Grace and deprivation (Alice Ferney) Dinner 
Hello Hello to gypsies
gadze (s) Hello to
zotres
Some titles give a pretty good idea of the theme of the book: the mustache , Passion Simple or Murder on the Orient Express are a few. Others are more enigmatic and can not be explained at the turn of a paragraph such as the wild camel's opponent.
Grace and deprivation into a third category and this title so beautiful and poetic gives a glimpse of just text quality and sensitivity of the ineffable Alice Ferney.
The subject In a deserted wasteland of all, a family of gypsies was sedentary, living on the margins of society and its rules. Mother Angeline rules the clan consists of his 5 son, her 4 daughters and their children. All comic books, they tolerate more than they accept early makes weekly visits to Esther for their children to read. Gradually, some links are forged between them and women.
My opinion A (e) avid reader can not be an Interested in a book devoted to the magic of reading and, indeed, I had almost to tears by discovering the passage where Esther, on his first visit, began playing a Babar.
This book could have been a favorite. It is not so little. The writing is superb Ferney, sensitive, intelligent, with this sense of detail that captures a situation as a whole, saying that gives little to understand much without any demonstrative effect. The author obviously loves and respects his characters. No situation is grotesque and mawkish. Camp life is described in fascinating female characters are extraordinary. The chapters follow one another without the attention or interest never abate. The novel was thus endowed with all the attractions but I'd rather he tries to convince me sometimes.
If I really won out again and totally charmed my reading, it is nevertheless true that when I think by ignoring my emotions, I find two major flaws that make the novel so Grace and deprivation is undoubtedly a very beautiful book and a great time playing, this is not a great book for those who most please us, upset us or inspire us change us deeply, we mark, we sobering we live.
First I blame the novel a certain naivety and even a certain Manichaeism. This is obviously the most basic right of the author to take part, to adopt the view of the Gypsies, but then it does so clearly, it assumes that position completely. In fact, under covered with a facade of neutrality makes sense to show both sides of the same coin, Ferney often shows complacent face expressions of contempt towards gypsies gadze (word meaning both "non-Gypsy" and "whore": everything is said!) where it readily emphasizes those gadze against gypsies. If the misogyny of the gypsies is shown in a factual manner throughout the book, it is never discussed, never challenged in the book, never raised. It's the same for subjects such as dirt, theft, labor. If the novel book of vague elements of argument is always a justification for one-way who finds no contradiction in the pages of Ferney ... For example, a gypsy who says he does not work because the only job that he could claim the disgraced Esther (or writer!) Does not, however, these jobs, there are men and women who do and they are no less respectable instead. Esther from beginning to end just the roles of readers and spectators and at no time does a real dialogue, attempts to explain, debate and better understanding.
And I come naturally to the second flat that I extend to the novel. Esther reads books to children and will fight to give them access to schooling. But it s'assête there. For months and months, every Wednesday, she came to spend a few hours reading books. One day she intends to make her laundry, she takes another woman to complete a water bottle but its involvement is limited to this. She fears that children have cold seeing bedraggled in the winter and it suggests they get a sweater and they say they do not. How a woman who weaves supposedly links with these people for months would not have had the idea of their old clothes of his own son? How as a mother she would not spent 50 euros in a discount store for a few polar? The only gift she made one day these children can not play is a game of cards.
bed Esther, Esther answers questions, but finds Esther Esther is constantly in the background, not questioning Esther, Esther does not challenge, Esther does not stimulate the imagination, desire, confidence. Esther does not seek to give children the desire to learn to read. Esther is confined in a passive role, the role of witness and allowed the exchanges remain ultimately very superficial, limited involvement.
Ultimately, I do not understand or what I understand of it to me foreign makes. I can not believe that the original initiative of Esther has not had more impact on her and led to unintended consequences, an additional implication, growing over time and, rightly or wrongly, the feeling a responsibility to these children. The commitment and dedication can not be limited to a set schedule as immutable as visits to a psychiatrist because humanity and affects not programmed well.
Some links
Calou gives notice very sensitive and positive where the word "reaction" very well summarize the criticism que je fais au roman
Mondalire propose un résumé du livre, un extrait assez représentatif et quelques critiques issues de la presse
Le journal d'une lectrice évoque à quel point le dénuement est décrit avec grâce... C'est vrai.
Conclusion Un très très très beau roman, vraiment, dont l'empreinte cependant s'efface avec grâce...
