I’ve loved other books by Tracy Chevalier but this one was just ok. Interesting story following 2 timelines - 1500s and present day, but I don’t love stories where 1 of the main characters is constantly negative. France in the 1500s is so interesting and I wonder if this would have been better if only told the story from that perspective.

One of my most favourite books ever!

Vaig llegir aquest llibre fa mil anys (bé, mil anys no, però potser sí fa més de 15). Recordo que em va encantar i el vaig deixar a moltíssima gent, i casi tothom el va disfrutar molt. He aprofitat els moments de platja per tornar-lo a disfrutar i la veritat és que no m'ha decebut gens. La Chevalier escriu històries boniques, treballades i es nota que estudia molt les èpoques, religions i costums. Les dues linees narratives són interessants i això és un plus, ja que moltes vegades una es menja a l'altre i provoquen trams avorrits, pero aquí no és el cas. Dues dones que busquen el seu camí i que, més o menys, ho aconsegueixen.
Si heu llegit La noia de la perla i us va agradar, us recomano aquest llibre.

This was an amazing book, and the ending was not disappointing at all- except for those I can imagine have little imagination and did not really pay attention to the plot. Tracy Chevalier has completely astonished and moved me with her writing once again.

For those of you who appreciated/liked the ending and would like to read my take on it- please read below. Didn't understand the ending? I think my analysis has some interesting points.

JUST KNOW THAT THIS ANALYSIS OF THE ENDING HAS SPOILERS.


SPOILERS- DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT FINISHED THE BOOK!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My take on the ending:
I do not know what happens to Isabella- the last time we as readers "see" her is through Jacob's eyes ("Jacob reaches the crossroads and finds his mother on her knees, bathed in blue.") and he is watching her crouch somewhere far from the crossroads that he has just reached himself- meaning that if he is coming from the direction of the Tournier farm (we can assume he has just left after such a traumatic experience because he like Isabelle was the only other that truly loved Marie) then Isabelle has chosen another direction (both away from the Tournier farm Jacob just came from and away from the west road that Jacob takes in the end). Jacob turns away from both directions (the way he just came from/the Tournier farm AND his mother) to go WEST ("She does not see him and he watched her for a moment, the blue reflected in his eyes. Then he looks around and takes the road leading west"). I think Tracy Chevalier makes this distinction implicit (the only real detail she gives us in the end) because she wants us to know that Jacob DID go away and make it on his own.
Because why else, then, would the well constructed plot include this Nicolas Tournier that might have just been a dead end and a way to slip us up before Ella finds her "real" ancestors. But no, Tracy Chevalier very openly brings back Nicolas Tournier in the very last lines of the ending- making him a very important detail, and re-instating him as a possible ancestor, and a very important one at that, because Ella (who's intuition has not failed so far when it comes to her ancestors) also can not give up on the coincidences of the character and feels he is important. What is my conclusion of this- that he IS very important and very much an ancestor of Ella, and that he is not Jacob, but Jacob's SON.

You see, look at the dates:
Jean was born in 1563
Jacob was born in 1565
& Marie in 1567

Now, one must put together the clues the book has given us:

1. That right around the time this all happens with the dress and Marie's murder, Isabelle very explicitly notes how much "Petit Jean" has come to resemble his father and the Tourniers, and how much he acts like a grown man -- even though he is barely ten years old.

2. That when Jean-Paul finds out more about the painter Nicolas Tournier he finds concrete evidence: the painter's baptism year was 1590 and the painter's father Andre Tournier came to Montbeliard in 1572 (where Nicolas was born) from Besancon. (see page 97: "His father Andre Tournier, who was a painter from Besancon - that is not far from Montbeliard. [...] The father, Andre Tournier, came to Montbeliard in 1572 because of religious troubles ...").

I did the math, and if Jacob was born in 1565 and would have arrived at Montbeliard in 1572, that would have made him 7 years old at arrival. If the year Jacob left and arrived at Montbeliard was 1572 (making 1572 the year all this happened with the dress and the murder of Marie), then that would make Petit Jean 10 years old (born 1563) just as it had been mentioned in the book by Isabelle, and Marie 5 years old (born 1567) just as she should have been because Ella found child bones.

My assumption is solidified by these years and then the ending, because I think that Jacob DID leave and managed to survive and arrive at Montbeliard, where he ended up settling for the rest of his life. Now think: Jacob was very very smart, he would have managed and he also would have been smart enough and angry enough at his family to change his name to Andre. Also, Andre was a painter, and Jacob had all the qualities and skills that would have made him one too. He was particular about colors and their contrasting qualities (remember his love for the stones) and even his own love for the Virgin's color blue that he came to adore because of his mother, would have allowed him to pass that on to his son Nicolas, who also becomes a painter (I am unsure about who paints the painting Ella comes across though, because I feel like it could have been either Andre/Jacob in memory of his mother and Marie, or Nicolas who would have become an impressive painter after his father and made the painting after being influenced from his trips to Italy). Either way, that is my conclusion. Jacob left, arrived in Montbeliard in 1572 at seven years old, changed his name and made a new home, life and family for himself, becoming a painter and passing that on to his son Nicolas. Also, note that Nicolas' baptism was in 1590, and if he was baptized the year of his birth (as customary), then by the year 1590 Andre/Jacob would be 25 years old, making him old enough to not only have been married but a reasonable age to have had a child as well.

Why does all this evidence make me so sure about all my "assumptions" about the ending: well because Tracy Chevalier was very careful and strategic in providing us with all these specific dates and information. As a writer, I can not imagine she would have included or bothered to put this into the story and the plot without real purpose. Writers, at least good ones, will not include something in their stories without purpose or meaning.

This, overall, makes me happy because of all the Tourniers that survived (poor Marie) and would have had the chance to have made a respectable family (certainly not poor Isabelle and definitely not Petit Jean who becomes as evil as his father's family- having incest and illegitimate children), it would be Jacob. Kind, thoughtful Jacob, who also would have been thoughtful enough to never call any of his children after his father's family- breaking the Jean/Hannah/Susanne/Etienne cycle, and also breaking any link to that family, which is why it is so difficult for Ella to ever really confirm that his family are also her ancestors, even though she feels it in her gut.

Also, I'd like to make another go at Isabelle's ending, because assuming that Jacob left and that Isabelle's only choices were to either go back to the Tourniers, the Shepherd, Susanne's family or die in the streets, I feel that Tracy Chevalier gives us a little hope in leaving her at least some distance away from the crossroads where Jacob finds her and watched her from. MAYBE she somehow survived and made it back to the Shepherd, MAYBE even she made her way to Susanne's husband and children, but I do not think she went back to the Tournier farm, because she was not facing or on that path as Jacob walked up to the crossroads. I know that the other alternative would be that she died one the streets, "a baby in her womb, forgotten, her grave unmarked." But this, as the ending so states, would not be the worst fate, it would have been going back to the Tourniers. Also, Isabelle - despite all the sad things that happen to her in her life - would be the kind of woman to survive with the help of her faith in the Virgin and the "magic" protection she received again and again from her mother/the wolf. I feel also, that Jacob knows this, though he leaves her, Jacob knows that his mother will be fine because he finds her "on her knees, bathed in blue," and I can not help think that his seeing her this way (protected by the Virgin) would be the only way he'd turn away from her and leave.

Finally, I'd also like to point out and finish by saying something about Marie's fate, because looking back now I can not help but recognize all the clues we were given throughout the story that her life was in danger and that the Tourniers were an awful family. For one, despite what happened with Pascal and Jacob making the blue dress for Marie, it becomes clear that Etienne and Hannah had been planning to sacrifice Marie all along. If one reads Page 192 again, before the granite even arrives, Etienne already knew he would sacrifice Marie and burry her under the hearth.

"How big will the hearth be, Papa? Petit Jean asked. As big as the one at the old farm? Etienne glances around before his eyes rested on Marie. - Yes, he said, it will be a big hearth. You think so, Marie?"

After this, Isabelle could SENSE the danger that surrounded her daughter. Not only this, but the clues kept coming, from Etienne counting the stones outline of Marie when Jacob was trying to do the same to know the size of the dress and Isabelle (sensing the danger again) kicked at the stones, to the way Hannah fed her (maybe to make her bigger or something like an animal sacrifice? Idk, but it was still a strange thing because Isabelle pointed it out and was worried about it), and - finally - to Etienne's and Hannah's worry when the granite arrived and they refused to let the delivery man help them set the stone because Marie was obviously still very much alive and they couldn't kill her and put her under the stone right in front of a stranger they knew would tell everyone. Also, it became clear that they had been planning this all along and had been willing to make a human sacrifice because they had done it before- as Ella realized when Jean-Paul unburied the teeth under the chimney at the old Turnier house.

One last thing- some may argue that there would be no way for Jacob to survive by leaving his family at seven years old ... or any age in fact before he was big enough to marry. But consider that back then children were only treated as such up to a certain age. They were expected to work young and - specially the boys were expected to behave and grow up like the men from their family from an early age. Petit Jean was well enough on that path only at ten, he could work the fields and use a knife, etc. Jacob had different kinds of skills, and he wasn't as cunning as Petit Jean, but I think he would have still made it ... even at 7 years old. He could have wandered around, gotten strange jobs along the way, and settle in a town where someone could have helped him, as they had the Tourniers when they'd arrived poor after fleeing France. Even at 7, I think Jacob was very smart from the beginning, really mature and had all the potential to make a life for himself away from his family.

I really loved this book in a lot of ways, but the sense of inevitability, that feeling of descending tragedy that cannot be averted, was so strong and, of course, correct. We were looking at events that had already occurred and those could not be changed. But when we were experiencing them in a present tense I really wished that Isabelle could have found a way out of the life and tragedies that were here destiny, especially for Marie. I was just sick about it. Also found myself in favor of Jean-Paul, heedless of Rick, which is an unusual stance for me. I guess I was so caught up in the destiny of the relationship. I wanted to kill Hannah and Etienne and if I was Isabelle I may have.

This was a very imaginative story and the religious history of early France was fascinating to me. I had to keep going to the internet to read more about it. But it is definitely not as good as Girl With the Pearl Earring and I had a hard time understanding the actions of the modern day character who is researching her family history. The family research was very interesting and kept me really absorbed in the two young women from different centuries, but I did not understand why the modern American woman's personal life had to so disagreeable. I do plan to read more by this author as her writing does contain so much history and holds my interest.

„Matai, tai nuostabi spalva, bet sykiu ir sklidina liūdesio: galbūt tam, kad primintų, jog mergelė amžinai gedi savo sūnaus, pradeda gedėti jo vos gimusio. Tačiau ir tada, kai jis miršta, tas mėlynumas toks pats nuostabus, be galo gražus – teikiantis viltį."

Argi gali būti geresnis laikas skaityti šią knygą, kai gegužė ir dangus toks skaistus ir mėlynas? Vieni rašytojai į savo istorijas įpina maisto aprašymus, kiti – įspūdingas keliones. O Tracy Chevalier romanų ašimi tampa meno kūrinys. „Merginoje su perlo auskaru" tai buvo paveikslas, o „Skaisčiajame mėlyje" – Mergelės su kūdikiu statula.

Man labai patinka, kaip ši autorė į kūrinį įaudžia spalvas, istorines detales ir sukuria intymią, paprastą, tačiau jaudinančią rašymo atmosferą. Šis romanas pasakojamas dvejomis laiko juostomis: praeities, kurios pagrindinė herojė neturtinga valstietė Izabelė ir dabarties, kurios veikėja amerikietė Ela, turintinti prancūziškų šaknų.

Nesunku nuspėti, kad šių dviejų skirtingų moterų gyvenimo istorijos susilies, tačiau turiu pripažinti, jog praeities linija buvo žymiai įdomesnė ir stipresnė. Ir Izabelės charakteris buvo daug išraiškingesnis, nei Elos. Amerikietė mane tiesiog erzino ir dabarties linija buvo gana nuobodi, tad suabejojau, ar autorei apskritai vertėjo ją įtraukti į romaną.

O 16 amžiaus Prancūzija ir Šveicarija, atokiu, kalnuotu kaimiškuoju Sevenų regionu aš mėgavausi. Romane yra ir istorinių momentų, paslapčių bei skaudžių likimo išbandymų. Mėgstantiems lengvas istorines knygas apie stiprias moteris, turėtų tikrai patikti.

Pasirodo, kad „Skaistusis mėlis" yra pirmasis autorės romanas, gal todėl jis nėra toks išdirbtas kaip „Mergina su perlo auskaru". Bet man šios rašytojos stilius labai patinka, tad noriu perskaityti ir kitas jos knygas: „Nepaprastosios būtybės" ir „Dama su vienaragiu".

https://www.facebook.com/profesionali...
https://www.instagram.com/profesional...
www.profesionalimama.wordpress.com

Like all of Tracy Chevalier's books, this is beautifully written and deeply engrossing. Unlike her other books, this has elements of a thriller!

The story alternates between Isabelle du Moulin (aka “The Rousse” for her copper colored hair) and her distant descendant, Ella Turner. Both are trained as midwives, both are not able to practice their craft (Isabelle's husband Ettienne won't let her, Ella has moved with her husband to France for his work, and she doesn't have the necessary certifications to work there).

Ella is having repetitive dreams about being enveloped in a shade of blue. She decides to investigate her family tree, she is descended from Tourniers in Franch (who Anglicized their names to Turner when they arrived in America). Isabelle is unhappily married and accused of witchcraft. The two stories are interwoven, coming together in a satisfying climax.

The good: All the scenes describing Isabelle and the past are excellent, she is a very sympathetic character. The finish was good, with every loose string tied up.

The bad: I didn't really care for Ella, she seemed whiney and dramatic. I felt annoyed sometimes with the choices she made.

Overall a very readable book, definitely held my attention, but nowhere near as good as Girl With a Pearl Earring.

Curious, mildly interesting, but fell short of Chevalier's other books.

It has similar flavour as Tracy Chevalier's other books but don't isn't quite as great. Still is a good book and I liked that we looked at two different women through time but I wasn't mesmerized by the story and I didn't quite like the end with Ella.

I enjoyed the jumping back and forth in time from current to the 1500s. I enjoyed the historical aspect of the early Protestant French. I loved the main female character featured in the 1500s. I didn't really like Ella, the main female character in the current time.

Started off interestingly enough - 2 parallel stories, interesting premise, but then the writing seemed to deteriorate and get less fluid. The characters appealed to me less and less and it just got weird.