Reading reviews of the book suggests that people who get paid to understand and assess books don't even know how to handle this mess; some of them praising it as a masterpiece while others proclaim it utter rubbish. Heck, some reviewers say its both. In the end, the reviews are just irrelevant to the reader's enjoyment of this novel as the plot is, it's all in how we choose to take it.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Plots, Fish, Lost, and Tragic Confusion
This book is utterly baffling. The plot (a word which i use here tentatively) is rather incoherent, and the book is separated into sections titled by the significant fish of the chapter which relate to a character although the narrator (author?) specifically told us that wouldn't happen. It seems as though this book is meant to be taken as a source of entertainment through its twisted journey from insane character to insane character as opposed to its plotline (or lack thereof). The fact that it reads more like someone's diary as opposed to a straight narration or letter like other novels we have read is perhaps the most directly contributing facto to this occurrence. Once I as a reader decided to approach the novel in this manner, it suddenly had no obligation to me to have a discernible plot structure, and GBoF became a more enjoyable read, especially when the intricate characterization is combined with the involuntary interest one gets from gaining access to another's personal thoughts. The only issue with this arises when the narrator informs us of someone else's thoughts and actions that he clearly can't have access to, and my personal solution is one that hurts me a little bit on the inside; take it at face value. I initially wanted to figure this book out, but maybe it just doesn't require being figured out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I too am baffled by this book. The plot, or lack thereof, doesn't seem to follow any set, logical sequence or proceed in a completely linear fashion in the way that most plots usually do. But like you, I also decided to accept a more open-minded approach to its convoluted narrative and as a result have begun to really enjoy the story as a whole. While at times I find myself getting frustrated by the lack of consistency in Gould's storytelling, I've come to recognize that this book was purposely written in a style that most find confusing and disorganized. I like your comparison to the writing as similar to that which you'd find in a diary; that particular perspective hadn't yet dawned on me and I'm going to try adopting that stance for the remainder of the novel. You summed said it perfectly: maybe this book really doesn't require being figured out.
ReplyDeletethe fact that you said "take it at face value" sums up my feelings toward the novel after trying to make sense of it through the first half of the book. at a certain point i believe i too, just gave up on trying to make sense of everything and put it into some logical perspective, and once i did that it did seem to become more enjoyable, although it still doesnt make things any clearer than they were before. on pg. 246 the last two paragraphs sums up the vast amount of confusion i feel towards this novel because if you read those two paragraphs you will see that the narrator changes. in the first paragraph Gould is being described in the third person, " Billy Gould's problems were small fry indeed..." implying that he is not the one telling the story, but in the paragraph immediately following that, we see that it switches back to the first person acount with "I dressed...". this constant swapping of narrators is causing a great deal of confusion to me. i think that my best guess so far has been to speculate that Flanagan is having sid hammet tell the story of Gould, but that doesnt explain why were getting a first person account of events, if it really is Sid telling the story of Gould so as you can see i am still thoroughly confused, yet managing to enjoy the story a little more if that counts for anything.
ReplyDeleteI am just as frustrated! I do not like reading a novel that the own author has no idea why it is written...what kind of ish is that? I have no idea where this novel is headed and I feel like at the end I will still be like "why did I read these 400 pages?" I also agree about the plot, as you can see, and I do not like how there is not a stated purpose for all of the events and problems. The plot or lack thereof is really boring because some big action only happens like every 100 pages and then you expect it to be huge and it just last like 2 pages and then it goes back to being boring. UGH...how annoying! The confusion occurs when the continual flip to the past and present starts and makes it not only boring but confusing and who wants to read a boring and confusing book? Therefore I definitely agree with you and I, too, have stopped trying to figure out and mow am just reading and hoping I get all of the important parts down.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I agree that the novel is written in a style similar to that of a diary, I think that in itself is almost giving Flanagan too much credit. Personally, I don't really think it was written in any particular manner-- rather than something with a purpose, it was more of a stream of consciousness writing. Julie was right when she said that she didn't think that the author even knew why the book was written...but isn't that how most things in life are? Aren't all stories just convuluted plot lines filtered from a jumble of facts and events? Rather than looking for a plot within Gould's recollections, I think the most important thing to remember is that it is merely his life from his perspective and we can find meaning in it however we would like. If we had a metaphorical filter to filter this novel through, I believe we would end up with a bunch of different meanings. That in itself reflects the multifaceted-ness of experience-- it can be interpreted differently by everyone. GBoF is an unfiltered collection of experiences and feelings from which the reader can gain insight on a foreign and horrific reality and human nature as a whole.
ReplyDelete