Book+3+-+Naked


 * Discussion Dates:** Fri 10th August to Friday 17th August




 * 1) How would you describe Sedaris's style? How does it compare to other memoirs you've read?**

GH: I would describe it as conversational. It was quite different to other memoirs I have read because it didn't follow a chronological order, rather it seemed to me a creative retelling of bizarre experiences he had had.

SM: The style reminded me of Bill Bryson's travel books in the sense that it was full of keen, cutting and funny observations about the people Sedaris encountered on his (life) journey. However, I found Sedaris' style much more dark and acerbic than Bryson's style. There is a warmth and affection to Bryson's mockery whereas I didn't always feel that underlying warmth with Sedaris.

MW: Oh I agree that his writing lacks warmth, and as a memoir I think that this means that Sedaris as a person would lack warmth and empathy.

Michelle (thank god we're changing from the initials, I was very confused about who was who!): I found his style to be similar to Augusten Burrows, Running with Scissors. It was a very easy and fun read, seemingly humorous but actually quite sad. Strange memoirs like this seem ok when you know that they, the author, eventually turned out alright... well, sane enough to sit and compose a book, be well-fed, have a home, be loved by someone. But I do get disturbed by the other people in the situations who don't end up writing a funny book.


 * 2) Do you trust Sedaris as the narrator of his own story? Do you question the veracity of any of his stories?**

LN - I think that what he tells us is most likely accurate but I feel he leaves out what he thinks wont make a good story. I felt that there were big gaps in the portayal of his life, family and friends which I sometimes found frustrating.

GH: As I was reading I was definitely questioning the 'truth' of his stories, but maybe it doesn't matter that much whether it really happened or not.

MW: I always question the truth of memoirs as I can't even remember what I had for breakfast thing morning, let alone conversations that took place 20 years ago.

CJ: I also wondered whether everything he said was true but agree with GH that it didn't really matter.

SM: I actually wondered whether anything he wrote about was true. I am not familiar with the author or his background, but the stories seemed so far-fetched that I wondered why it was a written as a memoir and not a work of fiction. The fact that I was questioning the veracity of the stories was distracting for me at first, but I soon realised that I had to let it go in order to enjoy the humour.

Michelle: It doesn't matter to me at all whether the stories are true. It's more about illustrating his perspective on life. I get the feeling Sedaris and I could attend the same event, I'd come away with no story at all, and he'd have a weird tale to tell about it all.

LN - They flowed in terms of chronology but were distinct and separate in all other ways - that wasn't a problem though.
 * 3) How are the essays in the book linked together? Did they flow together well or did you feel they were distinct and separate?**

GH: I thought they were quite seperate too, so much so that it seemed hard to believe sometimes that they were all about him. It was hard to get a sense of all the stories adding up to be a 'real' person.

MW: I felt that the book was almost in two halves. The first section (which I found both funny and sad) about his upbringing and family life, and the second section (which I found repetitive and boring) about his life on the road etc.


 * 4) Is Sedaris's portrayal of his family fair? Does it seem honest to you or do you think some of their characteristics were embellished?**

LN - I didn't enjoy the beginning of the book all that much because he seemed so negative about everyone. There were times when you glimpsed that there must be love and affection in his family, but these were subtle and he far preferred recounting the unpleasant parts of his family life.

GH: I quite liked the portrayal of his family which seemed honest to me. I liked how he could never really 'escape' them even when he thought he had.

MW: I thought that there was a degree of hyperbole in his descriptions of both his parents (at least I hope that there was), but I didn't mind this as I found these chapters very well written and amusing.

CJ I enjoyed his descriptions of his family in particular his mother. I was sometimes kind of shocked by her reactions and comments which sometimes seemed quite harsh but interestingly, I felt Sedaris had a close relationship with his mother and the rest of his family. As with all families, every family member's recollection of the same event can be weirdly different

SM: I also enjoyed the descriptions of his family and thought his mother was hilarious. I think there was a lot of embellishment going on! Sedaris' affection for his mother and sister Lisa was obvious. Was it just me or did he hide his dislike (hatred?) of his father until the middle/end of the book? I thought he portrayed his father in a relatively positive light at the beginning, especially in the chapter about his grandmother Ya-Ya, so I was surprised when his father's weaknesses were revealed later on.

Michelle: I agree with SM, it was a bit strange how he represented his father. Did you know that he works with his sister Amy writing screenplays? I definitely didn't get any impression that they were close in his book.


 * 5) How does Sedaris deal with his sexuality in these essays? Do you find it an important element or do you think it could have been omitted or toned down?**

LN - I thought he dealt with it very well. It wasn't over played but it was a factor of his life and personality so of course had to be mentioned.

GH: I liked the humourous way he dealt with it.

MW: Ditto Lucy's comments

CJ: I can't think of any reason why his experiences related to his sexuality should have been omitted or toned down and find the premise of this question odd. It's not for the reader of a memoir to decide which elements of the author's personal history are important or not important. It's all part of his story and it was an interesting and humourous take on dealing with 'coming of age' or 'coming out'.

SM: I agree with all the comments. If anything, I think the book could have explored his experiences in coming out in a bit more detail.

Michelle: Agree with your comments too. Only thing to add is that perhaps he sees his sexuality as another 'tic' or oddity that makes him different from all the other people he writes about.


 * 6) Do you find Sedaris as the narrator a sympathetic "character"?**

LN - No, I didn't particularly like him as I have mentioned above. In general he only saw, or recorded, the bad in people and most of the time portrayed himself as the victim. In many of the chapters you felt that he was not really in charge of what was going on in his life but that things just happened to him. Sometimes I felt he was a bit apathetic.

GH: No I did not like him at all!

MW: I liked him less and less as the book went on. I felt sympathy for his as a child/ adolescent, but by the time he was in his early twenties and hitchhiking around the US I had lost all sympathy for him.

CJ: I generally agree with the above comments. He was a bit like a Woody Allen character, using pessimism as a style of humor.

SM: I found him a very unlikeable character. Having said that, I felt some sympathy for him when he was grappling with his mother's death and I detected some humility in the chapter about the nudist colony.


 * 7) Do you think Sedaris is trying to elicit a certain response from his readers? Has the book changed or enhanced your view of the author?**

LN - I didn't know anything about him before. I would be quite interested to read something else of his to see if he always writes in this style. I am sure he was trying to elicit a certain response but I am not sure what it was - perhaps sympathy and to feel sorry for how tough things were for him but as I said above I felt this just turned him into an unlikeable character.

GH: I had heard that he was a very funny writer but I hadn't read any of his work, so actually I was a bit disappointed I thought it would be funnier.

MW: Not sure what response he is after. I had not heard of him prior to reading the book and I wont be rushing to read him again.

CJ: I had heard really good things about him as an author - that he was really funny and insightful, in fact the cover of my copy of the book likened him to Oscar Wilde - so I was really looking forward to reading one of his books however, I think I chuckled once when reading the book, but otherwise, while I could appreciate that he was clever, I didn't find it that funny.

SM: I think he is deliberately trying to shock people and be sensationalist by writing insensitively about sensitive topics. I was certainly taken aback at how he dealt with a number of sensitive topics, particularly disability. Perhaps I am too politically correct, but I think that the way he wrote about disability was offensive. However, I appreciate that different people find different things offensive and therefore it's difficult to argue that certain topics should be off-limits when it comes to humor. For example, Sedaris made two disparaging comments about redheads which did not endear him to me, but I am guessing that no-one else noticed or was bothered by that!

Michelle: I didn't notice his comments about redheads but usually that drives me crazy - why is it socially acceptable to make fun of someone's hair colour? I also can't stand TV commercials that make out like men are stupid and incapable of minor household tasks, but I think I might be getting off topic...!!


 * 8) Sedaris uses a comic tone to deal with several sensitive topics. Does this tone take away from these issues?**

GH: No I don't think so, I thought it was a good way of enabling him to be honest about it.

CJ: Sedaris writes in a humourous way. For a serious treatment of serious issues one would choose a different author.

SM: See (7) above.

Michelle: agree with Cath


 * 9) What would you rate this book out of 10 (10 being the highest)? Why?**

GH: While there were some elements I liked (such as the honesty about family life and the quality of the writing which I thought was good) overall I found it quite a bizarre book and not overly enjoyable to read. 6/10

MW: He certainly can write and the first half of the book did have me laughing out loud in spots, but it really did go down hill for me and I ended up skimming the last couple of chapters. I wouldn't recommend it. 5/10

CJ: I enjoyed it when I was reading it but I didn't love it and it is fairly forgettable 6/10. Just wondering LN - why no rating??

LN - no rating because I was exhausted and rushed so could not decide on a number let alone a reason why. Things no better now but I will plump with a 6.

SM: I found the beginning and the last few chapters quite engaging and very funny. I agree with MW that the book lost its momentum during the hitchhiker phase. I would have enjoyed the book a lot more if there had have been more warmth and affection underlying the humour and if Sedaris hadn't overstepped the boundaries of political correctness so much. 6/10

Cath (formally known as CJ): Thanks LN - I somehow feel more complete (but sympathise with your current rushed and exhausted state). One suggestion, because I don't know anyone else in this club, any chance we could use names instead of initials?

Lucy (LN) I agree.

Mel: YES! And I think that maybe I am to blame for starting off with my initials.... sorry!

Michelle: Thanks for an enjoyable discussion, I didn't think I really had much to say about this book, or that there was really much to delve into. If it had been a real life book club meeting I suspect I would have just drunk a lot of wine and talked about other topics. This book was kind of funny and got me intrigued enough to google him, but not at all memorable. He seems to be a quirky intelligent guy, I think he can do better. 5/10