First Glance at Chabon

Chabon's writing is vivid, fluid and immediately draws the reader in. The first chapter of the final solution functions perfectly to catch the readers attention. Chabon beautifully describes a random encounter between an old man and a young silent boy. The chapter leads the reader to wonder who the old man is, who the boy is, why he doesn't speak and the meaning of the parrot's random German numbers. A perfect beginning to "a story of detection", involving the reader from the very beginning. It is clear from the start that this is a book of clues. The title is a blatant response to "The Final Problem" in the Holmes collection while the main character happens to be an ex detective from London. The title also references the holocaust and the attempt to eradicate all Jews. The book cover creatively draws attention to the unknown significance of the German numbers the parrot utters. The epigraph even offers a clue of why this book is relevant in a class of truth and lies, describing a fine line between detection and invention. Chabon seems to be walking the reader through a mystery riddled with clues, commentary and nuances of which we must pick up on on our own. The novella seems more than mere mystery and clues, however, as Chabon uses pithy language to comment on historical and social themes. Apologies for the late post... Had half of it when I spilled propel on my computer which then crashed :( 

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.

transcending physical boundaries

In Chabon's The Final Solution, the idea of centering the book around a protagonist who is in fact mute alludes to the themes written in The Things They Carried. The fact that Linus is not able to communicate through words gives the reader no choice but to entirely shift their instinctual perspectives or approaches and pay attention to different aspects of his character and context than they otherwise would were he given a voice. In The Things They Carried, objects are given meaning that they technically do not have such as Dobbin's pantyhose and Cross's photo of Martha. Neither of these objects should serve as sources of hope or security, and yet they both manifest in a way entirely differently from what you would assume. In the same way, Linus's being a mute would seem to undeniably negatively affect his power as a character, but it does not hinder his ability to communicate in alternative, more obscure ways that are different from what is considered "normal" but undoubtedly still effective. In this way Linus does not simply represent the general impersonation of what a "mute" would be like; he transcends this boundary in the same way that the pantyhose and the picture transcend theres. 

Good Cop, Bad Cop

After reading a few chapters of The Final Solution, something that stuck out to me was the presence of police officers during the investigation of Bruno's absence. A recurring theme I noticed in fiction as well as in movies is the degradation of policemen and their roles in society. During the investigation, the narrator specifically pointed out that "neither Noakes nor Woollet was bothering to write anything down" (52).  Not only are they not trying very hard to figure out what happened, but they also abused Reggie because they believed he was the culprit when they did not fully have the right to. Now the real question is, why am I focusing on such small characters?

It came to mind that the media as well as just some people in general have a very negative view of policemen. In The Final Solution, Mrs. Panicker saw them as "sweating hulks in their blue woolen coats" which is no better than their donut-eating stereotype (53). Especially with recent controversy in the news about police officers, people in reality, as well as myself, have questioned their power and experience. I find it interesting that there are very few people who see policemen as the good guys. Obviously they are there to keep things in order, but they are also there to help, and it's intriguing to see how many people hate them. Of course there have been tragic situations in which they have abused their power and mistreated others and I think those are valid reasons. Even in The Final Solution, they mistreated Reggie without a proper reason. It's just also ironic. Something someone once asked that stayed with me was "Why are people afraid of the police or hate them if they are there to help? " Not everyone fears them or sees them as the enemy but many do. Perhaps it has to do with trust and the constant anxiety of being let down.

Dan Brown's Inferno

Over break, I read Dan Brown’s Inferno, a novel chronicling Robert Langdon, a renowned symbologist, in his journey across Europe. Without giving too much away, I will say that, like in many mystery novels, in the middle of the book there was a major twist. However, in this particular case, the twist came in the form of a flashback. The problem was, Dan Brown intentionally misdirects the reader by accrediting the flashback to the wrong character. At the end of the book, which this twist on a twist revealed, I began to think about all of the author misdirection in the book, and realized that everything Dan Brown writes, in Inferno as well as some of his other famous works, has multiple layers of authors, similar to many of the works we have read this year.

Robert Langdon, the books main character, is a (fictional) professor of symbology at Harvard, and uses his skills in each book in order to follow trails laid out by symbols. The authors of the symbols are taking part in a form of author misdirection all their own: putting meaning a layer below the surface in whichever medium they choose to use. I came to the conclusion that any one of these books would be exceedingly interesting to read in class, especially when I began The Final Solution and realized that we were reading a mystery anyway.

Is Chabon Hitchcock?

Before reading Michael Chabon's The Final Solution, I reminded myself to be wary of information thrown at the reader and to not become too comfortable with the characters or the plot, since most of the literature we have read in this class were riddled with lies. I was not fooled, likes some of Chabon's characters, by the old man's ability to know uncommon knowledge (if you read carefully, you will see that the old man merely acquired information and then dangled it in front of the information's protagonist so as to gain their respect and admiration). The only person the cantankerous old man seems to be at ease with is the young boy, placing far more importance on finding his lost bird than finding a murderer. 
The plot line so far reminds me Alfred Hitchcock's The 39 Steps, where Professor Jordan tries to kidnap a man named Mr. Memory, who has memorized a secret code that controls the fate of the war. Mr. Memory, of course, is Chabon's parrot.
I really enjoy Chabon's writing style--how he provides information in scattered fragments, forcing the reader to categorize different events into a timetable. Normally, I dislike disjointed writing, but Chabon's chaotic script has an underlying fluidity that is surprising and welcoming. I look forward to finishing the book!
On a side note, I once had to house sit for a family while they were away on vacation. I thought they had two dogs and seven cats (already a lot), but when I entered the house someone said, "hello?" I was mortified, thinking that there was a burglar, but when I rounded the corner there was a parrot sitting in a cage. During the course of the week, I came to realize that the parrot had a rather wide vocabulary, although mostly all very profane.

Sherlock Lite?

In my reading of The Final Solution I couldn't help but compare it to the Sherlock Holmes story that we read earlier. Chabon even says himself in the interview section of the book that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was the first writer that he really fell in love with. It surprises me then that Chabon doesn't really create a worthy protagonist to challenge the old man. In the final chapter of the Sherlock Holmes stories that we read, Sherlock battles a genius of equal merit in Moriarity. I recognize that Holmes did not have an equal in all of his capers, but it still seems strange to me that Chabon would not include a worthy adversary for the old man.

It is interesting to note as well that Kalb is not even really thwarted by the old man. His plans are actually foiled by the very parrot that he kidnapped. This fits in with the themes that we have been investigating so far this semester in the purpose of pointless things. It is important then to consider why Chabon would decide to give the numbers in the parrot's head absolutely no importance at the end of the book.

Upon further reflection, I decided that Kalb may not actually be the adversary at all. In fact, I see the adversaries to the old man as the parrot and the boy. They both flummox the old man. Through the bird's constant repetition of numbers, and the boy hiding his ability to speak, the two act as a very clever opposition to the old man's investigation. There may not be any danger of death as there was with Moriarity, but the bird and the boy still have the last laugh. They reveal the pointlessness of their little numbers game, and show readers that they have really just been conning everyone this whole time, and they don't even face any consequences for it.

Discounting Leads to Disasters

“’Very well.’ The old man chuckled dryly, entirely to himself. ‘I have considered the needs of my bees. And I believe that I can spare a few hours. Therefore I will assist you.’ He held up a long, admonishing finger. ‘To find the boy’s parrot…if we should encounter the actual murderer along the way, well, then it will be so much the better for you.’” (28). I think throughout this book, we observe the old man professing his wisdom among others who are perhaps more narrow-minded. The detectives seemed to focus on Shane’s murder and the suspects cared only for Bruno’s ramblings. The old man realized that this is about more than a murder. This is about a seemingly defenseless and very lonely boy losing his best friend and companion. Valuing the boy’s input is important because he wants his bird back more than anyone wants to find the murderer.

This kind of relates to a really cool project that is happening in Detroit called the “Empowerment Plan”. Veronika Scott needed to manufacture a piece of clothing that could help someone in need for a design class assignment. Often when people are trying to be helpful in their community, they do not ask the people they would be serving what they need. This leads to many overly optimistic ideas with lackluster results. For example, in the program “Teach for America”, the organization throws young and excited “teachers” into some of the most hostile, underprivileged, and impoverished school districts in America with the hope that these teachers will then gather the skills they need to be successful and change the education system when they leave the school in two years. However, this leads to many unforeseen problems because the organization did not ask the children or parents what they really need. One huge problem is that many of these children have had abandonment problems in the past, so a teacher that they get close to over the span of two years may cause more damage when they leave the children at the end of their commitment. Veronika Scott, on the other hand, went straight to the people she knew would be using her product, the homeless people of Detroit. She went to a soup kitchen and asked what they needed. Now, she owns a business creating a coat that transforms into a sleeping bag and empowers the low-income women in the area to manufacture them. Veronkia, like the Old Man, valued opinions that would conventionally not be considered.

On a side note the Christian Science Monitor reviewed Michael Chabon to be..."simply, the coolest writer in America" which I think is a hilarious appraisal. lol.

"Puzzle to kindle old appetites and energies"

Chabon starts off The Final Solution with the old man spotting a boy with an unusual parrot outside. Something about the image of the boy and the parrot "charmed him, or aroused his sense" (Chabon, 1). Although it seems like the old man is, well, nothing but an old man, I think he exudes so much passion. When he sees the anomaly of the boy and the parrot, he is filled with emotions and a surge of memories. Even through the subtly of his actions throughout the novel, you can tell that the old man had and still has a passion for problem solving. It is very admirable that people can be so passionate about things. As I was reading, I was wondering what I would be passionate about in my old age. What would trigger my old self to get super excited about something again? Even through his meticulous care of the bees, he is very involved. Anything this old man does, he does to the fullest. Even when Chabon describes the old man as old and sedentary, the sudden spark of questions that rush through his head after seeing the young boy made me really see how passionate and active he was during his youth. I wonder what my "puzzle to kindle old appetites and energies" will be (6). I really wish I had something I could be so excited about that I would drop everything in order to solve or perform this passion. This made me think back to Sarah Jillling's self actualization workshop.

Overall, reading Chabon's The Final Solution has been very enjoyable. I love his style of writing so far and it is really easy to get caught up in the story. Then trying to write this blog post, I was trying to think what we would talk about in class. I hadn't thought about it much while I was reading it but there are many different sides of how the parrot was stolen. It is hard to tell who's story we can even believe. I also feel like the mute boy holds a lot of power in this novel. He has heard the parrot's jumble of numbers constantly and has quietly listened in on many conversations. Although silent, he may hold a lot of power. To be honest I got very caught up in the plot and Chabon's style of writing to analyze or question any of the things in the novel so far.

Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes and Lies in the Media

Hey guys! Man that was a fast spring break, anyways I just wanted to start this post off with something I actually watched over the break. It was a scene in Netflix’s original series House of Cards. I’m pretty sure that many of you have already seen the new season already, but it was the part when Francis and Claire were talking. Claire starts by saying “ We’ve been lying for a long time Francis” and Francis answers with “Of course we have imagine what the voters would think if we started telling the truth”. If you don’t follow the House of Cards, Francis Underwood is currently the president in the series. However, in order to get there he had to deceive and lie to many people. After watching this scene, I actually got goose bumps thinking about how easily the politicians today could lie and cheat the citizens of America in order to access power. Another scene that made me think about lies was one of the chapters in the Sherlock Holmes. It was the one about the Stockbroker’s Clerk. The story was about two criminals that tried basically to steals other peoples identities by tricking them by giving them larges sums of money in order to steal that person’s signature. When I read over this story. I thought about how these criminals were able to survive in today’s society solely on lies. They lied to people in order to steal money. Then with that money they would lie to more people to think they are someone they aren’t in order to get their identity. With that identity, they would then lie to the world and society by pretending to be people that they really weren’t. However the gut wrenching part is that no one would be able to tell unless they knew him or her in the past. It frightens me how people are able to lie and get almost anything they want.

The Solution To Doyle's Problem

        I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Chabon titled his book The Final Solution and that the last Sherlock Holmes story written by Conan Doyle is titled The Final Problem. Within the novel, ‘the final solution’ is the fact that the mystery of the missing parrot is most likely the old man’s last case that he will solve. But outside the novel, ‘the final solution’ Chabon is offering is the solution to the death of Sherlock Holmes. Although the old man is never given a name, I think that he is supposed to be the legendary detective that supposedly died falling off a cliff. Chabon writes Sherlock back to life and has him living out his old age in a cottage in the English countryside. The old man has the same skills Sherlock does. He uses deductive reasoning and is able to infer theories from obscure details he manages to pick up. Also, throughout the novel there are references to the old man’s past as a famous detective.

I always like when other authors take an existing story and extend it, making it their own in a way. Even though Sherlock is Doyle’s character, Chabon crafts an 'epilogue' of sorts for the Sherlock Holmes series. It’s fascinating to me how a story written so long ago can still be told today in so many different ways. For instance, there are multiple TV shows and movies about Sherlock Holmes. I like that these characters never really die and that multiple people can give the stories their own twist.

Spring Break Epiphanies

During spring break I had plenty of time to catch up on my favorite television shows.  I found myself analyzing the perspective of the narrator in the Game of Thrones show.  The way the producer presents characters controls the way the audience feels about those characters.  For example, the way Arya Stark is presented forces the audience to empathize with her.  Also, Jamie Lannister is initially presented as a pompous nobleman causing the audience to hate him, but after his hand is cut off he grows modest and humble.  The change in Jamie Lannister’s morale pushes the audience to grow fond of him after being urged to despise him.  The drastic change of heart in Jamie Lannister that influences the audience’s perception of his character demonstrates how the producer manipulates the audience.
The first time I saw the first four seasons of Game of Thrones I had not taken this class, and did not notice the manipulation occurring.  I fell into the emotion-wrenching manipulation the producers and writers staged.  After having taken this class for half of a semester, I found myself critiquing the fact that way the characters are presented is done in an effort to make us feel a particular way about them. This class has already influenced me to contextualize the way characters and plots unfold.
Post Scriptum - This show is still one of the greatest of all time.  The twists and turns are always unexpected and the extreme detail makes it seem realistic.  I would compare the detail of this show to that of the movies Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.  The show can also be captivating through its presentation of the civilization of Westeros, which seems like it could be a representation of feudal Europe.

Punished for the truth?

I recently read an article (here), in which researches discovered through a series of tests performed on children, that children respond to positive incentives for honesty at a higher rate than negative punishments for dishonesty. While the article states that the test was performed on children, I wondered whether or not the same was true of adults. From all of the examples that came into my mind, it seemed pretty clear that our society, or at the very least our school, prioritizes punishment for dishonesty rather than promoting honesty.

People who come clean after being found out are often looked down upon as merely performing “damage control”, rather than commended for their honesty. While there is some truth to those accusations, the fact that those who come clean are viewed with a similar disdain to those who try to cover their actions up makes it difficult to choose coming clean over trying to get away with it. As long as the punishment for any sort of transgression is the same whether or not the person comes clean, it seems obvious that the person will try to go unnoticed.

Consider the various authors we have spoken about in class already who lied in one way or another in order to garner a larger readership. In a way, many people want the lie, they simply don’t want to know they are being lied to. In this way, punishment against dishonesty instead of a promotion of honesty is the best method of ensuring that the various illusions we embrace in day to day life are not dismantled in any way.

Anomalies

              This probably has no significance at all, but I noticed that just within the first two pages of the book, Chabon mentions anomalies twice. So, I looked up the definition of an anomaly. An anomaly, according to Dictionary.com, is “a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form” or “an incongruity or inconsistency”.

The first instance is when Chabon says that the sight of Linus walking along the railway tracks “charmed [the old man], or aroused his sense…of promising anomaly” (Chabon, 1). The second instance is when the old man realizes the oddness of the silence between the young boy and his parrot. “This the old man—though he had once made his fortune and his reputation through a long and brilliant series of extrapolations from unlikely groupings of facts—could not, could never, have begun to foretell” (Chabon, 2). The second quote made me think that if the old man is really this so called great detective, why was that particular instance something he felt he could not have begun to foretell?

When I read this, it made me think that there will probably be many more anomalies in this book. I mean, after all it is a mystery book. However, at this point, having only read half the book, there is not much more I feel like I can say about this. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I noticed the anomalies, and I wonder if there is a significance to it and what that may be. I guess I’ll just have to read the rest and find out!

Who Do We Trust?

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?