Right. That's the revelation I'm talking about. I'm unclear on why it was revealed, to wit: either it's a Big Reveal, and has Meaning to the rest of the book, or it's just a mundane detail and needs neither obscuring nor revealing.

Moreover, I thought Andrew's explanation for why so many of the people in the body are male was mealy-mouthed and foolish. Just saying "Andy Gage was born with a male soul" doesn't mean anything or tell me anything. WHY is this so? What does this say about Andrew as the head of household? Why doesn't this affect his sexuality more, problematize it, problematize categories?

And you know what? I've known a couple of women who dress like men, and it takes a lot more than just some baggy clothes to actually pass for male. If we're seriously to believe that Andrew passes, well enough that Julie doesn't guess it till she goes crotch-grabbing, what kinds of tools and techniques is he using? Because body language alone won't cut it.

I think I walked into the novel with expectations that ended up being confounded. I expected/wanted it to be more transformative, more revelatory, more doubtful of the standard order of things. But it tended to buy into most of the classic therapy verbiage about DID, without much in the way of question, and didn't feel like it was breaking a huge amount of ground on that front. I guess what I wanted was for a larger metaphor to which the houseness and ordering-ness related, and didn't get that.

KristinT, another Ruff fan! I went to Cornell for 3 semesters, and had friends who lived at Risley, so Fool on the Hill is one of my sentimental favorite books.

I've stayed in Grisley a couple of times (functions at Cornell), and I have much Fool on the Hill love. Haven't read it in ages. I should remedy that.

I expected/wanted it to be more transformative, more revelatory, more doubtful of the standard order of things.

Hmm. I was disappointed in the end, I felt, but I loved the central conceipt of the house, and the way that Ruff conveyed that through the novel. I also missed a chunk of the story in the middle because a folio was missing.

What I did think was remarkable was how hopeful and human it all was, especially given the backstory of Andy and Penny. I don't like reading about abuse, but this didn't feel like a novel about the abuse.

either it's a Big Reveal, and has Meaning to the rest of the book, or it's just a mundane detail and needs neither obscuring nor revealing.

I dunno. I liked that it was there and it didn't have a big meaning, that it was just part of the story that didn't come up until that point. Although, yeah, Ruff concealed it until halfway through, and usually that bothers me. But I didn't feel as manipulated as I usually do in those circumstances.

I don't know. It was a book fraught with interpretation and role-play, so it seemed to behoove the narrative to say something about that particular instance of it. It's one of the few established facts of Andrew's life that is never under question or made more complex than it seems when it's introduced.

I also suspect that my background in formal psychology made it harder for me to surrender to the book's own pattern. I have too much experience in the idiotic pop-psych aspects of DID, and the debunking of same, to approach the topic with as clean a slate as the author seemed to want from me.

I guess, in the end, there were too many things that were simple, and the story seemed to promise complexity, and I was disappointed that the promise wasn't kept.

I so want to take part in this discussion in a more meaningful way, but I would really need to reread to do so. It's been a couple years now, and my memory is pretty pathetic on the best of days. I do remember also feeling like something wasn't quite right with the reveal; I agreed with Nutty's whitefont about the explanation seeming a little mealy-mouthed, but in the end I bought it. I do remember really and truly enjoying the book and loving the "house", especially when its inconsistencies become apparant toward the end.

Okay, what's DID?

Dissociative Identity Disorder -- the official (newish) name for multiple personality.

Aha, thank you. I thought it must be something like that but I had never heard that acronym.

Has anyone read/is anyone reading Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell right now? I'm about 200 pages into it and enjoying it muchly. Currently, I kinda-sorta think (unspoiled speculation) that Mr. Childermass is actually the Raven King.

The book as a whole reminds me very, very much of Thackeray, and I can't help but think that Thackeray would have enjoyed reading it.

Has anyone read/is anyone reading Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell right now?

Me! Me! I'm quite enjoying it.