The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao

What I gained from this work is going to sound like a backhanded compliment. It strengthened my resolve against narration.

I could count on one hand all the instances where I though narration added to the story. Oscar Wao is one of those times, as the narration provides distance from Oscar and in the narrative of the story I think that helped. It also helped Yunior as a character and provided depth for him from both what he chooses to say and what he chooses not to.

However, there were times were his insights felt intrusive to me, and overall I wonder if the story would have been better served by not having this narration. It removes urgency and suspense in almost every scene it's in and  the distancing effect isn't needed. In my mind, the negative influence of the narration outweighed the positives of what that very narration was trying to accomplish.

I admit I'm biased against narration in most every form, so my opinion should be taken with a huge grain of salt, but personally speaking, this book just reinforced notions I already had.

When My Brother was an Aztec: Inspired Writing

Blood trickled down her leg,
As tears mixed with the barren earth.
I try to cover up the wound
To stop the flowing crimson
But I am pushed away
"I can get it."

Wiping away the crystal drops
She stands wobbly to her feet
An begins limping her way back
Leaving behind skin and a stain.

I pick up her glasses
Scuffed with a thin layer of dirt
Covering up the fresh crack.
I follow behind
Her pace isn't quick.

She's getting tired
Dragging her foot leaving
A red streak in her wake.
I grab her arm
And sling it around my shoulder
For the rest of the way
I carried her home.



I Don't often try my hand at poetry, but now seemed as good of time as any. I enjoyed Diaz's style of prose in that it felt more like prose than poetry and I prefer that. It gives a sense of genuine emotion to the work that some poetry I feel lacks.

The White Album

It's often been heard that context is important. That current readers can't really understand the experiences of bygone times. The White Album proves that wrong in a strange way. When we looked up that list of terms, that was to provide context to the different essays in the album, but that context really doesn't seem as necessary as one would think. The context helps in a case specific way, but my reading of this collection may be wrong in this thinking, but to me this was all too familiar. I ended up reading these as more of a current reader than when it was published and that colored my perspective. Sure style's change and trends die, but fundamentally the world stays the same. The black panthers, Charles Manson and the people writing about them. It's just specifics of things we still have today. In a way that kin of makes these essays timeless. Except for the style, but whose complaining.

As for her writing, I take away more from the author than from the reading. We discussed several times about how knowledge of the author can color the reader's perspective of the work and with Joan Didion that seems very true. Unlike the rest of the readings, I personally got more out of researching her and her methods than I did the essays. I found it interesting becuase her perspective is very different from my own.

“I write entirely to find out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see and what it means. What I want and what I fear.” - Joan Didion


I don't write like that, at least at face value. I write because I love stories, and I want to share them. I've never really attempted anything using her method, because before I never saw the benefit of that. Having read The White Album, now I think I may, and experimenting with this methodology will be interesting.


“We tell ourselves stories in order to live.” -  Joan Didion

Maus

Maus is heralded as one of, if not the greatest comic book ever written and it's hard not to see why. In a time where comics were snubbed and ridiculed, Maus turned snobs on their heads.

In terms of holocaust literature, I find this to be one of the best. So many holocaust works are from the camp out, or from an observer looking in. While both of these narratives are fine, Maus takes a more expansive look at the horror of the holocaust by taking more time for what happened before the camps. Vladek and his wife experience many troubles before they even arrive at the camp and this helps to paint a very broad picture of the times.

I also think that this is one of the best duel narrative stories I've ever seen. So many times, the dual narrative is just distracting, but in this story, I though it built a very nice contrast between a normal life, and a life during the worst atrocity in mankind's history. We as the reader are placed in Art's position asking about Vladek's experiences. It makes a very good window to peer into the story.

The novel also benefits from not holding any punches. Sure it isn't the most graphic depiction of the camps I've seen, but the violence is still there. Images of people being hung and gunned down in rows is no less disturbing than in any other work.

This is also helped out by Spiegleman's choice in making this story in the format of a graphic novel. Though often snubbed, visual mediums have a set of tools that can drive emotion into the viewer so much harder. Expressions and silences and implications can all carry so much emotions,  but subtly is perhaps its greatest tool. In a novel, things have to be declared and attention has to be grabbed. The chimney billowing smoke in the background is so much more powerful, when it is just simply there, whereas in a novel a line of text would have to be devoted to telling the reader it's there making the implication obvious.

I also think the use of animal metaphor was absolutely necessary. While a realistic depiction of this story could have been made, it would make the book a much harder read and could even deter people from reading outright. This is a dark subject and should be talked about and remembered, but Maus made a good choice in trying to be accessible. This is especially helped because in my opinion, the animal metaphor is a good one. People may criticize it for enforcing stereotypes, but in reality that's kind of the point. To show that people were murdered on the basis of stereotypes, and it forces you to recognize how completely bizarre  it is to profile people this way. Spiegleman even said that the animal metaphor is meant to self destruct.

In closing, I've seen recently some criticism against Maus, saying that to tell this story in this way is disrespectful, and in some cases it has been said that this story shouldn't be told. I strongly disagree. Stories like this have to be told, once as a record, and once as a reminder. All have stories to tell and its good that this story has been marked down for all time, and once again it was good to do it in this format. It widens the audience for something that should be read and should always be remembered.

The Left Hand of Darkness: Thought Experiments

When The Left Hand of Darkness made its debut in 1969, it came out in a environment which looked down upon science fiction. Though this book cleared significant headway in gaining the genre respect, these attitudes still exist today and are more prevalent than a fan of the Genre would hope.

The arguments are that science fiction is nothing but childish escapism. The more pretentious critics seeing it as nothing more than a collection of work made to appeal to the lowest common denominator while holding no worthwhile merit. We live in a world were everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and it is perfectly acceptable to allow these people to be wrong.

In the introduction of The Left Hand of Darkness  added in 1976, the novel's author Ursula K Le Guin examines the concept of science fiction in it's basest form. She posits that the best science fiction, and indeed a great many other genres, are thought experiments.

This idea of thought experiments is why sci fi can be so fascinating, and more importantly why it can resonate with people so strongly. Science fiction can take the reader places they've never been and show them things they've never seen sure, but it can also provoke, and intrigue the reader. Good science fiction, does not cater to the lowest common denominator, but instead invites the reader to think.

The left Hand of Darkness does this. It forces us to consider things we would never have conceived of before, bringing up Gender issues through a setting where gender in the way we perceive doesn't exist. In a society where they're are no gender roles, we can look into this hypothetical situation and imagine what that society would look like. As we do, we compare it to our own society and experiences, perhaps re-evaluating our preconceived notions. That is powerful writing, all brought on by a thought experiment.

Science Fiction can be summed up well with the term, "what if?" What would things be life if this was different? How would people function, how would this reality look? Science fiction can show us truths, through lies which is what good fiction is. An examination of truths told through stories.

Sure it's escapist, but it's far from worthless fantasy.  It forces us to ask questions, to imagine new worlds and sometimes even challenge and provoke. In many ways, it is no different from any other story told since the dawn of time.  For what is storytelling if not a collection of thought experiments?