Why the contrast of Maybelle and Himillsy? Are they a reference to the lead character's awakening understanding of art? Is it Modernism to PostModernism? Extremes of ignorance to understanding? Speculation and outrageous theories, please...

I believe they represent the two poles of how one's knowledge of art is viewed by anyone already indoctinated into The Arts: everyone is either simpleton or sophisticate. (As Ken Kesey might say, either "on the bus or off the bus.")

With them at either end of the spectrum, Kidd charts out a middle course for his protagonist. He gets to be neither naive nor jaded, but some sort of combination of the two: sophisticated enough to try to one-up Himillsy and see Dottie for the fool she is, but still innocent enough of art history/society to be outside the insularity and elitism it tends to foster. This makes for a protagonist that should be easy to like, but one that, in my opinion, is a little hard to believe (and stomach) sometimes.

e. "Oh. Oh. My god. Terrible." Is it surprising that someone who seems so confident appears to rely upon an uber-realistic doll to deal with the loss of a sibling? Is that really all there is to it? Does the way she interacts with it say anything else about her? Is she making a statement by sending it to him for Christmas?

Baby Laveen is one of the most bizarre characters I've read about in a while. Mainly because of the implication that it is to replace a lost sibling and that Hims would have such a strong attachment to it. But at the same time have no regard for it as she, at one point, painted stigmata on his hands and feet.

I hope this doesn't represent any weird fixation of Chip, as it would be very disturbed.

For some reason I picture Baby Laveen like Buddy Lee ( the Dungaree's doll.)

>This makes for a protagonist that should be easy to like, but one that, in my opinion, is a little hard to believe (and stomach) sometimes.

I'm sure Chip is tired of this comparison, but if you read any of David Sedaris books, which are mainly autobiographical, you'll see that somebody like that exists.

I have a stupid question, what is his [the protagonist, Happy] actual name?

I'm afraid I haven't read it since it came out, but doesn't he lack one?

c. There are so many funny lines in the first half that it is hard to choose a favorite. Any suggestions?

YES. I highlighted my favorites:

1. Why couldn't we have been English and sensibly frosty?

2. Dad shook my hand vigorously—as if we were meeting for the first time and he wanted to make a good impression.

3. Hims: I hate Magritte!

Happy: Who the hell was McGreet?

(Probably my favorite)

4. Hims: Stuck in the Louvre all day?

Happy: The loove?

(I'm just a sucker for these ones)

5. He took the match from his teeth, struck it against his left temple, and offered it to her: Me Greck—girl take gift of fire

I'm sure Chip is tired of this comparison, but if you read any of David Sedaris books, which are mainly autobiographical, you'll see that somebody like that exists.

Sedaris is similar in some ways, but his vulnerability (often masked by bluster, but obvious all the same) makes him more truly sympathetic, while Happy (for lack of a better identifier) seems more like a Richie Cunningham type; perfectly capable, just a litle bit lost.

I suppose in many ways this makes him more broadly appealing, since this is probably a pretty common profile.

Speaking of other authors suggested by this book, the scene in which Himillsy drags Happy to the diner on their first outing together reminded me very much of a scene from Murakami's Norwegian Wood. Anyone else think this?

While I enjoyed the book, I wouldn't put a lot of stock in the significance of the characters. Each in their own way is a fantasy creation--Maybelle the typical perky debutante, well-meaning but limited (Reese Witherspoon to play her in the movie); Himillsy the basic romantic bohemian (played by Christina Ricci in the Hollywood version, Chloe Sevigny in the indie version); and of course Sorbeck (played maybe by that guy with the long hair in Roadhouse, or else Sean Connery).

I felt like the period (1957-58) the book was set in wasn't nailed down, except that it allows knowing references to stuff that hasn't happened yet--mainly Himillsy's "Is Nothing Sacred" as a pre-tribute to Yoko Ono's art and Clement Greenberg (nobody hated him in 1958--he was untouchable, then). But all that is just in the spirit of fun that's the basic motivation of the whole book.

The design stuff was excellent. I was sorry not to see what everyone else did for their identity--the fingerprint assignment disappeared. And the switch to Bodoni, as if a light came on, was neat. I'm going to go back and find some of Sorbeck's observations that would be relevant here.

Favorite line (abridged):

Yes, Garnett was an Architect. Were a psychoanalyst to approach him and say "Humanity," Garnett'd spin and respond, without hesitation, "Solvable."

f. When do you think you finally 'got it?' Meaning...when was your epiphany in your understanding of art or design? How did it happen? Were there several occasions? For me there were probably dozens of times where I couldn't believe that I hadn't realized something sooner. This seems to be a major theme of the book.

My first two years of college in the design program were very blah, I mean, how important was it to turn a potato into a stamp. The thirs year I had some better classes with real design projects and I guess that's when I figured out I liked this stiff and I was kind of good at it. That year also marked the first time I Spoke Up, and started losing all my class-friends. See, in Mexico everybody cares about the grade more than what they are learning and I have never cared for the grade so I was the only one to critique anybody's work, not even the damn teachers would do it.

Getting a job in the US straight our of college gave me confidence in what I did and said. Knowing that I could make a living of doing what I love the most (besides the Mrs, of course) was a cincher in my love for design. And I really don't picture myself doing anything else.

I also don't think I can pinpoint the exact moment or instance in which it happened.

f. When do you think you finally 'got it?'

Honestly? I still don't get it.

Looking back I would have to say that my getting it is divided into two phases. The first, going to school in Mexico and waking up one day realizing that I was hating everything I was doing, all my classes, my teachers, my classmates basically everything that surrounded me and my decision to go into design. But I am still here. I decided the problem was not in design, but in the school, the teachers and students who were not serious about design, and did not really care.

That is the beginning of the second phase, I moved to Atlanta, enrolled at the Portfolio Center, and discovered I loved working for hours and hours in creating and developing projects, I was overwhelmed as I discovered concept development, idea sharing, and open discussions. Sound strange? Up until that point I had no idea they existed. That was my turning point (and Sam can testify to this), when I realized that no matter how hard I worked, how many hours, more could be done, more discoveries and new ideas could evolve... anything could be born.

There is a part of the first semester that we are missing. Dottie's class. I mean, c'mon... Colonel Percy? The headless Kiwi? Mr Peppie? These are pretty good parts of that first semester.

Following Sam's casting director debut, I would probably get Susan Sarandon to play Dottie's part.

Did anybody have to take drawing classes in college? I did and I hated every frickin minute of it. I suck at drawing so that is one reason, but I really never saw the point of it. Ok, ok, I do see the importance of knowing the basics of drawing, but they didn't have to make me take 8 classes of it. I flunked once and I had to pass a trip to Vancouver to go to summer school and make up for it. We had to draw two liter diet cokes, bottle caps, cloths tied together, kids' toys. It sucked.

I think I finally got it, when I realized that there is a design community out there. There is a lot to see, a lot to read, and a lot to experience. It was kind of a revelation, it wasn't so distant anymore. It was a really good feeling now that I think back on it.

But back to the last topic of drawing class. I would love to have a drawing class in exchange for my "Illustration Techniques" class. I don't care about paint, watercolours, or airbrushing, in fact I hate it. I don't necessarily like markers either but I will just have to deal with it.

I just have to laugh when they say these will be great in our portfolio.

---Interlude---

I expected a bigger response for this book discussion. Since this is the first time we do it, and the fact that a whole new section for things like this is being created, I would love to get some feedback on what could be done to make it better. There is a lot to talk about the cheesey fellows, but this thread hasn't caught as much steam as I had hoped.

Open to recommendations and suggestions.

Thanks.

It's 4:39 am and i just finsished the book. i cam online for some sort of feedback to counter my own thoughts. I really don't think this is a comming of age novel as much as i think it's a perspective novel. What amazes me the most about it is that all the charecters hold on to one thing to define themselves and when it is gone they fall apart. I know it's late and i should think more, but if you really think about it this book's charecters blow your mind.

Also, I'm only 19 yeas old, and perhaps i have alot of growing up to do. But as someone at the same age as the nameless protagonist i think it's amazing that Kidd captured the depth of his charecters without saying anything about them. When looking at "Happy", "Girleene", and Winter, you know so much about them and what is driving them, but all Kidd showed you is what they did. Amazing book in my opinion.