Discussion questions for The Nest

1. What did you think of the Prologue?  Did it fit with the feel of the rest of the book?
2. Did you find any of the siblings to be more or less sympathetic than the others?  In what way(s)?  Are any of them more or less well-rounded?  If the book were written from the perspective of only one sibling, which sibling would you want it to be?  Why?
3. Many reviewers felt the need to mention that this book got its author a seven-figure advance, and most pointed out that the publisher also spent a lot of money marketing this book.  Do you think the publisher was right to have high expectations?
4. The Boston Globe’s reviewer: “first-time novelist Cynthia D’Aprix-Sweeney paints in the broad strokes of a satirist and injects enough inanity to make “The Nest” a plausible sendup of the chattering classes. However, she shows her characters far more affection than scorn, signaling to the reader that she should try to relate to, or even feel tenderness for, these grasping boobs.”  Did Sweeney show affection for her characters?  Was it deserved?  Note that the reviewer refers to the reader as “she”; do you agree that this was a book written for women?
5. In an interview with NPR, Sweeney said, “We all inherit something when we’re born, and that’s a place in a family narrative. And that’s what I really think the book is about.”  Do you agree that this book is really about the intangible things we inherit?  Or do you think it really is about 4 siblings squabbling over money?  Why?
6. The New York Times’s reviewer opens by saying that this book is part of the “Squabbling Siblings” genre and gives examples of other books in the genre, including Emma Straub’s The Vacationers and Jonathan Tropper’s This is Where I Leave You.  (Liz Taylor’s Ring by Brenda Janowitz) Have you read other books in that “genre”?  Do you think this is a good example of the genre?
7. The New York Times’s reviewer also characterizes this as “a book guaranteed not to spoil anybody’s day, anywhere, ever” about “rich-person problems” like “your kids may have to go to a state school and you may have to belt-tighten down to one house instead of two”.  Do you agree that this is essentially a light-hearted book, or do you think that Sweeney touches on larger issues?
8. The Guardian’s reviewer is sure we all caught on that “… it’s family that matters, not money! That’s the big, obvious, unassailable truth that the book delivers.”  Do you agree that “family” is this book’s message?  If not, what do you think Sweeney’s message is?
9. For a book that’s billed as being about 4 siblings, we get the stories and perspectives of a lot of other characters (Stephanie, twins Nora and Louisa, Vinnie, Tommy).
   1. The Washington Post’s reviewer: “And because we need some relief from the Plumbs — lest they grow intolerably annoying — the book expands to explore their far more mature friends, relations and victims.”
   2. The Atlantic’s reviewer takes issue with how Sweeney treats class issues.  “Making room for the perspective of the city’s other half is important, given the Plumb siblings’ self-involvement.  But the artificial neatness of the downstairs storylines dilutes Sweeney’s irony. When these minor, and morally superior, characters end up amply rewarded with authorial acts of kismet … the effect feels more like absolution for the Plumbs than like a true critique of their ways. Sweeney gets to cluck at the fumbling siblings without giving them too stinging a slap on the wrist.”
   3. What did you think of the secondary characters?  Were there any that you would have liked to have had more of?  Less of?  Did you think they all added to the main storyline?  Or did they detract from it?  Do you agree with the assessments of The Washington Post or The Atlantic reviewer?

For more questions, check out Reading Group Guide’s resources.

Want to share your own questions with us?