Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Background Info
I struggled with understanding the different characters while reading the first half of the book. I got them all confused, and I couldn’t tell who was murdered from who was being accused of murder. This time, I don’t think my confusion is due to a lack of focus or procrastination; it’s because of the way the characters themselves are described. Linus and Bruno stand out for obvious reasons—they’re unique characters that have distinguishing characteristics such as being young and mute and being, well, a parrot. The character of the old man is unique because his presence is somewhat uncalled for. He randomly happens to see Linus and Bruno along the railroad, and happens to get called to the scene of the crime even though he is way past his years of being a detective. At the beginning of chapter 2, so many names are thrown out that I couldn’t keep them straight in my head. The Panickers, Mr. Shane, and Mr. Parkins all got jumbled up in my head because none of them were presented with any distinct qualities, other than being house owners or lodgers. I think that since I wasn’t introduced to the story with a solid understanding of the characters, their relationships to each other and the general backstory of the Panicker house, it was harder for me to grasp what was happening as the story progressed. Additionally, the connection between certain events (or lack thereof…) such as how the boy went from the railroad in the first chapter back to the Panicker house in the second chapter or how the old man happened to appear as a detective, went over my head and caused me to confuse various events in the story. I think that if links between certain events were clarified just a bit more, it would enhance my experience as a reader.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definitely agree with you and felt the same way. I feel like Chabon did this on purpose in an attempt to really involve and intrigue the reader into his mystery book. I think him leaving many ideas and events up in the air causes the reader to do some work and become as invested in the book as the old man is in the case.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I was also very confused with who was who and how everyone were connected. I think Chabon did this to add the air of mystery and vagueness for the reader. I also think it would have been helpful if Chabon had included at least a few sentences on who the different characters were or how the different scenes in the story connected.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you on this! While reading this book I was very confused with the different characters and situations going on, especially at the beginning of every chapter. Chabon starts off most of the chapters very descriptively and detailedly and he makes it very hard to follow where and when the story is taking place as well as what exactly is going on. I also find that some of the things he tells us are somewhat random and so I don't know what to do with the information he gives us such as the starting of the dairy farm that Mr. Parkins works at. I guess there really isn't much we can do except read and re-read whatever we do not understand which is a method that I think extends the amount of time it takes to read but also helps us absorb what we are reading.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really interesting post! I have always been somewhat of a poor reader and I often get confused with characters. I had to reread the text to make sure I had the characters correct. I think it is really interesting that you attributed this similarity between characters to Chabon's intensions ... I never thought of the possibility that Chabon may deliberately be describing the characters in a similar manner. I also have a habit of reading part of a chapter and coming back to it awhile after. I find this really difficult to do with this book because I forget how I ended up at a certain place with a certain character. With that said, if I pay more attention, I don't think it is extremely difficult to follow along, but I really liked the point and observation you made!!
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you, Sarah. I had a lot of problems keeping the characters straight. I think that is a reason I was not too happy with Chabon's writing. I could not follow the story. He wrote with a prose that came off as slightly verbose and pretentious. I, along with a lot of the class judging by Wednesday’s discussion, assumed that Chabon was going to be conceited. This was weird because I went to his talk the other night and found him to be so interesting. I thought he would be boring and snotty, but he was actually hilarious. He gave a reading and commentary on a short story he wrote. He made fun of himself, and provided an interesting lesson about relationships. I found this to be an interesting little form of manipulation. Writers, especially of fiction, give off very few hints about themselves. I have attended very few talks given by authors, but I totally thought I knew what Chabon was going to be like. I guess that just goes to show you, "you can't judge a book by its cover". Thanks for sharing, Sarah!
ReplyDelete