Geisha revisited.

Valerie and I seem closer on this than Emily (or indeed Ruth) and I do. For the two Vals, I think it is a matter of how heavily we weight the good and bad elements - on the element themselves we largely agree (as so often). And as I said, I’m puzzled myself on why this book infuriates me so much, and I think it is because Golden seems to me to act as an apologist for the system – which is not so in the other books Valerie mentions, at least, I don’t think so. I would recommend it to no-one, and certainly would have advised both daughters not to bother… hey ho.

As to the ‘happy’ ending Emily: I’m just grateful that we didn’t have a tearful reunion with the sister, which I kept thinking was surely round the corner. Maybe we have an editor to thank for this?

You did yourself a favour in reading the Bone People instead, Kirsty. I loved it both times I read it: and it has the unique distinction of being the only book I so enjoyed reading (the first time) that I deliberately (re)read another at the same time to make it last longer – Galsworthy’s The Saint, since you ask. I wouldn’t put it in quite that catergory second time round, but then books never impact on me the same on different occasions. I’ve just reread Alan Paton’s Cry the beloved country, which I really loved this time, but was only mildly in favour of 20 years ago. This inclines me to think that my personal context is a major factor in how I respond to and rate fiction. Do you all find the same?