There also seems to be a great deal of discussion on the basic structure of the novel (being a story within a story), and the subsequent role that Sid Hammet has in all of this. In discussion today, someone brought up the point that in all other novels, the narrators seem to be trying to validate themselves, where as, in this novel, Hammet/Gould seem to make no real attempt to do so. In addition, we have also been talking about why this book was written the way it was, and how the author wants us to look at his work. Someone brought up the point that the book is written in such a manner (with such a twisted plotline, and with so much confusing detail), that it was meant to make the reader, us, seem as if we were being drowned by all the words that are thrown at us. This may have been done to parallel the fish motif that is used throughout the novel. Someone else suggested that this novel is just Gould trying to write, and In doing so, attempting to show the truth of what really happens, of what he experiences. The incorporation of fish throughout his account may just be his response to being labelled as an artist.
The question of why Flanagan/Gould chooses certain fish to define each novel was also discussed today. Several ideas were brought up, sort of showing that we don't really know what to expect of the role these fish have in the novel yet. For example, it was mentioned that the fish might help show the deception in the novel by showing that what you think something is may be different than what it actually is. On page 89, Gould seems to be relating to the kelpy. A good point was brought up that Gould might be trying to tell us "not to see fish in the people, but to see people in the fish" -sort of like humanizing the fish, as we do to animals by giving them facial expressions and emotions.
No comments:
Post a Comment