Gould Seems to Explain Himself

Okay, so I haven't checked out if anyone else has written about this yet, but I was re-reading the last couple pages of our last reading assignment when I came along something that made me jump in my "mind-seat!" On page 289, Gould writes "& my shame is such that I can only refer to myself in this regard in the third person--Billy Gould felt the urge to throw up." As soon as I read this line immediately I was drawn to the chance that maybe all his use of the third person narration was when he was ashamed to be telling it from the first person--suggesting that narration in the first person, leads to a direct claim of actions and reactions. In the context that this appeared, I was quite surprised because this was the one of the most G-rated scenes in the novel (Gould is just throwing up.....) and his does not want to claim it. The sex scene with Twopenny Sal (begins page 273) remains in first person for the entire time, not one moment he switches to the third person--and in my opinion I found this scene to be way more explicit that reading about Gould throwing up from drinking too much; but, I guess this is his own form of censoring himself from situations. He is proud of the sexual interaction with Twopenny Sal; however, he is ashamed of his inability to hold his alcohol and his discovery of the lies in his life.

Following the idea of him being ashamed of certain actions, at the beginning of "The Striped Cowfish" chapter, Gould switches to the third person before his recount of hooking up with Mrs. Gottliebsen. Could this be because he was trying to validate that it was a "different" person that was unfaithful to Twopenny Sal? He writes that the reader is 'entirely right & entirely wrong' because he goes on to say that Twopenny Sal was not being faithful to him. I don't know if you see this going along with Gould trying to differentiate that "Billy Gould," told from the third person perspective is not as honest as the "Billy Gould," from the first person perspective....just an idea....that I am still working on.

How is Gould Still Alive?

As I progress through the novel I began to find myself asking that very question more and more. We are told that Gould is sent to the worst prison in the entire British Empire's penal system. We are made aware of the atrocities that take place in Sarah Island. At this point in the book it seems if you are not getting your penis cut off or forced to do participate in some purposeless torture on any given day, it is in fact quite a victory. Gould has luckily avoided most of these situations, but his survival is still questionable.

Assuming Sarah Island is not clean or sanitary and lacking the basic first aid materials, Gould's good health is surprising. First of all, he lives in a cell that floods multiple times during the day. Living in a damp environment in a prison in which he leaves dead fish in can not be good for ones' health. Moreover, Gould finds a dead body that he then buries in feces. Generally speaking those two things are not regarded as being clean. Then, in this past reading, we find out that Gould comes across another dead body and chooses to put it in his OWN CELL and float around with a dead, bloated, and decaying body. How has he not developed some type of disease? His immune system must be weak as he already has the clap and syphilis. The fact he has not contracted some deadly illness is simply miraculous.

third person

In one of our discussions in class we talked about the purpose of Gould sometimes referring to himself in the third person. Most people felt like it was an ego thing and that he was making himself sound more important by talking about himself in the third person. I have a different theory for this reasoning for using the third person that is completely opposite. I think that everytime he uses the third person he is ashamed of him self and he wants to separate himself from what he was doing at the time during the story.

For example when Gould has no clue what to do with the bones of the surgeon, he refers to himself in the third person (241). Here he is confused and lost and does'nt know what to to do, and thats kind of embarassing so he wants to distance himself from that "version" of Gould that he is telling the story about. Then on pg 201 he is talking about how pathetic he is trying to climb the ladder amongst prisoners. Next on pgae 191, he's talking about himself being on an island with no escape. So I think he uses Third person to highlight how screwed gis situation is. Then he also uses it to highlight when he doesnt know what to do.

Author Influence on Story

We have made a constant and recurring theme in class discussion about how the author is important to the comprehension of the work.  In the case of Clara in Wieland, we mentioned how she might have made her character seem far more brave and rational than she truly was.  In True History, we approach the question of how valid Ned's defense of his unlawful actions can be.  Never before, however, have we been thrown this ball within the novel.  In GBF, when Gould comes across the written dream of Jorgen Jorgensen, and his consequent reaction to that - all he had seen & known, all he had witnessed & suffered, was now as lost & meaningless as a dream that dissolves on waking - we are shown how important the author can be to reality.   Gould is unshamedly sick knowing that the reality of life, along with his dream given to life is condemned to be forgotten.  I guess that we should take from this that manhandling reality through fiction is a sickening thing?  If we are to take that conclusion, it's important to note that Gould himself is also making himself a historical writer, writing his own fictions as truth.

As important is what Capois Death says about freedom within the space of memory - as I interpreted it, when something is written, it cannot be revised as thoroughly as when it remains in our memories and we can forget that things have happened.  Things can be unseen in our memory.  By this, all writers of history, true or not, are gaolers, delimiting the range of motion of the recollection of the past.

If Gould, as well as Jorgensen, is a jailer, I suppose the important thing is who is jailing who, and if anyone has the right to.  In the sense that both of their interpretations of sarah island have survived (if that jorgensen's is the one that the historians go by in the first part), neither of the jailers are completely successful in their work.  The party that is completely jailed is that of the people who have no writing in history.  A (jailer/writer) can. as we said clara did, (incarcerate/write) himself (into a posh cell/in as a hero), but those who don't write have to suffer being labeled by the author.

I don't know if i can say anything ultimately truthful about rights, but it would seem fair to say that the common fairness of the jail of history is the truth, a thing neither Gould nor Jorgensen has written.

Discussions and Such

Manu Jarvis

Facilitation; Discussion Style

The Surgeon’s death is fitting for him, in a poetic justice kind of way. He definitely deserved it seems to be the general consensus.

More thoughts on the character’s attempts to order the world, except this time Jorgen Jorgenson is described as someone trying to order the world by his own invention, making up stories in order to create a reality. Gould is comparing people to fish in such a blatant fashion that it can’t be ignored, even though it is in the corny “Everyone has some level of beauty” fashion (Matt)

Emotions as a connecting factor is an interesting theory, especially the valid point with the eyes being a portrayer of the characters’ emotions. Something that becomes more significant considering the lack of an actual coherent plot.

Review of thoughts on the Commandant vs. Surgeon. The surgeon’s goals seem more tangible and logical, while commandants seem a little more on the crazy side.

People not enjoying the lack of plot, some of us feel as though we are at the wrong end of a joke.

Concept of time, perhaps the lack of plot isn’t the issue, but it’s the fact that time may not be linear. Is time a consuming atmospheric presence that can’t simply be sorted into a linear fashion.

Gould and the commandant have similar backgrounds due to the fact that both are criminals and both are attempting to find purpose in their respective lives. The key difference here is that the commandant is trying to establish his identity through others’ reactions to him, while Gould isn’t worried about how people view him from the outside.

(Yu) Claims that the scientist isn’t a real scientist because his ultimate goal is to prove the existence of god.

(Tat) doesn’t understand the point of reading this book for class, because there isn’t a clear one in the novel. The novel also isn’t progressing a plot point of any kind

Commandant and the stargazer, both unimpressive at first glance, but in motion, their abilities are doubtlessly brilliant.

The general mood towards the book is that there is no discernable plot line and many of the blog posts reflect that. They also begin to show alternatives to having a plot, other things the book does well (or differently) in order to draw attention for its readers. Characterization and character interaction seems like a constant trend in terms of the appeal of the novel for those who have managed to continue searching.

Surgeon- religious undertones? Is he an atheist or a fanatic? It all seems entirely banked on how the reader perceive his statement in regards to finding out everything, leaving god as the last mystery.

People seem to be coming to terms with the fact that there is no plot. Gould is building a dark and twisted environment for the reader to live in, not a story.

The blacks that were being decapitated were NOT slaves. Don’t allow your American sensibilities to fool you.

Discussion Review

Discussion Review
Q: This is the third book we’re reading that involves someone specifically telling a story, Clara in Wieland, Ned Kelly in True History, and now Gould in Fish. All three stories involve some degree of historical fact. Is this type of fiction more appealing, less appealing? Do you prefer it?
A: Tate stated that he likes it. The fact that some of the characters, Ned Kelly in particular, really existed bring new depth and intrigue to the story. Jasmine said that she sees the relevance that history plays in the story but believes that True History and Fish are different in regards to the blurred lines of human morality, where Ned is a participant in moral/immoral situations, Gould is only a witness.

Q: Closer analyzing True History & Fish we see that:
In the year 2000 Peter Carey, an Australian author, writes a historical fiction novel derived in part from the actual Jerilderie Letter written by the actual Ned Kelly.
In the year 2001 Richard Flanagan, an Australian author, writes a historical fiction novel derived in part from the actual images drawn by the actual William B. Gould.
Did Richard Flanagan steal Peter Carey’s template? Did Carey steal it from someone before him? Does it matter?
A: Kevin stated that maybe it was a product of trend. The fact that True History was a success may have triggered Flanagan to copy it. Others argued that it was purely coincidental and that it may have taken Flanagan much longer to write his book than it did Carey. Josh stated that even though they are slightly structured the same they cannot or should not be analyzed as equals because True History has a much higher level of truth to it than Fish does; the level of truth is disproportionate. Roman stated that the similarities may be due to Australian ancestry of the authors themselves, possibly an internal struggle to define/ historically depict their country.

Q: Do you read the teaser introductions to each chapter, why or why not.
A: Ryan said he didn’t read them because they were confusing, he related them to Pudd’nhead Wilson’s calendar entries and how it was basically unnecessary reading. Josh stated that they were vague and at times not in chronological order. Someone also mentioned that it their purpose may be to give the book a historical feel, similar to the entries in True History.

Identifying the Fish as people
Pot Bellied Seahorse- American Tourists
The Kelpy- Capois Death
The Porcupine Fish- The Surgeon
The Stargazer- The Commandant
The Leather Jacket- Matt Brady
The Serpent Eel- Guster Robinson
There was a complete class consensus on the identification of the fish as people with the exception of the Serpent Eel. Josh did not agree. He had done some further reading and concluded that its identity was someone different. Questions were asked about how identifications were made and the response was that sometimes Gould will tell you and sometimes he’ll hint it.

Identifying the Fish as a compilation of similar emotions
Seahorse- Questions, The Unknown, Mystery.
Kelpy- Deception, Mistaken Identities
Porcupine Fish- Gluttony, Overindulgence, Hoarding (information,food,comfort)
Stargazer- Fear, Villany, Fright, Danger, Uncontrolled Power.
Leatherjacket- Hope, Hummanity
Sepent Eel- Depression
These were my interpretations and I mentioned to some effect why I thought so. Josh stated that he too, associates the fish as ideas and emotions and that some differ from mine. I found it appropriate because the book has, on several occasions, referred to art as being open to interpretation, meaning different things to different people.

Possible Themes
• Love
o Twopenny Sal (191,192), Old Gould’s daughter (214)
o Passion, lust, desire
o Literature, science, art, self (ego)

• Deception, things are never what they seem, cannot be easily defined.
o Might not be the actual book of fish we’re reading
o Gould is not really Gould
o Capois Death, The Commandant, Guster Robinson: Physical does not match the presence or aura.
o Intentional and non-intentional deception

• Knowledge, ability to learn for survival, for personal growth.
o Literature, science, art
o People learning from each other. Capois Death and Tracker Mark (219)
o People learning out of necessity. Capois Death assembling and building
o Lack of knowledge, surgeon assumes he knows, is assumed he knows.

Discussing Flanagan’s story telling methods I explained how Rich is a diehard fan of “Lost” and how he stole their template as well. I asked why tell a story in this manner and Josh’s response was that it’s because that’s the way life really works and maybe Flanagan is trying to imitate life with his book.

The last few minutes of class were an entertaining back-and-forth about the narration. Some people were displeased with Gould’s telling of the story because he either assumes he knows exactly what other people are doing and feeling, which is impossible. Others argued that what Flanagan is trying to do, similar to free indirect discourse, is create a stronger impact with his style of narration and too much is being made about the science of it all. At which the idea of lunacy found its way into the conversation and the fact that Gould might be insane may be playing a major part in the book’s narration. Someone stated that the content of the book itself may altogether be a figment of Gould’s imagination.

I tried to tag people’s reactions but in the end I forgot who said what, but I’d like to thank David, Madolyn, Jamie, Matt, Mark, Robert, Julie, Allen, and Yu and all the names mentioned prior for your contribution to the discussion. You guys are wicked smart and all very very good looking. If I forgot to mention someone, I’m sorry, I’ll buy you lunch…even if you didn’t talk I still think your good looking, no worries.

The Commandant and the Stargazer

Out of all of the fish-character parallels, this is the most interesting to me; I'm not entirely sure why. The most literal parallel is obvious: the name stargazer implies someone who is a dreamer and whose dreams are larger than life and are seen as unrealistic or impossible by others. The Commandant dreams of doing something completely unrealistic: turning the island into a nation and effectively recreating Europe.

Gould's physical description of the stargazer is also very similar to that of the Commandant; he mentions the stargazer's "oversized head that dominated the subordinate tapering body", a virtually identical description to that of the commandant (163).

One of the Commandant's characteristics is the juxtaposition of his physical weakness and smallness with the power of his rhetoric. When he first encountered the Commandant, Gould recalls how his speech had a power of persuasion over his audience, and he was able to convince people that his dreams were a reality. He uses that rhetoric not only to convince the convicts and soldiers of his aspirations, but to convince traders to enter into ridiculous deals with him (he sells the great barrier reef, etc.), allowing him to almost accomplish his dreams. This is a bit more of a stretch, but I think the Commandants ability is paralleled by Gould's description of the stargazer catching its prey: "Then, an explosion of sand out of which the stargazer's great body appeared, as if forming out of the very disorder it created...A body flexing and leaping, propelling the stargazer up & sharking down on the hitherto unsuspecting baby flounder, leaving only the Vlach cheering..." Just like the Commandant, the stargazer amazed its audience in the act of killing its prey, despite its slow moving, unassuming typical form. Gould later says that his first painting failed to capture the magnificence of the stargazer. Like the Commandant, its regular physical form is unimpressive. Only in action does it show its true magnificence.

What is Going to Happen to Gould?

I initially did not know what I was going to write about for this blog post. As I began thinking about certain topics or issues, the frustration I have recently experienced while reading Gould’s Book of Fish became apparent. Determining the true narrator of the story has been difficult. Is the narrator William B. Gould? Or is it Sid pretending to be Gould? I also do not understand “the reason” as to why we are reading this particular story. From the other novels our class has read this semester, I could determine important issues from the narrative. In Pudd’nhead Wilson for example, I was better able to visualize the social atmosphere in the U.S. during the 19th Century with respect to race relations. However, I have found it difficult to determine or understand issues that may be important in this novel.

As others have discussed in the blog, there appears to be little or no plot visible in the novel up to this point. However, I would like to know where this novel is headed as far as the main character, William B. Gould, is concerned. We learn that William B. Gould is a prisoner with exceptional artistic skills. Yet as the novel has progressed, we hear more about other characters such as the Surgeon and the Commandant, and their stories. Will their stories ever truly impact the events surrounding Gould’s life as a prisoner? Even though both the Surgeon and the Commandant used Gould for his artistic abilities, their impact on his progression in this novel seems minimal.

The Fake Scientist

KARMA JUST THREW A DEVASTATING PUNCH AT THE SURGEON...
*K.O.*

The surgeon general finally got what he deserved in the Serpent Eel. It is quite ironic that the surgeon is now going to be classified. We learn early on that the Surgeon purpose in life was to classify the world. To the surgeon, the classification of all natural things is "Science." Even though the classification scheme is presented as a purely scientific endeavor, that is not the case. I think this entire endeavor is not real science - the objective, systematic pursuit of understanding the unknown around us. The Surgeon's classification isn't trying to ultimately identify and categorize what is within the reach of man but what is outside the reach of man. One of his alterior motives is to prove the existence of god. The Surgeon clearly says, "OUR TASK-GREATER-NOT INTERPRETING NATURE FOR DECORATION-SEEKING TO CLASSIFY-TO ORDER NATURE-THEN ONLY RIDDLE REMAINING WILL BE GOD"(129). This passage suggests that after classifying everything in the world, what would be left is that which belonged to god. Thus, this is the first indication that he is no real scientist even for his era. He is instead searching for god ultimately. In the recent chapters, we learn that the surgeon only took up an interest in Fish because it hasn't been done before. It is a novel idea that could be easily published in a scientific journal. Everything may point to the Surgeon actually having interest in fish, but that is not the case once again. Instead, the classification of fish was meant to be the "FINAL WORK TO CAP ALL OTHER UNDOUBTED INDUSTRY OFF" and his "TICKET TO SOCIETY"(226). The real purpose of the surgeon making Gould draw all the fish was to use to get himself into the royal society for scientists. The surgeon is only looking for fame and respect instead of having actual scientific interest in Fish. It is even more despicable when he switches over to decapitating the black slaves and trying to use their skulls when Wheeler told him that FISH has already been done by Hooke. It is really dark look at the relationship between men. The surgeon uses the black skulls and fish to try to get into the royal society while in the background it can be clearly seen that Wheeler is using the surgeon as well to further his standing in the royal society.

Commandant and Gould: Similar but Different

Though we have compared the similarities and differences of the Commandant and the Surgeon, I was also struck by the similarities and differences of the Commandant and Gould, something we have not yet discussed in the blogs or classes. Both of these men were “criminals” and both were driven and plagued by questions concerning their identity and the meaning and purpose of life. Just as Gould struggles to find his identity but is unable to grasp this elusive goal as he continually declares that he could not be defined by a single definition, the Commandant also strives to obtain an identity as a “man of destiny” but every effort to do so by adopting grand projects ultimately end in bitter disappointment. Both men try to obtain or grasp ever elusive goals to satisfy the questions and longings of their soul. However, many difference s are revealed throughout the book. The chief difference lies in the essence of their beliefs concerning identity. The Commandant strives to be seen as a man of destiny who built a utopian “nation” admired by many as flocks of tourists and visitors flood to see the great wonders the Commandant had built.(165) In essence, the Commandant’s identity was found in how people viewed him- his fame and glory. As a result, though he builds great buildings and undertakes grand projects, he is never satisfied because of the absence of tourists. In contrast, Gould continually insists that his identity is not based on other people’s opinions and resists being defined by men. In the beginning of his dealings with the Surgeon and the Commandant, he attempts to please them, making it his goal to do whatever they want him to do. Gould writes that “the fish were at the beginning only a job” and says that he had felt compelled to paint for science and hated what he did. However, he began to develop “feelings for the fish” as “they began to interest me, and then to anger me.” (213-214) Gould began to actually desire, enjoy, and be satisfied in his paintings of fish not because of other’s opinions or praises but because of the action itself. In a sense, he had found his identity and meaning in life by painting fish. It is this key difference between the two men that I believe Flanagan is trying to show that basing one’s identity on fame and glory will end in disappointment and extreme dissatisfaction whereas one can eventually enjoy and be satisfied with the sometimes “normal” things in life. For Gould, it was painting fish.

Time Doesn't Run Straight

One of the most abstract philosophical ideas address by Gould's Book of Fish is the possibility that time isn't linear. The notion that we hold of time as a linear motion, starting at one point and ending at another, is a human construct, and specifically a Western construct. Many Meso-American peoples believed that time was cyclical - something that the constant repetition in our lives, such as birthdays and Christmas occurring every year, or the seasons would support - as do many Eastern Asian cultures, some of which also believe that one can step outside the circle of time with the proper amount of effort (or lack of effort). We have spent an extensive amount of time in class discussing how this book refuses to fall into a linear fashion, be it through Thomas's comparisons to lost or our failed attempts to classify this book in parts or chapters. It's hard to break from the bias we've been imbued with by growing up in a Western culture, and in a heavily Western influenced world, but maybe it's time to look at time in a different manner.
On page 251, while Gould is describing Jorgenson's gripe with the world, he says "Books were solid, yet time was molten." In other words, the world didn't act like anything Jorgenson encountered in a book because time moves more like molten lava, in a seeping, spreading fashion, than in a line. Books have a start and a finish and always remain the same. Time, on other hand, says Gould, is not something that we can search out move along linearly. Rather, we live in it, our atmosphere, like water to a fish. Gould would say that, if you agree with him, this book is written chronologically (though not in chronological order). I'm curious what my peers feel about this - does time run in a straight line? Is it cyclical? Does it seep, like molten rock, or like water?