Marisa, Liz and Army Corporal Dave discuss the hippie movement, which none of the characters seem to support. Do you think this accurately reflects the views of the time period? What did you think of the portrayal of the 1960s counter-culture?

On page 44, Marisa, Liz and Army Corporal Dave have a conversation about the hippie movement (“From what I’ve seen, the talk of love and peace is an excuse to experiment with drugs.”) None of the characters seem to support the hippie movement. Do you think this accurately reflects the views of the time period? What did you think of the book's portrayal of the 1960s counter-culture overall?

I think it was realistically depicted. That was a powerful movement for young people to cut loose from their families and societies restrictions and any social norms. The chance to be totally free to express oneself without judgement was intoxicating. Of course there were unforeseen consequences...

I thought the hippie movement was realistically depicted. The counter-culture movement was portrayed how I imagined it, especially since I was an adolescent in that time period and I personally thought that hippie movement was strange.
However, as I went through the book I found it a little hard to feel it was supposed to be 1968, as there were certain happenings that were a bit out-of-context for the time.

I was 17 in 1968. The hippie movement was much larger and more diverse than depicted. Certainly “sex, drugs and rock’n roll” was a large part, but so were communes and various freedom groups that were included in the term “hippie.” I will concede that some groups were as represented in the novel, but marijuana was not as widespread as in the seventies. It is true that, prior to birth control pills, sexual freedom carried much more risk for women, and this was depicted in the book. Finally, in general the hippie/counter culture movement was considered marginal in most areas at that time.

My neighbor claims she was a hippie in the late 60's. She claims the representation is accurate though generalized. Unless the writer wants to feature only the hippie culture it needs to be generalized--hippies were different in the U.S., G.B., and Europe. This book represents a snippet in time, place, and personality.

I was 14 years old in 1968, so just on the periphery of the "hippie movement". Although I do recall there being the element as described in The Rose Arbor (and perhaps they were more prevalent & long-lasting in Great Britain than in the US), I was somewhat uncomfortable with the narrow description & decidedly negative interpretation of that aspect of cultural history. The '60s were such a time of upheaval of societal norms with protest movements ranging from civil rights to anti-Vietnam war, the sexual "revolution", equal rights being proposed for women, and the proliferation of illicit drugs (at least where I lived in the US). I agree with mceacd's & MariontheLibrarian's comments above. There were many things happening at the time. The lumping of all counter culture advocates into this narrow, pretty extreme & very one-dimensional grouping & labeling them as "hippies", just didn't feel right to me. That being said, I could see how the characters in the book (Liz with her isolated upbringing & academic success and the other two with their very conservative, rule following & enforcing careers) would definitely have this conversation. Unbeknownst to the reader at the time, this conversation also was a plot assist for further into the story, which shows just how skillful a writer Rhys Bowen is. Still . . . history has many examples of groups who believed in & tried to build utopian societies who did not fall into the abysmal portrayal of the ones in this story.

The 60s were a time of great change but some people wanted life to remain the same as it was. I think that their opinion of the counter-culture was pretty narrow and didn't reflect what was going on.

The comment written by tsquared successfully presents a clear picture of the “hippie movement.” Yes, there was the sex, drugs and rock and roll aspect, but many of us on college campuses,like I was at the time,had loftier goals in mind. Many considered the war in Vietnam to be an illegal one, and they protested that fact. Interestingly, the goals of civil rights for all citizens and equal rights for women are still among the most sought after goals today.

The hippy movement was so widespread that it is, in my opinion, difficult to generalize about it. Yes, there were people who were involved in what were illicit drugs, but others were not. Many people were protesting against the atrocities of the Viet Nam War and supporting civil rights for all but not involved in drugs. Others were simply on the fringes, enjoying the music and clothes, but not involved in social issues.

I do not believe the "hippie movement" was accurately portrayed, and agree with tsquared's comments above. The description was superficial and seemed very limited in it's scope. There wasn't a great deal of time spent on those characters, but the descriptions struck me as being rather cliched.

The depiction of ATTITUDES TOWARD the 1960s counterculture movement are accurately portrayed, but the actual movement was depicted in stereotypical terms. I remember it well because I lived here in California, just 90 minutes from San Francisco, and went to "the Haight." I saw what was happening and recall vividly the protests, demonstrations, and clashes, especially at San Francisco State when S.I. Hayakawa was the President of the University and Ronald Reagan was the Governor. They actively took measures to squelch free speech. It was a far more complex matter than the references in this book might suggest, but that was not the focus of this story.