In the Book of Fish Flanagan seems absolutely intent on heaping detail on top of miniscule detail, seemingly adding a new narrator or level of the book with each chapter, until the reader collapses from confusion. Sid Hammet finds a Book of Fish written b a William Henry Gould who authored another Book of Fish, the original apparently bing completely unauthentic. Sid then loses this book but decides he will rewrite it from the best of his emory. He then becomes mesmerized by a fish mentioned in Gould's Boook, eventually trading places with the fish which at one point may have been the actual Gould, who hints that he will eventually turn into a fish, who is possibly writing what we are now reading... what?!
In my opinion, the specifics of the story, as well as the incredibly difficult-to-follow chronology the novel offers, isn't actually all that important right now. Like the Book of Fish Sid first reads, the story folds over itself, seemingly with no beginning or end. However, the point isn't really to follow an exact plot, but rather to evoke emotions or provide commentary on the issues being brought up in the novel. I think that Flanagan deliberately doesn't want the reader to completely understand every piece of the character's lives. This would also explain the plethora of abnormal or arcane language and expressions that abound in the novel- surely Flanagan doesn't expect the average modern reader to comprehend every single reference he makes. Again, the individual words are not as important, so much as the overall effect they leave on the reader. We will just have to wait until the end of the book to see what this intended emotion or effect is.
No comments:
Post a Comment