S4L Book Club – The Girls

S4L Book Club - The Alchemyst, by Michael ScottHow’s everyone coming with The Alchemyst: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas FlamelThe Alchemyst: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel by Michael Scott? Unless you tell me you need more time, we’ll plan to start that discussion next Thursday, June 2. Linda will be leading that discussion, and we’ll be looking at it from a writing perspective as well as a reading perspective. That should be fun!

I chose to listen to the audio book, and I’m currently in the middle of what I think is the last book in the series.

Also, Kat has volunteered to keep the S4L Book Club going in “light” mode—i.e., one post a week—in July. Woot, Kat! Thank you, thank you.

Kat’s chosen book is Ender’s Game (Ender, Book 1) by Orson Scott Card.

She’s branching out from her beloved fantasy genre to the oh-so-different Sci-fi genre. 😉 I know, I shouldn’t give her a hard time when she’s stepping up to fill a hole, but . . . well, I can’t help it.

I will do my best to read this, but my participation will be spotty at best. And I will do my best to update the sidebar with our reading list ASAP.

We will take August off for summer vacation, returning in September with the Norwegian picture books.

And now back to our regularly scheduled blog program.

S4L Book Club - The Girls: A Novel, by Lori LansensJen asking this time. Why do you think Rose and Ruby used the names “Aunt Lovey” and “Uncle Stash” instead of Mom and Dad?

I wondered that from the git-go, and I never came up with a satisfying answer. My best answer was that the author wanted to use, and make the most of, the interesting names “Lovey” and “Stash.” They are far more interesting than Mom and Dad. They’re not so far-out as to call attention to themselves or be annoying. I like them. But I wonder about the choice.

At first, I thought it might allow Aunt Lovey some distance from the girls, in case they didn’t survive. I thought it might be to appease Stash, who wasn’t gung-ho on adopting the girls to begin with. Maybe it was Aunt Lovey’s tough approach to reality: the girls weren’t her daughters. But, then, they weren’t her nieces, either.

I guess it added an interesting layer to the story because it made me wonder.

Did it make you wonder? If so, what are your theories about why those names were chosen?

Categories: Reading

3 replies »

  1. Aaahh. Names. Very interesting topic. Why did they go by Aunt Lovey and Uncle Stash?

    You’ll have to remind me on this…when Aunt Lovey first brought the girls home, was it known to both her and Uncle Stash that they would be adopting them? Or were they merely “keeping” them, with the hope of it turning into forever? I can’t recall. (I do remember that Uncle Stash was tepid, at best, at the prospect.)

    Here’s my thought–if they didn’t know from the onset that they would be a family forever, I think the names showed that they were more than merely roommates; they were a type of family. The use of aunt and uncle denotes a special relationship, one that is more than mere acquaintances or friends. At the same time, it acknowledges that Lovey and Stash aren’t the biological parents, something they never hid from the girls.

    A side note. Stash is the nickname given to the formal name of Stanislaus or Stanley, like Bill for William. I have Polish friends who have a little boy named Stanley, who has only ever been called Stash. It’s pronounced so that it rhymes with wash. Very fitting for this Slovakian man.

  2. I think you’re right in that when they brought the girls home, it was unclear how long they would be staying. As I recall, Aunt Lovey fully intended to adopt them, but knew she had to ease Stash into the idea, so she took the “we’ll see” path to start.

    I also think your interpretation of why they went with Aunt and Uncle makes sense. It feels just right.

    Do you think Mom and Dad would have felt wrong? Do you think it would have changed the story?