Subtle Bodies

( 4 )

Overview

**A NEW YORK TIMES NOTABLE BOOK**

In a sophisticated romp through the tribulations and joys of marriage and friendship, a group of college friends reunites two decades after graduation.

After the sudden death of Douglas, once the ringleader of a clique of self-styled wits, his four best friends are summoned to his Catskills estate to mourn his passing. Responding to a mysterious sense of emergency in the call, Ned flies in from San Francisco ...

See more details below
Hardcover
$19.67
BN.com price
(Save 27%)$26.95 List Price

Pick Up In Store

Reserve and pick up in 60 minutes at your local store

Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (27) from $6.46   
  • New (17) from $13.95   
  • Used (10) from $6.46   
Subtle Bodies

Available on NOOK devices and apps  
  • NOOK Devices
  • NOOK HD/HD+ Tablet
  • NOOK
  • NOOK Color
  • NOOK Tablet
  • Tablet/Phone
  • NOOK for Windows 8 Tablet
  • NOOK for iOS
  • NOOK for Android
  • NOOK Kids for iPad
  • PC/Mac
  • NOOK for Windows 8
  • NOOK for PC
  • NOOK for Mac
  • NOOK Study
  • NOOK for Web

Want a NOOK? Explore Now

NOOK Book (eBook)
$11.99
BN.com price

Overview

**A NEW YORK TIMES NOTABLE BOOK**

In a sophisticated romp through the tribulations and joys of marriage and friendship, a group of college friends reunites two decades after graduation.

After the sudden death of Douglas, once the ringleader of a clique of self-styled wits, his four best friends are summoned to his Catskills estate to mourn his passing. Responding to a mysterious sense of emergency in the call, Ned flies in from San Francisco with his wife Nina in furious pursuit; they’re at a critical point in their attempts to conceive and she won’t let a funeral get in the way. It is Nina who gives us a pointed, irreverent commentary as the men reconvene, while Ned tries to understand what it was that made this clutch of souls his friends to begin with—before time, sex, work, and the brutal quirks of history reshaped them. Filled with unexpected, funny, telling aperçus, Norman Rush’s Subtle Bodies is also a deeply moving exploration of the meanings of life. 

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

The New York Times Book Review - Geoff Dyer
Brooding over its surroundings like Castle Dracula, Douglas's hilltop lair…is not so much a backdrop, more like an architectural character in its own right…Rain and damp combine with the Rush-dried tone to create a swamp of sticky dark humor in which the reader is happy to be stranded. The situation is mournful and absurd, Douglas is both legend and jerk; different registers are all the time rubbing against one another—a fictional recipe for friction—as the friends are forced back into easy and awkward intimacy.
Publishers Weekly
Norman Rush is famous (and popular with readers who like their novels dense with word play and complication) for very long books set in Africa. Only 256 pages and set mainly in the Catskills, this work is a departure, but it’s still recognizably Rushian. Although Nina, one of two point-of-view characters, isn’t invited, when her husband, Ned, flies off on hearing of the death of the leader of his middle-aged band of college friends, she hops the next plane—she’s ovulating and time is of the essence. Good thing: the Rush responsible for Mating’s distinctive female narrator is still a deft hand at creating smart, funny, complicated women. Ned is likable, too, and it’s nice to see a happy marriage, a rare beast in fiction about the middle-aged. Unfortunately, the rest of Ned’s band of reunited smarty pantses are pills of varying kinds, especially the recently deceased Douglas, whom Nina calls “the world’s champion” of “walking out on foreign films he personally found highly overrated and taking his pack of stupid fool friends along with him.” As events in Douglas’s Catskills castle play out, with the friends coping with their middle-aged selves, the orchestration of Douglas’s funeral, and the byzantine rollout of information about Douglas’s life, marriage, and finances, even Nina can’t save the book from growing talky and claustrophobic. 50,000 first printing. (Sept. 10)
Library Journal
Old friends reunite at a funeral in Rush’s latest work, a basic plot here given lighthearted treatment. Chief among the group is Ned, coming from California to the East Coast and trailed by his wife, Nina, who mildly resents having been left behind but is mainly interested in continuing their attempts to conceive a child. The deceased is Douglas, a charismatic figure around whom the group coalesced at college in the 1970s, united by belief mostly in their superior intelligence but also encompassing vague political and theatrical forces. Douglas had resided on an estate in upstate New York, where, in addition to friends, various representatives of the international media appear to capture the elegiac ceremonies. Nina arrives and immediately immerses herself in the lives of Ned’s gang as the novel unfolds in a humorous and unfunereal fashion, played out against the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

Verdict This novel has the verbal play and digressions one might expect from Rush, author of the major works Mating and Mortals, but is briefer and more accessible. Readers will be immediately drawn into the acutely rendered world swirling around Ned and Nina. [See Prepub Alert, 3/25/13.]—James Coan, SUNY at Oneonta Lib.
(c) Copyright 2013. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Kirkus Reviews
★ 2013-08-15
Rush's third novel is an outlier--a slim book not set in Botswana--but his concerns with our carnal and intellectual lives remain pleasurably, provocatively intact. The modern classic Mating (1991) and its 2003 follow-up, Mortals, were hothouse experiments in human behavior: Take a bright couple, drop them in a foreign milieu, and watch their primal instincts slowly emerge. This book does much the same thing, though it's set in Rush's native United States. At its center is Ned, a middle-aged activist who has hastened to the castlelike home of his college friend Douglas, who has died in a riding-mower accident. Following close behind is his wife, Nina, who is outraged at Ned for leaving just as she reaches the peak in her fertility cycle; she wants to conceive. Its life-and-death themes settled fast, the novel largely explores the personalities of Ned and three other friends of Douglas who have arrived for the memorial. Douglas was a lifelong provocateur, and in college, this clan was hellbent on undoing social norms, but reconvened, they largely have memories of old bons mots and a widow who's trying to stage-manage the memorial to the last utterance. The setting is funereal, and Rush dwells much on the futility of warring against our natures, yet this book abounds in wit, particularly in its exploration of Ned and Nina's marriage; alternating between their perspectives, Rush ping-pongs their thoughts about lust, love and accomplishment. The brevity of the story highlights its contrived setup--the everybody-stuck-in-the-castle arrangement has an unintentional whiff of an Agatha Christie mystery--and a subplot involving Douglas' troubled teen son is left frustratingly unresolved. But this is a weaker novel only in comparison to Rush's earlier triumphs. His skill at revealing our interior lives is undiminished. Easier to lug around than its predecessors but with plenty of heft regardless.
From the Publisher
“Rush is the best kind of comic novelist.”  —The New York Times Book Review

“A portrait of that notoriously elusive thing, a genuinely happy couple. . . . The book glows with their intimate joy: their private jokes, their sexual teasing, their deep loyalty.” —The Wall Street Journal

“Rush’s characters want to fall in love, to laugh and enjoy themselves. Their quirks, opinions, compulsions . . . keep us engrossed—along with the clarity and precision of Rush’s sentences, the freshness of his observations.” —Francine Prose, The New York Review of Books
 
“Fans of Rush’s previous opuses will recognize the witty wordplay and intense, erotic eloquence. . . . But even the uninitiated will appreciate the brilliance of Rush’s clear and comedic characterization that causes this meditation on death and masculinity to crackle with energy and mirth.” —Interview Magazine

“Playfully erotic, hopelessly addictive.” —Vogue

“A funny, deeply satisfying look at friendships—why we make them, why we keep them, and how they change us over time.” —Booklist

“Rush’s protagonists tend to speak to each other . . . with formidable intelligence and eloquence, but it’s their linguistic inventiveness that is key to Rush’s remarkably convincing portrayals of enduring romantic love.”—New Yorker.com

“Rarely does one get from a male novelist a female character as lovingly—but unsentimentally—portrayed as Nina. . . . Subtle Bodies is black humor with a female face.” —The Daily Beast

“To a straight woman, the phenomenon of inter-male friendship possesses a certain anthropological interest. . . . So imagine this reader’s delight upon hearing that it’s this very mystery into which Norman Rush delves in Subtle Bodies, and that—hosanna, as one of his characters puts it—he’s given us a female perspective, too.” —The Los Angeles Review of Books

“Rush attends so closely to his characters—their thoughts, words, beliefs, relationships—and landscapes—physical, social, political—that he brings them utterly alive, with often-exhilarating aptitude and insight.” —The Boston Globe

“Rush may be America’s last living maximalist author. In two bulky, Africa-set novels, Mating and Mortals, he astutely explored themes of courtship, outsiderdom and herd mentality. . . . At barely half the length, his Subtle Bodies isn’t a slighter work. But compressed as it is, Rush’s storytelling feels more allegorical, its humor more pointed.” —Minneapolis Star Tribune

“Rush’s defining gift might be his incredible awareness—about politics, about human nature, about the world—which he bestows upon his characters. . . . It makes the reader’s lens of the world a little clearer, a little sharper. If you’ve never read Rush. . . . Subtle Bodies is a more than fine place to begin.” —The Oregonian

“Full of the kinds of perception that skew the world around you and force you to see it differently.” —Baltimore Sun

“The book’s appeal lies in its complex characters, its slow-burn tension and its keen observations.” —Richmond Post-Dispatch

“This book abounds in wit, particularly in its exploration of Ned and Nina’s marriage. . . . His skill at revealing our interior lives is undiminished [and] his concerns with our carnal and intellectual lives remain pleasurably, provocatively intact." —Kirkus, Starred review

“The verbal play and digressions one might expect from Rush, author of the major works Mating and Mortals, but briefer and more accessible.  Readers will be immediately drawn into the acutely rendered world swirling around Ned and Nina.” —Library Journal

“Timely. . . . Beautifully rendered. Just the kind of novel dedicated novel readers are always searching for.” —Hudson Valley News

The Barnes & Noble Review

In 1991, 58-year-old Norman Rush won the National Book Award for his hefty first novel, Mating, then took 12 years to follow it with the even heftier Mortals. Like the stories in the slim 1986 collection Whites, both novels are set in the southern African nation of Botswana — a sparsely populated, relatively democratic former British protectorate where Rush and his wife, Elsa, worked as Peace Corps directors from 1978 to 1983. Published a decade after Mortals and marking the author's 80th birthday, Subtle Bodies represents a change. Rush's third novel takes place on a sprawling estate a little north of Woodstock, shortly before Bush II's 2003 invasion of Iraq. It centers around a "cult of friendship," five gifted guys who roomed together in the East Village while attending NYU post-Vietnam, from 1974 to 1978 — led by the owner of the estate, Douglas, who has just died in a landscaping accident. It's so brief it's designed to look longer, with narrow pages, largish type, and generous leading — I doubt its 233 pages pack a fifth the wordage of Mortals's 712.

Nor is size the only way Subtle Bodies is slight. Mating and Mortals earn their verbosity with sociocultural weight and scope: Mating plumbs a matrifocal utopian community in the Kalahari, while Mortals embroils itself in a tripartite conflict involving Christianity, late capitalism, and William Morris–style agrarian socialism, with apartheid and late Marxism also nosing into the melee. Both are among the finest novels anyone has set in Africa. Novels about old college pals pondering the course of their lives in embattled tranquility, on the other hand, are much easier to come by. There are touches, too, that make you wonder whether Rush had something grander in mind and then decided to get out while the getting was good, an effect he in fact achieved by spending two years cutting the book down. Six pages of minute description are devoted to a right-wing general store that's barely referenced again. Five pages give it up to a warmly comic cellphone conversation between the chief female character and her mother, presumably so the mother, a lifelong Communist gone New Age, can butt in whenever Rush feels the need for a chuckle.

If the novel's center is the quintet of old buddies, its protagonist is a couple: the buddy named Ned, a Bay Area peace activist who's the only non–New Yorker in the group, and his younger wife, Nina, who follows him east uninvited so they'll be together on the day their fertility doctor has instructed them to try, try again. Nina has never met Ned's legendary collegiate cohort: reigning wit and literary taskmaster Douglas, a forgery expert, political pundit, and landowning heir who married a beauteous Czech gossip columnist; Douglas's stockbroker and legal aide-de-camp Elliot, his wife long dead of ALS; Latvian-American Joris, a math whiz turned maritime lawyer, who patronizes prostitutes to protect the world from his married-woman fetish; and gone-to-fat Gruen, married-without- children low man on the totem pole, who produces public service ads. But Nina has always assumed that Ned romanticizes the cohort's sophomoric intellectualizing and collegiate jokes — that he was the best of them and they were too shallow to know it. For what it's worth, events prove her right. But she quite likes Gruen and Joris and has reason to wonder whether Ned would have survived the reunion without her — and also whether Douglas's clique didn't have a little more going for it than she'd figured. Joris in particular has a better brain than Douglas ever did.

What plot this schema permits has two strands. The first tracks the memorial service, which Elliot and the widow manipulate to shore up Douglas's fiscally threatened inheritance, assigning the other three buddies roles that disrespect their feelings and their place in his life. The second follows Nina as she busies herself getting pregnant, chatting up the buddies and Douglas's peeper son, Hume, and a Frenchman on the make and the Jamaican kitchen boss who knows where the yogurt is, and then delivers all the unpleasant news she's obliged to pass along to Ned as a result. The news distresses Ned plenty — brings him close to collapse for a bad night. But after you let the book settle in, you realize that it's nowhere near as bad as you've been set up to fear. All along the reader half anticipates a catastrophe to match Rush's weighty repute. Maybe the death wasn't an accident. Maybe Douglas was a villain rather than a poseur; maybe the son is a nut rather than a troubled teen; maybe the wife is a black widow rather than a diva. Any of these things might be true, too. But not in this novel.

It won't surprise Rush fans to learn that in the end Nina has even more to her than Ned. Rush has dedicated all four of his books to Elsa, his wife since 1955. Mating is narrated by a woman he's said is based primarily on Elsa, while Mortals turns on two men's struggle for Iris, whose beauty may (slightly) exceed Elsa's but whose jokes I bet are all hers, as in "when he noticed in the paper that Belfast and Beirut had become sister cities, she had said, 'What do they do, exchange rubble?' " Original and major although each book's political trajectory is, he's so into the unimpeded marriage of true minds that sustained albeit challenged sexual relationships are their bedrock. In Subtle Bodies, political content is diminished. Half its politics center around Ned's surprisingly difficult effort to get each of his old friends to sign a petition supporting the Iraq demo he's organizing, highlighted by a seven-page debate with Joris, the no-holds-barred intensity of which recalls longer debates in the longer novels. The other half concerns Douglas's political philosophy, which Elliot assigns Ned to cover at the memorial. What political philosophy? Ned wonders. Opposing fascism? "Proposing various universal solutions to the problem of the persistence of evil in the world"? Ned rankles at Elliot's guilt-tripping pressure tactics even before his wife delivers her revelations. "I'm working on my assignment, but what is my philosophy, Nina? My philosophy is No Hitting. I don't have time for philosophy." And later: "Douglas had an attitude that looked like an idea, to us. We were children."

So Ned rebels. Where Joris and Gruen will read their appointed scripts, he extemporizes, briefly and effectively. First he adduces without specifying the pranks and jokes the friends have been recalling all week, although Joris is retrospectively unimpressed — "Nothing was funny that we did. Nothing. Almost" — and you can see why. How about shouting "NEW YORK'S TIDIEST" at sanitation workers? Or marching out of the Thalia at Douglas's command after Maria Schneider fails to wipe herself in Last Tango in Paris? Or jeering Venceremos Brigade reunions because Douglas considers Cuba the "Brave Little Police State"? But maybe the gay comic strips called "Prince Variant" and "Vaseline Alley." Or the word games in which "a bouncer was an excort and graffiti artists were ulterior decorators." And definitely the epigram even Joris admires: "War is the continuation of business as usual by any means necessary." Having explained that Douglas "had the idea he could force the world to be funny," Ned then reads from Douglas's finest literary recommendation, Boswell's Life of Johnson, beginning exactly where Douglas stopped on page 847, saving the rest for a happy day he was robbed of when he fell off the side of a hill. I'm tempted to quote all 167 words, but here's the nub: "happiness should be cultivated as much as we can, and the objects which are instrumental should be steadily considered as of importance, with a reference not only to ourselves, but to multitudes in successive ages."

Rush too believes in No Hitting. A socialist imprisoned as a conscientious objector during the Korean War, he's been forced by events and convinced by his wife to moderate his politics, although never as far as what he called in an interview the "baffled, compromised liberalism" of Mortals's spy cum literature professor, Ray Finch (whose wife convinces him to quit the CIA), or as Douglas either. In his two hefty novels, which will surely stand as his Major Work, Rush has the courage to expound and explore his political . . . ideas is about right, not philosophy but not merely attitude either. In this slighter work he's more autumnal, set above all on a mission to praise the humanitarian utility of human happiness. Like Nina, he believes "life should feel like something other than falling down an endless flight of stairs." He succeeds so subtly that anyone who admires him the way I do can only applaud his stated determination to spend more time with Elsa and less with his manual typewriter. I hope there are more books — Rush seems uncommonly hale for his age. But he is slow, and if he stops altogether, Subtle Bodies explains why.

Thinking about blubalub, a game Nina invented involving her breasts, Ned muses briefly about his death, a long time from now he hopes: "On his very tall tombstone he wanted inscribed at the top Fun Had, and all the rest would be a list of things dating from Nina coming into his life."

That's why.

Robert Christgau is a critic at All Things Considered, writes for the National Arts Journalism Program's ARTicles blog, teaches in NYU's Clive Davis Department of Recorded Music, and has published five books.

Reviewer: Robert Christgau

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9781400042500
  • Publisher: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
  • Publication date: 9/10/2013
  • Pages: 256
  • Sales rank: 401,197
  • Product dimensions: 6.14 (w) x 9.36 (h) x 0.96 (d)

Meet the Author

Norman Rush is the author of three previous works of fiction: Whites, a collection of stories, and two novels, Mating and Mortals. His stories have appeared in The New Yorker, The Paris Review, and Best American Short Stories. Mating was the recipient of the National Book Award. Rush and his wife live in Rockland County, New York.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

1.
 
Genitals have their own lives, his beloved Nina had said at the close of an argument over whether even the most besotted husband could be trusted one hundred percent faced with the permanent sexual temptations the world provided. It was the kind of conversation that went with the early days of a marriage, of their marriage. He had been rebutting her silly but fiendish thought experiments and had gotten tired of the game. She was a genius at imagining inescapable sex traps. There could be a nun suffering from hysterical blindness that would probably become permanent unless she received a sacrificial screw from some- body’s husband, alas. He looked around. Good thing there were no nuns on the plane, at least none in costume. When you’re traveling you’re nothing, until you land, which is what’s good about it, Ned thought.
 
 
2.
 
Nina, riding in furious pursuit, felt like bucking in her seat to make the plane go faster through the night. She was still enraged. She felt like a baby. She thought, You are a baby: no, he is, he is, my lamb.
 
Maybe the matronly pleasant-seeming woman sitting next to her was wise. She was old enough to be. Anything was possible. And it might not hurt to talk to an adult other than my incessant mother, she thought. She had to call her mother when they landed, first thing. It’s just that she won’t shut up about my pregnancy, she thought. Her attempted pregnancy, was what she meant. She regretted telling her mother about it.
 
I love my mother, she wanted to tell the woman next to her. It was just that her mother was overflowing with pregnancy lore that had nothing to do with reality. She’d been unkind when her mother said, You smell differently when you’re pregnant, because she’d said in response, Oh really? How do you smell then? With your uterus? All her mother had been trying to say was that there was a change in the odor a woman’s body gives off during pregnancy. But then her mother regularly declared that there was a mystical “subtle body” inside or surrounding or emanating from every human being and that if you could see it, it told you something. It told you about the essence of a person, their secrets, for example. It was all about attending closely enough to see them. They varied in color and brightness. Her mother claimed she could see them, faintly. She wanted Nina not to be oblivious to the subtle bodies of the people she met. That would protect her from deceivers, whoever they might be. Ma suggested Ned be on the qui vive also.
 
Dinner, as they called it, was done with. She seemed to have twisted her napkin into a rope and she wondered if her seatmate had noticed. The woman wasn’t being especially friendly to her. Usually the people she happened to sit next to were.

Yes, she was enraged at Ned, but also felt sorry for him. May God help you my lad, my Ned, she thought. He would be dumbfounded when he realized she had sprung after him, done it, like that, like a savage beast dropping everything herself, the same as he had, like a child, an adolescent, a child. He had never seen her truly furious, never once in three years of marriage. He had seen her agitated, and he had seen her annoyed, but never this. I am war, she thought.
 
No question he deserved tenderness, which he got. On her own, she had quit referring to his beloved clique of college friends as clowns. He hadn’t asked her to, but the term had stung him, a little. And this despite the fact that they had been clowns manqué, a troupe, goofing on the world under the baton of their maestro Douglas.
 
She had to control herself. She needed to be calm and alkaline. She thought, I wonder if he thinks I love taking Clomid and standing on my head après sex, with him holding my feet in the air. He had left her a barely readable note. Twice since leaving he’d called her, and each time she’d answered, I am not answering this phone.
 
Everything had been left for her to deal with, not only everything involving the nonprofits, not only the mis-sent invoices and the complaints about the metallic aftertaste of the coffee they were getting from their co-ops in Belize, but calls about the demonstration he was organizing, the same calls over and over again, because this was a coalition. She hated coalitions. And why did Ned have to be the Chair? She made an involuntary flinging-out gesture that startled her seatmate, who flinched. Nina tried to bury the gesture in a show of policing her tray table. She doubted that the woman was deceived. Ned could be annoying without meaning to. Talking about getting pregnant he had said, about his own attitude to it, I can’t decide whether I’m ambivalent or not. Which was a ghostly survival of the talky badinage-based humor of his circle of clowns, by which she meant friends, sorry. It was a slightly funny thing for him to say, but the subject wasn’t funny.
 
Nina had the window seat. She raised the window shade to study the night. Why did stadiums where no one was at play have to be lit up like Christmas, why? But why everything, really, and why had that woman writing her up in the Contra Costa Times described her as sharp-featured, why? Because she wasn’t. And why hadn’t the woman mentioned her award in the story saying that she was the best accountant the nonprofits in the Bay Area had ever heard of? She considered her reflection in the window. Why not angular, instead of sharp-featured?
 
Well she was going to take the bull by the horns and talk to her co-passenger. It was ordained that the woman’s wallet was going to be exploding with snapshots of unblemished grandchildren. She would deal with it. She needed to talk. She needed to be with Ned, now, before the thirty-six hours were up, so they could do it. Had he forgotten or did he just not care? About family making, he did feel old for it sometimes. He was forty-eight.

The woman beside her opened her purse and extracted a paperback, which she seemed to be handling rather reverently, like a missal. Nina was curious. The woman moved unsubtly away, taking her elbow off the common armrest.
 
Nina entertained the idea that the woman had sensed a core truth about her, which was that she always wanted to know what people were reading. I can’t help it, she thought. She always wanted to know. It had been embarrassing from time to time when people saw her craning around inappropriately to get a clue about what they were reading. It was just that knowing made her feel better. Somebody could be reading Mein Kampf. And she didn’t like people who covered the books they were reading in little homemade kraft paper jackets. She couldn’t help taking that as a challenge, apparently. Definitely the woman was getting tense. But she might as well relax, because Nina already knew what she was reading. She had figured it out in a glance. But I’m clumsy, she thought. Anxious, she thought it again. Then she passed her hands down her sides, for no reason.
 
The woman had bent the front cover of the paperback around to conceal the spine, and now she was slanting the book so that Nina would be required to contort herself to make out what was on the page. The woman’s dual mission seemed to be to read and at the same time keep what she was reading secret from Nina. It was silly because the cover art featuring embossed foil bolts of lightning and a cross on a blood-red field declared that the book was an entry in the genre of Christian theological thrillers that had gotten so popular. That was the last thing Nina needed to think about, the end of the world. Well, she couldn’t interrupt this per- son when she was reading. Because reading was sacred. It was to my mother, she thought. The number of times her mother had found her reading intently when it was time to set the table, and given her a pass, was legion.
 
She wouldn’t mind getting into an argument on Christianity. Because she had a new standpoint on the subject since she had happened to marry a sort of Jesus, a secular Jesus, of course, not that Ned would tolerate that description. So far as she knew, he had never done a bad thing, except for like a complete asshole going to the funeral of fucking Douglas, the world’s greatest friend—going and just leaving her a few messages. Douglas, never Doug, the rule for addressing the world’s greatest friend.
 
Nina had her own reading matter but she was too hyper to read. Two poems in Poetry magazine had irritated her. In one poem, the gist was that the reader goes to the sea-side, and it’s the sea shouting Help! the sea saying Help! to humans, something like that. And then in another one, the poet seemed to say It’s closing time in the old fort and you have to go and you can’t find your sons, so what to do, you just go back to the cannons and you’ll find them hanging around there. Everything was upsetting. And there was nothing interesting about the interior of a plane. Her seat-mate swallowed a cough. Planes were unsanitary. She was breathing recirculated air, and it was Ned, his impulsiveness, Ned, who was to blame. Her fury was rising again.
 
She knew why it was. Things she wanted, things she thought she had, being jerked away from her without warning and at the last minute, always upset her, based on pat- terns in her absurd childhood, patterns she had studied and parsed and studied until she was sick unto death of the subject. But her therapist had been a Freudian, and being sick and tired of it wasn’t a reason for letting go of some- thing. The reverse! And after years of staring at the facts, she had no idea, still, how she should feel about her pixie parents—up, down, sad, send them to the firing squad? How should she feel about the elf shoes, with their pointy toes curving back toward her little shins, that her mother had gotten on sale, making her wear them to school, insisting they were perfectly normal? She remembered the giant celebration her parents had given when her father finally got into the Screen Extras Guild, in his fifties, was that sane? She had no idea. They did this, they did that. For any ailment, they medicated her with bark tea. Her mother had become an astrologer because it was such a portable occupation. But then they had stayed stuck in Los Angeles for- ever. Linda, her mother’s best friend and worst influence, had branched out into astrology for pets, dogs mainly, and tried to get Ma to take it up, which she hadn’t.
 
But then finally, late in the day, turning thirty-four, she had found Ned, and gradually gotten him to want a child, and to really try, with her. And then this. She thought, I take the pills, I get the shot, he vanishes! It was outrageous.
 
It all had to do with le grand Douglas. Douglas had been the head of Ned’s clique in the seventies, the spokesmodel, when they were undergraduates, which would make it Douglas’s clique, actually. They had been a group of wits, in their opinion, of superior sensibilities of some kind, was the idea. Everything she knew about Douglas was irritating. He even had his own term for the effect they were going for: perplexion. So elegant. And there was his legendary pensiveness, the way he would sometimes hold up his hand in a certain way to signal the group to stop talking so he could finish a thought he wasn’t sharing. Then he might jot some- thing down on a scrap of paper or he might not. The point, to her, seemed to be to show that whatever was going on around him was subordinate to the great private productive secret-not-necessarily-related-to-anything-his-groundling-friends-were-talking-about trains of thought that Douglas was having.
 
And one thing she could not get out of her mind was that when Douglas had been the ringmaster of the group at NYU he had demonstrated that he was the world’s champion of walking out of the Thalia, walking out on foreign films he personally found highly overrated and taking his pack of stupid fool friends along with him. She had been incredulous, hearing about that, and about Ned obeying Douglas, essentially. And Ned had told her about the group going to see Last Tango in Paris. And Maria Schneider and Marlon Brando were having precoital fooling around and in the course of it she has to pee and she goes into the toilet in the vacant apartment they’re carousing in and the camera follows her and she pees but gets up without wiping or using a bidet or anything and then they had gone on to have sex. So quelle horreur and that was enough for Douglas, who found the hygienic omission a good enough excuse to lead his minions out immediately. His position had been that the omission fatally attacked the plausibility of the scene. They had been very severe about cinema, Ned’s group. It was amazing to her. They had walked out on Brando at his professional and physical peak. So why had they kept going to the Thalia led by someone who was so sensitive that half the time their money would be spent for nothing?
 
And what she did know with certainty was that Ned had been abandoned, abandoned gradually, and then finally, by this man he was racing ahead of her and her ova to praise and bury, and it had been painful, muted but painful, to Ned, over the years. And she knew that the abandonment had gotten more painful for Ned as Douglas got half-famous in the world, debunking forgeries, significant forgeries. And Douglas had remained closer, Ned had known for a fact, to the other three friends. She had no idea what had led Douglas into the “questioned documents” business, but something had, and he’d made it pay. He’d proved that some sensational papers revealing that Alfred Dreyfus was in fact guilty of espionage were right-wing forgeries. And then someone had forged Milan Kundera’s so-called Love Diaries, and Douglas had shot that down. And then he had married the leading gossip columnist in Czechoslovakia, the radiant Iva, a consensus great beauty. And he had gotten her over to the U.S. and put her in a tower in the woods, in the Catskills, near Woodstock. And they had lived in it, and there had been an inheritance, and when the internet came, there would be little fragments from Douglas to Ned, avant-garde tips on nutrition or postings from the Committee for Ethical Tourism which proved there was nowhere in the world you could go for a vacation except possibly Canada. She had always wanly hoped to get revenge on Douglas. Because there had truly been a superior soul in their little grouplet, and that had been Ned, her lad, her Ned. And there was another thing that had driven her crazy about Douglas. At first through the mail, and then by fax, and then by email, had come a stream, a very intermittent stream, of short papers and notes from Douglas, who had become eccentric and was proposing various universal solutions to the problem of the persistence of evil in the world, in human relations. And some of them had been items like monotheism, and then it had been declining terrestrial magnetism, and there had been others. Like his theory that gradual anoxia was driving mankind crazy, based on the shrinking percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere compared to the much higher oxygen content in air samples taken from bubbles in ancient Egyptian glassware. And then it had been estrogens and antidepressants infiltrating the water supply. Of course it would be very nice if someone could prove that unkind- ness was caused by pollution.
 
And Ned had always been dutiful and sent some sort of reply trying to argue, shorter and shorter replies, because Douglas almost never, and then never, had had anything to say to Ned in return, no expansion on the particular subject.
 
Douglas’s group had thought very highly of itself. They were going to be social renovators of some unclear kind, had been the idea, by somehow generalizing their friend- ship. Ned could still get solemn, talking about those times. She didn’t get it. And part of the original group idea had been that they would always be a unity, helping each other, maybe creating a compound in the wildwood for summer vacations or maybe crafting some excellent retirement collective. Right, she thought.
 
One thing she knew and Ned did not, was that there is no permanent friendship between men, among men. Some- thing goes wrong, somebody marries the wrong person, somebody advances too fast, somebody converts, somebody refuses good advice or bad advice, it didn’t matter. It went up in a flash, it went up in a flash, like magnesium paper set on fire in a magic show. She thought, It’s not always great with women, either, but it can be. Women can have friends, it’s more personal, she thought. Although in the great design of things, women were getting to be more like men. There were more tough cookies around, and liars.
 
Well, Ned was her friend, her deep friend. He didn’t realize it, exactly. He thought everything was love with them, but it wasn’t. She would have been his friend whenever. It was a standard fantasy when you fell in love to imagine you could go back in time and find your beloved growing up, appear there, save him or her, get together as adolescents, by magic, and go on together, fighting for one another, into old age, never wavering. It was a pure friendship fantasy. Not sexual.
 
And that was why she was enraged at the man, enraged. She had to get this rage out of her, so she could kill him when she caught up with him. He was an idiot. He was reckless. He was hopeless. He had shit for brains. He couldn’t be counted on. He was a fool. These people had hurt him in the past, Douglas had. She only knew some of it.
 
She was moving around too much in her seat. The woman next to her was unhappy.
 
She offered the woman her uneaten dessert, an industrial brownie still in its packaging. Nina had watched the woman devour her own brownie in two bites, earlier.
 
“No,” said the woman, quite forcefully.
 
She thinks I’m affiliated with Satan, Nina thought.

Read More Show Less

Reading Group Guide

1. What is your first impression of Nina, in Chapter 2?  What are the strongest aspects of her character?

2. The structure of the novel alternates between sections presented from Nina’s point of view and sections presented from Ned’s. In what ways does this structure also create a portrait of these two people, and of their relationship?

3. “Her mother regularly declared that there was a mystical ‘subtle body’ inside or surrounding or emanating from every human being and that if you could see it, it told you something. It told you about the essence of a person, their secrets, for example. It was all about attending closely enough to see them” (p. 4). Is Nina able to see (or feel) these essences? Is Ned?

4. Nina thinks of Ned’s “clique of college friends” as “clowns . . . goofing on the world under the baton of their maestro Douglas” (5). She refers to their “badinage-based humor” and “their idiotic exhibitionism” (9, 106). What evidence of their status as “superior sensibilities” do you see (9)? Do you find Ned’s nostalgia for those friendships understandable? Deluded? Both?

5. Ned, according to Nina, is “a sort of Jesus, a secular Jesus” (7). “There had truly been a superior soul in their little grouplet, and that had been Ned, her lad, her Ned” (11). In what way is it significant that Ned is the only member of the group who has made a life out of his commitment to social justice?

6. Nina states that Ned doesn’t seem to understand that “there is no permanent friendship between men, among men. . . . Women can have friends, it’s more personal” (12). Is she right in this? Nina’s opinion of Douglas creates an amusing contrast with Ned’s obstinate attachment to his dead friend. Whose opinion do you come to agree with? 

7. Is Hume most likely the person who has stuck a pushpin into the image of Douglas in the double portrait (68)? Might it be Iva? How does the presence of Hume disrupt the image of Douglas and Iva’s perfect life?

8. Ned, sadly talking with Joris and Gruen, says, “The group is finished.” Joris answers, “It was finished long ago” (45). Is Joris right? The three discuss their idea of what the group was (45-6). Does the novel convey the sense of an intact group, or one that exists only in memories? 

9. Iva says to Ned, “You were the closest, of course, because you both loved Claire” (72). Why is it significant that Ned had a long relationship with Douglas’s ex, Claire?  What is the “diabolical” thing that has been going on without his knowledge, that leaves Ned “drowning in bitterness” (73)? What is his reaction later when he learns more about what Iva hints at here, and does it change his feelings about Douglas (200-2)?

10. Ned walks down to the Vale to meet Nina in the parking lot of the general store; their reunion takes place on pp. 77-8. What is interesting, funny, or unusual about these two people? What does the scene reveal about their bond?

11. The novel presents a situation in which everyone is present to honor Douglas and to remember him. What kind of person was he? Does the novel seem to present Douglas as a mystery? What does Nina find out about Douglas’s activities and how he has made his money?

12. Note that the first word of this novel is “genitals.” Why is sex such an important element of this story? What part does sex play in the development of the plot, and in the lives of the other characters? Does Rush create, in Ned and Nina, an ideal partnership of minds and bodies?

13. From Joris, Ned hears opinions about Claire he has never heard before: “She was a shit. . . . She was no good . . . . she was passive” (127-8). How much of what Ned goes through in this story is a forced reevaluation of his lovers, his friends, and his past?

14. Ned wants to understand, about himself and his friends, “whether their true interior selves—the subtle bodies inside—were still there and functioning despite what age and accident and force of circumstance may have done to hurt them” (198). How is this question relevant to anyone who thinks about the passing of time and its impact on friendships? Does Subtle Bodies examine the question, “Should we try to let go of the past and of our past selves?” By the end of the novel, where do you see Ned on this question?

15. Ned has moments of great clarity about what he has with Nina. Thinking of her, he realizes, “I need to live forever” (64).He wants to say to Nina, “I would always like to be what I am now, with you” (198). Do these moments help Ned to commit fully to her and to their child-to-be? 

16. Why does Joris resist signing Ned’s petition? Is Ned overly idealistic in his political ideas? Consider their long and heated political argument (137-44). Given what we now know about what happened in Iraq, who do you think was right––Joris or Ned?  

17. Discuss Ned’s decision to read aloud from Douglas’s copy of Boswell’s Life of Samuel Johnson, and how the passage is meaningful for his own life, for Douglas’s life, for anyone’s life (233). 

18. Norman Rush is one of the great writers on marriage, possibly because he and his wife Elsa have an extraordinary one. The idiosyncratic, comical, wonderfully real exchanges between Nina and Ned are also found between lovers and spouses in Mortals and Mating. In a Paris Review interview Rush said, “A couple’s private language can develop in peculiar ways that look ordinary to the couple, but very strange to any outsider. . . . Extraordinary language is sometimes just what happens between two people living closely over many years.” Discuss this statement in the context of the most amusing, lively, or enviable moments of interaction between Nina and Ned.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Average Rating 3
( 4 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(1)

4 Star

(0)

3 Star

(1)

2 Star

(2)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously
Sort by: Showing all of 4 Customer Reviews
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 22, 2014

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 16, 2013

    Tries too hard

    Tries too hard to be deep and meaningful - and thus becomes uneven and difficult.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted December 9, 2013

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted October 9, 2013

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing all of 4 Customer Reviews

If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
Why is this product inappropriate?
Comments (optional)