Other thing, it gets pretty beyond-coincidentally strange in the
second half. I find myself reading along and accepting the plot twists
at face value. Is it the fantasy element of the whole book that make
this acceptable to me? Anyone else finding this? I think I'm kinda
fussy about potentially unbelievable plot twists (a-hem, Hosseini) and
I'm not quite sure what about this novel is making them work for me.
Final meandering thought--with spoilers for chapter 30(ish). Anyone
else enjoy piecing together the Jews' status in the world? I'm finding
it fascinating. I was surprised by the indications of Jews elsewhere
in the U.S. Jews with money to be donated. Then Landsman refers to
them as the "Barrys, Marvins, and Susies" of Judaism (paraphrasing,
don't have the book in front of me). We have a couple parts that sound
completely modern and accurate. It could almost devolve into some
playful conversation about Jews controlling Hollywood and therefore
the world.
It's funny, because this part connects the narrative to our own world
more clearly. I have more to say, but no more desire to write...
I'd love to hear someone else's more coherent thoughts on any of this.
I think it is interesting to consider this from the Fantasy Story
point of view. In many ways, with Science Fiction/Fantasy writing
most of the futuristic elements, communications, transportation,
government, etc. etc. are not clearly described but they're given a
futuristic or onomatopoeia-esque sounding name, with this book he has
simply placed in the Yiddish alternative to it.
Could you be more specific on the parts that you find going into more
of the "fantasy elements?" I dunno, hopefully they'll wrap up for
you. There is a rather major plot twist at the end that I had to re-
read several times to completely understand but I'll let you wrap it
up first and then let me know, I'm going to try to re-read it...
Nice to have discussion about a book again...
Oh, thanks for the offer to borrow other Chabon. Scott just finished
Kavalier and Clay, so I think we're going to take a break for a bit.
Scott loved it and will definitely be reading more of him in the
future.
Have you finished the book? what did you think of the ending?
For the time period, I'm merely pontificating about the plot and
premise separately from the actual time period. You're right, it's
very clearly current.
You know how some Literature has that sort of universality that
transcends the time and place it is written in? Like how Romeo and
Juliet works as a modern tale with Israeli and Palestinian families or
members of rival LA gangs. I was trying to figure out if the struggles
and conflicts of this novel applies in other circumstances in the same
way. I'm not coming up with them. Frankly, my little exercise with
myself doesn't really matter. I don't think that universality is the
only determining factor of capital L Literature, I'm just letting my
associative mind explore.
I more often like novels that center around characters. Really good,
solid characters. In many of those books, the setting, both time and
place, tend to fall away a bit. I think this novel is the rarer kind
in decent literature. The characters are not, in my mind, universal.
Nor are their struggles. The setting, especially the fictional
elements, is paramount to everything. I find it unusual to enjoy books
that are based so strongly on a fictionalized setting.
I'm finding these discussions to be a little bit difficult. On one
hand I really enjoyed the book and was sad to see it come to its'
conclusion; the conclusion, perhaps, could be the only topic that
could merit a good discussion but even that works together so well it
will be difficult. The book is tied up so nicely the good parts all
wrap themselves up within one another that I'm having a really
difficult time coming up with discussion questions for it. I don't
know if this is what separates Literature from literature... I've
always had problems with cannon literature until I try to spread out
and read something contemporary from the 18th century and realize for
myself how important the cannon can be. However, I like to think that
I recognize good writing and this, to my mind is that.
I'm sure we could discuss the novel in the context of current
religious extremism/fundamentalism/etc, but I really don't want to. I
don't think that's what the novel is about.
Maybe this is the English teacher part of me, but I usually feel like
novels (even the nontraditional good stuff) have themes that apply
across time and space. This one, I'm not coming up with those themes
so much (other than the religious stuff, but again, not interested in
going there). I do agree, though, it is good writing. And you're
totally right, it was a terrible time as an English major when we sat
in intro to lit theory or whatever and spent too much time coming up
with no good answer to the question, "what is Lit?" so with that, we
can drop the thread.
I still maintain that the theme or at least how the novel is told
changes from the start to the finish. I don't know if this is
something that was answered in another discussion but it seems that
the actual use of language and the structure of sentences changes
throughout the novel. While at the onset they are very short, choppy
and specific towards the end they become more extended and
descriptive. Again, I don't know if this was because the novel was
originally written in the first person and the story is, more or less,
told through the eyes of Landsman so the story changes with him.
I dunno, I'm interested to see what you think of the end of it. I
know I was always told to read a book through twice so you could
actually understand underlying messages or themes. This book really
brings that on home. I don't really want to ruin any of that for you,
but, with your mindset, I'll be interested to see what you think of
the end of it.