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.