I don't know how it is possible to just read the first 100 pages of this novel. I was immediately enthralled and moved by it and didn't stop reading until I realized just how far past the assigned amount I had read. Cleave immediately draws the reader into the story. I felt an immediate connection to both Little Bee and Sarah and genuinely care about what happens to them. Even the less significant characters like Yevette and the girl in the yellow sari are given a very real human significance that forces the reader to empathize with them. I was also drawn in by the way the story is constructed with the characters having to expose and deal with the past in order to move into the future. As the story progresses I am left with more and more questions that motivate me to read further.
I think the italicized sections in which Little Bee imagines what the Queen would say or what the girls from her village would say is a very clever way of both emphasizing the extreme cultural differences and tying the two completely different cultures together. It creates a sense of unity throughout the book and ensures that the reader does not forget the internal struggle in Little Bee, a girl who no longer has a home or a country, yet misses that home that no longer exists, but cannot truly or legally be a part of the home she now has the opportunity to have.
I also found it interesting that Little Bee initially mentions and contacts Andrew when she is attempting to find the O'Rourkes instead of Sarah who is the one who actually saved her life. Andrew, however, is too scared to do the same for her sister and therefore is a contributor to her death. I am excited to read more of the book as I have many more questions that I hope will be addressed and am already invested in the lives of the characters.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Deconstructive Analysis of Sunset Park
I believe that in Sunset Park, Auster is attempting to paint a picture of the housing crisis and the circumstances of the people it affected through the "dispossession" of his characters. He plays on the idea that all the inhabitants of Sunset Park are dispossessed and therefore, have no choice but to take over the abandoned house illegally.
However, I don't believe that Miles, Ellen, Alice, and Bing accurately depict dispossession. During the housing crisis, people were forced out of their homes and had absolutely no control over the matter. The inhabitants of Sunset Park however, seem to have dispossessed themselves. Miles' cutting off of his family, refusing to allow himself any material comforts, and forcing himself to do menial labor is due to his guilt. He is not forced to leave his home, his education, and his life behind, nobody evicts him. He does so because he is running from his problems rather than facing them. Even his leaving Pilar, something he feels he is being forced to do, being evicted from Florida, is completely voluntary. He could have chosen to have stolen for Angela or broken off his relationship with Pilar.
Bing is "dispossessed" because he wants to be. His dispossession is a form of rebellion and he flourishes in it. He could choose to get a good job and become a member of the community, however, he does not want to, he is content in being an illegal squatter. Ellen also has a steady job and an apartment at the beginning of the novel, which she gives up because she wants to join Bing's adventure. I believe Alice is the closest to actually being dispossessed since she has no money or home, however, she is highly educated and will, once she has gotten her degree, be eligible for a good job, that will guarantee her a home.
The actual dispossessed, the ones who truly suffer from the housing crisis are the people who's homes Miles takes pictures of at the beginning of the novel. They are the people who were truly dispossessed, forced from their homes, while the inhabitants of Sunset Park have dispossessed themselves.
However, I don't believe that Miles, Ellen, Alice, and Bing accurately depict dispossession. During the housing crisis, people were forced out of their homes and had absolutely no control over the matter. The inhabitants of Sunset Park however, seem to have dispossessed themselves. Miles' cutting off of his family, refusing to allow himself any material comforts, and forcing himself to do menial labor is due to his guilt. He is not forced to leave his home, his education, and his life behind, nobody evicts him. He does so because he is running from his problems rather than facing them. Even his leaving Pilar, something he feels he is being forced to do, being evicted from Florida, is completely voluntary. He could have chosen to have stolen for Angela or broken off his relationship with Pilar.
Bing is "dispossessed" because he wants to be. His dispossession is a form of rebellion and he flourishes in it. He could choose to get a good job and become a member of the community, however, he does not want to, he is content in being an illegal squatter. Ellen also has a steady job and an apartment at the beginning of the novel, which she gives up because she wants to join Bing's adventure. I believe Alice is the closest to actually being dispossessed since she has no money or home, however, she is highly educated and will, once she has gotten her degree, be eligible for a good job, that will guarantee her a home.
The actual dispossessed, the ones who truly suffer from the housing crisis are the people who's homes Miles takes pictures of at the beginning of the novel. They are the people who were truly dispossessed, forced from their homes, while the inhabitants of Sunset Park have dispossessed themselves.
Initial Reaction to Sunset Park
To say I was disappointed by the ending of Sunset Park is to put it mildly. I don't necessarily need a happy ending, however, after I have invested my time and energy into a book, I at least want to feel satisfied once I put it down. The ending of Sunset Park, however, is very abrupt and does not really seem to fit with the rest of the story. I felt slightly betrayed by the end of the story. Although a showdown with the police is a logical conclusion for the story or at least a logical event to take place since they were squatting illegally, I feel as though Auster lulls his reader into a false sense of security with the positive upturn in all the character's lives and then completely crushes that trust.
This might have been Auster's intention. It's possible that he meant for the journey of the readers to parallel the journey of the characters in that the characters are not really living in reality their entire stay at Sunset Park. They have managed to find a respite from the reality of their lives, however, reality must eventually intrude. Auster could also be trying to make a point about the housing crisis. That so many people were deceived by the notion that they could buy expensive homes that in reality they could not afford and were living in an economic bubble that did not reflect the actual economic circumstances, and therefore, this bubble eventually burst, much like the bubble of the characters' and the reader's security.
Needless to say, whatever Auster's intentions, the book ultimately fell flat with me. There seems to me an abrupt change in the tenor of the book starting page 266 with Morris' narrative when he and Miles are reunited. I felt as though the entire book was building up to the point where Miles would reunite with his family and yet this supposedly joyful reunion seems very downplayed and is given very little attention. There is a direct juxtaposition between Miles reunion with his mother and that with his father. I believe that a significant difference is that the scene with his mother is told in the present tense, the reader is living the moment along with Miles and Mary-Lee. However, the father and son's reunion is told in the past tense. As though it is almost an afterthought and doesn't merit a present tense description. Morris also seems very detached from his telling of their reunion. This could be Auster's way as Morris says, of showing how, "the imagination is a powerful weapon, and the imagined reunions that played out in your head.... were bound to be richer, fuller, and more emotionally satisfying than the real thing." Possibly Auster feels that since he has emphasized this reunion so much, the return of the prodigal son, that the reader will have already imagined a dozen different scenarios that he cannot surpass so he decides to instead focus on the reunion the reader will have given less thought to, that of mother and son. However, I believe this is a mistake since it downplays the significance of Miles reuniting with his family.
Overall I feel as though the ending just sends a very negative message and that Auster is trying to pull a deeper meaning out of the ending than the story merits. Over the course of the book, it seems as though Auster himself gets caught up in the lives of his characters and that at the end as almost an afterthought, remembers that he's supposed to be writing a book that reflects the issues of the housing crisis and therefore, proceeds to "dispossess" every one of his characters.
This might have been Auster's intention. It's possible that he meant for the journey of the readers to parallel the journey of the characters in that the characters are not really living in reality their entire stay at Sunset Park. They have managed to find a respite from the reality of their lives, however, reality must eventually intrude. Auster could also be trying to make a point about the housing crisis. That so many people were deceived by the notion that they could buy expensive homes that in reality they could not afford and were living in an economic bubble that did not reflect the actual economic circumstances, and therefore, this bubble eventually burst, much like the bubble of the characters' and the reader's security.
Needless to say, whatever Auster's intentions, the book ultimately fell flat with me. There seems to me an abrupt change in the tenor of the book starting page 266 with Morris' narrative when he and Miles are reunited. I felt as though the entire book was building up to the point where Miles would reunite with his family and yet this supposedly joyful reunion seems very downplayed and is given very little attention. There is a direct juxtaposition between Miles reunion with his mother and that with his father. I believe that a significant difference is that the scene with his mother is told in the present tense, the reader is living the moment along with Miles and Mary-Lee. However, the father and son's reunion is told in the past tense. As though it is almost an afterthought and doesn't merit a present tense description. Morris also seems very detached from his telling of their reunion. This could be Auster's way as Morris says, of showing how, "the imagination is a powerful weapon, and the imagined reunions that played out in your head.... were bound to be richer, fuller, and more emotionally satisfying than the real thing." Possibly Auster feels that since he has emphasized this reunion so much, the return of the prodigal son, that the reader will have already imagined a dozen different scenarios that he cannot surpass so he decides to instead focus on the reunion the reader will have given less thought to, that of mother and son. However, I believe this is a mistake since it downplays the significance of Miles reuniting with his family.
Overall I feel as though the ending just sends a very negative message and that Auster is trying to pull a deeper meaning out of the ending than the story merits. Over the course of the book, it seems as though Auster himself gets caught up in the lives of his characters and that at the end as almost an afterthought, remembers that he's supposed to be writing a book that reflects the issues of the housing crisis and therefore, proceeds to "dispossess" every one of his characters.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Blog Post #2: Literary Criticism
Writing about literature allows the reader to interact with and become a part of the story, as well as further their understanding of the work. A writer doesn't write and publish something if he doesn't plan for it to be read. Therefore, I believe that the piece is incomplete until it has been read. However, by writing and criticizing a piece of literature, the reader is becoming a part of the process by assigning their own meanings and interpretations to the work. This is what literary criticism does. It allows for the reader to put a voice to their reading of the literature.
There are many different forms of literary criticism but overall it has become an analysis of the work and its literary value. Criticism generally involves careful reading and rereading of a work in order to pick out specific details and analyze both the meaning of the text and how these specific details contribute to the text's meaning, in order to come to a general understanding of the text. However, people's conclusions and the processes they use vary tremendously. Some critics focus on the text itself and how it contributes meaning while others focus on their responses as a reader and the responses the author wishes to create. Therefore, two critics analyzing the same text could come to contradictory conclusions, yet both can still be valid.
I think that the function of literature is to allow the reader a place where they can escape from their own life and transcend space and time. It allows the reader to experience many things mentally that they could not experience physically. A person can travel to an exotic country without ever leaving their couch. Literature opens up a door to other worlds that broaden the reader's perspective and gives them new insights on life. When I'm reading a literary work, I look for something that will give me new experiences and understanding in a fulfilling even if not necessarily enjoyable way.
There are many different forms of literary criticism but overall it has become an analysis of the work and its literary value. Criticism generally involves careful reading and rereading of a work in order to pick out specific details and analyze both the meaning of the text and how these specific details contribute to the text's meaning, in order to come to a general understanding of the text. However, people's conclusions and the processes they use vary tremendously. Some critics focus on the text itself and how it contributes meaning while others focus on their responses as a reader and the responses the author wishes to create. Therefore, two critics analyzing the same text could come to contradictory conclusions, yet both can still be valid.
I think that the function of literature is to allow the reader a place where they can escape from their own life and transcend space and time. It allows the reader to experience many things mentally that they could not experience physically. A person can travel to an exotic country without ever leaving their couch. Literature opens up a door to other worlds that broaden the reader's perspective and gives them new insights on life. When I'm reading a literary work, I look for something that will give me new experiences and understanding in a fulfilling even if not necessarily enjoyable way.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Blog Post #1
In his review of Sunset Park, “The Known World,” Brian Shwartz, initially states that he is unsure as to whether it is right for him to review the novel as he lives in Sunset Park and is therefore somewhat biased both by his own experiences living in the neighborhood and his resentment towards a "great author" who "had decamped from his comfy digs in affluent Park Slope and traveled to my downscale neighborhood to colonize the place with his characters and imagined scenarios." However, Shwartz proceeds to inform the reader that any preconceived notions he had about the novel and Auster were quickly transformed into admiration due to Auster's "masterful and compelling" portrayal of Miles in the first section of the book.
Shwartz then goes on to highlight his disappointment with the discrepancy he feels between this "lovely, troubling first section" and the following less then compelling sections told from the other character's perspectives. However, the biggest disappointment for Shwartz is the return to Miles' perspective. In the first section Miles seems very connected and sensitive to the people and stories around him. He takes pictures of the debris left behind in order to keep the memory of the dispossessed owners alive and acknowledge their pain and Auster describes this connection Miles feels to the past owners in loving detail. However, Shwartz is very irritated by Auster's description of Sunset Park. The "dry listing of facts sounds like a clumsy paragraph from a real-estate broker’s website," a complete contradiction to the full of life descriptions of Florida. Shwartz also feels that Miles seems completely detached from Sunset Park and the lives of the people there, "in Auster’s Brooklyn, immigrants are faceless, the neighborhood is bleak, and Miles is suddenly blind to the lives and hopes of the people around him."
Overall Shwartz appreciates Auster's ability to create a world in which the reader is made to see and believe the "beauty and fragility" of a world of literature. However, Shwartz is frustrated that the potential he sees in the beginning, Auster's, "interest in juxtaposing the world of New York literati with a larger, more complicated America," devolves from focusing on a world of uncertainty to a world that has been focused on by Auster in many of his other books, the predictable, real world of the New York neighborhoods.
I agree with Shwartz that the first 68 pages are the most compelling part of the story. I too was disappointed by the accounts of the other characters. While Miles initially seems connected to everything and everyone around him and his behavior is affected by this connection, he would even rather leave Pilar than disrespect the rules and the memories of the past owners by stealing things for Angela, in the rest of the novel, he and the rest of the characters are utterly caught up in their own lives and seem unaffected by the lives of those around them. Miles is not at all inspired to take pictures in Sunset Park, a place that one would think would inspire him as it is a similar example of the dispossession and destitution that he saw in Florida, yet he is utterly unaffected by it and instead spends his time moping around and missing Pilar. The other characters too for the most part seem more concerned with themselves than anything else.
However, I think that this account of the characters being unaffected by anything other than their own circumstances is actually a very good representation of the results of an economic crisis. It is easy to be concerned with others when you are well provided for and have the ability to be generous, yet it is much harder when you are fighting not just to save your business and job but your very home. Therefore, I think Auster's writing in the remainder of the book is a much more accurate depiction of reality.
Shwartz then goes on to highlight his disappointment with the discrepancy he feels between this "lovely, troubling first section" and the following less then compelling sections told from the other character's perspectives. However, the biggest disappointment for Shwartz is the return to Miles' perspective. In the first section Miles seems very connected and sensitive to the people and stories around him. He takes pictures of the debris left behind in order to keep the memory of the dispossessed owners alive and acknowledge their pain and Auster describes this connection Miles feels to the past owners in loving detail. However, Shwartz is very irritated by Auster's description of Sunset Park. The "dry listing of facts sounds like a clumsy paragraph from a real-estate broker’s website," a complete contradiction to the full of life descriptions of Florida. Shwartz also feels that Miles seems completely detached from Sunset Park and the lives of the people there, "in Auster’s Brooklyn, immigrants are faceless, the neighborhood is bleak, and Miles is suddenly blind to the lives and hopes of the people around him."
Overall Shwartz appreciates Auster's ability to create a world in which the reader is made to see and believe the "beauty and fragility" of a world of literature. However, Shwartz is frustrated that the potential he sees in the beginning, Auster's, "interest in juxtaposing the world of New York literati with a larger, more complicated America," devolves from focusing on a world of uncertainty to a world that has been focused on by Auster in many of his other books, the predictable, real world of the New York neighborhoods.
I agree with Shwartz that the first 68 pages are the most compelling part of the story. I too was disappointed by the accounts of the other characters. While Miles initially seems connected to everything and everyone around him and his behavior is affected by this connection, he would even rather leave Pilar than disrespect the rules and the memories of the past owners by stealing things for Angela, in the rest of the novel, he and the rest of the characters are utterly caught up in their own lives and seem unaffected by the lives of those around them. Miles is not at all inspired to take pictures in Sunset Park, a place that one would think would inspire him as it is a similar example of the dispossession and destitution that he saw in Florida, yet he is utterly unaffected by it and instead spends his time moping around and missing Pilar. The other characters too for the most part seem more concerned with themselves than anything else.
However, I think that this account of the characters being unaffected by anything other than their own circumstances is actually a very good representation of the results of an economic crisis. It is easy to be concerned with others when you are well provided for and have the ability to be generous, yet it is much harder when you are fighting not just to save your business and job but your very home. Therefore, I think Auster's writing in the remainder of the book is a much more accurate depiction of reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)