Notes from Kathy:

We're coming to the end of our discussion of Celestina -- thanks for reading and participating, and especial thanks to Peter Bush, the translator, for providing so much depth and information about the book's language and context, and the translating process.

We often end a book discussion with the question of whether the title should truly be considered a classic.  In the case of Celestina, there is a clear argument for its prominence in literature based on the time and place of its publication, as well as its role as a precursor to other literary works.  Is that enough?  Does a classic need to have a level of universality so that it can create a connection to readers of all ages?  And does Celestina have that ability?

While I didn't resonate as strongly with the characters in Celestina as I have with some of the previous books we've read in this group, I did find a strong sense of familiarity -- the specific culture aside, these were people who behaved in understandable if not admirable ways, people I think could be found anywhere.  And I found the play-like structure challenging but also intriguing, and quite well crafted.  For me, Celestina does merit being called a classic.

-- Kathy Gursky

P.S.  In a few days I will be posting information about the next title for the Book Club; the plan is to start discussion in July.