Wellesley Book Group

Fermat’s Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World’s Greatest Mathematical Problem by Simon Singh
Discussion recapped by Helen

Bonnie, Anne-Marie, Susan K, Renee, Jean, Anne, Joan, and Helen met at Joan’s house to discuss Fermat’s Enigma: The Epic Quest to Solve the World’s Greatest Mathematical Problem by Simon Singh. Joan provided delicious snacks including a carrot cookie she’d cut the edges off to make a “square root.” She also provided a fabulous three-bridge view that hadn’t been visible when we’d met there in the dark of winter.

Helen, who had suggested the book and who wrote this summary, led the discussion.

Andrew Wiles, who finally solved The Enigma, and his predecessors provoked a lively discussion. Most of us enjoyed the book, and thought Singh had done a good job of introducing some history of mathematics, what makes mathematicians tick, and the quest for the solution to a famous unsolved problem. With the exception of a few questions that Helen and Bonnie tried to answer, we thought that he had done a good job giving us enough technical detail without losing us in the abstractions of higher mathematics although public/private key cryptography remains pretty much a mystery. And we all loved the story of Sophie Germaine.

We noted the contradiction between the collegiality and sharing of ideas that Singh mentioned is common among many mathematicians, and the secretive brotherhood of the Pythagoreans (although at least they were enlightened enough to admit some “sisters”) and Wiles’ clandestine research in his attic.

Some of the other questions that came up were:

• Are mathematicians weird; do they lack social skills, present company excepted, of course?
• Was Wiles’ driven intensity and instinct for solitude any different from that of creative geniuses in other fields? Think Beethoven; think Salinger.
• Do individuals in other fields work in isolation or share ideas and data? (Joan commented on the lack of accessibility of data in the scientific and medical fields.)
• How is math being taught now? How is that different from the ways we learned it? How widespread is the use of cooperative group learning, and is it effective?
• And what about Lawrence Summers comment about a possible biological reason for the lack of female science and math professors at Harvard? That led us into a discussion of differences in learning styles of boys and girls and the advantages and disadvantages of trying to address them.

Several people remarked that one of their reasons for joining the book group was to read and discuss books they probably wouldn’t have picked up otherwise and that Fermat fit that category nicely.

The Story of a Marriage by Andrew Greer
Discussion recapped by Fran

Our meeting last night at Jean’s house to discuss The Story of a Marriage by Andrew Greer was well-attended and included several members I hadn’t yet met. Apologies if this is incomplete or incorrect, but I think we were Fran, Ann, Anne-Marie, Jean, Helen, Sheila, Josephine, Joan, Bonnie, and Renee.

Jean graciously supplied me with pen and paper to take notes, on the theory that this would help me better recapture the lively debate, but I got so caught up expressing my own opinions that my cryptic notes are not going to become a very complete or coherent summary. (What the heck does “A. handicapping herself” mean?) It’s also everyone else’s fault for having so many interesting observations.

Most of us enjoyed the book very much, and Anne-Marie was heartily thanked for her selection. Greer’s prose was described both as ‘lyrical’ and ’spare’ - although, interestingly, an excerpt that one member singled out for praise (the bit about formation of pearls, which I also liked) another found overwrought (particularly in light of the narrator’s name). Was the pearl symbol overworked (it reappeared in the story of the necklace burned black in a house fire in which the owner lost her husband)? Another recurrent symbol was the bird - the “bird in the hand” on Pearl’s glove, the bird who dies flying into the window.

We started by discussing the role of racism. How would the novel been different if Pearl and Holland had been white? All of us assumed until page 48 that Pearl was white. Some wondered if they had missed something (upon re-reading, you can pick up a number of clues), but given that we all fell for it, it seems clear that Greer’s “surprise” was intended to fool the reader. Would this be a plot twist for non-white readers?

We discussed Holland, a central character (around which the action revolves, and who is one-half the marriage that the book is ostensibly about), but about whom we learn little, other than his good looks. We can only infer things about him from other characters, such as Pearl’s and Buzz’s view of his sexual orientation, their suspicions about his attraction to Anabel, the aunt’s references to his ‘crooked heart’ and ‘bad blood.’ Several noted the fact that Holland’s good looks are repeatedly described with reference to his light skin: in the black(er)=bad/worse, white(r)=good/better tradition.

The ambiguity and ‘doubling’ of Holland’s sexual nature (Anabel/Buzz) seemed to be mirrored in other aspects of the novel. There are the aunts (who are virtually indistinguishable from one another, or at least are a matched set, until one marries late in life). The aunts’ relationship/partnership is akin to Pearl’s and Holland’s marriage, but their bond is broken by a ‘real’ marriage. Another marriage that we hear about extensively is the Rosenbergs - in particular, Ethel, who (literally) loses her life because of her marriage. Marriage being valued in monetary terms: Pearl’s payment to Anabel and Buzz’s bargain with Pearl.

The divide amongst those who loved the book and those who didn’t seemed to generally depend on whether the reader had made an emotional connection with Pearl or not (although I think at least one member said that she had not, but it didn’t matter to her). After thinking more about the book that night, I decided it would have worked better for me if Pearl’s story had not been told in the first person. Having partial insight into her thought processes and emotions was exasperating and, ultimately, felt manipulative. The point that Pearl’s generation didn’t share their intimate thoughts and feelings the same way we are accustomed to do is certainly valid. But then she shouldn’t be writing a book about her marriage, or “telling” at all; she shouldn’t purport to write a book about the secrets of her heart and her marriage, while leaving so much unanswered. At a minimum, she cannot claim this is “the” story of a marriage; at most it is “a” story — one story, the story she chooses to tell.

Postscript: Trying to find the correct spelling of Anabel’s name (bel or belle?) I found this New Yorker review.

A Pigeon and A Boy by Meir Shalev

Sorry, no recap was done.

My Name is Red by Orhan Pamuk

Sorry, no recap was done.

Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Discussion recapped by Bonnie

We met at Bonnie’s house to discuss Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, recommended by Rachel N and Ariel. Attending were Anne-Marie, Helen, Jean, Josephine, Georgia, and Bonnie. Josephine provided theme related snacks, including a couple of tasty Dutch gouda cheeses.

We were all glad to have read the book, and we marvelled at Hirsi Ali’s recollection of details from her childhood. We speculated that her memories may have been enhanced by her grandmother’s early instruction in the history of her family and clan, a Somali cultural tradition. We went on to discuss politics, religious fundamentalism, multi-culturalism vs. integration of immigrant communities (melting-pot), the power of literature to expand one’s horizons, the subjugation of females, physical and psychological abuse, and violence, which were all issues raised in the book. We also discussed differences between autobiography and memoir and the differences between Hirsi Ali’s life and that of her siblings. In all, it was a very thought-provoking book.