The Inner Circle (original 2004; edition 2004)

I thought it was pretty interesting, but the book club mostly hated it. ( )

Though this is technically a work of fiction, Boyle did some research into Kinsey via biographies to lay down a great deal of the groundwork. I've read other works about Kinsey and seen the film around him, of course. This goes into greater detail. I'm not sure it's really life changing but if you're interested in the person behind all of the stir that was created, this is worth picking up. I think what I was fascinated by the most is the characterization of Kinsey as someone who was so malleable in terms of his personality that he could adjust himself to fit given situations with any varieties of people. He was just so driven on getting his interviews and discovering the real sexual habits of the populace. Though, it's funny how Kinsey seems to think of the very physical act as something that is free from emotions and attachments and it's clear through this book and most life experience of people that this can become very difficult, especially when you have wives and husbands committing adultery and friends running off with spouses for affairs. It's clear that the characters in this novel sometimes realize that they have huge double standards (in thinking they can have affairs but their wives can't, especially the main protagonist.) But it was also clear to me that something exists within human nature that makes detached intimacy a difficult possibility for quite a few people. Kinsey was doing his research back in the time when things like oral sex (even between a married couple) and homosexuality were outlawed in many states and it's baffling how Kinsey was able to do this research considering the nation's attitudes towards the subject. Yet, it's also clear that this level of repression and ignorance weren't good for the country. What the safe middle ground is I'm sure varies from person to person and is just something one has to decide for him/herself.

This is a well written novel and if you're interested in the subject, I'd recommend it, keeping in mind that it is still considered fiction. ( )

This book is one of the best I have read in the last years, so exciting like Middlesex (by Jeffrey Eugenides). T. C. Boyle, the author of more than ten bestsellers, is a writer of 'real' American stories, so the interest in his books can be limited outside the US. But this one is about the famous sex researcher, Dr. Alfred Kinsey, who wrote the two earth-breaking books near the beginning of the 50's about human sexuality. Those scientific publications were sold better as any other books from that era, and were the main vehicle to debunk Victorian morality and tear down sexual repression in America (I am not sure if using past tense is totally right here).

Prok (this is the name of Dr. Kinsey used by friends) is the real hero of the book, even if it is told by one of his assistants, Milk, and formally is about Milk's life, his common life with Iris, his wife. Clara, Prok's wife is also an important figure.

Prok is a sex- and science-maniac tyrant, there is no doubt on that, even if he is adored by a lot of or even all of his 'inner circle'. Clara and Iris are the most sympathico figures (and as usual, all the everyday duties of the families are on the shoulders of the wives, while the men are doing 'research' and all that stuff).

What confuses me is where exactly to find the right balance between the "human animal's" needs and the miracle of love and marriage. There are many situations in the book where the reader easily sees some extremes are out of question, but there are too many others as well where it is not clear at all if a possible refusal would come from our shyness, false reflexes or from our good taste? I think there is a big dilemma and a problem with finding the proper way to interiorize or suppress our 'human animal' needs, due to our morals or cultural believes.

There is an independent movie titled 'Kinsey' (2004) from Bill Condon, which tells the same story. Of course, it is hard to be basically different, but as usual, a book and a movie are not in the same worlds. I was amused, however, by the story of Clara, teaching the naive John Milk in both worlds. This is one of the rare occasions where the film was unbeatable - Prok (played by the marvelous Liam Neeson) standing totally perplexed on the first floor and shouting up to the own bedroom to the strange pair... Laura Linney as Clara is unforgettable. ( )

I’m a big fan of T. C. Boyle, and this book is well-written and meticulously crafted, as I have come to expect from Boyle, but, I was just disgusted with two of the main characters. The novel tells the story of Professor Kinsey and his inner circle of sex researchers. Kinsey and his wife are historical figures, the rest of the characters are fictional. Kinsey is portrayed as overbearing, authoritarian, obsessed, domineering, abusive, and borderline perverted – all of which is probably close to the mark historically. And I really hated him.

The other major character, and the narrator, is John Milk, the first researcher that Kinsey hired. He is weak and easily led, treating Kinsey as a god, to the detriment of his own marriage. I’m sure Boyle, in the manner of Dickens, chose Milk’s name on purpose – he really is a milquetoast. I wanted him to stand up to Kinsey, quit his job, maybe buy a gun and take some revenge, but he could never bring himself to do much of anything.

So I liked the writing but hated the two most important characters! What a dilemma… ( )

I am not sure what to think about this book. I don't think it is a badly written book or bad storytelling at all, but I hated the main character so much that it spoiled the book for me. The story was told from a first person perspective by a coworker of the sex researcher Kinsey, but instead of making me inclined to understand the storyteller's dilemmas it made me loathe him even more.
He was hypocritical, two-faced, and a weak character. He did everything to please Kinsey, even if it meant alienating his wife. He prided himself on being liberated but applied totally different standards to his wife's liberation. His reluctance to let anyone criticise Kinsey didn't help. In short: he was not a likable character.
I'm unsure if T.C Boyle did this on purpose: question the so called liberator of America by exposing how two faced even he and his "Inner Circle" acted. If that was the intend, then it wasn't successful. It only exposed his weak little underling. I don't mind weak heroes, but they have to have at least one redeeming quality. This storyteller didn't redeem himself at all and I hated the book even more for that.

I know a lot of people who like T.C Boyle's books, so I assume it's just me who either doesn't get it, or just plainly doesn't like that kind of writing.