The Dutch House by Ann Patchett

The Dutch House is a novel that is “not.” It is not a love story. It is not a mystery. It is not a thriller. It is not an allegory. It is not a cautionary tale.

It is a story about a family. For all the things it is not, it is a story the gets you invested in the characters. It is mainly about the narrator, Danny, and his sister Maeve (they are of Irish descent, not Dutch). A rich cast of characters and chaos revolve around these two, but they are the focus.

Were these two siblings fortunate or unfortunate in their lives? No spoilers here. That may be up to the reader to decide. Good things happen to them as well as bad. They were born into wealth as evidenced by the grand Dutch house of the title, where they lived. The house in Pennsylvania, was built by a rich Dutch family who had eventually fallen on hard times. After the last of the Dutch family had died, Danny’s father was able to acquire the house at a ridiculously low price. He was proud of his acquisition, but Danny’s mother hated the house and she eventually left, abandoning her family.

All this happened before our story begins. Danny and Maeve’s single father eventually marries an unpleasant woman; not quite an evil step-mother, but close. The step-mother is in many ways a detestable woman, and yet she is written in such a way that makes her motives understandable. Her choices seem reasonable to her, if not to us.

It is more than just the title; the story keeps coming back to the house. Is the house cursed? You could almost interpret it that way. People tend to have a worse time of it while they are living in the house than when the same people are not. It does feel like a pall hangs over the house. Yet, Danny and Maeve are able to find joy in their lives.

The characters in the book are given choices. Many of them have, or will choose a path to wealth. But the characters who choose a different path seem to be happier. Was the author trying to show that money does not buy happiness? Perhaps I am reading too much into that. This is a slice of American life, with all the good and ill that comes with it.

Star Liner

Comments

A Child of the . . .

What was it like to grow up as a child in the 90s? How about the 1940’s? Thinking about a child growing up in each different decade, conjures up images in my mind. But that is all they are: images. I was a child in the 1960’s. I can tell you what it felt like to be growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, but what it felt like to me is not what the history books remember. History will tell you the 60’s was about the Viet Nam War, civil rights, and the space race. The 70’s was Disco and Watergate. I remember being aware of all of those things, but to me this era was about finding time to play with my friends, something I probably share with a child of any decade. It was about navigating the social intricacies of school. It was about the Beatles, Three Dog Night, The Moody Blues, The Animals, Jefferson Airplane. It was Bullwinkle, the Wonderful World of Color, and Ed Sullivan. There are things that a kid pays attention to that the grown-ups don’t. Then there are things the adults ...

Bureaucrats

I am one of those nameless, faceless bureaucrats. Yes, that is my job. Though I actually have a name; I even am rumored to have a face. Bureau is the French word for desk, so you could say bureaucrats are “desk people.” In short, I work for the government. I sometimes have to deliver unpleasant news to a taxpayer. I sometimes have to tell them that the deed they recorded won’t work and they will have to record another one with corrections. Or we can’t process their deed until they pay their taxes. I can understand why some of these things upset people. The thing is, we don’t decide these things. It is not the bureaucrats that make the laws. The legislature writes the laws. We are required to follow the law. If you are going to get mad at someone, get mad at the legislature. Or maybe get mad at the voters who voted the legislature in (That’s you, by the way). The same thing happens when the voters vote in a new district, or vote for a bond, or a new operating levy for an ...

Telephonicus domesticus

Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone from 1877 bears about as much similarity to the modern smart phone as an abacus bears to a PC or Mac. There are just about as many leaps in technology in both cases. It’s funny how a major jump in technology happens (like the actual invention of the phone). Then there are some refinements over a few years or decades until it gets to a useful stable form. Then it stays virtually the same for many years with only minor innovations. The telephone was virtually unchanged from sometime before I was born until I was about forty. Push-buttons were replacing the rotary dial, but that was about it. (Isn’t it interesting though that when we call someone, we still call it “dialing?” I have never seen a dial on a cell phone.) Cell phones were introduced and (once they became cheap enough) they changed the way we phone each other. New advancements followed soon after, texting and then smart phones. Personal computers were also becoming commonplace and wer...

A speculative mind

Search This Blog