In Michael Chabon’s The
Final Solution, there are limitations for both reader and characters. A
prominent limitation is the distribution of silence. Characters such a Mrs.
Panicker determine that the “mute” boy’s silence reveals his apparent lack of
intelligence. I believe that the young boy’s silence is not indicative of his lack
of wits, but rather a testament to his unparalleled understanding of the
artificial world around him. The young boy is much more intelligent than the
fellow characters give him credit. I believe the other characters will eagerly
dismiss his interpretation of the missing bird, and come to realize he was
closer than any of them to the truth. There is a lot of room for the reader to
manipulate situations to one’s own thoughts, because there is a lack of proof
and a constant thread of ambiguity in the novel. Both the dominance of silence,
but also the power of words cannot be taken as true or false. It comes
down to trust: however, that could harm us in the end. Trust can be obliterated
in the end of the novel, when we discover the truth, if there is any. We are as
clueless and powerless as the investigators trying to solve the murder of Mr.
Shane. Parkins said, “ I assure you that I had nothing to do with the death of
Shane… I have either been in my bed or in the library here for the past two
days, though I can offer no proof of that statement, I am afraid.” (Chabon, 60) We have yet to discover evidence for who committed the crime, so who do we trust?
I noticed that it's hard to trust a lot of the characters solely because they have different sides. This isn't a flaw in their character, but they often change who they are/how they act depending on who they're surrounded by. For example, Linus only appears lively and vibrant around Bruno, and also Kalb. But (SPOILER ALERT) then we find out that Kalb was the one who killed Mr. Shane, so which side of the characters are we even supposed to trust? Which is authentic?
ReplyDelete