have like to have read TC's take on the Procuress. What was that nice Catholic boy Vermeer doing in that brothel with a big smile on his face?

(Linda)I guess I am very wishfully thinking about the film and CF's interpretation being romantic. I'm trying to be v. optimistic about this. The first time I read GWAPE the eroticism came across a little like "Lolita". Scenario: Wife is in her last trimester of pregancy with child # 6 , was it? I'm thinking: "What is this old guy doing fondling this maid's face anyway...is he looking for a place to park his salamy?" I doubt Colin will play it that way. But it was a big turn-off in the book for me.I could never get a romantic element out of this book.

(Karen)Plenty of opportunities for erotic romanticism there. Don't you doubt it. Not for a minute, I'm counting on it.

(Tress).....cinnamon in his mouth.' (sorry, just had to include that line...I love it). (Karen)That description stood out for me as well but for another reason. What did it mean? After reading the english version, I just got the danish translation from the library. In the danish translation, the cinnamon is just translated to "something", so I guess the translator couldn't find any meaning in the use of cinnamon. Neither do I. I think the phrase sounds nice, but why?

Just to clearify the "cinnamon" posting above: the english version "Catharina, the man said calmly. He spoke her name as if he held cinnamon in his mouth" the danish translation "Catharina, the man said calmly. He spoke her name without moving his lips, as if he had something in his mouth". I guess the danish translation wanted to show, that the "correction" of Cathrina was very discreet.

"Why didn't you ever paint me"? Would V paint a picture without the order of a patron (could he afford the time and the money)? Or would he even accept the order if a patron wanted a picture of Catharina?

"Why didn't you ever paint me"? (Nita)Would V paint a picture without the order of a patron (could he afford the time and the money)? Or would he even accept the order if a patron wanted a picture of Catharina? Good point , Nita. Too bad V. didn't think of that answer. He might have averted a lot of trouble;-) Instead he gave her an inane answer . But then TC would not have had the bitter-sweet ending.

Annette, thanks for the translation. That's what I presumed the "cinnamon in his mouth" description meant - that he spoke carefully, perhaps just murmuring without moving his lips much. But I agree with Karen - it's unnecessarily ambiguous.

Sorry to have made an issue about the cinnamon, but ambiguity isn't the problem nor is the Danish translation any help (sorry, Annette, but we're going with the book as written in its original language). The set up is Catharina has caught her mantle on a knife, which has fallen and spun across the floor. She cries out and then V says her name "calmly." Griet interprets the way he said her name as if he held cinnamon in his mouth. My feeling is that she is thinking it has a spicy sweetness to it, like a baking smell, or as if it were a candy. Griet would be getting her first intimations of the couple's attraction for each other. But obviously TC has no idea what having cinnamon in one's mouth would really be like. Ugh! Tree bark! ;-) Many painters painted without specific commissions during later periods, but at that time and prior it seemed more commercial.

(Karen)(sorry, Annette, but we're going with the book as written in its original language). It was never my intention to do otherwise, just to show another "point of view". I see, what your feelings around the "cinnamon" part is, and I can easily follow that line. I guess, this is my problem (problem is not the right word, more like challenge) with this board, that you are offered so many different interpretations/oppinions, that you tend to see the meaning of most of it. So - as I said from the beginning - I don't expect to have anything to contribute (sorry), just to observe and learn. Another observation. I found it interesting, that V is supposed not to be bothered with "domestic" issues and spends most of his time at the Guild or in his studio, but at the same time, TC gives the impression, that he is close to his children. We learn, that he carries them around the house, and they jump at him, when he enters the house (as far as I remember). This makes me a bit "uneasy". I can't quite find "the red thread" (if you know that expression)

(Annette) So - as I said from the beginning - I don't expect to have anything to contribute (sorry), just to observe and learn. Pish tosh (do you know that expression, as I have no idea what a "red thread" might be). ;-) You have as much to contribute as anyone here. It was just that the Danish translation seemed to take a completely different slant on what TC wrote, by making it appear as though V was mumbling because he had "something" in his mouth. It changed the meaning by giving it a physical rather than sensual description. OK, what's the "red thread"? Insofar as V playing with his children, it seems analogous to Bridget's comment about men twiddling a fork under a running faucet as their contribution to cleaning up. ;-)

(Karen)Pish tosh (do you know that expression, as I have no idea what a "red thread" might be). Oh yes, I think I get that one.;)D The red thread: Once again, words fail me (imagin Ken Scott). It is when something sort of connects a line of events. Ex, BJD the diary part keeping the story connected. Or FP (which I think you've heard of ;)D) where the red thread would be Paul and Arsenal. Sorry for the very unarticularly way of expressing my self. It's getting late, and english isn't my best! (I hope, I've got the "winking part" right). Back to GWAPE, I can too relate to Bridgets comment. It's just that in many of the books from that time, the children are often very "distanced" from their father. Perhaps, it's just TC putting some observations to the story to get an opertunity to describe V and Griets observations of him. Now, I'll stop. I hardly understand myself.

(Annette)Now, I'll stop. I hardly understand myself. Hang in there Annette, Just like I said, I'm desperately trying to agree with myself on how this will be portrayed in the film. I think it is the nature of the story itself, we have only one point of view--that of a young girl. Everything we try to read into it comes from her interpretation of events in the first place. So you are not alone, Annette. Hang in there. I don't know about red threads but maybe they are kind of like red herrings in mystery novels. Lots of things pointing to a particular scenario, but in the end it wasn't that way at all. They were just put in our way to confuse the heck out of us.

I'm not sure we have a specific expression like "the red thread" but as you've explained it sounds like a continuing motif of sorts. One last comment (I swear) on the cinnamon issue, TC just wrote it badly and her descriptions are not terribly unique. The most lasting descriptions come from The Great Gatsby, when Gatsby describes Daisy's voice as "full of money." Simple yet vivid and one of the best in lit.

(Karen).... on the cinnamon issue, TC just wrote it badly and her descriptions are not terribly unique. I dunno about bad...not unique, as you said... Gabriel Garcia Marquez uses cinnamon as an adjective to convey sensuality.

Have it on good authority that Tracy thinks the cinnamon part should have been edited out - no meaning to it. If you want to read a couple of quick little blurbs about life in the Netherlands, servant girls, role of women, street life many others: http://www.olivetreegenealogy.com/nn/amst_intro.shtml Make sure to page down to see the table of contents.