That's the weirdest book I've ever read (FIGHT CLUB SPOILER ALERT)

            As soon as I finished reading Aura my mind immediately jumped to the film, Fight Club. Aura and Consuelo turn out to be the same person, as do Montero and General Llorante, which is extremely similar to the merging of the narrator and Tyler Durden at the end of Fight Club. Additionally, I felt as if I was Montero/The General because of Fuentes’ use of the second person in writing this novella. Reading a text that constantly uses the word “you” is a strange experience. It adds another layer of narration because Fuentes is telling you, the reader, what is going on in the story, but the use of the second person in a way makes you tell yourself the story. It is like he’s telling you what to do and say. The visuals in my head at every point of the book were like a first person video game. I did not imagine Montero walking around the house. I imagined myself walking around the housing talking to Aura and Consuelo.  It was to say the very least, “trippy.” The overall strangeness of the novella made the twist at the end less shocking. I was not surprised that something supernatural occurred because of how bizarre the book had been up to that point. The oddity of the book made the twist more appropriate in the context of the story. Usually films with twists such as The Sixth Sense, Fight Club, and The Usual Suspects are shrouded in mystery throughout the film and, in that respect, Aura followed a similar formula.

The clue is in the name

This was as equally startling as it was thrilling to read. When I began the novella, I remembered to pay attention to the cover so that I would not miss any hidden meanings, like I did with The Final Solution; so when I read that the beautiful Aura had bright green eyes, I began to wonder if the cat on the cover with green eyes was a hint that Aura may not be what she seems.

Fuentes drops many hints that there is a very irregular relationship between Aura and Senora Consuelo. On page 25, Senora Consuelo says, "I told you she'd come back," and the reader assumes that the old woman is talking about her rabbit, but it is Aura who appears. When Senora Consuelo does something, Aura immediately mimics her. Felipe is struck by this strange relationship and assumes that Aura is a servant, against her will, of Senora Consuelo's and makes it his mission to free his love from the old woman's grasp. Yet, if you read closely, you realize that Felipe is also becoming a mirror self of Senor Consuelo. Felipe is not simply copying Senor Consuelo's memoirs, but he is rewriting, reorganizing, and editing the documents. They are no longer in Senor Consuelo's hand, but in Felipe's. Felipe is becoming Senor Consuelo, like Aura is to Senora Consuelo.

Fuentes also provides the reader with clues about the nature of his characters through their names. An "aura" is a mystical, spiritual being that surrounds and is generated by a living thing. The character Aura is Senora Consuelo's aura. Consuelo, when translated from Spanish to English, means "comfort" or "solace." My interpretation could be a bit abstract, but I take this to mean that Senora Consuelo relies on her younger, more beautiful self, Aura, to comfort her in her old age. Llorente is a conjugation of the verb "llorar" which means "to mourn, to lament." Senor Llorente mourns the loss of his wife's sanity, and worries that he has lost her, while Senora Consuelo laments over the death of her husband. And finally, Montero, means "hunter." Felipe tries to save Aura and be her hero, but ends up falling into a trap. I could be reaching here, but I believe Fuentes chose these names intentionally.

What

This book was the strangest piece of literature I've ever read. I'm not even sure what to write right now. When Felipe first started liking Aura, I thought that his first interaction with her was a dream, and I'm still really not sure if it was or not. A huge theme that came up a lot is mirrors. If I understand correctly, Aura is a reflection of Señora Consuelo, and Felipe is a reflection of General Llorente. Aura's actions mirrored those of Consuelo. However, that's where I got really confused. The girl in the pictures was Aura, but it was when Señora Consuelo was that age, so does that mean Aura is a recreation of Consuelo? Why did Aura think that Consuelo was giving her life? And then at the end of the book, Consuelo seemed to bring the book back to the beginning when she said, "She'll come back, Felipe. We'll bring her back together. Let me recover my strength and I'll bring her back..." (145). But isn't it Consuelo who needs strength, and isn't Aura giving her that strength?              

What the fuck?

I have no idea where to even start with this book. There’s the writing in 2^nd person, the torturing of cats, the people being turned on by the torturing of cats, the liver for dinner every night, the always dark house, the possible cloning, the possible time travel, and the very bizarre last scene. I have absolutely no idea what to make of this book. I’ve tried to think about possible deeper meanings but I haven’t come up with anything. So I guess I’ll start at the beginning with the quote by Jules Michelet. The first line of the quote compares man hunting and struggling to women intriguing and dreaming. These things don’t really seem to compare to each other, but immediately paint women as the more dominant and intelligent sex. It then talks about a woman’s desire and imagination, which could be referring to the kind of imaginative way that this book is written. The last line is a good embodiment of the book. It refers to the fact that men are completely controlled by women, and dependent on them. Looking at the book, Felipe had to have seen that a lot of things were weird about the house and family as soon as he walked in. As he spent more time there he should have realize that there were some very disturbing things going on. Instead of leaving, like a sane person, he stays because he is so in love with Aura. In the end we see that he was also in love with Senora Llorente. In both cases he is at the mercy of the women (woman?) he is in love with. Another thing that I noticed is that when you translate Aura from French, it means “will have”. I think this could work in two ways. It could be the way Felipe was determined to have Aura from the minute he met her, or the way Aura and the old women were determined to have him. In but cases there was never a question of if they would have them, it was always a sure thing, they would have the other.

Sainthood or Hell?

This novel was chilling yet addicting to read. The youthful, beautiful, immortal Aura was all an illusion. This story embodies the desire and sexual tendencies beauty attracts. By contrasting the withered and gum less old woman, with the timeless and elegant young woman, beauty is isolated to youth.  Beauty and the idea of immortality become vicious addictions for the old woman and Senor Montero. Their evil desire to preserve their innocence is not an act of greed in the final scene. The old lady/ Aura, because they are the same person tells Montero/ Senor Conseuelo because they are also the same person, that, “She’ll come back Felipe. We’ll bring her back to together. Let me recover my strength and I’ll bring her back…” (145) This moment was one of the few human and genuine interaction in the novel.  This quote does not reveal self driven greed to recover their younger selves, but rather a connection that holds the old woman and Senor Conseulo together because it is their way of escaping the clock that life is limited by. I believe that the old lady is a Saint, which enables her to escape the clock of mortality. Senor Montero says, “you don’t look at your watch again, that useless object tediously measuring in accordance with human vanity, those little hands marking out the long hours that were invented to disguise the real passage of time, which races with a mortal and insolent swiftness no clock could ever measure.” (139) This is mocking the idea that immortality exists, and it is making a distinction between us (humans), and the immortal Saints (such as the old woman). It is also saying that life is not measured and limited by a clock because life is more that just the little hands on the clock counting down our days left. The novel uses the pronoun you to make us a character in the book. It’s manipulative and effective because it deceive us with the possibility that we can have immortality, but in reality we are going to fall the victims to the callous reality of death.

What Is This Book, Aura?

I’m not sure how to react to the book Aura.  Did Senora Consuelo deceive Senor Montero by offering a ridiculous salary for what turned out to be indentured servitude?  I think Senora put the ad with such a high salary to target Senor Montero, and lure him in.  If my suspicion proves to be true that may imply Senor Montero has a history that makes him a desirable target for Senora.   Also, are Senora and Aura brainwashed?  Have they devoted themselves to christianity so intently that they refuse to communicate with the outside world?  I don’t think its very religious, or moral to burn cats; unless that was just some illusion I was supposed to pretend to see.  This is all merely speculation, so it can be dismissed.

The perspective of the narrative also throws me off.  The author makes it as if we, the audience, are experiencing the events.  Literally making the audience disregard the actual main character, and imagine themselves as the main character.  This type of perspective makes the novel unravel on a personal level.  I felt as if I was actually the one that couldn’t see the trunk in which Senora’s, husband’s works resided wrapped in yellow ribbon.  I feel like this personalization also happens in The Things They Carried.  The events of war are told so vividly that we feel as though we are in the main characters position.  For example when Tim O’Brien’s platoon napalms a village and describes walking through the ruins of it.  By personalizing me with the main character Fuentes can easily get me caught up in my emotions; this could be a vital manipulation tactic.  I could be missing the entire meaning of the story because I have been caught up in what appears to be happening.

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.