As with Cat, I also really liked Eva’s portion of the story better and I had to remind myself to change my thought process when it went back to Ruth. I thought the two women were strangely similar – kind of rough around the edges, Eva more because of her life, but Ruth was kind of hard, too.

To go to the questions, I did like the book, but I felt like some of it could have been cut out or adapted in some way. I was not aware of Britain’s campaign until I read this – I really enjoy reading about WWII, but found myself in college just learning about Japanese internment camps and being so bewildered about why I had never learned about it in high school. I think, especially with WWII, there is so much to learn (and so much we don’t really “know” about.)

I think Boyd did a fair job writing from a women’s perspective. I think Suz, you were right, in mentioning the feminity of his prose. I think a woman would have described Romer differently, however, perhaps in more detail.

I also think that the worries Eva had in the present throughout the book were hinted at on the last page – I don’t think it was anything concrete and because Romer seemed shocked when she accused him of “still looking for her”, I think it was all in Eva’s mind. “Our common mortality, our common humanity . . . one day somone is going to come and take us away, you don’t have to be a spy to feel like this . . .”

I liked it in that it made me think about the politics we never see.

I agree with both of you, though, that the ending was anti-climatic, and with Suz’s comment that the construct of the journal in the third person was clumsy. I didn’t think it was great literature, but I thought it was a compelling story anyway.

Agreed, Suz, that it doesn’t properly explain *why* Eva was worried in the present time.

I like your description of the author’s thinking about what the movie would look like. I think it describes his style very accurately. It did take me about 50 pages to get into the book and the story. I agree about Romer’s being “plastic” and Eva, too. Ruth was one of the more believable main characters in the book and I wish the story stayed more with her … chronicling her gradual discovery of her mother’s life. I think this is really better done in other books, like The Historian.

I don’t know how I would change the ending. I thought that having Romer basically kill himself was odd and it was never fully explained (at least to my satisfaction) why Eva thought someone was after her in the present.

I didn’t think that I would like this book, but I did. I had no idea that British forces were working to get us into the war (although it doesn’t surprise me).

I think that the question about Ruth’s story detracting from Eva’s was interesting, because, to me, I liked Ruth’s part of the book better. I could never figure out why Eva’s was in the third person and not in the first person. If it was supposed to be a journal that Ruth was reading….why was it not in the first person? I think that it would have been more immediate and interesting that way!

I think, when I get right down to it…..I didn’t really like Eva. I thought that she was a little too confident, if that makes any sense at all, and very ruthless in her own way, especially in how she used her daughter.

I don’t know…how did you feel about Eva? Did you like her?

That said, I liked Ruth. I thought she was believable and her disbelief was a good touch.

I wondered if anyone was going to mention the Iraq similarities!

How would you have changed the ending of the story?